Eco-Apartheid: The Climate Crisis (scam) Is Intersecting With Housing And We’re Doomed

By William Teach July 27, 2019 – 10:48 am

Here’s one more thing that the Cult of Climastrology is attempting to hijack

Eco-Apartheid Is Real
The climate crisis is converging with a housing crisis. We need to tackle both with a Green New Deal for Housing.

The heat is on. A heat wave is breaking records across much of Western Europe. And this weekend sweltering heat baked half the United States. For some media outlets and climate advocates, the heat waves were a chance to remind people: This isn’t normal. This is what the climate emergency feels like, and this is how it kills. We also saw some media outlets publish recent maps that show which parts of cities are heat islands. Of course, those converge with low-income and racialized neighborhoods, while greenery that cools the air is found disproportionately in white and affluent areas.

To top it off, we learned on Monday that New York utility Con Ed intentionally cut off power to the majority-black Canarsie neighborhood to avoid risking broader blackouts. Amazingly, the utility wasn’t prepared for a major heat wave and sacrificed low-income black customers to ride out the crisis. Eco-apartheid, which I define as a regime of greening affluence for the few at the expense of the many, is the path of business as usual.

And yet there was something frustratingly superficial about all this coverage, even when it focused on inequality.

In the era of the Green New Deal, journalists and activists still struggle to convey just how profoundly the climate emergency, our political economy, and social inequalities are connected. As a result, they’re still missing how much egalitarian green investment—like a Green New Deal for Housing—could address social, economic, and environmental crises at the same time. And while this policy idea is specific to the US context, an intersectional analysis here could enrich global debates about what effective and equitable green investment could look like around the world.

Strange that what is supposedly a science issue always seems to dovetail in perfectly with every other Modern Socialist complaint, eh? See, if we could just pass a Green New Deal, and one for housing, we could fix all these problems with taxes, fees, and controlling citizen’s lives, limiting freedom and choice.

Also strange is that so many of these problems appear to happen in cities run by Democrats.

Read: Eco-Apartheid: The Climate Crisis (scam) Is Intersecting With Housing And We’re Doomed »

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

Think Progress Says We Only Have 14 Months Left To Save The Climate Or Something

By William Teach July 27, 2019 – 7:24 am

There have been lots of bad Warmist predictions, such as Doom by 2000. NYC would be under water and be like Daytona Beach. That the Earth would be 2-4 degrees higher by than 1988 by 2018. And, so, since those and all the others were not working out , we then got doom in 2100. Then 2050. Then it was 20 years. Then 12. Then 18 months. And now

It’s fantastic that they use a photo with AOC and her Green New Deal. You know, the one she refuses to demand a vote on, freaked out when the Senate voted on it (along with not quite getting that a Senator co-sponsored it and submitted it in the Senate), and has said it’s more of a “blueprint”. Anyhow, why fourteen? What’s going through Excitable Joe Romm’s head?

Scientific reality makes clear that the only plausible way to preserve a livable climate — and hence modern civilization — starts with aggressive national and global cuts in carbon pollution by 2030.

But political reality makes clear that such cuts can’t happen instantly — and that global action requires leadership from the United States. After all, the U.S. is the richest country in the world and the biggest cumulative source of heat-trapping emissions over the past century.

With eight years of a pro-science president, Barack Obama, the nation made steady progress on reducing emissions and committing to future reductions, enabling a global climate deal in Paris in 2015. But with just two and a half years of an anti-science administration, national and global progress have both stalled under President Donald Trump, who has begun to abandon the Paris Accord and undermine action here and abroad.

That means November 3, 2020 — the U.S. presidential election — is the deadline for Americans who do not want to destroy the health and well-being of current generations, their children, and future generations. If Trump is reelected, the prospects for the necessary national and global cuts in carbon pollution by 2030 will be gone.

The First Street Journal notes that math is hard

I wondered: what would happen in fourteen months that would be the tipping point? According to Mr Romm, it’s the presidential election, and how President Trump must be defeated, to save the world.

Trouble is, fourteen months from July 26, 2019 is September 26, 2020, more than a month before the presidential election. Had he written fifteen months, that could have been literary license, given that the election is fifteen months and eight days away. But fourteen months? I’m supposed to give credence to the supposedly scientific arguments made by a guy who can’t even count?

Well, of course, since none of this stuff emanating from the Cult of Climastrology has anything to do with science, math, or any hard disciplines….. Joe is just pimping his normal doom and gloom. Make sure to read both articles in full.

Read: Think Progress Says We Only Have 14 Months Left To Save The Climate Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Not Open Borders: Activists Protest ICE Picking Up Illegal Alien In Orange County, NC

By William Teach July 27, 2019 – 7:02 am

What’s not to protest? This guy is just a poor illegal trying to make a better life, you know

Advocates protest Orange County sheriff after man taken into ICE custody

A Hillsborough man is being held in ICE custody and supporters are accusing Orange County Sheriff Charles Blackwood of giving tips to federal authorities, something the sheriff’s advocates said he would not do.

Jocsan Cornejo was arrested on June 23 for charges including driving while impaired, assault on a female and assault on a child under 12 years old. He was taken into ICE custody July 18, before he had the chance to bond out of county jail, according to his wife.

“This experience has been a nightmare,” Maria Huerta said. “He is our only support. I’ve had to go back to work, even though doctors have recommended against it. My kids are suffering a lot, too.”

Who is she? Wife, girlfriend, friend? Are the kids his? What about the part of DUI, assault on a female, and assault on a child under 12? And not mentioned in the above article is that he was also driving on a suspended license. Do those things matter? These are not minor issues. Or, do the Open Borders advocates prioritize making sure no illegal is deported over assault on a woman and a child? Yes, they apparently do.

The Open Borders advocates were apparently protesting the Orange County sheriff releasing Cornejo to ICE, per this and most of the articles out there. Not particularly the best illegal alien to do the protest over, eh? Here’s what the Orange County sheriff’s office had to say

(WTVD) OCDC received a detainer request for Mr. Cornejo on June 23 from a California office. On June 25, we received a second detainer request from the Cary, NC office. Both detainer requests asked us to hold Mr. Cornejo for up to 48 hours after our authority to detain him would otherwise end. As per our usual practice, detention center staff filed a copy in Cornejo’s inmate shuck. He remained detained in our facility because no one posted his bond and because his state charges were not yet resolved.

As routinely happens, on the morning of July 18, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) called to inquire about inmates for whom they had submitted detainer requests, including a request for information about Cornejo. Later, the OCDC Administrator placed a call to DHS to clarify that Cornejo did indeed have a bond reduction hearing scheduled that afternoon. During that communication, DHS verbally renewed the detainer request, asking OCDC to retain custody over him for 24 – 48 hours. DHS was told the detention center would not hold him if he became eligible for release. DHS arrived prior to Cornejo’s bond hearing and took him into custody. When the hearing concluded, the district court judge ordered Cornejo’s bond unsecured, and the clerk file stamped the order at 4:06 pm. At that time, Cornejo had already been in ICE’s custody for approximately half an hour.

The Orange County Sheriff’s Office has always complied with local, state and federal law. In addition, we cooperate with local, state, and federal enforcement agencies when working together furthers the safety of those we are entrusted to protect. Our cooperation with ICE is limited to the sharing of publicly available information.

He was being held anyhow, because no one (looking at you, Miss Huerta and the OB advocates) bonded him out.

Read: Not Open Borders: Activists Protest ICE Picking Up Illegal Alien In Orange County, NC »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Wins At Supreme Court On Border Wall Funding

By William Teach July 26, 2019 – 7:43 pm

Just a quicky bit of information

Now waiting for Democrats to rail against the Supreme Court being illegitimate because Orange Man Bad.

PS: I still maintain that there are better ways to stop most illegal immigration, but, no one in Congress has the cajones to make it happen.

Read: Trump Wins At Supreme Court On Border Wall Funding »

Posted in Donald Trump, Illegal Immigration | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

‘Climate Change’ Is Totally A Force In The 2020 Campaign Or Something

By William Teach July 26, 2019 – 3:33 pm

It’s probably a good thing that Forbes includes a question mark in the headline

Climate Change: A Real Force In The 2020 Campaign?

….

Yet, all of this said, it remains unclear whether climate change will emerge as a truly pivotal issue in the 2020 general election. Since the 1970’s, when bipartisan anxiety over declining environmental quality drove a Republican president to establish the Environmental Protection Agency, Americans have on whole professed deep concern for the environment and, more recently, climate. We same Americans have tended to vote, however, on issues that have felt more immediate and pressing, such as jobs, healthcare and education, and around lighting rods like abortion and gun rights.

A critical question, given the growing number of warnings from the likes of the U.S. government and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that global warming imperils us all, is whether the country has finally reached the point where climate will in fact be a decisive issue for voters at the polls. Environmental sociology (yes, there is such a field) refers to this as a question of salience. When it comes to decision time, does the voter prioritize environment?

This question is in fact least important among voters who would be most likely to vote for a climate candidate….

‘Climate change’ is not the environment. And even Dems put ‘climate change’ way down the list of their concerns. And then then article attempts to shift focus from Democrats to Republicans and Independents. At the end, for all the yammering, anthropogenic climate change may get people talking, but it’s still low hanging fruit that is a minor concern.

Then there’s this

Read More »

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Is Totally A Force In The 2020 Campaign Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Global Warming | Comments Off on ‘Climate Change’ Is Totally A Force In The 2020 Campaign Or Something | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 26, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a fish that is being wiped out from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Right Scoop, with a post on a monument in South Carolina to fallen police officers being removed due to a Christian inscription because a few people complained.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Bummer: Most Illegals Seeking Asylum Are Denied

By William Teach July 26, 2019 – 10:30 am

Perhaps someone should let them know this fact before they spend all that time and money making the long trek, something to rebut the Liberal Open Borders advocates who incent them to make the trek

Migrants risk it all seeking asylum. The answer in court is almost always ‘no.’

The road to “no” meanders through deserts, skids into rivers and cleaves mountain passes. It tumbles out of Honduras and Guatemala, snakes up through Mexico and slips into far western Texas.

The road to “no” stinks of sweat from days without showers in cramped Texas holding cells and of rancid breath from the mouths of migrant detainees who say they were denied toothbrushes and toothpaste.

Well, if they did it through the normal, lawful method of applying for citizenship and following the steps, or even just applying for asylum at a U.S. facility in their home or another country, they wouldn’t have to worry about, right?

But, for migrants seeking asylum to enter the United States through West Texas and eastern New Mexico, it frequently ends in the same place — inside a warren of spare federal courtrooms in downtown El Paso, where some of America’s most immovable immigration judges say “no” to migrant asylum seekers in droves. Winning asylum from an El Paso judge is close to impossible, local immigration advocates and lawyers say. One judge in the court rejected 98.8 percent of asylum requests over a recent five-year period, according to an analysis by Syracuse University.

Because most aren’t eligible for asylum.

They stream northward with seemingly little understanding of the U.S. laws governing asylum. Only a legitimate fear of persecution related to political opinions, race, religion, nationality or membership in particular social group opens the door to potential refuge, not economic deprivation or dangerous living conditions in their home countries.

Asylum claims along the border have nearly quadrupled from 43,000 in 2013 to 162,000 in 2018. Only a fraction of the migrants apprehended at the border make asylum claims, but they can still clog the courts with lengthy and complex legal showdowns. Trump administration officials have said less than 20 percent of asylum requests by migrants from the Northern Triangle nations of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are granted by the courts, and have suggested that the low rate is evidence that most of the claims are meritless.

Well, again, perhaps the Open Borders advocates should stop inviting them and cajoling them to just show up at the border, sometimes stopping and demanding at a port of entry, sometimes crossing illegally. Really, if you think about it, this is counter-productive to their push to get those currently residing illegally in the United States, and especially for the so-called Dreamers, legal status up to citizenship. For one thing, if the focus is on those showing up, it’s not on those currently here. For another, that same focus will cause people to say “why should we give any sort of legal status to those here illegally when it will entice others to come?” Notice, Democrats almost never talk about a legal pathway for those here now. Rarely do they talk about DACA and the Dreamers. They’re just hurting their own cause.

BTW

The media pushing a narrative doesn’t help convince people, either, especially when they actually find out the real news.

Read: Bummer: Most Illegals Seeking Asylum Are Denied »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: New Study Shows Green New Deal Target Crashes Government Model

By William Teach July 26, 2019 – 7:02 am

Well, plenty of people have said that the Green New Deal is not realistic, that it doesn’t live in the world of reality. Heck, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won’t put it up for a vote, won’t demand a vote, and freaked out when the Senate voted on it. She’s said that it’s more of a blue print. A blue print for disaster

Outside group finds ‘Green New Deal’ emissions target crashes government model

Reaching the “Green New Deal’s” (GND) goal of drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 is practically impossible, according to an analysis using the government’s own economic modeling.

The Heritage Foundation attempted to use the Energy Information Administration’s National Energy Model to forecast the impact of steep carbon taxes aimed at reaching the net-zero greenhouse gas emissions goal that’s supported by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. House Democrats, and a host of 2020 presidential candidates.

Not only did the model crash, it failed to approach anywhere near the goal outlined in the “GND.” The closest Heritage was able to get was a 58 percent reduction in emissions, achieved through a $300 carbon tax  — taxes above $300 crashed the EIA’s model.

“Carbon taxes above $300 (resulting in slightly above 50 percent CO2 reductions by 2050) cause the model to crash, and thus a 58 percent CO2 reduction from 2010 levels is the largest level we are able to model,” the study’s authors, Nicolas D. Loris and Kevin D. Dayaratna, wrote in the study published on Wednesday.

Remember, studies show that most people do not want to pay even $10 a month extra to stop Hotcoldwetdry, much less $300. Of course, those $300 a year in taxes will also cause the cost of living to go up up up. And, it gets better!

Just a 58 percent reduction would, by 2040, cost the economy $15 trillion in lost gross domestic product and an average of 1.1 million jobs per year. The average family of four would also see a total income loss of $165,000, or nearly $8,000 each year.

Household energy expenses would also see an average increase of 30 percent. Worse, the rate of emissions reductions slowed substantially as Heritage progressively raised carbon taxes in its modeling — indicating that Democrats will face increasing difficulty in reducing emissions as taxes reach higher levels.

The study came at a time when Democratic presidential candidates sounded the alarm on climate change and endorsed Ocasio-Cortez’s ambitious — yet controversial — vision for preventing supposed catastrophes.

So, you keep pushing the climate crisis scam, Democrats, keep pushing. This really is the reason you rarely hear Warmists talk about actual numbers and costs, because it doesn’t work well and citizens, including the casual Warmist, will go “Whoa! No way!”

Read: Surprise: New Study Shows Green New Deal Target Crashes Government Model »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Collapsing Science, Democrats, Global Warming | Comments Off on Surprise: New Study Shows Green New Deal Target Crashes Government Model | Trackback URL

Dems Struggling To Figure Out Next Move After Mueller Fiasco

By William Teach July 26, 2019 – 6:46 am

One would think they would just go with the “Mueller? Russia? Conspiracy? Obstruction? What’s that?” defense, basically pretending this never happened. Just move on. Get over it. Focus on winning the 2020 elections and getting some things done in the House. Of course, this would cause their unhinged base, and a couple dozen unhinged elected Democrats, to freak out. They’ve rather built this house of cards and backed themselves into a corner

Democrats struggle to figure out next move against Trump after Mueller hearing falls flat

House Democrats are struggling to figure out their next move against President Trump after their highly anticipated hearing with Robert S. Mueller III fell flat, forcing some Democrats to second-guess their strategy while aggravating divisions in the party over impeachment.

Several centrist Democrats seized on the absence of a major revelation to argue it was time to end House investigations into whether Trump tried to obstruct the former special counsel’s probe and pivot to legislation.

“Anyone who was looking for the smoking gun yesterday didn’t get it,” said Rep. Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.), who ousted a Republican incumbent by fewer than 500 votes in last year’s midterm elections. “It’s time to move on and focus on getting some bills passed here that can get signed into law.”

But that plea had no effect on the pro-impeachment Democrats, who dug in, insisting that House oversight of Trump and his administration has been ineffective and pressed for launching proceedings.

In a closed-door caucus meeting Wednesday night, after Mueller’s testimony, proponents tried to convince House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to move ahead on impeachment, a step she has resisted. (snip)

The divisions over next steps come as House Democrats face criticism over their seven months of multiple investigations that have yielded little new information that would build public support for ousting Trump. Outside liberal groups are furious with Pelosi. Other Democrats, including several who worked for President Barack Obama, have expressed frustration with the House’s inability to hold accountable what they consider a lawless president and administration.

Moving on would be the smart thing. But, remember, 98 Democrats voted for impeachment the other week, which accounts for 42% of their House membership. And many of them, such as Nadler, Eric Swalwell, The Squad, a few others, are overly vocal on this, and keep it heavily in the public sphere. And the Democrat base, including the big wigs, such as Hollywood stars who give a lot of money, want this. Even though all this talk will help re-elect Trump. They should keep it up.

The article does spend a bunch of time saying that the hearing was a fiasco, essentially a full boat loss for Democrats, then we get to

Despite disappointment in Mueller’s testimony, Democrats feel pressure from the party’s left to move quickly, before the 2020 presidential campaign ramps up further.

And they’ve backed themselves into a corner with how much they’ve pushed it. They do not know how to get out of it. And many don’t. Congratulations on your 2020 win, Mr. Trump!

Read: Dems Struggling To Figure Out Next Move After Mueller Fiasco »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Gay Parents Sue State Dept For Following The Law On Children Born Overseas

By William Teach July 25, 2019 – 3:42 pm

Obviously, everything is awful, and people should just be allowed to manufacture law from their feelings whenever they want

Gay Dads Sue State Department Over Refusal To Recognize Daughter As US Citizen

A same-sex couple in Georgia said in a lawsuit filed Tuesday that the U.S. State Department is unconstitutionally refusing to recognize their daughter’s rightful American citizenship.

The State Department’s policy treats married same-sex couples as if their marriages do not exist and treats them differently from married straight couples in violation of the law and the Constitution, according to the suit filed in federal court in Atlanta. It was filed on behalf of Derek Mize and Jonathan Gregg, whose daughter Simone was born in England in July 2018 via surrogate.

Both men are U.S. citizens and are listed as her parents on the birth certificate. But because only one has a biological connection to her, the lawsuit says, the State Department is treating her as if she was born outside of marriage, triggering additional conditions for the recognition of her citizenship.

A child born abroad to married U.S. citizens is automatically a U.S. citizen as long as one parent has lived in the U.S., the lawsuit says. But there are additional requirements if the parents are not married or if only one is a U.S. citizen.

Mize was born and raised in Mississippi, while Gregg was born in London to a U.S. citizen mother and British father and was raised in London with dual citizenship.

One would think they would take a look at the relevant laws and statutes before

A close friend in England agreed to be their surrogate. Mize stayed in England with her for most of the pregnancy, and Gregg joined them for the final five weeks. Both men were present for Simone’s birth in July 2018 — Gregg cut the umbilical cord while Mize held her. They returned to their home in Decatur, just outside Atlanta, in September. (snip)

Since she’s the child of two men and not biologically related to both, the State Department treated her as if she was born “out of wedlock,” the lawsuit says. And because Gregg, the biological parent, hadn’t lived in the U.S. for five years prior to Simone’s birth, the State Department determined she’s not a U.S. citizen.

Why England? Why not have the child born in the U.S.? Would have been a slam-dunk. Further, this has nothing to do with being gay, since this would happen to a straight couple, as well, if you throw in the surrogate mother issue. But, see

When the embassy staff didn’t recognize his marriage or his parental relationship to his daughter, he said, it all came rushing back.

“In that moment, every anxiety I’ve ever had in my life about being gay and different came into my body and I just wanted to cry,” he said.

It’s always about feelings and scapegoating other people, become the Victim.

Follow the law next time. Have the baby in the U.S.

Read: Gay Parents Sue State Dept For Following The Law On Children Born Overseas »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Good Move Slick | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove