…is the need for a breathing mask from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Small Dead Animals, with a post on key Democrats saying the base needs to cool it on Russia.
Read: If All You See… »
…is the need for a breathing mask from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Small Dead Animals, with a post on key Democrats saying the base needs to cool it on Russia.
Read: If All You See… »
We were pretty sure how Fauxcahontas was going to vote on Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court. She’s just making it clear with a whiny meltdown
Neil Gorsuch does not belong on the Supreme Court
WHEN JUSTICE Antonin Scalia died last year, giant corporations and their right-wing buddies spent millions of dollars to keep the Supreme Court seat open so that Donald Trump could fill the vacancy. It was only the latest step in their campaign to tilt our courts in favor of big corporations and the wealthy. Now, the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court is their reward. Anyone who believes in a neutral Supreme Court guided by equal justice for all should oppose this nomination.
Right. Because they all knew Trump was going to win.
Over the past three decades — as the rich have gotten richer and middle-class families have been left behind — the scales of justice have been weighted further and further in favor of the wealthy and the powerful. That tilt is not an accident. It’s the result of a deliberate strategy by powerful interests to turn our courts over to the highest bidder.
That’s funny, because Liz backed a woman who refused to release her Wall Street speeches to some of the biggest banks around. And let’s not forget Liz’s own rank hypocrisy on the rich.
At the core of this strategy is an all-out attack on fair-minded, mainstream judges. A prime example is the unprecedented blockade of Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court — a consensus nominee praised by Republicans and Democrats alike as a thoughtful, intelligent, and fair judge. None of that mattered for powerful right-wing groups that decided that Garland’s record did not reflect a sufficient willingness to bow down to the interests of the wealthy few. So they poured millions into a public smear campaign to stop his confirmation and leave the seat open.
Elections have consequences, honey.
On the bench, [Gorsuch’s] judicial decisions show a remarkable ability to shape and re-shape legal arguments in ways that benefit large corporations and disadvantage ordinary people seeking justice. In the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores case, when he had to choose between the “rights†of corporations and the rights of women, Gorsuch sided with corporations. In consumer protection cases, when he had to choose between the “rights†of corporations and the rights of swindled consumers, Gorsuch sided with corporations. In discrimination cases, when he had to choose between the “rights†of corporations and the rights of employees to be free from harassment and abuse, Gorsuch sided with corporations.
In other words, Neil followed The Law and The Constitution, rather than being a Social Justice Warrior.
At a moment when the awesome power of the presidency is in the hands of someone who has shown contempt for our Constitution, our independent judiciary, our free press, and the principles that make our nation a beacon of democracy, this decision is more consequential than at any time in recent history. We cannot stand down when the president of the United States attempts to hand our highest court over to the highest bidder. And that is why I believe Judge Gorsuch’s nomination should be blocked.
Good luck with that, honey. Perhaps people who have lied on their applications to gain preferential treatment should resign.
Why yes, yes these people are deranged. Sadly, this is where the Cult of Climastrology is going, making people nutty
I’m worried having a baby will make climate change worse
Part of my motivation for becoming a climate scientist was my grave worries for our future and my desire to make a positive contribution. In today’s world, this isn’t straightforward.
Earlier this year, I wrote publicly of my qualms around desiring children. I have always loved children and always wanted children in my own life. At the same time, among my friends and colleagues, such ordinary desires are increasingly accompanied by long, complex conversations about the ethics of such aspirations.
Children born today face a dramatically different climate future than their parents did.A child born today is a child of a changing – and extreme – global climate. The decision to have a child is a decision to exacerbate such climate extremes.
We collectively recycle, switch off lights, install LEDs and chose green energy providers. But such measures are more than negated by a decision to have children; having a child in Australia is an ongoing commitment to a high carbon future.

Older climate scientists speak widely about their worries for their grandchildren and the world they have provided them. While such concerns must weigh on older minds, younger climate scientists’ future concerns require active deliberation. Should we have children? And if we do, how do we raise them in a world of change and inequity? Can I reconcile my care and concern for the future with such an active and deliberate pursuit of a child?
Put simply, I can’t. Nowadays, the pitter-patter of tiny feet is inevitably the pitter-patter of giant carbon footprints. Reusable nappies, a bike trailer and secondhand jumpsuits might make me feel like I’m taking individual action but they will achieve little. A child born today is inevitably a consumer and, most significantly, is a consumer of greenhouse gases.
So, having a baby is pretty much doom. Total and complete doom. It will destroy the planet.
Yet, get this: the writer, “climate scientist” Dr. Sophie Lewis is going to have a baby. She even admits that her motivation is purely selfish. But, hey, this is the norm for Warmists. Someone Else must be forced to practice what they preach. Rarely do they do more than make token changes in their own lives.
Read: People Should Have Long, Complex Conversations On The Climate Ethics Of Having A Baby Or Something »
It’s hard to be sure what was going through the minds of the Editorial Board of the NY Times in calling for a crackdown of employers of those unlawfully present in the United States. Perhaps it was a typical kneejerk opposition to Donald Trump. Perhaps they’d been drinking too much. Regardless, once you get beyond the Trump Derangement Syndrome within the editorial, the idea is sound, and what I and so many others have been saying since this issue became serious in the post 9/11 world
No Crackdown on Illegal Employers
President Trump began his campaign assailing immigrants as ruthless lawbreakers who steal American jobs with impunity. To halt them, he has vowed to build a wall along the border with Mexico, hire thousands of new immigration agents, ramp up immigrant detention and subject visa applicants to even more rigorous vetting. His administration has been largely silent, however, about the strongest magnet that has drawn millions of immigrants, legal and not, to the United States for generations: jobs.
American employers continue to assume relatively little risk by hiring undocumented immigrants to perform menial, backbreaking work, often for little pay. Meanwhile, as Mr. Trump’s deportation crackdown accelerates, families are being ripped apart, and communities of hard-working immigrants with deep roots in this country are gripped by fear and uncertainty. As long as employers remain off the hook, a border wall and an expanded dragnet can only make temporary dents in the flows of undocumented immigrants.
One has to wonder where this concern was during the Obama era. But, really, employers do get busted here and there. It just doesn’t make the news like an illegal alien murdering someone. That said, the penalties are not as strong as they could be. The civil and criminal penalties for knowingly employing an illegal alien should be so painful that few would dare employ them.
Along these same lines, illegals should not be allowed to attend schools, either. Certainly, our education system attracts illegals. You can bet that the NY Times Editorial Board won’t agree with that. Colleges are supposed to use the E Verify system, as well.
Anyhow, the NYTEB discusses what happened post 1986 amnesty, where they was supposed to be a system in place to make sure businesses didn’t hire illegals as a way to discourage them from coming to Los Estados Unidos.
If all had gone as planned, the nation’s population of unauthorized immigrants would have remained small and manageable. Instead, it ballooned to more than 11 million over the years, even as the government vastly beefed up border security and deportations. The main reason: Employer enforcement has been spotty, giving rise to the institutionalization of a wink-and-nod approach to hiring unauthorized workers. The government has sanctioned and prosecuted relatively few employers, because proving that employers willfully hired undocumented workers is hard and because powerful industries have pushed back on initiatives to hold employers accountable.
Let’s not forget that one of those “powerful industries” is actually the Democratic Party, which has done all it can to protect illegals, and another is a goodly chunk of the Credentialed Media, including the NY Times. The editorial goes on to recommend the use of the E Verify system, and notes that Mr. Trump’s budget only ask for a paltry $15 million for it. They have a point. While increased deportations and more visible detainments make illegals think twice about coming to the U.S., and causes many to leave on their own, making it extremely difficult for them to gain employment will do even more.
Of course, there is an ulterior goal of the NYTEB
The takeaway is clear. While it has become politically expedient to malign and scapegoat immigrants, Mr. Trump and Republican lawmakers across the country recognize that finding a way to excise them systematically from payrolls would have a crippling effect on several industries. The only long-term solution to this conundrum is returning to the bipartisan consensus that enabled the 1986 bill. This would require giving millions of undocumented immigrants the ability to earn citizenship, then developing a uniform system to verify employment eligibility, and more rigorously prosecuting employers who evade it.
Barring that form of comprehensive reform, American taxpayers will continue bankrolling an expensive, heartless crackdown on immigrants for years on end. Meanwhile, employers will continue to quietly reap the benefits of immigrant labor while looking the other way.
And that’s where my agreement ends. Especially since the editorial spent paragraphs noting how amnesty happened in 1986 then everything that was supposed to be done to dissuade illegals and crack down on employers didn’t. If we are going to look at any sort of legalization path (my personal preference would be for permanent legal status: they should not be given the right to vote), then the penalties and crackdowns and security should happen first. And Congress should dramatically increase the penalties for knowingly employing an illegal alien.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: NY Times: There Needs To Be A Crackdown On Illegal Alien Employers »
The science is totally settled, y’all!
EDITORIAL: Stop debating climate change
Climate change deniers have been newly empowered by the presence of one of their own in the White House. But that doesn’t make their paranoid theories about grand conspiracies and scientific hoaxes any less wrong.
What it does do, however, is give them far more power to impose their minority will on the masses — and endanger our environment and our future in the process. Republicans, meanwhile, seem far too willing to go along for the ride, regardless of the consequences.
The GOP needs more representatives like New Jersey Rep. Frank LoBiondo, who isn’t willing to play that game anymore. Earlier this week he introduced a resolution warning that pointless climate-change debates are only distracting from meaningful policy considerations.
“It is far past time we moved beyond the debate from if our climate is changing — it is — to identifying and promoting solutions to mitigate potentially catastrophic effects,†the resolution read in part.
He’s exactly right, even if not enough if his colleagues will listen.
So, stop debating, because no one ever debates science.
But if there’s room for debate on how best to balance all of the economic and environmental interests related to climate change, President Trump doesn’t bother with such nuance. He blames climate change hysteria on Democrats, the Chinese, the media, and whatever other enemies he may feel like targeting at a given moment. Denial in his mind helps open the door to gutting the Environmental Protection Agency, easing pollution restrictions, minimizing renewable energy initiatives and taking countless other steps designed to benefit business at the expense of our air, our water and our wildlife.
First, cutting ‘climate change’ programs has nothing do to with clean air, land, and water, and wildlife couldn’t care less about a few more parts per million of CO2.
Second, if the science is so settled, then why do all these programs still need to be funded?
Read: Asbury Park Press Totally Wants People To Stop Debating Hotcoldwetdry »
…is a world both drying out from carbon pollution, creating sand everywhere, and flooding, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post noting that Liberals should be pleased with immigration enforcement.
It’s geek girl week!
Read: If All You See… »

Happy Sunday! Another great day in America. The Sun is shining, the squirrels are squirreling, liberals are melting down. This pinup is by an unknown painter, with a wee bet of an addition.
What is happening in Ye Olde Blogphere? The Fine 15
As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets†calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me
Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!
Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.
Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »
Perhaps California should rethink it’s policies on being a haven for illegals and they wouldn’t have to be quite concerned with seeing this policy cut
(LA Times) For all of the unprecedented elements of President Trump’s federal budget plans, there’s an item buried in the list of detailed spending cuts that has a familiar, contentious political legacy in California.
Trump has proposed canceling federal government subsidies to states that house prisoners and inmates who are in the U.S. illegally. He’s not the first president to try it, and undoubtedly will get an earful from states like California.
For sheer bravado, the award for defending that subsidy probably goes to former Gov. Pete Wilson. In a letter sent to federal officials in 1995, two days after Christmas, Wilson threatened to drop off one of the state’s undocumented prisoners — in shackles, no less — on the doorstep of a federal jail. (He never actually did it.)
The opening makes it seem as if it is all subsidies. No
Wilson had won a second term the year before, with a blistering campaign attacking illegal immigration. His time in office was also marked by persistent state budget problems, and the money mattered. The state never got as much as it wanted, though, and years of squabbles followed over the fate of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, established as part of the sweeping immigration reforms of 1986.
Just one program. Getting rid of it will save, according to Trump’s budget, $210 million. It may not seem much, in terms of the overall federal budget, but, in practical terms, that money is real, big, and can reduce the load on taxpayers. If California wants to be welcoming to illegal aliens, well, they can expect the really bad ones to come with the so-called good. And that’s what has happened, depending on which report you read, anywhere from 1/3rd to 1/2 of all state prisoners are illegal
Want to take a guess which state gets the most? OK, that’s an easy one.
California’s state government received $44.1 million in the 2015 federal budget year, according to Justice Department data. Add to that another $12.8 million that was paid directly to California counties, with the largest local subsidy being the $3 million paid to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
More than one-third of the entire program went to California. No other state’s share was even close. A win on this issue for the president would be particularly bitter for the state, where political animosity toward Trump is widespread.
In other words, California hates Trump, so, why should he care about California? The state made its bed by being soft on illegals, now it can deal with the fall out.
Realistically, the program will most likely survive, as it has every other time someone wants to cut it. But, it’s good to see California whine.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: Bummer: Trump Plans To Cancel Illegal Alien Program California Depends On »
…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle causing the grass to die, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Political Clown Parade, with a post noting the name of Chelsea Clinton’s new book.
Read: If All You See… »
The Editorial Board of the NJ Star Ledger was either drinking too much on St Patty’s Day, or they’re a bit unhinged
Deranged man attacks climate change funding with budget ax
Donald Trump’s effort to kill nearly one-third of the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s budget, including climate research, and all climate funds to the United Nations leaves no doubt about where we, as a nation, stand.
In the shadow of a madman. How else to describe a President who in one moment says he loves clean water and air, and the next vows “get rid of” the very agency charged with protecting them, “in almost every form”?
Madman!!!!! Elections have consequences, Snowflakes. I wonder what the carbon footprint is of the Star Ledger, as well as the individual EB members.
It guts the agency, ending programs to lower domestic greenhouse gas emissions, slashing diplomatic efforts to slow climate change and funding for climate research.
If Trump is sending liberals into this much apoplexy, he must be doing something right.
Of course, it doesn’t really gut the agency, mostly just climate change idiocy, but, giving us the facts would damage The Narrative.
Read: Some Dems Aren’t Taking Trump’s Budget To Well Regarding Hotcoldwetdry »