…is a tree that will soon die from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Flopping Aces, with a post on there being no impeachment.
An interesting thing I found out about Chile is that blondes are a big thing. Who knew?
Read: If All You See… »
Go figure
The fellow who drew the anti-Semitic cartoon in the NY Times blames “Jewish propaganda” for the pushback.
So that problem should completely go away now.
Excellent recap via ?@brianstelter? https://t.co/ZuVC7HB2Nx
— Bill Grueskin (@BGrueskin) May 1, 2019
Good of CNN, usually unhinged Brian Stetler, and the others to offer this
Reporters in The New York Times (NYT) newsroom could hear the protesters outside on Monday. “Shame on you!” they shouted. Some held signs that accused the newspaper of being anti-Semitic. Others waved American and Israeli flags.
The demonstrators packed Eighth Avenue in New York City in response to a recent cartoon that was baldly anti-Semitic. The image appeared in international editions of The Times last Thursday. It called to mind “a very dark time in Jewish history,” lawyer Alan Dershowitz said at the protest. “I ask myself, how could it have happened?”
That’s what staffers at The Times wanted to know too. In interviews this week, 16 Times staffers described a short-staffed international publication; an opinion section prone to self-inflicted wounds; and an ongoing debate about the newspaper’s biases and blind spots. (snip)
“I don’t think anyone in our office believes for one second there is an issue with institutionalized anti-semitism at the NYT,” one staffer in an international bureau said. “But as with all newsrooms that have gone through radical restructuring in recent years, that so many checks and balances have been removed and that this could go up without being seen by a second pair of eyes makes reporters and editors alike concerned.”
Yes, the checks and balances that would keep anti-Semites from working for the NY Times, especially the international edition, what with the rising Jew hatred in the mid-East and Europe.
Portuguese artist António Moreira Antunes has been drawing political cartoons for 45 years. He recently decided to take on the relationship between U.S. President Donald Trump and recently re-elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (sadly, the next quote is way, way, way down in the article)
In an interview with CNN, conducted in Portuguese, Antunes said he was surprised by the outrage. He said he has the “utmost respect” for the Jewish peoples’ past, but said that doesn’t mean they can be “above criticism.”
He claimed that anti-Semitism charges are a misunderstanding “made through the Jewish propaganda machine, which is, anytime there’s criticism it’s because there’s someone anti-Semitic on the other side, and that’s not the case.”
He blamed right-wing figures: “The Jewish right doesn’t want to be criticized, and therefore, when criticized they say ‘We are a persecuted people, we suffered a lot… this is anti-Semitism.'”
So, he’s totally learned from this incident. The casualness of anti-Semitism on the political left is disturbing. And mainstream.
Read: Cartoonist Who Drew Anti-Semitic Graphic For NY Times Blames “Jewish Propaganda” »
This is very exciting news for the Cult of Climastrology
The voters are in: climate change is No. 1
Conducted by CNN, the poll found that 82 percent of voting Democrats (including left-leaning Independents) listed climate change as a “top priority†that they’d like to see presidential candidates focus on. The next-highest issue was universal health care, at 75 percent, followed by gun reform, at 65 percent.
Wouldn’t you know it, young people, in particular, feel climate change is a major priority. In a recent Harvard poll, likely voters between 18 and 29 said they’d favor action on the climate crisis even if it hurts economic growth. And, according to the same survey, a high percentage of young people plan to vote.
So, yeah, this was a poll which only asked Democrats certain questions, and it starts out “Q18. How important is it to you that the Democratic candidate for president supports (ITEM)? Very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at all important?” The answers include (page ten of the poll)
Taking aggressive action to slow the effects of climate changeThese are the silly things that Concern Democrats. Congratulations to the Cult for finally ranking #1 among people who actually Believe. Now, try the poll with things like the economy, good jobs, terrorism, illegal immigration, etc, and see how it goes. ‘Climate change’ action is the leading nutter answer among nutter answers.
Read: Hooray: ‘Climate Change’ Finally Polls Number One Or Something »
The excitable Democrats in the People’s Republik Of California should read their own Constitution, as well as the federal Constitution, because they do not have the authority to do this, but, then, this is more about their feelings….unhinged feelings…than any sort of law
California Senate passes bill that would keep Trump off 2020 ballot unless he releases tax returns
The California state Senate on Thursday approved a bill to require candidates appearing on the presidential primary ballot — including President Trump — to release five years’ worth of income tax returns.
The measure was approved in a 27-10 vote, according to The Associated Press. California, for the first time, will be one of the first states to hold its presidential primary in the 2020 cycle.
The bill is a response to Trump’s insistence that he will not release his tax returns as presidential candidates traditionally have done, claiming he is under audit. If the bill becomes law and Trump does not release his returns, he may not appear on the California primary ballot.
“We believe that President Trump, if he truly doesn’t have anything to hide, should step up and release his tax returns,†said state Sen. Mike McGuire (D) who co-authored the bill, according to the AP.
All 10 Republicans in the state Senate voted against the bill’s passage.
“I get that playing the resistance card may be good politics for the majority party, but I would submit that it’s bad policy for Californians,†Sen. Brian Jones (R) told the wire service.
First, Trump doesn’t need California. He won’t win it. The last time a Republican won California was 1988. There’s, what, a 3% chance that a Republican could win the state now? Second, there will still be lawsuits when this passes the California House and signed by Extreme Leftist Governor Gavin Newsome. Unless Gavin somehow gets wise. Because this will also be material for Republicans and Trump to highlight how deranged and partisan California has become.
The requirements to be president are laid out in the Constitution: California cannot legally add one.
Read: Excitable California Senate Passes Bill Requiring Trump Show Tax Returns To Be On Ballot »
Say, remember how all the news media was saying it was a bunch of mule fritters that Team Trump, both during the campaign and after the election, was spied on by the Obama administration?
New York Times Admits Obama Admin Deployed Multiple Spies Against Trump Campaign In 2016
Surrender Monkey is surprised!
Following months of angry claims by journalists and Democratic operatives that the Obama administration never spied on Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, The New York Times admitted Thursday that multiple overseas intelligence assets were deployed against associates of the Republican nominee. It is not the first time the Times has revealed widespread spying operations against the campaign.
In addition to noting that long-time informant Stefan Halper was tasked with collecting intelligence on the Trump campaign, the Times story details how a woman was sent overseas under a fake name and occupation to oversee the spy operation. The woman’s real name is not mentioned in the article, though the Times says she went by “Azra Turk†and has a relationship with an unidentified federal intelligence agency.
Oops?
As Molly Hemingway goes on to note in terms of why we are seeing this
The New York Times has repeatedly been used by FBI officials who ran the anti-Trump spy operation to launder damaging information that reflects poorly on the agency. Nearly a year ago, the Times confirmed that the U.S. intelligence apparatus was used to spy on Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016.
In that case, the ostensible purpose of the leak was to get ahead of what congressional investigators had figured out: the Obama administration targeted the Trump campaign with secret informants.
There is an Inspector General report coming out soon, and it will surely paint the FBI, and perhaps other agencies, in a very poor light. Hey, who was in charge of all these agencies? You can’t sit there and tell me that the POTUS wasn’t in the loop on this behavior against a presidential candidate then election winner, and, if he wasn’t, how disturbing that federal agencies felt emboldened to take this action?
Read: Surprise: NY Times Admits Obama Admin Spied On Trump Campaign Without Calling It Spying »
See, there’s only some laws certain people like
After Judge’s Arrest, Massachusetts Prosecutors Sue to Stop Courthouse Arrests of Immigrants
Days after a judge and court officer were arrested on charges they helped a man evade immigration authorities, advocates are filing a lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s practice of arresting people at local courthouses.
The Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office announced a group of prosecutors, public defenders and community groups plan to file a lawsuit on Monday over courthouses arrests, arguing the arrests deter victims and witnesses from cooperating with law enforcement on local criminal cases.
“Prosecutors are forced to abandon cases because many victims and witnesses are deterred from appearing in court. The policy also makes it more difficult to obtain defendants’ appearance[s] in court,” District Attorney Marian Ryan wrote in a joint statement with Suffolk County District Attorney Rachael Rollins.
District Attorney Rachael Rollins told her staff to notify her office if they see immigration agents arresting or questioning people inside courthouses, but what happens after?
What happens? Well, ICE agents are in less danger of the illegal alien having a dangerous weapon, and can get them in a controlled space. That whole schtick about abandoning cases is absurd. They shouldn’t be in the nation to start with.
And any officer of the court who is trying to obstruct federal law should be charged if possible for violations of federal laws on illegal immigration.
Rollins, who releases her policy objectives in a memo in March, said her office will take immigration status into account when charging and sentencing as even misdemeanor convictions could get someone flagged by immigration agents. She also asked assistant district attorneys, witness advocates or other employees to notify her if they see ICE agents arresting people scheduled to appear in court or asking them about their immigration status.
So, her office is going to treat illegal aliens better than legal U.S. citizens? Charge her with aiding and abetting illegal aliens, plus, this policy is ripe for a lawsuit from citizens who have gotten stiffer sentences than illegals.
Read: Open Borders Prosecutors Join Suit To Stop ICE From Arresting Illegals In Courthouses »
…is an area that appears to be flooding from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Creeping Sharia, with a post on Philadelphia International airport submitting and allowing a potentially illegal mosque to remain.
Read: If All You See… »
The very definition of “Progressivism” (nice Fascism): it’s for your own good
Your Gas Stove Is Bad for You and the Planet
We have some good news that sounds like bad news: Your gas stove has to go.
We know how you’ll feel reading those words. We used to love cooking with gas, too. But if our society is going to solve the climate crisis, one of the things we must do is stop burning gas in our buildings.
Nobody is going to shed a tear about having to switch to a more efficient furnace or water heater. But people feel emotional about gas stoves, and the gas industry knows it. Seeing this fight coming, the industry is already issuing propaganda with gauzy pictures of blue flames.
What the gas companies will not tell you is that your stove is a danger not just to the world’s climate but also to your own family’s health. We’ll explain in a moment.
First, here’s the larger situation: The need to tackle climate change is beyond urgent. We are running out of time. Within the next decade we need to cut climate pollution in half in the United States, roughly, to do our fair part in preserving a livable planet.
Burning gas is now a bigger source of such pollution than burning coal, and nearly a third of that gas is burned in homes and commercial buildings. But despite the rising chorus of climate pledges by state and local governments, none of them has really tackled the problem of gas in buildings. In fact, gas companies are still being allowed to spend billions extending new lines, connections that will have to be capped off long before the end of their useful lives if we are to meet our climate goals.
OK, so, let’s say this happens (and the only way to make it happen is through Government banning them): where does all the electricity for non-gas stoves come from? Warmists are mostly against nuclear. Extreme enviros, who tend to be Warmists, attempt to block all attempts at hydro-electric dams, which are only viable in certain areas, and want existing ones torn down. They sue over transmission lines from solar and wind farms, and also sue over wind and solar farms. So, how do we power electric stoves?
Why do all-electric homes make sense now? Because technology has come to the rescue, in the form of devices called heat pumps. They run on electricity, but far more efficiently than the electric appliances of our parents’ generation. So if we start installing them now, then as the electric grid gets greener, our buildings will be contributing less and less to climate change.
You might never have heard of heat pumps, but you already have one in your home. A heat pump is the core technology in your refrigerator. It is basically a loop involving a pump and a compressor that sucks heat out of the interior and blows it into the kitchen, and it can do this even when the interior of your refrigerator is colder than the air in the room.
A heat pump can replace both your furnace and your air conditioner. In the winter, it sucks heat in from the outside, even when the weather is cold, and blows it into your house. In the summer, a heat pump runs in reverse, cooling the house. Highly efficient heat-pump water heaters are also widely available.
If they were so great they would be placed in new homes at a high rate. Of course, there is the problem where most heat pumps can only work down to a temperature of 25-30F, then you have to have your furnace kick in, so, you need both, and a heat pump is way more expensive. Further, heat pumps aren’t even close to being as good as cooling as an AC, nor as inexpensive. One day, perhaps.
Regardless, again, the only way to really make this happen is through government force.
I’m not sure why Pelosi would need to head off the Green New Deal, since virtually no House Democrat, especially co-author (Senator Ed Markey is the other) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is calling for a vote. Even most of the Democrats special interest groups who support it are not Demanding a vote. It’s like the old joke, Everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it
Pelosi Invokes Obama to Head Off Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to head off her party’s restive progressive caucus by invoking the legacy of President Barack Obama to build support for a climate change bill that falls well short of the ambitions of the Green New Deal championed by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Pelosi is planning a vote by the House this week on a bill that would prohibit President Donald Trump’s administration from going through with plans to pull out of the Paris climate agreement.
Liberal Democrats are leaving little doubt that the legislation won’t be enough.
“The idea that we can just reintroduce 2009 policies is not reflective of action that is necessary for now in the world of today,†said Ocasio-Cortez. The New York lawmaker said “there is no harm in passing†the Paris bill, but she still backs the bolder action called for in her Green New Deal, which conservatives have derided as a socialist manifesto.
I wish I had saved the article, or at least could find it again, where several Constitutional authorities, people who teach this in law schools (one was from Harvard, if memory serves), noted that if the House passes something along those lines it would require that the Senate vote on the Paris Climate agreement, since it would then be considered an official treaty. Then, since the Senate is controlled by Republicans, it would be shot down, killed off officially, and would further tarnish Obama’s legacy. One of the people noting this was an Obama and Hillary supporter.
Even if the Senate bothered to take up the House bill as regular legislation to put Democrats on the record, it would still die. Heck, if it managed to make it through the Senate, Trump would veto it, and Dems do not have the votes to over-ride.
The House is expected to begin debate on the climate legislation, H.R. 9, Wednesday and could take a vote by the end of the week.
There is a legislative argument for House Democrats to start with these bills since Trump has been testing the constitutional limits of what he can do to reverse his predecessor’s signature achievements. He has taken executive action to reverse Obama administration policies and chip away at regulations.
Let’s go back a bit in time: Obama had them craft the Paris agreement in order to specifically avoid it being considered a treaty to avoid the GOP controlled Senate, but, this means that Paris has zero force of actual U.S. law. It was Obama’s word, nor is Paris even binding. Trump could have simply scuttled the whole thing with the wave of a pen (and he should have). Instead, he decided to follow the rules of the agreement and gave notice of the U.S. (shouldn’t it be Obama?) pulling out.
Focusing on the Paris accord allows Democrats to paint Republicans as opposing solutions to global warming and highlight what they say is a lack of leadership on the issue by Trump, who has dismissed climate change as a hoax.
So this is simply basic politics. They should be careful with this approach. Certainly, focusing on the Green New Deal allows Republicans to bludgeon Dems with the Socialism, big government, massive taxation, and loss of personal freedom aspects, among others. Bringing up Paris allows the unhinged part of their base which is focused on Hotcoldwetdry to blast them for being weak. Which allows Republicans to highlight just how insane the Cult of Climastrology is. It was just a few years ago that they though Paris was “historic”. Now they say it is not enough.
Read: Pelosi Looks To Head Of AOC’s Green New Deal By Invoking Obama Or Something »
Attorney General Barr was going to answer questions to the House today, but, of course, Democrats were Democrats and went and changed the rules at the last minute
Barr Won’t Attend House Hearing, Following Fierce Session In Senate
Attorney General William P. Barr defended himself on Wednesday against withering criticism of his handling of the special counsel investigation as Democrats accused of him of deceiving Congress and acting as a personal agent for President Trump rather than a steward of justice.
If you saw any of it, you saw little from Democrats regarding the actual Mueller report and most on being raving Barking Moonbats with Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The conflict escalated afterward when Mr. Barr announced that he would not show up for a parallel hearing on Thursday before the Democrat-controlled House Judiciary Committee. Mr. Barr objected to the format of questioning, which would have included questioning by staff lawyers, not just lawmakers. Democrats may now opt to subpoena him, setting up a possible showdown in court.
“He is terrified of having to face a skilled attorney,†said Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the committee’s chairman.
Wait, did Nadler just admit he’s a crummy attorney? Because he is an attorney. Many other Reps on the committee are lawyers, as well. Huh.
(Daily Caller) Attorney General William Barr will no longer testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, as Democrats voted to allow staffers to question Barr.
“It’s a shame Members of the House Judiciary Committee won’t get the opportunity to hear from Attorney General Barr this Thursday, because Chairman Nadler chose to torpedo our hearing. The attorney general gave clear, informative testimony in the Senate Wednesday, as he offered to do more than a month ago in the House tomorrow,†Republican Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Wednesday about the scheduled hearing with Barr.
“By rejecting the chance to question Attorney General Barr or read the materials he’s provided, Democrats are trying to prolong an investigation the special counsel completed. Ultimately, though, they’re ignoring the will of the majority of Americans who want Congress to move on and secure our border and continue to strengthen our economy,†he continued.
The House Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday to allow staff lawyers to question Barr, adding an extra hour to his testimony time before the committee. This comes as Barr threatened to cancel his testimony before the committee Thursday over disagreements with Democrats regarding the format for the hearing.
He wanted the traditional five-minute rounds of lawmakers asking him questions instead of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler’s proposal of allowing committee staffers to question Barr about their concerns.
It is extremely rare to allow people who are not the elected Congressmembers to ask questions, and certainly not in this format, treating it like it is a court room. But, let’s admit it, this was done intentionally to create a situation where Barr would rescind his offer to appear, which allows Dems like Incompetent Lawyer Nadler to grandstand and threaten to arrest Barr and such.
Read: AG Barr Declines To Testify To House Committee After Yet Another Rule Change »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
