Warmist Bill McKibben Wonders If Trump Could Break Up The USA Or Something

This comes via Jazz Shaw at Hot Air, where he notes that Excitable Bill McKibben wants to Blame Trump

Could Trump break up the United States?

My debut novel comes out next week — it is (I hope) a funny chronicle of my home state of Vermont contemplating secession. But I can’t stop wondering if our erratic president has sown so much division that the vision of a truly United States may start to blur for real, not just in fiction — if scenes like the ones from the recent secession referendum in Catalonia might lie in our future too.

We live at an unprecedented moment, when Washington has abandoned its usual unifying role: We have ceased all federal efforts to deal with climate change, even as it takes its toll on California, Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico. The White House is trying systematically to dismantle our not-very-robust health care system, even as the nation’s life expectancy starts to slip. Congress fixates on cutting taxes on the rich, even as inequality reaches record heights. Our president indulges in race-baiting, even as our population accelerates its long demographic shift. Every one of those trends is impossible to maintain, and yet that’s where we are — and, daily now, new hard-right federal judges come on board, locking in place those outdated attitudes.

But it’s also possible that the unprecedented weirdness continues — even into another presidential term. And if it does, it’s worth asking what else unprecedented will start to happen. My guess is that many places will start cutting whatever ties they can with D.C. and try to figure out how to go it increasingly alone. My novel not withstanding, secession probably won’t begin in a small, graying state like Vermont (the threat to Social Security payments would likely be threat enough). But, say, California?

Read: Warmist Bill McKibben Wonders If Trump Could Break Up The USA Or Something »

If All You See…

…is an evil refrigerator with evil greenhouse gases, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is No Tricks Zone, with a post on the reality of sea rise.

Read: If All You See… »

On ‘Climate Change’, Government Should Totally Make Capitalism Work

As typical, Warmists don’t seem to understand how this whole capitalism and free market thing works. Well, maybe that’s not fair: they understand, and they want to destroy them in favor of government running everything. While failing to understand that when government is picking winners and losers, we all end up losers in the end

WSW: Climate Change, Capitalism And The Government’s Role

Journalist and author Christian Parenti says what American capitalism needs is a new round of “creative destruction” and investment. He says making those investments in renewable energy would help the economy and mitigate the impact of climate change.

Parenti, who also teaches in the Economics Department for John Jay College at City University of New York will speak at Western Michigan University on Thursday November 2nd at 7:00 in Knauss Hall.

Parenti says the high rates of economic growth in the 1950’s were largely caused by post World War II rebuilding. He says now the government needs to replace the fossil fuel industry with a clean energy infrastructure.

Well, that’s interesting. He wants to do away with the very thing that allows him to go to Michigan from New York. Does anyone remotely think he’s planning on walking or riding a bicycle?

Despite talk of a “free market”, Parenti says in reality the U.S. has developed a mixed economy with government influence in many sectors. He says the federal government could end drilling for oil and coal mining on public land, and subsidies for fossil fuels. Parenti says the government also has influence by what it purchases. He says a carbon tax would help, and while Congress isn’t likely to enact one anytime soon, Parentis says a de facto carbon tax could be enacted now through the federal Clean Air Act. He says fines on businesses for burning fossil fuels would serve as an incentive to develop sustainable energy.

There it is in a nutshell: Government control. Warmists love this stuff.

Interestingly, another article that I ran across discusses how Congress should be passing this stuff, rather than regulations that often really aren’t authorized by legislation, like the CAA.

With major global implications at stake, shouldn’t our nation’s climate policy be discussed, debated and acted upon in Congress, as opposed to being left to an unelected bureaucracy to apply an outdated law? While climate change itself is considered a settled matter, how our nation responds is anything but settled.

It’s settled, you guys! If that was the case, why are we still discussing it decades later?

What has become abundantly clear is that there is widespread disagreement in Congress, the Supreme Court and now two successive administrations in how to address climate change. Given its global impact, these types of monumental decisions need to be made in the halls of Congress as the elected body to identify, discuss and act as representatives of the people.

Guess it’s not settled. Anyhow, as you can guess, this piece is also about enabling Government to take control. Funny how it always comes down to this from Warmists, eh?

Read: On ‘Climate Change’, Government Should Totally Make Capitalism Work »

Will GOP Blow It On DACA Fix?

Many seem to be getting squishy when it comes to doing something about DACA, about the Dreamers

(The Hill) Senators are moving away from the White House’s long list of demands as they try to negotiate an agreement on a key Obama-era immigration program.

Trump decided to nix the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and released a seven-page list of immigration “principles” outlining what the administration wants as they jockey for leverage ahead of negotiations with Capitol Hill.

But senators — while acknowledging they support the “merit-based” immigration reform favored by Trump and conservatives — have appeared cool to the wide-raging plan advocated by the White House.

They warn that an overly broad package would sink the chances of an agreement on undocumented immigrants brought into the country illegally as children, commonly referred to as “Dreamers.”

“I do support merit-based immigration reform but what I don’t want to do is get back into the morasses of comprehensive immigration reform. That’s why I think the … simpler and more easily accomplished goal would be to marry up some fix for the DACA beneficiaries with a border security and enforcement bill,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), said in response to a question about the administration’s plan.

John McCain doesn’t even want to read what the White House is asking for. He’s all for just giving Dreamers legal status with minimal border security. Regardless, this begs the question as to how much of what the White House asked for will the Republican Senate blow off? Trump knows that in a negotiation, you ask for the world, and settle for the moon. Trump and the White House are certainly not expecting to get all the things they asked for. But, they certainly expect some of them to make it through.

I agree, we should not make this into a comprehensive type bill, but, if Dreamers want some sort of legalized status, there has to be some enforcement and security measures to offset. And I still say that part of it should be that the people who brought the Dreamers illegally should have to self deport before any legalization occurs. If we aren’t supposed to punish the kids for the sins of the parents, well, then, the “sinners” need to be punished.

Trump, meanwhile, says he would “love” a DACA deal but wants wall funding — considered a non-starter for Democrats and some Republicans.

“We’re looking at DACA,” Trump told reporters this week. “We’ll see what happens. I’d love to do a DACA deal. We have to get something very substantial for it. Including the wall, including security, including a strong border.”

If Republicans go with the amnesty route without substantial stuff back, they can kiss 2018 goodbye, along with all the donations.

Read: Will GOP Blow It On DACA Fix? »

NY Times: The Economy Can’t Grow Without Free Birth Control For Women Or Something

See, on one hand, Democrats tell us that women are strong, that they can stand on their own two feet and compete, they’re enabled. Then they tell us that women are hothouse flowers in need of having Someone Else pay for all their things and give them stuff, and that the government should force businesses and private entities to comply, along with the government giving them stuff. It’s even more fun when it’s Democratic men being the ones who are Demanding that government force business and private entities to give them things like birth control, and come up with Reasons to do so, as we see in this NY Times op-ed by Bryce Covert

The Economy Can’t Grow Without Birth Control

This month, 41 Democrats introduced a bill with a simple mission: It would undo the Trump administration’s recent change to the Affordable Care Act that paves the way for virtually any employer to deny its employees access to contraception without a co-payment. Before President Trump’s new guidance, the law required nearly all employers to offer workers health insurance plans that include contraception without cost. But the new rules, effective immediately after the announcement, allow any employer to request that the government let it opt out based on religious or moral objections.

In a statement on the bill, Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, said that “birth control is about being healthy and financially secure.”

Indeed, while access to contraception is clearly about women’s health, it also profoundly affects the economy. The easier it is for women to obtain birth control, the more able they are to gain education and employment. That has been enormously important for the economy. The opposite, however, can be just as true. Mr. Trump has promised economic growth at rates we haven’t seen in decades. His actions on contraception are at odds with that.

This is the way Democrats think: that having Someone Else be forced to pay for contraception is the same as availability. And that those Someone Else’s deeply held beliefs must be sublimated, and plain ignored, in order to provide free birth control, abotifacients, and sterilizations to women. Because in Liberal World, women aren’t strong enough, aren’t good enough, aren’t capable of earning the small amount needed to pay for birth control monthly.

The ability to opt out of offering no-cost contraception, then, is not just about religious objections. Obamacare lifted an enormous financial burden that women alone had to bear. Before the A.C.A., 85 percent of health insurance plans at large companies offered contraceptive coverage, but most required at least a co-payment. Individual women paid about $250 a year. Now the president has given insurance companies a way out of taking on that burden.

In other words, Democratic male Covert and the NY Times think that women can’t afford $250 a year, because they aren’t strong enough, so, sure, let’s force religious entities to give up their 1st Amendment Rights.

We don’t know yet how many employers will opt out of providing their employees with no-cost birth control under Mr. Trump’s rule change. Women who work at the employers that do opt out could face yet another barrier to staying in the labor force.

In other words, no one is really doing this, except for a few who are religious based. It’s Blamestorming at it’s worst, and treating women like children who must be coddled and controlled, while inventing an excuse to blow off people’s morals and religious beliefs.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times: The Economy Can’t Grow Without Free Birth Control For Women Or Something »

Nothing Says “Climate Change Is Real” Like Using A Fake Monster

And, by climate change, I’m referring to the notion that the current warm period is mostly/solely caused by Mankind, and we’re doomed in the future

Perfect. Using a fake monster to pimp a fake issue is perfect.

Meanwhile, NASA is still pimping the climate scam to kids

Read More »

Read: Nothing Says “Climate Change Is Real” Like Using A Fake Monster »

If All You See…

…are pumpkins that are going to be destroyed by climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 90Ninety Miles From Tyranny, with a post noting that Hillary didn’t know about the dossier, except for the tweets.

Read: If All You See… »

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

Happy Sunday! It’s a beautiful Fall day in America. The birds are singing, the Dodgers tied it up with a big late output, my Devils look pretty good after years of misery, and Halloween is almost here. This pinup is by Sean Earley, with a wee bit of help.

A bit of sad news. Many of you might remember the links in the Patriotic Pinup posts to Goodstuff’s Cyber World and the massive posts Allen Reinertsen would put up, really, excellent works, because putting up big posts like those are not easy, and take quite some time. Sadly, as Evil Blogger Lady and The Right Way report, he has passed on suddenly. RIP, Allen. Here’s his last post, on the Harvey Heroes.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. The Last Tradition covers CNN’s undisclosed links to FusionGPS
  2. Independent Sentinel discusses the Obama admin threatening a Uranium One informant
  3. This ain’t Hell… has your Sunday feel good stories
  4. The Right Scoop notes lefties losing over enhanced vetting of refugees
  5. The Other McCain has advice for men confused by feminism
  6. The Lid notes that the 4th Amendment needs protection stat
  7. Raised On Hoecakes discusses reversing regulations taking time
  8. Powerline covers all the green weenies
  9. Pacific Pundit notes Podesta’s “green” company closing because Hillary lost
  10. Moonbattery notes that saying “you need Jesus” may be a hate crime at Kent State
  11. Legal Insurrection notes Jerry Brown vowing to sue over climate reversals
  12. Jihad Watch discusses an Islamist killer being let off in Canada
  13. House Of Eratosthenes has an interesting plant metaphor
  14. Geller Report covers what an ex-Antifa person has to say about Antifa
  15. And last, but not least, Gay Patriot discusses America’s racial morality police

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

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

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

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Private Clinics Are A Threat To Canada’s Socialist Health Care System Or Something

There’s a movement going on in Canada, one which has seen a large expansion of private facilities where people can, get this, go in an pay with their own money to get treatment quickly. And the Fascists/Socialists who love the government to be in control are not happy

Canada’s health system serves as model for Sanders – but faces troubles of its own
Experts warn of ‘major threat’ of privatisation and point to concerns over gaps in coverage, even as Canadians are widely proud of their healthcare system

Bernie Sanders will arrive in Toronto this weekend for a crash course in an unrivalled point of pride for most Canadians: the country’s healthcare system.

The visit – which will include roundtable discussions, facility tours and meetings with patients – is aimed at better understanding how Canada provides universal healthcare that yields a longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the US while spending about half as much per capita.

What Sanders learns will probably inform his push to provide publicly funded healthcare for every American, forming the backbone of a movement that has repeatedly cited Canada as an example to be followed. But as Sanders heralds Canada as a place where health care needs consistently trump the ability to pay, some are sounding the alarm about the inequalities that plague the Canadian system.

Some of these are blatant, thanks to the stream of for-profit medical clinics that have set up shop north of the border in recent decades.

“I think privatisation is a major threat to public health care in Canada,” said Natalie Mehra of the Ontario Health Coalition.

A “major threat!” Why? Because they can set up and take care of people who would rather pay for services now then waiting a long time to get taken care of in the Canadian system. And perhaps get things taken care of in a manner than the Government system won’t take care of. For all the rah rah from Progressives about how great the Canadian system is, lots of people actually come across the border to the U.S. for care. Remember when a baby was brought because there were no beds available?

Earlier this year, her organisation released a report documenting 136 private clinics across the country and highlighted that 71 of these were selling faster access to services covered by the country’s health care system. What’s more, the report suggested that many of the clinics were charging patients while also billing the public health care system – a practice that runs contrary to Canadian law.

While there is certainly a problem with the double billing (possibly, depends on Canadian law), note that the report says they were selling faster access. When you need medical care, do you want it now, or want to wait?

The report was careful not to overstate the role of these clinics, noting that the vast majority of hospital and physician services in Canada continue to be provided within the publicly funded system. “But the threat is real,” it continued. “In the majority of provinces, private clinics have set up shop and are charging user fees to patients.”

The threat is that people will notice that private organizations can take care of people faster than the Government run system, which takes power out of the hands of government, and, by extension, the special interests who are supported by government.

Obviously, some want Something to be done. Which is pretty much that these private clinics be banned.

Meanwhile, the article delves into the notion that the Canadian system avoids coverage of dental and eye care, as well as things like “pharmacare” and psychological disorders.

BTW, why is Sanders taking a fossil fueled trip? This is the same guy who wanted to “bring climate deniers to justice.” If he’s using vast amounts of fossil fuels, doesn’t that make him a “denier”?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Private Clinics Are A Threat To Canada’s Socialist Health Care System Or Something »

Big Businesses Climate Targets Are Unambitious Or Something

The Warmists at the UK Guardian seem shocked that most businesses are simply paying lip service to Hotcoldwetdry

Big companies’ climate change targets are ‘unambitious’, say analysts
While almost all companies have plans in place to reduce carbon emissions, those plans don’t go far enough, according to the Carbon Disclosure Project

Nearly nine out of 10 of the world’s biggest companies have plans in place to reduce carbon emissions, new research has found, but only a fifth of them are doing so for 2030 and beyond.

The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) also found that only 14% of its sample of 1,073 large companies around the world had “science-based targets” – that is, goals to reduce carbon emissions which are in line with the global agreement to hold warming to no more than 2C, enshrined in the 2015 Paris agreement.

“Targets [from companies] have previously been short in scope and pretty unambitious,” Marcus Norton, chief partnerships officer at CDP, told the Guardian. “That is improving.”

I’d hazard to suggest that most of these companies made plans simply for good PR, not because they actually care or want to Do Something, at least when it comes to Doing Something with their own money. It really doesn’t harm them to announce plans, make a big splash, then do pretty much nothing. The only time they’ll really take action is when it saves them money. They are not going to do things that cost them more money.

But, then, this is Warmism in a nutshell: lots of big plans, lots of Pronouncements about Doing Something, but, never actually really doing anything. But demanding that Other People be forced to do something.

Read: Big Businesses Climate Targets Are Unambitious Or Something »

Pirate's Cove