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

Yet Another GOP Warmist Failing To Understand How The Free Market Works

By William Teach June 11, 2019 – 4:03 pm

Rep Elise Stefanik (R-NY) is another Big Government type Republican who fails to see that Government running the market is not free market, no matter how she puts it

Market-Oriented Solutions to Climate Change – InsideSources

The environment is the economic lifeblood of my district in New York’s North Country. Our community understands that clean air and clean water are not just political issues — they are a core aspect of our lives. It’s imperative that we step up in Congress and make smart environmental choices for future generations. Sustainable options depend not just on climate outcomes, but also on reinforcing personal liberty and responsibility.

We must tackle this generational challenge with bipartisan, serious policies. Proposals like the Green New Deal are non-starters because they would not only restructure our energy systems, but also the relationship between the people and a vastly expanded federal government. Free markets, strong property rights, and consumer choice aren’t protected under this kind of sweeping legislation.

We can combat our climate and environmental issues through market-based solutions. That’s why I am focused on ideas to diminish market barriers, reduce pollution, and increase economic growth and justice through free enterprise.

Market-based policy approaches encourage behavioral changes through signals to the market — often focused on changes in prices — rather than through explicit governmental directives. Market-based approaches encourage businesses and individuals to undertake pollution control efforts that are in their interests, and that collectively meet policy goals when they are well-designed and properly implemented.

Except, if the government is making the policies to encourage behavioral changes, that means it is not the free market. When Apple came out with the first iPhone, that was a sea change. Smartphones were around, but, not that big of a deal, excepting Blackberry’s for business use, mostly email.

Tax credits for wind and solar have helped jumpstart an industry that is now one of the economy’s most dynamic. Solar photovoltaic installers and wind turbine service technicians have been the first and second top-growing jobs over the past decade. These tax credits are scheduled to phase-out over the next few years because the subsidies were originally intended to help a nascent market get off the ground, and that goal will be largely achieved by the end of the phase-out.

Combined with the transition from coal to natural gas, this market-based approach had made it so the U.S. leads the world in emissions reductions. As of 2018, our carbon emissions were 10 percent below 2005 levels, which is roughly two-fifths of the way to the Paris Agreement target of 26 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

Those policies are government, not free market.

We also should give incentives for good private sector action. Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions proposes a voluntary federal framework for public and private entities to highlight their efforts to reduce carbon emissions and increase renewable energy procurements. This system would increase transparency and accountability in the emerging carbon economy, highlight successful local and federal programs, and create incentives to participate in the voluntary framework.

People who worked in government creating a group that gets government involved.

We recently celebrated a big victory with passage of the Natural Resources Management Act. The legislation designated 1,340,000 acres of new wilderness, 367 miles of new scenic rivers, and 2,600 miles of new national trails. The bipartisan law also authorizes and allocates dozens of land exchanges to state and local governments to enable further economic development. This is a leading example of legislation that uses federal support to achieve environmental goals with a focus on local priorities and national economic growth.

Government.

Republicans need to be an active part of climate change legislation, which is why I’m working with GOP colleagues in the new bicameral Roosevelt Conservation Caucus. We’re supported by groups in our states and districts including the American Conservation Coalition, a nonprofit founded by young Republicans.

Legislation is free market? Huh.

Read: Yet Another GOP Warmist Failing To Understand How The Free Market Works »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, GOP | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 11, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle causing hot and cold, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 90Ninety Miles From Tyranny, with a post on the Warmist failure at Glacier National Park.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Canada Set To Ban Single Use Plastics Starting In 2021

By William Teach June 11, 2019 – 10:37 am

Can’t wait till the unintentional and unplanned consequences kick in

Ottawa announces plans to ban single-use plastics starting in 2021 at the earliest

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says his government will ban single-use plastics — which could include bags, straws and cutlery — in Canada in 2021 at the earliest.

“We need to cover all of Canada with this decision and that’s why the federal government is moving forward on a science-based approach to establishing which harmful single-use plastics we will be eliminating as of 2021,” said Trudeau during a stop Monday at the Gault Nature Reserve in Mont St-Hilaire, just outside Montreal.

A full list of banned items isn’t set in stone, but a government source told CBC News that the list also could include items like cotton swabs, drink stirrers, plates and balloon sticks. Fast-food containers and cups made of expanded polystyrene, which is similar to white Styrofoam, will also be banned, said the source.

Trudeau said the government will research the question of which items it should ban and follow the model chosen by the European Union, which voted in March to ban plastic items for which market alternatives exist — such as single-use plastic cutlery and plates — and items made of oxo-degradable plastics, such as bags. (Oxo-degradable plastics aren’t really biodegradable; they contain additives that cause the plastic to fragment without breaking down chemically.)

The devil is in the details, so, we’ll have to wait to see how this all shakes out. I wonder, though, will Canada ban the importation of these items via international shippers, such as Amazon? How about Canadians who cross the border into the U.S. to purchase the items? Will it be against the law to bring them back? How will people get their coffee and fast food? What will it be served in? And how much will this increase costs?

He also revealed plans to make companies that manufacture or sell plastic products to take responsibility for recycling their plastic waste.

“Whether we’re talking about plastic bottles or cellphones, it will be up to businesses to take responsibility for the plastics they’re manufacturing and putting out into the world,” said Trudeau.

Or, they could just stop selling their products in Canada, leaving them with no smartphones, causing a mental breakdown in people who are hooked.

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said the plan lacks any details about how it would affect the economy.

“In the dying days of this government — with a scandal-plagued government, with a prime minister desperate to change the channel — we see another gesture without a plan without any kind of specifics about how this would be implemented or any kind of study on the impact on prices for consumers, on jobs, on how this would affect small businesses,” he told reporters in Ottawa

“This is clearly just a government clutching at straws.”

I’m sure the pun was intended.

Read: Canada Set To Ban Single Use Plastics Starting In 2021 »

Posted in Enviroweenies | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

DNC Members Still Trying To Make ‘Climate Change’ Debate Happen Or Something

By William Teach June 11, 2019 – 8:04 am

I’m very much in the corner. There would be nothing better than the Democrat presidential candidates trying to explain to the American people how their plans would artificially skyrocket the cost of living for citizens while also limiting freedom and choice. So, keep pushing, Democrats!

The DNC said no to a climate debate. Some of its members are still trying to make it happen.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez has repeatedly said that although climate change is a top issue for Democrats, the national party will not host a debate solely dedicated to the topic during the 2020 primary race.

However, some DNC members are trying to change that.

Last week, Washington state Democratic Party Chairwoman Tina Podlodowski announced she will introduce a resolution advocating for the committee to host a climate debate. The resolution comes as a number of progressive organizations and top 2020 Democratic presidential candidates call on their party’s national committee to host a debate focused on climate change.

The resolution also states that if the DNC does not host one, then Democratic candidates “are free to participate in any and all forums or debates focused on Climate Change sponsored by other groups.”

Podlodowski said Monday that a climate change debate wouldn’t be a “single issue debate,” and instead would also touch on other policy areas such as the economy and health inequities.

See, the issue of so-called man-caused climate change is just a means to push all their other Modern Socialism garbage policies. They’ve rolled everything into one big over-arching idea. What better way to institute all sorts of taxes, fees, and control of your life than saying that it would all save off doom?

Progressive organizations, including MoveOn, the Sunrise Movement, Greenpeace, and others, have repeatedly called for a climate-only debate. At least 10 Democratic candidates have also endorsed a discussion focused on climate change, including Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, former Obama Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro, along with Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kirsten Gillibrand and Michael Bennet,

Currently, Podlodowski’s resolution has more than 50 signatories, who are state party chairs and other DNC members, including Christine Pelosi, one of the nearly three dozen DNC members that represent the California Democratic Party and daughter of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Christine Pelosi is co-sponsoring the resolution.

Again, I hope they succeed. The end result won’t be what they expect.

Read: DNC Members Still Trying To Make ‘Climate Change’ Debate Happen Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Global Warming | Comments Off on DNC Members Still Trying To Make ‘Climate Change’ Debate Happen Or Something | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove