Bummer: ‘Climate Change’ Can Affect Mental Health And Create Total Doom

By William Teach March 7, 2018 – 3:00 pm

Hey, look, more gloom and doom from the Cult of Climastrology, which can be solved with a tax! But, certainly, the people who say this won’t actually give up their own fossil fueled travel, like from Boston to Edmonton (interestingly, the article has changed since when I saved it to Pocket this morning

Climate change can affect mental health, expert tells Edmonton conference

Climate change can impact mental health in a variety of ways, an American expert told an international conference Tuesday in Edmonton.

People get stressed when confronted with a problem of the magnitude of climate change, said Patrick Kinney, urban health professor at Boston University. He spoke to Postmedia at the Cities and Climate Change Science Conference at the Shaw Conference Centre.

Really, it’s just a small number of people who are making themselves nuts worrying about things they have no control of and mostly not causing.

The big issue in Canada is wildfires, he said.

“Climate change is making wildfires more prominent,” he said. “They are getting bigger, they are lasting longer.”

And wildfires, besides causing cardiovascular and respiratory effects from air pollution, can force people to leave their homes, as happened in Fort McMurray in 2016.

Wildfires never happened before the invention of the combustion engine, you know.

Northern latitudes have been and will be warming more rapidly than the rest of the globe, said William Solecki, a professor at City University of New York and co-director of the Urban Climate Change Research Network.

In other words, it’s only a small part of the world that is showing warming, they don’t know why, so, hey, what the hell, they’ll just blame Mankind. They just have to keep making it all up in order to perpetuate the fascist and tax raising ways.

Read: Bummer: ‘Climate Change’ Can Affect Mental Health And Create Total Doom »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach March 7, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is food that soon won’t grow because plants don’t like carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on history, race, and “science”.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

‘Climate Change’ (scam) Will Soon Wipe Out Strawberries Or Something

By William Teach March 7, 2018 – 10:30 am

Today’s story of maybe possibly we feel future doom which could be solved if we pass a tax

New Study: Eat Your Strawberries Before Climate Change Wipes Them Out
Avocados, almonds, peaches, and many other California crops are also threatened.

With its year-round sunshine and vast tracts of fertile land, California is one of the jewels of US food production, providing a third of the nation’s vegetables and two-thirds of our fruits and nuts. As the climate warms, can we continue to take this $50.5 billion bounty for granted?

That’s the question posed by a team of University of California researchers in an eye-opening new paper published in the journal Agronomy, in which they digest recent research to “document the most current understanding on California’s climate change trends in terms of temperature, precipitation, snowpack, and extreme events such as heat waves, drought, and flooding, and their relative impacts” on the state’s agriculture.

They address these topics one by one, and the results are hardly comforting to US eaters.

For one thing, the scientists found, a temperature change of just a few degrees is “closely related to yield reductions” in some of the most cherished California crops: almonds, wine grapes, strawberries, walnuts, freestone peaches, and cherries. Avocado production could plummet by the middle of the century. Because of fewer winter chill hours, by the end of the century, the paper suggests, only 10 percent of the Central Valley will remain viable to grow fruits like apricots, kiwis, peaches, and nectarines.

Could. Suggests. This is climate science. Looking into a crystal ball and reading tea leaves.

In short, California’s climate has already “changed significantly” since the first half of the 20th century, when the state emerged as a linchpin of our food system. And “this change can be expected to continue in the future.” As I put it in a 2015 New York Times piece, the time has probably come to de-Californify the nation’s produce supply—that is, increase fruit and vegetable production in less water-stressed areas.

It’s always amazing that these self-described lovers of science think that the the climate of the Earth should never ever change, despite billions of years of the climate changing, sometime a little, sometimes a lot.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ (scam) Will Soon Wipe Out Strawberries Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post: The Public Has Spoken On Gun Control, So Don’t Wait For White House Or Something

By William Teach March 7, 2018 – 7:36 am

I wonder if the Washington Post Editorial Board ever thought “perhaps we should put our #Resist away, stop our Trump Derangement Syndrome, and act like adults, because, if we aren’t unhinged, perhaps we could convince Mr. Trump to deal with issues.” Na.

The public has spoken on gun control. Don’t wait for the White House.

ACTION ON gun-control legislation has stalled in Congress as Republican leaders try to get some sense of what President Trump might support. We have a better idea. Rather than trying to decipher signals from a president who changes his mind by the hour, lawmakers should listen to the public they are elected to represent. Its message in the aftermath of last month’s fatal shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School has been clear: It’s time to end the decades-long stalemate on gun control and enact laws to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands.

Of course, the majority of those laws inhibit law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights. Except for one mentioned

Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn) is among the co-sponsors, along with Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), of a bill that would bring improvements to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The bill, which also enjoys bipartisan support in the House, was introduced after last year’s mass shooting in a rural Texas church showed breakdowns in information being fed to the system. The bill essentially strengthens existing law, and passage should be a no-brainer. The same can be said about legislation banning bump stocks — devices made notorious by the Las Vegas gunman who used them to kill 58 people in the country’s deadliest mass shooting in the modern era.

I personally have no problem with either. Interestingly, it is Democrats who are blocking both, because they are scared that if they pass, Republicans will not do more gun grabbing. Seriously, the WPEB should read their own newspaper, which reported just a few days ago that Democrats, including Murphy, have been downplaying Murphy’s bill (direct link to WaPo piece). I wonder why the WPEB forgot to mention this bit of news?

It is time for Congress to act on these most modest of reforms — and to tackle more ambitious and needed changes. A recent Politico-Morning Consult poll showed that 88 percent of Americans now support universal background checks, 81 percent think a person should be at least 21 to buy a gun, 70 percent favor a ban on high-capacity magazines and 68 percent think assault-style weapons should be banned. If Congress continues to ignore the public’s clamor for reasonable gun-control legislation, voters should use the upcoming midterm elections to reiterate the message.

Yes, we should ban assault style weapons. And they are, because citizens cannot legally possess automatic weapons (unless they qualify for the ATF stamp, and your average citizen won’t get it). High capacity magazines are already banned in California. That didn’t stop the San Bernadino, California shooter (who was also an Islamist). Since many of the mass shootings over the past few years have been committed by by Islamists in the name of Islam, the WPEB should be good with banning Islamists, right?

Read: Washington Post: The Public Has Spoken On Gun Control, So Don’t Wait For White House Or Something »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Current Affairs, Journalistic Malpractice | 46 Comments | Trackback URL

Get The Popcorn: DOJ Sues California Over Sanctuary Policies

By William Teach March 7, 2018 – 7:14 am

California wanted to play games in attempting to blow off federal law on illegal aliens. They were virtue signaling at a high level, and now they’re going to be in a dog fight

(Fox News) The Trump Justice Department filed a lawsuit Tuesday night against California, saying three recently-passed state laws were deliberately interfering with federal immigration policies.

It marked the latest legal and political confrontation with the nation’s most populous state, which the federal government says has repeatedly stood in the way of its plans to step up enforcement actions in the workplace and against criminal aliens.

“The Department of Justice and the Trump Administration are going to fight these unjust, unfair, and unconstitutional policies,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions was expected to tell California law enforcement officers on Wednesday. “We are fighting to make your jobs safer and to help you reduce crime in America.”

The state’s Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, fired back: “At a time of unprecedented political turmoil, Jeff Sessions has come to California to further divide and polarize America. Jeff, these political stunts may be the norm in Washington, but they don’t work here. SAD!!!”

Jerry Brown might be in for a bigger sad, because the federal government has primacy in immigration policy. Heck, Democrats made sure to tell us this when they opposed Arizona’s SB1070 immigration law, which strengthened immigration policy in the state, rather than saying “we’re not going to help the federal government.” Obama’s DOJ, which sued Arizona for daring to tighten up immigration policing, set the precedent for being In Charge of immigration policy.

One of those laws offers additional worker protections against federal immigration enforcement actions. Senior Justice Department officials have said it’s prevented companies from voluntarily cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials.

Employers are mandated under the law to demand ICE agents present a warrant or subpoena before entering certain areas of the premises, or when accessing some employee records.

There’s a very good chance this one succeeds, as the California law violates the 1st Amendment, and the California law puts the businesses in the middle of choosing between following a state law and getting fined by the federales or following federal law and getting fined by the state.

Another state law dubbed known by critics as the “sanctuary state” bill protects immigrants without legal residency by limiting state and municipal cooperation with the feds, including what information can be shared about illegal-immigrant inmates.

A third law gives state officials the power to monitor and inspect immigrant detention facilities either run directly by, or contracted through, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The second will most likely succeed, as, again, the federal government has primacy, and states must follow federal law. Especially when they’re taking federal money. The 3rd might not succeed. Regardless, there is a supremacy clause in the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution explicitly gives the federal government control over immigration policy. California officials have trotted out the 10 Amendment in the past about this, but, the power of immigration policy is reserved not for the states, but delegated to Los Federales.

Read: Get The Popcorn: DOJ Sues California Over Sanctuary Policies »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Surprise: Democrat Offers Up Legislation To Punish Law Abiding Gun Owners With Taxes And Fees

By William Teach March 6, 2018 – 3:30 pm

Rep. Danny K. Davis is looking to be in contention for Gun Salesperson Of The Year, because this is the kind of thing that drives sales

(Breitbart) Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-IL) is pushing legislation to place a 20 percent tax on guns and a 50 percent tax on ammunition.

The legislation is titled the “Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act of 2018.”

The act amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, so as to require a 20 percent tax on “pistols,” “revolvers,” “firearms (other than pistols and revolvers),” and “any lower frame or receiver for a firearm, whether for a semiautomatic pistol, rifle, or shotgun that is designed to accommodate interchangeable upper receivers.”

The act places a 50 percent tax on ammunition “shells and cartridges.”

These taxes will only apply to law-abiding citizens, just as similar taxes in Chicago and Seattle only raise the purchase price of firearms and ammunition for law-abiding citizens. Both Chicago and Seattle have a “violence tax” on the retail sale of guns and ammo, but criminals do not participate in the tax because they do not buy their guns at retail.

This ultimately means that such taxes drive up the prices for the tools that law-abiding citizens need for self-defense, even to the point of making firearms cost-prohibitive for poorer residents.

This is what Democrats mostly do: harm law abiding citizens. Make it hard for women to protect themselves from the criminals Democrats are soft on. And, ultimately, while this has zero chance of making it out of committee, much less getting approved, it will drive people to purchase guns they do not necessarily need and ammo which is just beyond extra.

Perhaps we should submit legislation that requires Congress members to pay for their own armed security, and we’ll put a big tax on that and for the permits and for the firearms they carry, along with the ammo for the guns.

Read: Surprise: Democrat Offers Up Legislation To Punish Law Abiding Gun Owners With Taxes And Fees »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 6, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…are animals that have low carbon footprints so we should replace cars with them in order to modernize, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The H2, with a post asking what’s wrong with some people.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmist: ‘Climate Change’ Needs To Be A Litmus Test For Democrats Or Something

By William Teach March 6, 2018 – 10:30 am

Democrats keep coming up with great ideas to push during campaigns. Grabbing guns from law abiding citizens, doing away with tax cuts for the vast majority of middle class voters, the gender confused in bathrooms and locker rooms with young girls, and so much more idiocy. Like this

A Climate Change Litmus Test For Democrats

In April 2016, at a campaign stop on the campus of SUNY Purchase, just north of New York City, I filmed a short video of Hillary Clinton. I captured the former secretary of state berating my friend for asking if she would commit to refusing money from the fossil fuel lobby. “I’m so sick,” Clinton answered, “I’m so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about this.”

The video quickly went viral, partly because of the outsized response from a famously tight-lipped politician, partly because it played so well into the Democratic primary narrative that pitted Clinton, buddy-buddy with Wall Street, against the people-powered challenge of Sen. Bernie Sanders. (snip)

These factions will battle each other again in primaries this year. To mount the strongest challenge to the party of Trump in November, the Democrats will need to energize their young activist base. They must commit to what Clinton would not ― refusing fossil fuel money. The wellbeing of our climate and our communities is at stake. (snip)

Common sense dictates that the economy undergo a massive restructuring away from fossil fuels to save lives. And a growing body of research shows that the only way to avoid catastrophic levels of climate change is to cease production of vast amounts of “unburnable” carbon. Accomplishing this requires bold government action ― not faith in the current system that subsidizes both the production of fossil fuels and the salaries of oil and gas executives. (snip)

Democrats need to earn the millennial vote. The party can do this and thus minimize its perennial off-year disadvantage ― the turnout gap ― with a simple promise: to refuse fossil fuel money. This commitment would signal to young voters that a candidate understood climate change as a threat worthy of action.

OK, so, they aren’t really proposing to actually Do Something of significance, just refuse to take money from fossil fuels companies. Not give up their own use of fossil fuels, not pledge to initiate all sorts of taxes and fees, just virtue signal that they won’t take money from fossil fuels companies. As Instapundit is fond of writing “I’ll believe that it’s a crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis act like it’s a crisis (in their own lives)”.

Hilariously, this is yet another attempt to whip up the young vote, which so often is all sorts of enthused, but fails to show up at the ballot box. But, here’s a question: do Democrats really care about Hotcoldwetdry?

Poll: voters want Democrats to focus on health care if they win in 2020

Significant pluralities of American voters, and Democrats specifically, want the Democratic Party to prioritize health care if they retake the White House and Congress in 2021:

So, Warmists are saying “ZOMG, that includes evil denier opinion!!!!!” OK

After years of spreading awareness, scare mongering, putting it on TV, and so forth, 7%. Just one percent more than with all likely voters.

Read: Warmist: ‘Climate Change’ Needs To Be A Litmus Test For Democrats Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | Comments Off on Warmist: ‘Climate Change’ Needs To Be A Litmus Test For Democrats Or Something | Trackback URL

Oregon Passes Law Banning Convicted Stalkers And Domestic Abusers From Firearm Ownership And Possession

By William Teach March 6, 2018 – 7:26 am

See, now, if you’re going to pass laws against gun ownership, this is the way you go: going after people who really shouldn’t have them. This does zero to stop the problem as we saw in Parkland, Florida, but, it helps overall

Instead Of Thoughts And Prayers, Oregon Passes New Gun Safety Law

Anyhow, despite the silly headline from the HuffPost, we learn

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) signed new gun safety legislation into law on Monday, making the state the first to tighten its firearm regulations since last month’s mass shooting at a high school in Florida.

The bill expands an existing law to prevent intimate partners who have a domestic violence or stalking conviction from buying and keeping guns. Until now, the state’s law only applied to married partners, and the new measure closes what was termed the “boyfriend loophole.”

“I’m proud to sign this bill, making Oregon the first state to take action to prevent senseless gun violence since the tragedy in Parkland, Florida,” Brown said in a statement. “Today marks an important milestone, but we know we have more to do. It’s long past time we hold the White House and Congress accountable. Now’s the time to enact real change and federal gun safety legislation.”

Added to this was a prohibition on convicted stalkers having firearms. Despite these being good, common sense restrictions I think we’d all agree with (except those who’ve been convicted of stalking and domestic abuse), none of this would have stopped the Parkland shooting.

(KION6) Although closing what lawmakers are calling “the boyfriend loophole,” with HB 4145 wouldn’t have affected Garcelon’s daughter, she’s telling her story to help people see why anyone with a history of domestic violence should not have guns.

“Nobody’s trying to take your Second Amendment rights,” she said. “The only person who has to worry about this bill is if you’re a crazy, abusive boyfriend.”

And this is the way it should be. Go after the criminals. Not the law abiding citizens. Perhaps national Democrats constantly yammering about implementing laws that affect the law abiding and not the criminals could take note.

Read: Oregon Passes Law Banning Convicted Stalkers And Domestic Abusers From Firearm Ownership And Possession »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Current Affairs | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Dreamers Turn On Democrats

By William Teach March 6, 2018 – 6:58 am

Live by the patronization, die by the patronization

(Daily Caller) A group of DREAMers held a protest in front of the Democratic National Committee Monday with the aim of criticizing Democrats for not passing a permanent fix to the DREAM Act.

Approximately two dozen activists gathered in the street outside of the DNC early Monday morning with bullhorns and signs criticizing National Democrats for not passing new protections for DREAMers. The protesters then blocked the front doors of the DNC and refused staffers from entering or exiting the building.

“The Democrats party has never been on my side,” another protester said. Another said Democrats left DREAMers “hanging by a thread.”

“I am here today to tell Democrats that they are not my allies and I will continue to fight and show that that I will not collaborate with them until they do something for my community” the protester said before calling Democrats “fake allies.”

“If you won’t let us dream,” protesters chanted, “we won’t let you sleep!”

There’s video of this over at the Daily Caller, here’s one of the photos

Yes, many were wearing sleepwear and bathrobes. The one in the middle has a teddy bear.  And we’re supposed to take these people seriously. They also had white wigs and canes to signify the 17 years that they’ve been waiting, as Democrats keep promising and promising and promising to provide some sort of legal status for these illegal aliens.

The Democrats created this situation, by doing their normal thing of promising and patronizing a group of people, then, as usual, failing to follow through. They could have gotten something done, all they had to do was approve of border security and other immigration notions in exchange for a pathway to citizenship. They keep demanding a “clean” bill, one with nothing but that pathway to citizenship, which will never pass. Heck, the Dreamers who push this aren’t helping their cause, either.

Democrats have prioritized illegal aliens over American citizens, and are starting to find that those illegals are rather demanding.

Read: Dreamers Turn On Democrats »

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