If All You See…

By William Teach February 8, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a world flooded by carbon pollution from Other People, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post explaining why Elizabeth Fauxahontas Warren was smacked down in the Senate.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Will The GOP Use Rule 19 To Push Through Gorsuch To Supreme Court?

By William Teach February 8, 2017 – 10:30 am

Rule 19 is more than just a way to shut down Senators who are being disrespectful to colleagues, as Elizabeth Warren learned Tuesday, as Sean Davis explains. It’s a way to keep debate without invoking the nuclear option. The two speech rule, a way to stop continuous filibusters which can stop Senate business

(Federalist) However, this state of affairs is not actually required by Senate rules, nor by Senate precedents (to understand the distinction between the two, think of Senate rules as a statute and of precedents as case law, which can invalidate laws as originally written). The modern practice of allowing 41 senators to indefinitely obstruct up-or-down votes under the guise of debate is just that: a mere practice, indulged by courtesy. No precedents or rules require this state of affairs to continue. By enforcing Senate rules regarding debate — specifically Rule XIX — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can guarantee an up-or-down vote on Supreme Court nominees without resorting to the nuclear option, which would kill the filibuster and instantly eliminate all debate at the whim of a simple majority.

Rule XIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate plainly states that on any given question, a senator may speak only twice on the same legislative day. This clause is known in Senate parlance as the two-speech rule. No senator may speak more than two times on the same matter on the same legislative day. Here’s the relevant text from the rule:

OK, you can head over to read the whole thing, as well as that relevant text. What it all means is that Mitch McConnell can keep the Senate in the same “day” for days, weeks, even months. Once people have spoken twice, he can force a simple majority vote, and no filibuster can stop it. This was actually used to pass the Civil Rights Act over the (mostly Democrat Senators) filibuster, when the legislative day ended up being 81 days long

Davis wraps it up with

The two-speech rule option provides the best of all worlds by addressing the concerns of both sides of the Supreme Court nomination debate. Instead of nuking debate, the two-speech rule option merely nukes obstruction. And it does so by encouraging debate and by encouraging the input of every single senator.

Current Senate practice empowers a lazy minority by allowing indefinite obstruction without requiring any effort or debate. If voters want a confirmation process that simultaneously encourages debate while limiting obstruction, they should demand that the Senate set the nuclear option aside and invoke the two-speech rule option instead.

That’s a powerful point. Force debate. Of course, Democrats won’t actually debate, they’ll smear and lie and try all sorts of shenanigans. But, Rule 19 will eventually force them to vote.

Read: Will The GOP Use Rule 19 To Push Through Gorsuch To Supreme Court? »

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

Are You Ready For Yet Another Conservative Case For Climate Action?

By William Teach February 8, 2017 – 8:22 am

Here we go again: yet another plan to deal with anthropogenic climate change/global warming/we’re doomed!!!!!!!! from a supposedly Conservative point of view. A plan that proves that some Republicans aren’t Conservative in the least, especially when they go running to the NY Times for validation

A Conservative Case for Climate Action

CRAZY as it may sound, this is the perfect time to enact a sensible policy to address the dangerous threat of climate change. Before you call us nuts, hear us out.

Yeah, it does sound crazy. Several paragraphs are spent yammering on about how Obama did his climate schtick via regulation, and how Trump has promised to reduce regulations.

On-again-off-again regulation is a poor way to protect the environment. And by creating needless uncertainty for businesses that are planning long-term capital investments, it is also a poor way to promote robust economic growth.

By contrast, an ideal climate policy would reduce carbon emissions, limit regulatory intrusion, promote economic growth, help working-class Americans and prove durable when the political winds change. We have laid out such a plan in a paper to be released Wednesday by the Climate Leadership Council.

How will they do this? First, let’s see who these so-called Conservatives are

Our co-authors include James A. Baker III, Treasury secretary for President Ronald Reagan and secretary of state for President George H. W. Bush; Henry M. Paulson Jr., Treasury secretary for President George W. Bush; George P. Shultz, Treasury secretary for President Richard Nixon and secretary of state for Mr. Reagan; Thomas Stephenson, a partner at Sequoia Capital, a venture-capital firm; and Rob Walton, who recently completed 23 years as chairman of Walmart.

Let’s see this plan

First, the federal government would impose a gradually increasing tax on carbon dioxide emissions. It might begin at $40 per ton and increase steadily. This tax would send a powerful signal to businesses and consumers to reduce their carbon footprints.

Yup, government increasing taxes on the private sector and citizens to control their behavior is certainly conservative, amIright?

Second, the proceeds would be returned to the American people on an equal basis via quarterly dividend checks. With a carbon tax of $40 per ton, a family of four would receive about $2,000 in the first year. As the tax rate rose over time to further reduce emissions, so would the dividend payments.

Making citizens more reliant on government is certainly conservative, right? Do the math: the average carbon footprint for each American is over 19 metric tons. So, a family of four would be charged $3,040 to start out, meaning they are paying more in fees/taxes, which doesn’t even account for all the cost of living increases caused by this plan. This is actually the sleight of hand that is being pushed by many hardcore leftist Warmists, such as James Hansen.

The third point is about rebates and taxes on imports and exports, followed by one on repealing regulations made unnecessary by this massive tax and control policy, including the Clean Power Plan.

Republicans are in charge of both Congress and the White House. If they do nothing other than reverse regulations from the Obama administration, they will squander the opportunity to show the full power of the conservative canon, and its core principles of free markets, limited government and stewardship.

It bears repeating: conservative canon doesn’t include raising taxes, which causes a cost of living increase, while increasing the power of the central government over citizens while also making them more dependent on centralized government.

Much better would be a strategy of “repeal and replace.” This would be pro-growth, pro-competitiveness and pro-working class, which aligns perfectly with President Trump’s stated agenda.

This is all pro-bullshit.

Read: Are You Ready For Yet Another Conservative Case For Climate Action? »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Majority Of Democrats Feel Other Religions As Violent As Islam

By William Teach February 8, 2017 – 7:45 am

Democrats always look for some sort of equivalence when they attempt to protect the subsection of Islam which is increasingly violent in the name of Islam. Further, they are quick to blame all of Christianity, Judaism, etc, when something happens, while claiming that any attack by someone yelling “Allahu Akbar!” has nothing to do with Islam. So, we end up with this

(Breitbart) Almost seven out 10 Democrats believe Islam “encourages violence… about the same as other religions,” according to a new CBS poll.

The trusting attitude towards Islam is revealed in the February 2017 poll follows 17 tumultuous years of attacks against Americans motivated or shaped by Islamic ideology throughout the United States—from the 9/11 atrocity to the Pulse nightclub attack in Florida committed by an observant, orthodox Muslim man from a Muslim family.

Merely one-in-seven Democrats believe that Islam is more violent than other religions, such as Christianity, Mormonism, Judaism, and Buddhism. One-in-ten Democrats believe that Islam is less violent that other religions, according to the poll of 1,019 adults, which was taken Feb. 1 and Feb. 2.

In contrast, Republicans have a far colder view of Islam. Sixty-three percent of Republicans view Islam as  aggressive compared to other religions, and only two percent view Islam as more pacific than other faiths.

The specific question asked in the survey was “Generally speaking, do you think the Islamic religion encourages violence more than other religions around the world, less than other religions around the world, or about the same as other religions around the world?” So, the answers are not as bad as they appear, but, this is really an extension of Democrat beliefs that are pro-Islam and anti-every other religion.

Now, is all of Islam violent? No. Of course not. Democrats will make the case that other religions are all equally violent, because crime occurs. They’ll look and say something like “Dylann Roof is a Christian, hence, Christianity is violent!” Here’s the difference: most Christians (and Jews, Buddhists, Mormons, etc) are not committing violence in the name of their religion or as pushed by their religion. Roof didn’t commit murder as pushed by the Bible. The Bible would tell him not to do it. He wasn’t praising God will committing mass murder. They aren’t committing terrorist acts in the name of Jesus and Jehovah. Hardcore radical Islamists are doing it in the name of Islam, Allah, and Mohammad.

They are also doing things like honor killings, throwing gays from roofs, setting people on fire, stoning gays and women, making women 2nd class citizens, whipping women who have been raped, and so much more as told by the Koran, usually explained to them via the Islamic teachers and leaders, including those in the Mosques.

Democrats don’t get it, and don’t want to get it. For whatever reason, they’ve decided to put hardcore extremist Islam on a pedestal, most likely due to early 2000’s Bush Derangement Syndrome, even though Islamism stands against just about everything Democrats say they support, and is competing for authoritarian control the same as the Democrats.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Majority Of Democrats Feel Other Religions As Violent As Islam »

Posted in Democrats, RoP | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

Protesting Enviroweenies Prove Just How Much They Really Care

By William Teach February 7, 2017 – 5:48 pm

Does this really shock and/or surprise you?

Sanitation crews work to remove massive amounts of garbage from DAPL protest camp before spring thaw

Last week, we showed you all the garbage that was left by Dakota Access Pipeline protesters at the Oceti Sakowin Camp.

Now, we’re showing you where all that trash will end up.

Sanitation crews are working hard to dispose of six months’ worth of garbage from a community the size of Wahpeton or Valley City. The mountains of debris need to be moved before the spring thaw occurs.

Making a dent in the immense amount of trash being hauled out of the Oceti Sakowin protest camp is being hindered by the weather. All the garbage that was left behind is now frozen into massive chunks of junk.

In a month, all this trash could become toxic.

“Standing Rock Environmental Protection Agency and Dakota Sanitation are working together to try and advert an environmental tragedy,” says Tom Doering, Morton County Emergency Manager.

They estimate it will take 250 trucks to clean up the environmental mess these little Social Justice Warriors slash environmentalists slash climate change believers have left behind.

Having trouble copying code for the video, head to the link to check the report out.

Read: Protesting Enviroweenies Prove Just How Much They Really Care »

Posted in Enviroweenies | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 7, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a pond that is shrinking from carbon pollution heat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Bizzy Blog, with a post on a law introduced to protect doctors who don’t want to do abortions.

I forgot to mention that that it is Blondes Week. And, remember, all IAYS posts are open to whatever you want to discuss.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Kids TV Shows Are Ignoring ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach February 7, 2017 – 10:30 am

Can’t we just let kids be kids? Is it necessary to indoctrinate them into believing certain political issues? In Liberal World, the answer is no, as Slate tries to out-Salon Salon

Kids’ TV Is Ignoring Climate Change
Shows like Nature Cat and Sid the Science Kid teach children everything about wildlife and the environment—with one glaring exception.

A cheetah can run 70 miles per hour. Venus and Earth are about the same size. Blobfish don’t have any bones.

These are facts I’ve learned from my 5-year-old in the past several weeks courtesy of the science- and nature-themed television shows he loves: Wild Kratts, Nature Cat, Blaze and the Monster Machines, and Octonauts. He is an erupting volcano of scientific trivia right now, so I was surprised the other day when I mentioned climate change and he said: “What’s that?”

After a few more questions, I discovered that he’s never heard any of his favorite science shows mention climate change or global warming. Which is strange, because according to overwhelming scientific consensus, climate change is one of the most important environmental issues of our time. It affects wildlife, natural resources, weather, and human health, all of which are regularly discussed on kids’ shows. My son can tell you everything you ever wanted to know about red pandas, except for the fact that their very existence is being threatened by the changing climate.

This is such a Huge Issue that

I know better than to trust a 5-year-old’s memory, of course, so I reached out to PBS Kids, Nickelodeon, and Disney Junior to see if there was any truth to his claim.

Yes, Warmists are this nutty. This is the garbage that they think is Important. Melinda Werner Moyer is the parenting advice columnist for Slate. Really, do you want parenting advice from someone who is unhinged?

Read: Bummer: Kids TV Shows Are Ignoring ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | Comments Off on Bummer: Kids TV Shows Are Ignoring ‘Climate Change’ | Trackback URL

House Committee Moves Forward With Investigation Into NOAA Climate Manipulation

By William Teach February 7, 2017 – 8:24 am

Members of the Cult of Climastrology will complain about the politicization of science, their typical complaint when government investigates what Warmists are doing, forgetting that government, which is funding a goodly chunk of the research, has every right to investigate what they are funding. Warmists also conveniently forget that they have already politicized the issue, and want the exact same government to ram laws, rules, and regulations down the throats of citizens

(Daily Caller) House lawmakers will renew their long-dormant investigation into the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on the heels of whistleblower testimony that agency scientists rushed a landmark global warming study to influence policymakers.

“The chairman intends to push for responses to his initial requests,” an aide for the Committee on Science, Space and Technology told reporters on a press call Monday, “to uncover exactly what was going on” at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, the committee’s chairman, will “move forward as soon as possible” in asking NOAA to hand over documents included in a 2015 subpoena on potential climate data tampering.

The Warmists are in a bit of a pickle when it comes to all those emails the committee previously demanded

Smith’s investigation largely petered out in late 2015 after the Obama administration refused to hand over scientists’ emails regarding highly-publicized “Karl study,” named after its lead author Tom Karl. Democrats, environmentalists and science organizations joined forces to condemn Smith’s investigation.

Guess who’s no longer in charge? Neither is that lady everyone thought would win.

Over the weekend, Dr. John Bates, the former principal scientist at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., went public with complaints that NOAA scientists put a ‘thumb on the scale’ to get results that showed more global warming since 1998 — a period usually referred to as the “pause” in warming.

“The committee is going to push ahead to gather the emails from NOAA,” the aide said, signalling Smith preferred to see if NOAA would hand over documents the agency withheld from congressional investigators.

I mentioned Bates yesterday. It looks like Smith reads all the climate blogs, as well, because this is not something you will find in the Credentialed Media like the NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, et all.

Bates has put out a second blog post taking each criticism on one-by-one. Critics have yet to address issues of Karl study authors violating NOAA policy on archiving.

Warmists are going to learn that the government will no longer support their manipulation of data, falsifying of data, manufacturing of data, nor their activism.

Read: House Committee Moves Forward With Investigation Into NOAA Climate Manipulation »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Say, Is Trump’s Executive Order Temporarily Blocking People From Seven Nations Legal?

By William Teach February 7, 2017 – 8:03 am

The Washington Post gives it a try in determining whether the order is legal and Constitutional, pairing David B. Rivkin Jr., who practices appellate and constitutional law in the District and served in the Justice Department under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush against Karen Tumlin, who is the legal director for the National Immigration Law Center and the NILC Immigrant Justice Fund. Tumlin is the liberal in the discussion, and really highlights the idiocy of the Democrats in their thoughts

Is President Trump’s executive order constitutional?

Karen Tumlin: Hi, James and David, looking forward to having this discussion with you both on this important topic. (James Downie is the reporter/moderator)

The executive order has several legal problems. I would highlight two of the most serious. First, ours is a nation that was founded on the premise that individuals should be free from religious discrimination by the government. That principle is enshrined in our Constitution and prohibits the federal government from discriminating against or favoring any religious group. This executive order does both. By banning the entry of individuals with valid visas from seven majority-Muslim countries, there is no question that the executive order singles out Muslims for disfavored treatment. Equally questionable is the preference given to minority religions under the executive order for refugees. Practically, this favors the admission of Christians.

Second, the executive order also violates the bedrock legal principle of equal protection under our laws. That constitutional guarantee means that the federal government cannot discriminate against individuals based on what they believe (their religion) or where they were born, without adequate rationale.

Tumlin starts off on pure fallacy: the premise of being free from religious discrimination applies to citizens of this country, and those we have allowed in legally. It does not apply to foreign citizens in foreign nations. Of course, the actual language of the First Amendment isn’t about discrimination: it is about Congress creating a national religion embedded within the government, along with stopping the free practice of religion. I wonder if Tumlin had as much of a problem when Team Obama was discriminating against Christian beliefs with orders such as the one that makes religious people like nuns purchase insurance that has contraception and abortifacients. When Obama was bringing in mostly Muslims and very few Christians. When he deported a family of Christians back to Germany who wanted to home school their kids. When states were slamming people who are religious for refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings.

As to legal protection under the law, these foreign citizens in foreign nations are not under our protection. Our Constitution does not apply to them unless we choose to let them in. These are people outside of U.S. jurisdiction.

This is the slippery slope Leftists employ to get their way. They pick and choose what parts of the Constitution they like when they like it.

David B. Rivkin Jr.: Karen is jousting at a straw man. This executive order, by its very terms, does no more than suspend for 90 days entry for individuals from seven countries that have been identified as posing a heightened risk of terrorism and where the conditions on the ground do not allow for high-quality vetting. The language of the executive order aside, there are more than 50 Muslim-majority countries in the world, and the vast majority of them are not affected by this order.

In addition to the rewriting of the order, Karen ignores the fact that the statutory and constitutional authorities overwhelmingly support the president’s ability to issue such an executive order. First, Congress expressly granted the president broad discretionary and non-reviewable authority to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens . . . or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” if he finds that such an entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” This authority, by the way, has been utilized by numerous past presidents, including both Presidents Bush, President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama.

Rivkin continues smacking her around (misogynistic language!!!!!), and Tumlin keeps trotting down the road of discriminatory language, yada yada yada. She should read the Constitution at some point, and realize that, no matter how much she likes globalism and open borders, the Constitution still doesn’t apply to foreigners in foreign nations.

Tumlin: The president is not king. He, too, must abide by our Constitution as well as the immigration laws duly written and passed by Congress. What the president has done here is attempt to hastily legislate by executive fiat.

Tumlin previously had no problem with Obama’s kingly immigration orders, because they conformed to her Worldview. And, guess what? He is abiding by the immigration laws passed by the Congress, and as given to him by the Constitution. Neither is under any obligation to allow unfettered immigration to our country. There is no Constitutional or legal right for foreigners to come to our country when they want. It is our determination as to whether we want them. If they’re a potential threat, why would we want them?

BTW, the National Immigration Law Center is, shockingly, provided massive funding by many left leaning, open borders groups and individuals, including George Soros, and is huge on open borders, and has a big purpose in giving illegal aliens government funded everything.

Double BTW, the narrative on no one from the countries in question being arrested? That has been blown up and debunked.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Say, Is Trump’s Executive Order Temporarily Blocking People From Seven Nations Legal? »

Posted in Constitution, Current Affairs | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats To Rely On Anger For Trump Era

By William Teach February 6, 2017 – 4:40 pm

Because Democrats have been so calm, cool, and collected so far, they want to make 2020 about anger

Trump sets Democratic field ablaze with anger
The price of entry for the 2020 presidential primary is ferocious opposition to the president.

The Democratic base is so roiled and enraged after only two weeks of Donald Trump’s presidency that a take-no-prisoners posture toward the White House is emerging as the price of entry for the 2020 primary.

An election that could have focused in on economic inequality and the excesses of Wall Street — the issues that animate the left’s leading tribunes, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — is already shaping up as a contest about the intensity of the resistance to Trump.

Sounds similar to 2004, and that anger carried through to 2008. Because Democrats are angry people.

The urgency of the moment is not lost on the party’s leading 2020 hopefuls. Many of them — including Warren and fellow Senators Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Kamala Harris — abandoned their schedules last weekend to appear at protests in their home states or in Washington, grasping the imperative to be both public and distinctive in their opposition to Trump’s executive order on refugee travel. Then Warren, Sanders, Gillibrand, and Booker voted against approving Elaine Chao for Secretary of Transportation, one of Trump’s least controversial picks and an unmistakable thumb in the eye of Chao’s husband, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. (snip)

Leading Democratic strategists warn that the first signs will appear in midterm elections, where the primary electorate will demand more than just marching outside the White House or grabbing a bullhorn at an arrivals lounge. They’ll be expecting something close to 100 percent rejection of Trump’s agenda — making the coming years complicated for members of Congress, who have to vote on it, rather than the governors and mayors who get to assume more offensive posture.

They don’t even know what Trump will do, and they’re aren’t waiting for him to actually do something. Resist!!!!!!! or something. If he does something they approve of, you can bet they’ll be stunned silence for about 24 hours, then they’ll still find a way to be angry and against it, much like when Bush 43 came out with his amnesty plan.

Will it work? It’s one thing to be angry: it’s entirely something else when these people are marching in the streets, screaming vulgarities, assaulting other people, including police officers and their horses, setting things on fire, damaging property, leaving places a mess, breaking laws. This level of unhinged will not help them win back the White House nor either branch of Congress.

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/797854636816338945

But, hey, you go, Snowflakes.

Read: Democrats To Rely On Anger For Trump Era »

Posted in Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 36 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove