McConnell Schedules Vote On Green New Deal, Which Makes GND Supporters Upset

By William Teach March 24, 2019 – 4:13 pm

See, the Green New Deal is a resolution meant to Save The Planet, so, obviously, supporters would want to vote on it, right? They’d be happy to go on the record in supporting its ideals, right?

McConnell aims to use Green New Deal to divide Democrats. But the party is unifying against his show vote.

Senate Republicans are trying to elevate the ideas and personalities of House Democrats in a bid to divide the opposition into the rising liberal stars, the party’s presidential contenders and its more mainstream lawmakers.

The effort begins with a midweek vote on the Green New Deal, a loosely defined effort to combat climate change by dramatically reducing greenhouse-gas emissions coupled with job creation. Democrats have spent years proposing different versions of legislation to rein in the effects of climate change, but Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has taken the Green New Deal and raised it to a new level with her political star power.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., believes the proposal, written by Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., embraced by several top Democratic presidential contenders but criticized by the AFL-CIO as unrealistic, would be politically divisive for a party that has made winning back Midwest battleground states a top priority for 2020.

“The prevailing fashions in New York and San Francisco, that’s what is defining today’s Democrats,” McConnell said during a floor speech two weeks ago.

By citing those two cities, McConnell made clear that Republicans want to turn the 29-year-old from the Bronx into a political weapon akin to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

He has taken the original Green New Deal proposal, put it in his own resolution and scheduled what amounts to a show vote as the bill lacks the votes in the Republican-led Senate. But it’s doubtful the strategy will produce any immediate signs of division, as Democrats have largely rallied around the strategy from Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) to vote present.

So, wait, I’m confused: if the plan is so good, so great, so world saving, then why would Democrats think it is divisive, and that they should not vote on it? Why trot it out to start with? Even AOC doesn’t want to vote on it, and thinks it’s a waste of time

Why propose something you do not want voted on? That’s kinda what lawmakers do.

Read: McConnell Schedules Vote On Green New Deal, Which Makes GND Supporters Upset »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 24, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is an area having drought from other people’s carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Irons In the Fire, with a post on the progressive in full bloom.

It’s girls in nature week.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach March 24, 2019 – 9:39 am

Happy Sunday! Yet another great day in America. The Sun is shining, the birds are signing, real Spring is just around the corner, or so they tell me. This pinup is by Greg Hildebrandt, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Independent Sentinel covers Jew hater Ilhan Omar facing protesters
  2. Weasel Zippers discusses drugs caught at ports vs border
  3. The Lid covers the emerging leftist theory of the Mueller report being a coverup
  4. The First Street Journal covers the NY Times wanting a leader who bans constitutional rights
  5. Raised On Hoecakes wonders when a criminal sentence ends
  6. Powerline discusses the 5 things that didn’t happen with the Mueller investigation
  7. Political Clown Parade wonders why everyone at CNN and MSNBC are standing on a ledge
  8. Pacific Pundit covers Diane Feinstein wanting to ban guns
  9. Moonbattery notes that Seattle is dying
  10. Jihad Watch notes Omar having secret fundraisers with Hamas linked CAIR
  11. Free North Carolina covers AOC wanting to punish Asian students
  12. Creeping Sharia notes the difference between righ-wing and Islamic terrorism cases
  13. Chicks On The Right discusses Nikki Haley’s reaction to the Mueller report
  14. The Deplorable Climate Science Blog covers the California permanent drought
  15. And last, but not least, Not A Lot Of People Know That features the Dutch government turning off gas supply to households

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page (nope, that’s gone, the newest Apache killed access, and the program hasn’t been upgraded since 2014). While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 24 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, What Does It Take To Ban All Semi-Automatic Rifles?

By William Teach March 24, 2019 – 8:31 am

The gun grabbers keep exposing their true agenda on firearms. When you look at abortion, it isn’t about making them “safe and rare”, it’s about allowing them unfettered, no restrictions, right up birth to right after birth. With firearms, it’s not about making it more safe, it really is about disarmament

From the link

New Zealand banned semi-automatic rifles this week, and made the ban effective immediately to prevent “stockpiling of weapons while the legislation is being drafted.” The Kiwis are apparently not big on the “hopes and prayers” mantra that the U.S. Congress adopts after each gun massacre.

It’s easy to be dispirited by the cravenness of conservative politicians, and by the frequency of American gun deaths. Yet those failures obscure a key development in U.S. gun politics: These are glory days for the gun-safety movement.

Hey, remember when news outlets and their opinion sections were outraged by Trump using his executive power on several things, such as building a border wall? I wonder how they would feel if he banned most abortions by executive fiat?

That momentum continues. In Washington, the House of Representatives, flush with new Democratic members who campaigned on gun regulation, passed a universal background check bill in February. Multiple inquiriesinto the National Rifle Association’s political activities and Russia connections are under way in Congress, with the NRA clearly on the defensive.

Huh. So, using the power of the federal government to investigate a private organization in order to destroy them.

The (Supreme) court made seismic pronouncements on guns in 2008 and 2010, establishing first the individual right to firearms, and then requiring states to recognize that right via the 14th Amendment. Then the court beat a retreat, declining to further define the scope of the Second Amendment.

Can semi-automatic rifles be banned? Does the Second Amendment guarantee the right to carry a firearm in a public place? The court opted not to clarify such questions. It may now, removing gun regulation from the heated political arena and declaring victory — or perhaps a series of victories — for gun-rights forces.

I thought they had been talking about the scary looking assault rifles, which are now apparently weapons of war. Yet, writer Francis Wilkinson casually mentions banning all semi-automatic rifles, which would take away all rifles used for things like hunting.

Anyhow, what would it take to do like New Zealand? Gutting the Bill of Rights, for one thing. Some of the Twitter responses

Yeah, there is that. And you have to wonder just how Democrats would make it happen. Would the police and military cooperate in this un-Constitutional scheme?

Read: Say, What Does It Take To Ban All Semi-Automatic Rifles? »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Current Affairs | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post Pleads For Democrats To Stop Being Unhinged Nutters

By William Teach March 23, 2019 – 4:01 pm

Good luck with this bit of pleading, Dana Milbank

Democrats, please don’t do this

Watch in slow motion as Democrats, goaded by the media, conspire to reelect President Trump:

Voters care about the economy and making education and health care affordable. And so Democrats are talking about . . . abolishing the electoral college? (snip through the various idiots yammering about this)

Naturally, Trump seized the opportunity. “The Democrats are getting very ‘strange’,” he tweeted Wednesday. “Actually, you’ve got to win it at the Ballot Box!”

Just like that, another Democratic litmus test was born. Encouraged by left-wing activists and the media, Democrats are performing acid tests like lab technicians. While the rest of the country built March Madness brackets, Democrats, in their own madness, put themselves in boxes, supporting proposals that are impossible, extreme or oversimplified: Medicare-for-all. A Green New Deal. Guaranteed jobs for all. Impeachment. Reparations to African Americans. Packing the Supreme Court. Late-term abortion. Banning PAC contributions. Abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Legalizing marijuana. Eliminating the filibuster. Opposing all Trump judicial nominees. Boycotting the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference. Abolishing the electoral college.

Many of these have merit. The problem is that they have become a battery of binary tests of ideological purity — allowing Trump to caricature Democrats as extremist.

But, they dug this hole of extremism, and keep expanding it. Remember when we thought Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer were the extreme left? When John Conyers was hold basement impeachment hearings on Bush 43? Now the party has become that of AOC and Ilhan Omar.

Read: Washington Post Pleads For Democrats To Stop Being Unhinged Nutters »

Posted in Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 22 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 23, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon bike which should be forced on everyone else, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post on Dems in denial on Mueller report.

Doubleshot under the fold, so, see neo-neocon, with a post musing on the Electoral College.

Read More »

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Open Borders Washington To Expand Sanctuary State Laws

By William Teach March 23, 2019 – 10:30 am

If only the state cared as much about all the homeless streaming into their state and especially cities like Seattle as the did with illegal aliens

Expanded sanctuary state rules advance in Washington

A proposal to expand Washington state’s existing sanctuary state rules is moving forward in the Legislature, potentially strengthening an existing wall of West Coast states with such policies.

The bill, from Mercer Island Democratic Sen. Lisa Wellman, would limit the ability of police to inquire about immigration status in noncriminal situations. It would also require schools, courthouses and other government facilities to adopt rules minimizing the risk of being used as staging grounds for immigration stops, along with other protections

The bill had a public hearing Friday in the House. It previously passed the Senate.

At the hearing, Wellman said the measure would protect the state’s workforce in the agriculture, hospitality and high-tech sectors.

“We have 30 percent of Microsoft here on visas,” Wellman said in an interview before the hearing. At the same time, she said, “You can’t open a hotel if you don’t have immigrants in back-of-house.”

The bill would also prohibit state and local police from passing immigration status information to federal authorities unless required by law.

But, ICE doesn’t really go after those on visas, unless they have broken laws. It’s a cute way to conflate legal with illegal immigration. Regardless, they can pass these laws all they want, and all ICE will do is go to more courthouses and government buildings – excluding schools, which ICE has a policy of non-intervention – to detain illegals, which are a lot safer for the agents.

The protections would put Washington on par with – and in some areas beyond – Oregon and California, both of which have adopted their own sanctuary state policies.

Two other states that are having massive issues with homelessness. And which protect illegal aliens at the expense of legal citizens.

Read: Open Borders Washington To Expand Sanctuary State Laws »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Multiple Democrat AGs File Briefs In Support Of ‘Climate Change’ Lawsuit

By William Teach March 23, 2019 – 7:27 am

If only there was something they could do themselves

AG Becerra Files Brief in Support of Lawsuit by Oakland and SF Communities to Hold Oil and Coal Companies Accountable for Costs of Sea-Level Rise

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, leading a multistate coalition, today filed an amicus brief supporting the city of Oakland and the city and county of San Francisco in their lawsuit, City of Oakland and City and County of San Francisco. v. BP, et al. The suit seeks to hold petroleum and coal companies accountable for actions contributing to climate change and the resulting harms from sea-level rise and other effects.

“Our states and local governments protect the welfare of our residents by holding accountable those who harm our communities,” said Attorney General Becerra. “Companies that reap the benefits of fossil fuels intensify the effects of global warming. We ask the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to allow our local governments to stand up for Americans who suffer the costs of climate change.” (snip)

In September 2017, the City of Oakland brought its lawsuit against BP, et al, in Alameda County Superior Court. The same day, San Francisco city and county brought their lawsuit against the oil companies in San Francisco County Superior Court. In October, the oil companies successfully transferred the cases from state court to federal court. In February 2018, the federal district court ruled against the localities requests to have their cases heard in state court. In June, the federal court dismissed both cases. In August, the localities appealed in the Ninth Circuit, and the two cases were combined. In the amicus brief supporting the localities, the Attorneys General assert that the federal district court’s decisions not to send the cases back to state court and the dismissals should be reversed. (snip)

Joining Attorney General Becerra in filing the brief are the Attorneys General of Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

A good question was raised

https://twitter.com/nerdynel17/status/1108704585462530053

If fossil fuels are so bad, why do all these ‘climate change’ believing cities, counties, and states keep building and maintaining roads? Fossil fueled machines are used to build and maintain roads that fossil fueled vehicles drive on. Perhaps folks like AG’s James and Becerra should sue to stop all construction. Immediate action!

Of course, this is all really about the money and power. They were upset that the jurisdictions weren’t able to sue fossil fuels companies in a shakedown attempt.

Read: Multiple Democrat AGs File Briefs In Support Of ‘Climate Change’ Lawsuit »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Now That Mueller Report Is Done, Hot Takes Abound

By William Teach March 23, 2019 – 7:06 am

CNN even noted that this is all a victory for President Trump. Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow were among many in the Credentialed Media that melted down, as did Rep Eric Swalwell. And we have a Narrative forming

Here’s the Washington Post Editorial Board

Mueller has submitted his report. Now Barr must share it with the rest of us.

IT WAS the announcement that Washington has awaited for nearly two long, tweet-filled years: Attorney General William P. Barr told Congress on Friday that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has completed his report on Russia’s involvement in the 2016 presidential election. The report is now on Mr. Barr’s desk. The question is how much of it will move from there into the hands of Congress and the public.

Though Friday’s announcement did not reveal the report’s contents, Mueller biographer Garrett M. Graff noted that there is significance in the fact that the special counsel was able to complete it relatively unhindered, and that the White House did not attempt a Nixonian purge at the Justice Department. “We shouldn’t have to celebrate something as basic as this, but it’s a sign that our system, our rule of law, and our democracy is holding — for now,” Mr. Graff said.

For now, indeed. As Mr. Barr considers what to release publicly, he must keep in mind that the Mueller inquiry is no ordinary investigation. Typically, the Justice Department is wary of revealing investigative information that did not lead to an indictment. This is the right instinct: It guards against law enforcement dragging people through the mud when prosecutors do not have enough evidence to charge them formally. But an attack on the country’s democracy — and senior officials’ response — is a national concern with unusual importance to the country’s politics and policy. Part of the point is to educate the public and reform the law to better prepare for further foreign intrusions. Mr. Mueller’s conclusions and supporting evidence must be released.

You are seeing this same thing around the left leaning opinion pages and editorials, which all seem to be the same: they, like 2020 Democrat presidential candidates, are positioning that if the full report is not released, and released quickly, it is a coverup and a “threat to our democracy.” Even though the law, as mentioned in the 3rd paragraph in the above excerpt, is meant to protect people who were investigated but found to have done nothing wrong. Kinda the way our justice system works.

Seriously, you have Adam Schiff freaking outfreaking out and stating he’ll subpoena Mueller, since he apparently knows that there is nothing in the report to support the Russia Russia Russia narrative. So far, there have been zero indictments of US citizens for collusion or anything related to the RRR narrative, but Dems are promising to continue investigating in the House. And they will be helping Trump win in 2020.

Read: Now That Mueller Report Is Done, Hot Takes Abound »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, Donald Trump | 114 Comments | Trackback URL

AOC Is Bummed That The Green Deal Narrative Is Being Manipulated Or Something

By William Teach March 22, 2019 – 8:21 pm

When you release something as bad as the Green New Deal, what do you expect? Hilariously, Fox puts this in the “Entertainment” section

AOC defends Green New Deal, says narrative being ‘manipulated’ by Trump, other critics

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., appeared on a late-night comedy talk show Thursday night but was stone-cold serious in her defense of the Green New Deal, the cornerstone of her progressive agenda.

When asked by “Late Night” host Seth Meyers if President Trump’s claims that “cows farting” and “hamburgers” would be outlawed were true, Ocasio-Cortez firmly answered “No.”

“I think it’s good to see how these narratives are manipulated,” Ocasio-Cortez said, “because they’re trying to say that the Green New Deal is about what we have to give up, what we have to cut back on, when in fact the Green New Deal itself is resolution to be more expansive.

Here it comes

“It is to be able to generate more,” she continued, “and to make sure that we’re investing in working-class Americans so that we all can afford to have more in life, so that an affordable apartment isn’t a dream but a norm and that health care is a right and not a privilege.”

The self-described Democratic socialist stressed that the Green New Deal she introduced in February “is not a bill,” but a “resolution” that doesn’t require the president’s signature.

If we passed a resolution in the House, it doesn’t go into the Senate and it doesn’t go to the president,” she explained. “It is a House resolution. It is a declaration. It is an intentional, vision document. … Listen, if we’re going to make progress, we need to declare our North Star, and our North Star is 100 percent renewable energy, it’s Medicare For All, it’s tuition-free public colleges, it’s investing in technology and renewable resources and electric vehicles. … The resolution of the Green New Deal is the vision of what we need to accomplish in the next ten years.”

I thought it was about ‘climate change’? No?

BTW, when is she going to force the House to vote on this resolution?

Read: AOC Is Bummed That The Green Deal Narrative Is Being Manipulated Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Barking Moonbats, Democrats, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove