If All You See…

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

…is a house collapsing from too much carbon pollution bad weather, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Pacific Pundit, with a post on a news station doctoring what Trump looks like during speech.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Washington Post Is Suddenly Enthused To Roll Back Presidential Powers Given By Congress

By William Teach January 11, 2019 – 10:32 am

The Washington Post Editorial Board is on a roll. They’re really upset that Trump most likely has the power to declare a national emergency and build the border wall

Congress gave the president too many powers. Now it must scale them back.

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S assertion that he might sidestep Congress and get funds for a border wall by declaring a national emergency has sent lawyers, legislators and journalists scrambling to figure out whether he actually possesses the legal authority to do so. What they’ve found, in part, is that Congress has delegated a surprising amount of emergency or quasi-emergency power to the executive branch over the years, possibly too much. The implications for constitutional government are potentially serious. Whatever happens with Mr. Trump and the wall, therefore, this body of law is long overdue for a review, and not by the courts but by the body that created it — Congress.

The Brennan Center for Justice has compiled a list of 123 statutes that enable the president to circumvent ordinary lawmaking processes upon the declaration of a “national emergency,” including the statutes Mr. Trump seems most likely to cite if he goes for a wall-building without new appropriations from Congress: two provisions that allow the Pentagon to reshuffle existing military construction funds and redirect them to previously unauthorized purposes in the event of a national emergency. Some of the other laws on the Brennan list are obvious relics: Did you know that the president can press the Fort McHenry National Monument back into military service in an emergency? Many of the provisions on the Brennan list appear never to have been invoked. Still, the laws have real-world impact: Many economic sanctions, past and present, were declared by the president, citing “national emergencies” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Mr. Trump’s tariff war on steel imports is being waged under the authority of a trade law known as Section 232 (not on the Brennan list) that allows the imposition of levies when the executive branch decides “national security” requires it. (snip)

To its to-do list, the new Democratic majority in the House should add convening hearings on this area of law, with an eye toward cleaning it up. There’s every reason for the Republican-majority Senate, to the extent it cares more about constitutional balance than partisan interests, to join in. The rise of Mr. Trump has reminded everyone of the potential danger from unchecked power in the executive. That power may be doubly dangerous if the unchecked power has, in effect, been handed to the president by Congress in the past. Perhaps those Congresses could not imagine a truly erratic and irrational figure in the White House. The current Congress has no excuse.

Hey, remember how the WPEB was super concerned over then-president Barack Obama circumventing ordinary lawmaking? Oh, they were cheering things like DACA, Waters Of the U.S., the Clean Power Plan, Paris Climate Agreement, and so much more. Nor did they have any issue with how the Affordable Care Act gave enormous new powers to the Executive Branch, up to the point that HHS invented the Contraception Mandate out of thin air.

Heck, media outlets like the Washington Post were telling Obama to go around Congress to do things that the duly elected Legislative Branch did not want to do.

But, you know, Trump, so, #Resist, even when it is utterly hypocritical.

Read: Washington Post Is Suddenly Enthused To Roll Back Presidential Powers Given By Congress »

Posted in Donald Trump, Journalistic Malpractice | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

After Banning Straws, California Now Looks Towards Paper Receipts

By William Teach January 11, 2019 – 6:52 am

You remember when California went utterly overboard in banning straws, right? It was supposedly for ecological reasons, and, there’s some validity there with plastic pollution, but they made the case of ‘climate change’ even stronger. Now we get

California Democrats made plastic straws hard to get. Are paper receipts next?

We’ve all been there. We go to a grocery store or pharmacy, buy an item and walk away with a receipt as long as the Nile River.

One California lawmaker says enough is enough.

Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, unveiled a plan on Tuesday to take the state off of printed receipts. Under Assembly Bill 161, businesses would have to give customers electronic receipts if they don’t ask for physical copies.

“Most people assume that all these receipts can be recyclable. Guess what? They can’t,” Ting said. “It’s common-sense legislation. We think it’s a minimal cost, and it’s really putting the power back in the consumers by saying, ‘Hey, if you want the paper, yeah, you can ask for it, but why force you to take the paper?’”

Many of the bill’s provisions match those of a new law requiring customers to ask for plastic straws if they want one. Businesses that don’t comply with the law would receive two warnings before being fined $25 for each subsequent violation. The penalties would stop once a business hits $300 in a given year.

And, oh, yes, it is about ‘climate change’

Pamela Williams, acting president of the California Retailers Association, said it’s too soon for the group to take a position on the bill. She wonders how the proposal would affect smaller to medium-sized retailers who can’t afford to invest in software that would offer e-receipts.

And therein lies the issue. Not everyone is set up to do this, and it would cost money. Many people want a paper receipt right there in order to make sure it is correct at that time. You won’t look at the emailed receipt immediately. Certain places, like Best Buy, I always get emailed receipt. No problem there. Supermarket? I want the paper. Sometimes a product gets double scanned (I blame myself) and do not catch it till after I paid. Plus, many places want to see a receipt on the way out, like Walmart and Costco.

Yes, some receipts are ridiculously long. Some give them coupons. Some are just wastes. Do we really need an emailed receipt for minor transactions? Do we need to give our email to freaking everyone, now? One big reason many retailers ask if you want it emailed or paper is to get your email so they can market to you.

What about at restaurants? Don’t you have to see the bill first? What would this cost them and so many other businesses? Doesn’t matter, Phil has an Idea, and, being California, it will probably pass.

Read: After Banning Straws, California Now Looks Towards Paper Receipts »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Jim Acosta, NY Times Take Swing At Border Fence, Strike Out

By William Teach January 11, 2019 – 6:38 am

Here’s Excitable Jim Acosta, one of ABC News’ (whoops) CNN pundits, er, reporters, who parachuted down to the border

As people were quick to tell him, there’s no national emergency there because it is one of the most secure areas on the border. And one of the reasons for that is that there is, get this, fencing along the border. Sarah Sanders even thanked Jim for explaining why walls work, and President Trump gave him the Dear Diary treatment.

Then we have Bret Stephens at the NY Times, their resident “conservative”, who’s about as #NeverTrump uber #Resist as it comes

What Real Border Security Looks Like

ON THE ISRAEL-LEBANON BORDER — Other than the Korean Peninsula’s DMZ, there’s probably no border in the world as fraught with the potential for sudden violence as this one, known locally as the Blue Line. Since President Trump thinks border security is the issue of our time, it’s worth considering how Israel — with tight borders, real threats, and a no-nonsense attitude toward its security needs — does it.

What I saw on Wednesday while traveling along the Blue Line was … a fence. A fence studded with sensors, to be sure, but by no means an imposing one. As the accompanying photos show, here is what a long stretch of the border between two sworn enemies looks like.

Does that look like Trump’s idea of a “big beautiful wall”? Does it even look like the “steel slats” the president now offers as his idea of an aesthetic concession to Democrats? Not quite. Yet for the last 19 years it was all the fencing Israelis thought was necessary to secure its side of the Blue Line.

No, but, it does look like it is electrified, as many sections of fencing are around Israel at certain points, including with Egypt and Gaza. Brett forgot to mention that part.

That started to change in December, after Israel announced that it was conducting an operation to destroy tunnels dug by Hezbollah under the border. The tunnel construction — secretly detected by Israel some four years ago — was intended to infiltrate hundreds of Hezbollah fighters into Israel in the event of war. As an additional precaution, Jerusalem is spending an estimated $600 million to replace about 20 kilometers of the fence with a concrete wall, mainly to provide greater peace of mind to the 162,000 Israelis who live near the Lebanese border.

Whoops! An actual wall. Much like other areas of the Israeli border.

So how does Israel maintain border security? Two ways: close cooperation with neighbors where it’s possible and the use of modern technology and effective deterrence where it’s not.

And that’s his real point, after just saying that the border fencing and walls mostly work except for some stragglers, as well as missiles (not a concern on our southern border) and tunnels. He says lots of monitoring 24/7 stops most of that. Well, Trump never said that we’d have a wall an nothing else.

None of this is to say that physical barriers are invariably pointless or evil. Israel’s fence along the Egyptian border all-but ended the flow of illegal African migrants, though most illegal immigrants in Israel arrive legally by plane and simply overstay their visas. The much-maligned wall (most of which is also a fence) that divides Palestinians from Israelis in Jerusalem and other parts of the West Bank played a major role in ending the terrorism of the Second Intifada.

Yet the Israeli experience also suggests that the best way to protect a border is to rely on the tools of the 21st century, not the 12th. Walls only occasionally provide the most reliable security. They can be dangerous for providing the illusion of security. And there are vastly more effective means than concrete to defend even the most dangerous borders. Why can’t Democrats and Republicans simply agree to build additional smart fencing in places where it’s missing and call it, for political effect, an “Israeli-style barrier”?

He keeps making the point for a large physical barrier before trying to say that the wall he said was working doesn’t work. Put a fence up just like Jim Acosta showed, and have sensors. Which was the plan, to have overwatch.

Read: Jim Acosta, NY Times Take Swing At Border Fence, Strike Out »

Posted in Illegal Immigration, Liberal World | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Despicable CNN Employee Files Nails, Dismissed Americans Killed By Illegal Alien

By William Teach January 10, 2019 – 4:44 pm

Ana Navarro used to be a Republican long ago, but started losing it with her ObamaLuv, and now, with her Trump Derangement Syndrome and being a #NeverTrumper, she’s fled into unhinged Liberal World. Why else would CNN pair her up in opposition of an actual Republican?

The Hill notes

CNN’s Ana Navarro filed her nails as a supporter of President Trump spoke about crimes committed by those crossing into the U.S. illegally during an oftentimes heated debate late Wednesday.

Steve Cortes, who served on Trump’s Hispanic Advisory Council, attempted during an appearance on CNN’s “Chris Cuomo Prime Time” to cite reports that call into question the argument that undocumented immigrants commit fewer crimes than American citizens before host Chris Cuomo accused him of injecting “fake news” into the conversation.

“It’s fake news for you to inject B.S. and say that it’s equal to the real data,” Cuomo said.

“It’s not B.S.,” Cortes retorted. “Even if I were to grant you that, OK, the point is the illegal alien crime rate should be zero.”

As Cortes was making his argument in one of three boxes on the screen, Navarro could be seen filing her nails.

“You can do your nails,” Cortes said in addressing her. “You know who can’t do their nails are people who have been killed, Ana, by dangerous known illegal aliens who have been allowed to stay in this country because of the leftist policies that people like you promote in so-called sanctuary cities.”

Two points on this. First, her pulling out the nail file was most likely planned. She seemed ready for it. And, obviously, as you can see from her facial expressions, she was ready to be dismissive over the deaths of American citizens.

Second, while we do not want to apply this to all the open borders Left, of which she’s a part of, it does seem emblematic. All the liberals and their pet media were up in arms over a few illegal aliens who died while in custody, but didn’t care at all over the murder of Officer Ronil Singh, Kate Steinle, nor others killed, raped, or harmed in some way by illegal aliens. Many do all they can to protect these criminal illegal aliens. Even if we buy into the talking point that illegals commit fewer crimes per capita than American citizens, the number of crimes by illegals should be zero, because they shouldn’t even be here.

But, the open borders crowd doesn’t care. And Ana exemplifies their exact feelings on the subject of Americans harmed by illegals.

Read: Despicable CNN Employee Files Nails, Dismissed Americans Killed By Illegal Alien »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration, Unhinged Tools | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 10, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a world made super bright from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Sonoran Conservative, with a post on the fun fact of the day.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

We Can Save The Planet By Eating Insects Or Something

By William Teach January 10, 2019 – 10:30 am

It’s totally a growing movement, you guys!

Would you eat insects to help save the planet? These companies are betting yes.

It’s the time when New Year’s resolutions have us on our best behavior. For some people, that’s January with no booze. For others it’s showing up at the gym. And for a growing number of people, it means eating insects.

What? Yes, insects. Why? Generally, people say they do it for their health and to try to save the planet.

Crickets, mealworms and grasshoppers pack a lot of protein and minerals, and take far fewer resources to produce than animal meat. Insects are popular in other parts of the world, and they are eaten by an estimated 2 billion people. They are sometimes a fine dining experience in countries such as Mexico and Thailand, where they have been a staple for centuries.

The problem for the entomophagy (humans eating insects) movement in the United States is that a lot of people think it is gross. (It is) But there are signs that bug eating is making inroads into the U.S. diet, including in Seattle, where toasted grasshoppers regularly sell out at Mariners games. Some adventurous New York chefs are developing insect recipes, and you can get packaged edible insects (one brand is called Chirps) delivered to your door. Personal technology is also getting on board: A popular health and fitness app recently added insect nutritional information to its diet plan so you can track your bug consumption.

Have at it Warmists!

He said his family also snacks on whole seasoned roasted crickets by the dozens, and his school-aged nephew has an interesting habit in the morning: If he is eating a bowl of cereal like Rice Krispies, he’ll drop whole crickets in there with the milk for added crunch and protein.

Goldin argues that there’s nothing unsavory about it.

“Yucky food is unhealthy food,” he said. “Food that promotes wellness is the opposite of yucky.”

Nah, still yucky. And part of the clarion call by Warmists to force Other People to give up their use eating of meat, something they’ve been pushing hard for years. But, not getting much traction, because most people have no interest in this. So, you get crazies like British MP Caroline Lucas seriously pushing for a tax on meat. Warmists do love their taxes.

Read: We Can Save The Planet By Eating Insects Or Something »

Posted in Food and Drink, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

The Fine Print Of The “New Green Deal” Is Pretty Awful

By William Teach January 10, 2019 – 8:05 am

It’s funny how what they tell us is a Science! issue has resolutions that are all Big Government and you losing choice. Jim Geraghty digs deep into the New Green Deal

The Not-So-Pretty Fine Print of the ‘Green New Deal’

Take some time to peruse the “Green New Deal” in writing.

The deal includes a plan to “cut military spending by at least half” and withdraw U.S. troops from overseas.

The United States military currently has 1.3 million active-duty troops, with another 865,000 in reserve, and 680,000 civilian employees. Green New Deal advocates haven’t laid out exactly how many fewer personnel the U.S. military would have if spending was cut in half, but a military that was half the size of the current one would leave about 1.4 million personnel out of work. And remember, advocates of the Green New Deal pledged to cut military spending in “at least half.”

These same Lefties pushing this freaked out when Trump said he was pulling America out of Syria and Afghanistan.

Under the Green New Deal, within eleven years, the United States would be required to eliminate not merely nuclear power — which does not directly produce any carbon dioxide or air pollution — but all natural gas. Natural gas currently provides about 32 percent of America’s energy, and nuclear power produces another 10 percent. The “Green New Deal” would also eliminate coal, which provides almost 18 percent of America’s energy, and liquid natural gas and oil, which generates another 28 percent.

In other words, within eleven years, the United States would need to replace about 88 percent of its current energy sources. This is not possible short of a societal collapse to agrarian subsistence. (At least the Renaissance fairs will remain the same.)

Interestingly, one of the growing beliefs in the Warmist community is that nuclear is necessary and the use should increase till such point that “renewables” work well enough to not need nuclear. The idea is to fully replace the use of coal and other fossil fuels quickly but not disrupt the power supply. The New Greenie Weenies want to make living a modern lifestyle impossible.

It would effectively nationalize the entire energy industry and shut down non-renewable energy companies, with workers given a vague promise to “provide resources to workers displaced from the fossil fuel industry.”

This isn’t so much Socialism as Fascism/Authoritarianism

The Green New Deal calls for “replacing non-essential individual means of transport with high-quality and modern mass transit.” This is a wonky way of calling for a ban on cars. Who decides whether your car is a “non-essential individual means of transport”?

The Green New Deal also declares, “along with these steps, it will be necessary to electrify everything else, including transport.”

Your gasoline-powered car would be banned. You would only be allowed an electric one, if you were allowed a car at all.

It’s a lot easier to control people if they do not have the easy means to move around.

Did you notice, by the way, that the Green New Deal would eliminate unemployment benefits? If you lost your job, your alternative would be to go to work for the government.

And then they own you. Funny how that works, eh?

Read: The Fine Print Of The “New Green Deal” Is Pretty Awful »

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

Feinstein Introduces “Assault Weapons” Ban That Will Never Pass

By William Teach January 10, 2019 – 7:49 am

Since the GOP controls the Senate, this will most likely not even make it out of committee. But, then, this is what Senators do, propose legislation. Which helps identify what they really want to do

Senators Introduce Assault Weapons Ban

Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) today led a group of senators in introducing the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019, an updated bill to ban the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

In addition to Feinstein, Murphy and Blumenthal, cosponsors of the bill include Senators Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.).

“Last year we saw tens of thousands of students nationwide take to the streets to demand action to stop mass shootings and stem the epidemic of gun violence that plagues our communities. Our youngest generation has grown up with active-shooter drills, hiding under their desks—and now they’re saying enough is enough,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein. “Americans across the nation are asking Congress to reinstate the federal ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. If we’re going to put a stop to mass shootings and protect our children, we need to get these weapons of war off our streets.”

“Military-style assault rifles are the weapons of choice for mass murderers. There’s just no reason why these guns, which were designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible, are sold to the public,”said Senator Chris Murphy. “This past year, we’ve seen Americans rise up and demand Congress change our gun laws. Banning assault weapons would save lives, and I’m proud to join Senator Feinstein in introducing this bill.”

“Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are deadly and dangerous weapons of war that belong on battlefields—not our streets. They have no purpose for self-defense or hunting, and no business being in our schools, churches and malls,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal. “By passing this legislation, Congress can honor the memory of the beautiful lives cut short by military-style assault weapons in Newtown, Parkland, Las Vegas, San Bernardino and far too many other American cities. This is the year for my colleagues to turn our rhetoric into reality and finally end America’s gun violence epidemic.”

Since they are so dangerous, should they be in the hands of law enforcement, which isn’t military? How about the people who protect all these Senators when they are at their jobs? They aren’t military. Yet, they often carry weapons We The People cannot lawfully own without a very specific permit from the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms, which is for a very specific reason, usually for demonstration.

The bill would specifically bad 2,200 firearms, and make it harder to get many others. It would make those that are grandfathered almost useless due to “safe storage” rules. Here’s where it gets really interesting

Bans magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, which allow shooters to quickly fire many rounds without needing to reload. Owners may keep existing magazines.

The bill itself is not up on the Congressional website yet, so we’ll have to wait to read what it says specifically, but it seems that Feinstein is saying all magazines for all weapons. Nowhere does she position this as applying to just rifles of any type. If we’re reading this correctly, this would apply to all semi-automatic firearms. So, they’re going after what law abiding citizens can have, but she mentions absolutely nothing about getting tough on the criminals who use firearms.

Read: Feinstein Introduces “Assault Weapons” Ban That Will Never Pass »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Ends Meeting With Schumer And Pelosi Over Refusal To Negotiate On Border Security If He Signs Legislation

By William Teach January 9, 2019 – 4:59 pm

Remember this from earlier?

Schumer added afterward: “There is an obvious solution: separate the shutdown from the arguments over border security. There is bipartisan legislation – supported by Democrats and Republicans – to re-open government while allowing debate over border security to continue.

That’s a talking point that has been repeated ad nauseum by Democrats, saying that they’ll be happy to negotiate on a border wall AFTER Trump signs legislation to reopen the tiny portion of government that is closed. Most Republicans, excluding unhinged #NeverTrumpers, say it’s a trap

Essentially, if Trump gives in and gives Democrats what they want, they’ll just walk away and refuse to discuss this in the future. It will be old news to them. There will be no discussion, and no border barrier.

And they get upset when we say they want open borders.

Read: Trump Ends Meeting With Schumer And Pelosi Over Refusal To Negotiate On Border Security If He Signs Legislation »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, Donald Trump | 12 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove