Governor Moonbeam On Trump: “Something’s got to happen to this guy…”

By William Teach September 21, 2018 – 10:30 am

This sounds kinda like a) a threat and b) Jerry Brown advocating that someone should do something about Trump

(Fox News) California Gov. Jerry Brown ramped up his criticism of President Trump in an interview that aired Monday – calling the president a “saboteur” in the fight to combat climate change and saying that “something’s got to happen to this guy.”

Speaking to MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell at an environmental summit in San Francisco last week, Brown tore into Trump for the president’s controversial tweets about the death toll in Puerto Rico from last year’s Hurricane Maria and urged voters to vote for Democrats in November’s midterm elections in an effort to thwart Trump’s agenda.

“We never had a president who was engaged in this kind of behavior,” Brown said. “I mean he’s not telling the truth; he keeps changing his mind; he’s sabotaging the world order in many respects.”

Brown added: “It’s unprecedented, it’s dangerous, and hopefully this election is going to send a strong message to the country; the Democrats will win…something’s got to happen to this guy, because if we don’t get rid of him, he’s going to undermine America and even the world.”

Even in full context, it makes it seem as if Brown wants someone to take Trump out, and not politically. Liberals/Leftists/Progressives/whatever you want to call them have a history of loving them some assassination of Republicans talk. I wonder if Governor Brown received a quiet visit from the US Secret Service?

Read: Governor Moonbeam On Trump: “Something’s got to happen to this guy…” »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Belief In Democracy Is A Predictor Of ‘Climate Change’ Belief Or Something

By William Teach September 21, 2018 – 7:14 am

But, only in the nations that believe in democracy in theory

Commitment to democratic values predict climate change concern, study finds

Commitment to democratic values is the strongest predictor of climate change concern globally, Georgia State University faculty have found in a new study comparing climate change attitudes across 36 countries, including the U.S.

The article, published this month in Environmental Politics, was based on an analysis of the Pew Research Center’s 2015 Global Attitudes Survey by professor Gregory Lewis, chair of the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies’ Department of Public Management and Policy; Risa Palm, provost and senior vice president for academic affairs at Georgia State; and Bo Feng with IMPAQ International.

“The biggest surprise in this study is the strength of the Pew measure of commitment to democratic values as a predictor of climate change concern,” Lewis said. “A belief in free elections, freedom of religion, equal rights for women, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and lack of Internet censorship is nearly universal in predicting this attitude. In fact, it is the strongest predictor of climate change concern everywhere except in English-speaking Western democracies, where party identification matters more.”

Earlier research in the U.S. points to political ideology and party identification as driving opinions on climate change. The new study shows fairly similar patterns across English-speaking western democracies and, to a lesser extent, western Europe. However, these factors matter much less in most countries. Gender, age, education and religiosity also have very different impacts in the developed West than in most of the world.

So, basically, in the nations that actually practice a form of democracy have a different attitude on commitments in relation to ‘climate change’. A goodly amount of these non-western democracies do not actually practice free elections, freedom of religion, equal rights for women, freedom of speech, not non-censorship of the Internet. The Western nations, which have these things, do not link them to man-caused climate change beliefs.

“Climate impacts follow no national boundaries, so solutions must be global,” Lewis said. “However, most of the survey research has focused on the U.S., where political ideology and party identification drive opinion. We need to gain a clearer understanding of those who take climate change seriously versus those who doubt it exists in other countries, as well as in the U.S. This knowledge will help all policymakers address the populations most likely to support climate change mitigation efforts and develop the messaging most effective in reaching them.”

When it comes to the Cult of Climastrology, the membership is attempting to to limit free elections and freedom of speech to those who are Believers. They are pushing the press to censor non-Believers, and the press is happy to comply. They are even pushing to censor non-Believers on the Internet. That’s the clearer understanding.

Read: Belief In Democracy Is A Predictor Of ‘Climate Change’ Belief Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Sore Loser Party Threaten To Investigate Kavanaugh If They Take Back House/Senate

By William Teach September 21, 2018 – 6:50 am

One would think that Democrats would say “hey, perhaps we shouldn’t set yet another precedent that could backfire on us”, such as Harry Reid invoking the nuclear option as well as ramming through legislation in shady manners, but, this might just be throwing red meat to their unhinged base. Which could also backfire in terms of getting GOP voters to get out and vote en mass to stop these nutters

Dems: We’ll probe Kavanaugh allegations if we win in November

Congressional Democrats are threatening to investigate sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh from the highest bench in the land should he be confirmed without a probe and the party reclaim Congress.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said that “as soon as Democrats get gavels,” the party will vet the FBI’s handling of Ford’s claim against the Supreme Court nominee — even if Kavanaugh is already seated on the high court by that time. Rep. Eric Swallwell (D-Calif.), who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, also said in an interview that the party could probe Kavanaugh’s denials of the allegations against him.

“If they ramrod this nomination through, and we win the majority, we can still investigate this on the House side, and certainly the question as to whether a Supreme Court justice committed perjury is something you could look at,” Swalwell said in an interview. “Hopefully it doesn’t come to that; hopefully they do this right.”

“Because,” he added, “it’s going to get investigated either way and it would be better not to have to investigate a sitting judge.”

Hey, guys and gals, Trump won. He did it fair and square. Hillary lost. Perhaps you should nominate someone who will campaign in states she needed to win and not pass out on camera on 9/11.

“You can’t ignore a crime victim’s claim that something happened, refuse to investigate, throw her up into the stand without the least bit of support for her, without the least bit of effort to corroborate what she says and then walk away from that,” Whitehouse told CNN’s Jake Tapper.

Is he talking about Diane Feinstein, who sat on the allegation for a month and a half? And who still hasn’t given the unredacted letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee? How can they corroborate what she says if she has no evidence but a vague recollection?

Democrats are also angry that Republicans are pushing to confirm Kavanaugh as soon as this month, fast-forwarding the confirmation process to get him seated before the Supreme Court opens a new session.

Perhaps they shouldn’t have rammed through Obamacare, the Stimulus, Dodd-Frank, and so many other pieces of legislation.

“It’s harmful to the court’s legitimacy and to Judge Kavanaugh’s legitimacy on the court to simply go through a confirmation vote” without conducting any FBI investigation, said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), also a member of the Judiciary panel.

Read: Sore Loser Party Threaten To Investigate Kavanaugh If They Take Back House/Senate »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 33 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News, Spiders Are Playing Creepy Nursery Rhymes

By William Teach September 20, 2018 – 2:14 pm

And I thought the huge ugly spider with its huge ugly web up near the spotlight at the 2nd floor roofline in the back was creepy

Doom

Floating in on the wind, yet again, the sound of It’s Raining, It’s Pouring being sung by a child on the creepiest siren in Britain.

The Ipswich Star reports on what one local described as “something from a horror movie.” I’ve embedded a recording made by one alarmed local at the top of this post so you know what they were hearing.

A tormented mother living in Bramford Road with her two young children has been woken on an almost nightly basis by a tinny, distant rendition of ‘It’s Raining, It’s Pouring’. She said the threatening undertone of the song had left her frightened and questioning whether she was imagining things. After months of torment, she finally reported the unusual complaint to Ipswich Borough Council.

See, this was an automatic thing, and

“The sound is only supposed to act as a deterrent for opportunistic thieves that come onto our property, and it’s designed only to be heard by people on our private land. We are now aware of the problem – the motion sensors were being triggered by spiders crawling across the lenses of our cameras and it looks like we’ve had it turned up too loudly. We’ve spoken to the resident who brought it to our attention and adjusted it so this shouldn’t happen again.”

Yikes.

Read: Good News, Spiders Are Playing Creepy Nursery Rhymes »

Posted in Like, Gnarly, Dude | Comments Off on Good News, Spiders Are Playing Creepy Nursery Rhymes | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 20, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is a sea that looks like it has too much algae from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Political Hat, with a post on quick takes on various subjects.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

World Bank Chief Totally Enthused To Push Carbon Taxes

By William Teach September 20, 2018 – 10:30 am

It’s always wonderful when a rich person who takes lots of fossil fueled trips and wouldn’t really be affected by carbon taxes pushes carbon taxes, which is kinda letting the cat out of the bag as to what this is all really about

Carbon taxes necessary in climate fight: World Bank chief

MONTREAL (AFP) – Fighting global warming will necessarily require taxing carbon emissions, or setting a price on carbon pollution, the World Bank’s chief executive said Wednesday at a G7 environment meeting in Canada.

“We believe very strongly that we can send an economic signal by introducing a shadow price for carbon,” Kristalina Georgieva told AFP, referring to a method of calculating a price per tonne of carbon that includes the social costs of pollution.

“We are the last generation that can do something to fight climate change but we are also the first generation that has to live with its consequences,” she said.

“There is a consensus among scientists and economists that carbon pricing is the best way to signal to economies that the behavior has to change.”

It’s interesting that the big shot Warmists want to use taxes to control your behavior while refusing to change their own to match their professed beliefs, eh? Does anyone think Ms. Georgieva didn’t take a fossil fueled private jet from Bulgaria, her home country?

Read: World Bank Chief Totally Enthused To Push Carbon Taxes »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Countries Should Think About The Rights Of Immigrants When Controlling Their Borders Or Something

By William Teach September 20, 2018 – 7:55 am

Over at the very left leaning The Nation, Christopher Bertram thinks he’s found a good hook into pushing for open borders

Should Immigration Laws Be Respected?
If countries want the right and not just the power to control their borders, they have to consider the rights of immigrants, too.

Really, you don’t have to go any further than the subhead to understand what’s being pushed, but, let’s move forward, shall we?

Because the law is the law and should be obeyed, it’s very easy to agree with the politicians and conclude that migrants have done wrong. But things are more complicated than that. The rule of law requires not just obedience, but also fairness.

We normally think that people should respect and obey the law in democracies, even when we don’t like what it says. That’s because the law provides each of us with a framework in which to live our lives. Though it limits what we can do to pursue our aims, it also restricts what other people can do to us, giving us some security against people and corporations that might act in an abusive or exploitative way.

Of course, that’s just the theory; the law also reflects and sometimes amplifies the inequalities in our societies. That’s why, when people disagree with the law, we presume that they should use democratic means to change it. Such means might include persuading lawmakers, political parties, and their fellow citizens to adopt a different set of policies; voting for parties committed to reform; and perhaps engaging in protest or mild civil disobedience. But foreigners typically can’t do many of those things outside their home country and may risk adverse consequences, including deportation, if they engage in open protest. The democratic process, in other words, does not include them.

Correct, it doesn’t include them, because they are not citizens of other countries. Here it comes

Do would-be immigrants, then, actually have a duty to obey immigration laws that tell them they shouldn’t be on the territory, or mustn’t work? One reason to hesitate is that the implicit bargain among citizens, whereby the law limits our freedom in a fair and reciprocal manner, doesn’t really apply to those immigrants. The law coerces them by keeping them out or down—but it doesn’t do anything for them in return. It doesn’t even pretend to treat them fairly.

Some people think this doesn’t matter. They think a country belongs to its citizens and that “we” have a right to pick and choose who can come and who can stay. After all, immigrants have their own countries where they should live their lives unless they have permission to go somewhere else.

But this picture of the world where countries are containers into which people naturally fit is false. People have lives and interests that cross national boundaries. They want to form families or work with others across those lines. As with the Dreamers in the United States, there is often controversy about who should count as part of “we” and where people really belong. Moreover, the opportunities available in different countries are radically unequal: People may need to cross borders just to have minimally decent lives, or to escape persecution or ecological catastrophe.

In other words, they want open borders. I challenge all of the open borders supporters to never lock their homes. Tear down any fences and/or walls around their homes.

Read: Countries Should Think About The Rights Of Immigrants When Controlling Their Borders Or Something »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Countries Should Think About The Rights Of Immigrants When Controlling Their Borders Or Something | Trackback URL

Media Are Super Enthused To Use FBI To Investigate Kavanaugh (To Slow Down The Whole Process)

By William Teach September 20, 2018 – 7:41 am

Numerous officials have pointed out time and again that the FBI is the wrong agency to investigate the claims by Christine Blasey Ford. The FBI has stated that they aren’t the agency to do this. Another background check would do nothing. Six previous ones were just fine. But, partisan media being partisan media. Here’s the Washington Post Editorial Board

Slow down, Senate Republicans. The FBI should investigate.

A LAWYER for Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her three decades ago, says her client wants to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee — just not on Monday, when Republicans have scheduled a hearing. The reason is simple: “No legitimate investigation is going to happen between now and Monday,” and Ms. Ford wants the FBI to investigate the incident before she speaks. Republicans’ bristling response suggests they care more about ramming through Mr. Kavanaugh’s confirmation than about the veracity of Ms. Ford’s allegations.

To listen to GOP senators, Ms. Ford could have no reasonable motive for hesitating to testify. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) released a statementdeclaring that demands for an FBI investigation are about “delaying the process until after the midterm elections.” He told The Post’s Seung Min Kim that “this has been a drive-by shooting when it comes to Kavanaugh.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who is running the confirmation process, argued it was irrelevant to Ms. Ford whether the FBI investigated her accusations. “Dr. Ford’s testimony would reflect her personal knowledge and memory of events,” he said. “Nothing the FBI or any other investigator does would have any bearing on what Dr. Ford tells the committee, so there is no reason for any further delay.”

That claim is patently absurd. Ms. Ford has an obvious interest in professionals gathering information that could corroborate her story before she faces a hostile panel of senators on live national television. A real investigation could inform senators’ questioning about the alleged event and give Ms. Ford information she could cite to strengthen her claims.

Right, 36 years later, a time for which she can offer few details, and both her and her lawyers have offered contradicting claims. And the FBI doesn’t investigate local crimes for which no federal statute was broken. But, the WPEB thinks they have the hook

The FBI is the right organization to conduct an investigation. Lying to the FBI is a crime, making the stakes much higher for anyone caught dissembling about the alleged assault. Also, FBI professionals are far more likely to conduct a fair inquiry than partisan senators at a last-minute hearing.

Nope, still doesn’t work like that, especially since this smacks of using the FBI like the East German Stasti, attempting to catch someone in a lie rather than investigating whether a crime was actually committed.

But, the whole idea is to simply run out the clock in the hope that the Democrats regain the Senate, and then demand that no vote on Kavanaugh is held till the new Democrats take their seats in January. The same as the LA Times Editorial Board

Christine Blasey Ford is right. Investigate Kavanaugh first, then hold hearings

….

There’s no guarantee that an investigation would bring any more clarity, or that its findings would make a difference in how the committee questions Ford and Kavanaugh. But given the stakes here, it could only help to have the FBI try to shed more light on the situation before the hearing is held.

Yet Grassley is standing firm. In a letter to the lawyers released on Wednesday, he repeated his invitation for Ford to testify on Monday, advising that if she decided to appear, her prepared remarks must be submitted by Friday at 10 a.m. As for the FBI, he insisted: “It is not the FBI’s role to investigate a matter such as this.”

Given the stakes here, it could only help to have the FBI try to shed more light on the situation before the hearing is held.

This is an obstructionist response that does no favors for Kavanaugh. As Grassley acknowledges elsewhere in his letter, it’s common practice for the FBI to conduct background investigations for Supreme Court nominees. While these aren’t criminal investigations, they do seek to acquire information about a nominee’s character.

Let’s say the FBI did investigate. They’d most likely state “we found no federal laws were broken, and we have no idea if any laws were even broken, because this occurred 36 years, there are zero witnesses to this happening, and there are lots of contradictions in Ms. Fords testimony.” The six background investigations already done by the FBI are not mentioned in the editorial.

The LA Times even tries bringing up the investigation after Anita Hill made her allegations. Totally different. The FBI was the correct law enforcement agency, as the incident occurred on federal property by federal employees. And wraps up with

It may well prove that the FBI will turn up nothing about an incident that allegedly occurred more than three decades ago that will make it any easier for senators to choose between the conflicting accounts of Kavanaugh and his accuser. But given the gravity of Ford’s allegations and the lifetime office to which Kavanaugh has been nominated, a rush to hold hearings is unnecessary and unseemly.

In other words, let’s run the clock out. In fact, a hearing on Monday is the proper format. If someone made a false allegation against you, you’d want it settled quickly. You’d want the chance to go on the record quickly to rebut those allegations. And if Ms. Ford is suddenly shy after putting out the letter to Diane Feinstein, giving information to the Washington Post, speaking here and there, allowing her lawyer to yammer away, well, that’s on her. She made the accusation: it’s on her to prove it.

The NY Times Editorial Board hints at using the FBI, but, is still attempting to take a different tactic by pushing for a long, long, long, involved Senate investigation which could take a long, long time. To run out the clock.

And, of course, every elected Democrat got the talking points memo.

https://twitter.com/HighCapacityMI/status/1042615234836537344

Read: Media Are Super Enthused To Use FBI To Investigate Kavanaugh (To Slow Down The Whole Process) »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, What About The Environmental Cost Of Illegal Immigration?

By William Teach September 19, 2018 – 3:48 pm

This is not the first time that it has been noted that illegal aliens leave tons of trash along the border and the remote areas they attempt to cross. One would think the environmentals would have an issue with this

Trash at the Border Highlights the Environmental Cost of Illegal Immigration

Several weeks ago, various members of the media attacked Tucker Carlson for saying, “I hate litter, which is one of the reasons I’m so against illegal immigration.” Some journalists jumped to vilify Carlson, suggesting that he was referring to the illegal aliens themselves as human “litter”. These journalists are perhaps unaware of the environmental problems presented by the garbage left on our southern border.

Indeed, one of the most direct environmental impacts of illegal immigration is one that’s clearly observable to anyone who lives at the southwest border — the thousands of pounds of trash that are discarded and left behind by aliens and their hired human smugglers.

Perhaps the state hardest hit by trash at the border is Arizona, which shares 370 miles of border with Mexico. Behind only the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, Tucson, Ariz., is consistently the sector of the border with the highest number of Border Patrol apprehensions.

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) estimates that over 2,000 tons of trash are discarded at the Arizona border every year. As a consequence, the department established a website entitled “Arizona Border Trash” in 2012 to coordinate and keep track of the state’s trash cleanup operations. According to ADEQ, each ton of trash requires landfill fees of $37 to $49, which are footed by Arizona taxpayers. That does not include fees for materials, transportation, or labor. ADEQ further estimates that each border-crosser leaves an average of six to eight pounds of trash behind.

Of course, the left wing enviroweenies would just say “let’s let all these people in without hassling them, let’s have open borders so they don’t have to sneak in.” Because they’re nuts.

Make sure to read the rest.

Read: Say, What About The Environmental Cost Of Illegal Immigration? »

Posted in Environment, Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 19, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is an area flood due to carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on some being too stupid to vote in the first place.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove