Mitch McConnell Considers Putting Green New Deal Up For Vote, Sen. Ed Markey Melts Down

By William Teach February 13, 2019 – 7:40 am

Yeah, so this happened

McConnell to bring Green New Deal to vote, forcing 2020 Dems to go on record on radical plan

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that the Senate will vote on the Green New Deal – endorsed by nearly all top 2020 Democratic presidential candidates – in an effort to force Democrats to officially go on the record for the radical proposal.

“I’ve noted with great interest the Green New Deal,” McConnell told reporters. “And we’re going to be voting on that in the Senate. We’ll give everybody an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the Green New Deal.” (snip)

But McConnell’s move to bring the plan to a vote on the Senate floor will be a key test for Democratic presidential candidates such as Sens. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, who are running on the progressive platform in 2020.

While backing of the far-left proposal will ultimately improve their liberal bona fides and their support from the Democratic base, the support of the plan will undoubtedly be the target of attacks during the general election.

This should be good. As I wondered yesterday “Democrats to complain that this is a “stunt” soon, as they really do not want to go on record with this resolution.” I’ve also Tweeted and commented many times that Cocaine Mitch should force Dems to go on the record in the Senate. And, here we go

In other words, forcing Democrats to go on the record with a vote, one in which they will get to give short statements prior to, is a “stunt.” How is allowing a vote “silencing your voice”? Remember, Markey isn’t just any old Democrat Senator: he’s the main leader on the Senate side for the GND. Seriously, why would he submit the resolution in the Senate, just like AOC did in House, if you didn’t want a vote on it?

Read: Mitch McConnell Considers Putting Green New Deal Up For Vote, Sen. Ed Markey Melts Down »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

San Diego To Sue Trump Admin For Releasing Asylum Seekers To Quickly Or Something

By William Teach February 13, 2019 – 7:27 am

On one hand, you have Democrats who want all asylum seekers released from custody (so they can they disappear into the U.S., then demand citizenship later, which Dems will back). On the other, you have a sorta Trump leaning area, one which backed Trump in support of suing California over its sanctuary state policies, upset over releasing the illegals too quickly

San Diego to sue Trump administration for releasing asylum-seeking families

San Diego County supervisors are reportedly planning to sue the Trump administration over the widespread releases of asylum-seeking families.

The county board voted on the decision during a closed-door meeting on Tuesday, two supervisors confirmed. It was not immediately clear on what grounds the lawsuit would be argued or when it would be filed.

Since late October, the U.S. has been releasing asylum-seeking families so quickly that they don’t even have time to make travel arrangements, merely giving them notices to appear in immigration court.

The families often end up in shelters run by charities and wear thin border town’s resources.

The San-Diego Union Tribune notes

Now, federal policies have changed and asylum seekers are being processed by ICE and then released into communities such as San Diego without any resources, leaving thousands of migrants all but stranded.

The suit aims to reimburse the county for the cost of serving asylum seekers and to compel the federal government to re-implement a “safe release” program, said Dianne Jacob, Chairwoman of the Board of Supervisors.

“We are intent on sending a strong message to the administration that this unacceptable,” Jacob told the Union-Tribune. “It’s wrong that the federal government is dumping on San Diegans not only from a cost standpoint and a humanitarian standpoint, but this is also a federal issue and the feds need to be held accountable and do their job.”

The obvious solution is to not let them in. If they want asylum, let them apply at an official U.S. facility in another country. When they just show up at the border en mass, and the Democrats do all they can to invite them, it’s rather tough. Heck, let them sit on the other side of the border while waiting for a day in court for asylum. It’s not our job to take care of them. Why should we take care of them? They were not invited by the federal government. They’re invaders. The money should be used for our own citizens.

Read: San Diego To Sue Trump Admin For Releasing Asylum Seekers To Quickly Or Something »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on San Diego To Sue Trump Admin For Releasing Asylum Seekers To Quickly Or Something | Trackback URL

Democrats Just Can’t Help Themselves In Rallying Around Late Term Abortion

By William Teach February 12, 2019 – 2:50 pm

They used to rally around safe, legal, and rare, but, their masks have now slipped fully in attempting to defend and mainstream late term abortion, which rarely occurs for the stated reason of protecting the mother. It’s usually for convenience, at a time when the baby can usually survive outside the womb. It might need some help, but, it can survive. Here’s the unhinged Star Ledger Editorial Board, a major NJ paper and one of the primary ones for NJ.com

The truth about late term abortion | Editorial

Most Americans agree that abortion should be legal, safe and as rare as we can make it. They are not extremists. They support Roe v. Wade, and federal funding for Planned Parenthood. But they support certain restrictions as well, like a 24-hour waiting period or counseling requirement.

Public opinion hasn’t budged on this. Yet we now find ourselves in a political uproar, again, over extreme cases that virtually never happen.

President Trump just went on this attack, pouncing on clumsy and misconstrued comments by the governor of Virginia, and claiming that New York legislators “cheered with delight” about a new law “that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth.”

Pounced!

This is complete fiction, motivated purely by politics. Again, our president is doing his best to divide the nation in ways he believes might profit him politically. Again, he’s making consensus harder to reach.

Um, no, it was not fiction. They were cheering in the NY assembly, including Cuomo. Who, by the way, had the Empire State Building lit up to celebrate the law. And no one misconstrued Northam’s comments. He meant what he said.

Anyhow, the SLEB goes on to attempt to spin it all, and put the blame on Trump, as we see above, along with opponents of late term murder.

If we want to prevent late-term abortions, the answer is to provide early, affordable and safe access to abortion, along with easy access to contraceptives. The irony is, that’s exactly what the extremists like Trump are resisting.

Huh what? Abortion is available. Heck, the abortion supporters don’t even want a common sense measure like requiring abortion facilities to have the same medical standards as a veterinarian or tattoo parlor. Further, contraceptives are everywhere, and abortion is not a contraceptive.

What they mean, though, is that Other People should pay for abortions and contraceptives, not the people engaging in risky sexual behavior.

Read: Democrats Just Can’t Help Themselves In Rallying Around Late Term Abortion »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 12, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a world drying out from carbon pollution from evil moo cows, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Powerline, with a post wondering if global warming theory is scientific

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmist And Climahypocrite Harrison Ford Declares ‘Climate Change’ “The Greatest Moral Crisis Of Our Time” Or Something

By William Teach February 12, 2019 – 10:00 am

Harrison Ford is just one cog in the Cult of Climastrology machine, but, he perfectly encapsulates the moonbattery and hypocrisy of Warmists

Harrison Ford Issues Apocalyptic Climate Change Warning: ‘Greatest Moral Crisis of Our Time’

Veteran actor Harrison Ford issued a stark warning to the world about the effects of climate change this weekend, describing it as the “greatest moral crisis of our time.”

In a pre-recorded video ahead of his appearance at the World Government Summit in Dubai on Sunday, the Star Wars actor urged leaders around the world to take urgent action to reverse the supposed effects of man-made global warming.

“Fresh water shortages, higher greenhouse gas emissions, unprecedented fires, worldwide destruction. Is this the world we want?” Harrison Ford said in the video. “Our planet, the only home we’ve got, is suffering. This is the bare truth. This is our reality. It’s up to you and me to act, now, to face the greatest moral crisis of our time. To take action. It is time to make a difference. It affects you.”

The 76-year-old actor is known as one of Hollywood’s most outspoken environmental activists and has repeatedly taken veiled swipes at President Donald Trump and other Republican leaders for their skepticism of the man-made climate change theory.

“We face an unprecedented moment in this country. Today’s greatest threat is not climate change, not pollution, not flood or fire,” Ford said in 2017 after receiving an environmental award from Conservation International, an organization for which he serves as executive vice chairman. “It’s that we’ve got people in charge of some important sh*t who don’t believe in science.”

If you don’t walk the talk, do you really believe in “science?”

Ford, of course, has produced a massive carbon footprint, piloting vintage, carbon-spewing airplanes for decades. In 2015, Ford crash-landed a vintage World War II-era airplane after the engine failed. He suffered only minor injuries. The Blade Runner star also owns a fleet of planes, cars, motorcycles, and a Bell 407 helicopter.

Yeah, an in case you missed it above

That’s right, he took a long fossil fueled flight to a nation whose entire economy is based almost solely on fossil fuels.

Hypocrisy matters. If your doctor told you to give up smoking, eat better, and exercise, while at the same time being vastly overweight and out of shape, smoking a cigarette while examining you, would you listen?

Read: Warmist And Climahypocrite Harrison Ford Declares ‘Climate Change’ “The Greatest Moral Crisis Of Our Time” Or Something »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 23 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Green New Deal Is About Centralized Government And Elitism

By William Teach February 12, 2019 – 7:01 am

When you have lost ultra-squishy, always #NeverTrumper, usually left of moderate “Republican” David Brooks….

How the Left Embraced Elitism
The progressives’ Green New Deal centralizes power.

….

As many conservatives have shifted leftward, so have progressives. From Bill Clinton through Barack Obama, Democrats respected market forces but tried to use tax credits and regulations to steer them in more humane ways. Obamacare was an effort to expand and reform private health insurance markets.

That Democratic Party is ending. Today, Democrats are much more likely to want government to take direct control. This is the true importance of the Green New Deal, which is becoming the litmus test of progressive seriousness. I don’t know if it is socialism or not socialism — that’s a semantic game — but it would definitely represent the greatest centralization of power in the hands of the Washington elite in our history.

The resolution is unabashed about this, celebrating and calling for more “federal government-led mobilizations.” Under the Green New Deal, the government would provide a job to any person who wanted one. The government would oversee the renovation of every building in America. The government would put sector after sector under partial or complete federal control: the energy sector, the transportation system, the farm economy, capital markets, the health care system.

The authors liken their plan to the New Deal, but the real parallel is to World War II. It is the state mobilizing as many of society’s resources as possible to wage a war on global warming and other ills. The document is notably coy about how all this would be implemented. Exactly which agency would inspect and oversee the renovation of every building in America? Exactly which agency would hire every worker?

But the underlying faith of the Green New Deal is a faith in the guiding wisdom of the political elite. The authors of the Green New Deal assume that technocratic planners can master the movements of 328 million Americans and design a transportation system so that “air travel stops becoming necessary.” (This is from people who couldn’t even organize the successful release of their own background document.)

If even squishy David can notice this, so can others. And this is what the whole anthropogenic climate change movement is about. It’s why we are seeing more and more of their solutions including measures that are about bigger and strong and more controlling government. They never seem to realize that this will include their own lives. Why? Because they’re brainwashed idiots.

In an alienated America, efforts to decentralize power are more effective and realistic than efforts to concentrate it in the Washington elite. The great paradox of progressive populism is that it leads to elitism in its purist form.

The impulse to create a highly centralized superstate recurs throughout American history. There were people writing such grand master plans in the 1880s, the 1910s, the 1930s. They never work out. As Richard Weaver once put it, the problem with the next generation is that it hasn’t read the minutes of the last meeting.

The minutes from the last meeting are generally being erased in the public education system, which is more of an indoctrination system. David is correct in referring to them as “Progressives.” In true Socialism, you have the government heavily involved in the economy, including running and owning the means of production. But, in true Socialism the government also leaves you alone in your private lives. Progressivism is Fascism, is authoritarian, in which the government does control your life. And voting? Socialism is about having as few restrictions as possible. When the government controls you, you will vote a certain way. Or else.

Read: NY Times: Green New Deal Is About Centralized Government And Elitism »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | Comments Off on NY Times: Green New Deal Is About Centralized Government And Elitism | Trackback URL

Lawmakers Agree On Border Deal That Will Probably Cause Trump To Declare Emergency

By William Teach February 12, 2019 – 6:48 am

The deal includes money for barriers that might as well be speed bumps

DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS REACH ‘AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE’ ON BORDER SECURITY

Democrats and Republicans in Congress have reached an “agreement in principle” on President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall funding, as the government is days away from a potential shutdown.

The agreement reportedly includes $1.375 billion for physical barriers, which would be bollard, or basically a concrete-filled barrier that protect office buildings and shopping malls across the U.S. There would also be nearly a 17 percent drop in ICE beds, bringing the number to 40,520 overall, over 8,000 beds, in which Republicans have pushed back against, saying more criminals will be on the streets if they are not in ICE custody. 

“We need to listen to the border security and law enforcement professionals as we negotiate an agreement on border security funding. The National Sheriff’s Association has warned against the Democrats’ proposal to limit ICE’s ability to detain violent criminals. We need to listen to the law enforcement professionals so that we can reach a result that protects our national security,” North Dakota Republican Sen. John Hoeven told The Daily Caller News Foundation Monday afternoon.

Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby told reporters on Capitol Hill that he believes Trump will approve of the agreement, according to Fox News. This comes as both House and Senate lawmakers met at a closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill.

How is this a good deal? Or even a serious one? Bollards? How will this stop illegals? And, yes, it is true. Multiple outlets are reporting it, including the NY Times, in which tehy note “the agreement would allow for 55 miles of new bollard fencing, with some restrictions on location based on community and environmental concerns…” In other words, worthless. They also report that the number of beds is at the same level as the previous budget.

“Republicans in Congress have zero excuses if this sham makes it to Trump’s desk. No one who supports real border security can be for it. Republican negotiators didn’t even get Democrats to support what they have voted for in the past!,” a senior a GOP aide told TheDCNF after the news broke Monday night.

Previous deals had 65 miles of pedestrian fencing. This has bollucks, er, bollards.

If Trump does not agree with lawmakers he could declare a national emergency, in which lawmakers such as South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham have been pushing for.

At this point, just sign the thing, then declare the emergency or use some other type of legal method. Hey, since the governor of California does not want border protection, take parts of the border walls in his state and move it elsewhere.

Read: Lawmakers Agree On Border Deal That Will Probably Cause Trump To Declare Emergency »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Lawmakers Agree On Border Deal That Will Probably Cause Trump To Declare Emergency | Trackback URL

A Tesla In Every Driveway For The Green New Deal Won’t Cut It Or Something

By William Teach February 11, 2019 – 4:35 pm

Hey, did you know there’s a big problem with the Green New Deal? No, not that one. Nope, nor that. Uh huh, not that one, either. The uber-lefty Mother Jones sees something else, originally published at the used-to-not-be-deranged-lefty Slate

This Is the Green New Deal’s Biggest Problem

There might be no better monument to the limits of American environmentalism in the climate change era than a parking garage in Berkeley, California. It’s got “rooftop solar, electric-vehicle charging stations and dedicated spots for car-share vehicles, rainwater capture and water treatment features”—not to mention 720 parking spots. It cost nearly $40 million to build. At night, it positively glows. And it’s a block from the downtown Berkeley BART station.

That America’s most famous progressive city, one where nearly everything is within walking distance, spent $40 million to renovate a parking garage one block from a subway station suggests that progressive Democrats remain unwilling to seriously confront the crisis of climate change. America’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions is transportation. In California, the proportion of CO2 from transportation is even higher: above 40 percent. Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguín anticipates that the Center Street Parking Garage will out-green all others in the state with a LEED Silver rating, making it a perfect example of our approach to climate change: glibly “greening” the lives we live now, rather than contemplating the future generations who will have to live here too.

I would think that high ranking disciples of the Cult of Climastrology being utter hypocrites would be a big problem, but, that’s not it

But the Green New Deal has a big blind spot: It doesn’t address the places Americans live. And our physical geography—where we sleep, work, shop, worship, and send our kids to play, and how we move between those places—is more foundational to a green, fair future than just about anything else. The proposal encapsulates the liberal delusion on climate change: that technology and spending can spare us the hard work of reform.

America is a nation of sprawl. More Americans live in suburbs than in cities, and the suburbs that we build are not the gridded, neighborly Mayberrys of our imagination. Rather, the places in which we live are generally dispersed, inefficient, and impossible to navigate without a car. Dead-ending cul-de-sacs and the divided highways that connect them are such deeply engrained parts of the American landscape that it’s easy to forget they were, themselves, the fruits of a massive federal investment program.

Can you see where they’re going with this?

Environmentalists know transportation is the elephant in the room. At first blush, the easiest way to attack that problem is to electrify everything, and that’s largely what the Green New Deal calls for, with goals like “100 percent zero emission passenger vehicles by 2030” and “100 percent fossil-free transportation by 2050.” The cars we drive feel more easily changeable than the places we live.

But electric vehicles are nowhere near ready for widespread adoption—and even if they were, “half of the world’s consumption of oil would remain untouched,” Bloomberg reports. A Tesla in every driveway just won’t cut it.

What do they really want to do?

In Alissa Walker’s exhaustive report in Curbed on why electric vehicles won’t save California, she argues that even with breakneck advances in renewable energy and electric cars, the country must still reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled. EVs won’t save the rest of America, either.

But the good news is that if we do account for land use, we will get much closer to a safe, sustainable, and resilient future. And even though widespread adoption of EVs is still decades away, reforms to our built environment can begin right now. In short, we can fix this. We build more than 1 million new homes a year—we just need to put them in the right places.*

A Green New Deal must insist on a new, and better, land use regime, countering decades of federal sprawl subsidy.

There’s lots more, and the author attempts to beat around the bush a bit, but the idea here is to force people to live in big cities, rather than in suburban and rural areas. And the author and other Warmists think that government should force people to do this. To control where people live. How they travel. Where they work.

But don’t say they’re Fascists or anything.

Read: A Tesla In Every Driveway For The Green New Deal Won’t Cut It Or Something »

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

If All You See…

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

…is a horrible burger, full of evil bacon and lettuce that will soon be wiped out by ‘climate change’, you just might be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post noting that the “unwilling to work clause” in the GND was an admission, not a mistake.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Illinois Democrats Pushing Bill To Search Social Media For Firearm Permits

By William Teach February 11, 2019 – 10:30 am

It’s so bad that even the ACLU has a problem with the law

Illinois Dems introduce bill requiring gun buyers to reveal social media accounts before getting firearm license

Illinois Democrats are introducing a bill forcing gun buyers to reveal their public social media accounts to police before they are given permission to get a firearm license.

The new legislation is sponsored by two state Democratic lawmakers, in an effort to block people from acquiring guns if they have made some troubling comments on social media.

State Rep. Daniel Didech, a Democrat who’s pushing the bill, told CBS 2 Chicago: “A lot of people who are having mental health issues will often post on their social media pages that they’re about to hurt themselves or others,” adding that these people need “the help they need.”

The bill’s proponents point to Nikolas Cruz, the Parkland High School shooter, saying he posted “very disturbing” images on social media before going on a rampage and killing 17 people last year.

Robert Bowers, the Pittsburgh Synagogue shooter, also posted numerous troubling comments about the Jewish people on social media.

On the one hand, it seems common sense, since so many people use social media to make threats these days, right? On the other

A similar bill was introduced last year in New York that would require people looking to buy a gun in the state to submit their social media profiles and search history prior to purchase. The bill was met with criticism, but it was approved by the new Board of Legislators last month, though it remains unclear when the lawmakers will vote on it.

The proposal in Illinois facing similar criticism, with Rebecca Glenberg of ACLU saying the bill doesn’t address what the police could do with the data, in addition to the First Amendment concerns.

“A person’s political beliefs, a person’s religious beliefs, things that should not play a part in whether someone gets a FOID card,” Glenberg told the station.

What would they be looking at to determine if someone can be denied their Constitutional Right when they haven’t actually committed a crime? They do not say. Nor does the bill, just like with New York.

Read: Illinois Democrats Pushing Bill To Search Social Media For Firearm Permits »

Posted in 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove