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

UK Government To Set 2050 ‘Climate Change’ Target Or Something

By William Teach June 12, 2019 – 7:57 am

This is great, because they’ve done so well with keeping their Kyoto Protocol and Paris Climate Agreement commitments

Climate change: UK government to commit to 2050 target

Prime Minister Theresa May said reducing pollution would also benefit public health and cut NHS costs.

Britain is the first major nation to propose this target – and it has been widely praised by green groups.

But some say the phase-out is too late to protect the climate, and others fear that the task is impossible.

The UK already has a 2050 target – to reduce emissions by 80%. That was agreed by MPs under the Climate Change Act in 2008, but will now be amended to the new, much tougher, goal.

The actual terminology used by the government is “net zero” greenhouse gases by 2050.

That means emissions from homes, transport, farming and industry will have to be avoided completely or – in the most difficult examples – offset by planting trees or sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere.

That should be easy to do, right? And it’s totally historic!

Laurence Tubiana, an architect of the crucial Paris climate agreement, told the BBC: “This is a historic commitment that will reverberate right around the world.

This historic commitment won’t create the need to vastly change the lives of every UK citizen, right?

Climate change solutions mean revolution for our daily lives

The government’s plan to virtually eliminate greenhouse gases by 2050, and grow trees to suck up the small amount of unavoidable carbon emissions, will need a revolution in the way we lead our lives.

Gas boilers from 25 million homes will need to be replaced with low carbon heating.

Around 38 million petrol and diesel vehicles will need to be removed from the roads, superseded by electric or hydrogen-fuelled alternatives.

And the energy grid needs to be decarbonised, while keeping the lights on when the wind doesn’t blow.

And that is just the start. UK citizens are certainly enthused to pay much higher costs for energy and their cost of living to save the Earth from a fever, right?

It’s now down to the government to come up with a route map and then sell it to the public.

Why sell it when they can just force the peasants to do this?

Read: UK Government To Set 2050 ‘Climate Change’ Target Or Something »

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

Hot Take: Illegal Alien Detention Facilities Are Really Concentration Camps

By William Teach June 12, 2019 – 7:29 am

Liberals have a fixation on concentration camps. They claimed that the Bush 43 administration would build them. And that Trump would build them for the gender confused. Now, Jonathan M. Katz gives it a whirl in the LA Times

Call immigrant detention centers what they really are: concentration camps

If you were paying close attention last week, you might have spotted a pattern in the news. Peeking out from behind the breathless coverage of the Trump family’s tuxedoed trip to London was a spate of deaths of immigrants in U.S. custody: Johana Medina Léon, a 25-year-old transgender asylum seeker; an unnamed 33-year-old Salvadoran man; and a 40-year-old woman from Honduras.

Photos from a Border Patrol processing center in El Paso showed people herded so tightly into cells that they had to stand on toilets to breathe. Memos surfaced by journalist Ken Klippenstein revealed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s failure to provide medical care was responsible for suicides and other deaths of detainees. These followed another report that showed that thousands of detainees are being brutally held in isolation cells just for being transgender or mentally ill.

Also last week, the Trump administration cut funding for classes, recreation and legal aid at detention centers holding minors — which were likened to “summer camps” by a senior ICE official last year. And there was the revelation that months after being torn from their parents’ arms, 37 children were locked in vans for up to 39 hours in the parking lot of a detention center outside Port Isabel, Texas. In the last year, at least seven migrant children have died in federal custody.

The United States didn’t invited these people to come illegally/show up at our border demanding entry. If the illegals do not like the conditions, there’s an easy solution: don’t come. Fix your own country. Oh, and throw some blame at the illegal alien supporting groups who do invite them to come. If you don’t like the conditions in jail, don’t break the law. Simple, right?

And when you come sick, when you’re trekking your kids thousands of miles in poor condition, bringing them very sick, it’s a tragedy, but, it is not the fault of the Border Patrol or ICE that deaths happen. The loons might as well blame the doctors, nurses, and medical facilities which tried to help the illegals.

But, wait, let’s turn the volume to 11

When a leader puts people in camps to stay in power, history shows that he doesn’t usually stop with the first group he detains.

See, Trump is going to put everyone in a concentration camp! Nor does the screed get much better. Read it in full.

Oh, and then there’s this from the woman under investigation for filing illegal tax returns

See, it’s un-American! Even though we have this thing call “The Law.” I won’t agree on that part, but I will agree on jailing. We should simply deport them, as the original law states.

Read: Hot Take: Illegal Alien Detention Facilities Are Really Concentration Camps »

Posted in Illegal Immigration, Unhinged Tools | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove