Excitable California Senate Passes Bill Requiring Trump Show Tax Returns To Be On Ballot

By William Teach May 3, 2019 – 6:36 am

The excitable Democrats in the People’s Republik Of California should read their own Constitution, as well as the federal Constitution, because they do not have the authority to do this, but, then, this is more about their feelings….unhinged feelings…than any sort of law

California Senate passes bill that would keep Trump off 2020 ballot unless he releases tax returns

The California state Senate on Thursday approved a bill to require candidates appearing on the presidential primary ballot — including President Trump — to release five years’ worth of income tax returns.

The measure was approved in a 27-10 vote, according to The Associated Press. California, for the first time, will be one of the first states to hold its presidential primary in the 2020 cycle.

The bill is a response to Trump’s insistence that he will not release his tax returns as presidential candidates traditionally have done, claiming he is under audit. If the bill becomes law and Trump does not release his returns, he may not appear on the California primary ballot.

“We believe that President Trump, if he truly doesn’t have anything to hide, should step up and release his tax returns,” said state Sen. Mike McGuire (D) who co-authored the bill, according to the AP.

All 10 Republicans in the state Senate voted against the bill’s passage.

“I get that playing the resistance card may be good politics for the majority party, but I would submit that it’s bad policy for Californians,” Sen. Brian Jones (R) told the wire service.

First, Trump doesn’t need California. He won’t win it. The last time a Republican won California was 1988. There’s, what, a 3% chance that a Republican could win the state now? Second, there will still be lawsuits when this passes the California House and signed by Extreme Leftist Governor Gavin Newsome. Unless Gavin somehow gets wise. Because this will also be material for Republicans and Trump to highlight how deranged and partisan California has become.

The requirements to be president are laid out in the Constitution: California cannot legally add one.

Read: Excitable California Senate Passes Bill Requiring Trump Show Tax Returns To Be On Ballot »

Posted in Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: NY Times Admits Obama Admin Spied On Trump Campaign Without Calling It Spying

By William Teach May 2, 2019 – 7:51 pm

Say, remember how all the news media was saying it was a bunch of mule fritters that Team Trump, both during the campaign and after the election, was spied on by the Obama administration?

New York Times Admits Obama Admin Deployed Multiple Spies Against Trump Campaign In 2016

Surrender Monkey is surprised!

Following months of angry claims by journalists and Democratic operatives that the Obama administration never spied on Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, The New York Times admitted Thursday that multiple overseas intelligence assets were deployed against associates of the Republican nominee. It is not the first time the Times has revealed widespread spying operations against the campaign.

In addition to noting that long-time informant Stefan Halper was tasked with collecting intelligence on the Trump campaign, the Times story details how a woman was sent overseas under a fake name and occupation to oversee the spy operation. The woman’s real name is not mentioned in the article, though the Times says she went by “Azra Turk” and has a relationship with an unidentified federal intelligence agency.

Oops?

As Molly Hemingway goes on to note in terms of why we are seeing this

The New York Times has repeatedly been used by FBI officials who ran the anti-Trump spy operation to launder damaging information that reflects poorly on the agency. Nearly a year ago, the Times confirmed that the U.S. intelligence apparatus was used to spy on Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016.

In that case, the ostensible purpose of the leak was to get ahead of what congressional investigators had figured out: the Obama administration targeted the Trump campaign with secret informants.

There is an Inspector General report coming out soon, and it will surely paint the FBI, and perhaps other agencies, in a very poor light. Hey, who was in charge of all these agencies? You can’t sit there and tell me that the POTUS wasn’t in the loop on this behavior against a presidential candidate then election winner, and, if he wasn’t, how disturbing that federal agencies felt emboldened to take this action?

Read: Surprise: NY Times Admits Obama Admin Spied On Trump Campaign Without Calling It Spying »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs, Donald Trump | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Open Borders Prosecutors Join Suit To Stop ICE From Arresting Illegals In Courthouses

By William Teach May 2, 2019 – 3:00 pm

See, there’s only some laws certain people like

After Judge’s Arrest, Massachusetts Prosecutors Sue to Stop Courthouse Arrests of Immigrants

Days after a judge and court officer were arrested on charges they helped a man evade immigration authorities, advocates are filing a lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s practice of arresting people at local courthouses.

The Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office announced a group of prosecutors, public defenders and community groups plan to file a lawsuit on Monday over courthouses arrests, arguing the arrests deter victims and witnesses from cooperating with law enforcement on local criminal cases.

“Prosecutors are forced to abandon cases because many victims and witnesses are deterred from appearing in court. The policy also makes it more difficult to obtain defendants’ appearance[s] in court,” District Attorney Marian Ryan wrote in a joint statement with Suffolk County District Attorney Rachael Rollins.

District Attorney Rachael Rollins told her staff to notify her office if they see immigration agents arresting or questioning people inside courthouses, but what happens after?

What happens? Well, ICE agents are in less danger of the illegal alien having a dangerous weapon, and can get them in a controlled space. That whole schtick about abandoning cases is absurd. They shouldn’t be in the nation to start with.

And any officer of the court who is trying to obstruct federal law should be charged if possible for violations of federal laws on illegal immigration.

Rollins, who releases her policy objectives in a memo in March, said her office will take immigration status into account when charging and sentencing as even misdemeanor convictions could get someone flagged by immigration agents. She also asked assistant district attorneys, witness advocates or other employees to notify her if they see ICE agents arresting people scheduled to appear in court or asking them about their immigration status.

So, her office is going to treat illegal aliens better than legal U.S. citizens? Charge her with aiding and abetting illegal aliens, plus, this policy is ripe for a lawsuit from citizens who have gotten stiffer sentences than illegals.

Read: Open Borders Prosecutors Join Suit To Stop ICE From Arresting Illegals In Courthouses »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 2, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is an area that appears to be flooding from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Creeping Sharia, with a post on Philadelphia International airport submitting and allowing a potentially illegal mosque to remain.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 49 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Now Want To Get Rid Of Your Gas Stove

By William Teach May 2, 2019 – 10:56 am

The very definition of “Progressivism” (nice Fascism): it’s for your own good

Your Gas Stove Is Bad for You and the Planet

We have some good news that sounds like bad news: Your gas stove has to go.

We know how you’ll feel reading those words. We used to love cooking with gas, too. But if our society is going to solve the climate crisis, one of the things we must do is stop burning gas in our buildings.

Nobody is going to shed a tear about having to switch to a more efficient furnace or water heater. But people feel emotional about gas stoves, and the gas industry knows it. Seeing this fight coming, the industry is already issuing propaganda with gauzy pictures of blue flames.

What the gas companies will not tell you is that your stove is a danger not just to the world’s climate but also to your own family’s health. We’ll explain in a moment.

First, here’s the larger situation: The need to tackle climate change is beyond urgent. We are running out of time. Within the next decade we need to cut climate pollution in half in the United States, roughly, to do our fair part in preserving a livable planet.

Burning gas is now a bigger source of such pollution than burning coal, and nearly a third of that gas is burned in homes and commercial buildings. But despite the rising chorus of climate pledges by state and local governments, none of them has really tackled the problem of gas in buildings. In fact, gas companies are still being allowed to spend billions extending new lines, connections that will have to be capped off long before the end of their useful lives if we are to meet our climate goals.

OK, so, let’s say this happens (and the only way to make it happen is through Government banning them): where does all the electricity for non-gas stoves come from? Warmists are mostly against nuclear. Extreme enviros, who tend to be Warmists, attempt to block all attempts at hydro-electric dams, which are only viable in certain areas, and want existing ones torn down. They sue over transmission lines from solar and wind farms, and also sue over wind and solar farms. So, how do we power electric stoves?

Why do all-electric homes make sense now? Because technology has come to the rescue, in the form of devices called heat pumps. They run on electricity, but far more efficiently than the electric appliances of our parents’ generation. So if we start installing them now, then as the electric grid gets greener, our buildings will be contributing less and less to climate change.

You might never have heard of heat pumps, but you already have one in your home. A heat pump is the core technology in your refrigerator. It is basically a loop involving a pump and a compressor that sucks heat out of the interior and blows it into the kitchen, and it can do this even when the interior of your refrigerator is colder than the air in the room.

A heat pump can replace both your furnace and your air conditioner. In the winter, it sucks heat in from the outside, even when the weather is cold, and blows it into your house. In the summer, a heat pump runs in reverse, cooling the house. Highly efficient heat-pump water heaters are also widely available.

If they were so great they would be placed in new homes at a high rate. Of course, there is the problem where most heat pumps can only work down to a temperature of 25-30F, then you have to have your furnace kick in, so, you need both, and a heat pump is way more expensive. Further, heat pumps aren’t even close to being as good as cooling as an AC, nor as inexpensive. One day, perhaps.

Regardless, again, the only way to really make this happen is through government force.

Read: Warmists Now Want To Get Rid Of Your Gas Stove »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Pelosi Looks To Head Of AOC’s Green New Deal By Invoking Obama Or Something

By William Teach May 2, 2019 – 7:39 am

I’m not sure why Pelosi would need to head off the Green New Deal, since virtually no House Democrat, especially co-author (Senator Ed Markey is the other) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is calling for a vote. Even most of the Democrats special interest groups who support it are not Demanding a vote. It’s like the old joke, Everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it

Pelosi Invokes Obama to Head Off Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to head off her party’s restive progressive caucus by invoking the legacy of President Barack Obama to build support for a climate change bill that falls well short of the ambitions of the Green New Deal championed by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Pelosi is planning a vote by the House this week on a bill that would prohibit President Donald Trump’s administration from going through with plans to pull out of the Paris climate agreement.

Liberal Democrats are leaving little doubt that the legislation won’t be enough.

“The idea that we can just reintroduce 2009 policies is not reflective of action that is necessary for now in the world of today,” said Ocasio-Cortez. The New York lawmaker said “there is no harm in passing” the Paris bill, but she still backs the bolder action called for in her Green New Deal, which conservatives have derided as a socialist manifesto.

I wish I had saved the article, or at least could find it again, where several Constitutional authorities, people who teach this in law schools (one was from Harvard, if memory serves), noted that if the House passes something along those lines it would require that the Senate vote on the Paris Climate agreement, since it would then be considered an official treaty. Then, since the Senate is controlled by Republicans, it would be shot down, killed off officially, and would further tarnish Obama’s legacy. One of the people noting this was an Obama and Hillary supporter.

Even if the Senate bothered to take up the House bill as regular legislation to put Democrats on the record, it would still die. Heck, if it managed to make it through the Senate, Trump would veto it, and Dems do not have the votes to over-ride.

The House is expected to begin debate on the climate legislation, H.R. 9, Wednesday and could take a vote by the end of the week.

There is a legislative argument for House Democrats to start with these bills since Trump has been testing the constitutional limits of what he can do to reverse his predecessor’s signature achievements. He has taken executive action to reverse Obama administration policies and chip away at regulations.

Let’s go back a bit in time: Obama had them craft the Paris agreement in order to specifically avoid it being considered a treaty to avoid the GOP controlled Senate, but, this means that Paris has zero force of actual U.S. law. It was Obama’s word, nor is Paris even binding. Trump could have simply scuttled the whole thing with the wave of a pen (and he should have). Instead, he decided to follow the rules of the agreement and gave notice of the U.S. (shouldn’t it be Obama?) pulling out.

Focusing on the Paris accord allows Democrats to paint Republicans as opposing solutions to global warming and highlight what they say is a lack of leadership on the issue by Trump, who has dismissed climate change as a hoax.

So this is simply basic politics. They should be careful with this approach. Certainly, focusing on the Green New Deal allows Republicans to bludgeon Dems with the Socialism, big government, massive taxation, and loss of personal freedom aspects, among others. Bringing up Paris allows the unhinged part of their base which is focused on Hotcoldwetdry to blast them for being weak. Which allows Republicans to highlight just how insane the Cult of Climastrology is. It was just a few years ago that they though Paris was “historic”. Now they say it is not enough.

Read: Pelosi Looks To Head Of AOC’s Green New Deal By Invoking Obama Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Global Warming, Queen Nancy | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

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

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

Attorney General Barr was going to answer questions to the House today, but, of course, Democrats were Democrats and went and changed the rules at the last minute

Barr Won’t Attend House Hearing, Following Fierce Session In Senate

Attorney General William P. Barr defended himself on Wednesday against withering criticism of his handling of the special counsel investigation as Democrats accused of him of deceiving Congress and acting as a personal agent for President Trump rather than a steward of justice.

If you saw any of it, you saw little from Democrats regarding the actual Mueller report and most on being raving Barking Moonbats with Trump Derangement Syndrome.

The conflict escalated afterward when Mr. Barr announced that he would not show up for a parallel hearing on Thursday before the Democrat-controlled House Judiciary Committee. Mr. Barr objected to the format of questioning, which would have included questioning by staff lawyers, not just lawmakers. Democrats may now opt to subpoena him, setting up a possible showdown in court.

“He is terrified of having to face a skilled attorney,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the committee’s chairman.

Wait, did Nadler just admit he’s a crummy attorney? Because he is an attorney. Many other Reps on the committee are lawyers, as well. Huh.

(Daily Caller) Attorney General William Barr will no longer testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, as Democrats voted to allow staffers to question Barr.

“It’s a shame Members of the House Judiciary Committee won’t get the opportunity to hear from Attorney General Barr this Thursday, because Chairman Nadler chose to torpedo our hearing. The attorney general gave clear, informative testimony in the Senate Wednesday, as he offered to do more than a month ago in the House tomorrow,” Republican Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Wednesday about the scheduled hearing with Barr.

“By rejecting the chance to question Attorney General Barr or read the materials he’s provided, Democrats are trying to prolong an investigation the special counsel completed. Ultimately, though, they’re ignoring the will of the majority of Americans who want Congress to move on and secure our border and continue to strengthen our economy,” he continued.

The House Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday to allow staff lawyers to question Barr, adding an extra hour to his testimony time before the committee. This comes as Barr threatened to cancel his testimony before the committee Thursday over disagreements with Democrats regarding the format for the hearing.

He wanted the traditional five-minute rounds of lawmakers asking him questions instead of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler’s proposal of allowing committee staffers to question Barr about their concerns.

It is extremely rare to allow people who are not the elected Congressmembers to ask questions, and certainly not in this format, treating it like it is a court room. But, let’s admit it, this was done intentionally to create a situation where Barr would rescind his offer to appear, which allows Dems like Incompetent Lawyer Nadler to grandstand and threaten to arrest Barr and such.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Less focus on economic growth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If All You See…

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

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

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

Read: If All You See… »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted in Democrats, Special Snowflake Syndrome | 7 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove