Report: Trump Admin Plans To Scrap The Clean Power Plan

By William Teach October 5, 2017 – 10:53 am

Media folks seem shocked by this development, even though Trump promised to do this multiple times

(UK Independent) The Trump administration reportedly plans to repeal the Clean Power Plan, a “game changer” of a piece of Obama era climate change legislation.

Reuters said it had seen a document “distributed to members of the agency’s Regulatory Steering Committee” about “issuing a proposal to repeal the rule” and opening up a comment period for replacement legislation.

The CPP, called a “game changer” by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2015 after it was passed into law, regulates the carbon emissions of power plants.

By game changer, they mean it could cost up to 300,000 jobs annually, reduce GDP by over $2 trillion, and cost citizens $7,000 per. All while make no change on the environment and the climate.

Anyhow, remember that 27 states sued over the plan

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals had suspended the regulation at the request of the Trump administration in April 2017 and set a 6 October deadline to get a report for the EPA about it will proceed, which could explain the timing of the intention to repeal being made public now.

In fact, the plan was temporarily blocked under the Obama administration, pending litigation. The lawsuit was put on hold till Team Trump came up with a response as to what they intend to do. Now we await what they will do.

Read: Report: Trump Admin Plans To Scrap The Clean Power Plan »

Posted in Global Warming | Comments Off on Report: Trump Admin Plans To Scrap The Clean Power Plan | Trackback URL

Illegal Aliens Want A Clean Immigration Bill Or Something

By William Teach October 5, 2017 – 8:23 am

Exactly what makes people who are unlawfully present in the United States think they have the right to demand legislation? It’s like petty thieves demanding they have a say in laws about petty theft. Of course, Democrats, and the tiny number of squishy Republicans, who have empowered illegal aliens into thinking they have a say

Advocates call for passage of ‘clean’ immigration law

Immigrant advocates and officials in Las Cruces on Wednesday demanded passage of “clean” legislation that would protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation without being tied to funds for a border wall or an influx of immigration agents along the border.

The call by New Mexico Comunidades en Acción y de Fé, Las Cruces Mayor Ken Miyagishima and Las Cruces resident Yadira Ramirez, a recipient of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, came the day before a crucial deadline for eligible participants of the DACA program to apply for permit renewals.

“New Mexico CAFé leaders and clergy are fighting for nothing less than a clean Dream Act,” Johana Bencomo, a community organizer for N.M. CAFé, said. “One that will protect millions of Dreamers and give them a pathway to citizenship all the while not criminalizing millions of other undocumented immigrants and not further militarizing our border communities by adding more Border Patrol agents, more ICE agents, funding for a needless wall and further increasing detention bed quota.”

This is the exact kind of thing that will cause people who are willing to consider some sort of legal option (I would support Rand Paul’s legislation, though there are still a few issues) to turn away. The illegals want to have their cake and eat it too. If there are no border protections, no measures to reduce illegal immigration, no penalties, all those who are open to a compromise will turn away, including more than enough elected Republicans who will vote any sort of “clean bill” down.

And then where will you be, illegals/Dreamers? Calling for legislation that gives you everything while enabling even more illegal immigration is not the answer. If legalization for Dreamers fails, this will be on you. You really shouldn’t be given any sort of legalization pathway. Do you want to destroy the change to get one? Choose wisely.

More: and here’s at least one Democrat lawmaker advocating the same

Read: Illegal Aliens Want A Clean Immigration Bill Or Something »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Statistician: Typical Gun Control Recommendations Won’t Make A Difference

By William Teach October 5, 2017 – 7:53 am

Leah Libresco drops a piece at the Washington Post, which is reprinted at a few other outlets, that sets the gun grabbers off

I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.

As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

The piece obviously, keeps going on for a bit, and is worth reading it all. She hasn’t become pro-gun, she doesn’t want one in her home, but, she can’t endorse policies drafted by “people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.” She does think there should be policies which are very specific, like for potential suicide victims.

Or, how about banning bump-stocks? I’m good with banning them. Anyway, she ends with

We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

In other words, we should not violate the Constitution Right of the law abiding. Instead, we should go after the criminals, while also seeing if there are specific things we can do for potential suicides.

This has enraged Vox’s German Lopez, who decides to do a bit of mansplaining to Leah. It’s a long, long, long boring article, attempting to say that things Democrats recommend will totally work, but, still misses the mark

But despite the article’s headline and author Leah Libresco’s data journalism credentials, the column is surprisingly thin on studies and data. In fact, it cites no specific studies on gun control whatsoever.

The opinion piece was not about slapping up tons of data from someone who spent three months researching. Interestingly, German forgets that all the policies that Democrat gun grabbers trot out fail to tell us exactly what will occur if implemented. For instance, they all want the so-called “universal background checks.” OK, if implemented, what is the expected reduction in crimes that use guns? How many lives will be saved?

Banning assault rifles: again, what is the reduction in the use of guns in crimes? The previous one did not make a difference. Why would a new one change the results?

What German does spend time on is saying that the more guns there are, the more shootings. Which studies show is wrong. Essentially, German is going for the gun grabbing/banning method. He fails to produce any evidence that all the policies that Democrats propose, such as universal background checks, would reduce crimes using guns. All he wants is gun grabbing.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Statistician: Typical Gun Control Recommendations Won’t Make A Difference »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Current Affairs | Comments Off on Statistician: Typical Gun Control Recommendations Won’t Make A Difference | Trackback URL

Good News: We Can Now Produce Electricity From Liberal Tears

By William Teach October 4, 2017 – 1:25 pm

And there are tons of liberal tears over everything. Someone says something mean? Tears. Writes something that is Wrongthink? Tears. Has an American flag? Massive abortion of Black babies? Well, more cheers from Liberals. But, now we can make energy with them. In theory (vie Watts Up With That?)

Irish scientists can now produce electricity from tears

A team of Irish scientists has discovered that applying pressure to a protein found in egg whites and tears can generate electricity. The researchers from the Bernal Institute, University of Limerick (UL), Ireland, observed that crystals of lysozyme, a model protein that is abundant in egg whites of birds as well as in the tears, saliva and milk of mammals can generate electricity when pressed. Their report is published today (October 2) in the journal, Applied Physics Letters.

The ability to generate electricity by applying pressure, known as direct piezoelectricity, is a property of materials such as quartz that can convert mechanicalenergy into electrical energy and vice versa. Such materials are used in a variety of applications ranging from resonators and vibrators in mobile phones to deep ocean sonars to ultrasound imaging. Bone, tendon and wood are long known to possess piezoelectricity.

We now need to do everything we can to hook up all the Warmists, and Leftists in general, to machines which will make them sad and weepy.

BTW, since I swiped that graphic, you can purchase them here.

Read: Good News: We Can Now Produce Electricity From Liberal Tears »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Energy, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 4, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is snow disappearing from a mountain because Other People didn’t march for climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on transgender social contagion being like 1692 Salem.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Los Angeles Learns That “Going Green” Is Pretty Expensive, And Government Needs To Fix The Problem It Caused

By William Teach October 4, 2017 – 8:40 am

Especially when the Helpful Hand Of Government is involved, as the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board notes

In its effort to go green, L.A. created a trash monopoly that’s gouging customers. They need to fix it

The city’s new environment-friendly, years-in-the-planning garbage pickup program has left the Los Angeles businesses and condo associations that rely on it with a severe case of sticker shock.

Back in 2014, when the City Council and Mayor Eric Garcetti approved the program, there was a lot of talk about the environmental benefits of the program — which are real — but little mention by city leaders that the service would cost more.

The initiative, called recycLA, switched multi-family residential buildings, restaurants, factories and other businesses from the open market, in which they could negotiate with the garbage company of their choice, to an exclusive franchise system, in which the city selects one trash hauler for that area, sets the rates and regulates the service. The city, for example, requires all the participating companies to provide recycling bins and to drive cleaner trucks.

This does not affect single family homes nor small apartment complexes (yet). Anyhow, how much more is this program for consumers who have had their choice removed?

Now recycLA customers are getting bills for the new city-controlled service, and many are finding the price of trash pickup has increased significantly. Some customers report their bills have doubled or even tripled compared to what they paid before. There have been complaints of missed pickups and scheduling problems.

The waste haulers are also allowed to impose lots of new city-sanctioned fees, including charges if the truck driver has to unlock a gate, if the hauler has to move the trash bins more than 100 feet during pickup and if the container is so full that the lid doesn’t completely close.

Under the old system, customers who felt they were getting nickel-and-dimed by their trash company could take their business elsewhere. Now? Their only recourse is to complain to the company or the city and hope for some response.

The LATEB goes on to tell us that it doesn’t have to be this way, completely missing the point that this is an issue created by government in the first place, because they rushed to “be green”, and were very aggressive about their goals control. There are massive recycling goals, which can reduce the forced costs on the users, except “the infrastructure or services to turn food scraps into compost or energy aren’t yet in Los Angeles.” The recycling monopoly companies hired by the city have to pay their people a “living wage” of at least $12.73 and purchase more “environmentally friendly” garbage trucks. And pay franchise fees which enrich the city to the tune of $35 million a year. The editorial ends with

It’s time for city leaders to be straight with Angelenos about the costs of being more environmentally responsible with our waste. There’s also the reality that the lack of competition in the exclusive franchise areas leaves customers vulnerable to being gouged. The city created these monopolies, and now it has a responsibility to police them.

Government created these problems, but, don’t expect them to fix them. They mean more money in the pockets of government and more control for government.

Read: Los Angeles Learns That “Going Green” Is Pretty Expensive, And Government Needs To Fix The Problem It Caused »

Posted in Enviroweenies | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

In Wake Of Las Vegas, Gun Grabbers Are Back To Pushing The Australia Solution

By William Teach October 4, 2017 – 8:23 am

What is the Australia solution? A simple explanation is offered at the UK Guardian, which is brought up in the wake of Las Vegas to say that the gun grabbyness is being eroded in Australia

In 1996 politicians managed to come to a bipartisan agreement to change our gun laws. The main changes included: a ban on semi-automatic rifles and pump action shotguns, a gun buyback, the introduction of a uniform registration and licensing system and an acknowledgment that gun ownership is a privilege and not a right. These laws were implemented into each state and territory legislation which implemented a national approach to gun regulation.

So, not everything. This article from 2016 explains in depth who can own which guns of those that are still legal.

It’s actually not that hard to own a gun. But you do have to have a genuine reason. You have to be a member of a target shooting club or a hunter and you have to prove it. For hunting, you can get written permission from a landowner who says you are hunting on his land. Or you can join a hunting club. Pistols [handguns], on the other hand, are heavily restricted. All applicants undergo a background check by the police and there is a mandatory 30 day cooling off period for all license applications, both long arms and pistols. Firearms safety training courses are mandatory as well.

There are 6 classes of license, which also includes if you want an air rifle. Yeah, that would be a BB gun. You want a handgun? There’s a license for that. H license. You must compete in at least 8 competitions to keep it. It’s a competition license. “This firearm may be a single-shot air pistol, a single-shot .22-calibre pistol or a .22-calibre revolver or self-loading pistol.” As far as I can determine through multiple articles, those are the only ones allowed. There is no category for “protect myself from criminals” licenses.

It’s not a full ban, but, it’s pretty close. So, we now see many pushing it. Like at the Washington Post

How Australia beat the gun lobby and passed gun control

“Lynched in effigy, but no real harm done.” The words belong to Tim Fischer, Australia’s deputy prime minister in the mid-1990s — the moment when Australia radically changed its gun laws. He used the phrase yesterday when, in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, I asked him about the political pain involved in taking on the gun lobby.

Australians are confounded by the unwillingness of American politicians to institute reasonable gun control. We performed the necessary operation, so why can’t our friends over the water?

It may be useful to recount what happened in Australia in 1996.

And that’s what Richard Glover does, and Australian attempting to tell the United States what to do. Mind your own business, Richard. We have a 2nd Amendment. Australia didn’t. Anyhow

It wasn’t only the gun owners who had something to complain about. The banned guns were not confiscated. They were “bought back.” An extra 0.2 percent levy on national health insurance was used to finance the National Firearms Buyback Program to compensate the gun owners for the banned weapons that were surrendered.

Trigger warning for any National Rifle Association (NRA) members: 660,959 firearms were duly handed in. They were then destroyed.

They were turned in because it would have been illegal to keep them. Anyone in possession would have been charged criminally. Might as well get some money for them.

This is the problem with the gun grabbers: they are all about punishing the law abiding for the actions of the criminals. Because they want to ban guns for Other People. Let’s say the U.S. tries this: anyone think there won’t be exclusions for Certain People? And that those Certain People, such as Hollywood celebs, won’t also be out there saying we need to ban guns?

Liberals know that a full gun grab isn’t going to work, so they will push the Australia solution, just like Obama and Hillary Clinton mentioned. So we get

And plenty, plenty more. At the NY Times, opinion writer Roxane Gay tells us that background checks do not work (and attempts to Blame the gun stores where the weapons were bought). Weren’t Democrats pushing universal background checks? Will this change? She dinks and dunks around simply banning guns in total.

But, hey, go for it, Democrats. Give it a shot. You’ll be soundly defeated. But, first, why not deal with your own lawlessness in your own violent cities. This is what happens when you’re weak on crime. And, instead of dealing with the crime, you want to penalize law abiding citizens who just want to protect themselves from the criminals Democrats enable.

I often run this graphic when the gun grabbers yammer about going after “assault rifles”

Under the Australia solution, both would be banned.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: In Wake Of Las Vegas, Gun Grabbers Are Back To Pushing The Australia Solution »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Barking Moonbats, Current Affairs, Democrats | Comments Off on In Wake Of Las Vegas, Gun Grabbers Are Back To Pushing The Australia Solution | Trackback URL

SCOTUS Discusses Illegal Alien Bonds

By William Teach October 3, 2017 – 5:38 pm

There really is an easy answer to this

(Reuters)  A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday struggled for the second time over how to resolve whether immigrants detained by the U.S. government for more than six months should be able to seek their release while deportation proceedings unfold.

A majority of the justices appeared sympathetic to the idea that immigrants held long-term should be eligible for a bond hearing that would let them argue for their release.

Some of the court’s conservatives seemed skeptical over whether such a hearing should be triggered automatically after six months, as a lower court had ruled. But conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy expressed concern about detainees being held for lengthy periods without any hearings as a result of government delays, suggesting he could side with the four liberals.

Let’s be honest, they have a point. But, so do other Conservatives. Not that Kennedy is much of a Conservative. More of a Lindsay Graham/John McCain type

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito was among those who questioned why there should be a hearing triggered after six months. “Where does it say six months in the Constitution?” Alito asked.

Chief Justice John Roberts said a “more palatable option” would be to restrict claims to individual detainees who have been held for a long time rather than having a blanket rule requiring hearings for all.

Obviously, the Liberals on the court very much want the illegals to be released on bond, at which point they will disappear into America yet again.

The liberal justices were more openly sympathetic to the plight of immigrant detainees. Justice Stephen Breyer noted that even “triple ax-murderers” get bail hearings. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that allowing people to be detained indefinitely was a sign of “lawlessness.”

Of course, the triple ax murderers typically get denied bail, as do those who are flight risks. Like…… illegal aliens!

The simple solution? Make sure there are enough judges to adjudicate deportation hearings, so illegals, regardless of whether they crossed the border or overstayed their visas, are sent packing within a month of being caught.

Read: SCOTUS Discusses Illegal Alien Bonds »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 3, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful big city, bringing everyone close together, which should be mandated by government, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Bunkerville, with a post on the terrorist supporting mayor of San Juan.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Science Always Win In The End, Warmists

By William Teach October 3, 2017 – 10:57 am

The Hill trots out a missive by Arturo Casadevall, MD, Ph.D. (chairman of the Molecular Microbiology & Immunology department at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and Ferric C. Fang, MD (professor of Laboratory Medicine and Microbiology at the University of Washington) with the pithy headline

Climate change deniers, science always wins in the end

showing that Warmists have completely given up on attempting to persuade, and simply going for insults.

Today there are many active fronts in the war on science. Climatologists are attacked for their virtually unanimous consensus that earth is facing a period of anthropogenic climate change. A vocal movement claims that vaccines are responsible for autism despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The theory of evolution remains under attack by creationists. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), including pest-resistant crops that promise greater bounties, are banned in many countries despite overwhelming evidence that they are safe for people and the environment. In keeping with this mood, the Trump administration has repeatedly belittled the value of scientific expertise and eliminated scientists from panels that advise the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Justice.

Well, that is very interesting. Who tends to be against these vaccines? Mostly leftists, especially Hollyweirdos. How about GMOs? These are overwhelmingly people who vote to the Left.

Those who deny specific scientific findings and theories are neither idiots or Luddites. Such individuals have no problem using the fruits of science and technology such as cell phones, medicines and computers. Science deniers are selective in their rejection of science when it focuses on a specific finding that they do not like.

Yes, those same things that create “carbon pollution.” When will Warmists give these up? BTW, a lot of these same Warmists also despise Big Business, which brings them all these products and medicines.

Despite the widespread evidence of science denialism, there is no organized opposition to broad swaths of scientific theory. For instance, no one is denying major theories such as the standard model of particle physics, the germ theory of disease, general relativity, lunar origins, continental drift or Mendelian genetics. Those who make war on science are opposed to some particular scientific finding rather than the scientific method or the entirety of science.

That’s because those are real, as proven by the use of said Scientific Method. Warmism isn’t. Hence, how the authors put it in political, consensus, and smear terms.

But, they are right: science will win out in the end. The Cult of Climastrology will be proven to be wrong. Because it isn’t about science, as Casadevall and Fang inadvertently state

On the other hand, the denial of climate science is centered on resistance to economic and lifestyle changes that would bring about major disruption to certain ways of life, as we switch away from carbon-based fuels. Similarly, resistance to forensic science reform is based on a reluctance to change prosecutorial practice.

I wonder if either of these doctors have given up their own use of fossil fuels and made their own lives carbon neutral, disrupting their own economic lifestyles? Do they require their patients and/or employees to only take sustainable means to their offices? How about requiring their buildings to only use non-fossil fuels energy? What’s that? There wouldn’t be power to do what they do? Huh.

Read: Science Always Win In The End, Warmists »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove