Russia Russia Russia: Mueller Plans To Release Initial Findings After Midterms

By William Teach October 17, 2018 – 3:58 pm

If there was anything to actually see, you can bet it would come out prior to the midterms. And if we see zero leaks, you know that it is all a big nothingburger, one which has been hanging round for two years (via Twitchy)

(Bloomberg) Special Counsel Robert Mueller is expected to issue findings on core aspects of his Russia probe soon after the November midterm elections as he faces intensifying pressure to produce more indictments or shut down his investigation, according to two U.S. officials.

Specifically, Mueller is close to rendering judgment on two of the most explosive aspects of his inquiry: whether there were clear incidents of collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, and whether the president took any actions that constitute obstruction of justice, according to one of the officials, who asked not to be identified speaking about the investigation. (snip)

With three weeks to go before the midterm elections, it’s unlikely Mueller will take any overt action that could be turned into a campaign issue. Justice Department guidelines say prosecutors should avoid any major steps close to an election that could be seen as influencing the outcome.

That suggests the days and weeks immediately after the Nov. 6 election may be the most pivotal time since Mueller took over the Russia investigation almost a year and a half ago. So far, Mueller has secured more than two dozen indictments or guilty pleas.

And most of those indictments have zero do with RRR. Many are of old “crimes” and process crimes. And, really, all based on manufactured evidence, such as the dossier, and Democrat caterwauling. If this wasn’t political, the investigation would have been shut down over lack of any evidence. And, regardless of DOJ guidelines

https://twitter.com/jbcousins92/status/1052537300415115265

Read: Russia Russia Russia: Mueller Plans To Release Initial Findings After Midterms »

Posted in Liberal World | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 17, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is vegetation dying from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post noting what hasn’t happened in Texas since campus carry was passed.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Biological Woman Not Pleased That Gender Confused Won Women’s World Cycling Championship

By William Teach October 17, 2018 – 10:30 am

Where are all the 3rd Wave Feminists who should be complaining about a biological male taking something else away from women?

(Daily Caller) A woman who lost a world-championship cycling race to a biological male who identified as a transgender woman criticized the result as unfair.

Jennifer Wagner said it was “definitely NOT fair” that she was forced to compete against Rachel McKinnon, the male cyclist, in the women’s event.

McKinnon, representing Canada, won the women’s sprint 35-39 age bracket at the 2018 UCI Masters Track Cycling World Championships in Los Angeles on Sunday.

Wagner, a Houston-area doctor, took third place behind McKinnon and Dutch cyclist Carolien van Herrikhuyzen.

“I was the 3rd place rider. It’s definitely NOT fair,” Wagner wrote on Twitter Monday in response to a comment about the race.

Looks like two women and a man on the podium. In fairness, the 2nd place winner (who should have been first)

Van Herrikhuyzen, said McKinnon won an “honest race.”

“No one is a transgender to steal anyone’s medal. We had an honest race under [Union Cycliste Internationale] rules. If you compete you accept the rules, otherwise, don’t compete,” van Herrikhuyzen wrote in response to a Twitter commenter.

Well, the rules are stupid in allowing a fake woman to compete against real women.

McKinnon, a professor at the College of Charleston, accused Wagner of “transphobia” for her opposition to racing against men.

I have no problem stating my “phobia” against people with mental illness. How about you?

Read: Biological Woman Not Pleased That Gender Confused Won Women’s World Cycling Championship »

Posted in Beyond Moonbat | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

LA Times Loves The Notion Of A Carbon Tax On Other Companies

By William Teach October 17, 2018 – 8:46 am

Democrats, and some squishy Progressive Republicans, keep trying to make a carbon tax happen. Funny that they never include themselves in the plan

A carbon tax is a good idea — so long as it doesn’t come with industry handouts

Exxon Mobil made a bit of a splash Tuesday when it announced a $1-million, two-year donation to the Republican-led Americans for Carbon Dividends, an organization pushing for a national tax to help curtail emissions of atmosphere-warming carbon. A carbon tax is aimed at making the burning of fossil fuels — which releases carbon — more expensive, and thus directing consumer behavior away from carbon-spewing energy and driving investment toward carbon-free alternatives. It’s a sound approach, one this page endorsed more than a decade ago, and better than the related cap-and-trade plans, which California has used since 2012.

But the plan that Exxon Mobil is throwing its money at — pocket change, really, for a corporation that made nearly $20 billion last year — is less than it seems. Called the Baker-Schultz plan after two of its authors, former Republican secretaries of State James A. Baker III and George P. Schultz, the plan calls for gradually increasing the per-ton carbon tax to reduce the risk of market shock, and for returning the proceeds to consumers on a per-capita basis through the Social Security Administration. Everyone gets the same amount of cash, but those who use less carbon-emitting energy will pay less tax — giving them a powerful incentive to conserve. So far, all good. And a set rate helps companies better anticipate their costs; businesses like stability and predictability.

But there’s always a but, it seems. The Baker-Schultz plan also includes a waiver that would let oil companies and other emitters off the hook for past acts contributing to global warming, preempting the many lawsuitsfiled against them. And it would undo the Clean Power Plan and other federal regulations covering carbon dioxide emissions. That makes this sound less like a smart plan to reduce carbon than a toxic quid pro quo — “OK, we’ll go for a carbon tax if these lawsuits go away and we get sharper deregulation.” Another plan, pushed by the Citizens Climate Lobby and other groups, would similarly escalate the per-ton tax over time and return the proceeds in a per-capita dividend, without the corporate giveaways. That’s a better option.

Both plans stink, because you’re taxing something that hasn’t been proved scientifically to be causing an actual problem. Unless you consider sociology and political science “science.” Further, that last plan would see the government to refund 4/5ths of the money to the consumer to cover the cost of living increase, with an acknowledgement that the money refunded still wouldn’t cover the cost of living increases to citizens.

Whatever approach might ultimately gain traction, it will be a useless gesture unless the tax is sufficiently high to compel changes in producer and consumer behavior. How much is too little? How much is too much? We’re not going to pretend we know — there are experts who can make that calculation. But this is an area in which compromise isn’t much of an option. As the recent Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change warned, without near-immediate and drastic action to curtail the rise of carbon and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mankind faces a dire environmental future. Rising seas, more severe weather patterns — a lesson just reinforced by Hurricane Michael — deep agricultural impacts and worse droughts and flooding.

Funny how this debate always seems to come down to elitists wanting government to force people to comply with beliefs. About increasing the power of government over citizens, private entities, and economies.

But, if the LA Times editorial board is upset about the use of fossil fuels – as they put it in paragraph one “A carbon tax is aimed at making the burning of fossil fuels — which releases carbon — more expensive, and thus directing consumer behavior away from carbon-spewing energy” – then the carbon tax should apply to news gathering organizations, especially newspaper. They use vast amounts of fossil fuels to go out and gather the news, anywhere from local to around the world. They use vast amounts of energy to broadcast the news, often from fossil fueled sources. And newspapers, like the LA Times, are the worst, as they kill lots of carbon pollution sucking trees to produce their newspapers for distribution, and use vast amounts of fossil fuels to distribute said papers. So, let’s include the news industry in the list of which companies get taxed.

I bet the news organizations will flip a lid if they were included. Because Warmists always Someone Else to pay the price for their beliefs. Never themselves.

Read: LA Times Loves The Notion Of A Carbon Tax On Other Companies »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | Comments Off on LA Times Loves The Notion Of A Carbon Tax On Other Companies | Trackback URL

Pelosi: Dems Will Tackle Gun Control And Amnesty If They Win House

By William Teach October 17, 2018 – 8:30 am

She wants to make sure you’re disarmed while hooking up her spark of divinity folks in MS-13

Pelosi Outlines Dems’ Priorities if They Take House: Gun Control, Immigration

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said the Democrats would prioritize new gun control legislation and protecting illegal immigrants if they regain control of the House of Representatives after the midterms next month.

Democrats will look to pass a gun background check bill and protect Dreamers, undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, Pelosi told Politico. She also said the Democrats would try to pass campaign finance reform and lower drug prices.

Of course they will. Democrats hate law abiding citizens using their 2nd Amendment Rights and love people who are unlawfully present in the United States who suck up money and resources that should go to lawful citizens.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) has listed five investigations the Democrats would launch if they win the House, saying they “will need to ruthlessly prioritize the most important matters first.”

Schiff wants to investigate whether the Russians have financial leverage over President Donald Trump. In the House Judiciary Committee, Schiff said Democrats will look into “abuse of the pardon power, attacks on the rule of law, and campaign finance violations.”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, suggested before Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed that the committee would investigate him for “any credible allegation, certainly of perjury and other things that haven’t been properly looked into before.”

And the rest will be about revenge investigations for things that they think feel might be there, and would set a dangerous precedent for future congresses. They never really consider whether doing something will come back to bite them when the GOP does the same thing. Then the Dems squawk that “that’s not fair”, kinda like with the nuclear option.

Read: Pelosi: Dems Will Tackle Gun Control And Amnesty If They Win House »

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

Surprise: Warmists Keep Pimping Taxes As A Solution To ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach October 16, 2018 – 6:05 pm

I hate to keep going to this same well again and again and again, but, they keep going to this same well ad nauseum

The most powerful force for fighting climate change – now

This was first published by the Wall Street Journal.

Last week gave the world a ghastly climate show-and-tell.

First came the new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, confirming that our climate is already changing rapidly and telling us we have a dozen years to act if we are to manage the risk of ecological and economic devastation. Then Hurricane Michael came ashore in Florida after growing from Category 2 to Category 4 in less than 24 hours – showing one reason scientists are so concerned.

The screed offers 3 “solutions”, of which includes

Stop letting companies pollute for free. In most of the world, there is no economic incentive for corporations to reduce pollution. But if they had to pay every time they put a ton of emissions into the atmosphere, they’d find creative ways to reduce pollution

By itself, a tax on pollution doesn’t guarantee reductions, so any carbon pricing policy must include enforceable limits to ensure emissions are cut as much as the science demands. As the work of the Nobel Prize-winning economist William Nordhaus makes clear, pricing carbon is a much cheaper way of hitting climate goals than command-and-control regulations.

So, wait, they might not work, but, let’s do it anyhow? Huh.

And, Big Government progressives Republicans are joinin in on pimping it, too

In an era of climate urgency, we need a carbon tax

…

As world policy makers cast about for solutions, one that is winning increasing attention is a steadily increasingly tax on carbon dioxide emissions, centered on fossil fuels. Details would need to be worked out, but the tax would likely be levied on refiners, or at the point of entry into the country. The IPCC report says that “a price on carbon is central to prompt mitigation.”

Under some proposals, the carbon-tax revenue would be rebated to consumers. A tax would provide an economic incentive to switch to greener power while also spurring innovation. Such a plan is being pushed by former Republican secretaries of state James Baker and George Shultz, former Federal Reserve chairwoman Janet Yellen, and former Clinton Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers, among other notables. At least three Nobel Prize winners in economics have also endorsed the idea. There’s solid support for such a plan among the public at large.

Baker and Shultz have been pimping their plan for years now, and Shultz just published another call for a carbon tax, which was spread all over newspapers, which surely led to the above Boston Globe screed. Funny how it always comes down to, as I’ve written ad nauseum, higher taxes/fees, a higher cost of living, and more Government.

EcoWatch has a fascinating article on whether taxes/fees even work, which mentions

Studies, however, indicate that greenhouse gas emission reductions from carbon taxes have been mostly underwhelming.

Consider that the EU has tons of these, and virtually no EU country is even close to fulfilling the Paris Climate Agreement obligations, and, really, their CO2 output has increased.

Read: Surprise: Warmists Keep Pimping Taxes As A Solution To ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 16, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…are horrible building materials that make the temperature skyrocket, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lid, with a post on why a Democrat was forced to resign (it’s pure Liberal World).

Here’s the curvy lady!

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Doom Today: It Could Maybe Possibly Make Beer More Expensive

By William Teach October 16, 2018 – 10:30 am

The Cult of Climastrology has spun the wheel and decided this is their point of attack today

Thanks To Climate Change, You May Need To Shell Out More For Beer, Study Finds

Climate change has been blamed for the wild swings in agricultural crop yields, but it could also result in a doomsday scenario for drinkers: Beer, the world’s top-consumed alcoholic beverage by volume, may at some point be out of reach for hundreds of millions of people around the world, according to a new study.

In the study, published Monday in the scientific journal Nature Plants, researchers from the University of California, Irvine and other institutions around the world attempted to study climate change’s impact on crop yields of barley, the main ingredient in beer, by examining “periods of extreme drought and heat.”

“These extreme events may cause substantial decreases in barley yields worldwide,” the study said, adding that average yield losses could range from 3% to 17% depending on the severity of the conditions.

Decreases in the global supply of barley could lead to “proportionally larger decreases” in the barley used to make beer and ultimately lead to “dramatic regional decreases in beer consumption in countries such as Argentina,” the study said.

The researchers also estimated that beer prices could almost triple in countries like Ireland. For instance, a six-pack of beer might cost $20 more for consumers in Ireland in an extreme drought situation, the study said.

There are many, many, many, many articles (they keep going on) pimping this “study” which comes from the University of East Anglia (which has done a bangup job with their predictions, and where the Climategate emails originated from), but, um, most forget something

Climate change is set to leave those with a taste for beer thirsty in coming decades as it shrinks yields of barley, the top grain used to make the world’s most popular alcoholic drink, a study published on Monday said.

Extreme weather events featuring heat waves and droughts will occur as often as every two or three years in the second half of the century if temperatures rise at current rates, the study noted.

That’s right, this is about scaremongering on something that may possibly maybe we’re not sure but we’ll publish anyhow happen decades from now. And if it doesn’t, and it most likely won’t, no one will have remembered the doomsaying prognostications from 2018.

Read: Climate Doom Today: It Could Maybe Possibly Make Beer More Expensive »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Seem Rather Upset That Republicans Are Running Lots Of Ads Attacking Illegal Immigration

By William Teach October 16, 2018 – 7:55 am

And those ads are targeting the Democrats and their pro-illegal alien policies, which has made many Democrats very upset

Republicans Are Spending Unprecedented Sums to Attack Democrats on Immigration
Despite outrage over family separations, Democrats don’t seem to see immigration as a winning issue.

Well, yes, advocating for their beliefs in open borders, legalizing all illegal aliens, saying they do not support the law breaking illegals but then actually working to protect them, not securing the border, abolishing ICE, and so much more does not play well outside the hyper-liberal enclaves

There is a simple reason why Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp’s views on sanctuary cities shouldn’t have a major impact on North Dakota voters: The state doesn’t have any sanctuary cities.

Yet when President Donald Trump held a rally in Fargo in June, he made sure to attack Heitkamp for supporting what he called the “deadly, very very dangerous, horrible” cities. In August, the National Republican Senatorial Committee devoted an entire ad to the issue.

The attacks are part of a coast-to-coast GOP strategy to hold onto congressional majorities by playing into Republican base voters’ fears about immigrants. A new CNN analysis (worth clicking the link to read the article) finds that about $124 million has been spent on more than 280,000 immigration-related TV ads this year. That is more than a fivefold increase from the $23 million spent on immigration ads in House, Senate, and governor’s races during the 2014 midterms.

Republicans are largely responsible for the spending increase. In August, ads for Republicans were more than five times as likely as ads for Democrats to mention immigration. A study by the Wesleyan Media Project found that 25 percent of Republican TV ads in 12 Senate races mentioned immigration—second only to gun policy—between January and July. Only 3.8 percent of Democratic ads mentioned immigration during that period. On Facebook, Republican ads highlighted immigration more than any other issue.

Democratic strategists seem to agree that they’re better off focusing on President Donald Trump and other policy issues. A memo from the liberal Center for American Progress and the centrist Third Way obtained by the New York Times advises Democrats to spend “as little time as possible” talking about immigration. After doing interviews over the summer, the authors concluded that “even the most draconian of Republican policies”—including Trump’s family separation policy—were unlikely to help Democrats in states that Trump won in 2016. On the other hand, the memo sates, “Sanctuary attacks pack a punch.”

Even in California, most Democrats are staying away from discussing illegal immigration, which is what this is primarily about. Only a few hyper-leftist Democrats like Kevin De Leon, running to unseat Diane Feinstein, are willing to discuss their beliefs now that election season is in full swing. They were more than happy to yammer about abolishing ICE months and months ago. Now? Not so much.

But, consider something else: not only are Democrats mostly avoiding discussion on anthropogenic climate change, they aren’t even getting memos about staying away from that loser issue. It’s not a non-starter: it’s a ghost. There are really very, very few articles discussing climate change in the midterms. Because no one really, really cares except some elites who want to ram the big government agenda of taxation, fees, and control of citizens and private entities down the throats of citizens.

Read: Democrats Seem Rather Upset That Republicans Are Running Lots Of Ads Attacking Illegal Immigration »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post: Say, Why Isn’t Congress Taking Action On #MeToo?

By William Teach October 16, 2018 – 7:27 am

Catherine Rampell is in high dudgeon in a Washington Post op-ed

States are taking action on #MeToo. Why isn’t Congress?

A year ago, the #MeToo movement went viral.

First came the naming, shaming and ousting of powerful men accused of sexual misconduct. Then came awareness of the prevalence of such misconduct, and of the intricate methods — the threats, the legally enforced silence — used to keep victims from speaking out.

Then came the righteous fury.

But, to date, the expulsions and outrage have not coalesced into anything resembling a successful federal policy agenda — to, you know, keep such problems from happening again.

In fact, over the past year, Congress has done (almost) nothing to address the systemic problems that lead to workplace sexual misconduct. Federal lawmakers haven’t even managed to enact a bill that would hold their own misbehaving colleagues accountable, let alone bad actors elsewhere in the country.

Except, um, sexual harassment is already on the books as being against the rules according to federal law and has been for quite some time. Sexual assault on federal property is already on the books as being against the law. And that is pretty all Los Federales should do, because the laws themselves are best enforced at the State level.

She does have a point on it happening in Congress itself, though.

Here in California, however, where the governor just signed several laws addressing workplace sexual harassment, things look different. Also in Vermont, Michigan, New York, Tennessee, and at least six other states and three localities.

And that’s where the law should reside. Not the federal government. They aren’t there to enforce those laws.

Some have simply expanded the universe of workers covered by anti-harassment legal protections. Federal workplace anti-harassment law generally does not extend to employers with fewer than 15 employees, or to independent contractors, interns, volunteers or grad students. Five jurisdictions (four states and New York City) have plugged some of those gaps.

Four states newly bar or limit the ability of employers to force sexual harassment victims into arbitration, an often secret process whereby arbitrators are incentivized to be friendlier to the side that offers repeat business (hint: it’s not the employee). Forced arbitration clauses can also prevent multiple victims from banding together to bring a class-action suit.

The problem here is that Democrats want everything to emanate from the federal government. It’s a dangerous concept, allowing Washington to essentially control all aspects of everything.

As for protecting future victims, states are exploring new reporting requirements, such as mandating that employers report misconduct claims or settlements to a government office, to make it easier to identify patterns.

Incidentally, the Empower Act, a federal bill with bipartisan support in both the Senate and House, incorporates many of these features. Yet it languishes on Capitol Hill, a full year after the public learned how toxic the secrecy around sexual misconduct can be.

Well, it might have been nice for the government to have all the data on the toxic amounts of sexual assault within the Left leaning entertainment industry, would it not? Oh, and would it require institutions like the California General Assembly be included, as there are massive amounts of accusations against members there, too.

What is being forgotten is that so many of those federal laws protect the accused for a reason: the Bill Of Rights. Just because someone claims they are a victim of sexual assault/harassment doesn’t automatically mean the accused loses their rights, which is where the #MeToo “movement” wants to go.

Read: Washington Post: Say, Why Isn’t Congress Taking Action On #MeToo? »

Posted in Democrats | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove