California Secession Begin Gathering Signatures For 2018

By William Teach January 27, 2017 – 5:04 pm

Hey, if they want to do this, all power to them. But, if they are going to do it, they should allow for separating parts of the state for those who are want to remain part of the Union.

Calexit backers can begin collecting signatures to qualify for 2018 ballot

Backers of a proposed constitutional amendment seeking California’s secession from the U.S. can begin collecting voter signatures to qualify for the 2018 ballot, the secretary of state’s office said Thursday.

The so-called Calexit movement emerged within days of the upset presidential victory of Republican Donald Trump, who lost California by nearly 4.3 million votes. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that nearly one in three Californians support the state leaving the U.S.

Proponents have until July 25 to collect 585,407 valid voter signatures to qualify for the November 2018 ballot.

The proposed measure would strike language from the California Constitution defining the state as “an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.” If it passed, there would be a statewide special election in March 2019 to ask voters if they want California to become an independent country.

Ultimately, it will surely fail. There was previously an idea to split California into six states. Which the Leftist news media and Democrats decried. You could split off two large chunks of California which voted Republican, keep them in the union. The biggest loss would be San Diego, Camp Pendleton, and a few other military posts, such as Vandenburg Air Base and the Naval Air Weapons Station at China Lake.

But, what would California then do? They grow a lot of food, but, not enough. Their manufacturing base is low. They have to import a lot of their water from other states. Cars. Oil. Airplanes. Computers. TVs. Clothing. Even electricity. Yes, other countries do the same. But, suddenly, all those things will now rise in price, coming from the U.S.

And, don’t forget how many businesses and people would move out of California. And people pulling their money out of what would be a foreign nation.

What of the industries that export things, including entertainment? Would that stay there, knowing that prices to export to the U.S. would rise?

Factor in that California has an enormous amount of public debt and liabilities, which would no longer be backed by the federal government. And that the federal government would pull all their jobs, and as much equipment and property as possible.

What this is all about, though, is a Typical Progressive Moonbat Tantrum. They didn’t get their way, so they want to take their ball and go home.

Read: California Secession Begin Gathering Signatures For 2018 »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 27, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle rusting from the extreme weather it itself causes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on what DHS plans to publish in the Trump Era.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Will Trump Do Away With Paris Climate Accord?

By William Teach January 27, 2017 – 10:44 am

This is what the Daily Caller’s Christ White wrote

President Donald Trump will sign an executive order Thursday indirectly targeting the Paris climate summit agreement signed by the Obama administration seeking to reduce carbon emission levels over the next two decades.

Trump will sign two memos broadly eliminating funding for any United Nations (U.N.) agencies which give full membership to terrorist organizations or which support programs that fund abortion. The memos would also direct committees to enact “at least a 40 percent overall decrease” in remaining funding toward international organizations and instruct committees to review any further treaties.

Trump, who made dismantling the Paris agreement a central part of his campaign message, does not intend to directly target the agreement, but instead will reduce U.N. funding, according to a Wednesday report by The News York Times.

As far as I can determine, Trump did not sign any order on any of the above as of this time. Regardless, it would be best if he either signed an Executive Order pulling the US out of the Paris climate accord, or submit it to the Senate for ratification, which will fail, but put Democrats on record as supporting the globalist agenda of hosing American citizens, primarily the lower and middle class folks.

Read: Will Trump Do Away With Paris Climate Accord? »

Posted in Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump’s Wall Will Be Bad For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach January 27, 2017 – 7:15 am

Is there anyone who did not see this coming? Anyone who didn’t wonder if the Cult of Climastrology would find a way to link the proposed border wall with Hotcoldwetdry?

Scientists Warn Trump’s Border Wall Will Be Bad for the Planet

President Donald Trump’s plan for a southern border wall will cost billions of dollars and has already sparked a diplomatic rift with Mexico. It’s also going to be bad for the planet.

Concrete is a potent source of greenhouses gas, and Trump’s “great wall” will need a lot of it — more than double the amount in Hoover Dam, according to engineers at New York University and University College London.

A 1,000-mile (1,600-kilometer) wall would require an estimated 275 million cubic feet of concrete. It would release as much as 1.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, according to Christoph Meinrenken, an associate research scientist at Columbia University’s Earth Institute. That’s more than the annual emissions from every home in Pittsburgh.

More than Pittsburgh! Well, yeah. If we go to a somewhat outdated number, 19.78 metric tons per American (no one has really done a study since 2009), we arrive at a carbon footprint of 5,565,597 metric tons per year for Pittsburgh. It’s like they just threw a dart at a map and said “use that city.” The city doesn’t matter: the Narrative of the planet catching on fire is the important part.

But, hey, scientists warn!

“The carbon footprint of a wall that size would be huge,” Dan Millis, borderlands program coordinator for the Sierra Club’s Arizona chapter, said in an interview.

The U.S. needs to invest in infrastructure and many worthwhile projects will require concrete, said Rachel Cleetus, lead economist and climate policy manager at the Union of Concerned Scientists. But those projects should be in line with the broader goal of fighting global warming.

“Let’s talk about modernizing electric grids — not building walls,’’ Cleetus said in an interview.

There are also environmentally friendly options. Carbicrete, a Montreal-based clean technology company, developed a type of concrete that absorbs carbon dioxide. Using Carbicrete cinder blocks to build the wall would potentially remove 1.2 million metric tons from the atmosphere, at comparable prices, chief executive Chris Stern said in an interview.

The Sierra Club’s Millis said carbon dioxide would hardly be the wall’s only environmental impact. It would also cause flooding and cut off migratory paths for endangered jaguars, ocelots and other creatures, he said. And the barrier would do little to stop immigrants.

OK, so, activists. Two of them. Who would be against the wall because they’re pro-illegal alien. Gotcha.

Anyhow, Doooooom!

Read: Trump’s Wall Will Be Bad For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Illegal Immigration | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Surrender Monkey Friday: Suddenly, The Dow Doesn’t Matter Than Much In Era Of Trump

By William Teach January 27, 2017 – 6:51 am

It’s the long awaited return of the Official Surrender Monkey Of The Democratic Party, and he and his friends will be highlighting all things surrender and nutty in the Democratic Party. Times were much different when he and his compatriots roamed the Internet, as it would be considered raaaaacist to use them while Mr. Obama was in charge. And, what does he come back to?

Well, during the Era of Obama, we were told time and time again how Utterly Important the rising stock market was, in order to deflect from the poor economic conditions throughout the nation. People dropping out of the work force, declining wages, low savings, rising prices, and so forth. The stock market was meant to say “All Is Well!”

Now that Trump is president? Well, the official propoganda organization of the Democratic Party, namely 90% of the Media Industrial Complex, has come to a decision

For most Americans, Dow 20,000 carries little benefit

While Wall Street celebrates yet another stock market record — surpassing 20,000 on the Dow Jones industrial average — many Americans have little reason to cheer.

Despite the spread of 401(k) retirement plans, the wealthiest 10 percent of households own roughly 80 percent of stock market wealth. The Dow’s 23 percent surge over the past year has benefited mostly investors who were already well-off.

The rising concentration of wealth at the top is one reason why the economy’s significant gains since the Great Recession ended 7½ years ago haven’t been felt by many Americans. Though the Dow more than doubled in President Barack Obama’s two terms, pay growth was stagnant, especially for people without higher education or high-tech skills. Discontent and anxiety about the economy’s direction helped fuel President Donald Trump’s election victory.

Now they tell us that things weren’t that great and the stock market was not that big a deal? Really?

Now, a major challenge for Trump is to help extend the economy’s gains beyond wealthier households and those in thriving large metro areas to struggling regions and many rural areas.

You can tell that the media Narrative is shifting in order to Blame the wishy washy economic conditions on Trump. There will be no “inherited from the previous administration” notion. The idea here is exactly the opposite of Obama’s time: what they made look great during his time will be made to look bad in Trump’s. When the first jobs report comes out, if there is slightly good news, Obama will be praised. If there is slightly bad news, it will be blamed on Trump. Heck, if there is any good news the Media Industrial Complex will find a way to complain about Trump.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is having its own little surrender meltdown

Democrats launch scorched-earth strategy against Trump

What began as a high-minded discussion about how to position the Democratic Party against President Donald Trump appears to be nearing its conclusion. The bulk of the party has settled on a scorched-earth, not-now-not-ever model of opposition.

In legislative proposals, campaign promises, donor pitches and even in some Senate hearings, Democrats have opted for a hard-line, give-no-quarter posture, a reflection of a seething party base that will have it no other way.

What they do not get is that Trump is not Bush, who they tried this on and succeeded. Trump will not lay down and let them run roughshod. He will fight back. He has zero problem naming names. The tactics he used during the primaries and general election cycle will apply now.

They’re in for a long, four, and possibly eight, years.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Surrender Monkey Friday: Suddenly, The Dow Doesn’t Matter Than Much In Era Of Trump »

Posted in Economy, Journalistic Malpractice, Surrender Monkey Friday | 24 Comments | Trackback URL

CBC Warmists Rather Shocked That Farmers Aren’t Thrilled By The Carbon Tax

By William Teach January 26, 2017 – 3:58 pm

Now, if you enacted a carbon tax that was going to expressly and negatively impact the operations, revenue, and profits of the news media, such as, say, the uber-Leftist Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, do you think they’d continue to Believe this claptrap about anthropogenic climate change, or would they just caterwaul that they should be exempt?

Understanding why Alberta farmers loathe the carbon tax

They are the stewards of the land, the so-called first environmentalists, and they rely heavily on the weather and predictable climate to grow food to put on your plate.

That’s why it’s somewhat surprising that Alberta farmers are resoundingly opposed to the key government policy to help the environment and meet climate change goals — a carbon tax.

The vast majority of scientists say human-caused climate change is dangerous for the planet and economists say a carbon tax is an effective tool to address the issue, but farmers aren’t buying it.

That’s because they live in the real world where they have to deal with a profit/loss sheet.

That includes Cherylynn Bos, who gives her goats a rub under their necks while thinking about how her farm could be any more energy efficient. (snip)

Bos is upset about the financial impact Alberta’s new carbon tax will have on her farm, which produces cheeses that are sold in five provinces.

“In the end, that is going to translate into an increase for the customer on the food that they purchase,” she says, giving examples such as increased trucking costs for bringing supplies to the farm and moving products to stores.

Higher costs? The hell you say!

Organic farmers like Tim Hoven are also upset about the tax, which is aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He figures he’ll have to pay another $1,000 a year in natural gas just to heat his buildings.

You get the point. They should apply all these taxes specifically to elected politicians and the others pushing this stuff.

Read: CBC Warmists Rather Shocked That Farmers Aren’t Thrilled By The Carbon Tax »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach January 26, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…are wonderful trees sucking man’s carbon pollution down from the sky, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Bookworm Room, with a post on Trump’s promise to shrink government and what it means.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Pause Excuse #Lots: Trees Held Their Breath

By William Teach January 26, 2017 – 10:30 am

This is a new one on the list of Great Pause Excuses*

Forests ‘Held Their Breath’ During Global Warming Pause

Forests around the world, widely deemed the lungs of the planet, “held their breath” during the most recent episode of a so-called climate change hiatus, a new study has revealed. The findings are considered significant in predicting how ecosystems will react to rising global temperatures.

A team from the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom showed that the global carbon sink — a forest, ocean, or another natural environment that can absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere — was specifically strong from 1998 to 2012, a period of 14 years deemed as a warming pause.

During this time when slower warming occurred, forests worldwide “breathed in” CO2 through the process of photosynthesis, but exhibited a reduced rate of “breathing out” or releasing the gas back into the atmosphere.

First Warmists tell us there was not pause/hiatus, then they turn around and give us an excuse for why there was.

In the study, the total CO2 amount gobbled up by forests slowed during times when warming is rapid, and accelerated during slower warming periods. Photosynthesis also remained constant during slower warming, but the forests emitted less carbon back into the surroundings.

Interestingly, this just happens to occur along the timeline of the pause. But, um, what causes this to happen? And, if true, sure seems like this is a natural process, does it not?

*much like the graphic, the list hasn’t been update in a while. No point. Warmists mostly trot out the same excuses in new ways.

Read: Pause Excuse #Lots: Trees Held Their Breath »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Rand Paul Introduces His Ocare Replacement Plan

By William Teach January 26, 2017 – 8:10 am

Republicans are starting to release their plans to replace the deplorable Obamacare. Senators Bill Cassidy and Susan Collins introduced a very squishy plan. We’re awaiting plans from Paul Ryan and President Trump. And there were plenty bandied about during the Obama years. Which will win out?

(Yahoo Business) Sen. Rand Paul introduced the Obamacare Replacement Act on Wednesday.

The bill would remove parts of the Affordable Care Act, including the individual mandate and minimum standards for care. It would also provide a two-year window for people with preexisting conditions to sign up for care.

It also includes new provisions such as an expanded ability for insurers to sell plans in multiple states and a $5,000 tax credit that people can put toward a health savings account.

The bill, named the Obamacare Replacement Act, would eliminate several provisions of the ACA, including the individual mandate and minimums on coverage standards. The bill’s fact sheet doesn’t mention any provision to allow parents to keep a child on their insurance until they turn 26.

For all the humor at kids staying on their parents insurance that late, it’s actually a good way to keep the young and healthy in the insurance pools.

Interestingly, Paul’s plan would provide a two-year window for people with preexisting conditions to sign up for care. It would then revert to pre-ACA rules in which people with preexisting conditions could still get coverage in the group market. It’s unclear what would happen to people with preexisting conditions in the individual market after the two-year open-enrollment period.

Well, if they have preexisting conditions, one would think that they would sign up. One thing that seems to be missing from most plans is the notion of not being kicked off plans for getting sick. It’s a little different from getting kicked off your auto insurance plan because you’re a terrible driver.

Additionally, the bill would provide every American a tax credit worth up to $5,000 for contributions to a health savings account to put toward health insurance and other healthcare costs.

“Getting government out of the American people’s way and putting them back in charge of their own healthcare decisions will deliver a strong, efficient system that doesn’t force them to empty out their pockets to cover their medical bills,” Paul, who is also an ophthalmologist, said in a press release announcing the bill.

And that’s the whole point.

Read: Rand Paul Introduces His Ocare Replacement Plan »

Posted in GOP, Healthcare | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post: Trump’s Immigration Orders Are Against American Values Or Something

By William Teach January 26, 2017 – 7:51 am

The Editorial Board of the Washington Post, each of whom are far removed from the problems caused by illegal immigration and loosely vetted “Syrian” refugees, living in posh homes well away from those issues, is a bit upset. What they truly mean is that Trump’s immigration is against Democratic Party values

Trump’s politicized immigration acts are at odds with American values

IN A brief appearance Wednesday at the Department of Homeland Security, President Trump went out of his way to paint illegal immigrants as dangerous predators, making no distinction between the relative few who have committed serious crimes and the vast majority of an estimated 11 million who have led peaceful and productive lives in this country, in most cases for more than 15 years. Intoning the names of family members whose loved ones were killed by undocumented immigrants, he asserted their plight had been ignored, and ordered that an office be established at DHS to help the victims of such crimes, thereby adding social services to the department’s core security mission.

First, how do we know which ones will commit crimes and which won’t? There are more than enough stories about Dreamers being part of criminal activity. It matters little whether they have committed serious crimes: they are unlawfully present in this country, many of whom intentionally overstayed their visas.

It is fantastic how, suddenly, intoning the names of family members is seemingly a Bad Thing for the WPEB. They usually love having human shields.

Mr. Trump also made clear he is willing to throw billions of dollars at a problem that has mostly been fixed, paying for ostensible solutions that won’t do much good: construction of a wall and the hiring of 5,000 new Border Patrol officers, as well as many additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials.

In fact, the nation’s southern border is already well staffed with Border Patrol agents, whose numbers have more than doubled, under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, since the Sept. 11 attacks. The number of illegal crossings is near a 40-year low. If the goal is really to make the border even more secure, better technology would be the way to go. If Congress goes along, a lot of money will be wasted, given cost estimates for the wall alone well in excess of $10 billion — but it won’t be the first time the U.S. government has managed to misspend vast sums.

Wait, I thought Democrats loved spending public money and increasing the size of government? And misspending it? It don’t remember all this caterwauling about Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus.

I will agree that there are better methods available, as the editorial says. There are certain areas that would be great for a wall, which could stop or slow down border jumpers, giving the BP time to show up. And, it’s really necessary to give illegals reasons to not come and not overstay their visas, like slamming companies with massive criminal and civil penalties, disallowing them housing, driving privileges, and other benefits. If they’re here on a visa, make companies and education centers responsible for tracking, and firing/kicking out when it expires, along with contacting ICE.

Far more damaging, to American principles and the nation’s standing in the world, would be actions outlined in a draft executive order, apparently awaiting Mr. Trump’s signature, that would drastically curtail the United States’ commitment to accept refugees from Muslim-majority countries in the Mideast, especially Syria, most of whom are fleeing terrorism. Such refugees should be subject to extensive background checks and other vetting before being granted U.S. visas — as they already are. But a blanket ban would compromise this nation’s long-standing position as a sanctuary for desperate and innocent people. As a backdoor way for Mr. Trump to partially make good on his proposed Muslim ban, it also would be an affront to this country’s status as an example of religious tolerance.

Interestingly, the vast majority of refugees brought in have been Muslim, not Christians who are being persecuted (and killed) in Muslim areas. I don’t remember the WPEB making a big deal out of Obama working hard to deport an asylum seeking German family, who were Christians and homeschooled their kids.

We’ve seen how well allowing all these refugees is working in Germany, Sweden, France, Greece, Italy, and the other EU nations, what with the rapes, sexual assaults, demeaning of women, crime, and so forth. People kicked out of their homes to accommodate the rapeugees, while women are told to not dress sexy and do not go out at night in their own neighborhoods.

As far as it goes, polls are back and forth. Some are supportive of a temporary ban, others are against. An August, 2016 poll has only 36% supporting the importation of the refugees. A Washington Post poll from June 2016 has 59% in favor, but, even the WP had to acknowledge that the phrasing of the question probably elicited higher approval than normal. Most polls run against the refugees.

Regardless, Trump won. We were told this time and again about Obama as he jammed his uber-leftist agenda. We’re more than happy to accept people who want to come to the US and be part of our great melting pot. From what we’re seeing, especially throughout Europe, is that these refugees want the Europeans to adapt to their beliefs and mores. And Europeans are starting to revolt.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post: Trump’s Immigration Orders Are Against American Values Or Something »

Posted in Illegal Immigration, RoP, Wonky Media | 15 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove