Reports Puts Cost To Avert .2C Of Warming At $5.2 Trillion

By William Teach November 9, 2017 – 4:39 pm

I’m sure that Leftists consider this just pocket change

(Daily Caller) The United Nations is demanding more “climate action,” urging member countries to mobilize trillions of dollars more to fight man-made global warming.

UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa said “the very fabric of life on Earth is under threat” from global warming “We must act right here, right now,” Espinosa told delegates and activists gathered in Bonn, Germany for another round of climate talks.

S&P Global Markets’ new report puts the price at $5.2 trillion to implement national-level plans to comply with the Paris agreement. But that figure is based on financial estimates individual countries submitted to the UN.

“Of the 189 countries that have submitted NDCs, only about 60 have included specific financial estimates of the costs, meaning the total would likely tally up far beyond the $5 trillion stated,” S&P reported, which adds that spending is not nearly enough to meet the goals of the Paris accord.

However, the UN estimates national plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions to shave 0.2 degrees Celsius off projected 3.2 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100. (This, of course, assumes the climate models have it right, which may not be the case.)

When it comes down to it, you know that the $5.2 trillion plus whatever comes from those other counties would just be starter money, and, hey, how much will go into the pockets of the U.N. and the people pushing this scam? They’ll want more and more and more.

And you know Warmists will want this money to come from Other People. Not themselves.

Read: Reports Puts Cost To Avert .2C Of Warming At $5.2 Trillion »

Posted in Global Warming | Comments Off on Reports Puts Cost To Avert .2C Of Warming At $5.2 Trillion | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 9, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a world flooded and turned into islands from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Sunshine Hours, with a post on the US being #1 at lowering CO2, without Paris accord.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Democrats Turn DHS Confirmation Hearing Into Hotcoldwetdry Lecture

By William Teach November 9, 2017 – 10:37 am

It’s amusing how people who use vast amounts of fossil fuels, often on the taxpayer dime, like to jam ‘climate change’ into everything, while at the same time ignoring actual threats

(Washington Examiner) Two Democratic senators questioned President Trump’s nominee for Department of Homeland Security secretary about the cause of climate change during a Wednesday hearing that otherwise focused on her credentials and views on national security.

Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, asked Kirstjen Nielsen, the current White House principal deputy chief of staff, if human activity was to blame for global warming — despite other senators’ focusing on cybersecurity and defense-related issues.

“I do absolutely believe that the climate is changing. I can’t unequivocally state it’s only caused by humans,” Nielsen said.

“That’s not my question,” Carper interjected.

“There are many — there many contributions,” Nielsen replied before Carper interrupted again.

“My question was do you believe that it’s primarily caused by human beings?” he asked.

“I believe that climate change exists, I’m not prepared to determine causation,” she responded.

“Really? Why not?” Carper asked. “Ninety-eight percent of our scientists say this is a problem. For you to sit there and say ‘well, it’s not really clear’ — something’s happening here and I think it is clear.”

Sen. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire later picked this up, and decided that “99 percent of the world’s scientists agree that the primary cause of climate change is human activity…”. I guess the utterly debunked 97% number just wasn’t good enough for them. These people are silly, and un-scientific.

Read: Democrats Turn DHS Confirmation Hearing Into Hotcoldwetdry Lecture »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Seem Pretty Upset Over Expedited Removal Of Illegal Aliens

By William Teach November 9, 2017 – 8:44 am

Expedited removal has been going on for quite some time. Under Obama, most caught crossing the border or within a couple hundred miles of the border who had been in the country for less than two weeks were summarily deported. I’ve noted previously that the Trump administration is looking to expand this, and Democrats do not like this at all

White House continues to strip due process from immigration courts

In addition to the president’s own comments, his administration is apparently implementing a systematic plan to dramatically undermine judicial independence and due process in immigration cases. At a Nov. 1 hearing on the immigration courts, ranking Democrat John Conyers said new administration plans will turn the courts into “a forced march toward deportation.”

The White House immigration principles call for measures that will “ensure swift return of illegal border crossers” where “swift” appears to be a code word for eliminating the Constitution’s fundamental guarantee of due process. Attorney General Sessions has claimed that fraudulent asylum seekers are flooding the courts, but in fact, less than one out of five people who are removed ever get a fair day in court. The vast majority of people are removed singlehandedly by an immigration officer without any court review. Unable to make their case in court, asylum seekers, including children, have been wrongfully deported back to life-threatening dangers.

If the administration were committed to fairness, it would strengthen the courts and cut back on the use of summary removal procedures that bypass them, like expedited removal. Instead, the administration intends to do just the opposite.

If they’re here in contradiction of U.S. law, how can they be wrongfully deported? You’re either legally entitled to be present in the U.S., or you’re not. If you cross the border illegally or overstay your visa, you’re here illegally. Per law. What’s going on, here, though, is that Democrats want to jam up the immigration courts even more, which would mean illegals are released pending their court date(s), and it’s already been shown that the majority never show up for their court dates. Like 90%.

On February 20, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security announced plans to greatly expand the use of expedited removal to the entire region of the United States and to include people who have lived here up to two years. By itself this tactic will mean the rapid deportation of many more people, irrespective of family or other ties to our country, without any chance to appear before a judge for a full hearing. Mass deportations on a summary basis is not the ideal of justice envisioned by America’s Founders.

I like when Leftists suddenly care about what the Founders believed. On guns, the Electoral College, freedom of speech, and a wide range of other issues, we hear about the Constitution/Bill of Rights being written by “old white men hundreds of years ago.” Regardless, what’s the difference between seeing a judge for a quick hearing or a monstrously long one, when there only needs to be one question asked “is this person lawfully or unlawfully present in the United States?” U.S. code, such as 8 US Code 1325, lay out the conditions. Illegal entry, illegal presence, overstaying visas. If unlawfully present, deportation.

In Hashmi v. Attorney General of U.S., the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that an immigration judge abused his discretion in denying a continuance request by a Pakistani man, Mr. Hashmi, because the case had been pending longer than the eight-month case completion guideline.

And there is the point of all this: to jam the courts up to the point where illegals are barely being deported, at which point Democrats (and some idiot Republicans) will call for giving them lawful status, up to free citizenship.

Read: Democrats Seem Pretty Upset Over Expedited Removal Of Illegal Aliens »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Democrats Seem Pretty Upset Over Expedited Removal Of Illegal Aliens | Trackback URL

Surprise: Democrats Attempting To Ban Scary Looking Guns Again

By William Teach November 9, 2017 – 8:15 am

This is what Democrats do: instead of wanting the government to actually enforce existing law, they want more gun bans that punish law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. This reads almost like a press release from the DNC

(ABC News) In the aftermath of yet another mass shooting, this time in Southerland Springs, Texas, members of Congress are once again proposing legislation aimed at overhauling and enforcing stricter gun laws.

Democrats announced today the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017, which would ban the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammo magazines.

The last time senators attempted legislation of this magnitude was in 2012, following the Sandy Hook school shooting that killed 20 children and six adult staff members.

The bill was defeated in the Senate on April 17, 2013, by a vote of 40 to 60.

“To those who say now isn’t the time, they’re right — we should have extended the original ban 13 years ago, before hundreds more Americans were murdered with these weapons of war. To my colleagues in Congress, I say do your job,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said in a press release Wednesday.

It’s cute, but it won’t go anywhere, and Democrats know it. The most likely outcome is that the legislation never makes it out of committee, having been tabled. However, if Mitch McConnell is smart, he’ll fast track it to get it to the Senate floor and allow debate and a vote, which would show that Democrats are really just gun grabbers.

You can see that bigger here.

  • Bans the sale, manufacture, transfer and importation of 205 military-style assault weapons by name. Owners may keep existing weapons.
  • Bans any assault weapon that accepts a detachable ammunition magazine and has one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock. Owners may keep existing weapons.
  • Bans magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, which allow shooters to quickly fire many rounds without needing to reload. Owners may keep existing magazines.

That last one is of interest: does it apply only to “assault rifles”, or is it applicable to all weapons that have a magazine? Also, we’ll have to see the full language to see if the 2nd only applies to those 205 weapons, or to all weapons, which could ban the sale of all semi-automatic weapons, including handguns.

  • Requires that grandfathered assault weapons are stored using a secure gun storage or safety device like a trigger lock.

The question here is “when?” At all times, meaning that they cannot be taken out? Besides, how is this enforced? You can’t. Not unless Los Federales are planning on sending someone to the home of everyone who has a scary looking weapon.

Feinstein had this to say

“This bill won’t stop every mass shooting, but it will begin removing these weapons of war from our streets. The first Assault Weapons Ban was just starting to show an effect when the NRA stymied its reauthorization in 2004. Yes, it will be a long process to reduce the massive supply of these assault weapons in our country, but we’ve got to start somewhere.

So, it won’t work, just like the previous one didn’t work, but, it will work towards taking away people’s guns, punishing law abiding citizens.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Surprise: Democrats Attempting To Ban Scary Looking Guns Again »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 24 Comments | Trackback URL

Governor Moonbeam Takes Long Fossil Fueled Flight To Deliver Blunt Message Or Something

By William Teach November 8, 2017 – 4:33 pm

When Warmists wonder why so many think they are just full of mule fritters, that the whole thing is a scam, well, it’s hypocritical things like this that drive the narrative

California Gov. Jerry Brown delivers a blunt climate change message in Germany

Taking his crusade against climate change to the capital of Germany’s car-making heartland on his whirlwind tour of Europe, Gov. Jerry Brown warned Wednesday the whole world needs to wake up to the perils of warming temperatures and promised the United States would one day be back to work on global solutions with the international community.

In the middle of a 10-day visit to four countries en route to a major United Nations conference on climate change in Bonn, Brown used blunt language in an address to lawmakers in the Baden-Wuertemberg state assembly in Stuttgart to make his case that stronger action is needed to fight a global rise in temperatures.

That’s quite a lot in terms of fossil fuels, eh? The carbon footprint is 7.22 metric tons. Each way. Which is larger than the footprints of most people in 3rd world countries have in a year. This doesn’t even cover all the vehicle use, fancy hotels, food. Oh, and it calculates using business class, when he probably flew private.

“Human civilization is on the chopping block — that’s a big thought,” said Brown, governor of the most populous U.S. state.

Read: Governor Moonbeam Takes Long Fossil Fueled Flight To Deliver Blunt Message Or Something »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 8, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is an awesome bicycle which should be required transportation for Everyone Else, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post explaining the Democrats win in Virginia.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Bummer: France Says Trump Is Not Invited To December Climate Scam Meeting

By William Teach November 8, 2017 – 10:56 am

Have you noticed the big coverage of the latest UN IPCC climate meeting, known as COP23? In reality, it opened Monday, and has been relegated to back page news by most of the big news outlets. We do get fun things like this

We also learned that African campaigners want the U.S. kicked out of the COP23 scam meeting. Guess they’re upset that Trump isn’t going to give them all that sweet, sweet, climate scam cash. And France is having a hissy fit over a meeting scheduled for December

(The Hill) President Trump is reportedly not invited to the climate change summit that will be held later this year in France.

An official in French President Emmanuel Macron’s Cabinet said Trump is “for the time being” not invited to the event in Paris, Reuters reported.

“The United States have a bit of a special status for that summit,” the official said, according to Reuters.

The summit — scheduled for Dec. 12 — will include more than 100 countries and nongovernmental organizations.

First off, I’m not sure Trump really cares, nor will he care that only lower level functionairies will be invited from the U.S. And, if he feels like showing up, he’ll do just that, and dare France to stop him. And probably remind France who saved their bacon twice last century.

Second, what, exactly, is the point of hold a climate scam meeting a month after the U.N. one currently going on in Bonn? And why can’t they do this by conference call in order to save all the “carbon pollution”? Oh, right, right, it’s a nice taxpayer funded working vacation, and, heck, who wouldn’t want another one right after Bonn?

Read: Bummer: France Says Trump Is Not Invited To December Climate Scam Meeting »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

The Problem Isn’t Gun Laws, It’s Government Incompetence

By William Teach November 8, 2017 – 7:48 am

Obviously, in the wake of the Texas church shooting, Leftists (who often refuse to give up their own guns and/or their armed security) are again calling for lots and lots of gun control, right up to draconian restrictions and even a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. The Mercury News notes

It’s difficult to keep guns away from ex-cons and the mentally disturbed, but a one-of-a-kind California program is designed to do just that. And in light of the Texas church shooting that left 26 dead, some are debating whether a program like it could have thwarted Devin Kelley’s murderous rampage.

The Armed and Prohibited Persons System (APPS) program, proposed in 1999 and updated in 2006, makes California the first and only state in the country to establish an automated system for tracking firearm owners and to provide the legal authority to proactively disarm convicted criminals, people with certain mental illnesses, and others deemed dangerous.

There’s a few problems with this. First, criminals still get guns. Because they’re criminals. And felons are barred from firearm ownership by every state and the federal government. Who is deemed “dangerous”? That could very much be abused. And, as far as mental illness goes, who decides? And how do we do this when the government, the go to for everything per the Democrats, is incompetent? Stephen Miller lays it out

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. – who looks like a pining presidential candidate – was of course out front in a rush to the microphones. He demanded that we all do “something,” without ever actually disclosing what that something might be. Apparently, what he really wants is confiscation of firearms from law-abiding Americans, who are now once again facing media backlash for a crime they had nothing to do with.

But as was revealed Sunday, in what is becoming a common theme in these mass shootings, no amount of background checking would have stopped the shooter in Sutherland Springs, Texas from purchasing his firearms, because the federal government failed to do it’s job properly. It’s not the first time.

While serving in the U.S. Air Force, shooter Devin Patrick Kelley was convicted of domestic assault against his wife. He pleaded guilty to multiple charges stemming from incidents including physically striking his wife and choking and kicking her. He also pleaded guilty to assaulting his stepson, severely enough to crack the young child’s skull.

I’m sure you know the rest: none of this was reported into the FBI database. He escaped from a mental health facility, there was a lot of brouhaha, and this still never ended up in the database. Oh, and let’s not forget that Democrats filibustered legislation that would have potentially stopped Kelley.

Because of a law passed in 1996, it’s illegal for anyone convicted a domestic abuse crime to purchase a firearm, something some of our dutiful lawmakers in Congress seem to not be aware of.

Because Kelley’s court records were never submitted the FBI database, Kelley sailed through several background checks and purchased up to four known firearms. Great work, guys.

Miller goes on to describe many other failures of Government, such as with Dylann Roof and Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho, leading to

The National Rifle Association and lawful gun owners are not involved in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. During the shooting in Texas, a former NRA instructor was instrumental in stopping Kelley’s rampage – a rampage that could have been prevented had our government not been asleep at the wheel again. But sure, let’s turn over our health care to the government now.

If our government cannot perform simple tasks like filling our criminal record forms and entering information into databases, then why in the world would we burden federal employees with new gun laws that do nothing but restrict the constitutional rights of citizens and vendors in full compliance with the law?

The obvious answer here is to enforce the laws on the books, not create new ones that do not work. The “assault rifle” ban did not succeed. Limiting magazine size won’t work, because people will get bigger magazines elsewhere, or even make them. Government was provided with the laws necessary, and they fail. A law is only as good as it’s implementation and enforcement.

Read: The Problem Isn’t Gun Laws, It’s Government Incompetence »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Just Can’t Move On From Hillary Losing

By William Teach November 8, 2017 – 7:19 am

It was one year ago today that we held a national election for President. By the end of the day, Democrats would realize that they would not be celebrating Hillary in the White House, and would have to deal with President Donald Trump. Since that time, they’ve been more unhinged than normal, whining about this, that, and the other, calling for impeachment, and even assassination. They’ve trotted out fantasies of ways Hillary could end up replacing Trump as president. And they’ve never gotten over how the Electoral College system works, such as this whiny NY Times Editorial Board piece

Editorial: Let the People Pick the President

The winners of Tuesday’s elections — Republican or Democrat, for governor, mayor or dogcatcher — all have one thing in common: They received more votes than their opponent. That seems like a pretty fair way to run an electoral race, which is why every election in America uses it — except the most important one of all.

Was it just a year ago that more than 136 million Americans cast their ballots for president, choosing Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump by nearly three million votes, only to be thwarted by a 200-year-old constitutional anachronism designed in part to appease slaveholders and ratified when no one but white male landowners could vote?

It feels more like, oh, 17 years — the last time, incidentally, that the American people chose one candidate for president and the Electoral College imposed the other.

In both cases the loser was a Democrat, a fact that has tempted more than a few people to dismiss complaints about the Electoral College as nothing but partisan sour grapes. That’s a mistake….

No, it’s not a mistake. It is sour grapes. Pure sour, stepped on, left in the sun sour grapes. As you’d expect, the NYTEB continues on in their own reasoning as to why there should be a direct election of POTUS, because they just can’t move on.

What they forget is that Hillary did not win an absolute majority of votes. That’s right, she only took 48% of the votes. Trump and 3rd party candidates won the rest. Bill Clinton never won an absolute majority in either of his elections, either. They won the plurality, but, are we to elect a president based on plurality? Do we institute a run-off system, where people would then vote for the top two candidates, which an absolute majority did not necessarily support? Because if we went to a direct election system, there would be lots of people on the ballot, and they’d be competitive.

There are lots of reasons why we have an Electoral College, and they aren’t primarily because of slavery, as the NYTEB wants you to believe. I’m not going to go over them again. You know them, and Democrats will play dumb, because that’s what they do. If they’re still upset, perhaps they should think of why they rigged the primary in order to nominate a terrible candidate, who was less than personable, who enjoyed slurring a huge segment of the population, who passed out on camera, was beyond polarizing, and ran a poor campaign, not even bothering to visit states she needed in order to win.

So, stop whining. Start acting like adults. Yeah, yeah, I know, wasting my breath saying that to Democrats.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Just Can’t Move On From Hillary Losing »

Posted in Democrats, Unhinged Tools, Wonky Media | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove