A Carbon Tax Should Be Placed On The Baltimore Sun

By William Teach March 10, 2016 – 11:28 am

The Baltimore Sun has posted this “letter” from a reader

Thank you Sen. Ben Cardin and Rep. John Delaney for introducing “a resolution that calls for 50 percent of the nation’s energy production to come from renewable sources by 2030” (“Cardin, Delaney seek boost in renewable energy,” March 4). Given the science, we know we need to move at least that quickly in order to advert the worse of climate change.

Many who are against this resolution are rightly concerned about the economic impact of energy regulations on the coal industry. But rather than just say no, as has occurred way too often with partisan resolutions in Congress, I urge those who are concerned about regulations and economic transitions to investigate what economists are saying about a 100 percent revenue-neutral, border-corrected, carbon fee and dividend system. It would lead to fewer regulations since there is a price on carbon placed at the source of fossil fuels extraction, leading us to innovatively think about how to live with less fossil fuel. Since most of our regulations are about the pollutants that come with processing, shipping, piping and burning fossil fuels, with all the resulting pollution to land, water and air, a market signal to get off using fossil fuel would mean there will be less fossil fuel activities to regulate.

In the place of dirty fossil fuels, Americans will find ways to live comfortable lives with alternative energy sources, conservation, and using nature, such as with passive solar heating and cooling. Putting a price on carbon allows us to acknowledge the economic and social consequences that come with burning fossil fuels and use the market to drive our transition to cleaner sources of energy.

First, one must wonder whether letter writer Sabrina S. Fu has given up all use of fossil fuels and only uses alternative energy sources. We know the answer, and it’s surely “no”. Rarely does any member of the Cult of Climastrology practice what they preach. But, since the Baltimore Sun decided to publish this support for a carbon tax, let’s refer back to this post

Now, something interesting occurred to me: all the carbon taxes and such that the Credentialed Media calls for would not apply to the TV, Internet, and paper news business. This always applies to Other People. Yet, think of the vast amounts of energy, resources, and fossil fuels needed for the news sector to do their jobs. The Toronto Star Baltimore Sun needs vast amounts of fossil fuels to gather the news, then deliver their papers. They use vast amounts of paper, which comes from killing trees, to publish their paper. Think of all the energy needed to gather the news, produce the news, then disseminate it, both in dead tree edition and on the Internet. Think of all the resources needed to keep the reporters up and running, as well as the buildings and vehicles. This is all super-bad for climate change.

Hence, I suggest that any news organization that has recommended any sort of carbon tax and/or a cap and trade scheme be subject to

  • a carbon tax of $45 a metric ton of carbon pollution
  • a surcharge of 35 cents per liter/gallon of gasoline purchased by a news organization
  • a road tax of 2 cents per mile traveled for all employees during their work day and on company vehicles
  • a tax of $1 per pound of paper used to make newspapers
  • a requirement that all news organizations upgrade their buildings so that they are 100% LEED compliant
  • all helicopters used to gather news can only use biofuels
  • and none may raise the cost of their services/products

Those are very modest proposals, are they not? Reasonable, right? Surely, those who advocate for carbon taxes and/or cap and trade schemes would be willing to participate, right?

Read: A Carbon Tax Should Be Placed On The Baltimore Sun »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Justice Dept Refers “Climate Deniers” To FBI For Investigation

By William Teach March 10, 2016 – 6:40 am

Wrongthing needs to be prosecuted

(CNS News) Attorney General Loretta Lynch acknowledged Wednesday that there have been discussions within the Department of Justice about possibly pursuing civil action against so-called climate change deniers.

“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Department operations.

This comes in regards to questions from climahypocrite Sheldon Whitehouse, a major league member of the Cult of Climastrology who refuses to give up his own use of fossil fuels, yet constantly rails against them.

In this case, I would assume that Whitehouse and Lynch were referring to Exxon/Shell, as those are the latest Enemies Of The State per Whitehouse and the CoC. Whitehouse complained about “climate denial apparatus that the fossil fuel industry has erected” without specifically naming the target.

Whitehouse further wanted to know if there had been any other civil cases referred by the DOJ to the FBI, which, in context of the line of questioning, was about ‘climate change’, to which Lynch said she would have to look into it. Can’t have Wrongthink, you know.

Of course, it would be great if this did create a trial, as it would be necessary to use real data, which would expose the reality of the falseness of the Cult of Climastrology. And it would be a high profile trial.

Read: Justice Dept Refers “Climate Deniers” To FBI For Investigation »

Posted in Global Warming | 23 Comments | Trackback URL

Clinton And Sanders Spar On Who Can Pander To Illegal Aliens The Most

By William Teach March 10, 2016 – 6:22 am

Illegal aliens cannot vote. Not legally. And they shouldn’t be in the country to start with. But, this is the Democratic Party, which cares little for the rule of law when they can score political points and attempt to make new Democrat voters

(The Hill) Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton argued that Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) defense for his 2007 vote against immigration reform doesn’t square with reality as the two sparred during Wednesday’s Univision debate.

Sanders has said that he voted against that bill because its guest-worker program was akin to “modern slavery.”

But Clinton pushed back.

“I think it’s very hard to make the case that Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, me, La Raza, United Farm Workers, Dolores Huerta, leaders of the Hispanic community would have supported a bill that actually promoted modern slavery,” Clinton said.

All those people were putting illegal aliens ahead of everything else. That’s what Democrats do. This was during the “Shamnesty” debate, which would have pretty much legalized the illegals while pretending to secure the border. Sanders hit back at Hillary regarding her flipping and flopping on giving driver’s licenses to illegals

“When you talk about efforts to assist immigrants, Secretary Clinton prevailed upon the governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer — who wanted to do the right thing to provide driver’s licenses to those who are undocumented — she said, ‘Don’t do it,’ and New York still doesn’t do it,” Sanders said.

“I worked with officials and undocumented people in Vermont who do have the ability to get driver’s licenses.”

Sanders might have worried more about the meth and heroin problems in Vermont. Clinton decided to top that with a promise

“I do not have the same policy as the current administration does,” Clinton said. “I think it’s important that we move to a comprehensive immigration reform but at the same time stop the raids, stop the round-ups, stop the deporting of people who are living here doing their lives, doing their jobs.”

Ramos pressed her further at that point.

“I want to be very specific,” Ramos said. “So you’re telling us tonight that if you become president, you won’t deport children who are already here?”

“I will not,” Clinton replied.

“And that you will not deport immigrants who don’t have a criminal record?” Ramos asked.

“That’s what I’m telling you,” Clinton said.

Rule of law? Protecting the United States? Pffft. That’s so old school.

You do have to give moderator Jorge Ramos credit, he asked tough questions. He asked Hillary about Benghazi, and she called the families of those killed in Benghazi liars. He also asked her tough questions on her server, asking who authorized it being set up

RAMOS: Secretary Clinton, I want to disclose once again that my daughter Paula works for your campaign. And now I have a question about your emails. Your Republican opponents say that those emails have endangered our national security. When you were secretary of state, you wrote 104 emails in your private server that the government now says contain classified information according to The Washington Post analysis.

That goes against a memo that you personally sent to your employees in 2011 directing all of them to use official email, precisely because of security concerns. So it seems that you issued one set of rules for yourself and a different set of rules for the rest of the State Department.

So who specifically gave you permission to operate your email system as you did? Was it President Barack Obama? And would you drop out of the race if you get indicted?

Your daughter will soon be let go for some reason, Jorge. Hillary, of course, gave her standard answers

CLINTON: Well, Jorge, there’s a lot of questions in there. And I’m going to give the same answer I’ve been giving for many months. It wasn’t the best choice. I made a mistake. It was not prohibited. It was not in any way disallowed. And as I have said and as now has come out, my predecessors did the same thing and many other people in the government. But here’s the cut to the chase facts. I did not send or receive any emails marked classified at the time. What you are talking about is retroactive classification. And the reason that happens is when somebody asks or when you are asked to make information public, I asked all my emails to be made public. Then all the rest of the government gets to weigh in.

People go to jail for making mistakes. A young member of the Navy was prosecuted for taking a selfie on a US submarine and sending it to his girlfriend. Because things on a submarine are classified. And the server was prohibited. Her predecessors, as we’ve discussed numerous times, did not set up their own server, and, yes, using outside email was wrong. The markings do not matter, the fact that everything is born classified does. If things were retroactively deemed classified, well, that’s a good reason not to be using an insecure server under her private control.

The Democratic Party: where the rule of law goes to die.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Clinton And Sanders Spar On Who Can Pander To Illegal Aliens The Most »

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

NC Lt. Governor Champions College Free Speech Legislation

By William Teach March 9, 2016 – 5:57 pm

This is sure to send the Special Snowflakes into apoplexy, claiming this is a microagression and makes them feel unsafe. Sadly, there is zero sarcasm in that sentence. Ten years ago, perhaps. Now? None

(Carolina Journal) Students could face punishment, including the possibility of expulsion, for engaging in conscious acts stifling the First Amendment rights of others, and the UNC system would be required to implement free speech rules, under a plan Lt. Gov. Dan Forest hopes to turn into law.

“A bill designed to restore and protect free speech to the University of North Carolina System is very likely going to be introduced in the General Assembly next month,” Stanley Kurtz announced Saturday in Cary during the Civitas Institute’s annual Conservative Leadership Conference.

Kurtz, senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Ethics and Public Policy Center, worked with Forest to draft the Campus Free Expression Act.

“To my knowledge it will be the most comprehensive, and ambitious effort ever undertaken to protect and defend free expression at any American college or university, public or private,” and could be a national model, Kurtz said.

Now, I’ll let you read the rest, which is well worth it. It is certainly a lofty goal, because college campuses have certainly become hotbeds of one sided speech, where various methods are used in order to shut down and silence voices people, meaning those on the political Left, do not agree with.

Here’s the big question: is it Constitutional, both at the State level and the federal level, to punish students for shouting down people engaged in free speech? Wouldn’t that interfere with the protester’s free speech? You’re entitled to your free speech, but, that doesn’t mean I can’t talk over you in expressing mine, right? That said, at what point do the protests stop being “peaceable”, which is another important part of the 1st Amendment? Is a large group shouting down speakers non-peaceable? Is make noise with things like drums and those annoying horns non-peaceable? How about blocking people from speaking, and blocking people from listening to speeches?

Read: NC Lt. Governor Champions College Free Speech Legislation »

Posted in NC News | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 9, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a world turning to desert, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lid, with a post which is less than impressed on Team Obama’s response to Iran’s UN resolutions violations.

Caroline Monro, who has had a long career, with many horror movies, back to The Abominable Dr. Phibes.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Warmists Bummed That There Are So Many “Deniers” In Congress

By William Teach March 9, 2016 – 11:14 am

The Daily Caller says they are “fuming”

Liberal anti-fossil fuel activists are really frustrated the majority of Americans keep electing Republicans to represent them who disagree with claims that human activities are causing catastrophic global warming.

New research by the Center for American Progress (CAP) Action Fund claims that while 76 percent of Americans believe global warming is happening, 63 percent of the country is represented by “someone in Congress who denies the reality of climate change.”

“Following the second straight year that earned the title of hottest year on record, 59 percent of the Republican House caucus and 70 percent of Republicans in the Senate deny the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and humans are the main cause,” according to an article published on the blog ThinkProgress — the media wing of the CAP Action Fund.

“There are 182 climate deniers in the 114th Congress in 2016 — 144 in the House and 38 in the Senate,” reads the ThinkProgress article. “According to the U.S. Census, that means 202,803,591 people are represented by a climate denier in Congress.”

Of course, other than the zealots in the Cult of Climastrology, most Americans do not find ‘climate change’ to be an important issue in the least. It tends to rank last or next to last in every poll with a multitude of issues. And, warming doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation.

Read: Warmists Bummed That There Are So Many “Deniers” In Congress »

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

Was The $500 Million Payment To The UN Climate Slush Fund Legal?

By William Teach March 9, 2016 – 7:17 am

Yesterday I highlighted a Reuters article on Team O giving $500 million to the UN Green Climate Fund, and the article mentioned this

But lawmakers did not block the funds in December after they wrapped up a sprawling budget deal to keep the U.S. government operating through next September.

But, is the payment authorized under law?

(CNS) Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) on Tuesday slammed the administration’s handover of $500 million to the U.N. Green Climate Fund, asking a State Department official how the “handout to foreign bureaucrats” could be justified at a time when there were “real problems” that need to be addressed at home.

Barrasso told Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources Heather Higginbottom he viewed the payment to the “new international climate change slush fund” – the first installment of a $3 billion pledge – as both a misuse of taxpayer dollars and a violation of legislation that prohibits federal agencies from spending federal funds in advance or in excess of an appropriation.

Higginbottom responded

“We have reviewed our authorities and made a determination that we can make this payment to the Green Climate Fund,” she said. “We do not believe we are in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, and clearly our lawyers and others have looked at our authorities and our abilities to do this.”

To which Barrasso answered

“I firmly oppose what the president is doing here and this misuse, I believe, of taxpayer dollars, I think completely in violation of the law,” Barrasso told her.

Here’s the point that rebuts the Reuters article

Barrasso noted that Congress has not authorized or appropriated any funding for the GCF, and that the most recent fiscal year appropriations bill also “specifically prohibited the transfer of funds to create new programs.”

So, it might not specifically block the funds, but it does block them generally. Nor was it appropriated. What was done, apparently, was to redirect funds from other federal agencies, and Ms. Higginbottom seemed to be unable to answer the question regarding which departments the money came from. Which might well violate funding of Executive Office agencies laws. Furthermore, since the money for the GCF was never authorized by Congress, it violates the law about spending money in advance, since Obama has put the funding request in for fiscal years 2016 and 2017, but they were never approved.

Not that Obama cares. Not that the GOP has done anything to stop him.

Read: Was The $500 Million Payment To The UN Climate Slush Fund Legal? »

Posted in Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Keith Olbermann Has A Sad, And Will Move From His Cushy Trump Building Casa

By William Teach March 9, 2016 – 6:37 am

Or, so he says in an op-ed at the Washington Post

Keith Olbermann: I can’t stand to live in a Trump building anymore

Okay, Donnie, you win.

I’m moving out.

Not moving out of the country — not yet anyway. I’m merely moving out of one of New York’s many buildings slathered in equal portions with gratuitous gold and the name “Trump.” Nine largely happy years with an excellent staff and an excellent reputation (until recently, anyway) — but I’m out of here.

So, the place is fantastic, there are no problems other than a juvenile hissy fit over the name.

I’m getting out because of the degree to which the very name “Trump” has degraded the public discourse and the nation itself. I can’t hear, or see, or say that name any longer without spitting. Frankly, I’m running out of Trump spit.

Some people take their politics a little to personally, and revert to elementary school personas. Keith was like this when George W. Bush was president, too.

And, yes, I’m fully aware that I’m blaming a guy with the historically unique fashion combination of a cheap baseball cap and Oompa Loompa makeup for coarsening politics even though, out of the two of us, I’m the one who has promulgated a “Worst Persons in the World” list for most of the past decade. That’s how vulgar this has all become. It’s worse even than Worst Persons.

This is the campaign of a PG-rated cartoon character running for president, interrupting a string of insults the rest of us abandoned in the seventh grade only long enough to resume a concurrent string of half-crazed boasts: We’re gonna start winning again! We’re gonna build an eleventy-billion-foot-high wall! We’re not gonna pay a lot for this muffler!

So, he’s complaining about Trump degrading public discourse, then goes down the same sleazy road with juvenile insults. Go figure.

But, he does have a point about Trump. But, Trump has a point about winning, with a couple more primary wins Tuesday, taking 3 of 4. Left leaning Cannonfire has this to say

Born to wealth, he offers no alternative to plutocracy. He has no programs. No policies. He never offer specifics — on anything.

His message is simple: The government is run by “morons.” Them dumb: Me smart. And that’s it. Those four words are all that Donald Trump has to offer.

But even his followers are starting to wonder: If this guy is so smart, why doesn’t he know how to behave in public?

Good points. Then there’s this point

Republicans would overwhelmingly be satisfied with Cruz (+32), Rubio (+28), or Kasich (+23) at the top of the ticket. Trump? He’s barely above water (+3), with one-third of the party faithful reporting that they’d be “very dissatisfied,” if he’s the nominee,more than double anyone else’s negative tally on that point. This is a deeply polarizing and controversial figure within his own (current) party. Among voters broadly, he’s a five-alarm dumpster fire:

On the question of being trustworthy and honest, 69% said no. 73% say he does not have the experience to be president. 72% say he has the wrong personality and temperament. How does that translate into a general election win?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Keith Olbermann Has A Sad, And Will Move From His Cushy Trump Building Casa »

Posted in GOP | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Thank Goodness, You Can Now DoSomething About Gun Violence With A Selfie

By William Teach March 8, 2016 – 4:08 pm

No, DoSomething is not missing a space in the headline

You Can Now Protest Gun Violence by Taking a Selfie

….

Still, most states leave campus gun policy up to administrators. There are only 19 states that prohibit carrying a concealed firearm on campus, so gun control policies are largely up to university officials to decide. While 95% of college presidents don’t want guns on their campuses, fewer than 10% have taken a public stance against them, and that’s a huge problem.

That’s why DoSomething.org is doing something about these troubling statistics. In a Medium essay published today, the company’s CEO Aria Finger explains that following the Charleston massacre, the site asked its members how they felt about the tragedy, and “were bombarded with over 26,000 messages from young Americans who described themselves as ‘disgusted,’ ‘heartbroken,’ and ‘ashamed.’”

Along with The Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the social change organization is launching #GunsOut, a social media campaign that enables students to engage directly with their own school officials and ask them to publicly ban guns from their campus. To participate, tweet a photo of yourself flexing your bicep and tag your school’s administrators so you can tell them “the only guns you want on campus are ones you can flex.” In doing so, you’ll join the ranks of stars like Tyler Oakley, Olivia Wilde, Monique Coleman, and Taran Killam as they take a stand against gun violence.

Every criminal intent on DoingBadThings thanks these Special Little Snowflakes for attempting to make their violence easier.

 

Read: Thank Goodness, You Can Now DoSomething About Gun Violence With A Selfie »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Special Snowflake Syndrome | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 8, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a pond that will alternately flood and dry up from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post explaining who Trump is.

That is Evelyn Ankers, who has appeared in movies such as The Wolfman (1941), Hold That Ghost (an Abbott and Costello favorite of mine), and Son Of Dracula.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove