Mueller Agrees To Testify In Front Of House Panels, Could Blow Up Spectacularly In Democrats Faces

By William Teach June 26, 2019 – 7:39 am

Trump Derangement Syndrome infused Democrats finally have their wish: Robert Mueller will testify on his big old nothing-burger report, which took over two years to compile and showed….nothing about Trump or any other American colluding with Russia. If Dems think this testimony will help their Russia Russia Russia case, they are very wrong

Mueller subpoena could backfire on Democrats, say political, legal experts

Key Democrat lawmakers who triumphantly announced that Robert Mueller will testify under subpoena next month about his report on alleged Russian collusion may have played right into Republican hands, several legal and political experts told Fox News.

With the former special counsel set to testify on July 17 to the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees, both controlled by Democrats, President Trump’s most vocal critics hope to have the legendary lawman spell out the commander-in-chief’s misdeeds in sound bites that could fuel an impeachment drive. But given that Mueller ultimately found no evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, and his pledge to not deviate from the 448-page report made public in April, the hearing may backfire.

“The bottom line is, after all of your looking and all the time you had and all the money you spent, did Trump collude with the Russians? No - Do you stand by your report? - Yes,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity late Monday. “It is ‘case-closed’ for me. They can do anything they want to in the House, and I think it will blow up in their face.”

There’s a chance that this turns into an extremely boring hearing for Democrats, with them trying to ask TDS questions, going off the reservation, barking at the moon, and Mueller just citing the report. Meanwhile

Republicans on the two panels will get their chance to query Mueller about the dubious basis for federal surveillance warrants used to spy on Trump associates, what initially prompted the FBI probe that preceded Mueller’s investigation and, perhaps the biggest question of all: At what point during his nearly-two year probe did Mueller determine Trump did not collude with Russians.

“He can’t refuse to answer questions about the FISA application,” Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz told Fox News Channel’s Laura Ingraham, referring to a request by the FBI to surveil a member of the 2016 Trump campaign under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Excitable Adam Schiff and other Democrats are out talking about how it will be great for The People to hear from Mueller, even though he released the report, he gave a big statement about the report, for which he said everything you need to know is in the report, and then said that there was no point in testifying in front of Congress. And maybe even the Republican questions are deflected with him referring back to the report. From the Democrats, it just sounds like they want to just keep the Russia Russia Russia schtick going for their deranged base. But, if Mueller is answering questions on things like the FISA applications, this will look bad for Democrats and Obama.

“I think that the price that this testimony will cost the Democrats will be grievous to them,” Geraldo Rivera said. “They will rue the day that Nadler and Schiff let their ambition get ahead of their common sense, their political science, and drag this man back into center stage of the American public.”

Of course, no matter what happens, the Credentialed Media will report this as Bad for Trump, as we all know.

Read: Mueller Agrees To Testify In Front Of House Panels, Could Blow Up Spectacularly In Democrats Faces »

Posted in Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

NJ Star Ledger That Rich People Don’t Pay Property Taxes On Items They’ve Already Purchased

By William Teach June 25, 2019 – 4:57 pm

You can almost make a case that they are calling for the end of property taxes

You pay taxes on your house. Why shouldn’t a rich guy pay them on his $8 million preserved shark? | Editorial

Most Americans agree that the ultrarich should pay more in taxes. But this is often dismissed as self-interest: Tax reform is cutting my taxes, and raising yours.

You know something is seriously rotten about our economy, though, when even the billionaires argue that they should be taxed more.

This appeal to all the 2020 presidential candidates, released in a letter Monday, was signed by moguls who amassed their own wealth, like Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, and those who inherited it, like Abigail Disney.

As has been noted again and again, go for it. No one is stopping you. You can easily send a check to the IRS.

The problem, they all agree, is that in the face of profound inequality, huge sums are sitting around untaxed by the federal government, in assets like stocks, bonds, yachts, cars and art.

Like a $590 million yacht with a basketball court, owned by Hollywood’s richest man. Or a 14-foot tiger shark preserved in formaldehyde, worth $8-10 million, owned by the hedge fund manager who inspired the series “Billions.” You get the idea.

In general, we pay taxes when we earn or spend money, but not on wealth itself. As a result, the richest 0.1 percent will pay the equivalent of 3.2 percent of their wealth in taxes this year, the letter notes, compared with 7.2 percent paid by the bottom 99 percent.

Sigh. They paid sales tax on those items purchased. Most of which went to the state and local coffers. Just like with the property tax on houses and vehicles. Most people, though, cannot afford to pay the property tax on their house and car up front. So, instead, they are subject to the whims of politicians, who can lower, and raise!, their property tax. Often to pay for things that the citizens do not want or need. And may not help them in the least. Rich people paid a sales tax on the acquisition of their property. Further, take the $590 million yacht. People were paid to build it. A company made money on it. Someone made a good commission selling it. Someone made money designing it. People make money staffing it, maintaining it, and repairing it. People make money stocking it. People make money when it is berthed. And these buffoons want to charge a property tax on the possession of it?

Assets aren’t all sitting around doing nothing: stocks, bonds, property like yachts are moving the economy.

This isn’t about class warfare; it is about a moral, economic and patriotic duty, they argue. Income inequality has grown so extreme that even the uber-rich are taking a stand. It demands a new aggressiveness on the part of government, too.

It’s about class warfare.

Democrats, on the other hand, have a torrent of proposals to address economic injustice, including a plan put forth by Elizabeth Warren to tax wealth. Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Beto O’Rourke and others have also come out in support of a tax on the wealthiest Americans.

“If you own a home, you’re already paying a wealth tax—it’s called a property tax,” Warren argues. “I just want the ultra-rich to pay a wealth tax on the diamonds, the yachts, and the Rembrandts too.”

So, what happens when the average citizen is paying extra taxes on their diamond wedding rings and small sailboats? You either tax all or none. Otherwise, this violates the Constitution. Further, this would be creating a federal property and sales tax. Democrats should be careful what they wish for: they just might get it.

Read: NJ Star Ledger That Rich People Don’t Pay Property Taxes On Items They’ve Already Purchased »

Posted in Democrats, Taxation | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 25, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…are horrible fossil fueled vehicles causing rain clouds, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Diogenes’ Middle Finger, with a post on some very interesting information on Trump’s latest accuser.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

The Climate Crisis Will End The Golden Era Of Food Choice Or Something

By William Teach June 25, 2019 – 10:30 am

Remember when some Warmists were saying that the Cult of Climastrology needed to turn down the doomy prognostications because they weren’t helping? Of course, most ignored this advice, ones such as Vox’s Sean Illing. But he did get the memo to call it the climate crisis instead of climate change

The climate crisis and the end of the golden era of food choice

Imagine waking up in a world that has become so hot and so crowded that most of what you eat has disappeared from the grocery store altogether.

Or imagine eating only genetically engineered foods or a diet of exclusively liquid meal replacements.

These are scenarios that Amanda Little, an environmental journalist and professor at Vanderbilt University, envisions in her new book, The Fate of Food. Heat, droughts, flooding, forest fires, shifting seasons, and other factors, she argues, will radically alter our food landscape — what we eat, where it’s made, how we pay for it, and the choices we have. If we’re going to survive, she says, we’ll have to reinvent our entire global food system to adapt to the changing climate.

As Little puts it: “Climate change is becoming something we can taste.”

Sean Illing Which foods might we lose?

Amanda Little The most climate-vulnerable foods include those that are most fickle, needing very specific conditions to grow well, like coffee, wine grapes, olives, cacao, berries, citrus and stone fruits — as well as those that are most water-intensive, like almonds, avocados, and the alfalfa and pasture that feed cattle.

This is when some consumers start to stand up and listen: Yes, your chardonnay and strawberries are on the line.

Doooooooom! Not avocados!

Amanda: None of this means that in the future you won’t be able to eat organic, soil-grown crops or the craft meats you love today. It means that human innovation, which marries new and old approaches to food production, may be redefining sustainable food on a grand scale.

All because the temperature may go up a tiny bit more after the tiny 1.5F since 1850. Hysterics.

Read: The Climate Crisis Will End The Golden Era Of Food Choice Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Democrat Jay Inslee, Running On ‘Climate Change’, Realizes That No One Really Cares In Practice

By William Teach June 25, 2019 – 7:53 am

In theory, Democrats care about ‘climate change’, so he’s released his own 5 point plan, which is primarily about taking away your use of fossil fuels while he and other big wigs run around the country using a lot of fossil fuels

Jay Inslee unveils 5-point plan to fight climate change

Democratic presidential hopeful Jay Inslee announced a five-pronged plan Monday that’s geared to fight climate change change by ending fossil fuel pollution.

The Washington governor’s plan calls for the end of fossil fuel subsidies, would ban new federal leases for drilling, phase out fossil fuel production, reject new fossil fuel infrastructure and improve corporate climate transparency.

The Democrat’s plan puts climate action at the heart of US. foreign policy, and its goal would be to create 100 percent clean electricity, energy efficient cars and buildings while phasing out all coal plants. It will also create 8 million new jobs in infrastructure, manufacturing and innovation over the next decade, Inslee said.

Most of Inslee’s plans did not work to well while he was actually pretending to be the governor of Washington. Most were shot down in referendums. It is a silly plan, but, then, what would you expect.

But, here’s also Jay

Jay Inslee: ‘I Got a Whole Nother Story to Tell’

On Monday afternoon in the Everglades, Governor Jay Inslee of Washington was on a boat, using his phone to take a photo of an alligator. He was on his way to unveil his latest 2020 campaign initiative: a plan to completely end America’s use of fossil fuels—very on-brand for the Democratic candidate who’s all about climate change. Come Wednesday night, when he takes the stage for the first Democratic debates in Miami, Inslee will try to expand that brand.

Running as the Climate Guy helped Inslee make a splash in a primary field crowded with almost every type of Democrat. He picked a losing fight with the Democratic National Committee over its refusal to host a climate-change-only debate, a fight that has helped him win attention among environmentalists and stick-it-to-the-man enthusiasts alike. But Inslee knows that for as much as primary voters say they care about climate change, he’d probably have trouble getting them to support a single-issue presidential nominee, particularly in a field as diverse as this one.

So Climate Guy knows it’s time to branch out. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is the only top-polling candidate who’ll be on stage with Inslee Wednesday night, and his campaign believes he has an opportunity to stand out, one that he wouldn’t were he sharing the stage with former Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Senator Kamala Harris of California, and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who are all slated for Thursday night’s debate.

“Climate change is not a single issue, number one,” Inslee told me, sitting at a picnic table in a park outside Cedar Rapids, Iowa, recently, as he ticked through climate change’s impacts on health, national security, food, and more. “And number two, I got a whole nother story to tell,” he began. “Which is one of the most, if not the most, successful governors—with the most successful economy, with the most progressive successes. I got notches on my belt. I got bills to pass, and jobs I’ve created. And every single thing that the other aspirants have talked about, almost everything I can think of, I’ve done. So every speech they’ve given, I’ve passed a bill. I put somebody to work. I’ve financed a college education. I got the Dreamers paid for. I’ve done criminal justice reform. I’ve even made it safe for composting after you’ve passed from this earth.”

In other words, Jay has realized that this Hotcoldwetdry schitck is not working. In most polls he’s at a whopping 1%. And a guy with his experience would be polling higher, you would think, right? He is a governor. He’s been the Guy In Charge.

But, then, in practice, most Democrats do not care that about ‘climate change’, they want candidates who screech at Trump and push insane policies in an insane manner. Jay is rather mild mannered. Will he start yammering about eliminating college loans debt and medicare for all and amnesty and stuff? Might as well. ‘Climate change’ ain’t working.

Read: Democrat Jay Inslee, Running On ‘Climate Change’, Realizes That No One Really Cares In Practice »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Badly Divided Over Emergency Aid For Illegals At Border

By William Teach June 25, 2019 – 7:34 am

They caterwaul about how bad the conditions are in the detention facilities, yet, they want to play games with the funding

Emergency Aid for Migrants Badly Divides Democrats

Congress is trying to rush $4.5 billion in emergency humanitarian aid to the southwestern border while placing new restrictions on President Trump’s immigration crackdown, spurred on by disturbing images of suffering migrant families and of children living in squalor in overcrowded detention facilities.

But with a House vote on the package planned for Tuesday, some Democrats are revolting over the measure, fearing that the aid will be used to carry out Mr. Trump’s aggressive tactics, including deportation raids that he has promised will begin within two weeks. Republicans are siding with the White House, which on Monday threatened a veto. They oppose restrictions in the measure that are meant to dictate better standards for facilities that hold migrant children and to bar the money from being used for enforcing immigration law.

Those twin challenges have left the fate of the bill up in the air, even as evidence of deplorable conditions at the border underscores both the urgent need for the money and the bitter rift over Mr. Trump’s policies.

“Democrats distrust this president because we have seen his cruel immigration policies and lawless behavior terrorize our constituents,” Representative Nita M. Lowey of New York, the chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee, said on Monday evening as she pleaded with fellow Democrats to support the package. “That is why we have language to stop transfers of money for immigration raids and detention beds. But we cannot allow our anger at this president to blind us to the horrific conditions at facilities along the border as the agencies run out of money.”

Funny, the Democrats weren’t concerned when Mr. Obama was doing the same thing. He just had the luxury of not seeing the border being totally over-run with people in caravans demanding asylum, which requires detaining them till the case can be adjudicated. Do Democrats want to let them go with a pinky promise to return? Where will they live then? Lowey is correct, though, in that Democrats should put away their Trump Derangement Syndrome for a few minutes and do the right thing.

Hispanic-American lawmakers are particularly split; some are arguing that it is crucial to get the aid to agencies and outside groups assisting migrants at the border, while others say they will not be complicit in sending any money to the very departments that have carried out Mr. Trump’s harsh initiatives against immigrants.

“I will not fund another dime to allow ICE to continue its manipulative tactics,” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, said on Monday evening on her way into the meeting in Ms. Pelosi’s Capitol office.

ICE isn’t the one operating most of the facilities, that would be Customs and Border Control. Further, ICE must be funded by law. But, hey, when will AOC offer to house the illegals herself?

Essentially, Democrats and all their little groups are all over the place on what they want, and

(The Hill) The White House on Monday threatened to veto House Democrats’ proposal on how to meet its request for $4.5 billion in funds to address the influx of migrants on the southern border.

The House and Senate are considering competing bills this week to meet the Trump administration’s request.

While the Senate version is bipartisan, House Democrats are still trying to round up the votes for their bill amid concerns from Hispanic and progressive lawmakers wary of funding the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

In a statement on Monday, the Office of Management and Budget called the House measure a “partisan bill that underfunds necessary accounts and seeks to take advantage of the current crisis by inserting policy provisions that would make our country less safe.”

That statement is well worth the read, and highlights just how loopy the Democrats are.

Read: Democrats Badly Divided Over Emergency Aid For Illegals At Border »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

Hotcold Take: Winters Are Colder Because The Earth Is Heating Up

By William Teach June 24, 2019 – 3:48 pm

I’m kinda shocked the always excitable Salon is running this as summer begins. It’s usually reserved for winter time, but, hey, there’s been a bunch of late spring snow, so…

From the screed

But will all of this disastrous news make global warming and climate change more difficult to deny? Probably not, because when winter comes, it may be colder than ever, and last longer.

And try to explain this to the denier: the winters are colder — because the planet is heating up.

First, virtually no one is denying that it has gotten warmer since the end of the Little Ice Age. We disagree on causation,

Second, they’re actually arguing that a warming planet will now make winters colder and longer. Remember when they were saying that they would be shorter and not as cold? It’s a cult. It has no resemblance to science.

Read: Hotcold Take: Winters Are Colder Because The Earth Is Heating Up »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 24, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a sea rising from carbon pollution and encroaching on forests, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 90Ninety Miles From Tyranny, with a post on banning guns being a slippery slope.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Slate Spins Wheel And Decides That Deodorant Is Now Part Of The Patriarchy

By William Teach June 24, 2019 – 10:30 am

There are some days I think that Trump should start a big war with Iran, because it would mean that the nutters would stop inventing things to whine about. The thing about Peak Wokeness is that you never get there: the virtue signaling barking moonbats will always be able to find some minor, tiny thing and turn it into a mountain

From the “article“, which is nominally about the rise of natural deodorants, but, goes all woke

The answer is a little bit of both. We don’t need aluminum-free deodorant, but the social implications of products that allow women to sweat are good anyway. Deodorants were first sold in the late 1800s, with antiperspirants following shortly thereafter. But it took a bit of time for the concept of masking and/or stopping sweat to take off. Early marketing campaigns, as journalist Sarah Everts has reported, were designed to make women—and they were first marketed just to women—embarrassed about the entire concept of perspiration. A few years ago, Everts dug up sponsored newspaper stories from an early antiperspirant company called Odorono (that expands to: odor-o-no). They had titles like “The most humiliating moment in my life: When I overheard the cause of my unpopularity among men” (spoiler: it was sweat) and “If you long for romance don’t let your dress offend with ‘armhole odor.’ ”

Nowadays, it’s practically expected that women aren’t supposed to sweat through their armpits, which is why I’ve been using antiperspirants since I was in middle school. Using Clean Queen would be something of a sweating experiment for me, and one I was embarking on during the beginning of a new relationship. He’s a nice guy, but thanks to a literal century of the kinds of ads in the vein of the above, it felt fundamentally unwise. So, I planned my outfits carefully to not show pit stains: a tank top paired with a billowy cover-up, a jumpsuit in a dark color.

Sorry, chickie Shannon Palus, men aren’t expected to sweat through their non-workout clothes, either. And, yes, controlling odor. I use it every day even though I’m not much of a pit sweater, nor do I get stinky (more of a head and foot sweater). Some people need to use it more than others.

So, me and my luxury deodorant are not exactly bucking the patriarchy. Either way, our week together was a little slimy, but overall it exceeded my expectations. I’ve been using antiperspirants for so many years that I was surprised at how little I sweated, and I quickly stopped worrying so much about if my clothing would hide it. Plus, the Clean Queen kept my pits smelling like baking soda, though I’m now curious if I’d even smell that bad with nothing. The best part: I texted the new boyfriend, whom I had spent a significant chunk of my experiment hanging out with, to ask if he had even noticed the switch. A firm “nope.”

Read: Slate Spins Wheel And Decides That Deodorant Is Now Part Of The Patriarchy »

Posted in Special Snowflake Syndrome | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, What Will It Take To Win A Green New Deal Or Something

By William Teach June 24, 2019 – 6:58 am

Remember, folks, that the Green New Deal has nothing to do with Socialism nor politics, they just want to save the planet from having a fever

What Will it Take to Win a Green New Deal?

The push for a Green New Deal (GND) that’s become a big topic of political discussion in the US has come north. At the beginning of May 2019, the Pact for a Green New Deal was launched publicly in Canada. It was endorsed by a range of organizations and prominent individuals. Behind the scenes, staff from a number of major NGOs including Greenpeace and Leadnow are playing key roles in the initiative.

The Pact calls the GND “a vision of rapid, inclusive and far-reaching transition, to slash emissions, protect critical biodiversity, meet the demands of the multiple crises we face, and create over a million jobs in the process. It would involve the full implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) including the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), dozens of other pieces of legislation, new programs and institutions, and a huge mobilization calling on the creativity and participation of all of us.”

The Pact sets out “two fundamental principles” for a GND: “1. It must meet the demands of Indigenous Knowledge and science and cut Canada’s emissions in half in 11 years while protecting cultural and biological diversity”, and “2. It must leave no one behind and build a better present and future for all of us.” (snip)

It does matter what the specific GND policies will be – but not only or mainly for the reason that some anti-capitalists think. Some radicals in the US have dismissively criticized the GND championed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other Democratic politicians for not targeting the capitalist system itself. In a much more constructive reflection, British socialist Richard Seymour has asked if the GND depends “on magical thinking about technology and capitalism? Are the legislative tools it looks to adequate? Is it internationalist, or can it be? Does it risk further commodifying the natural world?” Seymour suggests “we need the GND plus something else.”

In other words, they want to make sure they target the capitalist system itself. In case you missed it, the link goes to The Socialist Project, which is pretty much as far Modern Socialist as you would think, and was originally published in The New Socialist

It’s more useful to think about a GND in the way McDonald suggests: “what a Green New Deal must do is begin to establish the political and cultural conditions in which this scale of transition becomes possible.” As US socialist Thea Riofrancos puts it (quoting left critic of the GND Jasper Bernes): “‘shifting the discussion, gathering political will, and underscoring the urgency of the climate crisis.’ If, through the vehicle of the amorphous Green New Deal, left forces might achieve these three tasks, that strikes me as an exceedingly important development; not an end in and of itself, of course, but it’s unclear to me how a pathway to radical transformation wouldn’t pass through these three crucial tests of political capacity.”

Put simply, what matters most about a GND is that it can serve as a tool that people can use to start to build a larger and more powerful movement for climate justice. What we need is many more people in motion. Another document that, like the Leap Manifesto of 2015, gets some people talking and influences left politics but doesn’t lead to mass action won’t cut it.

They want to use the manufactured “climate crisis” to institute all their Modern Socialism ideas. That Leap Manifesto is a doozy of far, far, far left ideas, which are actually far, far right ones, since they involve more and more government, moving into the Authoritarian model.

A clearer strategy for winning a GND has been proposed by 350.org’s new Our Time campaign. Our Time aims to mobilize young people “to vote for Green New Deal champions and against politicians in the pocket of Big Oil” in the federal election this fall and then “be ready after the election with a mass movement.”

They want the people who do not really understand Real Life yet, who do not understand the implications of their beliefs, and how they would be giving up their modern lifestyle, money, and freedom to Government.

We’ll need a really powerful movement because we’re not just up against the fossil fuel companies. The banks and other large corporations with significant investments in fossil fuels will also oppose any GND worthy of the name. So too will other capitalists who hate the idea of FPIC, massive public sector spending that doesn’t boost their profits, and a government job guarantee for anyone whose job is lost in a transition to renewable energy. In other words, supporters of a GND are up against the Canadian capitalist class (although some sectors are more hostile than others). We also have to contend with political parties that enthusiastically defend or, in the case of the NDP, accept the system that has us on a path to catastrophic climate change: capitalism.

Nope, this has nothing to do with Socialism at all.

Read: Say, What Will It Take To Win A Green New Deal Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | Comments Off on Say, What Will It Take To Win A Green New Deal Or Something | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove