Politico: ‘Climate Change’ Is A Trap For Democrats

By William Teach June 14, 2019 – 7:01 am

Conservative Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, is not helping by telling the reality of the issue, but, really, Democrats won’t listen in the first place

For the Democrats, Climate Is a Trap

The more the climate debate changes, the more it stays the same.

Polls show that the public is worried about climate change, but that doesn’t mean that it is anymore ready to bear any burden or pay any price to combat it.

If President Donald Trump claws his way to victory again in Pennsylvania and the Upper Midwest, his path will likely go through abortion and climate change, two issues on which the Democrats are most inflamed, confident in their righteousness and willing to embrace radical policies that appeal to their own voters much more than anyone else.

Climate is a watchword among the Democratic presidential candidates — and an enormous downside risk. Once everyone on your own side agrees about an issue, and once you are convinced that you are addressing a planet-threatening crisis that will become irreversible in about a decade’s time, prudence and incrementalism begin to look dispensable.

There’s no doubt that climate is a top-tier issue for Democrats. In a CNN poll, 96 percent of Democrats say it’s very important that candidates support “taking aggressive action to slow the effects of climate change.” Its doubtful that mom, baseball and apple pie would poll any higher.

It’s also true that the public is adopting climate orthodoxy. According to a survey by climate change programs at Yale and George Mason, 70 percent believe that climate change is happening, and 57 percent believe that humans are causing it.

It’s easy to overinterpret these numbers, though. While a big majority of Democrats see climate change as a problem, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found only 15 percent of Republicans and — more important — just 47 percent of independents do.

What those polls never note is how much is being caused by Humanity. I’ve noted many times that I think Mankind bears a small burden, mostly having to do with land use and the urban heat island effect, with another small part being from various greenhouse and other gases. Anyhow

Of course, saying climate change is a problem doesn’t cost anyone anything. An AP/University of Chicago poll asked people how much they were willing to pay to fight climate change, and 57 percent said at least $1 a month, or not even the cost of a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Other surveys show people aren’t willing to pay more than $10 a month to solve Hotcoldwetdry.

The political experience of other advanced democracies is a flashing red light on the climate. In Australia last month, the opposition lost what was supposed to be “the climate change” election, against all expectations. In May, the New York Times ran an article headlined, “Australia’s Politics May Be Changing With Its Climate.” Polling showed that about 60 percent of Australians called climate change “a serious and pressing problem,” and thought the government should address it “even if this involves significant costs.”

It turned out that it was one thing to tell that to pollsters and another to vote to make it happen. The opposition promised a 45 percent reduction in carbon emissions with no serious pain while the conservative governing coalition focused on the cost, and won.

It was, again, the second time this decade where voters destroyed the party pushing ‘climate change’ policies, the other being the Queensland elections in 2012. Further, Lowry mentions the yellow vest strikes and riots in France when the government attempted to jack up the cost of fuel even more. BTW, that movement is still going strong.

After going through a bit more, Lowry writes

All this should counsel caution rather than apocalyptic rhetoric and policies, although Trump has every reason to hope it doesn’t.

Caution is not something Democrats are known for, nor the Cult of Climastrology. Just like with abortion, they will over-reach, and when they start accidentally explaining just how much their ‘climate change’ policies will cost and how much choice and freedom will be lost, it’s going to be pretty ugly.

Read: Politico: ‘Climate Change’ Is A Trap For Democrats »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Hot Take: U.S. Seizes On Iranian Tanker Attacks

By William Teach June 14, 2019 – 6:45 am

See, the problem according to CNN’s Stephen Collinson is not that the Iranians attacked tankers, but that Trump and his people are seizing

US seizes on tanker attacks to up the stakes with Iran

When a US Secretary of State is as swift and unequivocal as Mike Pompeo was in blaming Iran for brazen attacks on two fuel tankers in the Gulf of Oman, he begs an equally blunt question.

What is the United States going to do about it?

Just over 12 hours after reports broke in slumbering Washington about the new crisis, Pompeo appeared in the State Department Briefing Room to significantly raise the stakes.

“It is the assessment of the United States government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today,” Pompeo said.

He cited intelligence, weapons used, the required expertise and sophistication of the assault and previous attacks to conclude it was the latest assault by Iran on “freedom-loving nations.”

Pompeo offered no evidence for his accusations. He did not allow questions so journalists could challenge his assertions. And his decision not to allow a few days to elapse for a full investigation left no doubt about US intentions.

He left the room after warning the “United States will defend its forces, interests, and stand with our partners and allies to safeguard global commerce and regional stability.”

Later on Thursday night, US Central Command released a video that it claims shows a smaller Iranian boat sailing up next to the tanker to remove an unexploded mine. An individual stands up on the bow of the boat and can be seen removing an object from the tanker’s hull. The US says that object is likely an unexploded mine.

Here’s the video

But, wait, it could all be a false flag!

Apart from Pompeo’s swift warning to Iran over the attacks and the CENTCOM video, there has not yet been any independent international assessment that blames Iran or its proxies for the attacks — though suspicion is hanging heavy on the Islamic Republic.

The Trump administration’s documented record of perpetrating falsehoods means it inevitably faces a higher bar for its statements on an issue as critical as Iran. Memories are also still fresh of botched intelligence that led the US into war with Iraq.

And all sorts of Democratic Party voters are trotting out their conspiracy theories, such as

Murray is a former British ambassador.

Anyhow, what will happen? Time will tell. Iran should realize, though, that Trump is not Obama. Trump won’t sit idly by while Iran brazenly attacks. He’s not Obama, who sat back meekly while Iran seized American naval boats and held the U.S. Navy personnel hostage.

Read: Hot Take: U.S. Seizes On Iranian Tanker Attacks »

Posted in Current Affairs, Iran, Wonky Media | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Oregon Carbon Tax Proposal Clears Final Committee, Full Vote Next

By William Teach June 13, 2019 – 3:25 pm

They should put this up for a referendum instead of a general assembly vote, and see how that goes. Usually, the carbon tax legislation loses. But, hey, this is vastly left leaning Oregon, so, let them suffer under the policies they push

Oregon’s Major Climate Change Proposal Clears Final Committee

A sweeping proposal for sharply curbing Oregon’s greenhouse gas emissions over the next three decades is headed to a vote on the House floor.

In a brief hearing Wednesday, the Legislature’s full budget committee passed House Bill 2020 out on a 13-8 partyline vote. The bill would institute a cap-and-trade program in the state beginning in 2021, and gradually reduce emissions until 2050.

The vote was significant. Roughly a decade after policymakers first began thinking about putting a price on emissions, Democrats’ most detailed proposal for doing so is within two votes of becoming law.

That doesn’t mean it is clear of challenges. In recent days, lobbyists for manufacturing companies have exerted pressure on Democrats to pull support from the bill. And in a move clearly meant to send a signal, backers of an effort to revoke a new tax for schools announced a $1 million contribution shortly after the vote. Capitol sources say the group has offered to pull back on the referral effort if key lawmakers would abandon the cap-and-trade bill.

Elected Democrats actually do not want to give The People of Oregon a chance to vote on it themselves

Sen. Fred Girod, R-Stayton, made his third unsuccessful effort in as many meetings to have an emergency clause stripped from the bill.

The clause ensures the bill would take effect when it’s signed by Gov. Kate Brown, rather than three months after the end of legislative session. But it would also prevent opponents from gathering signatures to refer the law directly to the ballot. Republicans have argued that denies voters their fundamental rights.

Democrats love the notion of Direct Democracy, except when they know they’ll lose.

Read: Oregon Carbon Tax Proposal Clears Final Committee, Full Vote Next »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Democrats, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 13, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a world turning to desert and flood from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Patterico’s Pontifications, with a post on a federal death penalty case in a state without a death penalty.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 46 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Most “Asylum” Seekers Are Ineligible To Stay In U.S. While Waiting

By William Teach June 13, 2019 – 10:47 am

This is the way it should be: if you want asylum, you should be applying elsewhere, rather than streaming to the U.S. border demanding asylum when you are caught

Exclusive: Asylum seekers returned to Mexico rarely win bids to wait in U.S.

Over two hours on June 1, a Honduran teenager named Tania pleaded with a U.S. official not to be returned to Mexico.

Immigration authorities had allowed her mother and younger sisters into the United States two months earlier to pursue claims for asylum in U.S. immigration court. But they sent Tania back to Tijuana on her own, with no money and no place to stay.

The 18-year-old said she told the U.S. official she had seen people on the streets of Tijuana linked to the Honduran gang that had terrorized her family. She explained that she did not feel safe there.

After the interview, meant to assess her fear of return to Mexico, she hoped to be reunited with her family in California, she said. Instead, she was sent back to Mexico under a Trump administration policy called the “Migrant Protection Protocols”(MPP), which has forced more than 11,000 asylum seekers to wait on the Mexican side of the border for their U.S. court cases to be completed. That process can take months.

Tania’s is not an unusual case. Once asylum seekers are ordered to wait in Mexico, their chances of getting that decision reversed on safety grounds – allowing them to wait out their proceedings in the United States – are exceedingly small, a Reuters analysis of U.S. immigration court data from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) shows.

The interesting part is most of the asylum seekers are not showing up and claiming they love America and want to be part of the American experience. They are showing up and demanding that America take care of them, though.

Anyhow, how small is “exceedingly small”?

Of the 8,718 migrants in the program Reuters identified in the EOIR data, only 106 – about 1% – had their cases transferred off the MPP court docket, allowing them to wait in the United States while their asylum claims are adjudicated.

The asylum thing is simply a racquet, one designed to take advantage a quirk in the law, designed to help a small portion of people. It’s time to end it.

Read: Bummer: Most “Asylum” Seekers Are Ineligible To Stay In U.S. While Waiting »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Warmists Demand DNC Hold Hotcoldwetdry Debate

By William Teach June 13, 2019 – 7:40 am

Why? Because some people died during absolutely normal weather events, as has always happened, but they’ve been brainwashed into believing that this is some Man-caused doom from the release of a small amount of “carbon pollution” by Other People

Leftists to DNC: Hold a D*mn Climate Debate for Those Who Have Died

A group of activists gathered in front of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in Washington, DC, on Wednesday to deliver over 200 thousand signatures demanding a debate on climate change.

“We’re here to talk about what our future is going to look like,” said one protester.

“This issue is not only about equality — it is also about existence,” shouted another activist. “[For] those who died in [Hurricane] Sandy, or Katrina, or Harvey, or Irma, or because of [the] Paradise [fire], or because of California, or the farmers, or all around this country who have died because of climate change — do respect for them and hold a damn climate debate! For those who are no longer here!”

Activists are discouraged by the announcement last week from DNC Chair Tom Perez that the party will not hold a separate primary debate on the topic of climate change.

According to an email distributed by the event’s organizers, “the petition signatures were collected by CREDO Action, Greenpeace USA, Climate Hawks Vote, Oil Change U.S., Daily Kos, Friends of the Earth Action, Public Citizen, Endangered Species Coalition, People Demanding Action, CPD Action, Women’s March National, Bold Nebraska, Bold Alliance, Amazon Watch, 350 Action, Sunrise Movement, Food & Water Action, NextGen America, US Youth Climate Strike, and MoveOn.”

That’s a large group of ultra-far left people, eh? None of the events above were caused by climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic. But, in some cases, such as the incompetence of Louisiana state and local governments for Katrina and powerline problems thanks to the power company in California, issues were caused by mankind. Just not due to “carbon pollution.”

But, yes, I support the DNC holding a ‘climate change’ debate, because it will show The People just how extreme Democrats are, and what their policies will do to the cost of living (skyrocket) and their freedom and choice (take it away.) So bring on the debate!

Read: Warmists Demand DNC Hold Hotcoldwetdry Debate »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Global Warming | 64 Comments | Trackback URL

House Democrats Rethinking Push To Repeal Hyde Amendment

By William Teach June 13, 2019 – 7:23 am

All the 476 Democrats running for president seem to support doing away with the Hyde Amendment. Joe Biden, as you remember, flipped his position in the face of the unhinged abortion supporters in his party. But…

Democrats back down on striking anti-abortion language from spending bill

House Democrats who were eager to try to remove decades-old anti-abortion language from a spending bill have backed down on the push.

Democratic leaders rejected an effort by progressives to amend a House spending bill with a provision that would strip out the Hyde Amendment, which prevents taxpayer funding of abortions.

“I think we don’t have the votes that we need,” Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., who sponsored the amendment, said. “It’s frustrating. I actually think the country is with us.”

Jayapal and other progressive Democrats acknowledged the move to eliminate the 43-year-old Hyde language would be blocked in the GOP-led Senate and would never be signed into law by President Trump.

Removing the Hyde language from the $190 billion Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill would only serve to jeopardize passage of the measure, which funds critical health and labor programs, they said.

Jayapal might want to check the polls if she thinks the country is with her

In every poll, a plurality of Americans oppose public funding of abortions. In every poll but one, that plurality is a majority. The questions vary, but the result is the same. Respondents support “banning federal funding for abortion” except in rape cases or to save the woman’s life (Politico/Morning Consult, 2019). They believe that “government health insurance programs for low-income women, like Medicaid,” should not “cover abortion” (PRRI, 2018). They oppose “using tax dollars to pay for a woman’s abortion” (Marist, 2019). They oppose allowing “Medicaid funds to be used to pay for abortions” (Politico/Harvard, 2016). When they’re told that “the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds from being used to fund abortions, except in the case of incest, rape or to save the life of the mother,” they endorse the amendment (YouGov, 2016). These polls aren’t close. The average gap between the pro-funding and anti-funding positions is 19 percentage points.

Even among Democrats, it’s just barely a majority position

Self-identified Democrats support federal abortion funding, but the margins are narrow. In a 2017 Marist poll, Democrats favored the use of tax dollars for abortions by 8 percentage points. In the Morning Consult poll, which was taken last weekend, they opposed the Hyde Amendment by 6 points. In the YouGov poll, they opposed the ban by just 3 points. A pro-funding position, on balance, probably does more to hurt the candidate in a general election than to help in a Democratic primary.

In effect, having Government pay for an abortion because people were irresponsible in having unprotected sex with someone they didn’t want to have a baby with at this time is not particularly a popular position.

And, really, if it’s “my body my choice”, then it should be “your body, your money.” You want contraceptives, abortifacients, and/or an abortion? Pay for it yourself. Don’t require that taxpayers fund your bad decisions.

Read: House Democrats Rethinking Push To Repeal Hyde Amendment »

Posted in Democrats | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

‘Climate Change’ Could Maybe Possibly Threaten World Peace In 10 Years

By William Teach June 12, 2019 – 2:10 pm

It’d be a real shame if a tiny increase in CO2 and the world’s temperature would threaten these thousands of years of world peace. But, hey, we can forestall this with a tax!

Climate change seen posing threat to global peace in next 10 years

Climate change poses a threat to peace in countries around the world in the coming decade, according to an annual peace index released on Wednesday that factored in the risk from global warming for the first time.

Nearly a billion people live in areas at high risk from global warming and about 40% of them are in countries already struggling with conflict, said the Australia-based Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP).

Climate change causes conflict due to competition over diminishing resources and may also threaten livelihoods and force mass migration, it said.

“Going forward, climate change is going to be a substantial problem,” Steve Killelea, executive chairman of the IEP, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

This is not news, this is Reuters publishing prognostication

In 2019, the world became very slightly more peaceful for the first time in five years, said the IEP, which used data from groups including think tanks, research institutes, governments and universities to compile the index.

However, it remains significantly less peaceful than 10 years ago due to factors including conflicts in the Middle East, a rise in terrorism, and increasing numbers of refugees.

It’s interesting that pretty much the majority of that revolves around the Religion of Peace, eh? Thank goodness the screed doesn’t mention tipping points

The effects of climate change can create a “tipping point”, exacerbating tensions until a breaking point is reached, particularly in countries that are already struggling, said Killelea.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Could Maybe Possibly Threaten World Peace In 10 Years »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a wonderful tree that will soon die from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on Democrats and whores.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Trot Out Legislation To Allow Gun Makers To Be Sued

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

Another piece of legislation that will never get voted on in the Senate, but highlights how much Democrats want to find ways to drive gun manufacturers out of business, which would disarm law abiding citizens

Shooting victims could sue gun industry under Democrats’ legislation

Congressional Democrats on Tuesday unveiled legislation that would grant victims of gun violence the right to sue members of the firearms industry, NPR reported.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) reintroduced The Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act to help victims of gun violence have their day in court.

The measure aims to repeal a 2005 bill called The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which grants federal protections to firearm and ammunition manufacturers, dealers and trade groups.

PLCAA, signed into law by then-President George W. Bush, prevents the gun industry from most civil lawsuits when a firearm is used unlawfully or in a crime, NPR noted.

Schiff said that the PLCAA gives the gun industry “an unprecedented and unique immunity from liability.”

“It’s time to hold the gun industry accountable. Under state and federal law, we require every other industry, like car makers and drug companies, to act with reasonable care for public safety,” he wrote in a Facebook post.

If someone uses a knife, a hammer, a car, you name it, in an unlawful manner, you aren’t going to sue the manufacturer, right? It’s not the fault of Gerber, Stanley, or Ford.

One has to wonder, though, what this is really about. Obviously, they’d drive gun makers out of business, but, consider how much money Democrats receive from lawyers. The top industry that donates to Schiff is….lawyers. Same for Blumenthal.

Of course, this is another way to blame the inanimate object instead of the criminals enabled by weak on crime Democrat policies.

Read: Democrats Trot Out Legislation To Allow Gun Makers To Be Sued »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove