Good News: Californians Will Continue To Pay Up For ‘Climate Change’

But, hey, this is what they all wanted, right? To pay for this themselves? No? They wanted Other People to pay for their beliefs? Huh

Californians pay to fight climate change – and court says they’ll keep paying

Californians pay more for gasoline and other goods to finance the state’s war on climate change. The state Supreme Court decided Wednesday they’ll continue paying for at least three more years.

The court declined to hear a lawsuit challenging the state-run auctions of carbon-emissions allowances, which cement makers, food processors and others must purchase in order to spew greenhouse gases. Two lower courts already ruled the auctions, which have raised billions of dollars since their introduction in 2012, are constitutional.

The estimates are that this artificially raises the cost of a gallon of gas by 11 cents. Doesn’t seem like much, until you add it to all the other taxes and fees, and that products and services also go up because companies are pay more themselves and passing the costs on.

The suit was claiming that since this was a tax, it was illegally passed, as two-thirds supermajority is required to enact a new tax in California

The 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled in April that the auctions aren’t a form of taxation because buying the carbon credits is voluntary – companies could choose instead to reduce emissions – and the credits are a “thing of value.”

Damned if you do damned if you don’t in Liberal World. Fortunately, Governor Moonbeam is happy that Californian’s will be paying more

“With this Supreme Court victory, now it’s up to us to take action extending California’s cap-and-trade system on a more permanent basis,” Brown said Wednesday.

And see more businesses leave the state.

Read: Good News: Californians Will Continue To Pay Up For ‘Climate Change’ »

If All You See…

…is wonderful park which will soon be too hot from a meager .5C increase, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lid, with a post on why John McEnroe was correct on Serena Williams.

Read: If All You See… »

Two Billion Could Become Refugees By 2100 From Sea Rise Or Something

Today’s unhinged and scientifically baseless scaremongering prognostication

Two billion people may become refugees from climate change by the end of the century

An unimaginable 2 billion people could become displaced from their homes by 2100 due to climate change-related rising ocean levels.

That would be about one-fifth of the world’s population at that time, and account for those who live near coastlines, according to new Cornell University research.

“We’re going to have more people on less land and sooner than we think,” the study’s lead author, Charles Geisler, said in a statement. “The future rise in global mean sea level probably won’t be gradual, yet few policy makers are taking stock of the significant barriers to entry that coastal climate refugees, like other refugees, will encounter when they migrate to higher ground.”

The researchers at Cornell estimate that these issues, exacerbated by climate change, will create 1.4 billion refugees by 2060. Geisler said that number could reach 2 billion by 2100.

If you’re guessing that this comes from another in a long line of failed models, you’d be correct

(HuffPost) To get the 2 billion figure, Geisler extrapolated from a 2015 study published in the journal PLOS One. That research predicted that by 2060, there would be some 1.4 billion people living in low-lying coastal regions at risk from sea level rise. Drawing from nearly a dozen other studies, Geisler and his co-author, the University of Kentucky climate researcher Ben Currens, modeled what he called a “rather extreme scenario.”

“The paper is the worst-case scenario,” Geisler said. “We looked for estimates in these various barriers to entry that were coming from the most draconian changes that could hit us from climate change and sea level rise.”

Unsurprisingly, neither article mentions what the 20th Century sea rise was (an utterly average 7 inches) nor what the current sea rise is. Essentially, the same. Which is well below what one would expect for a Holocene warm period. But, hey, gotta push the doom to get that sweet, sweet climate research cash.

Read: Two Billion Could Become Refugees By 2100 From Sea Rise Or Something »

Trump’s Revised Travel Restrictions Start Thursday Night

Had liberals who support extremist Muslims not complained and sued all those months back, the 90 day time frame for the travel ban would have been over already. Now, they take affect at 8pm tonight

(UK Daily Mail) The revised version of President Donald Trump’s travel restrictions is set to come into effect Thursday night with new criteria for visa applicants from six Muslim-majority countries and refugees fleeing persecution.

The strict news rules come after the Supreme Court partially restored Trump’s executive order on Monday, following months of legal battles and it being widely criticized as a ban on Muslims.

The court ruling means Trump can place a 90-day ban on new visa applicants from Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran and Yemen if they can’t prove they have a close relationship someone living in the US (like a spouse) or an entity (like a school or job).

A refugee from any country can be banned for 120 days if they can’t establish such a close relationship.

Visas that have already been approved will not be revoked.

A parent, spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling already in the United States will be accepted as a close relationship under the new rules.

Grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, fiancees or other extended family members are not considered to be close relationships, according to the guidelines that were issued in a cable sent to all US embassies and consulates late on Wednesday.

One has to wonder, what is the problem with restricting the types of people we want in our country? Why are we bringing people into our nation who have no real ties, do not speak the language, and seemingly have no interest in assimilation?

Quite frankly, it’s time to shut down immigration to the United States, just as has been done many times prior, in order to allow those already here to assimilate. And, yes, definitely stop immigration from areas that are known Muslim extremist hotbeds.

Read: Trump’s Revised Travel Restrictions Start Thursday Night »

Unsurprisingly, Democrats Are Against Illegal Alien Bills

For all the Democrats talking points about being OK with getting tough on violent illegal aliens, they’re not fine with cracking down on violent illegal aliens

(CNN) The House Thursday is expected to pass bills that would hand President Donald Trump key pieces of his immigration agenda, especially efforts targeting sanctuary cities.

The bills, “Kate’s Law” and the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, would install harsher penalties for repeat illegal entry to the US, and expand US law on sanctuary cities to pressure localities to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

But it’s unlikely either would have enough votes to pass the Senate, which struggled with Kate’s Law last year.

That’s because most Democrats refuse to vote for cloture, the 60 vote threshold needed to end debate. Does anyone want to bet that Mitch McConnell goes nuclear or finds a way to thwart this level? Furthermore, if the GOP had cajones, they’d be broadcasting that Democrats do not want to protect the nation from criminal illegal aliens. Let’s not forget that Kate’s Law is named for Kate Steinle, who was murdered by a 5 time deported illegal alien who had been convicted of several felonies, then crossed the border again and headed to the sanctuary city of San Fransisco.

Immigration and civil liberties advocates have also come out swinging against the bills, saying they bolster a “deportation force” and anti-immigrant agenda from the Trump administration.

It’s unclear why CNN wouldn’t name the ACLU, which opposed Kate’s Law last year, and does so again

Lorella Praeli, director of immigration policy and campaigns at the American Civil Liberties Union, had the following reaction:

“These bills are riddled with constitutional violations that completely disregard the civil and human rights of immigrants. Despite claims to the contrary, Kate’s Law and the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act will make our communities less safe by undermining the trust that law enforcement builds with its communities — citizen and immigrant alike.

“The true intent of these bills is to empower Trump’s deportation force and anti-immigrant agenda. We urge the House to reject these bills, to defend the Constitution, and protect the rights of all people, no matter their background.”

Once again with the trust between law enforcement and people who shouldn’t even be in our nation thing. We already know that the majority of illegals won’t report a crime as it is, even during Obama’s “we love illegals” period. All the ACLU is doing is coming up with excuses so they do not have to provide their real reason, namely, that they want illegals legalized so they can vote Democrat. If they really cared, they’d put the lives of legal U.S. citizens and residents over those of people who are unlawfully present.

(The Hill) House Democratic leaders will encourage their troops to oppose the Republicans’ crackdown on so-called sanctuary cities this week, but members will face less pressure on “Kate’s Law,” the leaders indicated Tuesday.

“Kate’s Law is a little more complicated,” Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the Democratic whip, told reporters in the Capitol Tuesday morning. “I’m advising members to look at it carefully and see what their conclusion is.”

Hours later, Hoyer and the Democrats decided they would whip opposition to the legislation when it hits the floor later this week. But they’re not twisting arms, due to the politically fraught nature of the illegal immigration issue, which could prove a tough vote for vulnerable Democrats.

In other words, they’re still trying to decide on their talking points on how to vote against a bill that bears the name of a woman murdered by an illegal alien.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Unsurprisingly, Democrats Are Against Illegal Alien Bills »

Bummer: World Has Only Three Years Left To Stop Hotcoldwetdry

You know, there comes a point when it gets tedious trying to keep track of all the apocalypse prognostications from the Cult of Climstrology. Here comes another one

World has three years left to stop dangerous climate change, warn experts

Avoiding dangerous levels of climate change is still just about possible, but will require unprecedented effort and coordination from governments, businesses, citizens and scientists in the next three years, a group of prominent experts has warned.

And lots and lots of redistributed money from taxing/feeing the hell out of citizens. Of course, these experts will get their cut

The authors, including former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, argue that the next three years will be crucial. They calculate that if emissions can be brought permanently lower by 2020 then the temperature thresholds leading to runaway irreversible climate change will not be breached.

Neither is actually a climate scientist, though, they do stand to gain a lot of money and prestige, and power, from this fable. Schellnhuber is the one that came up with that 2C yammering point back in 1995, though.

They set out six goals for 2020 which they said could be adopted at the G20 meeting in Hamburg on 7-8 July. These include increasing renewable energy to 30% of electricity use; plans from leading cities and states to decarbonise by 2050; 15% of new vehicles sold to be electric; and reforms to land use, agriculture, heavy industry and the finance sector, to encourage green growth.

Interesting. When Leftists, and make no mistake that these are far, far left leftists, want to reform something, it means putting it under control of centralized government. Do you want them in charge of land use, food production, and the flow of money? Warmists should step back and moment and ask themselves if they would want government in charge of their land, what they eat, and their own money, and wonder why things like this are so important to the climate big wigs. Perhaps some Warmists will have a mental breakthrough.

Read: Bummer: World Has Only Three Years Left To Stop Hotcoldwetdry »

If All You See…

…is a world turning to desert due to extreme weather from YOU using an ice maker, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Coyote Blog, with a post on Progressives creating income inequality in Seattle.

Read: If All You See… »

A Tiny Increase In Temperature Will Make Us Prisoners In Our Homes Or Something

Seriously, the only difference between the Cult of Climastrology and other doomsday cults is that the CoC is propped up by Government and leftist media

From the article

For much of the U.S., summer will take place indoors.

According to a study co-authored by Camilo Mora, if carbon emissions aren’t reduced, by 2100 New York City will experience about 50 days per year of heat and humidity conditions that has resulted in death (up from about two days now). Meanwhile, in cities such as Orlando and Houston, this threshold will be crossed for the entire summer, making it unsafe to go outside for extended periods of time.

“We’ll become prisoners of our houses,” says Mora.

We’ve also got prognostications of airplanes not being able to fly, that people will die from power outages because they can’t use air conditioning, road and train tracks will buckle (like chocolate!!!!!), ending with

Climate change is tied to government policies, but it’s also “the combination of so many of us using things we don’t need,” he says. “We can’t afford to not think this is a problem.”

In other words, it’s mostly about government policy forcing people to Do Things, pay more taxes and fees, give up their liberty, with a smattering of “why don’t Warmists make changes in their own lives?”

Read: A Tiny Increase In Temperature Will Make Us Prisoners In Our Homes Or Something »

Trump To Rally Support For Illegal Alien Bills Today

I would hope that it’s not really necessary for President Trump to rally the Republicans who control Congress to pass two bills (mentioned Friday) that crack down on illegal immigration, but, one can never know what certain GOP squishes will do

(Washington Examiner) President Trump on Wednesday will use the bully pulpit to rally support for tough immigration legislation, a day after he was forced to watch the Senate pull the plug on a healthcare reform bill that Trump has sought since his election.

Trump will meet at the White House with victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants, in a bid to boost two bills that the House is expected to pass Thursday before lawmakers leave for the July 4 break. The bills are aimed at thwarting “sanctuary cities” that refuse to cooperate with federal officials on immigration and imposing tougher penalties against deported criminals who re-enter the United States.

Trump has spoken out often as a candidate and as president about the need for tougher policies against illegal immigrant criminals. (snip)

Trump’s job for the rest of the week will be much easier, as the two immigration bills he’ll support will get votes in the House and will pass easily thanks to the GOP’s majority there. They’re also related to a bill that passed in the House in the last Congress under former President Barack Obama, who was never going to sign them into law.

It better be easier, if the GOP knows what’s good for them electorally from those who vote Republican

The first bill up on Thursday will be the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, a bill aimed at discouraging the formation of sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with the federal government on immigration.

Goodlatte’s bill would withhold some federal grants to jurisdictions that prohibit their officers from communicating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and require illegal immigrants convicted of dangerous crimes to be detained during removal proceedings.

The legislation would also permit lawsuits by victims of crime against jurisdictions that practice sanctuary city policies.

The second bill is Kate’s Law, which would impose tougher penalties against deported felons who return to the United States. The bill is named after Kate Steinle, who was killed by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times.

You can bet the ranch on Democrats having apoplectic fits over the first bill, especially since it allows the aforementioned lawsuits against sanctuary jurisdictions. Imagine that, allowing people to sue government for government’s unlawful and bad behavior. And it will be interesting to see how Democrats will caterwaul about these laws treating criminal illegal aliens harshly.

Most likely, these bills will pass on party line votes, and be on Mr. Trump’s desk by early next week. Democrats will have their work cut out on coming up with talking points to defend voting against protecting American citizens from criminal illegal aliens.

Read: Trump To Rally Support For Illegal Alien Bills Today »

Doom Today: Senate Health Bill Would Doom Senior Care System, Special Education

I make no bones that I am not a fan of either version of the GOP health plan. Regardless, the endless prognostications of doom have morphed into talking points that are out of control, erroneous, and are being repeated by a media which continuously proves that it is utterly partisan, such as

The GOP health-care plan could gut nursing homes — and kill jobs nationwide

(note: the web front page for this article in the business section is entitled even more doomy: The GOP health-care plan threatens to kill jobs nationwide)

The Better Care Reconciliation Act would reduce the country’s Medicaid spending by $772 billion over the next decade, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected in a report Monday. That could shut down nursing homes across the country, health-care leaders argue, and trigger widespread layoffs in one of the nation’s fastest-growing fields of employment.

Janet Snipes, executive director of Holly Heights, said the proposed cuts would oblige her to reduce her workforce: currently about 170 employees who care for 130 residents.

Shrinking the staff, she said, would hamper the center’s ability to make life comfortable for the patients — an effort that includes bingo and Nintendo Wii, in addition to standard meal and medical services.

“We can’t take a significant cut and not do staff reduction,” she said. “And when staff is reduced, care can be compromised.”

And this one

GOP health-care bill could strip public schools of billions for special education

School superintendents across the country are raising alarms about the possibility that Republican health care legislation would curtail billions of dollars in annual funding they count on to help students with disabilities and poor children.

For the past three decades, Medicaid has helped pay for services and equipment that schools provide to special-education students, as well as school-based health screening and treatment for children from low-income families. Now, educators from rural red states to the blue coasts are warning that the GOP push to shrink Medicaid spending will strip schools of what a national superintendents association estimates at up to $4 billion per year.

This is apoplectic, apocalyptic scaremongering using seniors and special needs kids (which goes well with things like How many people will die from the Republicans’ Obamacare repeal bills? Tens of thousands per year). Many are running with the schools are doomed meme, but, they most intentionally forget to mention one thing, instead couching it in weasel words. The WP above did plenty of that, as does the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

The draft of the Senate’s version of the bill released Thursday would lower future spending on the program even more than the House bill.

To the average reader, that means that Medicaid is being cut. In Average Citizen world, a cut works like this

  1. The Government demands that your employer provide full time with health insurance, and full time is 30 hours per week.
  2. You were making $10 per hour, working 40 hours per week.
  3. The company cut hours so no one is working more than 29 hours per week. You just saw a cut of $110 per week.

In Government world, it works like this

In Gov’t World, a cut is simply reducing the planned/potential spending increase. What would the general public say if the media and Democrats were saying “well, instead of the spending going up from $389 billion to $624 billion, it’ll go up in the range of $500 billion”? Would they be thinking this is a cut, or just a smaller increase? Would they be so scared and enraged by the apocalyptic stories emanating from the Credentialed Media?

The bill is stupid, it is not repeal and replace as we were promised, it misses the Conservative mark, and I do not support it, but, still, the media needs to be called out for their utter bullshit.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Doom Today: Senate Health Bill Would Doom Senior Care System, Special Education »

Pirate's Cove