AG Barr To Democrats: Everyone Will Get To Read The Mueller Report, Shut Up And Give Us A Minute

By William Teach March 30, 2019 – 7:12 am

Well, AG Barr didn’t actually say shut up, he just implied it. It would be more fun if Barr was more like Trump, then he would have told the Democrats to cool their jets and untwist their granny panties due to the constant whining about releasing the full report

‘Everyone will soon be able to read it,’ Barr says of Mueller report

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report detailing his investigation of President Trump and Russia’s election interference will be delivered to Congress by mid-April, Attorney General William P. Barr said Friday in a letter to lawmakers offering important new details about how the document will be edited before its public release.

“Everyone will soon be able to read it on their own,” Barr wrote.

Barr’s new letter lays out a timeline for the next steps of the hotly-debated process by which Justice Department officials are sharing the nearly 400-page report.

In the letter, Barr said he does not plan to submit the report to the White House for review.

“Although the president would have the right to assert privilege over certain parts of the report, he has stated publicly that he intends to defer to me and, accordingly, there are no plans to submit the report to the White House for a privilege review,” Barr wrote. (snip)

Since that Sunday letter, Democrats have demanded to see Mueller’s full report immediately — and they have threatened to issue a subpoena for the document if they don’t get it by Tuesday.

That second to last paragraph is rather important, as it means there really isn’t anything that will hurt Trump and his team. It means that the full release of the Mueller report will be another Big Letdown for the Russia Russia Russia crowd, though, as Rush always says, don’t doubt me on this, Democrats will seize on the redactions and caterwaul over them. Barr is also offering to testify in front of Congress on it. Democrats are not going to get the Muellermas they thought. If they were smart, they’d just admit defeat and move on. “Russian collusion? What are you talking about? You’re weird.” They won’t.

Meanwhile, at the NY Times we get this piece written by Alexey Kovalev, who is not an NHL player, but a Russian journalist

Russians Always Knew There Was No Collusion

Russians weren’t waiting for Robert Mueller’s report with quite the same excitement as Americans.

Russian state media’s coverage of Donald Trump’s campaign and presidency has vacillated between breathless adoration, mockery and outrage, but one thing has been consistent: The idea of Russia electing and controlling an American president has always been deemed absurd. Most references to the Mueller inquiry and the Trump-Russia story in state media are preceded by a qualifier: “the so-called Russia investigation,” as the prominent TV host Dmitry Kiselyov puts it.

It’s not just the state media that has rejected the idea that Mr. Trump colluded with Russia. Even liberals and opponents of President Vladimir Putin have been deeply skeptical, pointing out that Russia’s ruling circles are barely competent enough to prop themselves up, let alone manipulate a superpower.(snip)

Alexey Pushkov, a former diplomat and a political analyst, tweeted to his 360,000 followers on Tuesday, following the release of Attorney General William Barr’s summary of the report: “The results of Mueller’s investigations are a disgrace to the U.S. and their political elite. It’s now confirmed that all their allegations have been plucked out of thin air. The media have played a shameful role of lie-mongers in a campaign built on lies. The adherents of this conspiracy theory are discredited. Only an idiot can believe them now.”

The rest if good. Of course, collusion conspiracists will say “well, that’s what those involved in collusion would say, wouldn’t they?” Probably starting with Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff.

Read: AG Barr To Democrats: Everyone Will Get To Read The Mueller Report, Shut Up And Give Us A Minute »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats | 45 Comments | Trackback URL

UK Warmists Trying To Push Their Own Green New Deal That Is All About Their Modern Socialist Politics

By William Teach March 29, 2019 – 3:33 pm

Funny how something that’s supposed to be about solving anthropogenic climate change is all about every other issue Leftist push, as Caroline Lucas, the MP for Brighton Pavilion, holds forth

The answer to climate breakdown and austerity? A green new deal

Faced with unprecedented challenges, politicians appear more divided than ever – that’s why Labour’s Clive Lewis and I are doing something bold. We are jointly tabling a bill in parliament designed to address two of the greatest threats we face – climate breakdown and spiralling inequality. Our bill would introduce a “green new deal” – an unprecedented mobilisation of resources invested to prevent climate breakdown, reverse inequality, and heal our communities. It demands major structural changes in our approach to the ecosystem, coupled with a radical transformation of the finance sector and the economy, to deliver both social justice and a livable planet.

It’s an idea congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has recently reinvigorated in the US. And it could scarcely be more urgent. The UN’s top scientists have warned we have just 11 years to halve global emissions and avoid climate catastrophe. Global wildlife populations have collapsed by nearly 60% in our lifetimes. This has led 1.4 million young people to join the inspiring global school strikes movement to demand change. The response from ministers? To continue to force fracking on local communities, and to hand millions in tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry. Last week, unbelievably, a new coal mine was given a green-light on their watch.

Yes, so reinvigorating that almost every single Democrat Senator voted “present”. The few who didn’t voted against it, and the refuse to vote for it in the House.

The UK is also host to grotesque levels of inequality. More than 4 million children are living in poverty. Two-thirds of the country’s highest earners live in London and the south-east, while northern areas have been hit hardest by austerity and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) says incomes of the poorest 20% fell in 2018. The prime minister’s announcement that austerity is coming to an end was a lie. Benefits for the poorest remain frozen, millions are still struggling to get by on universal credit, and headteachers are still having to cut crucial staff to keep the lights on in our schools.

The response to these crises must be nothing short of a transformation of our economy, our environment and our constituents’ lives.

The green new deal would launch an unprecedented programme of investment in clean energy, warm homes, affordable public transport, sustainable farming, and restored natural habitats – delivering a decent, well-paid job to everyone who wants one. It would force the government to finally start paying attention to once proud communities that have been hollowed out through de-industrialisation and austerity – and empower them to take up the opportunities of new zero-carbon industries. This once-in-a-lifetime government intervention would involve a 10-year strategy to completely and rapidly decarbonise our economy – as well as massively reduce economic inequality.

It is not good enough to tinker with the status quo – we must reprogramme our economy so that it works for everyone. It’s about sharing our country’s wealth fairly and acknowledging that our planet’s finite resources cannot magically regenerate in an instant…

Greater market regulation will be key to tackling the terrifying threat of planetary collapse. We have always known that markets can only thrive if they are managed and accountable to the societies in which they operate. …

Go figure.

Read: UK Warmists Trying To Push Their Own Green New Deal That Is All About Their Modern Socialist Politics »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 29, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful wildspace that will soon be turned to dust from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Creeping Sharia, with a post on how Democrats in Pa reacted to reading the opening prayer.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Study Shows Gun Bans Have No Effect On Homicide Rate

By William Teach March 29, 2019 – 10:42 am

Usually, hyper far-left outlets like the Pacific Standard are all for banning guns, even confiscating them. This is an interesting take (but there’s something missing)

THE MOST EFFECTIVE GUN-CONTROL LAWS TARGET WHO BUYS GUNS—NOT WHICH GUNS THEY BUY

Each time there is a mass shooting, activists call for stricter laws regulating firearms. But even legislatures amenable to such actions must decide among a variety of approaches. Which types of laws—or combinations of laws—actually reduce homicides?

New research that analyzes state-level homicide rates over a quarter-century provides some clear answers. Universal background checks and state laws prohibiting handgun possession for people who have committed a violent misdemeanor are associated with meaningful reductions in the homicide rate.

The thing there is, if you punch someone who grabbed your wife’s ass and get charged with simple assault, should you be denied a firearms permit? Should you have your firearms taken by The State? There’s a serious danger in a blanket application when denying people their Constitutional Right. But, yes, certain people should be denied, I think we can agree on that.

On the other hand, “shall issue” laws, which require local law enforcement to issue concealed-carry permits to anyone who qualifies, are associated with a significant increase in homicides.

Interesting. The vast majority of these are people who have already passed background checks

Seven other varieties of gun-control laws, including assault weapons bans and bans of large-capacity ammunition magazines, had no effect on the homicide rate.

“It appears that laws that regulate the ‘what’ [what guns/products are allowed on the market] do not have much of an impact on overall population homicide,” lead author Dr. Michael Siegel of the Boston University School of Public Health writes in a “roadmap for policymakers” that accompanies the study. “In contrast, laws that regulate the ‘who’ [who has legal access to firearms] may have an appreciable impact on firearm homicide, especially if access is restricted specifically to … people who have a history of violence, or represent an imminent threat of violence.”

So, this is a double edged sword. On one hand, we see that regulating firearms doesn’t make a damned bit of difference. On the other, the focus on “who” will certainly lead to calls by the gun grabbers to restrict even more people from their constitutional right.

Also, how are you going to restrict criminals, who are responsible for the vast majority of homicides with firearms?

“Universal background checks were associated with 14.9 percent lower overall homicide rates,” they report. “Violent misdemeanor laws were associated with 18.1 percent lower homicide rates. ‘Shall issue’ laws [requiring police to issue concealed-carry permits] were associated with 9.0 percent higher homicide rates.”

“None of the other seven laws was significantly associated with overall homicide rates,” they add. “This does not necessarily mean these laws are ineffective. It may also be that the laws are not broad enough to affect overall population death rates, or that the laws are not being adequately enforced.”

Of course, in order to have said universal background checks a registry of private property mentioned in the Constitution would be required, and the second paragraph opens the door to cracking down on the “what” even more.

What’s also interesting is that someone was actually able to do a homicide involving firearms study without funding from Congress. Gun grabbers have been whining for years about not being able to get studies done without that funding. Weird, right?

Read: Surprise: Study Shows Gun Bans Have No Effect On Homicide Rate »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

Hot Take: White People’s Diets Are Killing The Environment Or Something

By William Teach March 29, 2019 – 7:04 am

Yup, this is all your fault, and if you’re not actually white, you’ll be deemed something like “White Hispanic” or “White Asian” (via Twitchy)

Yum, burger and fries. Makes me think of going to Steak N Shake for lunch, getting the garlic burger (damn, that’s good). Anyhow

White people are already accused of hogging the majority of jobs, film roles, and housing — and now they’re getting blamed for eating up Earth’s natural resources, too.

Caucasian populations are disproportionately contributing to climate change through their eating habits, which uses up more food — and emits more greenhouse gases — than the typical diets of black and Latinx communities, according to a new reportpublished in the Journal of Industrial Ecology.

Researchers tracked information from multiple databases to identify foods considered “environmentally intense” by requiring more precious resources such as water, land and energy to produce — and, as a result, releasing more greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide through production and distribution.

Potatoes, beef, apples and milk are some of the worst offenders.

So, wait, only white people eat and drink those? Huh.

The EPA provided data on per capita food consumption rates for more than 500 foods groups, including water, plus estimates from the NIH on individual diets. Data showed that whites produced an average of 680 kilograms of the CO2 each year, attributable to food and drink, whereas Latinx individuals produced 640 kilograms, and blacks 600.

They also found the diets of white people required 328,000 liters of water on average per year. Latinx used just 307,000 liters, and blacks 311,800. Both black and Latinx individuals used more land per capita with 1,770 and 1,710 square meters per year, respectively, than white people with just 1,550. Nevertheless, white people still made the greatest overall contribution to climate change.

“While the difference may not be enormous, these numbers are per individual, and when you add up all those individuals, it’s very clear that whites are responsible for the majority of greenhouse gases emitted as a result of their food choices,” says Bozeman.

Combining the “science” of climate change with the politics of racial division.

 

Read: Hot Take: White People’s Diets Are Killing The Environment Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Barking Moonbats, Global Warming | 64 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Why, Yes, Democrats Really Are Anti-Israel And Anti-Jew

By William Teach March 29, 2019 – 6:53 am

The NY Times’ Nathan Thrall has a long, long, long piece on the politics of the Democrats and Republicans when it comes to Israel, which starts out with a long discussion of how the Democrats were drafting their 2016 platform. The Hillary folks were sympathetic towards Israel, arguing against much of the toxic language against Israel and against the BDS movement so popular with the Leftist base. The Sanders folks, though, were very much for slamming Israel to the point of moving from being anti-Israel to being anti-Jew, which so often happens when people start down the road of slamming Israel and taking the side of the Palestinians

How the Battle Over Israel and Anti-Semitism Is Fracturing American Politics

….

Democrats and Republicans reported similar levels of sympathy for Israel from the late 1970s until the early 2000s. But in the past decade, a series of polls by the Pew Research Center show, a yawning gap has opened between the parties, with nearly three times as many Republicans as Democrats expressing more sympathy for Israel than for the Palestinians. These changes are driven, in part, by demographic trends. More than one-quarter of voters in the midterm election were white evangelicals, who, together with Jews, are the most pro-Israel religious group in the country, and who since the 1970s have largely supported the Republican Party. At the same time, some of the least pro-Israel groups — black people and Hispanics and the religiously unaffiliated, according to a 2018 Pew survey — have become a larger share of Democratic voters. Many blacks and Hispanics draw strong parallels between the discrimination they have suffered at home and the plight of Palestinians. As the Democratic Party is pulled toward a more progressive base and a future when a majority of the party will most likely be people of color, tensions over Israel have erupted.

In the past several months, a fierce debate over American support for Israel has periodically dominated the news cycle and overshadowed the Democrats’ policymaking agenda. In January, Republicans introduced a bill — the Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act of 2019 — backing legislation adopted in more than two dozen states that denies state contracts to or bars state investments with American individuals or groups who support boycotts of Israel or who refuse to sign oaths affirming they will not boycott Israel. Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, a freshman Palestinian-American and one of two Muslim congresswomen, tweeted that the bill’s sponsors “forgot what country they represent.” A month later, Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, a freshman Somali-American who is the other Muslim congresswoman, tweeted that American politicians’ defense of Israel was “all about the Benjamins” — $100 bills — and later added that she was referring to the political influence of Aipac. As the furor grew, she apologized and deleted the tweet. A few weeks later, the storm over her remarks still raging, Omar said at a panel of progressive lawmakers, including Tlaib, that she wanted “to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is O.K. for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”

In the face of widespread criticism of Omar for wittingly or unwittingly deploying anti-Semitic tropes about “dual loyalty” and Jewish money controlling United States policy, Democratic leaders announced they were working on a resolution condemning anti-Semitism. But in response to objections from progressive lawmakers and members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who argued that Omar was singled out because she was a woman of color, the draft resolution was revised to condemn not just anti-Semitism but also anti-Muslim discrimination, upsetting some Jewish Democrats. The following day, President Trump told reporters: “The Democrats have become an anti-Israel party. They’ve become an anti-Jewish party.”

Again, what we see is that the attempts to slam Israel lead to anti-Semitism. This is rampant on many, many college campuses, where the BDS movement takes on a decidedly pro-Palestinian tone, and then the sympathies for the Palestinians (who lost the wars they started) turn towards hatred of Jews.

In 2018, the Pew Research Center conducted a poll of more than 1,500 Americans. Among Democrats who self-identified as liberal, nearly twice as many said they sympathized more with the Palestinians than with Israel. In 2016, a University of Maryland poll found that 60 percent of Democrats supported economic sanctions or taking more serious action in response to new Israeli settlements.

You can’t sympathize with terrorist and terrorist enablers and not end up hating Jews.

Members of the Democratic Party’s progressive activist base, by contrast, find themselves light years from their representatives in Washington. The Movement for Black Lives, the racial-justice coalition that includes the Black Lives Matter network, has called for supporting divestment campaigns with the goal of ending American military aid to Israel; the Democratic Socialists of America has endorsed B.D.S. Kate Gould, a lobbyist for the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker group dedicated to peace, justice and environmental stewardship, told me that generally even progressive members of Congress frame development aid for the Palestinians merely as help for people who are suffering. There is rarely any acknowledgment, she says, “that they are suffering because we are funding their oppression. Hello! You do know that we are funding the occupation?”

You used to have college kids running around with kiffeyahs on, scarfs worn by Palestinians for the Intifada, a terrorist action against Israel. Those kids are now adults and part of all these hardcore leftist groups, even leaders in them. And they’re bringing their Israel hatred turned Jew hatred views to the Democratic Party mainstream.

There is a lot more to the article. A lot. Worth the read. Further, we cannot assign anti-Israel nor anti-Jew beliefs to all Democrat, let’s be clear. Even some who want to be a little tougher on Israel are not necessarily anti-Israel. But, the movement is getting larger and more overt in the Democrat party as the younger crowd gets involved.

Read: NY Times: Why, Yes, Democrats Really Are Anti-Israel And Anti-Jew »

Posted in Democrats, Israel | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

High Flying Mary Robinson Calls Climate Denial “Malign And Evil

By William Teach March 28, 2019 – 3:38 pm

Mary Robinson is an Irish Independent politician who served as the seventh President of Ireland, becoming the first woman to hold this office. She also served as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights from 1997 to 2002, as well as being involved with the #climatechangescam for quite some time, both as the Pres of Ireland and her work through the United Nations. She also takes lots and lots of fossil fueled flights around the world to push her ‘climate change’ views, which would make her a “climate delayer“. Here she is ramping up the climacrazy (via Watts Up With That?)

Climate change denial is evil, says Mary Robinson

The denial of climate change is not just ignorant, but “malign and evil”, according to Mary Robinson, because it denies the human rights of the most vulnerable people on the planet.

The former UN high commissioner for human rights and special envoy for climate change also says fossil fuel companies have lost their social licence to explore for more coal, oil and gas and must switch to become part of the transition to clean energy.

Robinson will make the outspoken attack on Tuesday, in a speech to the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew in London, which has awarded her the Kew International Medal for her “integral work on climate justice”.

Robinson is chair of the Elders, an independent group of global leaders founded by Nelson Mandela that works for human rights. She will say in her speech: “I believe that climate change denial is not just ignorant, it is malign, it is evil, and it amounts to an attempt to deny human rights to some of the most vulnerable people on the planet.”

“The evidence about the effects of climate change is incontrovertible, and the moral case for urgent action indisputable,” she will say.

Virtually no one denies that the climate has changed, going from a Holocene cool period to a warm one. The disagreement is on causation. Hell, even if we agreed on causation, ie, that it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind, we’d disagree on actions to resolve this, which, yet again, the Warmists like Mary want massive taxation and fees, along with governmental control of everything, from our individual lives to companies to religious institutions to the energy companies and the entire economy. Hence why they have to attempt to scare people into giving up their freedom and money with insane yammerings like the above.

Read: High Flying Mary Robinson Calls Climate Denial “Malign And Evil »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 24 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 28, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is an area flooded from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on liberal men’s therapeutic cuddle groups.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

CBP Boss Says Immigration System Is At Breaking Point

By William Teach March 28, 2019 – 10:49 am

You can thank the Open Borders advocates for creating a situation where people from Central and South America attempt to storm our borders

CBP commissioner visits El Paso border, says immigration system at ‘breaking point’

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin K. McAleenan said the border has hit it’s “breaking point” during a visit to El Paso.

A huge influx of Central American migrants has made the El Paso Sector the second-busiest location on the U.S.-Mexico border.

McAleenan spoke Wednesday morning along the border in the Chihuahuita neighborhood in Downtown El Paso.

The immigration system “breaking point has arrived this week,” McAleenan said.

“CBP is facing an unprecedented humanitarian and border security crisis all along our Southwest Border — and nowhere has that crisis manifested more acutely than here in El Paso,” McAleenan said.

In the past two mornings, border officers took more than 12,000 migrants into custody along the border, McAleenan said.

“A high number is 4,000 — 6,000 is crisis level,” McAleenan said. “Twelve thousand is unprecedented. On Monday, we saw the highest total of apprehensions and encounters in years, with over 4,000 in a single day.”

He continued, “We are now on pace for over 100,000 apprehensions and encounters with migrants, with 90 percent — 90,000 — crossing the border illegally between ports of entry. March will be the highest month in over a decade.”

Realistically, they should be checked for medical issues, given a hot meal, and sent back to the other side of the border. But, we can’t really even do that, because if we let them across the border to check them out and feed them then they will claim asylum and they have to be given a hearing, which means they’ll have to stay in America till then, and there are only so many detention beds. And Open Borders groups will sue to get them released, at which point the illegals will disappear and fail to appear for their hearings.

He said that 10 to 15 percent of migrants have legitimate asylum claims, but it will take years for those claims to be heard in court.

The problem there is that most of them who qualify are also the dregs of their society, and will immediately be on government support, diverting aid from legal U.S. citizens who need that help.

While 65 percent of border crossings are families and children surrendering to agents, the rest are adults trying to evade capture, including some with criminal backgrounds, McAleenan said.

This is the new method, as pushed by the Open Borders groups, which tell the migrants to show up and demand asylum. And then, when they disappear into America, the same groups say we should give them amnesty.

Read: CBP Boss Says Immigration System Is At Breaking Point »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

After Bad Senate Vote, Dems To Move On From Green New Disaster

By William Teach March 28, 2019 – 6:48 am

Remember, the Green New Deal never even received a committee hearing, much less a floor vote, in the Democratic Party controlled House, despite all the hoopla from its release

Democrats to move on from Green New Deal

Democrats are putting the Green New Deal in the rearview mirror, but they’re not abandoning climate change legislation.

Supporters of the progressive measure are shifting their sights away from passing a comprehensive plan to create green jobs and pursue 100 percent renewable energy by 2030. They are instead looking at multiple bills in hopes of advancing elements of the broader initiative.

The change comes after a heated few months where Republicans battered the idea of the Green New Deal, damaging a brand initially promoted by freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

The Senate on Tuesday blocked legislation to advance the Green New Deal resolution on a procedural vote, with most Democrats voting present. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) set up the vote to test the Democratic Party’s unity over climate change, knowing many Senate Democrats didn’t want to publicly back the resolution’s ambitious goals. (the Hill forgot to mention that the plan received zero Dem votes, even from those who said they supported it)

Now, various supporters of the climate change measure, including Ocasio-Cortez, are focusing on new, smaller bills in an effort to get back on the offensive on climate change heading into 2020.

Dems are going to have Hearings! That should do it!

Advocacy groups that previously gave a full-throated defense of the Green New Deal are also scaling back their push for action on the resolution. Their calls for a House floor vote on the Green New Deal are nonexistent.

The Sunrise Movement, a youth activist organization that rose to prominence after holding a sit-in at Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) congressional office demanding attention for climate change, downplayed the Green New Deal’s prospects in this Congress.

“It was never created with the intention of passing,” co-founder Varshini Prakash told reporters Tuesday.

Then the point of it was??????? Because if it was completely un-serious, you now have almost every Democrat running for president on record as supporting it, which will be used as a bludgeon against them during the general election.

On the legislative front, Sunrise is in a holding pattern. The group and other like-minded organizations are waiting on Ocasio-Cortez to present a promised new bill that will include aspects of the Green New Deal.

“Ocasio-Cortez’s office is working on legislation in coming weeks and months,” Stephen O’Hanlon, communications director for Sunrise, told The Hill. “It won’t just be a resolution, it would be a bill that we’d want to pass through Congress that have the principles of the Green New Deal.”

Get your popcorn ready! This will be a hoot.

Read: After Bad Senate Vote, Dems To Move On From Green New Disaster »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Democrats, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove