NY Times: People Around The World Are Protesting Over Pocketbook Issues

By William Teach October 24, 2019 – 8:03 am

People, mostly young ones, are protesting in the streets over pocketbook issues, and there are a couple interesting parts with this

From Chile to Lebanon, Protests Flare Over Wallet Issues

In Chile, the spark was an increase in subway fares. In Lebanon, it was a tax on WhatsApp calls. The government of Saudi Arabia moved against hookah pipes. In India, it was about onions.

Small pocketbook items became the focus of popular fury across the globe in recent weeks, as frustrated citizens filled the streets for unexpected protests that tapped into a wellspring of bubbling frustration at a class of political elites seen as irredeemably corrupt or hopelessly unjust or both. They followed mass demonstrations in Bolivia, Spain, Iraq and Russia and before that the Czech Republic, Algeria, Sudan and Kazakhstan in what has been a steady drumbeat of unrest over the past few months.

At first glance, many of the demonstrations were linked by little more than tactics. Weeks of unremitting civil disobedience in Hong Kong set the template for a confrontational approach driven by vastly different economic or political demands.

Yet in many of the restive countries, experts discern a pattern: a louder-than-usual howl against elites in countries where democracy is a source of disappointment, corruption is seen as brazen, and a tiny political class lives large while the younger generation struggles to get by.

“It’s young people who have had enough,” said Ali H. Soufan, chief executive of The Soufan Group, a security intelligence consultancy. “This new generation are not buying into what they see as the corrupt order of the political and economic elite in their own countries. They want a change.”

First off, notice that these youths are whining about little things and seem to be hating on democracy, and further down in the story, capitalism and The Rich. Someone being very rich doesn’t cause the price of hookahs and onions to go up. For those who want Modern Socialism, they should be careful what the wish for, and take a gander as to what has happened, and is still happening, in Venezuela.

Second off, notice that the article mentions neither the aforementioned Venezuela and the protests, nor France and the yellow vest protests, both of which are against the polices of socialistic governments, the former a tad more than the latter. Most of the countries mentioned in the excerpts aren’t particularly Democratic, are they? They aren’t really practicing a form of democracy.

Third, it is hilarious that these youths are protesting against rising taxes when they are constantly calling for higher taxes on Other People, and unknowingly on themselves when they demand government benefits and services and such.

“You could say these protests mirror what’s going on in the United States,” said Vali Nasr, a Middle East scholar who recently stepped down as dean of Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington. In countries where elections are decisive, like the United States and Britain, skepticism about the old political order has produced populist, nationalist and anti-immigrant results at the polls.

“In other countries, where people don’t have a voice, you have massive protests erupting,” he said.

Is he still including the U.S. in this? Is this highlighting all the whiny snowflakes who just can’t get over Hillary losing the 2016 election? It sure seems like it. They protest because they didn’t get their way, and do not like the notion of democracy, because sometimes they lose.

Read More »

Read: NY Times: People Around The World Are Protesting Over Pocketbook Issues »

Posted in Current Affairs | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

European Union Considers Imposing A “Carbon Border Tax”

By William Teach October 23, 2019 – 4:01 pm

If the climate cultists in the E.U. government are considering doing it, that means that they are going to do it

The E.U.’s looking at a ‘carbon border tax.’ What’s a carbon border tax?

The incoming European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, was elected on a promise to deliver a “European Green Deal.” A key component of her agenda is a carbon border tax.

What exactly is a carbon border tax, and what are its consequences for the global fight against climate change? This is what you need to know.

Slowing global climate change will require reducing carbon emissions from a wide variety of sources. To do that, some countries have introduced carbon pricing plans to make carbon use more expensive and help the economy transition to zero carbon emissions. A carbon pricing plan could take the form of a standard tax on carbon emissions or a cap-and-trade system.

But not all countries want to tackle climate change at all — let alone set prices on emitting carbon. A carbon border tax, also known as a border carbon adjustment, imposes a fee on any product imported from a country without a carbon pricing plan. Hypothetically, the tax would adjust the price of the imported goods to be equal to those produced at home.

And then the country being hit with the import tax fires back with import taxes against EU nations.

First, these tax adjustments could solve the problem of carbon leakage — when carbon-intensive industries such as heavy manufacturing move to countries that don’t regulate carbon emissions.

So when will the EU give up building stuff, including fossil fueled vehicles?

Second, they might help countries that want to lead on climate policy use their market power against those that don’t. Some observers hope that such taxes would encourage more countries to participate in global climate agreements. It might also help enforce these agreements by raising the cost of shirking on a deal.

Or, companies can just decided to raise the price of their products to offset the cost of the carbon tax.

Third, border adjustments can affect internal climate discussions. In principle, they level the playing field between companies in countries with climate policies and those elsewhere. As a result, they allow politicians to say they are protecting the competitiveness of domestic companies.

Wait, hasn’t the Washington Post, along with all the Trump haters, say it was Bad to use tariffs to protect U.S. companies? Regardless, it would mean that those EU companies would end up paying more to compete in markets without carbon taxes, as they will surely be penalized.

Read: European Union Considers Imposing A “Carbon Border Tax” »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 23, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is an area that appears to be turning into a desert from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on holding officials accountable.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 40 Comments | Trackback URL

The Green New Deal Is The Key To Winning Back Trump Voters Or Something

By William Teach October 23, 2019 – 10:44 am

Realistically, if we go by the number of news reports about the Green New Deal, it’s dying. It is rarely talked about by politicians and rarely makes the news anymore. Even Excitable AOC nor co-sponsor Senator Ed Markey rarely talk about it. It used to be prominent on AOC’s Twitter page. This is humorous, though

The Green New Deal Holds the Key to Winning Back Trump Voters

….

Today, the “Green New Deal” — a 10-year plan introduced by New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey to transition to 100% renewable energy, while embarking on major social reforms — marks the far horizon of the left-liberal imagination. For those opposed to it, the Green New Deal, like the original one, is already considered little but camouflage for a program to introduce socialism to America.

Like its predecessor, it arrives on the scene at a fateful moment. There is no way to exaggerate the gravity of the Great Depression in its time or the looming prospect of climate catastrophe in ours. The question is: Could the Green New Deal do what the first one did to stave off the worst — or even do more? In this case, facing the reality of a fast-heating planet in a country whose president is Donald J. Trump, looking back is a way of looking forward.

The author then has to lie about it

Yet the Green New Deal contains no frontal assault on private enterprise. For that matter, it doesn’t even threaten to completely abolish the fossil-fuel industry itself. A carbon tax — a levy on the carbon content of fuels — and “cap and trade” — placing a limit on carbon emissions while allowing firms that exceed it to buy the right to do so from those that stay under that ceiling — sometimes appear as part of its portfolio of solutions. Neither, however, represents a fundamental threat to capitalism’s reliance on the marketplace as the ultimate arbiter of what to produce and not to produce.

We can all read the GND, and it is all about Modern Socialism. Heck, AOC’s previous chief of staff, who was present when it was written, admitted it wasn’t about ‘climate change’.

Indeed, the Green New Deal’s promise that millions of decent-paying jobs will result from its climate-change-oriented investments echoes the rationale and real accomplishments of the first New Deal’s recovery efforts, especially its various public works. Neither then nor now, however, were or are proponents inciting the working class to run the new industries to be created.

Most of those jobs would be in government or private jobs which are funded by government. But, how does all this win back Trump voters? After going through dozens of paragraphs, the article ends with

Thanks to its promise of millions of new well-paid jobs, its concern with the health and environmental well-being of marginalized communities, and its commitment to labor’s right to organize and participate in erecting and directing the new economy, the Green New Deal offers a chance to win back people who voted first for Barack Obama and then for Donald Trump. At some point they will perhaps conclude that “yes we can” and the con-man theatrics of a billionaire populist were just two versions of fake news and search for a way out of the lockbox of the neoliberal order.

So, the idea is to offer, in reality, massive government and the illusion of good paying jobs, along with lots of lies about what the GND is really about, to win back those voters? Huh. Sure sounds like this whole ‘climate change’ thing is about politics.

Read: The Green New Deal Is The Key To Winning Back Trump Voters Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

California Gov. Gavin Newsome Wants Investigation Into California’s High Gas Prices

By William Teach October 23, 2019 – 8:23 am

The national average across the country is $2.68 according to AAA. It’s $2.41 here in NC. Texas, with tons of refineries, is $2.28. California is the highest in the nation at $4.117 (all the west coast states are in the highest category, as well as Alaska and Hawaii).

Let’s see

Gov. Gavin Newsom wants investigation of state’s high gas prices

California’s governor has asked the attorney general to investigate why the state’s gas prices are so high, pointing to a new report suggesting big oil companies are “misleading and overcharging customers” by as much as $1 per gallon.

Name brand retailers – including 76, Chevron and Shell – often charge more because they say their gasoline is of higher quality. But a new analysis from the California Energy Commission could not explain the price difference, concluding “there is no apparent difference in the quality of gasoline at retail outlets in the state.”

The commission said California drivers paid an average of 30 cents more per gallon in 2018, with the difference getting as high as $1 per gallon in April of this year. The result is California drivers paid an additional $11.6 billion at the pump over the last five years.

First, they can, in fact, charge what they want. The gas station I filled up at the other day was about $2.33 for my car. Filling up a different car yesterday was $2.44. Prices can be higher or lower depending on the area.

Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, said the industry trade group is reviewing the report. But she said it was important to note California’s fuel taxes and standards, which are more strict than other states, account for the first $1.07 per gallon at the pump.

The cap and trade system adds at least 12 to 20 cents per gallon

(Pacific Research) Yes, as AAA notes, some of the answer is explained by supply and demand.  They point to issues with a Chevron refinery in El Segundo and a shutdown at a Shell refinery in Martinez, as well as complications from PG&E’s blackouts shutting down some gas stations that are unable to pump gas without electricity.

But the real reason we’re paying so much more is high taxes and expensive regulations imposed by Sacramento politicians.

According to the American Petroleum Institute, Californians now pay 80.45 cents per gallon in total federal and state gasoline taxes (including federal and state excise taxes).  The price increased by 5.6 cents per gallon on July 1 thanks to another gas tax increase courtesy Senate Bill 1, the $52 billion gas tax increase enacted by the Legislature in 2017. (snip)

Adopted as part of California’s efforts to address global warming, the state’s low carbon fuel standard currently adds around 16 cents per gallon to the price of gas.  And these costs will increase.  A December 2018 report by California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s office predicts that the low carbon fuel standard will increase to approximately 46 cents per gallon by the year 2030.

That last one is on top of the cap and trade tax. And let’s not forget all the lawsuits against the fossil fuels companies, which means fewer stations being built and the cost for defending the suits being passed on.

It’s a total mystery as to why Californians pay so much. Time to spend millions on investigating this.

Read: California Gov. Gavin Newsome Wants Investigation Into California’s High Gas Prices »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming, Taxation | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Many Democrats Liked Comparing Clinton Impeachment To Lynching

By William Teach October 23, 2019 – 8:04 am

And nobody freaked out over what was just a term. See, Trump dropped this

If Leftists don’t think that a) Trump and his team knew exactly what he was doing and b) had done some research, they haven’t been paying attention. Team Trump knows exactly how to Troll (Master level) Democrats. And Breitbart’s Penny Star was able to do a quick search and find

An article published in the New York Times on December 19, 1998 during the impeachment of Bill Clinton:

Later, Representative Ike Skelton, Democrat of Missouri, said the Republicans wanted to “decapitate their Commander in Chief.” Representative Steven R. Rothman, a New Jersey Democrat, complained of a “Republican juggernaut, driven by the right wing.” Representative Patrick J. Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island, a nephew of the late President John F. Kennedy, spoke of “a political lynching,” and Representative Danny K. Davis, an Illinois Democrat, denounced what he described as “a lynching.”

The New York Times wrote about Bill Clinton’s impeachment on September 18, 1998:

A ”large volume of calls” to Senator John Glenn, a Democrat who said this week that it would be ”reckless and injudicious” for him to join ”the rush to judgment” in the Lewinsky matter, have run 2 to 1 in favor of resignation or impeachment. Mr. Chabot’s office said the tally there was 425 to 15 against Mr. Clinton since Kenneth W. Starr issued his report a week ago.

Not that the President lacks vocal supporters in this state. The Ohio Democratic chairman, David J. Leland, said, ”The vast majority of Ohio Democrats want to see this President continue in office, because they know a political lynching when they see one.”

The Baltimore Sun wrote about Bill Clinton’s impeachment on September 12, 1998:

“This feels today like we’re taking a step down the road to becoming a political lynch mob,” fumed Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington state. “Find the rope, find the tree and ask a bunch of questions later.”

Those are just three quoted uses of lynching for the Clinton impeachment. How about

CBS wrote about the “GOP Lynch mob” on April 6, 2011:

GOP lynch mob is still trying to string up the fledgling Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Members of the House Financial Services Committee met today to discuss four bills, all sponsored by Republicans and backed by the banking industry, aimed at subduing the agency even before it officially launches this summer.

And here’s Sleepy Joe

Via Twitchy, which has those two tweets (here and here). Of course, Joe is apologizing now

Read: Surprise: Many Democrats Liked Comparing Clinton Impeachment To Lynching »

Posted in Democrats | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Make Sure To Buy Your Sustainable Halloween Treats And Nag The Kids

By William Teach October 22, 2019 – 2:55 pm

There’s actually two parts to this article. One is the same old same old Hotcoldwetdry climate cultist tripe, the other is something about actual environmental damage

Sustainable Halloween treats: Better for the planet and just as sweet

It’s a given that Halloween treats are a little scary when it comes to kids’ dental health. But they can also be scary from an environmental perspective: Many contain palm oil, which may be produced in a way that causes deforestation and horrifying outcomes for endangered rainforest animals.

In September, the Toronto Zoo, the largest in Canada, launched a social media campaign asking people to “choose treats that protect rainforests,” listing brands that use certified sustainable palm oil.

Those include:

  • Mars (Twix, 3 Musketeers, M&Ms, Snickers, Dove, Skittles)
  • Hershey’s (Reese’s, Turtles, Whoppers, Twizzlers, Jolly Ranchers)
  • Frito-Lay (Lay’s, Ruffles, SunChips, Tostitos, Cheetos)
  • Quaker
  • Ferrero
  • Kraft Heinz
  • Lindt & Sprungli

OK, I’m not going to look up more than Quaker, but, really, do kids want chips and granola bars for Halloween? Good way to get your house egged. But, why do they need sustainable palm oil?

Kelly Bentley, supervisor of volunteering and engagement at the Toronto Zoo, said the campaign comes out of the zoo’s commitment to conservation and education, as well as the fact that it’s home to many species from palm oil-producing regions, such as southeast Asia.

“We have orangutans here, we have tigers, we have rhinos — these are all affected by a lot of this destruction of the rainforest in Indonesia, and a lot of this destruction has been for palm oil plantations,” she said. In fact, Indonesian officials said more than 80 per cent of the devastating wildfires raging through its rainforests in September were intentionally set to make room for palm plantations.

I’ve actually mentioned that problem many times, but, why are so many destroying jungles and intentionally wiping out species for palm oil? Part of the reason is, in fact, the ‘climate change’ (scam) push. It is used in snacks, food stuffs, cooking oil, cosmetics, biofuel, and more. It supposedly has a lower carbon footprint. And ends up doing real environmental damage. Because the Cult of Climastrology pushes it. Then they have to have a campaign to stop the bad stuff they’ve created.

Read: Make Sure To Buy Your Sustainable Halloween Treats And Nag The Kids »

Posted in Environment, Global Warming | 30 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 22, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is coffee that will soon be too expensive from the climate crisis, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Political Clown Parade, with a post on Canada re-electing its first black prime minister.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

California Governor Pardons Immigrants To Avoid Deportation

By William Teach October 22, 2019 – 11:04 am

See, the usual talking point from the Open Borders crowd is that they do not want the bad ones, just the good ones. Yet, they keep protecting the ones who commit criminal acts

California Governor Pardons Three Immigrant Felons to Avoid Deportation

California Governor Gavin Newsom pardoned three immigrant felons last week to help them avoid being deported from the United States.

Newsom, who oversees the most pro-illegal immigration state in U.S. history, pardoned three immigrants — Arnou Aghamalian from Iran, Thear Seam from Cambodia, and Victor Ayala from El Salvador — in order to erase their criminal records and help them avoid deportation back to their native countries.

Aghamalian, a 42-year-old refugee from Iran, was pardoned by Newsom after being convicted in December 1999 for aiding in setting fire to a nightclub owner’s car. Aghamalian first entered the U.S. as a refugee when he was 15-years-old.

Seam, a 41-year-old refugee from Cambodia was pardoned following his August 1996 conviction where a jury found him guilty of robbery, as well as an accessory to a high-speed chase where he was helping a wanted fugitive evade arrest by police. Seam first entered the U.S. as a refugee when he was 4-years-old.

Also pardoned by Newsom is 38-year-old Victor Ayala, a legal immigrant from El Salvador, who was convicted in 1999, 2000, and 2001 for misdemeanor theft, hit-and-run, and felony theft. Ayala first entered the U.S. when he was 2-years-old.

Obviously, these are all legal immigrants in some form, not illegals, but, under the law, if a legal immigrant commits crimes they get booted out. If they don’t like that, well, tough. The terms are pretty clear. Yet, Democrats keep trying to shield them. They don’t have to go to their home countries, but they can’t stay here.

Interestingly, California will fine and even jail citizens for failure to pay their taxes, and is working hard to turn law abiding gun owners into criminals.

Read: California Governor Pardons Immigrants To Avoid Deportation »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 21 Comments | Trackback URL

Exxon Goes To Trial Today Over ‘Climate Change’, And The Lawsuit Has Shrunk

By William Teach October 22, 2019 – 7:11 am

The original lawsuit was going to Take Down Exxon (despite all sorts of Warmists, from the supporters to the government agencies filing the suits, using lots of fossil fuels, including from Exxon). Now? The NY Post Editorial Board has thoughts

The incredible collapsing ‘#ExxonKnew’ climate change lie

On Tuesday, the progressive legal war on Exxon will head to trial in a case most notable for … how badly it has fizzled.

It started back in 2016, with “a move many are hailing as a ‘turning point,’ ” as EcoWatch proclaimed: 20 state attorneys general launching an “unprecedented, multi-state effort” to probe and prosecute the oil giant.

The central charge — seemingly bolstered by Pulitzer-nominated journalists: Exxon had for decades hidden “key climate science.”

Actually, only a few AGs — including then-New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who spearheaded the effort — led any investigations. And today, only two cases exist: the one from the New York AG’s office, and another from the Massachussets AG — which is on hold and likely dead.

So, what’s happening

The claim: Exxon had long known that consuming oil would cause global warming but hid the facts. In fact, the company for decades published findings closely matching mainstream science. No one has ever produced any evidence of a coverup.

Which is why Schneiderman (before the revelation of horrifying personal conduct ended his career) was forced to find a different rationale: Big Oil, he said, might be “overstating” its assets by “trillions,” by failing to account for potential future regulations that restrict fossil fuels.

Oops: The company had warned about the risks of new rules; that’s why a Securities and Exchange Commission probe cleared it of those charges.

And the case that now-AG Letitia James takes to trial Tuesday is a huge comedown from even that claim, charging that Exxon fraudulently used two sets of books to state the risks. The company says it merely releases different estimates for different purposes, with full disclosure.

The charge is not only a far cry from the original #ExxonKnew allegations, it’s also almost certain to fail. Putting the best face on this fact, climate-change warrior Andrew Revkin tweeted Wednesday: “Some lawsuits are fought for the win, some are fought for the documents. The NYS #exxonknew suit is far more likely to be the latter.”

In fact, the entire thing has been a shameless exercise in prosecutorial abuse, from the outrageous harassment of nonprofits whose research the climate-crisis crew dislikes to the ethically dubious private funding of staff in the New York AG’s Office.

They wrap up with

If you have a real case, you don’t have to make up fake ones

So what is AG James trying to accomplish? The “we need to destroy Exxon” thing has been reduced to getting some documents. The State Of NY is more than welcome to stop using fossil fuels for state operations. This was a bullying operation, which Exxon refused to bow down to. It still would have been great had Exxon, and all the other fossil fuels companies, simply refused to sell gas and oil to those states.

Read: Exxon Goes To Trial Today Over ‘Climate Change’, And The Lawsuit Has Shrunk »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 14 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove