Rep Frederica Wilson (D-Fla) Says People Making Fun Of Congress Members Should Be Prosecuted

By William Teach July 3, 2019 – 6:55 pm

Yet, somehow, it is Republicans who are the Fascists

Florida Democrat says those ‘making fun’ of members of Congress online should be ‘prosecuted’

Democrat Rep. Frederica Wilson said people who are “making fun” of members of Congress online should be “prosecuted.”

The Florida congresswoman made the comments on Tuesday outside of the Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children in her home state.

“Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are a disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is unacceptable [sic],” Wilson said.

“We’re gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted,” she added. “You cannot intimidate members of Congress, frighten members of Congress. It is against the law, and it’s a shame in this United States of America.”

Wilson’s comments came amid a controversy over a Facebook group that includes Border Patrol agents and where they allegedly mocked and posted graphic content about members of Congress, including New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

It is not OK to make threats towards Congress members, the same way making threats towards any citizen is against the law.

However, the main point of the Freedom Of Speech clause was to safeguard citizens from reprisal from members of the federal government, particularly Congress, for speaking their minds, having different viewpoints, disagreeing with them, and, yes, making fun of them. It was all about politics, not about being free to call someone else a jerk. What Wilson calls “intimidating” is what the Constitution calls “free speech” and “petitioning for redress of grievance” and “peaceably assembling.”

But, members of Congress should be intimidated by The People. They are not our masters. They are there to do the job WE tell them to do. Wilson simply highlights the Fascist views of the Democrats.

Read: Rep Frederica Wilson (D-Fla) Says People Making Fun Of Congress Members Should Be Prosecuted »

Posted in 1st Amendment, Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 3, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…are evil Bad Weather clouds caused by carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is No Tricks Zone, with a post on a new paper showing that human activities are not responsible for the observed CO2 increase.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Good News: A Green New Deal Can Start With Local Communities

By William Teach July 3, 2019 – 10:30 am

This is actually a fantastic idea (even though this reads like something from a more modern Communist Manifesto)

Opinion: A Green New Deal can start with local communities

The power of a Green New Deal as an approach to the climate crisis is its potential to shift the political consensus on what’s possible so that climate science and Indigenous knowledge become the basis for action.

The Green New Deal is capturing people’s imaginations and reframing the climate debate in a way that builds a groundswell of support for a major social and economic shift.

A Green New Deal for all will ensure that transformation is carried out equitably, that it is rooted in climate justice, that it respects the rights of Indigenous peoples, and that it creates over a million jobs in the process.

To build the necessary political pressure for federal parties and the federal government to implement a Green New Deal, we need to build as much momentum as we can everywhere we can. And federal parties are starting to respond to the groundswell of support for a Green New Deal with more ambitious climate plans.

But, what if we didn’t need to wait to win a Green New Deal until after the federal election? What if we could start building it, right here, right now, from the ground up?

The Council of Canadians is launching a campaign to win local Green New Deals in communities from coast to coast to coast. Making your community a Green New Deal Community is a way of both advancing a Green New Deal locally, while also applying upward pressure to ultimately win a federal Green New Deal.

I think you get the point, namely that the Cultists want to make this happen at the local level. This is, in fact, a great idea. They should give it a whirl in many of the more Modern Socialist cities. NYC is, of course, sort of going to give it a whirl with their own version. But, really, they should try implementing the entire thing. That’s the only way it works. Do the whole thing.

Why would we want this? Because it will highlight to Canada, and America, just how horrible the ideas are from the Cult of Climastrology, and how bad the Green New Deal is. How much it will hurt the lives of citizens. So, yes, implement it. Sometimes having a visual of things is much better than talking about it, right?

Read: Good News: A Green New Deal Can Start With Local Communities »

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

Psychologists Are Very Concerned About News Of Bad Weather Causing “Eco-Anxiety”

By William Teach July 3, 2019 – 8:00 am

While not a new thing, the amount of articles about people having mental issues over a tiny increase in the Earth’s average temperature has grown quite a bit as of late, especially as it relates to children, so, some sort of talking points memo must have gone out, because here comes another

The Barrage of Bad News About Climate Change Is Triggering ‘Eco-Anxiety,’ Psychologists Say

When news about the environment becomes grim, you might be overcome by an urge to hide or collapse.

On last week’s episode of HBO drama “Big Little Lies,” 9-year-old Amabella did both. The character’s metallic boots were found sticking out of a classroom closet following a lesson on climate change, and the internet collectively nodded in recognition.

It seems that the big talking point is that episode of a fictional TV show has been causing this, because most of the recent articles mention it.

It turns out that anxiety, grief and despair about the state of the environment is nothing new. It even has a name: eco-anxiety. And according to psychologists, it’s incredibly common.

According to a Yale survey conducted in December 2018, 70% of Americans are “worried” about climate change, 29% are “very worried” and 51% feel “helpless.” Despite these striking statistics, most people don’t realize how widespread eco-anxiety is, one psychologist told Live Science.

“[Ecoanxiety] is often hidden somewhat under the surface,” Thomas Doherty, a clinical psychologist based in Portland, Oregon, told Live Science, “people aren’t taught how to talk about it.” (snip)

“It’s a rational reply to a really serious problem,” Maria Ojala, a psychologist at Örebro University in Sweden, told Live Science. That, she says, is why it could be dangerous to make it a clinical diagnosis.

“We have to ask, Is it more pathological for someone to be so worried about climate change or is it actually more pathological that people are not more worried about it?” Austern said. Anxiety is precisely the emotion that’ll propel us to do something, he added. Conveniently, taking action Is also one of the most effective coping mechanisms for eco-anxiety, Ojala said.

Got that? It might be more pathological to not be worried about a minor 1.5F increase in global temperatures since 1850, something that is minor during the Holocene.

But, hey, anyhow, perhaps the news media is complicit in making Warmists major league nut jobs.

Read: Psychologists Are Very Concerned About News Of Bad Weather Causing “Eco-Anxiety” »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Aren’t For Open Borders Or Something

By William Teach July 3, 2019 – 7:40 am

If they’re having to argue that they totally aren’t for open borders, then they are for open borders. Uber-leftist Peter Beinart takes a crack at convincing people at the uber-leftist The Atlantic that their policies are not open borders, they just don’t want to sound like Trump!

For Democrats, Health Care Is Easy, but Immigration Is Hard
The 2020 hopefuls aren’t for open borders—but they don’t want to sound like Trump either.

Among the many things we’ve learned so far in the presidential campaign is this: The Democratic candidates are talking more honestly about health care than about immigration. To develop a coherent approach to immigration in an era of rising asylum claims, Democrats need to explain—among other things—whom they would and wouldn’t let in. But Donald Trump has made that discussion extraordinarily difficult. In the shadow of his brutal policies and bigoted appeals, Democrats are wary of spelling out whom they would deport. That has led to a debate that’s evasive and vague. (snip)

But last week’s debates were less successful in clarifying how the Democrats differ on immigration. To be sure, the candidates offered policy proposals: They called for restoring DACA, reforming Immigration and Customs Enforcement, eliminating private detention centers, and giving undocumented immigrants health care and a path to citizenship. In the first debate, Julián Castro also declared his support for downgrading illegally crossing the border from a criminal to a civil offense, and then slammed Beto O’Rourke for disagreeing with him. But while O’Rourke has in the past argued against decriminalization, he wouldn’t defend that position onstage, and instead said he opposed criminalizing asylum seekers, thus evading Castro’s broader point. He was willing to play the centrist on health care, just not on immigration.

In the second debate, the moderator José Diaz-Balart asked for a show of hands on decriminalization. Eight candidates raised their hands; Biden—oddly—raised a finger. But the moderators didn’t ask him to explain. So while viewers were left with a sense that the presidential candidates have different views on decriminalization, they learned nothing about why.

Man, if only we had a Free Press to ask the candidates these questions!

At the debates, Democrats bellowed their opposition to Trump’s handling of the asylum crisis. And they rightly emphasized the need to help Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador battle crime, corruption, and poverty so that fewer of their citizens make the perilous journey north. Although they didn’t say so at the debates, the three candidates who have issued immigration plans—Castro,O’Rourke, and Jay Inslee—have also proposed pouring money into the asylum system so asylum seekers can get lawyers and interpreters, and a faster resolution of their claims.

The point is that there’s a trade-off. Make getting asylum easier, and you’re likely to increase the number of people who apply. When a surge of migrant children reached the U.S. border in 2014, the Obama administration answeredthat trade-off with a harsh message to desperate Central Americans: “Don’t come. And if you think you’re coming and once you’re here you won’t be returned, that’s not the case. You’re not going to be able to stay.” But in the Trump era, Democrats aren’t comfortable talking that way anymore. Private health insurance is something many Democratic presidential candidates are happy to support openly. Sending vulnerable mothers and children back to Honduras is not.

Everything pretty much says “Open Borders.” Obama might have talked tough, and deported lots of illegals. And separated children per the law as passed by the U.S. Congress. But, the Democrat base was actually rather upset about this. If the extreme policies from Democrats are simply due to Trump Derangement Syndrome, that tells us that they are dishonest and too immature to be in politics.

Regardless, none of this is new. They support sanctuary jurisdictions that are protecting illegal aliens, including criminal ones. They say they only want to keep the good ones, yet, these sanctuaries protect the ones with felonies on their records.

Make crossing the border not a criminal offense? Well, the law says the first offense is a civil crime with a small fine and deportation. After that, it becomes much more serious for each time caught. Democrats want to get rid of that? Sure sounds like open borders.

Health insurance for illegals paid for by U.S. citizens? That rewards bad behavior. And entices more to come illegally.

They do not want a border barrier of any type along the southern border. Many want to do away with ICE, and now are going after Customs and Border Patrol. They even are discussing doxxing and “shaming” members of both federal agencies.

Paying for even more lawyers to protect people who are here illegally? Entices more to come and give it a shot. Expanding the definition of asylum would mean more people showing up and crossing illegally.

They want to formalize DACA in what they call a “clean bill”, meaning not paired with any restrictions on people crossing the border illegally, which would mean more giving it a shot. They want comprehensive immigration reform, which means amnesty for tens of millions of illegals, which entices more to come, since they are not offering any measures to stop anything.

They call a border barrier immoral. They want the existing barrier torn down.

Did I mention that they want to decriminalize crossing the border illegally? If there is no penalty, there is no border.

But, no, no, they aren’t for open borders.

Read: Democrats Aren’t For Open Borders Or Something »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 25 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Deranged House Democrats File Lawsuit To Get Trump’s Tax Returns

By William Teach July 2, 2019 – 2:44 pm

They just won’t give up. They aren’t doing a damned thing to help American citizens in the House. They’re trying to give themselves a pay raise, they’re trying to protect illegal aliens, and they’re trying to take away lawfully owned firearms. And fishing for Trump’s tax returns

House Democrats file lawsuit to obtain Trump tax returns

The Democrat-led House Ways and Means Committee filed a lawsuit on Tuesday to enforce subpoenas and obtain President Donald Trump’s tax returns, an escalation in a fight for the President’s personal financial information.

The lawsuit was filed in D.C. District Court against Treasury and the IRS and their respective leaders, Steve Mnuchin and Charles Rettig.

House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal is seeking the President’s tax returns using a little-known IRS provision known as 6103, which allows the Chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee to request and obtain an individual’s tax information for a legitimate legislative purpose. (snip)

Jay Sekulow, counsel to the President, responded to the suit Tuesday afternoon by saying in a statement, “We will respond to this latest effort at Presidential harassment in Court.”

The complaint states that the “refusal to produce the requested materials” has deprived the House panel of “information necessary to complete its time-limited investigation,” and goes on to say that the committee is asking the court to order the defendants “to comply with Section 6103(f) and the subpoenas by producing the requested information immediately.”

Do they have an actual reason, an actual investigation?

The complaint argues that the committee is not required to justify its reasons for seeking tax returns under Section 6103, but states that the panel “is investigating the IRS’s administration of various tax laws and policies relating to Presidential tax returns and tax law compliance by President Trump, including whether the IRS’s self-imposed policy of annually auditing the returns of sitting Presidents is working properly.”

Let’s jump back in time to a post from November 8, 2018, in reference to 26 US Code 6103, in which I wrote

Read More »

Read: Trump Deranged House Democrats File Lawsuit To Get Trump’s Tax Returns »

Posted in Democrats, Donald Trump, Unhinged Tools | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 2, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible, evil, no good refrigerator making the temperature hot and cold, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is White House Dossier, with a post on Biden being a serial fabulist.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

We Should All Ditch Work And Go On Strike For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach July 2, 2019 – 10:30 am

Who would write all the Hotcoldwetdry stories then?

We Should All Ditch Work and Go on Strike for the Climate
All workers in all industries stopping work at the exact same time? It’s exactly what the planet needs.

Remember the IPCC report which gave us 12 years to sort our shit out? Well, now, we’ve got 11 and a half. That’s why Greta Thunberg and 46 other young activists have called for a general strike against climate change this September:

“We have learned that if we don’t start acting for our future, nobody else will make the first move. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” they wrote in the Guardian. “But to change everything, we need everyone. It is time for all of us to unleash mass resistance…”

School strikes are one thing. They’ve been responsible for putting immediate action to prevent climate change onto the agenda and further radicalising a generation. But a general strike is a big escalation. It involves all workers in all industries stopping work at the same time. At the start of the 20th century, when workers were just figuring out how to use a general strike, socialist leader Rosa Luxemburg argued that it was “the living pulse of the revolution, and at the same time its most powerful driving wheel”.

Good luck making this happen.

If workers are a bit smart about things, and say that they’re refusing to work because of the serious and imminent threat that climate change poses to their health and safety, that might give them some legal cover and further reduce the likelihood of reprisal. But there’s a big difference between a hypothetical general strike and an actual general strike. At the moment, no one seems to have agreed on a definite plan of how to get from A to B. We could end up thinking that 2019 was just a missed opportunity, just like 1926.

And then those workers get replaced with people who want to do their jobs, not be SJWs.

Of course, if these Warmists did go on strike the workplace would probably have a better environment, since everyone else wouldn’t have to listen to the insane ramblings of unhinged wankers. But, really, think about your own workplace: how many people do you think would walk out and how many would be wave their hand dismissively and get back to work?

Read: We Should All Ditch Work And Go On Strike For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

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

It’s Summer, So The Meme Of AC Being Bad For ‘Climate Change’ Is Popping Up

By William Teach July 2, 2019 – 8:25 am

This has been a push from the Cult of Climastrology the past 3-4 years, where they want to restrict air conditioning for Other People, especially in “developing nations”, where there are lots of brown and yellow people. Notice that none of them ever say that they’ve given it up themselves.

So when will the Bloomberg owned buildings do away with their own use of AC? From the screed

The vast majority of Americans have air conditioning but in Germany almost nobody does. At least not yet.

So when temperatures in Berlin rose to an uncomfortable 37 Celsius (99 Fahrenheit) this week – a record for the month of June – I was uncommonly delighted to go to the Bloomberg office, where it’s artificially and blissfully cool.

By letting people in overheated climates concentrate on their work and get a good night’s sleep, air conditioning has played a big part in driving global prosperity and happiness over the past few decades – and that revolution has still barely begun. About half of Chinese households have this modern tool, but of the 1.6 billion people living in India and Indonesia, only 88 million have access to air conditioning at home, Bloomberg New Energy Finance noted in a recent report.

Can you feel the “but” coming?

There’s just one glaring problem: What will all this extra demand for electricity do to the climate?

Carbon dioxide emissions rose another 2% in 2018, the fastest pace in seven years. That increase was alarming in its own right, given what we know about the unfolding climate emergency. But the proximate cause was especially troubling: Extreme weather led to more demand for air conditioning and heating in 2018, BP Plc explained in its annual review of energy sector.

It’s not too hard to imagine a vicious cycle in which more hot weather begets ever more demand for air conditioning and thus even more need for power. That in turn means more emissions and even hotter temperatures. (snip)

Buildings have long been a blind spot in climate discussions even though they account for about one-fifth of global energy consumption. The inefficiency of air-conditioning systems or badly designed homes and offices simply aren’t as eye-catching as electric cars and making people feel ashamed about flying. At least Germany’s “passivhaus” movement, a way of building homes that require very little heating or cooling, shows some people are starting to recognize the peril.

And you know what we need? More government control of the building process, which will dramatically increase the cost while doing…..nothing for the climate.

Of course, they have to throw in some TDS

There are lessons to be learned from the world of lighting too. The LED revolution was spurred by innovation but also by better energy efficiency labeling on products and the discontinuing of out-of-date technology. Something similar needs to happen with air conditioning. There was a big step forward in January when the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol came into force. Although not well known, its aim is to phase out the use of potent greenhouse gases called hydrofluorocarbons, which are used widely in air conditioning systems. Unless substituted, these alone could cause 0.4C of additional warming by the end of the century.

Yet true to form, President Donald Trump’s administration hasn’t yet submitted Kigali to the Senate for ratification, even though American manufacturers would benefit from demand for the new technologies that it would spawn.

The thing is, there really isn’t a viable option for HFCs at this time, which are used in AC units, car AC, and refrigerators. The Cult doesn’t care. They just think if the ban something the replacement will magically appear.

Read: It’s Summer, So The Meme Of AC Being Bad For ‘Climate Change’ Is Popping Up »

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

While Some Democrats Walk Tightrope On Scrapping Private Insurance, Majority Of Americans Are Against

By William Teach July 2, 2019 – 8:12 am

Even if a single payer, government run health insurance system was viable, particularly monetarily (it’s not even close), how wise is it to put the federal government in charge for 330 million Americans? I’m betting people can come up with ideas in seconds. For Democrats, just imagine that this was in the Executive Branch so that Trump was in charge. Scared you right, because of your TDS, eh?

Nixing private insurance divides ‘Medicare for All’ candidates

Some Democratic presidential candidates who say they support “Medicare for All” are walking a tightrope on whether to fully embrace a key portion of the proposal that calls for eliminating private insurance.

Only a few White House hopefuls raised their hands when asked at last week’s debates if they were willing to abolish private insurers, even though others who were on the stage have publicly backed legislation from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) which would do just that.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif.) and Sanders all raised their hands, as did New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. But Harris later said she misunderstood the question, and clarified that she does not support eliminating private insurance.

“I am supportive of Medicare for All, and under Medicare for All policy, private insurance would certainly exist for supplemental coverage,” she said Friday morning on CBS News.

If Medicare for All was meant to provide health insurance for all, then why the need for any “supplemental coverage”? Wouldn’t it take care of everything? Or would it be so that citizens could get medical procedures that Government is denying, such as a knee replacement when Government says “you’re too old, here’s a cane”?

Anyhow, the above article shows many of these Dems running for president wiffle waffling back and forth, walking that tightrope

Robert Blendon, a health policy professor at Harvard University, said most candidates will be deliberately vague about Medicare for All, even the ones who are co-sponsors of the Sanders bill.

“I think many candidates signed onto the principle,” Blendon said. “They want a Medicare dominated system but didn’t fully understand that today’s Medicare … has a private alternative which is very popular. I just don’t think they are aware of that.”

Actually, they’ll be deliberately vague because they know this type of massive expansion of government will scare off the majority of swing voters, as well as a bunch of support for people who are just Democrats, not progressive nutjobs.

A similar Kaiser poll from January found that support for Medicare for All dropped from 56 percent to 37 percent when respondents were told it would eliminate private health insurance.

And then a poll from Monday

(Breitbart) A CNN poll released Monday found that 57 percent of Americans said that the government should not enact a program, such as Medicare for All, that would completely eliminate private health insurance, compared to 37 percent of those who said that they should scrap private health insurance, and six percent of those polled who had no opinion.

CNN’s latest poll showcases a three-point gain for those who oppose eliminating private health insurance, which covers over half of Americans.

Further, only 31 percent of Democrats said that a national program should completely replace health insurance, while 48 percent, or nearly a majority of Democrats, said that a national health insurance program should not completely replace insurance.

If you can only get 31% of Democrats to support it, no wonder the 376 Democrats running for their party’s presidential nod are “deliberately vague.”

Read: While Some Democrats Walk Tightrope On Scrapping Private Insurance, Majority Of Americans Are Against »

Posted in Democrats, Healthcare | 11 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove