…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle serving evil beef to people, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 357 Magnum, with a post on how to destroy a police department.
Read: If All You See… »
…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle serving evil beef to people, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 357 Magnum, with a post on how to destroy a police department.
Read: If All You See… »
It’s almost like Democrats don’t want to vote on their big idea
Dear @SenateMajLdr McConnell:
Stop trying to distract from the fact that the GOP has no plan on climate change.
I'm headed to the Senate Floor to issue you a challenge to admit for the first time:
1. Climate change is real
2. It's caused by humans
3. Congress needs to act— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) February 14, 2019
Isn’t “Congress needs to act” part of voting on the Green New Deal? Heck, Bob Menendez threatened to call the cops on a reporter for asking a question
U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., had a fiery exchange with a reporter on Capitol Hill on Wednesday when asked to comment on the Green New Deal.
Henry Rodgers, the Daily Caller’s Capitol Hill reporter, approached the senator at a subway station and asked him if he supported Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s legislative proposal.
Menendez avoided the question and asked where Rodgers worked. Rodgers said that when he told Menendez he worked for the Daily Caller, the Democrat responded by saying he would not answer any questions. An intern who was with Rodgers asked a follow-up question, and tensions apparently rose.
https://twitter.com/henryrodgersdc/status/1095790133373218820
Why are Democrats so afraid of going on the record?
Read: Schumer Callers Voting On Green New Deal A Distraction »
Basically, op-ed writer Jedediah Britton-Purdy, professor of law at Columbia and is the author, most recently, of “After Nature: A Politics for the Anthropocene” exposes that ‘climate change’ is all about politics, and the Green New Deal is the ultimate extension
The Green New Deal Is What Realistic Environmental Policy Looks Like
Everyone is lining up to endorse the Green New Deal — or to mock it. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand have all endorsed the resolution sponsored by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts.
Conservative critics predictably call it “a shocking document†and “a call for enviro-socialism in America,†but liberal condescension has cut deeper. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, essentially dismissed it as branding, saying, “The green dream, or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?†Others have criticized it for leaving out any mention of a carbon tax, a cornerstone of mainstream climate-policy proposals, while embracing a left-populist agenda that includes universal health care, stronger labor rights and a jobs guarantee.
What do these goals have to do with stabilizing atmospheric carbon levels before climate change makes large parts of the world uninhabitable? What has taken liberal critics aback is that the Green New Deal strays so far from the traditional environmental emphasis on controlling pollution, which the carbon tax aims to do, and tries to solve the problems of economic inequality, poverty and even corporate concentration (there’s an antimonopoly clause).
But this everything-and-the-carbon-sink strategy is actually a feature of the approach, not a bug, and not only for reasons of ideological branding. In the 21st century, environmental policy is economic policy. Keeping the two separate isn’t a feat of intellectual discipline. It’s an anachronism.
Every once in a while, a Warmist will let the cat out of the bag as to what they really want to do. The Green New Deal itself was a big reveal as to what they really want, and Britton-Purdy continues that. Basically, it involves everything. Implementing controls and changes in terms of fossil fuels and EVERYTHING that is touched by it (which is a goodly chunk of our lives), refitting buildings, retooling transportation (meaning you may not have your own private vehicle), the entire jobs policy of Government, farming, ranching, and energy, among others, are linked to the economy, which, in Warmist World, is controlled by the Central Government.
The Green New Deal isn’t the only approach, of course, but its broad ambitions mark out the ground where future climate fights will happen. Because reshaping our environmental impact means reworking our economy, there will inevitably be competing visions about who deserves to benefit and what kind of economy we should build. Centrist proposals will concentrate on promoting investment in new technologies, with profits going, pharma-style, to private researchers and manufacturers.
And this means Government dictating what it looks like. Funny how it always comes down to institution greater and greater government power.
Read: NY Times: The Green New Deal Is What Realistic Environmental Policy Looks Like Or Something »
This would effect a few shooters, but, mostly it impacts law abiding citizens
Democrats propose high-capacity gun magazine ban
After a year without any significant gun legislation passed by Congress since the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting in Parkland, Florida, Democrats introduced a bill banning high-capacity gun magazines Tuesday, as the one-year anniversary of the massacre nears.
The Democratic legislation, cosponsored by Rep. Ted Deutch of Florida and Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, would ban any magazine that exceeds 10 rounds of ammunition. The legislation, which has been dubbed the “Keep Americans Safe Act,” currently has no Republican cosponsors, one of many obstacles that would stand in the way of it advancing.
During a news conference on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, the Democratic legislators described the bill as one step in a process of passing individual gun control measures instead of a big comprehensive package.
“Guns become doubly and triply deadly in these massacres because of these high-capacity magazines,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat. “And so if we take one simple step in approving this prohibition, we can literally save lives. There is no more simple, straightforward way to save lives from gun violence than to ban these high-capacity magazines.”
Right, because criminals, especially those bent on mass murder, will follow the law.
Jennifer Baker, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, said:
“This legislation would effectively ban the most commonly owned firearms for self-defense. It is an arbitrary limit pulled out of thin air with no evidence that the limits would improve public safety. In fact the after report from the deadliest school shooting in American history states that magazine limits would have had no impact. This is just more nonsense from anti-gun zealots who are looking to score political points by proposing legislation that would make criminals out of law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional right to self-defense while doing nothing to deter criminals from committing crimes.”
And that’s the thing: it could end up banning weapons that accept magazines with more than 10 rounds. You can always put a smaller mag in a rifle, but, what about handguns, where they are built to take a certain magazine size? Will they be banned, or will owners have to purchase mags that hold 10 rounds or less? The bill itself is S.447, and, according Menendez’s Senate webpage
There is a grandfathering of larger mags. A Republican should add a rider that all security protecting the Congressional buildings and the lawmakers themselves cannot have mags that hold more than 10 rounds.
Read: Democrats Now Pushing Large Magazine Ban At Federal Level »
…is horrible beef from carbon polluting moo cows causing the planet to over-heat and snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Not A Lot Of People Know That, with a post on a union boss claiming the Green New Deal will destroy jobs.
Read: If All You See… »
You know what’s coming, right?
The Science Behind Seattle’s Historic Snow
Seattle is no stranger to wet winters, but usually it falls as drizzle, mist, and other forms of liquid precipitation. This week, though, more than a foot of snow has turned the Emerald City white. So what gives?
The recent spate of storms are following very abnormal tracks that have tapped deep Canadian cold. And yes, the polar vortex may even be playing a role.
To understand what’s weird, you have to understand what’s normal. Seattle does get about six inches of snow a year, but a sustained run of storms like this is rare. According to the National Weather Service, Sea-Tac airport has picked 14.1 inches of snow as of Monday morning, making this the snowiest February recorded there since record keeping began in 1945 and the eighth-snowiest month, period. With more flakes expected to fly on Monday evening, February 2019 could climb even higher in the record books. (snip)
To get snow, you have to get cold. And to get cold, you have to get air from Canada. And that’s exactly what’s been happening for the past week. Storms have been coming in almost directly from the north, tapping chilly air from interior British Columbia. That’s caused Seattle temperatures to dip 20-30 degrees Fahrenheit colder than normal or well below freezing. And that’s how you end up with people skiing down city streets and the photo at the top of this post of a majestic Saint Bernard on a snow mound in front of the Space Needle. (snip)
His research also shows that the recent run of winters with polar vortex breakdowns could become more common as the planet warms.

This is the kind of thing I’m seeing on Warmist twitter
https://twitter.com/sevenishmagpies/status/1095190868531658752
Tell me again how climate change isn’t real? Seattle is currently getting more snow than IT EVER HAS #ClimateChange #PNW #SeattleSnowStorm2019 #ActOnClimate pic.twitter.com/hBKjSDurAM
— Adam (@Freudianslip320) February 12, 2019
They really do believe an over-heated world is causing this.
Read: Say, Can You Guess What The Science Is Behind Seattle’s Historic Snow? »
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
Don’t let Mitch McConnell fool you: this is nothing but an attempt to sabotage the movement we are building. He wants to silence your voice so Republicans don’t have to explain why they are climate change deniers. McConnell wants this to be the end, this is just the beginning. https://t.co/GUxJ5HG2jb
— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) February 12, 2019
This isn't a new Republican trick. By rushing a vote on the #GreenNewDeal resolution, Republicans want to avoid a true national debate & kill our efforts to organize. We’re having the first national conversation on climate change in a decade. We can’t let Republicans sabotage it.
— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) February 12, 2019
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?
Senator, do explain how a floor vote of your own resolution is sabotage. Personally I think you were posturing with the resolution and never expected to vote on it. Now you can anger your newly radical base or scare off average, independent Americans. The choice is yours.
— TI (@travisinghram) February 12, 2019
Read: Mitch McConnell Considers Putting Green New Deal Up For Vote, Sen. Ed Markey Melts Down »
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.â€
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 »
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.â€
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 »