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

Typical Barbecue Is Just As Bad As A 90 Mile Fossil Fueled Trip Or Something

By William Teach July 1, 2019 – 4:07 pm

In other words, there’s zero problem, but, hey, Warmist nags have to be Warmist nags

Typical barbecue is as bad for the planet as a 90 mile car journey, scientists warn

A typical barbecue releases as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as a 90-mile car journey, scientists have found.

The study found that red meat such as burgers were the worst culprit – causing nearly five times as much damage as one portion of chicken.

Adding cream to strawberries doubled the amount of greenhouse gas released, scientists said.

Manchester University experts calculated the impact of a typical barbecue meal based around beefburgers, before comparing it with a chicken-based meal, or a vegan option.

Their analysis found the burger meal, topped with cheese, would create more than 800 balloons worth of greenhouse gas emissions for a family of four – equivalent to a 90 mile drive in a typical car.

If the same family swapped the burgers for chicken, the emissions dropped dramatically – to the equivalent of 51 miles.

And those opting for vegetarian sausages, and cutting out extras like cheese and butter, saw their carbon footprint fall still lower, down to 33 miles per family.

Can these people be any more annoying? They can just mind their own business. Try yammering about this in the South and they’re lucky if the only phrase they hear is “bless your heart.” Keep going, and the next discussion involves what highways travel where. See, it’s funny that these same people want the Government out of our bedrooms (code for unfettered abortion) yet want the Government in every other aspect of our lives.

Read: Typical Barbecue Is Just As Bad As A 90 Mile Fossil Fueled Trip Or Something »

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

If All You See…

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

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle causing extreme weather clouds, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is DC Clothesline, with a post on Trump continuing to deport illegal aliens.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Cory Booker Is Super Enthused To Require Firearms Licensing For Law Abiding Citizens

By William Teach July 1, 2019 – 10:34 am

Everyone talks about wanting a ‘climate change’ debate for the Democrats. We also need a 2nd Amendment debate, where the Democrat presidential candidates can put forth their ideas on stage

See, the interesting thing here is that licensing would not have stopped the Parkland nutjob from shooting up the school. And Cory’s plan is focused almost exclusively on those who are law abiding citizens with firearms. There is nothing which would crack down on those who use/possess firearms illegally. Does anyone think that the people using them in places like Chicago (51 shot, 4 killed over the weekend) are buying them legally? Heck, Democrats are the ones who go soft on criminals, and even want to give them the vote.

Further, his plan goes after the NRA, a group made up of citizens engaged in employing their 1st Amendment Rights, including speech and petitioning for redress of grievance.

https://twitter.com/rightbrainkurt/status/1145545305749725184

From Cory’s plan

Here’s how it would work: Individuals could seek a gun license at a designated local office, widely available in urban and rural areas, similar to applying for or renewing a passport. They would submit fingerprints, provide basic background information, and demonstrate completion of a certified gun safety course.

The FBI would then verify submission of required materials and run a comprehensive background check before issuing a federal gun license, after which the license-holder could freely purchase and own firearms. The license would be valid for up to five years before renewal with regular, automatic checks to flag non-compliance with license terms.

Does anyone think criminals will do this? Further, the problem here is that this is not the end point, it is simply the beginning. Implement this, and then they make it tougher and tougher for law abiding citizens to comply, just like we saw in the District of Columbia, which led to the Heller decision. It was so burdensome and so restrictive that almost no law abiding citizens could obtain the permit. It’s why the Supreme Court has agreed to take up a suit against NYC and their restrictions.

Institute licensing, and not only will the gun grabbers make it harder and harder, but then they will want more restrictions. Bans on guns and ammo. Restrictions and bans on where you can carry them. Do away with concealed carry. Gun “buy backs” which turn people who legally purchased their firearm into criminals if they do not turn them in. Do away with Castle Doctrine and all self defense. Suing gun manufacturers out of business (which is part of Cory’s plan) so no one can actually purchase a firearm, because they aren’t being made.

This is why 2nd Amendment supporters won’t agree to anything, because we know that this will be death by a thousand papercuts.

 

Read: Cory Booker Is Super Enthused To Require Firearms Licensing For Law Abiding Citizens »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 23 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post Offers Questions That Should Be Asked During A Climate Focused Debate Or Something

By William Teach July 1, 2019 – 7:36 am

The Washington Post has asked a bunch of high muckity muck Warmists to offer some questions that should be asked of Democrats if they ever do a ‘climate change’ debate. The questions themselves tell an interesting story (remember, they are offering questions, not answer, here)

A climate-focused presidential debate? Here’s what moderators should ask.

Carol M. Browner Question: If Republicans still controlled at least one house of Congress when you took office, what would you be prepared to do on Day One, under existing executive authority, to set the country on a path to address the existential threat posed by climate change?

Katharine Hayhoe Question: How do you propose to move past the political posturing and rampant disinterest to persuade legislators and elected officials across the spectrum that climate action is not about defending a political position but about ensuring a safe future for ourselves and our children?

Ann Carlson Question: A number of cities around the country have sued oil companies for damages they are already experiencing as a result of climate change, such as sea level rise, wildfires, flooding, hurricanes and heat waves. Major oil companies want immunity from these lawsuits in exchange for agreeing to support a carbon tax. Do you support exempting oil companies from climate lawsuits in exchange for a carbon tax?

Kristie L. Ebi Question : Government agencies have supported limited research to better understand the health risks of climate change or to identify actions to prepare for its risks. How will your administration ensure the health and well-being of Americans in a changing climate?

These are all about how to increase the power of the Central Government. Jamming policies down the throats of citizens. Hayhoe’s question is interesting, in that she has pretty much admitted that there is “rampant disinterest” to Do Something about ‘climate change.’

Beverly Wright Question: If elected, would you join action on climate change with action to achieve environmental justice in communities of color burdened with racially disproportionate toxic pollution? How would you get this done?

See, this is not only about massively expanding Government, but about all the Social Justice Warrioring. It has nothing to do with actual science, unless we’re talking political science and social science.

Bill Nye Question: How would you persuade climate deniers in Congress to help you address the problem? Or how would you work around the deniers?

If you’re starting off by comparing people who aren’t buying into the notion that climatic changes are mostly/solely caused by mankind to Holocaust deniers, you aren’t going to be able to persuade anyone. They’re just going to tune you out. But, really, who are the real deniers? Those who do not believe that this is mostly/solely caused by Mankind, or those who do yet refuse to give up their own use of fossil fuels and make their lives carbon neutral?

Anyhow, I have a few questions myself they should be asked

  • When are you going to give up your own prolific use of fossil fuels, traveling around the nation on planes and in big SUVS while campaigning?
  • When will you give up your big house, and, for some of you, houses, and live in a tiny home with a small footprint?
  • How much of your own money are you will to have taken by government to pay for your Hotcoldwetdry ideas?
  • How do you propose to convince citizens that having their cost of living skyrocket while taking away their freedom and choice is a good thing?
  • The majority of citizens, including Democrat aren’t willing to spend more than $10 a month for Hotcoldwetdry: do you plan on convincing them that they should want to have more money taken, or will you just take it?
  • For those in the Senate, why did you vote “present” for the Green New Deal? For those in the House, why aren’t you demanding a vote on the GND?
  • What specific automobiles do you own?
  • Have you gone vegetarian yet, or at least give up meat multiple times a week?
  • Why aren’t you answering these questions, and when will you stop being a climahypocrite and make your life carbon neutral?

Warmists really do not like to answer questions that are inconvenient. Hence once reason there will be no climate debate. They really do not want to be shown as hypocrites, nor do they want to expose just how much this will cost citizens.

Read: Washington Post Offers Questions That Should Be Asked During A Climate Focused Debate Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Climahypocrites, Democrats, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

California Budget Provides Health Care For Illegal Aliens

By William Teach July 1, 2019 – 7:12 am

They can’t fix all the garbage, poop, and used hypodermic needles in the streets. Rat populations are exploding. Typhus and typhoid are showing up. Homelessness is high. So, hey, let’s provide more incentive for illegals to come to California

California’s $215 Billion Budget Includes Health Care for Illegal Aliens

California’s Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a $215 billion budget on Thursday, which includes taxpayer-funded health care for illegal aliens.

Newsom signed the massive $214.8 billion funding bill into law, which includes a provision that would expand health care for people who are illegally in the U.S. and penalizes people who do not purchase health insurance, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The California Democrat had proposed expanding health care for illegal aliens long before he took office.

In an August 2018 interview, Newsom said he would use an executive order to give universal health care to those residing in the U.S. illegally. Once Newsom took office in January, he proposed expanding Medi-Cal, the state version of Medicaid, to illegal aliens up to 26 years old.

Newsom proposed that $98 million in the budget should go to expanding taxpayer-funded health care for illegal aliens between 19 and 25 years old, but one state Assembly bill proposed setting aside $3.4 billion to cover all illegal aliens over 19 years old.

How much this will cost the taxpayers of California is not fully known. The LA Times story says

Medi-Cal eligibility is also being extended to adults in the U.S. illegally through the age of 25. Under that effort, which was championed by Newsom, immigration status won’t be considered for any child or young adult — an expansion of the program that puts California ahead of other states. Democratic lawmakers had wanted to provide access to anyone who meets financial eligibility requirements but lacks legal residency, but Newsom balked over the price tag. Expect those discussions to resume in next year’s state budget talks.

Now, $36 billion for Medi-Cal and it’s expansion comes from California. $64 billion comes from the federal government. Might we see Los Federales reduce their outlay, since some of that money is going to illegal aliens? We’ll probably know within a few weeks.

Another question about this is whether illegal aliens will be penalized for not having appropriate health insurance. Because there is now a health insurance mandate with specific monetary penalties per this budget. While also expanding those who are covered by Medi-Cal.

Read: California Budget Provides Health Care For Illegal Aliens »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on California Budget Provides Health Care For Illegal Aliens | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove