CBS News: It Would Totally Be Super Hard To Build The Wall Or Something

By William Teach January 16, 2019 – 7:12 am

For a country that has built tons of skyscrapers, giant aircraft carriers, and put men on the moon, I’d think building a bit of wall would be easy peasy. But, in Liberal World, things like this are just too hard. Of course, the point here is to find any reason to not build the walls from the Open Borders crowd

Why it would be hard to build a border wall

The border wall is more than just a proposed barrier between the U.S. and Mexico; it was central to President Trump’s presidential campaign, and the obstacle in the way of ending the longest government shutdown in American history.

But while “build the wall” is a simple catchphrase, the logistics of doing so are complex. Much of the border is composed of rugged terrain, with a combination of deserts, mountains and rivers demarcating the line between the two countries.

If Mr. Trump obtains the funds to build the wall, either through an appropriations bill passed by Congress or calling a national emergency, the wall isn’t the only thing that will need to be constructed: Some of the border is so remote that the government would have to build new roads to get there, according to a Defense official.

At the easternmost part of Texas, where the Rio Grande empties into the Gulf of Mexico, there are no fences, and the nearest road is three miles away. The U.S. side is a wildlife area, relatively close to a beach resort.

Due to the rugged terrain elsewhere on the border, particularly the more mountainous areas in the west, the closest border roads are dirt paths carved by border patrol agents.

OK, I’m totally convinced! Why would America want to do something mildly difficult?

The inaccessibility of the border is only one challenge to its construction. According to the Defense official, the federal government controls only 400 miles of the border. The remainder is private property. It could take six to nine months for the government to declare eminent domain, which is the power of the federal government to take private property for public use. It is likely that proclaiming eminent domain would also face legal challenges.

Or, they could offer a good price for that land. But, Trump isn’t trying to build a wall/fence along the entire border. Just portions, to go with existing barriers.

Furthermore, even if a wall were to be built, drug dealers often find other ways to get drugs into the U.S., such as smuggling them through entry points or building extensive tunnels. When Mr. Trump visited McAllen, Texas, last week to visit border patrol agents and discuss border security, they expressed support for the wall. However, the border patrol agent in charge showed an image of a tunnel illegal immigrants had carved — under a wall.

Barriers are not perfect. But, they stop most. Hence the reason people put them around their homes, around businesses, around government buildings.

Read: CBS News: It Would Totally Be Super Hard To Build The Wall Or Something »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Your Fossil Fueled Vehicle Use Is Causing Earth To Tilt More Or Something

By William Teach January 15, 2019 – 4:15 pm

This is how a cult reacts, taking an ordinary, normal occurrence of the natural processes of the Earth and dragging it into their dogma

Earth’s tilt may speed up global warming – study

The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, was led by Richard Levy from GNS science and Victoria University of Wellington, and Stephen Meyers of the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the United States.

The team of scientists were studying how the Antarctic ice sheet is influenced by changes to how the Earth moves in space.

Richard Levy said that the study confirmed a connection between these astronomical changes and changes in the size and extent of the Antarctic ice sheet.

“If your tilt is high, basically it points the poles more directly at the sun so they get warmer, so at a high tilt you’ve got much more heat coming in to the polar regions.”

The ice sheet is buffered by these warmer waters by sea-ice but as emissions continue to rise, that sea-ice is slowly disappearing, making the ice sheet more vulnerable to melting, Mr Levy said.

“Where we sit right now, CO2 levels in the atmosphere are 400 parts per million – they haven’t been that high for millions of years – human activity, anthropogenic activity have pushed CO2 up to the point where we’ve actually jumped back into the miocene, back into this time when CO2 was high such that sea-ice disappeared.”

Read: Your Fossil Fueled Vehicle Use Is Causing Earth To Tilt More Or Something »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach January 15, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…are trees choking on too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on Joe’s Crab Shack learning a valuable lesson in economics.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Western Snowpack Refuses To Cooperate With Warmist Prognostication, But It Will Soon Or Something

By William Teach January 15, 2019 – 10:30 am

And this still doesn’t prove that mankind is mostly/solely responsible, either

Snowpack In The West Has Resisted Climate Change But That Won’t Last Forever

For the last 35 years, the snowpack in the West’s mountains has resisted the impacts of global warming. But that could soon change, according to a new study out of Oregon State University.

The study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, found that although climate change should have caused a steep decrease in snowpack, naturally occurring, decades-long weather variations shielded the Cascades, Sierras and Rockies from some of the effects. Although snow stations have recorded some decline, it hasn’t been statistically significant. But according to the study, without this natural weather variation, snowpack in Oregon could have declined between 18 percent and 54 percent over the last 35 years.

The West has a wet season and a dry season and relies on wintertime snowpack for summertime water, so this could have drastic impacts on the region. Nick Siler, a climate scientist at Oregon State University and an author on the study, says that Oregon could be hit particularly hard when this trend reverses because it tends to snow in Oregon when temperatures are close to freezing, not far below freezing. It wouldn’t take much warming to tip that snow to rain. (snip to end)

“I don’t want to give the impression that we’re predicting an immediate shift into a regime where snowpack is going to become quite scarce. But my strong feeling is that in the last 35 years, the trends that we’ve seen are not a good predictor of the trends we’re likely to see over the next 35,” says Siler. “When exactly these significant declines will appear is impossible to say.”

So, this is looking in a crystal ball, ie, Warmist computer programs, and making a prediction that is in contradiction to what has been observed for 35 years. Which dovetails into another of all things Warmist

HOW TO CONVINCE A CONSERVATIVE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL

…

A new study offers another promising approach, which takes advantage of our desire for internal consistency. It finds that “conservative participants who first acknowledge several general contributions of science subsequently report significantly stronger beliefs in climate science.”

This suggests that having people first recognize the value and importance of science in general makes it harder for them to subsequently dismiss one branch of scientific research.

You get the gist of where they’re going, so, first off, they’ve been running these types of things for well over a decade, once they realized that people were no longer buying what they were selling, that people were opting out of Cult of Climastrology belief. Second, they so often avoid the central question of causation, and reading further in the article, it again avoids it. Hey, I believe in climate change, I just do not believe that mankind is mostly/solely responsible for it.

Second, the science itself doesn’t prove that mankind is mostly/solely responsible for it, and studies like the snowpack one do not help prove it. It’s based on something that hasn’t been observed and future-based fear mongering. And, again, even if it does start happening, that doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation. What the members of the CoC do is simply assume anthropogenic causation without science.

Read: Western Snowpack Refuses To Cooperate With Warmist Prognostication, But It Will Soon Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Federal Judge Rules That Women Should Control Their Own Contraception And Other People Should Pay For It

By William Teach January 15, 2019 – 7:01 am

I wonder if the Washington Post Editorial Board, which was super enthused to roll back presidential powers delegated from Congress, will be upset with this ruling

Trump birth control coverage rules blocked nationwide

A federal judge on Monday put a nationwide hold on Trump administration rules that allow more employers to opt out of providing women with no-cost birth control.

U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone in Philadelphia agreed with a lawsuit originally filed by Pennsylvania, citing the potential harm to states should the rules be enforced.

Numerous citizens could lose contraceptive coverage, Beetlestone wrote, resulting in the increased use of state-funded contraceptive services, as well as increased costs to state services from unintended pregnancies.

The rules, scheduled to take effect Monday, would change a mandate under 2010’s Affordable Care Act by allowing more employers, including publicly traded companies, to opt out of providing no-cost contraceptive coverage to women by claiming religious objections. Some private employers could also now object on moral grounds.

The ruling was initially applicable to only the states involved in the lawsuit, but was extended to all. The thing is, as has been noted many times, said ACA, ie, Obamacare, did not offer any guidance at all on contraception, sterilization, nor abortifacients. Go find a copy of the bill, and search for the word contraception or for “birth control”, or anything similar. There is nothing in the text. The rule was made out of thin air using what Team Obama and HHS thought they could get away with. This is exactly what the Washington Post Editorial Board was complaining about.

Pennsylvania’s attorney general, Josh Shapiro, called the court ruling a “victory for the health and economic independence of women” and the rejection of a Trump administration move to violate a federal law that requires insurers to cover the services.

“Congress hasn’t changed that law, and the president can’t simply ignore it with an illegal rule,” Shapiro said.

There is no law for Congress to change, as, again, it wasn’t in the law. It’s a rule. Out of thin air.

That’s the new North Carolina Attorney General. And, yes, if women want to make all the rules, they should pay for it. It doesn’t have to be this hard, though. If private entities want to offer insurance that includes contraception, they should be free to do so, and if they want to offer plans without, they should be free to do so. Just like they are free to offer dental and eye care plans. To choose this and that. Most, I suspect, will choose plans with contraception. The employees will just pay higher premiums and/or deductibles. Because this ain’t free. Everything added into an insurance plan has a cost.

And those who do not choose to offer should be left alone. That’s their choice. But, Democrats do not like real choice. It is their way or the highway, and their way is about Government force.

Read: Federal Judge Rules That Women Should Control Their Own Contraception And Other People Should Pay For It »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, Healthcare | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Virginia Governor Looks Towards Banning And Confiscation Of “Assault Firearms”

By William Teach January 15, 2019 – 6:39 am

You know all the Democrat talking points about not wanting to take away your guns? About that

From the link

The plan to ban the sale and possession of certain kinds of firearms proposed by Virginia governor Ralph Northam (D.) could affect millions of gun owners, an industry group said on Friday.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which represents gun manufacturers and dealers, said the vague description of the legislation released by Northam on Jan. 4 would apply to most firearms currently on sale in the commonwealth.

“The legislative proposals being discussed would put most firearms beyond the reach of law-abiding Virginians who choose the firearms of their choice to protect themselves, hunt, and practice recreational target shooting,” said Lawrence G. Keane, the group’s general counsel. “That could potentially impact the availability of tens of millions of firearms.”

While short on details, Northam’s announcement said part of the proposed gun-control package would ban the “sale, purchase, possession, and transport” of undefined “assault firearms” including “any firearm that is equipped with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.” Since the vast majority of semiautomatic handguns and rifles in the state are sold standard with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, it appears the proposed ban would affect most firearms on sale in Virginia. Additionally, the announcement of the ban did not include mention of any grandfathering to allow what NSSF estimated would be millions of Virginians who already own such firearms to legally keep them.

On the bright side, Republicans have a slim margin of control in the Virginia general assembly, so there is a good chance this fails to pass. Unless a few Republicans join Democrats, because the GOP has a one vote majority in the House of Delegates and two votes in the Senate.

What’s interesting is that more and more Democrats are feeling emboldened to show their cards on their “gun control” agenda, which is disarmament of law abiding citizens. The Virginia GOP should announce legislation that restricts Northam’s protective detail to weapons that only hold less than 10 rounds, and no “assault rifles.” Let’s see how he likes that.

Read: Virginia Governor Looks Towards Banning And Confiscation Of “Assault Firearms” »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Oregon Democrats Look To Limit Magazines To Five Rounds, Limit Purchases To 20 Rounds Per Month

By William Teach January 14, 2019 – 5:22 pm

Remember, the Democrat talking point on firearms is that they do not want to take away anyone’s 2nd Amendment Rights, they just want to make it harder to use a firearm for a crime by bad people and for them to get them. They totally aren’t trying to interfere with the rights of the law abiding. Also, remember when 10 rounds was “safe”?

OREGON BILL WOULD CAP MAGAZINES TO 5 RDS, RATION AMMO TO 20 RDS/MONTH

Legislation submitted in the Democrat-controlled Oregon legislature would fundamentally change the state’s firearm laws, recasting them as the most restrictive in the country.

State Sen. Rob Wagner has submitted SB 501 for the upcoming session. Wagner’s bill would require licensing for gun owners prior to purchase, outlaw firearm magazines capable of holding more than five rounds and limit individual ammunition sales to no more than 20 rounds every 30 days.

Wagner conceded to local media that it was “probably a long shot that something like this passes in whole cloth,” but is proceeding with the measure on behalf of a group of student gun control advocates. A Portland-area Democrat, Wagner was endorsed by New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown group who also contributed directly to his campaign last fall.

Besides its restrictions on ammunition and requirements for licensing, SB 501 would also mandate that background checks be delayed for 14-days so that state police can research would-be buyers, fine gun owners who failed to report lost or stolen firearms and require guns be locked up when not in use. There would be no grandfathering of magazines affected by the ban.

As Oregon Rep. Bill Post (R) noted, this would mean that you’d have to turn in a six shot revolver.

Notice that virtually everything would cause hardship to the law abiding gun owners, not criminals. It’s funny that these same gun grabbers never push laws to increase the penalties on the people who uses firearms in commission of a crime, eh?

Democrats have a super-majority in the Oregon general assembly and a Democrat governor, so, this isn’t as far fetched at passing as you might think.

I wonder how they will limit people going to other states to purchase more than 20 rounds? You can bet some enterprising people will set up ammo stores, do not even have to carry firearms, on the borders in Washington, Nevada, and Idaho (California would probably try and block them).

Read: Oregon Democrats Look To Limit Magazines To Five Rounds, Limit Purchases To 20 Rounds Per Month »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach January 14, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible consumerism which helps drive climate change so things should be run by Government, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Common Cents, with a post on shutdown vacations.

Read: If All You See… »

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

What We Need To Solve ‘Climate Change’ Is Globalization 4.0 Or Something

By William Teach January 14, 2019 – 10:39 am

It’s essentially a clarion call for government being heavily involved in the private sector. What is that called, again? Whatever it is, the World Economic Forum is super enthused to push it

Globalization 4.0 will help us tackle climate change. Here’s how

Climate change – arguably humanity’s most existential challenge – requires urgent global action.

As the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report 2019 will show only too clearly, environmental crises – notably a failure to tackle climate change – are among the likeliest and highest-impact risks that the world faces over the next decade. Indeed, 2018 saw record levels of costs due to extreme weather events.

The crisis was given much sharper focus in 2018 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Its Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming at 1.5°C, published in October 2018, says we have just 12 years to act if dangerous climate change is to be avoided. (snip)

This means we also require leadership on climate change from others. We cannot expect governments alone to fix the climate crisis, given the range of competing issues they have to contend with in today’s complex world. Nor should we. It is now well-recognized that it will take an unprecedented level of collaboration and innovation, involving many outside the public sector, to trigger the big, systemic transitions required in industry, technology and the design of consumer goods and services to keep warming to less than 1.5°C. The good news is that many studies, such as the New Climate Economy and the Energy Transitions Commission, note that these shifts in our economy are not only possible, but will also create jobs and secure better growth for the future.

However, to make this transition happen, a new combination of action is required. This will include, for example, building new forms of alliances within and between the private and public sectors; forging new clubs of like-minded governments, cities, states and provinces; and building new leadership platforms for policy experimentation and public-private action, each targeted to suit different industrial, national and regional agendas. There are many good examples of such significant collaboration already emerging, such as the Alliance of CEO Climate Leaders. This group of CEOs, with collective company revenues of more than $1.5 trillion, have already reduced their collective emissions by 9% since 2015 and are committed to do more.

Reading between the lines, you can see how government is meant to become intrinsically involved in how the economy works

Then there is the question of speed. Given that the IPPC suggests we have just 12 years to act, can an adequate amount of different actions be mobilized in time? Again, this is where additional public-private approaches can play an important role. With the rapid technological advances of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, we will also be able to harness new means of monitoring, verifying and reporting the progress (or lack thereof) of global, regional and industry actions on climate, potentially through radical new forms of distributed information transparency and real-time disclosures. This will likely have major implications in the coming years on how effective climate action is perceived to be compared to the scale of the challenge, especially among the young. Increased transparency will boost awareness and simply heighten the pressure to act.

And what happens when the private sector does not hit their targets? More government.

To succeed in line with the IPCC guidance, the international community must embrace this new agenda for climate action – focused overall on keeping global warming within 1.5°C, but encouraging multiple different approaches, collaborations and initiatives to support, buttress and accelerate government ambitions to meet, or exceed, the Paris Climate Agreement.

By “must” they mean forced to comply.

Meeting the climate challenge in today’s world can perhaps be viewed as building a global public-private “platform” for action.

Funny how this so-called science always seems to require more and more dominating government.

Read: What We Need To Solve ‘Climate Change’ Is Globalization 4.0 Or Something »

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

More Democrats Want Action On ‘Climate Change’ Than Impeachment Or Something

By William Teach January 14, 2019 – 8:11 am

Which is actually interesting, as it beats out their unhinged rants for impeachment

Impeachment at Bottom of Voters’ Priorities for New Congress

Throughout Donald Trump’s presidency, Democratic leaders have tried to tamp down on efforts among their rank and file to elevate discussion of impeaching the president, but the first day of the 116th Congress illustrated it’s a tough task.

Freshman Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) made headlines that persisted for days after touting her desire to “impeach the motherf—er” in the White House during a Jan. 3 speech to liberal MoveOn.org activists. Those remarks came the same day that two other House Democrats, Brad Sherman of California and Al Green of Texas, introduced a resolution to impeach the president.

A recent Morning Consult/Politico survey — conducted Jan. 4-6 among 1,989 registered voters — underscores why the likes of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have been reticent to discuss the prospect of impeaching Trump: Just 23 percent of voters said beginning impeachment proceedings to remove Trump from office should be a top priority — the lowest on the list of priority topics tested.

It’s rather a weird poll, as respondents were apparently allowed to pick multiple things as priorities, and the article doesn’t include a link to the actual data and questions asked.

So, hooray, ‘climate change’ actually beat something! Among all voters, though, it would be right at the bottom.

And, of course, Democrats want to take out guns, and, weirdly, want health care reform. Wasn’t that what Obamacare was for? Oh, right, now they want government run health care. Gun control is pretty darned low overall, though.

Read: More Democrats Want Action On ‘Climate Change’ Than Impeachment Or Something »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 16 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove