SCOTUS Ruling Makes It Easier To Detain Non-Citizens Released From Jail

By William Teach March 20, 2019 – 10:30 am

Over at the NY Times, David Leonhardt has some interesting questions for Democrats on illegal immigration, such as

  • What kind of border security do you believe in? Do you favor the policies Obama put in place to reduce illegal immigration — or a different approach?
  • Do you believe that immigrants who enter this country illegally should be allowed to stay? If not, which categories of undocumented immigrants should be at risk of deportation? (In a 2016 debate, Clinton and Sanders didn’t offer clear answers when Univision’s Jorge Ramos asked similar questions.)

They are good questions, which today’s Democrat officials and activists, including the media, do not want to truly answer, because they are for open borders. They yammer about not wanting protect criminal illegal aliens, yet, they do protect them from ICE and deportation. SCOTUS just made it easier to detain these illegals

Supreme Court hands Trump administration a victory in immigration battle

The Supreme Court on Tuesday handed the Trump administration a victory in its battle to clamp down on illegal immigration by making it easier to detain immigrants with criminal records.

The ruling that federal immigration authorities can detain immigrants awaiting deportation anytime after they have been released from prison on criminal charges represents a victory for President Trump.

In the case before the justices, a group of mostly green card holders argued that unless immigrants were picked up immediately after finishing their prison sentence, they should get a hearing to argue for their release while deportation proceedings go forward. But in the 5-4 decision on Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled against them, deciding that federal immigration officials can detain noncitizens at any time after their release from local or state custody. The court also ruled the government maintains broad discretion to decide who would represent a danger to the community in deciding who to release or detain.

Switching to Reuters, which seems upset about the decision

But Alito wrote that it is not the court’s job to impose a time limit for when immigrants can be detained after serving a prison sentence. Alito noted that the court has previously said that “an official’s crucial duties are better carried out late than never.” Alito said the challengers’ assertion that immigrants had to be detained within 24 hours of ending a prison sentence is “especially hard to swallow.”

There should be no time limit. Whether they were here illegally or legally (and now being kicked out for breaking the rules), immigration authorities should have the ability to get them, detain them so they do not disappear again), and deport them. Might it apply to something like this?

Yermin Alexander Diaz-Chavarria, an El Salvadorian national was arrested on by the U.S. Border Patrol on Aug. 23, 2015, at Hidalgo, Texas, for entering the country illegally, according to a release by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (catch and release under Obama)

In 2017, El Salvador issued a warrant for Diaz-Chavarria’s arrest for aggravated murder and affiliation with criminal organizations, ICE said.

After he didn’t show up for his Feb. 13, 2018 immigration court hearing in Newark, an immigration judge ordered him to be deported to El Salvador, the release stated.

Diaz-Chavarria was eventually caught on Feb. 11 in Newark by ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations officers and on March 8, he was deported was turned over to Salvadorian authorities, officials said.

He didn’t show for his hearing? Shocking!

Read: SCOTUS Ruling Makes It Easier To Detain Non-Citizens Released From Jail »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Carbon Taxes Are The Original Green New Deal Or Something

By William Teach March 20, 2019 – 8:49 am

If that’s what carbon taxes are, then they have also been shot down in much the same way, because virtually every carbon tax proposal in the U.S. has been shot down. Here you have Steven Rattner, who served as counselor to the Treasury secretary in the Obama administration (which had such awesome economic policies, eh?) making the argument to tax the ever loving hell out of the middle and lower classes, because Warmists never give up on a good taxation scheme

Carbon Taxes Are the Original Green New Deal

Yes, of course, we need a Green New Deal to address the world’s most urgent crisis, global warming.

Just, please, not the one that a flotilla of liberal politicians, including seven of the top Democratic presidential hopefuls currently in the Senate, are signing up for in droves, like children following the pied piper in the old legend.

Our modern-day pied piper, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is trying to lure us into a set of policies that might help save the planet but at the cost of severely damaging the global economy.

To be sure, by the time the resolution was introduced into Congress, some of its most ludicrous provisions (like the deadline of 2030 for a full transition to renewable energy and the immediate halt to any investment in fossil fuels) had been eliminated or watered down.

But as important as continuing to prune the absurd or damaging provisions would be to add what is the most effective way to attack climate change: using taxes and market forces rather than government controls to reduce harmful emissions.

Interesting. First he portrays AOC as the moron she is (Dems are really getting sick of her), and second attempts to portray government implemented and run taxes as not governmental control. Kinda like how the Idiot Republican members of the Cult of Climastrology call these same taxes “free market.”

Fortunately, there is a better way to address the climate problem at far lower cost to the economy: a tax on greenhouse gas emissions. That can be imposed in any number of ways. The 18.4 cent federal gasoline tax, for example, hasn’t been increased since 1993 even as most other developed countries impose far higher levies.

A particularly thoughtful proposal has come from the Climate Leadership Council, a bipartisan organization that counts more than 3,300 economists among its signatories. Elegant in its simplicity, the key provision would be the imposition of an escalating tax on carbon. At an initial rate of $43 per ton, the levy would be roughly equivalent to 38.2 cents per gallon of gasoline.

Who gets hurt by this? The middle and lower classes, of course, so

The entire proceeds from the tax would be rebated to consumers. The council suggests an equal amount for each American; my view would be to exclude the wealthy (who hardly need the estimated $2,000 a year in payments) and disproportionately favor those closer to the bottom.

First, the full cost of living never gets rebated. Second, this type of carbon tax scheme was invented several years ago to attempt to not only make it look palatable to voters, but to further make them dependent on government. If government is acting like your parents giving you an allowance, even if they are the ones that caused the spike in your cost of living, you are now dependent on getting that money.

Remember this?

But the AP survey also showed that Americans don’t want to pay very much to fight climate change. A $1 per month fee was favored by 57 percent of those surveyed. However, if the monthly charge increased to $10 a month, just 28 percent would be supportive, while 68 percent would be opposed.

That was January. Does anyone think people are going to want to see their costs go up $166 a month, based on the $2,000 rebate number from Rattner above? Because the real number will surely be more. You could easily be paying $5 a gallon for gas. With my Accord (yes, I now have an Accord Sport, got rid of the Jeep Liberty) it would mean about $100 a month instead of $50. Cost of vehicles will go up, which means auto insurance will go up. Cost of goods will go up as the transportation costs go up. Cost of homes will go up. Cost of energy for your domicile will go up. Want to take a vacation or visit the parents? Increased airfare, increased hotel rates, increased food rates. Food at restaurants will go up. Clothes will go up. Shipping rates for your Internet orders will go up. Altogether, think it will be more than $166 a month? Even if it is just, say, $100, are you up for that? Remember, that is just the starting figure as the cost of carbon is artificially raised by government.

Read: NY Times: Carbon Taxes Are The Original Green New Deal Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Carbon Credits, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Elijah Cummings Whines About White House Not Turning Over Witch Hunt Material

By William Teach March 20, 2019 – 8:19 am

Elijah E. Cummings (Democrat Maryland) is the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and a massive whiner infused with Trump Derangement Syndrome, but he’s Very Upset that the White House is refusing to cooperate with its Very Important Investigations, as he is given a perch in the Washington Post opinion pages

In November, the American people voted overwhelmingly to put Democrats in charge of the House of Representatives to start serving as a truly independent check and balance on the executive branch. Since then, President Trump and his allies have complained of “Presidential Harassment,” decrying Democrats for having the audacity to request documents and witnesses to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities.

See? Must be Very Important Stuff!

The problem is that the White House is engaged in an unprecedented level of stonewalling, delay and obstruction.

I serve as chairman of the Oversight and Reform Committee, the primary investigative body in the House of Representatives. I have sent 12 letters to the White House on a half-dozen topics — some routine and some relating to our core national security interests. In response, the White House has refused to hand over any documents or produce any witnesses for interviews.

Let me underscore that point: The White House has not turned over a single piece of paper to our committee or made a single official available for testimony during the 116th Congress.

ZOMG!

One of the most important investigations we are conducting is a review of White House security clearances. The White House argues that Congress is not entitled to any information about individual employees, including former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying about his communications with the Russians; current national security adviser John Bolton, who worked directly with the gun rights group founded by now-convicted Russian spy Maria Butina; or the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who was reportedly given access to our nation’s most sensitive secrets over the objections of then-White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly and others.

We are also examining the president’s “hush money” payments to silence women alleging affairs before the election, as well as the president’s failure to divulge these payments on his financial disclosure forms, as required by federal law. Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen provided copies of reimbursement checks signed long after Trump became president during our hearing with him, but the White House has refused to turn over any of the documents we requested. Instead, officials let us read 30 pages, about half of which were already public or entirely blacked out.

He has more, but, really, the majority of what he wants is simply Trump Derangement Syndrome and personal. It has little to do with what is happening in the Executive Branch, and much has to do with the runup to Trump winning the election.

The White House has also refused to produce any documents or witnesses in response to our other investigations, including White House officials’ alleged use of personal email in violation of federal law; ..

Remember when Team Obama was slow-walking and even refusing to release any information on their own use of private emails, some of which used aliases designed to circumvent the law, and Democrats in Congress did all they could to protect them, as did the Washington Post? Remember how the same people protected Hillary Clinton, and wanted no investigations of her?

Similarly, the Obama White House produced many documents and emails relating to the Solyndra controversy, as well as witnesses and documents regarding the Benghazi, Libya, attacks, including communication between top White House officials and National Security Council staff.

Remember how they slow walked these same incidents, claimed executive privilege, and refused to release some documents as well as make Executive Department employees available? Then we get to things like Operation Fast and Furious, Loretta Lynch meeting Bill Clinton, and so much more.

Cummings can yammer on about it being a Constitutional responsibility all he wants, but this is not oversight, it’s hardcore personal political attacks. When Trump complains about there being witch hunts, what Cummings is doing is the definition.

Read: Bummer: Elijah Cummings Whines About White House Not Turning Over Witch Hunt Material »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats, Donald Trump | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Walking The Talk Is Not Enough To Solve ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach March 19, 2019 – 3:18 pm

Yet another piece explaining why it is A-OK for Warmists to be utter hypocrites

Personal responsibility is not enough to fix climate change

Is Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a climate hypocrite? That was the recent charge leveled against the freshman member of Congress, due to her apparent preference for car travel over public transit. The New York Democrat is outspoken on the need to take action on climate change and is the motivating force behind the much hyped Green New Deal, which aims to zero out greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by 2030.

Ocasio-Cortez is only the latest in a long line of green advocates who have been tagged with the hypocrisy label. The home of former vice president Al Gore uses 20 times the electricity of the typical house. Actor Leonardo DiCaprio warns of the dangers of fossil fuels while flying around on private jets. Not that green activists are necessarily great at giving others advice on how to reduce their carbon footprint either. When she was asked what people could do personally to fight climate change, Ocasio-Cortez had decided to suggest not using disposable plastic razors when you shave.

I enjoy poking fun at these folks as much as the next guy, but there is a deeper point involved here. In fact, one of the things that makes climate change such a difficult problem to solve is that it is impossible for a single person, or perhaps even a single nation, to do much to reduce emissions at all. Climate change is an example of what is called a collective action problem. This is a situation where everyone would benefit by taking a certain action, but only if everyone else does as well.

Of course, in Warmist World, it’s always about forcing Someone Else to live the tenants of the Cult of Climastrology. About government force. Screed writer Josiah Neely really, really, really tries to make the point about it not being hypocrisy for many more paragraphs before getting to

So how do you solve a collective action problem? Well that is easier said than done. Sometimes a collective action problem can be overcome by having the group make a decision binding on everyone. Before 1979, few hockey players wore helmets despite the increased risk of injury because a player in a helmet was thought to be at a competitive disadvantage to one without a helmet. Now all players wear helmets. What changed? The National Hockey League made wearing helmets mandatory. This option is not available in the case of climate change, however, because thankfully there is no world government that can mandate emissions reductions.

Yes, the NHL demanded this, and most of the players were on board with it. But, then, they are a private group. The point Josiah is trying to note here is that government should force everyone to comply. Josiah can yammer about being thankful that there is no world government to mandate reductions, but, it all leads up to government force. But, until such time as Warmists show us that this is real by practicing what they preach, we can see this for what it is: hard left politics, with all the money grabbing, redistribution of wealth, controlling people’s lives, etc.

Read: Walking The Talk Is Not Enough To Solve ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 32 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 19, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a bike painted in a horribly sexist color, and we all know that climate change causes sexism, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Animal Magnetism, with a post on daily political stunt news.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Denial Of Man-Caused Climate Change Is White Supremacy Or Something

By William Teach March 19, 2019 – 10:30 am

This is the logical extension of the Cult of Climastrology talking points, painting everyone who doesn’t Believe as heretics. They also like to link things that happen with their cult. In this case, Warmist Rebecca Solnit unsurprisingly links the New Zealand massacre with white supremacy and ‘climate change’

Why you’ll never meet a white supremacist who cares about climate change

As the news of the Christchurch mosque massacre broke and I scoured the news, I came across a map showing that the Friday morning climate strike in Christchurch was close to the bloodbath. I felt terrible for the young people who showed up with hope and idealism, wondered whether the killer or killers chose this particular day to undermine the impact of this global climate action. It was a shocking pairing and also a perfectly coherent one, a clash of opposing ideologies. Behind the urgency of climate action is the understanding that everything is connected; behind white supremacy is an ideology of separation.

You know, there are times when I’m scanning the news, see the headline, and see the little blurb that goes with and decide to take a shot at the article. I write a little starting blurb, post the headline, then start reading the article in full, and realize it’s even more bat-guano insane than anticipated, like expecting jalapeño and getting a Ghost Pepper. The above paragraph, the first in the article, is that type. Seriously, people are gunned down and her first thought is ‘climate change’? Nor does this get any less wacky

Of separation as the idea that human beings are divided into races, and those in one race have nothing in common with those in others. Of separation as the idea that though white people have overrun the globe, nonwhite people should stay out of Europe, North America, and now even New Zealand and Australia, two places where white settlers came relatively recently to already inhabited places – as a fantasy of resegregating the world. Of a lot of ideas and ideals of masculinity taken to a monstrous extreme – as ideas of disconnection, of taking matters into your own hands, of feeling no empathy and exhibiting no kindness, of asserting yourself as having the right to dominate others even unto death. And of course, of guns as the symbols and instruments of this self-definition. (snip)

In contrast, so much of rightwing ideology now is about a libertarian machismo in the “I can do anything I want” vein. It’s the pro-gun myth that we can each protect ourselves with a weapon when in reality we’re all safer with them out of our societies. It’s the idea that we can deregulate the hell out of everything and everyone can just look out for themselves whether it’s food safety or infrastructure safety or air and water quality. To kill someone you have to feel separate from them, and some violence – lynching, rape – ritualizes this separateness. Violence too comes out of a sort of entitlement: I have the right to hurt you, to determine your fate, to end your life. I am more important than you. It seems like, among other things a miserable mindset, one that aggrandizes your ego but withers your soul.

So, liberty and freedom bad, government telling you what you can do good. Men bad, white people bad, everyone bad who doesn’t toe the line of ‘climate change’ beliefs.

I asked Hoda Baraka, who is both Muslim and 350.org’s global communications director, how it all looked to her in the wake of the climate strike and the massacre, and she said “In a world being driven by fear, we are constantly being pitted against the very things that make this world livable. Whether it’s people being pitted against each other, even though there is no life without human connection, love and empathy. Or fear pitting us against the very planet that sustains us, even though there is no life on a dead planet. This is why fighting against climate change is the equivalent of fighting against hatred. A world that thrives is one where both people and planet are seen for their inextricable value and connectedness.”

Perhaps Hoda should take a look at the constant violence and killings done in the name of her religion. The Jew hatred, the hatred of non-Muslims. Anyhow, Rebecca never really proves the headline, but, the point here really was to paint all who do not believe in ‘climate change’ as white supremacists, thereby making them Bad People.

Read: Denial Of Man-Caused Climate Change Is White Supremacy Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 38 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Half Of Americans Agree That Mueller Probe Is A Witch Hunt

By William Teach March 19, 2019 – 8:03 am

So far, the collusion narrative has failed. Everyone busted by Team Mueller has been busted over old stuff, stuff that has nothing to do really with Russia and/or collusion, or process crimes, ie, crimes that wouldn’t have happened without the actual Russia Russia Russia probe

Poll: More Americans Think Mueller’s Probe Is a ‘Witch Hunt’ Against Trump

Half of Americans agree with President Trump that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe is a “witch hunt” and that he has been subjected to more investigations than previous presidents because of politics, according to a poll published on Monday.

That is more than 47 percent of Americans who disagree, according to the new poll, conducted by USA Today/Suffolk University Poll. Just three percent did not have an opinion.

The poll also showed that trust in Mueller’s investigation has “eroded.”

“Even among people who said they had ‘some’ trust in the Mueller investigation, half agreed with President Trump’s witch hunt allegation,” David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk Political Research Center, told USA Today.

Broken down by political party, eighty-six percent of Republicans said Trump was a victim of a witch hunt, 54 percent percent of Independents, and 14 percent of Democrats.

And, if that almost two year report turns into a big nothingburger, those Independents are going to be wondering why Democrats have been screaming about collusion since Hillary lost in 2016, and wasting our time and taxpayer money.

Sixty-two percent of Americans say the House should not seriously consider impeaching Trump, compared with 54 percent last October.

There are also divided views on House Democrats’ sweeping investigation of the president, his family, and his ssociates. Forty-nine percent of those polled said Democrats are doing the right thing, but 46 percent said they are going too far.

And Democrats will be doing both things during the run up to the 2020 elections, which will drive more people over to Trump’s side. They may not like Trump, they may think he’s sleazy, but they’ll rather have Trump than a crazy Democrat.

Read: Surprise: Half Of Americans Agree That Mueller Probe Is A Witch Hunt »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, Donald Trump | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Democrats Want To Lower Health Care Costs, They Just Have No Idea How To Do It

By William Teach March 19, 2019 – 7:52 am

This is a case of a different headline on the front page of the NY Times yesterday than in the single page, and it brings up an interesting point

They did call it the Affordable Care Act, did they not? Whenever a Democrat, including then President Obama and the Democrat media, discussed it they referred to it as the Affordable Care Act. How many times did Obama yammer about it reducing costs and saving us $2,500 a year on premiums?

Medicare for All Is Divisive (in the Democratic Party)

No issue animated the Democrats’ 2018 congressional campaigns like health care and the promises to expand access to insurance and to lower costs. But as House Democrats sit down to draft their vision of governance in the coming weeks, lawmakers find themselves badly divided on the issue that delivered their majority.

Centrists from swing districts, with the tacit support of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, favor incremental moves to shore up the Affordable Care Act and to lower the out-of-pocket costs of prescription drugs and medical care. They are pushing a variety of measures, such as shutting down cheap, short-term insurance plans that do not cover pre-existing medical conditions and allowing people to buy into Medicare at age 50 or 55.

But they are butting up against an aggressive and expanding group of more than 100 outspoken Democrats — as well as at least four of the party’s presidential candidates — who want to do just that, upend the whole system with a single government insurance plan for all Americans — the old concept of single payer, now called Medicare for all.

“I reject the idea that single payer is impossible,” said Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York.

This will cause a pretty big fight over the next few weeks and even years as they debate this in the Dem controlled House, as well as between those running for the Democrat presidential nomination.

The idea of Medicare for all is immensely contentious. It would greatly expand the federal role in health care. Critics say it would require a big increase in federal spending, and proponents have not said how they would pay for it. Some versions of Medicare for all could wipe out much of the health insurance industry and replace employer-sponsored health plans that now cover more than 155 million Americans. Supporters say the proposal would guarantee universal coverage and put health care on a budget, reducing what consumers and employers spend. But insurance companies, along with many hospitals and doctors, are waging a vigorous campaign against it, believing that it would reduce the payments they receive for providing care.

Ms. Pelosi cannot afford to put moderate freshmen in Trump-friendly districts on the spot by putting Medicare for all up to a vote.

“Most people receive health care from their employer,” said Representative Scott Peters, Democrat of California and a vice chairman for the New Democrat Coalition, a centrist group. “They do not want to replace it with an untested government system.”

If a single payer type system cannot work in tiny Vermont, with a population of 626 thousand, how would it work for well over 300 million Americans? Let’s not forget that studies showed that the cost for “Medicare for all” for the state of California would be at least twice the overall state budget. If Democrats want to yammer about this, and there will be lots of committee hearings, they will need to explain just how they plan on paying for it, as well as how it would actually work, as in, how much rationing will there be, how medical care providers will be reimbursed, who will run medical facilities, who will own them, and how much our taxes will go up to pay for this.

Read: NY Times: Democrats Want To Lower Health Care Costs, They Just Have No Idea How To Do It »

Posted in Democrats, Healthcare | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Solving ‘Climate Change’ Requires Ending Capitalism

By William Teach March 18, 2019 – 3:38 pm

If you look back five, six, even ten years, Warmists called me a conspiracy monger for suggesting that the whole anthropogenic global warming/climate change movement was really political, and included ending capitalism. Pushing far left dogma, including economic change. Heck, even some Skeptics thought I was nuts. Yet, I kept highlighting the stories, and over the last year this has grown more and more in the way that Warmists are telling us what they really believe and who they really are

Ending climate change requires the end of capitalism. Have we got the stomach for it?

Climate change activism is increasingly the domain of the young, such as 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, the unlikely face of the school strike for climate movement, which has seen many thousands of children walk out of school to demand that their parents’ generation takes responsibility for leaving them a planet to live on. In comparison, the existing political establishment looks more and more like an impediment to change. The consequences of global warming have moved from the merely theoretical and predicted to observable reality over the past few years, but this has not been matched by an uptick in urgency. The need to keep the wheels of capitalism well-oiled takes precedence even against a backdrop of fires, floods and hurricanes.

Today’s children, as they become more politically aware, will be much more radical than their parents, simply because there will be no other choice for them. This emergent radicalism is already taking people by surprise. The Green New Deal (GND), a term presently most associated with 29-year-old US representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has provoked a wildly unhinged backlash from the “pro free market” wing, who argue that it’s a Trojan horse, nothing more than an attempt to piggyback Marxism onto the back of climate legislation.

Did Phil McDuff read his own headline? Or read the own words he wrote?

The criticism feels ridiculous. Partly because the GND is far from truly radical and already represents a compromise solution, but mainly because the radical economics isn’t a hidden clause, but a headline feature. Climate change is the result of our current economic and industrial system. GND-style proposals marry sweeping environmental policy changes with broader socialist reforms because the level of disruption required to keep us at a temperature anywhere below “absolutely catastrophic” is fundamentally, on a deep structural level, incompatible with the status quo.

We will simply have to throw the kitchen sink at this. Policy tweaks such as a carbon tax won’t do it. We need to fundamentally re-evaluate our relationship to ownership, work and capital. The impact of a dramatic reconfiguration of the industrial economy require similarly large changes to the welfare state. Basic incomes, large-scale public works programmes, everything has to be on the table to ensure that the oncoming system shocks do not leave vast swathes of the global population starving and destitute. Perhaps even more fundamentally, we cannot continue to treat the welfare system as a tool for disciplining the supposedly idle underclasses. Our system must be reformed with a more humane view of worklessness, poverty and migration than we have now.

So, really, getting rid of capitalism. Which worked great in the Soviet Union. When will Warmists stop using the capitalist created Internet?

Read: Surprise: Solving ‘Climate Change’ Requires Ending Capitalism »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 28 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 18, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is are horrible fossil fueled boats, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Creeping Sharia, with a post on the Christians killed by Islamic extremists in Nigeria.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove