Trump Looks To Increase Government Transparency

By William Teach October 10, 2019 – 3:14 pm

Obviously, this is an impeachable offense

Trump Moves to Increase Transparency in Government Regulations

Kevin Lunny and his family ran Drakes Bay Oyster Company for about 50 years on the Northern California coastline before the federal government shut down the business over regulations he wasn’t aware of.

“We produced nearly half of all the sustainable oysters in Northern California,” Lunny said Wednesday at the White House, before President Donald Trump signed two executive orders to prevent federal agencies from regulatory abuse.

“The National Park Service forced our oyster farm out of business,” Lunny said. “If that wasn’t enough for our family and our community, today the rest of agriculture, which includes another 24 ranchers and family farm businesses within the National Seashore, are facing the exact same process.” (snip)

One of Trump’s executive orders, titled “Bringing Guidance Out of the Darkness,” prohibits federal agencies from bypassing the cost-benefit analysis and avoiding public comment—both required when agencies adopt a regulation.

Another executive order, titled “Transparency and Fairness,” protects Americans from unlawful interpretations of existing regulations, or from unexpected penalties. Agencies would be required to proactively educate the public before imposing costly fines.

This goes right to the heart of the federal bureaucracies, which, while they certainly have some good people working there, as a collective they think they’re better than everyone else and In Charge of the American citizenry. They have their Own Ideas, turned into rules and regulations, and everyone must follow them, even when they don’t know what they are. They consistently over-reach and interpret Congressional laws how they see fit. Mission creep.

Further, this is exactly the kind of thing Trump was elected to do. He said he would take on this “deep state”, and he’s doing it. Over course, doing things like this, along with so many other things Conservative, will never see #NeverTrump give him any credit.

Read: Trump Looks To Increase Government Transparency »

Posted in Donald Trump | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 10, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…are pumpkins that will sooooooon! grow in December as climate change messes with the season, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jihad Watch, with a post on Islam being “inherently queer”

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 24 Comments | Trackback URL

Warren Panders To Low Income Folks With $1 Trillion Climate Justice Plan

By William Teach October 10, 2019 – 10:34 am

She doesn’t really explain where the money will come from, or why so many low income and “minority” folks affected live in Democratic Party run areas

Elizabeth Warren unveils a $1 trillion environmental justice plan for low-income communities

Presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., introduced on Wednesday an environmental justice plan to defend low-income and minority communities against pollution, contamination and extreme weather events that are exacerbated by climate change.

The plan calls for spending at least $1 trillion in the next decade on the country’s most vulnerable communities, which are often concentrated in highly polluted areas and exposed to contamination from lead and other toxic chemicals from industrial and agricultural runoff.

“Our crisis of environmental injustice is the result of decades of discrimination and environmental racism compounding in communities that have been overlooked for too long,” Warren wrote in her plan.

“The same communities that have borne the brunt of industrial pollution are now on the front lines of climate change, often getting hit first and worst,” she wrote. (snip)

One recent study shows that black families are more likely to live in neighborhoods with higher concentrations of air pollution than white families, despite having equal or higher incomes. Another study finds that while white people largely cause air pollution, blacks and Latinos are more likely to breathe in that polluted air.

We can clearly see the use of ‘climate change’ as a means for the Democrats push to make everyone a Victim, along with their race-baiting. But, it is very interesting, is it not, that she fails to note that most of this occurs in the aforementioned Democrat run areas. Further, it conflates real environmental issues of pollution, which exist, let’s be clear, with a tiny increase in carbon dioxide which they say has caused a tiny increase in global temperatures.

In her plan, Warren said she would provide job training, guaranteed wage and benefit parity for fossil fuel workers transitioning into other industries, as well as pensions and early benefits for those who retire.

Yet, Liz has refused to stop using fossil fuels herself.

The plan requires $1 trillion over the next 10 years, or roughly a third of Warren’s proposed climate investment. It did not specify where that money would come from, though Warren’s original climate plan details reversing tax cuts for the country’s most wealthy through the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

It comes from the Money Unicorn.

Read: Warren Panders To Low Income Folks With $1 Trillion Climate Justice Plan »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Extinction Rebellion Says Using Alarmist Language Is Great “Cause It Works”

By William Teach October 10, 2019 – 8:10 am

There was actually a brief time when members of the Cult of Climastrology advocate to not use alarmist language. There are still a few, including Michael “Robust Debate” Mann, who are not in favor of this. However, they are dinosaurs, relics of a bygone age, who have seen the climahysteria of what they’ve created pass them by

Extinction Rebellion says it’s acceptable to use ‘alarmist’ language to scare people about climate change

Extinction Rebellion has defended its use of ‘alarmist’ language, saying when it comes to forcing debate on climate change, ‘it works’.

In an interview with the BBC’s Andrew Neil, Extinction Rebellion spokesperson Zion Lights defended the organisation’s warning that billions of people would die in a relatively short time period due to global climate change or its founder’s suggestion that children would die in the next 10-20 years.

Quizzed on where the numbers had come from, she said: “We don’t know exact numbers and it’s a little bit concerning to focus just how many deaths – there will be deaths and mass suffering…”

“You’re scaring people with this rhetoric”, Neil told his interviewee, to which she replied: “I think there’s a danger of scaring people simply because we’re not taking it seriously enough and people are feeling really desperate that we’re heard on this and unfortunately alarmist language works which is why we’re discussing it right now.”

Pushed on what Neil described as the organisation’s “apocalyptic predictions” and how much scientific backing they have, Lights said: “We’re not trying to use alarmist language, we’re listening to what scientists are saying and using language that is appropriate to the situation.”

There are certainly a few scientists involved with the Cult of Climastrology who are Alarmists, but, most try and take a measured approach to their language of Doom. It’s typically those who are not doing the science who take the prognostications of doom and turn them in EVERYBODY PANIC!!!!!! Is it any wonder that so many nutters are proclaiming they have eco/climate anxiety when all they hear is utter doom? That we only have 12 years left to avert Doom?

The group said its members planned to “peacefully occupy and shut down” the airport’s terminal building from 9am on Thursday by lying, sitting or gluing themselves in front of the departure and arrival gates at the east London airport.

People should just step on them.

Read: Extinction Rebellion Says Using Alarmist Language Is Great “Cause It Works” »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post: Trump Claims Of Executive Privilege Are Him Action About The Law Or Something

By William Teach October 10, 2019 – 7:55 am

These types of claim only applied from January 20th, 2001 to January 19th, 2009 and January 20th, 2017 through now. There was a big black hole of coverage during eight years

Trump’s claims of executive immunity lead to criticism he is acting above the law

In a series of legal maneuvers that have defied Congress, drawn rebukes from federal judges and tested the country’s foundational system of checks and balances, President Trump has made an expansive declaration of presidential impunity that would essentially place him beyond the reach of the law.

Both in courts and before Congress, Trump’s legal teams are simultaneously arguing that the president can’t be investigated or indicted by prosecutors because Congress has the sole responsibility for holding presidents accountable, and that the House’s impeachment inquiry is an unconstitutional effort that the White House can ignore.

“We have a president who simply doesn’t believe that Congress is a coequal branch of government,” said Elliot Williams, who helped run the Justice Department’s legislative affairs office during the Obama administration. “That’s a huge departure from anything we’ve seen in our lifetimes.”

The broad legal effort escalated on Tuesday when the White House counsel sent a letter to House Democratic leaders dismissing Congress’s impeachment inquiry as “illegitimate” and stating that the entire executive branch would refuse to cooperate with it. (snip)

Citing executive privilege, the Trump administration has blocked several officials from testifying before Congress or handing over documents in recent months. In a dramatic move Tuesday, the White House blocked House investigators from deposing Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, just hours before he was set to testify as part of Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into whether Trump abused his office by pushing Ukraine to investigate his political rival.

It should be noted that this is in the straight news section, on the front page, not in the opinion section as you probably guess. Anyhow, consider the amount of executive privilege claimed by Barack Obama during the Operation Fast and Furious probe, for which we still haven’t gotten all the information. Heck, Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress over this. Then there was the IRS targeting scandal, Hillary Clinton’s server issue, Benghazi, and all the money and removal of sanctions regarding Iran.

Seriously, executive privilege has been used quite a bit. Bill Clinton used it during the Monica Lewinsky impeachment issue quite a bit. The media was not quite sure what was going on there, either. Other presidents have used it, as well.

By defying the impeachment inquiry, Trump has essentially set off a constitutional power struggle between the legislative and the executive branches.

After 2010, Obama’s entire legacy is based on executive privilege and executive actions. Oh, right, 2009-2016 doesn’t exist. My bad.

Read: Washington Post: Trump Claims Of Executive Privilege Are Him Action About The Law Or Something »

Posted in Politics, Wonky Media | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Cultists Dance To Save The Earth Or Something

By William Teach October 9, 2019 – 6:23 pm

More like epileptic seizures or bad acid trips

And this

There’s video at that one, if your eyes can take it.

Read: Climate Cultists Dance To Save The Earth Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Dick’s Sporting Goods Anti-Gun Stance Cost Them $250 Million

By William Teach October 9, 2019 – 4:22 pm

I’m sure the CEO and top folks didn’t lose anything for their Wokeness, right?

Dick’s CEO Says Anti-Gun Policy Shrank Company by a ‘Quarter Billion Dollars’

The CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods told CBS News this weekend that his decisions to stop selling certain guns and hire lobbyists to push for new gun bans have cost his company roughly $250 million.

CBS Sunday Morning host Lee Cowan asked Dick’s CEO Ed Stack how much his company lost after the retailer decided to stop selling firearms to anyone under the age of 21.

“About a quarter of a billion,” Stack replied. “Pretty close.”

Stack also said the company destroyed $5 million worth of rifle inventory because Stack believed no one should be allowed to own them.

“I said, ‘You know what? If we really think these things should be off the street, we need to destroy them,'” he told CBS.

Well, that’s awesome. That showed those gun companies, right? Wait, Dick’s already paid for the firearms? And the gun companies lost nothing? Huh.

“The hunting category is a sizeable part of our business; however, there has been an overall slowdown in sales in this category since the announcement of our new firearms policy,” the annual report read. “Despite this, we continue to believe that implementing this new policy is the right decision for our athletes and our communities. In fact, if we could go back and revisit it, we would still make the same choice today.”

Remember, Dick’s didn’t just get rid of those scary “assault weapons”, but all guns in a sizable portion of its stores. Even ones strictly for hunting. Because that’s the real agenda of the gun grabbers, disarm law abiding citizens.

Read: Dick’s Sporting Goods Anti-Gun Stance Cost Them $250 Million »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Current Affairs, Unhinged Tools | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 9, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…are trees dying from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on why the Woke establishment hates The Joker.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Hotcold Take: The Three Forms Of Climate Denialism

By William Teach October 9, 2019 – 10:30 am

This is an interesting take, as part of it is attempting to blow up the Skeptic argument that yes, climate change is happening, it’s just that it is mostly/solely caused by Nature, and turn it sinister. In a way that only a cult/pseudo religion can do

There are three types of climate change denier, and most of us are at least one

Last week, amid the cacophony of reactions to Greta Thunberg’s appearance before the United Nations Climate Action Summit, a group of self-proclaimed “prominent scientists” sent a registered letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres. The letter, headed “There is no climate emergency”, urged Guterres to follow:

…a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.

The group, supported by 75 Australian business and industry figures, along with others around the world, obviously rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. But this missive displays remarkably different tactics to those previously used to stymie climate action.

The language of climate change denial and inaction has transformed. Outright science denial has been replaced by efforts to reframe climate change as natural, and climate action as unwarranted.

However, this is just another way of rejecting the facts, and their implications for us. Denial can take many forms.

I love that the article includes the angry, unhinged photo of St. Greta.

In his book States of Denial, the late psychoanalytic sociologist Stanley Cohen described three forms of denial. Although his framework was developed from analysing genocide and other atrocities, it applies just as well to our individual and collective inaction in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence of human-induced climate change.

The first form of denial is literal denial. It is the simple, conscious, outright rejection that something happened or is happening – that is, lying. One Nation senators Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts, among others, have at one time or another maintained this position – outright denial that climate change is happening (though Senator Hanson now might accept climate change but denies any human contribution to it).

It is tempting to attribute outright denial to individual malice or stupidity, and that may occasionally be the case. More worrying and more insidious, though, is the social organisation of literal denial of climate change. There is plenty of evidence of clandestine, orchestrated lying by vested interests in industry. If anyone is looking for a conspiracy in climate change, this is it – not a collusion of thousands of scientists and major science organisations.

The second form of denial is interpretive denial. Here, people do not contest the facts, but interpret them in ways that distort their meaning or importance. For example, one might say climate change is just a natural fluctuation or greenhouse gas accumulation is a consequence, not a cause, of rising temperatures. This is what we saw in last week’s letter to the UN.

Almost no one is saying that the climate hasn’t changed. It has. But, this is positioning it as people being Evil for denying that it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind (interestingly, the people who aren’t “deniers” are doing almost nothing in their own lives).

The third and most insidious form is implicatory denial. The facts of climate change are not denied, nor are they interpreted to be something else. What is denied or minimised are the psychological, political, and moral implications of the facts for us. We fail to accept responsibility for responding; we fail to act when the information says we should.

Well, that is interesting, because, getting beyond the squishy feelings involved, wouldn’t this be the position of most Warmists, who fail to act within their own lives to give up their own use of fossil fuels and make their own lives carbon neutral? This is what AOC referred to as climate delaying.

Read: Hotcold Take: The Three Forms Of Climate Denialism »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Oregon To Potentially Give Some ‘Climate Change’ Ballot Measures A Whirl In 2020

By William Teach October 9, 2019 – 8:21 am

This is fantastic. If the ballot measure doesn’t pass, it’s a hilarious blow to the Cult of Climastrology. If it does pass, they are essentially self-owning themselves by destroying their ability to use energy

Ballot Measures Could Let Voters Act on Climate Change

IF lawmakers again fail to pass a law regulating Oregon’s greenhouse gas emissions next year, voters could be called on to do it.

Three initiative petitions filed with the Oregon Secretary of State’s Office Monday would require the state to phase out electricity sources that contribute to global warming, and transition to a carbon-free economy by 2050, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported .

If they proceed to the November 2020 ballot, the measures would likely usher in a bruising ballot fight. But one of the organizations spearheading the efforts, clean energy coalition Renew Oregon, is hoping the measures instead add urgency to next year’s legislative session.

“Our priority will continue to be the cap-and-invest bill,” said Brad Reed, a spokesman for Renew Oregon. “We will put all of our energy to that. But we cannot afford for the state and for the people to not have bold climate action next year.”

The carbon cap bill has been in the works for over a decade, and was the focus of a tussle in the Legislature this year. The proposal flamed out amid a walkout by Senate Republicans and disunity in Democratic ranks. Opposition to House Bill 2020 was stiff among some business groups and rural voters.

So, first off, it’s cute how the carbon tax is now called “cap and invest.” I’m guessing the “invest” part is about enriching government coffers and such, while giving a pittance back to the citizens who would be sca-rewed!!!!! by the energy cost rise, which would devastate the cost of living. I wonder how many Warmists would quickly leave the state of Oregon?

Second, what in the heck is a carbon free economy? The state would not be able to operate without fossil fueled vehicles doing all sorts of things, I’m sure you can imagine what. Will they ban all fossil fueled vehicles from private ownership? How will they stop the US Post Office from delivering? How about USPS, FedEx, and now Amazon? How about all the fishing and passenger boats? Will they stop use of all the airports in Oregon (and there are even more which are private)? How about the four US military bases in Oregon, as well as the National Guard bases? How about all the imports coming in on ships powered by fossil fuels? And tourism?

Seriously, how utterly boned would the state be if the initiative to be 100% carbon free passed? Actually, I’d love to see it pass, so that it could be a lesson in either 1) failure to make it happen or 2) screwed beyond belief and living like it’s 1499.

Read: Oregon To Potentially Give Some ‘Climate Change’ Ballot Measures A Whirl In 2020 »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Carbon Credits, Democrats, Global Warming | 11 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove