Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach October 28, 2018 – 9:32 am

Patriotic Pinup Halloween

Happy Sunday! It’s a gorgeous Fall day in America. The Sun is popping, the geese are honking, Halloween is almost here. Not quite sure who did this pinup, other than a tiny signature which goes nowhere.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. The Deplorable Climate Skeptic Blog discusses terror attacks and hate speech
  2. Adrienne’s Corner notes that Cesar Sayoc is suddenly a white guy, not a Native American
  3. Bizzy Blog covers a NY town rallying around an American flag mural
  4. Blazing Cat Fur discusses non-functioning bombs and double standards
  5. Chicks On The Right deep dives into the #WalkAway march
  6. Common Cents tells Conservatives to fly their American flags
  7. DC Clothesline has numbers on government dependency
  8. Doug Ross @ Journal notes how we can protect Democrats
  9. Geller Report covers how many women were helped in Afghanistan for $280 million U.S. dollars
  10. Jihad Watch notes a wonderful, super-peaceful Islamic migrant in Canada
  11. Legal Insurrection discusses an actual space force proposal
  12. Maggie’s Farm covers some virtue signaling
  13. Moonbattery has some fun with online moonbat dating
  14. Neo-neocon wonders what #MeToo has wrought
  15. And last, but not least, Pacific Pundit flashes back to when Democrats boo’d Israel

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 30 Comments | Trackback URL

Toronto Sun: A Carbon Tax Is A Tax On Pollution, Not People Or Something

By William Teach October 28, 2018 – 8:28 am

Except for the fact carbon dioxide isn’t pollution, but a trace gas necessary for life on Earth. The Toronto Sun’s Jim Warren tells us that we need to stop our partisan discourse and just….give in to those who want to increase our cost of living

Carbon tax is about punishing pollution, not people

It’s time to put an end to the heated partisan rhetoric about climate change and carbon taxes.

Both Liberals and Conservatives are to blame. We are debating personalities and politics instead of building a consensus of how we are going to change our lifestyles to save the planet and provide a sustainable planet for our children to live.

A carbon tax is a tax on pollution, not people. It is intended to change your behaviour to reduce global warming.

Change comes with a cost – and people don’t like change – but the way we live our lives presently is not an option if we want to maintain our standard of living.

See? It’s a tax on pollution that…….people pay and is meant to change your behavior by governmental force. And we get a “the debate is over” meme. This is about people who mostly refuse to change their own lives wanting Government to make others live Warmist beliefs.

Warren goes on to say there is blame on both sides. He complains about liberal elites talking at climate summits with celebrity spokespeople not “connecting enough.” And

Trudeau Liberals have failed to communicate what we need to do and why we need to do it in a way middle class Canadians can rally behind.

Al Gore’s movie was a good start. It’s up to Trudeau and other leaders to explain climate change and the sacrifices we need to make in a way that resonates with Canadians in a positive and sustainable way.

Would that be the Al Gore movie with tons of non-science mistakes? And Warren is upset that Conservatives talk about the taxes

Conservatives use fear mongering about taxes, without acknowledging the status quo is completely unsustainable and that doing nothing comes at a greater cost than the carbon tax itself.

Because a tax that artificially increases the cost of living for an issue that is most not science is no big deal

The irony of the current debate is that a carbon tax is actually just the beginning.

The real change we must make is massive and on a scale greater than anything humans have ever done before. It is unprecedented. The speed and action that we must change is actually unimaginable.

What kind of change, Warren? Strange that you leave those details out.

We need to look past what will happen in the 2019 election if we want to have a place to live work and play in 2030.

Remember, we need to “put an end to the heated partisan rhetoric about climate change and carbon taxes.”

Will a carbon tax solve climate change and global warming? No it won’t. But it’s a step in the right direction.

Read: Toronto Sun: A Carbon Tax Is A Tax On Pollution, Not People Or Something »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Guy Living In A Jar For ‘Climate Change’ Gives Up

By William Teach October 27, 2018 – 3:42 pm

Remember Kurtis Baute, who was going to Make A Point by living in a jar? Well, it didn’t go so well, and, as Eric Worrell points out, this exposed the need for inexpensive, reliable energy

Why this B.C. man sealed himself in an airtight plastic cube for 14 hours

YouTuber Kurtis Baute says he wanted to teach people the ‘base science concepts surrounding climate change’

Spending 14 hours inside an airtight plastic cube with rapidly rising carbon dioxide levels left Kurtis Baute feeling a little loopy.

“It feels physically like the air is a little bit thicker, and that’s partly because it is more massive and also because it’s building up inside your body,” the B.C. scientist and YouTuber told As It Happens guest host Megan Williams.

“And it also slows your mind down. So I felt a little bit out of it and it was kind of harder to focus and harder to do higher-order decision making. It was kind of wild to feel that happen.”

He live-tweeted the experience under the hashtag #KurtisInAJar.

He originally planned to stay in the cube for three days, banking on his plants to absorb most of the CO2 and keep him safe.

But cloudy weather meant the plants couldn’t do their job, and he had to emerge early.

Well, if he had some reliable, fossil fuled/nuclear powered energy for grow lights, things would have been fine. Instead, he tried to live like it’s 1499 to prove something or other, and it didn’t work. And, get this, while the CO2 concentrations would have been caused by mankind, they would have been from him breathing out, not from fossil fuels, hair dryers, vampire energy, etc.

Read: Bummer: Guy Living In A Jar For ‘Climate Change’ Gives Up »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach October 27, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible carbon pollution infused beer, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on why we need a president who’s an American Nationalist.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

EU Court Of Human Rights Declares Defaming Muhammad Not Free Speech

By William Teach October 27, 2018 – 10:30 am

Think they’ll do the same for Christianity and Judaism?

Defaming Muhammad does not fall under purview of free speech, European court rules

The freedom of speech does not extend to include defaming the prophet of Islam, the European Court of Human rights ruled Thursday.

The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled that insulting Islamic prophet Muhammad “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate” and “could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace.”

The court’s decision comes after it rejected an Austrian woman’s claim that her previous conviction for calling Muhammad a pedophile, due to his marriage to a 6-year-old girl, violated her freedom of speech.

The ECHR ruled Austrian courts had “carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.”

The woman, in her late 40s and identified only as E.S., claimed during two public seminars in 2009 that Muhammad’s marriage to a young girl was akin to “pedophilia.”

Muhammad married her when she was 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9. Sure seems like pedophilia. For daring to speak this, the woman, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, was fine $547 plus court costs back in 2011, and the appeals have been going through courts since.

Now, you can say this is whataboutism, but, had she been saying negative things about Christianity or Judaism, especially the latter considering the rising anti-Jew sentiment in Europe, does anyone think that the court would have found her at fault in the first place, much less making it to the ECHR? Of course not. It would have been considered free speech. Instead, we are now treated to EU courts operating under Sharia Law when it comes to almost anything related to Islam. She was found guilty of essentially blasphemy.

I guess she should feel lucky that she’s not in a fully Sharia complaint country, otherwise should could have been put to death. Though, one thing not mentioned in the Fox/AP story was that she was also given a jail sentence. Robert Spencer notes what I have

Finally, would the European Court of Human Rights rule that someone deserved a fine and imprisonment for criticizing Jesus? The case wouldn’t even come to them.

This is an important step toward the imposition of Sharia in Europe, as it is a tacit acceptance of Sharia blasphemy restrictions on criticizing Muhammad.

Geller Report digs deeper into the story of Muhammad and his child bride. And Jihad Watch also notes that there are almost 2,000 child brides in the U.K., which is instituting much of Sharia Law, and most are of Muslim descent.

Read: EU Court Of Human Rights Declares Defaming Muhammad Not Free Speech »

Posted in Islamification, RoP | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

US News: NY Suit Against Exxon Also Meant To Extort Other Companies To Act In Cult Approved Manner

By William Teach October 27, 2018 – 7:40 am

I mentioned the lawsuit from the NY State Attorney General’s office against Exxon the other day. Now we have US News and World Report inadvertently letting the cat out of the bag on what part of this is about

Exxon Lawsuit Marks New Strategy in Climate Change Fight
The filing alleging the company defrauded investors is all about climate change – even when it’s not.

A LAWSUIT accusing Exxon Mobil of defrauding investors about the costs of environmental regulation marks a shift in tactics for legal efforts seeking accountability for climate change, employing a strategy that not only promises to be easier to prove but which threatens to brand Exxon as a fraudster and seeks to compel the oil giant to change its ways.

New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood on Wednesday accused the company of essentially maintaining two sets of books: one that included much higher estimated costs of expected environmental regulations, which the company shared with investors, and another, secret set of much lower calculations that were used to guide the company’s investment decisions, unbeknownst to shareholders. (snip)

The filing is significant because until now fossil fuel companies have largely been able to sidestep lawsuits looking to pin responsibility on them for their role in global warming. And while Exxon shareholders seem an unlikely group to defend in advancing the interests of corporate responsibility with regard to climate change, establishing on their behalf that Exxon committed fraud could go a long way toward that end.

“It closes the loop with respect to corporate management decisions,” says David Hawkins, climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “If Exxon Mobil knows it’s going to have to be more candid and more accurate about the impacts of climate policy on their business, and they know that investors are going to be better informed as a result of these kinds of inquiries, then they will change their assessment of what are financeable investments and they’ll change their business plans over time.”

So there’s one reason: forcing companies to change how they operate to be compliant with the Beliefs of the Cult of Climastrology. If you don’t do what they say, they’ll sue you from a governmental perch.

Just as importantly, the complaint brought by New York may end up sending a signal to other oil and gas firms: Even if courts are unwilling to weigh in on a company’s role in fueling climate change – and, therefore, the financial debt it owes to those damaged by sea-level rise, drought and other impacts – states could pursue more traditional avenues.

“This is potentially very significant in influencing corporate management, not only at Exxon Mobil, but all fossil fuel producing companies, to think about this more analytically – that they’re not going to be able to make broad, hand-waving claims about how their business is going to do just fine if the world takes climate change seriously,” Hawkins says. “There’s going to be someone looking at our statements, and that means we’re going to have a harder and harder time telling investors that everything is fine when the best analysis says everything is not fine.”

It’s a shakedown. Government extortion. And it should worry everyone who cares about our civil liberties when government comes after people for what those in charge believe is Wrongthink. Those who support these types of actions by government should remember that they could easily end up on the wrong end of these types of suits if they continue unabated.

Read: US News: NY Suit Against Exxon Also Meant To Extort Other Companies To Act In Cult Approved Manner »

Posted in Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Migrant Mob Rejects Mexico Offer To Stay

By William Teach October 27, 2018 – 7:21 am

If these are people looking to supposedly escape the the violence of Honduras, Guatemala, and other Central American nations, then what’s wrong with Mexico? A culture much closer, language is the same, and they are making an offer

Migrant caravan members reject offer to stay in Mexico

Several thousand Central American migrants turned down a Mexican offer of benefits if they applied for refugee status and stayed in the country’s two southernmost states, vowing to set out before dawn Saturday to continue their long trek toward the U.S. border.

Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto announced what he called the “You are at home” plan, offering shelter, medical attention, schooling and jobs to Central Americans in Chiapas and Oaxaca states if they applied, calling it a first step toward permanent refugee status. Authorities said more than 1,700 had already applied for refugee status.

But after one of the caravan’s longest days of walking and hanging from passing trucks, the bulk of the migrants were boisterous Friday evening in their refusal to accept anything less than safe passage to the U.S. border.

“Thank you!” they yelled as they voted to reject the offer in a show of hands in the town of Arriaga. They then added: “No, we’re heading north!”

So, what, exactly, do the want in the U.S. Obviously, we are the better country. No shame in saying that if you’re an American. But they were offered asylum and all sorts of benefits. Even jobs. If they’re worried about the kids, there you go. And, having been offered asylum by Mexico and turned it down, they would no longer be asylum seekers when arriving at the U.S. border. They should be refused entry. You cannot claim to be a refugee then turn down excellent offers.

Now they’re simply a mob marching on our borders, and should be treated accordingly.

Read: Migrant Mob Rejects Mexico Offer To Stay »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 71 Comments | Trackback URL

Canada Passed A Carbon Tax Scheme That Will Give Canadians (More Of Their Own) Money Or Something

By William Teach October 26, 2018 – 2:54 pm

Funny how all this works

Canada passed a carbon tax that will give most Canadians more money

Last week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, Canada will implement a revenue-neutral carbon tax starting in 2019, fulfilling a campaign pledge he made in 2015.

The federal carbon pollution price will start low at $20 per ton in 2019, rising at $10 per ton per year until reaching $50 per ton in 2022. The carbon tax will stay at that level unless the legislation is revisited and revised. (snip)

A $20/ton carbon tax translates into a 16.6 cent per gallon surcharge on gasoline. So, in 2022, the $50/ton carbon tax will increase Canadian gasoline prices by about 42 cents per gallon (11 cents per liter). For comparison, the average price of gasoline in Canada is $1.43 per liter, so that would be about an 8% gasoline price increase in 2022.

The price of coal would more than double, with a carbon tax surcharge of about $100 per ton in 2022. Natural gas prices will rise by about 10 cents per cubic meter in 2022 compared to current prices of around 13 cents per cubic meter – about a 75% increase. This will increase demand for cheaper carbon-free electricity. However, Canada already supplies about 60% of its electricity through hydroelectric generation and 16% from nuclear – only about 20–25% comes from fossil fuels. (snip)

One key component of the federal carbon tax is that it’s revenue-neutral, similar to the policy proposal from Citizens’ Climate Lobby. All the taxed money will be distributed back to the provinces from which they were generated. The provinces will in turn rebate about 90% the revenues back to individual taxpayers. The rebates are anticipated to exceed the increased energy costs for about 70% of Canadian households.

For example, a Manitoba family will receive a $336 rebate in 2019 compared to its increased costs of $232. A similar family in Saskatchewan will receive $598 compared to its higher costs of $403. In Ontario, families will receive $300 to offset its $244 in carbon taxes. And in New Brunswick a $248 rebate more than offsets the average household cost of $202. The rebates will more than double by 2022 as the carbon tax rises, and the net financial benefit to households will grow over time.

So, Government taxation from anti-scientific method professional Alarmists will increase the cost of living for Canadians, so government will (supposedly) refund them the extra money that the tax will cost them. Which gives Government more control and influence on citizens. Strange how that works, wouldn’t you say?

Of course, this doesn’t really take into account the true cost of living increase for Canadian citizens. You can bet that family in Manitoba will be spending more than $232 as an increased cost. And certainly more than the $336 rebate.

(National Post) In a Financial Post editorial earlier this month, Mintz estimated that even when the rebates are tallied, the carbon tax will cost the average Ontario family about $124 a year.

And this

Yes, it won’t meet the Paris targets
If a carbon tax was the only climate change policy Canada ever implemented (and it’s not), $20 a tonne wouldn’t come close to meeting its Paris agreement target of reducing emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. In fact, it’s pretty reasonable to assume that Canada and the rest of the world is not going to meet the IPCC’s most optimistic target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (although two degrees is still in the cards). But carbon emissions are still bad, and it prevents environmental damage whenever there’s less of them. In a 2013 estimate the U.S. White House was estimating that every extra tonne of carbon was causing US$37 of damage around the world. In fact, many economists aren’t tremendously enthused by the Paris targets, arguing that the better strategy is to simply make carbon emissions about as expensive as the damage they cause. “We should … focus on what the environmental damage is from emitting one tonne. Then, price that,” the University of Calgary’s Trevor Tombe told the National Post. Meanwhile, it’s not like the carbon tax is the first government program that isn’t a be-all end-all solution to to a policy problem. We put soldiers in body armour even though it won’t make battlefield deaths obsolete and we require airbags in cars even though they won’t completely prevent road fatalities.

They just want to tax the ever loving hell out of citizens, not realizing the damage it will do. Because most who push this are very rich, and it won’t harm their own lifestyles.

Read: Canada Passed A Carbon Tax Scheme That Will Give Canadians (More Of Their Own) Money Or Something »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach October 26, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is toilet paper which should only be used 2 sheets at a time to save us from sea rise*, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Crawdad Hole, with a post on media rejecting civility.

*And why do you have a phone in the toilet?

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Blue Wave Tanking? NJ Senator Race Now Toss Up

By William Teach October 26, 2018 – 10:54 am

If a Democrat in New Jersey can’t have a comfortable lead, well, that might not bode well for the others

Menendez odds to win Jersey’s hot Senate race downgraded. It’s now a tossup.

The nasty race between Democratic U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez and Republican challenger Bob Hugin is now a tossup, as the Cook Political Report said the incumbent’s ethics baggage could cost him the seat.

The Washington-based publication that tracks Senate races downgraded Menendez’s chances less than two weeks before Election Day, citing little-known and unfunded community newspaper publisher Lisa McCormick’s surprisingly strong performance in June’s Democratic primary.

“The contest isn’t about anything else but Democratic U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez and his ethics problems,” said Jennifer Duffy, Cook’s Senate analyst.

“The biggest threat to Menendez’s re-election is not so much Hugin than it is the voter who goes to the polls and decides to send Menendez a message, much the way many did in the primary when 38 percent voted for his unknown primary opponent,” she said.

Still, Inside Elections, which also tracks Senate races, said Menendez was likely to win re-election, and Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight gave him a 90 percent chance of being re-elected. The Real Clear Politics polling average put him ahead by 7.7 percentage points.

Obviously, Menendez is a above average political scumbag (AAPS). But, despite being an AAPS, most papers and media outlets in NJ, including NJ.com, where the above article emanates from, have been supporting Menendez, at least in terms of being better than Hugin. A lot of the coverage has been anti-Hugin, not necessarily pro-Menendez, but it amounts to the same. So, is this something? Is it just a matter of “well, Menendez is an AAPS” and losing support? Because Democrats have been shown to support them, such as Cold Cash Jefferson and impeached judge Alcee Hastings who was put in the House by Democrats? Or crazy drug dealing/using Marrion Barry for D.C. mayor?

We can talk about spending, which both sides have done. Certainly, his ethics have played a part, but why now? Is it possible for NJ to go GOP for that Senate seat? If so, could this be part of a wide trend, or just a one off?

Read: Blue Wave Tanking? NJ Senator Race Now Toss Up »

Posted in Elections, Politics | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove