Washington Post Pimps Carbon Tax Again

We’ve already touched on this plan by so-called Republicans and a few liberals, who are essentially pushing a Big Government solution to a problem that cannot be proven. Now we have George P. Shultz and Lawrence Sanders pushing the pimp

This is the one climate solution that’s best for the environment — and for business

President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord has induced a fateful pessimism about what can be expected of the country on this critical issue. Yet our long experience in Washington has taught us that the transition from the inconceivable to the inevitable can sometimes be very rapid.

The pressure on the administration to find an alternative to Paris will only mount, and its foundations have already been laid in the reasons the president cited for withdrawing. That is, any viable climate solution must promote growth and jobs, be fair to ordinary Americans and prevent other economies from taking advantage of us. It must also meet the broader test of American politics: the ability to appeal to the general public, corporate America and leaders in both parties.

Such a climate plan is not only feasible but is now gaining traction. On Tuesday, the Climate Leadership Council announced its founding members, a group of companies, opinion leaders and nongovernmental organizations who have joined forces to promote a consensus climate solution based on carbon dividends. We are proud to be part of this distinguished group.

The interesting part here is that most Warmists refuse to voluntarily purchase carbon offsets (nor give up their own big carbon footprint ways, but, that’s a different story). The Rich folks who are Warmists purchase offsets rather than give up their own Bad Behavior. And the want Everyone Else to be forced to join in on this little plan of marching up and down the square investing more power and money in the hands of the Federal Government. Constitution schmonstitution!

Our carbon dividend strategy has four interrelated elements that account for its strength: a gradually rising and revenue-neutral carbon tax; carbon dividend payments made equally to all Americans, to be funded using all the carbon-tax revenue; rollback of costly command-and-control regulations that were implemented because the environmental costs of carbon fuels have not been incorporated into their price; and border adjustment to ensure a level playing field and U.S. competitiveness.

Each and every one of these things gives the Central Government more control of citizens, private entities, the energy sector, and the economy. Furthermore, it makes citizens more reliant and dependent on government, because the Helpful Hand of Government will refund some of the money lost to the taxes, fees, and cost of living increases.

A carbon tax set at $40 per ton would achieve substantially greater reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions than all of the regulation now on the table.

First, remember that is the starting point. Second, the average American has a carbon footprint of around 19 metric tons per year. So, another $760 a year lost to government directly, which doesn’t account for all the higher costs associated with all businesses having to pay more and passing the costs to the consumers. Guess who gets hurt the most? The middle class and lower class.

Read: Washington Post Pimps Carbon Tax Again »

If All You See…

…is an evil gun made more prevalent because carbon pollution makes more war, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on the death of Otto Warmbier and agreeing with Salon.

Read: If All You See… »

Party Made Of 5 Year Olds Declares Quintuple Red Alert

Republicans in Congress need to start treating Congressional Democrats like the (feral) children they are

(The Blaze)  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced Monday that Democrats would be utilizing new tactics in order to protest the Senate health care bill from the Republicans.

Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) called it a “quintuple red alert.”

Like this

“Radical departure from normal procedure on a bill of such consequence,” Schumer announced from the floor, “leaves the Senate minority little choice but to depart from normal procedure as well.”

“Starting this evening,” he added, “Democrats will begin objecting to all unanimous consent requests in the Senate, save for honorary resolutions. We will seek, in as many ways as we can, in as many times as we can, to refer the House-passed health care bill to committee. Where it can be vetted, debated and amended in the open, for the American people to see, as is their right.”

One has to wonder where all the news outlets are regarding the Demokids telling us that they are going to go beyond obstruction into tantrum.

BTW, just to be clear, the GOP needs to put their so-called repeal and replace bill out in the public domain. We’d like to see it, especially if it is as bad as the stupid House one, which didn’t repeal, and essentially dinks around the edges of Ocare while making things worse.

Read: Party Made Of 5 Year Olds Declares Quintuple Red Alert »

The New Consensus: The Global Warming Hiatus Was Real

This will leave a mark on all the Warmists who proclaim that the Hiatus, otherwise known as the Great Pause, was not real

(Daily Caller) A scientific consensus has emerged among top mainstream climate scientists that “skeptics” or “lukewarmers” were not long ago derided for suggesting — there was a nearly two-decade long “hiatus” in global warming that climate models failed to accurately predict or replicate.

A new paper, led by climate scientist Benjamin Santer, adds to the ever-expanding volume of “hiatus” literature embracing popular arguments advanced by skeptics, and even uses satellite temperature datasets to show reduced atmospheric warming.

More importantly, the paper discusses the failure of climate models to predict or replicate the “slowdown” in early 21st century global temperatures, which was another oft-derided skeptic observation.

“In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble,” reads the abstract of Santer’s paper, which was published Monday.

“Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed,” reads the abstract, adding that “model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”

Many Warmists did actually say there was a Pause, then would provide all sorts of excuses as to why it occurred and why this totally doesn’t mean that we’re not all doomed in the future. Usually, their excuses would involve things like it being caused by nature, which brings to mind a significant question: “if the Pause was caused by natural variation, why can’t most of the warming be due to natural variation?”

What is notable here is that they are admitting that the models are, in a simple word, crap. 95% of them were wrong. Warmists are fond of throwing out a talking point about if 97% of your doctors telling you you’re sick, why would you ignore them? Well, if 95% of your doctors were wrong, would you listen to them?

As Powerline notes “The lead author, Ben Santer, is one of the leading climatistas, so this article can’t be written off as “denier” distortions. (One of the co-authors is Michael Mann.)”

Let’s note yet again that the debate is not about warming: there was warming, it started in the mid-1900’s. The debate is on causation. If the models, based primarily on the release of carbon dioxide from the works of Man, what the Warmists un-scientifically refer to as carbon pollution, are mostly wrong, that would mean that their whole Cult of Climastrology is based on a lie.

Read: The New Consensus: The Global Warming Hiatus Was Real »

On Free Speech, Washington Post Finds That “Constitutional And Decent Are Not The Same Thing”

By now you may have heard that the Supreme Court ruled in a manner that Free Speech is actually Free Speech. That government may not regulate it because someone got the vapors, such as, say, with the name of the Washington Redskins. The NY Times took to the Editorial Page to hail this decision, writing

The decision is likely to help the Washington Redskins, who lost their trademark protections in 2014 after years of complaints from Native American groups. At the time, this page supported the Trademark Office’s decision, and we still regard the Redskins name as offensive. Based on this case, however, we’ve since reconsidered our underlying position.

One has to wonder why the NYTEB has suddenly changed their position. WIIFT (what’s in it for them)? Did they suddenly realize that their own freedom of speech could be in jeopardy because some people find it offensive, a position that Leftists have been pushing for years? Will they now support people saying things that Leftists consider “offensive” on campus? How long till they decide to change their opinion again?

Then we get to the Washington Post Editorial Board, which ends on a doozy

The Supreme Court gives the country some necessary guidance on free speech

THE UNITED STATES is engaged just now in a freewheeling debate about — freewheeling debate. Or, to put it more precisely, about how freewheeling debate should normally be. The struggle is being waged across various battlegrounds — college campuses, social media, New York theater, even the air-conditioned offices in which federal employees decide whether to protect trademarks, such as that of Washington’s National Football League franchise.

Not mentioned is that it is Liberals, Democratic Party voters, who are attempting to shut down speech that Offends them, with Republican voters standing foresquare in attempting to protect Free Speech.

Now comes the Supreme Court with a strong statement in favor of free speech, to include speech that many find offensive. With the support of all eight justices who participated in the case (new Justice Neil M. Gorsuch being the exception), the court struck down a 71-year-old law requiring the Patent and Trademark Office to deny registration to brands that may “disparage” people or bring them “into contemp[t] or disrepute.” The ruling means that a dance-rock band may henceforth call itself “the Slants” on the same legal basis that, say, Mick Jagger’s bunch uses “the Rolling Stones” — even though many Asian Americans find the term derogatory and demeaning.

The justices were obviously, and properly, influenced by the fact that the Asian American members of the Slants took the name in a bid to “reclaim” that slur as something more positive and prideful. To apply the existing disparagement proviso in the statute despite the band’s expressive intent would not merely have exercised government control over government expression, implicit in trademark registration, as the Obama administration argued when the court heard the case shortly before Inauguration Day this year. It would, as the justices ruled, have put the government in the business of picking and choosing among points of view, a role that the court has repeatedly forbidden it to perform.

Not a bad start for the WPEB, though it’s a cute spin about trying to “reclaim” that slur by using it. They then note this quote (among others)

The concurring opinion followed with the rationale underlying that jurisprudence: “A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all.”

Perhaps the WPEB is starting to realize that what’s good for the good is good for the gander. That what goes around comes around. That the Special Tiger Of Being Offended they let loose could turn around and take a bit out of the people who set it free.

But, here we go

This is strong medicine, both in terms of the support it offers free speech and in terms of what it requires of those who do take offense at expressions likely to enjoy court protection as a result of this opinion — specifically the Washington football team’s name, which was also the subject of a suit against its trademark. The answer, in our view, is to redouble all lawful efforts to get that name changed, even if a federal lawsuit probably can’t be one of them. As the court’s decision reminds us, constitutional and decent are not the same thing.

That’s an interesting turn of phrase. What are we to read into it? Is is simply an acknowledgement that Free Speech is Free because it can offend you, and governmental entities are restricted from doing anything? Or is it something deeper, something more Progressive, a belief that the Constitution is profoundly wrong because it should allow government to restrict certain speech? Liberals have long had a problem with the Constitution, especially when it goes against the things they are trying to accomplish, and this ruling makes it harder for them to restrict any and all Free Speech they disagree with.

This could mean very bad things for Leftists who want to ban speech they do not like, that they consider “hate.”

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: On Free Speech, Washington Post Finds That “Constitutional And Decent Are Not The Same Thing” »

Who’s Up For The Snowflake Olympics?

The ideas these people come up, as the UK Guardian lets Devarshi Lodhia run rampant with snowflake droppings

Forget dancing horses, surfing and BMX – the Olympic Games need eSports

And the subhead is just as fun

eSports can be the spark for the International Olympic Committee to update the Olympic Games and reach a larger, more diverse audience

Away we go

If we have learned anything from the previous few Olympics, it is that the Games are going through an identity crisis. Rocked by a doping scandal and with an older audience than ever, the International Olympic Committee is attempting to rehabilitate its image by appealing to a disinterested youth.

Here’s an idea for appealing to all those tuning out: show the blackenty blank sports live. Minimize all the human interest and drama segments, let the sports be the drama. I pretty sure I’ve gone apoplectic on this subject in the archives. You flip from channel to channel to channel, and instead of watching someone, say, ski down a mountain live, you see a segment on them when they were 10 years old and …. don’t get me going.

With sports such as BMX freestyle and baseball taking their place alongside archaic remnants from the age of imperialism, like modern pentathlon and dressage, it is difficult to know what or who the Olympics represent anymore. If the IOC is serious about joining the brave new world that seems to have passed it by and more importantly if it wants to keep its sponsors happy, it needs to make serious changes – starting with introducing eSports.

If you’re thinking, that sounds like people playing sporting games via video games, you’d be utterly correct. Seriously, how exciting can it be to watch someone sitting in a comfy chair beat on a game pad? Well, maybe watching fat jiggle can be hypnotizing, but, this is one of those uber-snowflake ideas taken to the heights of snowflake.

Read: Who’s Up For The Snowflake Olympics? »

If All You See…

…is world drying out so much from carbon pollution that it becomes rock, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Right Scoop, with a post on Poland staying defiant when it comes to accepting “refugees.”

Read: If All You See… »

Everyone Can Fight ‘Climate Change’ After Paris Exit Or Something

What Donna Vickroy is missing in her Chicago Tribune “news” story….yes, this opinion piece is in the news section… is that most Warmists do not want to fight ‘climate change’, then want the government to force Other People to fight it

Everyone can fight climate change after Paris exit, save money in process, experts say

Want to help save the world and a few bucks in the process?

Despite President Donald Trump’s recent decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement, across the nation, several state and local officials are carrying on with the terms of the pact. On June 1, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced the Windy City would continue to pursue its plan to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Even without a national agenda to reduce carbon emissions, local nature defenders say there is plenty that average folks right here in the Southland can do to take better care of the planet and enrich their own lives.

Gareth Blakesley is operations manager at Lake Katherine Nature Center and Botanic Gardens in Palos Heights, and Lambrini Lukidis is spokesperson for Cook County Forest Preserves.

“Ninety-nine percent of scientists in the world believe that climate change is caused by human endeavor,” Blakesley said. But there are ways humans can counter the damage.

Now we’re apparently up to 99%. If Ms. Vickroy was actually practicing Journalism, she’d challenge Blackesley to prove it.

Anyhow, what can you do?

While everyone should be familiar with the importance of recycling, he said, “People don’t always think about reducing their impact at the beginning, when purchasing. Any time you buy plastic, even if it’s recyclable, there’s an energy cost. So at the grocery store, look for things that aren’t plastic-wrapped or shop in places that don’t have as much plastic wrap.”

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen the Cult of Climastrology co-opting real environmental initiatives like recycling. In fact, the majority of the missive is about co-opting environmental initiatives.

Other ways to go easier on the environment, he said: share a ride, take public transportation, make sure home windows and doors are insulated, don’t set your thermostat above 68 in winter or below 72 in summer, and think long-term usage when shopping.

Normal things that do not really require sacrifice. By this measure, I’m pretty compliant. I keep it at 68 in the winter and 72 in the warm months.

Another way people can be environmentally savvy particularly during vacation season, he said, is to mitigate the environmental cost of long-distance travel.

“My wife and I just recently went to Alaska, which is a 6-hour flight from here,” he said.

So, instead of saying “we’re killing the earth with our fossil fueled travel, we should forgo this trip”, they simply paid for carbon offsets, which is like paying the speeding ticket because you don’t want to stop speeding. Spend a couple bucks to Feel Good while making no sacrifice.

Read: Everyone Can Fight ‘Climate Change’ After Paris Exit Or Something »

DOJ Initiating Fast Track Deportation Orders For Criminal Illegals

Certainly, supporters of illegal aliens, who constantly tell us they aren’t supporting the bad ones, won’t have a problem with this program, right?

Federal prosecutors inaugurate ‘express’ deportations

Until recently, foreign nationals convicted of a crime in federal court were told that immigration authorities would put them in deportation proceedings upon completion of their prison terms.

Not anymore.

Under orders from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a champion of hard-line immigration enforcement, federal prosecutors are asking district judges to issue what are known as “judicial orders of removal,” which ensure that a convicted foreign national will be deported on completion of the sentence instead of being sent to an immigrant detention center to await proceedings in immigration court and then a deportation order from an immigration judge.

The new legal tactic shortens the wait time for deportation, bypasses backlogs in immigration court, saves the federal government money in housing and food in immigrant detention centers, frees up space in those centers for other detained foreign nationals and sends a message to immigrant communities that under President Donald Trump immigration enforcement is real.

Obviously, this doesn’t just affect illegal aliens who’ve been sent to jail for crimes, but those few who were lawfully present and committed crimes, as well. But, it is mostly illegal aliens, and this way, they won’t languish in detention facilities while awaiting a judge to sign the deportation order, which gives all the illegal alien supporting groups, who, again, say they don’t support the criminal ones, time to find a friendly judge to get the illegal alien criminal out of jail and released into the nation to disappear.

Overall, this will allow the U.S. to deport illegal aliens much faster, and avoid the backlog of cases that has been growing in federal immigration courts.

Read: DOJ Initiating Fast Track Deportation Orders For Criminal Illegals »

Excitable Adam Schiff (D-Ca) Admits There’s No Proof Of Collusion

Another day, another Democrat admitting that they’ve spent over a year making complaints about collusion between Trump and Russia and have absolutely nothing to show for it

(Daily Caller) The 11-month-old investigation into whether President Trump or members of his campaign colluded with Russians has still not turned up any evidence that’s strong enough to put before a jury.

That’s according to California Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, which is overseeing one of the parallel investigations into whether members of the Trump campaign coordinated with the Kremlin to influence the outcome of the election.

“I’m not prepared to say that there’s proof you could take to a jury,” Schiff told ABC News’ Martha Raddatz on Sunday when asked if he’s seen proof of collusion.

In other words, Democrats have nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Schiff is one one of the main whiners in the Dem party about collusion, and has access to all the classified information surrounding this partisan, manufactured talking point. He goes on to whine

“I can say that there’s enough that we ought to be investigation,” Schiff said Sunday.

“Indeed, it would be negligent for us not to investigate. If a foreign government…has something that they can hang over the head of our president or our administration that can influence U.S. policy, it is very much in our national security interest to know it.”

Yet, after all this time, they’ve found nothing, and sure haven’t told the American Public anything that would show that this partisan hackery investigation is warranted. At this point, it is almost fully a witch hunt and fishing expedition, one which would be shut down if it was against any private citizen. You can bet a group such as the ACLU would be filing lawsuits.

If Democrats have evidence, show it. Otherwise, move on. If Congressional Republicans had an cajones, they’d shut this down. You can bet everything on the fact that if the situation was reversed, Democrats would shut things down against a Democratic president. This is nothing more than a shiny object for the leftist media to drum up scandal and whip up the Democrat base into foaming mouth breathers.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Excitable Adam Schiff (D-Ca) Admits There’s No Proof Of Collusion »

Pirate's Cove