Comrade Bernie’s Green New Deal Would Essentially Nationalize The U.S. Energy Sector

By William Teach September 13, 2019 – 7:11 am

Hey, this isn’t me saying this (though, having read Comrade Bernie’s GND policy, I completely agree): this is the far left AlterNet, which is all about Trump hatred, holding Trump responsible, and I just got a popup ad asking for money to try and get Democrats to call John Bolton to testify

Bernie Sanders’ Green New Deal plan will nationalize power generation in the US

Bernie Sanders recently released his plan for implementing the Green New Deal. These include such comprehensive goals as transitioning to 100% renewable energy for electricity and transportation by 2030 and decarbonizing the entire economy by 2050 (full details here).

To get there, Sanders plans a number of ambitious projects, including massive and job-creating infrastucture spending and “declaring climate change a national emergency.” The implications of the latter are not entirely spelled out. A number of candidates have proposals that “declare a national emergency” regarding climate change, but not in the same sense that George W. Bush, for example, may have meant had he declared the 9/11 attacks a national emergency (he didn’t, but he could have).

(Excerpts from Comrade Bernie’s plan)

The plan has rightly been called a nationalization of electric power generation. Chris Hayes noted this fact in his recent interview with Sanders, calling it “a federal takeover of the whole thing,” to which Sanders essentially agrees (see video at the top). Other writers have said the same. For example, In These Times, under the headline “Bernie Sanders Calls To Seize the Means of Electricity Production” accurately describes the plan as “moving toward 100% public ownership of power.”

So there really is no doubt. Sanders, if he’s elected, plans to nationalize electricity generation in the U.S.

Yes, there is video at the link. This one

And, of course, climate cultists are excited!

What are the implications of this proposal? A few thoughts:

1. Bernie Sanders is serious about addressing climate change. Simply speaking, Sanders is right. It’s long past time for tinkering around the edges of the problem.

What could possibly go wrong with the Central Government nationalizing the entire energy sector? Also, where are all the Internet folks who told me I was a crazy conspiracy theorist (among other slurs) for noting that the Cult of Climastrology wants to take over the energy sector (among other things)?

Put simply, American voters must be allowed to choose whether or not to address climate change meaningfully, regardless of the possibility that they may choose not to address it at all. An honest conversation is the least we owe voters whose descendants will ultimately thank them or hate them for what they finally decide. Letting voters choose for themselves is called democracy.

Despite the fears of many though, there are reasons for optimism. If voters are given a realistic discussion of the alternatives and a realistic presentation of the way to get there, they could easily choose well. They certainly chose well under FDR, when war raged in Europe and the Imperial Japanese wolf was at the door. It’s at least even odds they would choose as wisely again, when all of nature seems poised to cause their demise.

Really? Climate cultist Thomas Neuburger thinks that the American people will choose to have the government nationalize the energy sector for reals? Remember, again, 68% of Americans do not want to pay $10 a month to “solve” Hotcoldwetdry.

Read: Comrade Bernie’s Green New Deal Would Essentially Nationalize The U.S. Energy Sector »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Democrats, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

After Flavored E-Cigarette Ban, Gun Grabbers Want To Ban Guns

By William Teach September 13, 2019 – 6:57 am

There’s some uncertainty over what the proposed ban would cover: will it be all flavored e-juice, or just pods? Pods are cartridges that contain e-liquid that you attach to the batteries. This is for things like the JUUL, which you hear a lot about. With straight e-liquid, you fill up a container yourself. Those people with the monster size devices in their hands which release tons of “smoke” use this. It’s what I use (though I use a small Kanger EVOD, easier in the pocket.) I like my coffee flavors. But, of course, this leads the gun grabbers to call for gun grabbing

American children are under attack — but not from flavored vapes

There have been 22 shootings at U.S. schools in 2019 alone. Active-shooter drills are a back-to-school activity. America’s children are under attack.

And President Trump has moved to protect them by banning … flavored vape pods?

Apparently, it’s a mint-flavored Juul that stands as the biggest threat to children today. (snip)

It’s something of a shock, then, to remember that this administration and the Republicans that back it can’t even bring themselves to cast a sideways glance at a gun, even though firearms cause an average of 1,500 children’s deaths each year. According to the University of Michigan, middle- and high-school-age children are now more likely to die as the result of a firearm injury than from any other single cause of death. Every day an average of 100 Americans are killed by guns. What about the youths affected by that?

Sure seems like that is a call to ban firearms, does it not? Even though the same Washington Post says you should be worried if your teen smells like berries, cotton candy, or mint. But, then

As news of the Trump administration’s plan to ban most flavored e-cigarettes rippled across social media, another topic quickly hijacked the conversation: gun control. Pointing out that the thousands of gun deaths in the United States vastly outnumber the six fatalities attributed to vaping, some activists and legislators bemoaned the lack of meaningful action on guns. They renewed demands for gun-control measures such as bans on assault rifles.

“Now do AR-15s,” tweeted Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who was among several prominent voices, including Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts, the March for Our Lives movement, comedian Dave Weasel and actress Bette Midler, in drawing the comparison with guns.

The Post then offers more unhinged tweets

Calls for legislation addressing gun violence have ramped up in recent months. On Thursday, one day after Trump’s e-cigarette announcement, the CEOs of 145 U.S. companies urged Senate leaders to expand background checks for gun purchases and strengthen red-flag laws. The executives, who lead companies such as Yelp, Dick’s Sporting Goods and Levi Strauss, wrote that they had a responsibility to “stand up for the safety of our employees, customers and all Americans in the communities we serve across the country.”

First, these CEO’s surely have their own personal armed security. Second, when you start seeing links to guns in a discussion of banning flavored e-cigarettes, you know the Gunnites are looking for more than just “expanded background checks and red flag laws.

And then you gave the Democrats who specifically tell us what they are going to do. It won’t be just bans of new sales, but forced confiscation of existing firearms.

Read: After Flavored E-Cigarette Ban, Gun Grabbers Want To Ban Guns »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

News Outlet NJ.com To Join Climate Cult

By William Teach September 12, 2019 – 4:55 pm

Will Advance Media owned NJ.com be offering all sides of the debate, or just one side?

Why we’re joining hundreds of news outlets to cover climate change

On September 23, world leaders will gather at the United Nations in New York to decide how global society will deal with one of the most far-reaching problems we face today: Climate Change.

That meeting is the United Nations Climate Action Summit, and it is set to be a landmark event in which the nations of the world will submit their plans to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.

NJ Advance Media, the journalistic engine behind NJ.com and The Star-Ledger, is joining more than 170 other media outlets across the globe for an initiative called Covering Climate Now.

The goal of the project — which is led by The Guardian, The Nation and Columbia Journalism Review — is to have a week’s worth of climate coverage leading up to the international summit. Stories will run online, in newspapers, on television and on radio.

Our goal at NJ Advance Media is to illustrate how climate change is already impacting the lives of New Jerseyans, and what those impacts will look like in the future.

I’m guessing the answer to my question is “no way in hell.” The UK Guardian long ago gave up any pretense of journalism, and is purely an activist media outlet, as much so as Media Matters, the now dead Think Progress, and the HuffPost. Heck, the NY Times opinion section offers more opposing voices than the UK Guardian.

Taking a look around, it doesn’t seem like other Advance Media properties are engaged in this. At least yet. Though, Conde Nast, The New Yorker, Teen Vogue, Vanity Fair, and Wired have long been in the Cult of Climastrology (and are involved in this project). CBS news is also involved, as is the uber far left Democracy Now

We are committed to covering climate change in New Jersey, and we are proud to join such an expansive initiative to spotlight the expansive and pervasive issue.

But, they won’t be committed to providing actual news, just climate cultist propaganda, while refusing to give up their own use of fossil fuels and making the companies involved in NJ.com carbon neutral.

Oh, and you know this is insane when the refer to Bill McKibben as an “independent journalist.”

Read: News Outlet NJ.com To Join Climate Cult »

Posted in Global Warming, Journalistic Malpractice | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 12, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…are horrible fossil fueled vehicles releasing carbon pollution causing earthquakes that raise the land, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is America’s Watchtower, with a post on the Supreme Court allowing Trump’s asylum rule to go forward.

Back to Brazil.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Team Trump To Fly Anti-Socialism Banner Over Democratic Debate

By William Teach September 12, 2019 – 10:30 am

Say what you will about Trump and his team, they know how to get their message out in a different way than most modern politicians, especially Republicans. Democrats have tended to use their surrogates for the hits, with the media providing even more as they amplify it. Republicans have just wilted. Not Trump

Trump campaign flying anti-socialism banner above Democratic debate

President Trump’s reelection campaign will be flying a banner attacking socialism in Houston on Thursday, shortly before Democratic presidential candidates take the debate stage there.

An official with the campaign told ABC News that the group plans to fly a banner that reads, “Socialism will kill Houston’s economy,” from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. The third Democratic presidential debate is scheduled to begin an hour later.

The campaign also plans to take out two full-page advertisements in local newspapers taking aim at Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), former Vice President Joe Biden and former Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Julián Castro. The ads will run in Houston and in San Antonio, where Castro was born, the campaign said.

Erin Perrine, deputy communications director for the campaign, said in a statement that “every single Democrat candidate has job killing, economy crushing policies that won’t work for America.”

“Team Trump is here to remind them and let everyone in Houston know what a complete disaster Democrats are for America,” Perrine added.

And what happens? Well, media folks are publishing articles about this, so people find out. Even if the TV folks refuse to show the banner, it will show up on social media and be spread around and people will see it. And then the news media will publish stories on it Friday. The cost?

Both the ads and the fly-over banner cost the campaign around $7,500, ABC News reported.

That’s $7,500 well spend. This will make a nationwide impression for just $7,500.

That was from Labor Day weekend, when those banners flew, for just $20,000. Maximizing the views.

Read: Team Trump To Fly Anti-Socialism Banner Over Democratic Debate »

Posted in Democrats, Donald Trump | 48 Comments | Trackback URL

‘Climate Change’ Making You Nuts? There’s A Word For That Or Something

By William Teach September 12, 2019 – 8:49 am

There’s also a phrase: bat-guano insane. But, the wackadoodles in the Cult of Climastrology want to make their idiocy sound legitimate, instead of being a bunch of whiny, and hypocritical, babies

Climate change got you down? There’s a word for what you’re feeling

For the past 14 years, the end of summer has arrived like a burden, heavy with the anniversary of when my life, and so many others’, was split in two. Anyone affected by Hurricane Katrina is party to dual lives: One before the waves crashed in and left mud and mildew in their wake, before homes were marked with X’s by rescue crews, before our neighbors fled — and one after.

I could never really capture this feeling with words. It was a complicated mix of sadness, fear, misery, despair. But none of those words quite cut to the core of the sensation.

When I discovered the term for environmental anguish, in a National Geographic write-up, it felt like a diagnosis. I read the definition over and over again. “Solastalgia, a form of mental or existential distress caused by environmental change.” The word itself also reflects the duality of the feeling. Solastalgia is a combination of Latin’s solacium, meaning comfort, and algia, a Greek root for pain. The pain of losing the comforts of home.

Well, I can see how one could have some distress over what happened there going back, say, 10 years, but, it’s been 14 years, it hasn’t happened again, and the disaster had exactly zero to do with anthropogenic climate change. Is there a term for incompetent Democratic Party leaders who really hosed the New Orleans and Louisiana responses? Demastalgia? Remember, Katrina did not make landfall on New Orleans, but further to the east, and we did not hear about all these problems, because they were Republican run areas.

Many factors contributed to the destruction following Hurricane Katrina — from a lack of federal support to man-made miscalculations. But scientists are still examining how climate change played into the natural disaster. There’s no straightforward answer, but factors like sea level rise and warming Gulf waters, which affects the scale of hurricanes, have clear connections to global climate change.

As our climate situation becomes increasingly dire, the country is beginning to experience emergencies that grow to more catastrophic levels with each passing season. There are unprecedented winter storms, floods, heat waves and, of course, wildfires.

Actually, no there aren’t, but, it’s cute how they are blaming winter storms on increasing warmth, pretty much because they’re nuts.

Solastalgia. There is finally a word. Something to describe an indescribable feeling. While there is a feeling of camaraderie and acceptance in finding a description to share with others who have felt the pain of losing their environment, the reason for the word’s emergence in our vocabulary is also a warning.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Making You Nuts? There’s A Word For That Or Something »

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

Surprise: Democrats Admit That Their “Assault Weapons” Ban Harms Law Abiding Citizens

By William Teach September 12, 2019 – 8:29 am

Democrats are having a bit of an issue getting their “assault weapons” ban to the floor, all while a main sponsor explains what it would really do

Support erodes for a ban on assault weapons

As Democrats make an aggressive push for new gun control legislation, they have made a calculated decision to stop short of pursuing their most ambitious goal: an assault weapons ban.

The overwhelming majority of House Democrats — 211, seven shy of the 218 needed for passage — are co-sponsoring legislation to ban military-style semi-automatic weapons, similar to the ban in effect from 1994 to 2004. But some centrist Democrats remain skittish about any proposal that keeps firearms from law-abiding citizens — a frequent charge against Democrats by Republicans and gun rights groups — making a ban politically risky for moderates in Trump-friendly districts. In the Senate, it draws less support.

The split reveals just how complicated gun politics remain inside the Democratic Party, even as mass shootings are terrorizing the nation and the Twitter hashtag #DoSomething has captured the mounting public demands for Congress to act.

“A frequent charge against Democrats”

“Let’s be honest,” said Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island, the sponsor of the current assault weapons measure. “Every other bill that we’ve done tries to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. This is the one piece of legislation that keeps a particular weapon out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. A lot of people have enormous objections to that.”

So, it is about taking weapons away from law abiding citizens. But, wait, I thought any push for a new ban wouldn’t affect current owners? No? Isn’t that what they tell us? That this bill would simply outlaw the new sales of the hundreds of firearm models (the 1994 ban only banned 19)? It sounds like they are trying to take them away from citizens.

(The 1994 assault weapons ban) also outlawed magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, while allowing people who already had such weapons to keep them. But it had a sunset provision, and Congress refused to renew it when it expired in 2004, in part because Democrats were nervous that it could cost them reelection.

What happens when you try and actually ban magazines that hold more than 10 round and take them away from citizens?

Not an exageration

A New Jersey State Police spokesman said not a single large-capacity magazine has been turned in since the law went into effect nearly nine months ago. Residents can also bring them to their local police departments.

Remember, Australia has only seen about 20% of weapons turned in from their ban, and New Zealand isn’t seeing that many turned in.

Read: Surprise: Democrats Admit That Their “Assault Weapons” Ban Harms Law Abiding Citizens »

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

HotCold Take: 9/11 Took Focus Away From ‘Climate Change’, Other SJW Things

By William Teach September 11, 2019 – 4:44 pm

Over at the NY Times, which has almost no coverage of September 11th, despite being in one of 3 cities that saw specific damage from the attacks (not too mention where all the murdered people were from), Omer Aziz writes what you think might be one of those “Islamophobia” pieces, complaining about people being mean to him because Muslim extremists attacked America that day, based on the headline and subhead

The World 9/11 Took From Us
I’m still mourning the life I lived before I learned that I was different.

It actually doesn’t really go down those roads, except very lightly. Here’s where it does end up going deep in the piece

There was a hidden cost to all this enormous energy expended on war and bombings. Not just the refugees or the cages or the guarantee of tomorrow’s terrorists. Not just the racism and xenophobia internalized by brown-skinned children who became adults in the shadows of this mass tragedy. All the policy focus on war meant there was too little time spent on the cataclysmic challenges of the 21st century: climate change and wealth inequality, both of which will plague our generation long after the warmongers have disappeared.

There were a few other hot-takes, such as the “Bush lied” meme, but, seriously, dragging ‘climate change’ into this is just stupid, along with the other stuff. Aziz does try to soften that blow

This is not to exculpate the terrorists or their ideology. For them, I reserve a special fury, just as their actions induce in me a special shame. When I think of Islamists monopolizing and weaponizing a great religion, I am filled with rage — rage at the audacity to shout Allah’s name while sending innocent people to their deaths; rage at the perversion of so many minds by their religious leaders; rage at the reality of living in a brown body that is stereotyped, misperceived and disfigured beyond my recognition — and there is nothing I can do to save it. This is the world Sept. 11 gave us.

Whoops, some Islamophobia, which seems to make him more upset than his co-religionists being murderous nutjobs.

Read: HotCold Take: 9/11 Took Focus Away From ‘Climate Change’, Other SJW Things »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Barking Moonbats, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 11, 2019 – 1:00 pm

….the awesome American flag, you might just be a Patriot

Skipping the normal today for September 11th, so, the blogs of the day with 9/11 posts (at the time of writing this early am) are

Never Forget.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in 2996, If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Trump Wants To Take On Homelessness, And, Of Course, That’s a Bad Thing

By William Teach September 11, 2019 – 10:56 am

It’s mostly Democratic Party run cities that are having massive problems with homelessness, especially in places like San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, and others. So, hottakes abound. Here’s the LA Times

Editorial: Surprise! Trump wants to help L.A.’s homeless by cracking down on them

Everyone in Los Angeles County knows how pervasive and intractable a problem homelessness is. Even as we increase the number of shelter beds and build permanent supportive housing and dispense rental subsidies and provide all manner of other services, it’s not enough to stanch the flow of newly homeless people onto the sidewalks.

So the arrival this week of a group of officials from the Trump administration saying they want to learn about homelessness ought to be a hopeful sign. It should be a good thing that the federal government, with all its experts and money and other resources, is interested and wants to help. (snip)

But, sadly, help is not what we’ve come to expect from the Trump administration. The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the president wants to conduct a sweeping “crackdown” on California’s homeless, razing encampments and moving homeless people into “government-backed facilities.” A Trump spokesman said that the president blames “liberal policies of overregulation, excessive taxation, and poor public service delivery” for homelessness and poverty in California, which he has called “a disgrace.”

So, giving them a roof over their head, beds, clean clothes, and food is Bad because Trump wants to help.

(NY Times) Three mayors — Libby Schaaf of Oakland, Sam Liccardo of San Jose and Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento — said they saw the administration’s foray into the state’s homelessness crisis as 2020 presidential politics.

“Homelessness is not a partisan issue and we shouldn’t make it one,” Mr. Liccardo said. “Both Democrats and Republicans are dying on our streets.”

But the ballooning crisis in the state — the number of homeless people in San Jose, for example, is up by 42 percent from two years ago — has happened on the Democrats’ watch and Mr. Trump appears to see political vulnerability for them in the issue.

Or, perhaps Trump cares that these shithole liberal cities are failing their residents and wants to actually help. Esquire’s headline/subhead is

Trump’s Sudden Interest in California’s Homeless Is a 2020 Campaign Tactic, Plain and Simple
The rubes at the rallies love horror stories about The Big Bad Cities and The Big Bad People who live there.

Media Matters For Amerika goes with conspiracy

Fox News has spent months demonizing homelessness in California. Now Trump wants a major crackdown.

Deranged

Read: Trump Wants To Take On Homelessness, And, Of Course, That’s a Bad Thing »

Posted in Democrats, Donald Trump, Unhinged Tools | 17 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove