…is an evil bat made from cutting down a carbon pollution sucking tree which causes desertification, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Blazing Cat Fur, with a post on the Obama admin telling landlords they have to rent to hardcore criminals.
My Dodgers started off the season with a 15-0 thrashing of the Padres, the “worst opening day shutout in MLB history“.
Read: If All You See… »
Here we go again, with a Warmist espousing that carbon taxes are totes Conservative, this time, Bob Inglas, who was a Republican congressman from South Carolina from 1993-99 and 2005-11
Column: A carbon tax is a conservative answer to climate change
When 21 Florida mayors from Miami to Tampa and St. Petersburg beseeched debate moderators to make the presidential candidates talk about climate change, I was cheering for my favorite question: “Can free enterprise solve it?”
And, by free enterprise, he means “government dictates” and taxes.
Too often the question is, “Do you believe in climate change?” What’s there to believe? Climate change is just data. The question is what to do about the data. The question is whether we can rise to full citizenship, full humanity. The question is whether we can own up to full accountability.
I believe in that kind of accountability. I believe that we are the stewards of creation and that accountability brings blessings. I believe that accountability drives the free enterprise system to deliver innovation.
First, Bob, you have to prove that it is caused mostly/solely by the actions of Humanity. Second, government dictates are not part of free enterprise
The mayors’ open letter got right to the heart of the leadership required. They asked what investments candidates will make to protect coastal assets and coastal economies from the growing impacts of sea level rise and climate change; what specific policies they would put in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and what policies they would advance to ensure that America delivers on its international commitments.
That’s not free enterprise, that’s a dictatorial government making demands.
Our atmosphere is the dump for emissions. If we allow people to dump there without paying for the harm their dumping causes, they’ll dump freely. If we make them accountable for the harm their dumping causes, they’ll clean up their smokestacks or lose out to a clean energy competitor who has a smaller smokestack or no smokestack at all.
A carbon tax is a tipping fee for the atmosphere. At republicEn.org we don’t want just any kind of carbon tax, though. We want a carbon tax that’s paired with a dollar-for-dollar cut in existing taxes on income, so there is no growth of government. And we want the carbon tax applied to imports so that our trading partners have every incentive to join us in stopping the free dumping into the atmosphere.
Please explain how government instituting a tax is in any way related to the free market instituting a free market solution.
Of course, since he now directs republicEn, “a group of free enterprise believers committed to action on climate change”, he seems to be super thrilled with any government action that will increase the cash value of the company. Government action is not free enterprise.
Read: A Carbon Tax Is A Conservative Answer To ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »
The Hill’s Julien Hattem gives it the old college try in identifying 7 key questions that need to be resolved in the Hillary email scandal, and almost gets it right on what is not known publicly yet. Julien starts out noting that we do not know when the investigation will end. Hillary and her aides are up for interview by the FBI, which is typically been one of the last parts of an investigation. We then move to
What law(s) might have been broken?
Top officials at the FBI and Justice Department have refused to discuss what charges — if any — might result from the investigation.
Speculation about the charges has centered on federal statutes prohibiting against removing federal documents, especially 18 U.S.C. § 2071. A portion of that law bars officials from “willfully and unlawfully†concealing, removing or destroying federal records.
Other laws identified by the watchdog group Cause of Action include prohibitions against removing defense-related information “from its proper place of custody†and against removing classified information to keep “at an unauthorized location.â€
Critics also say Clinton or her top aides may have violated internal State Department procedures about handling classified information.
It’s not critics, it’s law that says it. We also have to note that charges of obstruction of justice are also in play for the removal of roughly half the emails from the server which she owns, along with not turning it over to the FBI in a timely manner. Furthermore, just using an unsecured, unapproved email account to disseminate the material is in violation of national security laws.
Next up is who is in the crosshairs. That would be Clinton and her staff. But, the article breaks down a bit here
Perhaps the biggest question for the bureau is whether there was the intent to “willfully†remove government documents, or whether Clinton’s situation was merely an oversight, as she has claimed.
None of the thousands of emails that Clinton handed over to the State Department were marked as classified, the government has said, but classified information can appear in unmarked emails as well.
Upon entering office, Clinton signed a nondisclosure agreement vowing to protect classified information, whether it is “marked or unmarked.â€
It matters zero whether they were marked classified. Nor does the question of “willfully” or oversight matter. The matter was disseminated via an unapproved, unsecure server in contradiction to the law. The 3rd paragraph contradicts the first. The intent is immaterial. Especially when there are thousands of emails containing classified material, many of which would cause trouble for Hillary and her staff if they had been using the State Dept email server, because they should never have been put in any email transmission to start.
The final three are
The two biggest questions not directly asked are whether the FBI will look at the statutes and refer this to the DOJ, and citizens have been prosecuted for much less, and whether the DOJ will spike the asked for indictment. We will surely soon see. The very fact is that if this was a lower level government employee, they’d already be under indictment, and would most likely have already been prosecuted and serving time.
Read: Seven Lingering Questions On Hillary’s Email Problem »
Donald Trump can be slammed for many things, including switching of past policy positions. One thing he can’t be slammed for is his opposition to illegal immigration, with some policy statements going back to 1999 and 2000, such as
America is experiencing serious social and economic difficulty with illegal immigrants who are flooding across our borders. We simply can’t absorb them. It is a scandal when America cannot control its own borders. A liberal policy of immigration may seem to reflect confidence and generosity. But our current laxness toward illegal immigration shows a recklessness and disregard for those who live here legally.
The majority of legal immigrants can often make significant contributions to our society because they have special skills and because they add to our nation’s cultural diversity. They come with the best of intentions. But legal immigrants do not and should not enter easily. It’s a long, costly, draining, and often frustrating experience-by design. I say to legal immigrants: Welcome and good luck.
It comes down to this: we must take care of our own people first. Our policy to people born elsewhere should be clear: Enter by the law, or leave.
That’s from Trump’s book The America We Deserve. One of his major schticks for his whole campaign, and what vaulted him to frontrunner status, was his stance on illegal immigration and controlling the border. He’s been extremely vocal on the issue, so, is it any wonder that the Border Patrol endorsed him? This has made the NY Times Editorial Board very upset
The Border Patrol’s Bizarre Choice
Turn away, for a moment, from the generalized idiocy of the presidential campaign to consider a specific instance of monumental dimness. It happened Wednesday.
The National Border Patrol Council, which says it represents 16,500 border agents, endorsed Donald Trump. It says it has never endorsed a presidential candidate in a primary before, but these are dire times.
“There is no greater physical or economic threat to Americans today than our open border,†says the endorsement, signed by the council’s president, Brandon Judd. The union “asks the American people to support Mr. Trump in his mission to finally secure the border of the United States of America, before it is too late.â€
Well, that seems a pretty good rationale for endorsing Trump, does it not? It’s an organization tasked with, get this, protecting the borders of the United States against invaders. You can feel the sneers at the next line from the NYTEB
Too late for what? The collapse of America, apparently, from the “gangs, cartels and violent criminals preying on the innocent.â€
They find that this is absurd. Because, apparently, every one of the illegals are just good people. None of them ever doing anything like rape, murder, steal, take people’s identities and ruin their lives and credit. They would never do something like kill a citizen while street racing, right?
The vast proportion of the 11 million unauthorized immigrants who are already living here are not criminals, don’t think or behave like criminals, and deserve a chance to stay, as immigrants have always done.
No, they don’t, they came here illegally, and quite a few of them make no attempt assimilate, speak our language, or show their love and respect of this country.
Mr. Trump’s immigration views are driven by defiant ignorance. That they should be embraced by a union whose taxpayer-paid members are the face of the immigration policies of the United States is appalling.
Suddenly, the NYTEB is upset that a public sector union is allowed to have an opinion. They seemed cool when the teacher’s unions were storming the Wisconsin statehouse, trashing the place, leaving human wasted, damaging it, and interfering with government business, while bring the kids who should be in school getting an education along on unapproved field trips.
If union leaders had their members’ interests in mind, they would not be aligning with vigilantes and nativists, birthers and borderline lunatics. They would know better than to view all unauthorized migrants as a class of hardened criminals, and they would treat as a delusion Mr. Trump’s plan to deport 11 million people in two years and to let “the good ones†back in.
They are tasked with treating them all like illegal invaders, people who should not be in this country illegally. Does the NY Times not have security guards, tasked with making sure unauthorized people are not in the NY Times’ building? Would the NY Times allow unauthorized people to simply set up shop and live in their building?
That is the fantasy claptrap that feeds the thinking that dehumanizes migrants, that tolerates reckless violence by border agents, like the shooting of an unarmed child, in the back, through the fence, into Nogales, Mexico — one disturbing episode among many. It reveals an attitude that condones abuse and cruelty toward those in custody and justifies the profiling and harassment of drivers on the highway. And that perspective, not surprisingly, finds common cause with Mr. Trump.
Again, I bet the Times would be very upset if these “migrants” decided to live in the lobby of the NY Times building, and would have security remove them and most likely have them arrested for trespassing. Note that there is no mention of these “migrants” throwing rocks at the BP, nor shooting at them. No mention of BP agents being killed by illegals, nor of illegals killing American citizens. Nor that many of them are repeat offenders, having been deported many times, yet keep coming in because the border is not secure. Did the Times think they would actually endorse an open borders idiot like Hillary or Bernie?
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: NY Times Is Very Upset That Border Patrol Endorsed Trump »
If human caused climate change is so bad, why does Obama and his family contribute so much carbon pollution?
FACT SHEET: What Climate Change Means for Your Health and Family
Today, delivering on another commitment in the President’s Climate Action Plan, the Obama Administration released a new final report called The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment, which significantly advances what we know about the impacts of climate change on public health, and the confidence with which we know it.
Know what? I’m not going to bore you with the details, you’re welcome to hit the link. Suffice to say, it paints the typical picture of doom and gloom, extreme weather, women, children, the elderly are hosed, more airborne viruses, etc and so on, you’ve seen it all before, the same claptrap that never seems to materialize no matter how much Warmists wish it.
And yet, for all their surety of the future doom, people like Obama and all the “experts” (meaning like minded professional alarmists) not only refuse to reduce their carbon footprints and use of fossil fuels, they use even more than the typical American. Shows how much they really believe in said doom.
Read: Man With Largest Footprint In The World Tells Us What Climate Change Means For Families »
…is a life preserver needed for when the seas suddenly rise up to swamp all the coastal cities, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Bluebird Of Bitterness, with a post on reintroducing normal, well adjusted people back into society.
Read: If All You See… »
This is the kind if thing leftist wackjobs learn while getting themselves a $100,000 in debt while attending special snowflake colleges
Passing Privilege, the Gender Binary, and the Productive Power of Stereotypes
I’m not even going to attempt to delve into the passing privilege idiocy. Then we have gender binary, where nutjobs think that there being two sexes is completely unscientific, because man and woman is a social construct.
Those efforts for gay rights did pave the way for Americans, once they had gotten over their gay “ick†factor, to being to deal with the trans community. The trans “ick†factor still exists, primarily in the Old Confederacy but still nationwide as well, as manifested recently in South Dakota, North Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee, and will take even more time to overcome. As I’ve said, these bills are a rear-guard action being taken against us because we are winning. But in our victory blindness, as Michaelangelo Signorile calls it, from marriage equality — which covered all members of the gay and trans community, as I described earlier — we have not been prepared for the ferocity of the onslaught. Adding genderqueer visibly into the mix, or, more specifically, failing to promote actual trans persons because so doing minimizes the lives of genderqueer persons, is not only short-sighted but potentially very damaging.
It’s like we’re speaking a different form of English from these Leftards. But, hey, they’re totally winning and stuff, despite all polls showing that normal people do not want gender confused people in their bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers, especially when it comes to their children.
The one with the penis. That one should definitely not be allowed in. Of course, the wackjobs think that gender is simply a social construct which can be fluid and redefined whenever someone wants.
Read: TG People Are Totally Winning Against The Stereotype Of “Ick Factor” Or Something »
‘Climate change’ is a subject that many may say “yes, I’m very concerned” and then jump in their fossil fueled vehicles and completely forget about this non-existent threat that has nary a bit of influence on their lives, something that has caused them problems (except for the increase in cost of living from Warmist laws and regulations). This has made Warmists very upset, to the point of blaming the mostly Leftist media for not scaremongering enough regarding an “issue” that most really do not care about
Hey, did you hear the one about how the planet is dying quickly and we’re probably all doomed?
It’s true! Just this past week, the world got a fun update about just how much danger we’re in thanks to climate change. This one came courtesy of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which is, well, a giant sheet of ice in Antarctica and which is potentially disintegrating at a pace that, in the words of the New York Times, could help send sea levels rising enough to cause “a profound crisis within the lifetimes of children being born today.â€
That seems like kind of a big deal, right? It kind of puts all of the more immediate fights we’re having in an ominous perspective, no? It’s the sort of topic you might expect, say, a presidential campaign to be taking more seriously, wouldn’t you think?
I read a lot of zombie fiction, but, I understand that they aren’t real and won’t suddenly become real. Warmists believe anthropogenic climate change is real and will doom us all, so, to solve this, they want lots and lots of taxes and more and more power shifted to centralized government.
Forgive the heavy sarcasm. Anyone who’s been watching the 2016 race will know that climate change has taken the furthest of backseats to a host of other issues. It got an indirect injection into the whirl of the campaign on Thursday, when Hillary Clinton angrily accused Bernie Sanders of lying about the money she’s getting from members of the fossil fuel industry. (She wasn’t quite telling the truth in that moment, by the way.) Candidates accusing each other of lying—now that is something the political media can get behind! Summaries of the back-and-forth duly popped up everywhere. Politico even got around to mentioning Clinton’s record on environmental issues—in the last couple of paragraphs of its story. Besides that, any extensive discussion of climate change has been very difficult to find. The lack of attention paid to it at presidential debates has become something of a running joke.
When it comes to it, ‘climate change’ is less of a serious issue than the debate over North Carolina’s HB2, regarding gender confused people using opposite biological sex bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers (and is also disappearing from the public view). Some people might care in theory, but, most vote with their pocketbooks, and ‘climate change’ is simply a theoretical issue, one which is not tangible.
This is all, to put it mildly, insane. At a certain point in this century, the rapid demise of the earth is going to be a problem that is much too difficult and dangerous to ignore. Alarm bells are everywhere—in frequent reports of record-breaking temperatures (it was just 71 degrees in Alaska!); in studies predicting the possibility of sudden, vast chaos and ruin; in pleas with the world to move even more aggressively to combat climate change than it has. The world has no wiggle room. Everyone needed to be freaking out at maximum speed a long time ago.
Perhaps people are simply tired of listening to Chicken Little’s yammer about utter doom. And watching the Chicken Little’s fail to practice what they preach.
And watching the Chicken Little’s prognostications fail to materialize. Warmists are like the guy standing in the street with a sign proclaiming the end is nigh, foaming at the mouth, yet, said doom never materializes.
Read: Warmists: Media’s Biggest Failure Is “Ignoring the ‘Profound Crisis’ of Climate Change” »
No, really, but only if elected
(Breitbart ) During a town hall Sunday on Fox News Channel with GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump, Trump said that he will be “more presidential†and change his tone once he wins, but he said that does not mean he will not hit back harder if attacked first.
“Tone to me matters. Being presidential matters,†Trump told host Greta Van Susteren. “If somebody hits me, I have to hit them back. I have to. I’m not going to sit there and say, ‘I’m wonderful, I’m a president.’ I want to win. I will be so presidential you won’t believe it.â€
Van Susteren asked him to expound on being “presidential.â€
Trump responded, “It means maybe not be so aggressive, maybe not get so personal. But when people get personal with me, they say, oh, they don’t like my hair, okay? If I ever said I don’t like their hair it would be a headline. They’re allowed to say whatever they want to about me. My hair is not that bad is it? And it is my hair. But you know what happens? What happens is they hit me and I hit them back harder and, usually in all cases, they do it first. But they hit me and I hit them back harder and they disappear. That’s what we want to lead the country.â€
He then added, “I will be so presidential, Greta, you will be so proud of me.â€
Isn’t the idea of a primary campaign, and a general, to prove that a candidate is presidential? Not that they might decide to be presidential if they are elected?
As for the hitting back part, the problem there is knowing when one should hit back twice as hard and when one should respond simply with facts. And whether one should even hit back at all. We’ve been witness to an Obama administration that goes after political opponents willy nilly, even using the power of the federal government to intimidate opponents and critics. Do we want another bully as president?
I’ve mentioned this before, but, one thing that interested me about Donald Trump early on was that he was willing to put in play the principles of Vox Day’s book SJW Always Lie, which is not about what the SJWs stand for, their history, etc, it’s about recognizing them and dealing with them. Whether Trump has ever read this, I couldn’t tell you (Vox Day is a massive Trump supporter). That said, one of the principles is about never apologizing to a SJW. Another is hitting back twice as hard, because SJWs like to attack those who are defenseless, and will disappear like the cockroaches they are when hit back.
One thing Day discusses, though, is when to hit back, because not everyone is a SJW! You have to understand who deserves an apology and who doesn’t. The same goes for hitting back. Donald doesn’t seem to have a notion of who is a SJW and who isn’t. He seems to treat all critics as people who are shanking him in the back. Not particularly presidential.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: If Elected, Trump Says He Will Totally Be “More Presidential” Or Something »
…is a horrible stadium using too much energy and serving fat laden hot dogs, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Lady Liberty 1885, with a post on the peace loving and tolerant Left.
It’s Opening Day week!
Read: If All You See… »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
