17 States Challenge Trump Over ‘Climate Change’ Policy Or Something

By William Teach April 6, 2017 – 2:12 pm

If only there was something all these Democrat run states could do, like raise taxes and fees on their citizens, force them into cities, force them out of their private fossil fueled vehicles and onto mass transit, raise taxes and fee, require citizens to pay for and install solar and wind, shut down non-“renewable” power plants, raise taxes and fees…

(UK Guardian) A coalition of 17 US states filed a legal challenge on Wednesday against efforts by Donald Trump’s administration to roll back climate change regulations, deepening a political rift over his emerging energy policies.

Led by New York state, the coalition said the administration has a legal duty to regulate emissions of the gases scientists believe cause global climate change.

“The law is clear: the EPA must limit carbon pollution from power plants,” New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman said in a statement announcing the challenge.

That would be the same Schneiderman who is using his Power to assault private companies and think tanks for Wrongthink on anthropogenic climate change, wanting them to release tons of communications and documents, while, at the same time, refusing to release his own communications and documents.

However, the law doesn’t state anything about CO2 emissions: just some court rulings and made up regulations from EPA.

The coalition includes attorneys general from California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington –- along with the District of Columbia and a number of smaller localities.

So, why don’t those states implement the measures for their individual states that Trump is getting rid of for federal policy? No one is stopping them. Trump won’t stop them. He’ll laugh when their economies tank and citizens abandon those states and move to Republican states. But, see, Warmists don’t want to implement all these things in their own lives: they want to force them on Everyone Else. And do it by increasing the size, scope, and power of the central government.

Read: 17 States Challenge Trump Over ‘Climate Change’ Policy Or Something »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | Comments Off on 17 States Challenge Trump Over ‘Climate Change’ Policy Or Something | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 6, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…are horrible meat hotdogs, causing the temperature to spike in the future, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on Obamacare collapsing.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Rep. Nydia Velázquez Attempting To Ban Federal Officers From Wearing “Police” On Uniforms

By William Teach April 6, 2017 – 8:15 am

Why? Because Democrats are more worried about people who are unlawfully present in the United States, and, in particular, the ones ICE targets, who are mostly those who have committed further crimes, than they are about those who are lawfully present

Law would bar immigration agents from having ‘police’ on uniforms

Federal immigration officers would be barred from wearing the word “police” on their uniforms under new legislation to help undocumented immigrants distinguish between the NYPD and deportation agents.

Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-Brooklyn) said she’ll introduce legislation Thursday to address growing fears immigrant communities have of federal immigration and border patrol agents.

“Not only are ICE raids an unconscionable attack on our most vulnerable communities, any attempt by immigration officers to deceivingly pose as local police ought to be prohibited,” Velázquez said in a statement.

Valazquez is federal representative, so, she is attempting to make this law for all the land. Quite frankly, Republicans should allow her to bring this to the House floor for debate and a vote, in order to put Democrats on record as supporting illegal alien criminals. Ones like these

(Washington Examiner) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested 82 illegal immigrants in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area as part of in a five-day sting that concluded March 30, according to a press release Wednesday.

The standard enforcement operation targeted criminal aliens, illegal re-entrants and immigration fugitives. Virginia topped Maryland and the District of Columbia with the highest number of arrests at 79. D.C. followed with two arrests, while only one Maryland resident was taken into custody.

About 80 percent of the arrestees have been convicted of criminal offenses in addition to illegally residing in the country, including crimes like armed robbery, larceny and drug distribution. The other 14 people were seized for ties to the MS-13 gang, outstanding deportation orders, overstaying visas, being wanted by a foreign law enforcement organization, being a verified human rights violator.

The illegals were from 26 different countries, and not just Mexico and Latin American ones. They were also from China, Iran, and Sudan, among others. Even New Zealand was represented. ICE targeted other areas of the country, such as in Texas.

Meanwhile, the 3rd edition of the Declined Detainer Outcome Report has been released, and features the usual suspects refusing immigration holds on people who have committed serious crimes. Why are Democrats defending criminals?

Read: Rep. Nydia Velázquez Attempting To Ban Federal Officers From Wearing “Police” On Uniforms »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Senate Expected To “Go Nuclear” Regarding Gorsuch Confirmation Today

By William Teach April 6, 2017 – 7:51 am

Negotiations to avert having to implement the nuclear option Harry Reid option

collapsed, so, now we’re going to get this

(The Hill) Senate Republicans are expected to trigger the “nuclear option” on Thursday, eliminating the minority party’s power to filibuster Supreme Court nominees.

The historic vote will ensure the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s pick for the high court, preserving a conservative majority that had been in doubt after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death early last year.

If all goes as expected, Gorsuch will receive a final confirmation vote Friday.

It appears as if the Senate will attempt a vote to end debate and move forward with the final vote on Gorsuch. If Democrats continue to filibuster and/or vote to continue debate, McConnell will trigger the Reid Option.

Some Republicans are suggesting that the rules be changed further in order to speed up confirmation of Trump’s nominees.

Who’s to blame? Both parties. Why? Because this is politics. It’s a dirty game. It has always been a dirty game. Democrats can say it’s because of Republicans blocking Merrick Garland. Republicans can say they were just applying the Biden Rule. Dems can say that Republicans attempted to gum up the works on Obama’s nominees. Republicans can say that Dems did the same on Bush’s nominees.

It’s politics. It hasn’t gotten more hardcore: it’s just that more people are “involved” with all the social media and 24 hour cable news stations.

Cloture has long been a part of the Senate rules. Originally, it required two-thirds. That was changed in 1975 by….Senate Democrats, who instituted a three-fifths option. Remember, none of this is required by the Constitution. The Constitution allows for the Senate to set its own rules, but, still only requires a simple majority for votes. Which, interestingly, some Liberals have argued as being against democracy because it gives smaller states (that Democrats do not control) as much power as big states (that Dems do control).

Anyhow, perhaps this does mean that Congressional Republicans are finally stiffening their spines. For so long they have been cowed into doing what the Democrats want with little fight-back. Will they continue to have spine? Time will tell.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Senate Expected To “Go Nuclear” Regarding Gorsuch Confirmation Today »

Posted in Constitution, Current Affairs | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Could The Border Wall Be Going Green?

By William Teach April 5, 2017 – 3:20 pm

I’m no fan of a long, long border wall. In certain areas, sure. I prefer other methods, part of which are way more border patrol agents. But, hey, if we’re going to have one, why not do this?

(CNS News)  Gen. Jack Kelly, the secretary of homeland security, told Congress on Wednesday there’s “no way” he can estimate how much President Trump’s long-promised border wall will cost.

“I mean, I don’t know what it will be made of; I don’t know how high it will be; I don’t know if it’s going to have solar panels on the side, what one side’s going to look like and how it’s going to be painted — I have no idea. So I can’t give you any type of an estimate.

Now, Gen. Kelly might have been responding to a question from a Congresscritter, I’m not finding anything more concrete. Plenty of articles mentioning the quote, but, not what might have precipitated it. But, would it be a bad idea to have solar panels on the wall? Why not use it for energy production, part of which could be used for cameras, lights, etc?

It’d be hilarious if enviroweenies were protesting the emplacement of solar panels, wouldn’t it?

Jazz Shaw points at that some contractors are making bids that would include solar panels. And aesthetically pleasing art. And decking.

General Kelly also stated

“The barriers work. Technology also works. But all of it doesn’t work at all unless you have men and women who are willing to patrol the border, develop relationships which they do with their Mexican counterparts directly across the border.”

He seems to be a fan more of manpower than walls/fences along the entire border.

Read: Could The Border Wall Be Going Green? »

Posted in Current Affairs, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 5, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a fence needed to keep out all the wild animals driven from their homes due to carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Maggie’s Farm, with a post on Wednesday Morning Links.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

ESPN Decides To Double Down On Social Justice Warrioring

By William Teach April 5, 2017 – 10:30 am

Because, as Kemberlee Kay at Legal Insurrection notes, “Because what viewers want is MORE politics in their sports…” And

Oh, so you just want to watch sports? Listen to people talk about sports? Hear stats about sports? You’d like to escape from the daily grind with sports? Uh uh uh

(ESPN) Stiegman said no single issue or incident led to the change, but Craig Bengtson, ESPN’s vice president and managing editor of newsgathering and reporting, said the nation’s tense political climate did play a role.

“We have the convergence of a politically charged environment and all these new technologies coming together at once,” he said. “Based on that, we wanted the policy to reflect the reality of the world today. There are people talking about politics in ways we have not seen before, and we’re not immune from that.”

And the changes?

The two most notable changes from the Political Advocacy policy are the delineation of guidelines between news and commentary, and allowing for increased political discussion on ESPN platforms, as warranted and connected to sports. This isn’t a surprising development, it’s just new.

“We wanted to err on the side of transparency and trust with our reporting,” Stiegman said, “but also give our columnists and commentators the freedom to discuss topics relevant to those sports fans who visit our platforms, even if the issues are political or social in nature.”

I turn into ESPN for, get this, sports. Or, at least, I used to. Now, the only time I watch ESPN is football games, when they broadcast the Dodgers, and some football programming on Sunday. Oh, and when it is on at the gym and I’m on the treadmill or stationary bike. Otherwise, there is little interest. They don’t show that much in relation to the NHL, Baseball Tonight has become lame, and I can see all the scores and replays either on the ‘net or on another sports channel. And lots of people are doing the same. As Kemberlee notes, ESPN is hemorrhaging more customers than people with Ebola hemorrhage blood.

I’m not interested in the the loud mouths, and, by loud mouths, I mean people TALKING REALLY, REALLY LOUD. Or speaking in Ebonics. Or by being Jim Rome clones (if I want to hear that, I’ll listen to Rome). Or the politics. If I want lefty politics, MSNBC is there. I have Spectrum News, Fox, MSNBC, Headline News, CNN, Bloomberg, CNBC, BBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, and plenty of others on the TV for news. I have the MLB channel, NFL Network, NHL channel, NBC Sports, CBS Sports, Fox Sports, Golf, and plenty of others for sports. I don’t need ESPN. I have no way of not paying for it, unless I ditch cable altogether.

And, let me be clear: if a sports channel was taking the Conservative side in discussing politics in sports, I wouldn’t watch them, either.

Can’t we just watch sports?

Read: ESPN Decides To Double Down On Social Justice Warrioring »

Posted in Sports, Unhinged Tools | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Is Climate Science Pseudo-science?

By William Teach April 5, 2017 – 7:55 am

An interesting post by co2 is life (via Climate Depot)

Climate “Science” is Pseudo-Science; A Point-by-Point Proof

The graphic says all that is needed, however, the article goes into further detail

Point 1) Climate Science started with the conclusion that man-made CO2 causes warming, and then set about to find anecdotal evidence to support that claim. Evidence of this is that none of the computer models can demonstrate that relationship, nor do any properly run experiments. Additionally, conflicting data like the N Pole losing ice and the S Pole gaining ice is simply glossed over, and the focus is directed towards the observation that favors the conclusion. Lastly, only the “adjusted” data sets show warming. If adjustments are made for the heat island effect and solar radiation, there is no notable warming. Long-term, consistent, continual thermometer data show no warming either.

Head over to read them all. If you can continue to state that climate science from Warmists is science, well, you’re too wrapped up in your narrow, cult-like, political views. And you still can’t prove that mankind’s release of CO2 is the cause of this warm period, which is a very mild warm period, compared to other Holocene warm periods.

Let’s consider the 2nd and last bullet points on the list, hostile towards criticism and dogmatic and unyielding. Remember when I told you that science teachers were being sent a book on skeptical climate science?

(Washington Times) Three ranking House Democrats on Monday urged teachers to throw away copies of a book written by climate scientists challenging the catastrophic global-warming view, saying the nation’s schools are “inappropriate” forums for such a discussion.

The Democratic blast at “climate deniers” came in response to a campaign by the conservative Heartland Institute to distribute free DVDs and copies of the 2015 book, “Why Climate Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” to about 200,000 K-12 science teachers.

Science should be open. Scientists should be willing to consider alternative viewpoints. It doesn’t mean they have to adopt them, but, if they’re afraid they might conflict with their current beliefs, so they shouldn’t even be considered, then those scientific beliefs are not science, they are politics and psuedo-religious.

Read: Is Climate Science Pseudo-science? »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

California Senate Approves Bill Making State An Illegal Alien Sanctuary

By William Teach April 5, 2017 – 7:39 am

In the latest ICE Declined Detainer Outcome Report, we see illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes such as domestic violence, assault, burglary, cruelty towards a child, and drug possession. On the previous one, we see arson, DUI, cruelty towards wife, forgery, along with similar crimes on the first.

(CNN) In defiance of President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, the California Senate passed a bill to limit state and local police cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Senate Bill 54, which unofficially has been called a “sanctuary state” bill, bars state and local law enforcement agencies from using their resources, including money, facility, property, equipment or personnel, to help with immigration enforcement. They would be prohibited from asking about immigration status, giving federal immigration authorities access to interview a person in custody or assisting them in immigration enforcement.

The bill passed the Senate in a 27-12 vote along party lines with Democrats in support and Republicans in opposition.

SB 54 heads to the California State Assembly, where Democrats hold a super majority. If it passes there, the bill would go to Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown.

Its author, Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León hailed SB 54’s passage on Monday as “a rejection of President Trump’s false and cynical portrayal of undocumented residents as a lawless community.”

All those crimes mentioned at the beginning of this post? They are all committed by people who are unlawfully present in the United States who were released back into society by California municipalities/counties rather than holding them briefly for ICE to take them into custody. What happened to illegal alien supporters stating that they don’t want the bad ones here?

Well, California wants to double down on the policies that release convicted illegal alien criminals back into society to commit more crimes, because of their deranged anti-Trump beliefs, and, lets face it, because liberals mostly support illegal alien criminals. Refusing to give federal authorities access to illegals? Remember when we were told that States have to listen to the feds during the SB1070 debate, the Arizona illegal alien law?

What Mr. Trump should do if this law makes it to Jerry Brown’s desk and he signs it, he should say “fine. We’ll allow you to deal with it. And we won’t send out federal authorities to help you out with anything. You’re on your own. And, since ICE won’t bother with California, all illegals should go there to be protected.” It’d be fun watching California collapse as illegals stream into the state more than they already are.

The bill even states that the feds wouldn’t be notified prior to an illegal being released from incarceration for committing a crime. So, apparently, the whole talking point about not wanting the bad ones is a lie.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: California Senate Approves Bill Making State An Illegal Alien Sanctuary »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

EPA Head Scott Pruitt Could Be In Trouble For Wrongthink

By William Teach April 4, 2017 – 2:34 pm

Some get upset when I refer to anthropogenic climate change believers as being part of a cult. Part of being a member of a cult is refusing to allow any divergent viewpoints, while sticking with a narrow, rigid dogma that they’ll use to persecute non-believers

EPA head Scott Pruitt may have broken integrity rules by denying global warming

Well, this is a new one.

Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is under investigation by his own agency for misstating the basic scientific consensus on human-caused global warming.

Turns out that providing misguiding scientific information to the public isn’t a cool thing to do, after all — even in the Trump administration.

Why?

But Pruitt may have crossed a legal line when, during an interview on March 9 with CNBC’s “Squawk Box” morning show, he denied the reality of human-caused climate change, contradicting findings published on his own agency’s website.

“I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” Pruitt said, when asked if he thinks carbon dioxide emissions are the main “control knob” on the planet’s climate.

Wrongthink! How dare anyone disagree with the scientific political consensus?

The policy also states that policy makers “… Shall not knowingly misrepresent, exaggerate, or downplay areas of scientific uncertainty associated with policy decisions.”

Of course, what Pruitt did is the opposite: he acknowledged there’s a scientific uncertainty. And committed Wrongthink. Which, in Warmist World, is an offense requiring jail time.

Really, if the Cult of Climastrology was so certain of it’s conclusions, they wouldn’t be afraid to debate, nor to attempt to persecute people with differing views.

Read: EPA Head Scott Pruitt Could Be In Trouble For Wrongthink »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 12 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove