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

Your Fault: Manitoba To Have Hotter Hot And Colder Cold Spells From ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach October 15, 2018 – 2:30 pm

I warned you about using hair dryers and ice makers, about refusing to grow your own veggies and give up eating meat

‘Hotter hot spells and colder cold spells’: climate change already making mark on Manitoba

If you think Manitoba will be sheltered from the dire consequences of global warming, or that a few extra degrees might actually be good for this frozen province, think again, say climate change experts.

We may even be feeling them now in the form of the dreary, cold fall the province has been experiencing, says one scientist.

The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a gloomy report last week, saying that the world is only a couple decades away from facing significant food shortages, extreme weather, and mass migration if we can’t prevent global temperatures from reaching a critical threshold.

For Manitoba, that means more extreme weather patterns, like this summer’s scorching hot temperatures — but also colder, more extreme winters, said David Barber, a University of Manitoba scientist and Canada research chair in arctic system science.

“The probability is that we’re going to get hotter hot spells, and colder cold spells, wetter wet spells and dryer dry spells because we’re changing the probability distribution of those types of climate systems,” he said.

See? It does everything. Which is exactly what a member of a cult would espouse.

“That’s a problem for us, because we evolved on this planet because of the stable climate system that we’re in right now.”

By “stable” does he mean the warm periods and ice ages over the last few million years? Or about the flipping back and forth between warm and cold periods over the last 20,000 years as the ice age ended?

This latest report highlights the urgency for governments to act quickly, Hull said.

“This problem is so big now, that it really is requiring concerted policy effort to enable us to shift away from this fossil fuel dependence — and profound shift is what we’re talking about here.”

Funny how it comes down to government force, wouldn’t you say?

Read: Your Fault: Manitoba To Have Hotter Hot And Colder Cold Spells From ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 15, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle which has caused the seas to meet the roads, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on socialism failing every time.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 25 Comments | Trackback URL

Peak 2018? Gender Confused “Man” Identifies As A Dog

By William Teach October 15, 2018 – 10:40 am

This is what happens when society not only tolerates mental illness, but applauds it, celebrates it, condones it, encourages it

Transgender man identifies as a DOG and says chasing sticks and playing on all fours has brought him closer to his husband

Playing fetch on all fours might seem like an unusual activity for an adult, but one man who identifies as a dog says it has brought him closer to his husband.

Tony McGinn, known as ‘Tony Bark’ to his friends, says he has been into animal role-play his entire life, and refers to himself as a ‘human pup’.

The 30-year-old, who was born female and is transgender, is supported by his husband and ‘handler’ Andrew who accompanies him to regular play dates with other role-players in their hometown of Los Angeles. (snip)

‘I think everyone should feel comfortable exploring the limits of their creativity and imagination and most of us have grown up in a culture that strongly discourages you from taking it too far.

‘I appreciate that I am married to someone who encourages me to explore my imagination and my interests wherever they lead and I try to do the same.’

The couple have known each other since 2009 and have three dogs of their own, which they refer to as ‘bio dogs’.

But that doesn’t mean Tony doesn’t think of himself as a ‘real dog’. He states confidently that he ‘identifies as a dog’ and says pet play is about getting into the head-space of the animal.

People like this should be in mental institutions. But it is the natural progression of Trans Theory. Remember, these are the people Democrats want voting.

Here’s the video if you can stomach insanity.

Read: Peak 2018? Gender Confused “Man” Identifies As A Dog »

Posted in Progressive Goals, Unhinged Tools | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Suddenly, Washington Post Is Against Using Food For Fuel (’cause Trump)

By William Teach October 15, 2018 – 7:21 am

This reminds me of the time that the NY Times came to the realization that using food for fuel is a Bad Idea (it’s worth reading the full article, as it still applies today). Of course, that was during the Obama administration (4/7/2011), so there was no hint of Blaming Obama. Now we have the Washington Post Editorial Board coming to the same realization, though, it seems more due to Trump resistance than anything else

Doubling down on the biofuel boondoggle

FOR MORE THAN a decade, the United States has pursued the foolhardy energy policy known as the Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS. Thanks to legislation passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Republican president, George W. Bush, in 2007, the RFS illustrates the sad-but-true principle of Washington life that bipartisanship is no guarantee of wisdom. In a nutshell, the RFS required the nation’s petroleum refiners to blend ever-increasing quantities of biofuels, chiefly ethanol, into gasoline, purportedly to promote energy independence and fight climate change.

Never mind that the United States has meanwhile become a major oil exporter, due to a production boom. Never mind that the environmental harms of ethanol arguably outweigh its benefits, because it takes massive amounts of energy to distill ethanol from corn — and massive amounts of fragile farmland to grow that crop. Never mind that diverting resources into corn production for ethanol raises the price of food. Never mind all that, because 39 percent of Iowa’s corn crop goes to create nearly 30 percent of all U.S. ethanol. And Iowa is a swing state with six crucial electoral votes and a first-in-the-nation presidential caucus; whatever Iowa wants, Iowa gets, from politicians of both parties.

All excellent points. Biofuels from agricultural sources are pretty much a bad idea. It’s worked well with sugar down in Brazil, but, even there, you have massive soil erosion, air pollution from burning the fields, and it uses a lot of water to produce. And it still doesn’t have the power of gasoline.

But, wait, here we go

Hence President Trump’s announcement, on the midterm-election campaign trail in Iowa, that he would, in effect, double down on this decreasingly justifiable policy. Mr. Trump declared that the Environmental Protection Agency will draft regulations allowing the year-round sale of motor fuel containing 15 percent ethanol, as opposed to the 10 percent limitation in effect for several months a year because of air-pollution concerns related to summertime atmospheric conditions. This would incentivize gas station owners to install pumps capable of delivering the fuel, thus boosting ethanol sales.

Trump was obviously doing this as he stumped in the areas where ethanol production is popular, and the editorial points this out, but, the WPEB never had a problem with Obama calling for more ethanol, issuing more ethanol mandates, nor backing massive subsidy increases for ethanol, among others.

I don’t like ethanol. It’s bad for food prices. It’s bad for the environment. It is bad for climate change. If you believe in man-caused, it puts out massive amounts of CO2. If you’re not a big believer in AGW, well, it actually helps with land use changes which artificially change the localized weather and temperatures in a myriad of ways, such as clear-cutting. It doesn’t provide the fuel power like gasoline that would make you say “OK, it has these problems, but, it’s worth it, but, let’s try and keep it as clean as possible.” I try and avoid gas stations which I know actually use that “may include up to 10% ethanol” and have 10%, because the car doesn’t run as well.

But, this editorial shows that the WPEB is against it simply because Trump is pushing it. Perhaps someone can find an editorial where they were against using food for fuel. I don’t remember one, and I would have posted it. I can’t find one in a search. This is kind of a low level Trump Derangement Syndrome. If Trump came out in favor of an assault weapons ban or became pro-illegal, they’d find a way to be against those things.

Read: Suddenly, Washington Post Is Against Using Food For Fuel (’cause Trump) »

Posted in Energy, Environment, Wonky Media | Comments Off on Suddenly, Washington Post Is Against Using Food For Fuel (’cause Trump) | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove