AG Barr Declines To Testify To House Committee After Yet Another Rule Change

By William Teach May 2, 2019 – 7:16 am

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 »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Current Affairs, Democrats | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

We Can Stop ‘Climate Change’ And Make The World A Better Place Or Something

By William Teach May 1, 2019 – 3:00 pm

It’s interesting that Cult of Climastrology moppets always go to the same well, and think that it will somehow not ruin people’s lives. Here we have Rick Stafford in phys.org

How to stop climate change: six ways to make the world a better place

Nobel Peace Prize nominee Greta Thunberg claims we need system change to save the planet, and the majority of experts, from the IPCC, through to our own research, would certainly agree with this.

But for most people, it often isn’t clear what changes actually need to be made to address . And ideas that are presented can be seem as extreme to some. This is despite the fact that many experts agree that to really tackle , the focus needs to be on changing the capitalist system to make it more environment-friendly.

Yeah, let’s listen to the child blowing off school (and taking fossil fueled trips). Anyhow, here are the 6 ideas

1. Less focus on economic growth

The suggestion that GDP is a good measure of a country’s progress has been frequently challenged. To achieve growth, we consume more products, these products need raw materials and energy to produce – and often result in excessive waste when they are disposed of. Hence pursuit of  drives a wasteful use of scarce resources.

Achieving growth isn’t necessarily bad – but focusing solely on growth is. it prevents many other important strategies being put in place, even if they are actually beneficial for the majority of society. As economist Kate Raworth states, we need to be “agnostic about economic growth” and embrace other measures of societal well-being, such as the Human Development Indexand Genuine Progress Indicator, which combine financial gains with non-market benefits – such as human health and reduced environmental degradation.

Well, if we implemented all the CoC ideas, we’d have no economic growth, the systems would collapse, so, sure, a good idea to not focus on it.

  • Higher taxes and subsidised transport (surprise?)
  • Work less (“Less commuting to work, more time to cook healthy food and more time to take holidays, without the need for flying. The reduction in household income…”
  • Think locally (good luck with getting all your Avacados and fancy pants coffee locally)
  • Learn about nature and look after it (climatic changes, regardless of causation, have nothing to do with nature, because they’ve always happened)
  • Don’t just rely on technology (yeah, they want you to change your lifestyle. Funny they never change their own.)

You might wonder why I highlight these types of stories a lot. Well, it needs to be pointed out again and again what the CoC really wants, and that this has almost nothing to do with science.

Read: We Can Stop ‘Climate Change’ And Make The World A Better Place Or Something »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach May 1, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful apartment building keeping everyone together to reduce carbon footprints, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Brass Pills, with a post on the top 3 reasons (liberal) men declare themselves feminists.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post: Male Dems Who Say They Get Misogyny Should Drop Out

By William Teach May 1, 2019 – 10:30 am

Suzanna Danuta Walters, writing on the opinion pages of the Washington Post, takes Identity Politics to a whole new level

If male candidates want to show they get it, they should get out

In 2013, Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg urged women to “lean in” to their power and break through that pesky glass ceiling. Predictably — and correctly — feminists argued that “leaning in” not only left male-dominated corporate culture intact but also depended on underpaid female domestic workers to clean and care for children. Both Sandberg’s book and the critiques of it left actual men out of the analysis, as if leaning in (and sorting out the limits of this proposed solution) was yet more women’s work.

I’m reminded of that omission as we head into the Democratic primary season. More women are seeking the party’s presidential nomination than ever before. And yet a few white men sit at the top of the polls and rake in big fundraising hauls. As candidates such as Sens. Kamala D. Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Klobuchar lean in, maybe it’s time for some of their male competitors to find ways to lean out.

Early media coverage of the campaign demonstrates why merely leaning in can’t dismantle the double standards and deep structural misogyny women face. Studies by FiveThirtyEight and my colleagues at Northeastern University found both fewer “media mentions” of female candidates and also more negative coverage than of their male counterparts. Meanwhile, Beto O’Rourke apparently merits multiple profiles, an HBO documentary about his failed Senate run and an Annie Leibovitz photo shoot in Vanity Fair — while Pete Buttigieg got a literally glowing New York magazine cover profile.

So, wait, the mostly Democratic staffed and run news and media outlets are being sexist in giving the male Democratic candidates more coverage?

Huh.

Anyway, Ms. Walters yammers on about male privilege and other SJW whines, followed by

The really radical thing for a male candidate to do in 2020 would be to step down and step away, realizing that real gender equity is achieved only when men actively refuse the benefits they receive simply for being born male.

This is a great idea. All the male Democrats should bow out. Say goodbye to Biden, Booker, Bernie, Beto, Buttigieg….are there any who aren’t named with B’s?…Delaney (who?), Yang (who?), Castro, Inslee, Hickenlooper, Messam (who?), Ryan (who?), Excitable Eric Swalwell, Gravel (who?), Moulton (who?). This would leave Kamala Harris, Tulsi Gabbard, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobucher, and Kirstin Gillibrand. Perhaps Sore Loser Stacey Abrams if she decides to jump in.

Gender and racial equity are not zero-sum games: Everyone is a winner when we have a more diverse and representative government. But we can’t achieve that vision without men taking responsibility for the inordinate space they take up in the media and the candidate field.

It really is pathetic. This kind of thinking says that women can’t compete on their own, that they aren’t as good as men unless they get lots of help, like with men taking themselves out of the game. Sad. Really sad. And this is what Democrats think. They say women are strong, but, really boil it all down, and they think that women are delicate flowers unable to do it on their own.

Read: Washington Post: Male Dems Who Say They Get Misogyny Should Drop Out »

Posted in Democrats, Special Snowflake Syndrome | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Your Love Of Wine Is Driving ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach May 1, 2019 – 7:45 am

See, on one hand, high ranking poobahs in the Cult of Climastrology have stated that ‘climate change’ will ruin wine (forgetting that previous warm periods saw great wines being produced in England). And the other hand

How Does Your Love of Wine Contribute to Climate Change?
Consumers don’t have access to much information about how businesses operate, but they can ask questions and focus on one tangible item, the bottle.

Consumers mostly do not care in the least, they just want some wine, not a lecture from anti-science buffoons.

Evil wine causes world to be hazy from carbon pollution

The exquisite vulnerability of grapes to nuances of weather makes wine both particularly susceptible to climate change and a harbinger of what’s to come for many other agricultural products.

Do wine consumers have a role in encouraging producers to take stronger steps to combat climate change? Some in the wine industry think they do, particularly by throwing their economic support to companies that are already acting decisively.

“The consumer is the key to this,” Adrian Bridge, the chief executive of Taylor Fladgate, the historic port producer, wrote in an email. “Changing our own behavior matters, and asking others to change theirs as well. This does mean buying from companies that are doing a good job and avoiding companies that are not.”

Things like grapes are always going to be vulnerable to things like weather. Always have and always will.

It’s equally important for consumers to make clear to the wine industry that fighting climate change is an urgent issue. Both through their buying decisions and through old-fashioned advocacy — which might include letters and emails to producers, importers and wine publications, as well as direct conversations with wine merchants and restaurateurs — consumers must demand that the wine industry take action.

Important to whom? Not the vast majority of people who buy wine, and do not give it any thought as to how it is supposedly linked to climate change, regardless of whether it is natural or man-caused.

That industry is simply a microcosm of larger society. Just as politicians have little incentive to address climate change unless voters require it, many wine producers are less inclined to reduce their own carbon footprints unless consumers demonstrate that such steps are important to them.

And few do, so, let’s move on from this stupidity. But, this is the NY Times, so, we haven’t even gotten a quarter way through the screed.

But how can anybody distinguish the environmental heroes from the do-nothings? That requires consumers to educate themselves in ways that are not easy, particularly because reliable information is difficult to come by. Many in the wine industry are notoriously opaque about their agriculture, their cellar techniques and their ingredients.

How dare they hide their trade secrets! Let’s skip to the end

As Gandhi suggested, no step is too small. The least we can do is make climate issues more urgent in our own lives, and to pass that message on to others.

“Things change,” Mr. Bridge said, “when society demands it.”

Society isn’t demanding it, nor are Warmists making changes in their own live.

Read: Your Love Of Wine Is Driving ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Finally Decides To Notice Rising Jew Hatred In Their Own Paper And Around The World

By William Teach May 1, 2019 – 7:41 am

It only took them publishing multiple anti-Semitic cartoons and getting slammed

A Rising Tide of Anti-Semitism

The Times published an appalling political cartoon in the opinion pages of its international print edition late last week. It portrayed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel as a dog wearing a Star of David on a collar. He was leading President Trump, drawn as a blind man wearing a skullcap.

The cartoon was chosen from a syndication service by a production editor who did not recognize its anti-Semitism. Yet however it came to be published, the appearance of such an obviously bigoted cartoon in a mainstream publication is evidence of a profound danger — not only of anti-Semitism but of numbness to its creep, to the insidious way this ancient, enduring prejudice is once again working itself into public view and common conversation.

Anti-Semitic imagery is particularly dangerous now. The number of assaults against American Jews more than doubled from 2017 to 2018, rising to 39, according to a report released Tuesday by the Anti-Defamation League. On Saturday, a gunman opened fire during Passover services at a synagogue in San Diego County, killing one person and injuring three, allegedly after he posted in an online manifesto that he wanted to murder Jews. For decades, most American Jews felt safe to practice their religion, but now they pass through metal detectors to enter synagogues and schools.

Interesting. There’s no mention of the 7,000 anti-Jew incidents while Obama was president (Vox of course tries to defend Obama and hurt Trump). This is not to blame them on Obama, just to show the incidents, which mainly occur from Obama’s unhinged base, especially on college campuses, in Dem run cities, and, yes, people who would be considered very far right and whom are unwanted by the Republican party and Conservatives in general.

Nor is there a mention of all the pieces, both in the “news” section and the opinion section, that protected Jew hater and sitting U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar. Nor that many Democrats were very upset that the Trump admin has been working hard to investigate incidences of anti-Semitism on the Democrat run college campuses. Also, the Times forgot to mention other big attacks that didn’t occur under Trump, such as the Holocaust Museum attack.

Jews face even greater hostility and danger in Europe, where the cartoonwas created. In Britain, one of several members of Parliament who resigned from the Labour Party in February said that the party had become “institutionally anti-Semitic.” In France and Belgium, Jews have been the targets of terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists. Across Europe, right-wing parties with long histories of anti-Semitic rhetoric are gaining political strength.

You can’t blame it all on “right wing parties”, unless you want to note that they have the same beliefs that Progressives, Socialists, and Marxists hold.

This is also a period of rising criticism of Israel, much of it directed at the rightward drift of its own government and some of it even questioning Israel’s very foundation as a Jewish state. We have been and remain stalwart supporters of Israel, and believe that good-faith criticism should work to strengthen it over the long term by helping it stay true to its democratic values. But anti-Zionism can clearly serve as a cover for anti-Semitism — and some criticism of Israel, as the cartoon demonstrated, is couched openly in anti-Semitic terms.

Criticism of Israel is not rising: it’s been high among the same groups for a long time, including many in the Democratic party, and in the opinion pages of liberal run newspapers. But, it is good to see the Times’ Editorial Board not that anti-Israel sentiment serves as cover for Jew hatred.

As anti-Semitism has surged from the internet into the streets, President Trump has done too little to rouse the national conscience against it. Though he condemned the cartoon in The Times, he has failed to speak out against anti-Semitic groups like the white nationalists who marched in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 chanting, “Jews will not replace us.” He has practiced a politics of intolerance for diversity, and attacks on some minority groups threaten the safety of every minority group. The gunman who attacked the synagogue in San Diego claimed responsibility for setting a fire at a nearby mosque, and wrote that he was inspired by the deadly attack on mosques in New Zealand last month.

And now they attempt to shift the blame from themselves. Surprise? Funny how the NYT forgets that before Ilhan, whom they protected, Obama mainstreamed anti-Israel and anti-Jew sentiment. The same paper also backed Iran while Obama was making his deal, a nation that has a stated goal of wiping Israel off the map.

In the 1930s and the 1940s, The Times was largely silent as anti-Semitism rose up and bathed the world in blood. That failure still haunts this newspaper. Now, rightly, The Times has declared itself “deeply sorry” for the cartoon and called it “unacceptable.” Apologies are important, but the deeper obligation of The Times is to focus on leading through unblinking journalism and the clear editorial expression of its values. Society in recent years has shown healthy signs of increased sensitivity to other forms of bigotry, yet somehow anti-Semitism can often still be dismissed as a disease gnawing only at the fringes of society. That is a dangerous mistake. As recent events have shown, it is a very mainstream problem.

Yet, the Times will still look to protect those who are anti-Semites on their side. Where’s the condemnation of Omar? How about all the Democrats hobb-knobbing with Keith Ellison and Louis Farrakhan? Taking meetings with the Muslim Brotherhood linked CAIR, and taking their donations? Will they highlight the pro-Palestinian anti-Semitic college kids all over campuses run by Democrats?

It is interesting that only now does the NY Times take a stance, after a cartoonist felt perfectly fine in submitting an anti-Jew cartoon, thinking there would be no issues with this. And, as far as we know, the cartoonist has not had their contract terminated, nor has anyone else been terminated.

Read: NY Times Finally Decides To Notice Rising Jew Hatred In Their Own Paper And Around The World »

Posted in Israel, Journalistic Malpractice, Liberal World | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Surprise, No, Real Surprise: Trump And Dems Agree On Infrastructure Package

By William Teach April 30, 2019 – 2:49 pm

I don’t know about you, but, I really, really did not expect this

Trump agrees to spend $2 trillion on US infrastructure: Democrats

Democratic leaders emerged from White House talks with Donald Trump Tuesday saying they had reached agreement with the president to spend $2 trillion to improve America’s creaking infrastructure.

“We agreed on a number which was very, very good: $2 trillion for infrastructure,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, in a sign the feuding sides are willing to work together on accomplishing a major bipartisan goal to upgrade the nation’s roads, bridges, airports, rail lines, waterways and broadband internet access.

“Even the president was eager to push it up to $2 trillion,” the Democrat added.

“There was goodwill in this meeting, and that was different than some of the other meetings that we’ve had, which is a very good thing.”

Of course, this is the Dems point of view, we haven’t heard from Trump yet. And, we’ve certainly seen where Democrats scuttle things that have been agree on. I guess we’ll see.

Read: Surprise, No, Real Surprise: Trump And Dems Agree On Infrastructure Package »

Posted in Politics | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 30, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful park in the middle of a big city which Cares about climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is This ain’t Hell…, with a post wondering if Dems will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Yes, that is in Chile.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Democrats To Scuttle Infrastructure Talks With Silly Demands

By William Teach April 30, 2019 – 10:30 am

President Donald Trump has been open to a big plan to fix America’s infrastructure, and has tried working with Democrats previously, but, they were pains in the behind and caused that push to die

(CNN) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer will meet with President Donald Trump on Tuesday in an effort to find common ground on infrastructure policy even as tensions run high over ongoing Democratic-led investigations into the administration in the wake of the Mueller report.

The meeting will take place at 10:30 a.m. ET at the White House, a senior Democratic aide told CNN.

Rebuilding America’s infrastructure has long been talked about as an area of potential cooperation between Democrats and the President since both have described investing in infrastructure as a priority. That’s no guarantee, however, that the two sides will agree on an infrastructure plan, especially since congressional Democrats and Trump rarely agree on anything.

“Our message is: Let’s work together,” Pelosi told reporters on Monday, adding, “The American people understand the need to build the infrastructure of our country. Let’s find a solution.”

It’s pretty much DOA unless Dems are willing to drop their stupid ideas

Dems want climate change, tax hikes in infrastructure deal

…

The leaders laid out other Democratic priorities: Any deal must extend beyond traditional infrastructure projects, take into account climate change, include “Buy America” provisions and provide jobs for a broad swath of workers.

“A big and bold infrastructure package must be comprehensive and include clean energy and resiliency priorities,” Pelosi and Schumer wrote. “To truly be a gamechanger for the American people, we should go beyond transportation and into broadband, water, energy, schools, housing and other initiatives. We must also invest in resiliency and risk mitigation of our current infrastructure to deal with climate change.”

So, instead of just trying to fix infrastructure, they want to delve into all sorts of other things, including Hotcoldwetdry idiocy. This should be a short meeting. Because these demands are not opening requests which lead to negotiation, they want it all or they won’t cooperate.

Read: Democrats To Scuttle Infrastructure Talks With Silly Demands »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, Politics | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Beto Releases ‘Climate Change’ Plan, Says We Only Have Ten Years Left

By William Teach April 30, 2019 – 7:44 am

Yes, guy who talks in the 3rd person of himself a lot is Concerned. So concerned he did this

Nothing like taking a long fossil fueled trip to yammer about ‘climate change’, eh? Remember, he’s from Texas (and he traveled around California after the Yosemite stunt)

Beto: We only have ’10 years’ left on Earth if we don’t address climate change

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke sounded the alarms on Monday, saying that civilization has only “ten years” left on Earth if no action is taken on climate change.

The former Texas congressman unveiled the first major policy proposal of his candidacy, which is a climate change initiative that would cost $5 trillion in over 10 years in hopes of reaching zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Appearing on MSNBC, O’Rourke promoted his proposal but was asked about his prior support from the oil and gas industry, and whether the relationship would be a problem going forward.

“Do you see the oil and gas industry as an opponent in that? Won’t you have to declare yourself in opposition to their interests?” MSNBC host Chris Hayes asked.

O’Rourke responded “yes,” but said he is optimistic that the industry will take part in his initiative.

Guess who’s going to pay for it? The rich companies and people, of course! But

O’Rourke’s plan, which also includes a promise to use executive authority to curb the leakage of methane — a powerful greenhouse gas — from the oil and gas sector, may be an attempt to mute criticism the candidate is too cozy his home state’s oil and gas industry. His vote to end a 40-year ban on the export of crude oil in 2015 and other votes seen as fossil friendly have led some progressive activists to question his commitment to fighting climate change.

Is he a Believer, or just pandering to the Cult of Climastrology? One sect of Warmists is not buying

The Sunrise Movement, a progressive grassroots group aligned Ocasio-Cortez, criticized O’Rouke’s plan as not being aggressive enough. The Green New Deal calls for net-zero emission by 2030, 20 years sooner than O’Rourke’s climate vision.

“Beto claims to support the Green New Deal, but his plan is out of line with the timeline it lays out and the scale of action that scientists say is necessary to take here in the United States to give our generation a livable future,” Varshini Prakash, Sunrise’s executive director, said in a statement.

The Sunrise Movement was less then pleased, since these youths (including using pre-teen children as props) are big supporters of AOC’s Green New Deal, and are traveling around the country (in fossil fueled vehicles) to tell people about it.

Nice try, Beto. He’s not worth his own climate clown photoshop yet, though.

Read: Beto Releases ‘Climate Change’ Plan, Says We Only Have Ten Years Left »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Climahypocrites, Democrats, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove