NY Times: Trump And Republicans Pounce In Post-Mueller Washington!

By William Teach March 26, 2019 – 7:26 am

Interestingly, many in the media had Democrats pouncing yesterday, which is usually only a Republican thing. And the NY Times did have a very funny headline

But, back to Republicans pouncing/seizing

Trump and Republicans Seek to Turn the Tables in Post-Mueller Washington

President Trump and his Republican allies went on the offensive on Monday, vowing to pursue and even punish those responsible for the Russia investigation now that the special counsel has wrapped up without implicating him or his campaign in a criminal conspiracy to influence the 2016 election.

Mr. Trump, grim faced and simmering with anger, denounced adversaries who have pounded him for two years over Russian election interference, calling them “treasonous” people who are guilty of “evil” deeds and should be investigated themselves. “Those people will certainly be looked at,” he said.

On Capitol Hill, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced he would do just that while also calling for a new special counsel to look at the origins of the last one. White House officials and Republican lawmakers demanded the resignation of a Democratic committee chairman investigating the Russia matter (that would be Adam Schiff), and Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign lobbied television networks to blackball Democrats who advanced the collusion theory.

And why shouldn’t they? This whole thing was based on a manufactured document from sore losers upset that 2016 didn’t go they way they wanted. From the minute Hillary lost Democrats have been manufacturing ways to get rid of Trump, the Constitutionally elected President. Schiff and so many other Democrats have stated there is evidence ad nauseum, but have yet to show it, and the Mueller investigation stated there wasn’t any. So, let’s see all the documents and FISA warrants which enabled the federal government the ability to investigate a presidential candidate. Let’s see the email and other document trails. Let’s see where this leads.

The approach, if it lasts, contrasts with those of other presidents who survived major scandals. After the Iran-contra affair, President Ronald Reagan happily dropped the subject and focused on arms control talks with the Soviet Union and other issues. After being acquitted at his Senate impeachment trial, President Bill Clinton was just as eager to move on to Social Security and other initiatives.

But Mr. Trump and his allies on Monday sought to put his adversaries on the defensive and cement the view that Mr. Mueller’s report represents complete vindication. Mr. Mueller found no conspiracy between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia, but he pointedly declined to exonerate the president on obstruction of justice, according to a Justice Department letter to lawmakers on Sunday.

Yeah, but, let’s face it, Iran-Contra did contravene the law, and Bill Clinton did actually commit crimes. Trump and his campaign didn’t commit crimes, nor conspire with Russia. And I don’t see the NY Times telling the Democrats to just stop, to quite while their behind, to stop being sore losers.

Mr. Schiff, for his part, said he “would not be intimidated” by the Republicans and stood by his comments about public evidence of collusion. He did concede that after reading Mr. Mueller’s full report he would probably need to reorient the Intelligence Committee’s inquiry into possible foreign influence over the president.

“We have a constitutional obligation to make sure that the president and the people are not compromised by a foreign power, and that’s what we intend to do,” he said.

Those are the last two paragraphs of the article (which is dangerously close to an opinion piece): where was the notion of Democrats just moving on and trying to heal the national divides?

Read: NY Times: Trump And Republicans Pounce In Post-Mueller Washington! »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats, Donald Trump | 26 Comments | Trackback URL

Housing Policy Is ‘Climate Change’ Policy Or Something

By William Teach March 25, 2019 – 4:31 pm

Is anyone surprised that the Cult of Climastrology is attempting to control where we live?

Why Housing Policy Is Climate Policy
In California, where home prices are pushing people farther from their jobs, rising traffic is creating more pollution.

Hmm, I wonder what’s causing the price of housing to be so high?

California has long been seen as a leader on climate change. The state’s history of aggressive action to reduce air pollution, accelerate the use of renewable energy and speed the transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy has inspired governments around the world to set more ambitious climate goals.

But there is trouble on the horizon, and California’s climate leadership is at risk.

Across most of the state’s economy, greenhouse gas emissions have been trending steadily down. But ballooning car traffic on city streets and freeways is negating much of that progress. In California, about 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions are from transportation, and they are increasing. In some California counties, two-thirds of emissions are from vehicles.

The solution?

In November, the California Air Resources Board released an update on efforts to reduce pollution from transportation. The numbers were alarming. Despite headlines about California’s push for more electric vehicles, pollution from cars is still climbing. “With emissions from the transportation sector continuing to rise, California will not achieve the necessary greenhouse gas emissions reductions to meet mandates for 2030,” the board warned.

The solution? “Significant changes to how communities and transportation systems are planned, funded and built,” the board said.

Put more directly, in order to solve the climate crisis, we have to solve the housing crisis.

What they want to do is force people into denser city centers, and take full control of housing, dictating everything including pricing. Much easier to control people this way.

Read: Housing Policy Is ‘Climate Change’ Policy Or Something »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach March 25, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful green space which will die from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Flopping Aces, with a post on Dems claiming Mueller colluded with Russia to cover up for Trump.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 31 Comments | Trackback URL

U.S. District Court Dismisses ‘Climate Change’ Lawsuit

By William Teach March 25, 2019 – 10:30 am

With all the other suits pending, this might set a precedent

U.S. DISTRICT COURT DISMISSES KIDS’ LAWSUIT AGAINST TRUMP CLIMATE POLICIES

A federal district judge in Philadelphia dismissed a lawsuit by two Pennsylvania boys and an environmental group challenging the Trump administration’s rollback of some Obama-era climate regulations.

In Clean Air Council v. United States, Judge Paul Diamond of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the Trump administration because the Constitution does not guarantee due process rights to what the boys and the Philadelphia-based Clean Air Council (CAC) called a “life-sustaining climate.” Diamond noted the boys, who were ages seven and 11 when the lawsuit was filed in November 2017, could not trace their respective health problems to the Trump administration’s climate policies.

Diamond granted requests by President Donald Trump, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and other administration officials to dismiss the case.

The judiciary is not the branch of government charged with making climate policy, Diamond ruled.

“Plaintiffs’ disagreement with the defendants is a policy debate best left to the political process,” Diamond wrote. “Because I have neither the authority nor the inclination to assume control of the Executive Branch, I will grant defendants’ motion.”

The two important points are that dealing with ‘climate change’ is a political process best left to elected representatives, rather than the courts, and there is no right to a “life-sustaining climate.” Not that we’re in any danger from a minuscule 1.5F increase in global temperatures in 170 years, something expected during a Holocene warm period.

In his decision dismissing the CAC lawsuit, Diamond took the rare step of rebuking a decision made by one of his peers, Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court of Oregon in the case Juliana v. United States.

In Juliana, 21 children represented by an environmental activist organization sued the federal government over its climate change policies. Aiken ordered the lawsuit to trial in 2016, stating “the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.” Aiken’s determination the young plaintiffs had a Constitutional right to a livable climate was the first such ruling by a U.S. judge.

Aiken’s ruling is at odds with previous court decisions, Diamond stated in his decision.

“[T]he Julianna Court certainly contravened or ignored longstanding precedent,” and the government power granted through guarantees of a stable climate would be “apparently without limit,” Diamond wrote.

Warmists do, in fact, want to invest massive power to the government over Everyone Else’s lives. They never see to grasp that this same power will control their own lives.

Read: U.S. District Court Dismisses ‘Climate Change’ Lawsuit »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Rep. Pete King (R-NY) Floats Really, Really, Really Bad “Compromise” Immigration Idea

By William Teach March 25, 2019 – 8:27 am

This is how we end up with all these illegal immigration problems: instead of cracking down, squishy Republicans like Pete King, along with Democrat Tom Suozzi (NY), offer a plan that will entice more to come illegally

A Grand Compromise on Immigration

….

For more than 30 years, our government has failed to solve these problems. This year, the American people endured the longest government shutdown in American history when lawmakers and the president failed to reach a spending deal that centered around border security and immigration along the United States and Mexican border.

The national emergency regarding immigration reform, however, is not on the border, but in the nation’s capital. We must work together — across party lines — to address these matters in a way that receives bipartisan, bicameral support, and gives the president legislation he feels he can sign.

He’s right on that. Lawmakers have failed to enact the policies that would reduce the flow of illegals to a trickle. You can’t stop it all, but, you could massively reduce it if you had a zero tolerance policy (immediate deportation if caught), massive civil and criminal penalties on those who hire illegals, no driver’s licenses for illegals, no aid for them, no college, no schooling, make it illegal to rent apartments, and more.

It is our duty, as elected officials, to provide solutions to the problems, not sound bites to the press. That is why we are proposing a realistic set of reforms that would offer legal protection for five million undocumented people and, alongside it, enough funding to make our border secure.

Did they just say 5 million?

First, our plan would create a path to citizenship for approximately 1.9 million immigrants brought by their parents, without documentation, when they were 18 or under, the so-called Dreamers. To be eligible, they must have graduated from high school; have no record of criminal activity; and be either in the military, working full time for at least three years or attending college.

So, taking jobs from Americans or attending college subsidized by American citizens. Further, what is considered a crime? What’s the minimum threshold? Here’w where it gets bad. First, they would extend protection for 400,000 under Temporary Protected Status, but do not say for how long. And

Finally, relatives of Dreamers, of T.P.S. recipients and of others who are undocumented — approximately 2.7 million more people — would be eligible for three years of protective status, renewable indefinitely, if they have been in the United States for a significant number of years and have no record of criminal activity.

No. Just no. We’ve heard time and time again that we shouldn’t punish the kids for the sins of the parents. Well, sin means “broke our laws”, and as such, they should not be allowed to profit from their sin. Essentially, this TPS status would allow them to stay in the country permanently. And then Democrats will demand citizenship for them in a few years.

All this does is entice others to bring their kids with them and demand amnesty.

Next, to qualify for protection, an undocumented person would be required to pay a $2,000 fee. If each of the five million paid that amount, our plan would generate $10 billion.

Some of that money, in turn, would be used to cover the administrative costs of this new program; we figure those costs would be $1.4 billion.

The remaining $8.6 billion would be split evenly: $4.3 billion would pay for additional physical structures along the United States-Mexico border, as proposed by the Department of Homeland Security, and $4.3 billion would go to aid to El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras to help prevent further out-migration from those countries, as well as to radar technology, improved ports of entry, immigration judges, border patrol personnel and humanitarian assistance along the border, as recommended by the Department Homeland Security.

So the price of coming illegally and being given a free pass is $2,000. Nor should we have to run this type of scheme to get the funds to protect the borders nor have the proper number of immigration judges.

As legislators, we know what we have to do: We must stand together and pass legislation that will help secure our borders while giving undocumented immigrants a path to permanent residency without the fear that at any moment they may be deported.

Again, this just entices people to keep coming illegally.

Read: Rep. Pete King (R-NY) Floats Really, Really, Really Bad “Compromise” Immigration Idea »

Posted in Idiot GOPer's, Illegal Immigration | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Mueller Report Destroys Collusion Narrative, But Dems Won’t Give Up

By William Teach March 25, 2019 – 8:02 am

Obligatory “Trump wins again!” post

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DELIVERS MUELLER CONCLUSIONS TO CONGRESS – NO COLLUSION

Attorney General William Barr delivered a report of the special counsel’s Russia investigation to Congress on Sunday.

By far the most significant finding in the four-page letter is that the special counsel did not find evidence that President Trump or members of his campaign conspired with Russians to influence the 2016 election. Barr also said that evidence was not sufficient to establish that Trump obstructed justice during the investigation.

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” Mueller wrote in the report, according to Barr’s letter, which he sent to the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees.

Barr also said that the special counsel, which consisted of 19 lawyers, found no evidence “that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate” conspired or “knowingly coordinated” with Russian efforts to use social media platforms to spread disinformation during the 2016 campaign. Nor did Trump associates conspire with Russians in the efforts to hack Democrats’ emails and disseminate them online.

That finding would seemingly clear current and former Trump associates like Roger Stone, Michael Cohen and Carter Page of allegations that they helped aid Russian hacks of Democrats’ emails.

All in all, not one person has been indicted, much less convicted, of collusion or the other things Democrats were alleging, all because they were sore losers for the 2016 election.

Of course, there are plenty of hot-takes from Democrats, and many are refusing to give up on the Narrative, which pretty much guarantees Trump’s re-election. Mother Jones’ David Corn is saying that Trump aided and abetted Russia’s attack, which is “not a crime, but a betrayal.” Say, who was in the White House at the time and doing nothing? The Washington Post tests out their own new conspiracy where Trump is repaying Putin.

Dems have also pivoted to the “the report must be released or it’s a conspiracy!” narrative

That notion is replicated across the Democrats and their pet media. And the #NeverTrumpers.

And they want Mueller to testify in front of Congress.

Read: Mueller Report Destroys Collusion Narrative, But Dems Won’t Give Up »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, Donald Trump | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

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
Pirate's Cove