Draft Climate Change Treaty Pretty Much A Liberal Wet Dream

By William Teach December 9, 2015 – 10:30 am

The Daily Caller’s Michael Bastasch focuses on the draft treaty mentioning “Gaia worship”, but his first few paragraphs bring up a separate issue

The United Nations draft global warming treaty calls for countries to protect “the integrity of ecosystems and of Mother Earth” while cutting carbon dioxide emissions to fight global warming.

The draft U.N. treaty also emphasizes “promoting, protecting and respecting all human rights, the right to development, the right to health, and the rights of indigenous peoples, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable climate situations … as well as promoting gender equality and the empowerment of women.”

All “while taking into account the needs of local communities, intergenerational equity concerns, and the integrity of ecosystems and of Mother Earth, when taking action to address climate change,” according to the treaty.

He goes on to note how “Environmentalists and scientists have increasingly turned to religion to gain support for regulations aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions”, which is true. But what can’t be ignored is that this draft treaty, which will never be placed in front of the US Congress, and for which Obama and John Kerry are trying to make non-binding, is all about pushing far left Progressive (nice fascism) issues.

As I’ve noted time and time again for years and years, that’s what the ‘climate change’ push is all about. Which includes the redistribution of money from productive nations to non-productive ones, all why pushing for more and more central government control by using all these buzz words and phrases. They sound great at first blush, but, what they mean is government in control of people, private entities, and economies, along with the energy sector. They’ll be able to dictate what we think, what we say, how we act. Everything. And what’s so surprising is that all these little special snowflakes who are part of the ‘climate change’ movement, which is part of the overall Progressive movement, fail to realize that this will all affect them personally in a negative manner.

It’s good to see that so many other skeptics are starting to focus on this being a political issue, not a science issue.

Read: Draft Climate Change Treaty Pretty Much A Liberal Wet Dream »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

New Kids Book Looks To Ruin Christmas By Including ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach December 9, 2015 – 8:25 am

Have you heard the term “Cli-fi“? This is a newer segment of fiction which has climate change as the main focus. It’s also known as eco-fiction, which is a good phrase, because anthropogenic climate change is pretty much fiction to start with. Of course, it tends to be very, very preachy. Despite all the “carbon pollution” sucking trees killed to publish in paper version. Anyhow, here’s another one

(Brisbane Times) An Australian scientist has written a new children’s book, just in time for Christmas, that weaves the impacts of climate change into a story about Santa Claus, his reindeers and an evil billionaire.

Author Dr Ian Irvine, who has been a scientist for over three decades, first came up with the idea of marrying Christmas and climate change together for his eBook The Last Christmas, The North Pole is melting! two years ago.

“I have always been interested in environmental issues and it just sort of seemed to me that a great idea for a Christmas story for young kids would be about what it would actually be like for Santa Claus, the elves and the reindeer if the North Pole is melting,” Dr Irvine said.

The story focuses on the littlest reindeer, Vixen, and her challenge to save Santa’s village and workshop from billionaire villain Mr Sneer who wants to steal Christmas for himself. In the background of the story, the ice at the North Pole slowly melts away.

“It seemed like a great story idea that the ice at the North Pole is cracking up, what is going to happen to Santa and the elves, but more importantly, what is going to happen to the kids at Christmas,” Dr Irvine said.

So, what’s the point?

Dr Irvine said the narrative needed to be engaging so that kids could understand the underlying issues of the book while also helping parents talk about climate change to their children.

Can’t kids just be kids and enjoy the Christmas season, without being turned into emotional train-wrecks, creating climate anxiety, by hysterical parent with political agendas based on junk science? In Warmist World, the answer is no.

BTW, why are members of the Cult of Climastrology having kids in the first place? They tell us that kids are bad for climate change.

*it should noted that this book is scheduled to be released in e-book form, not a dead tree edition.

Read: New Kids Book Looks To Ruin Christmas By Including ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Donald Trump Has Crossed An Uncrossable Line On Muslims Or Something

By William Teach December 9, 2015 – 8:04 am

Let me start off by saying that I do not support Trump. I found his comments on Muslims to be idiotic from a political point of view. There’s an old saying going back to Napolean: “Never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake.” We should not think of Obama as the enemy, just an opponent, despite Obama thinking that anyone who isn’t 100% with him being an enemy. Obama did extremely poorly during his Sunday speech, and the best thing to do was to let that mistake fester. Trump decided to bloviate, and, regardless of whether he was slightly taken out of context, it was the wrong timing. He essentially is calling for stopping Muslims from entering the USA until “we figure out what is going on.”

Joe “Indians at 7-11s” Biden has called this a “dangerous brew”. The White House says this disqualifies Trump. That statement could elicit it’s own rebuttal post. Republicans are being forced to disown the comments. And over at the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus has her own take

Donald Trump has crossed an uncrossable line of bigotry

It is happening here.

With his call for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” Donald Trump has crossed an uncrossable line of bigotry and xenophobia. The Republican front-runner presents a clearer, more present danger to U.S. interests than the supposedly threatening Muslims he seeks to exclude. He is a one-man recruiting tool for the Islamic State.

Huh. Last time I checked, Trump was yelling “Alahu Akbar” before shooting anything up and leaving pipe bombs all over the place. He’s not shooting anything up. I’m not a follower of Trump, and I do not think he’s a Conservative, but, he’s not attempting to push America into any type of authoritarian nation, much like the hardcore Islamists are doing in 1st World nations, including our own. While we have a joke in the South that “he needed killin'” as a valid defense, it’s a joke. Honor killings are a real thing among the Islamists.

This was not Trump off the cuff, a Trump gaffe, Trump taken out of context or Trump responding ambiguously to a leading suggestion.

It was Trump being Trump, which is to say, crude, intolerant and ignorant. Yet nothing Trump has said previously comes close to this un-American suggestion.

And nothing in my experience of U.S. politics has been so sickening, has made me so embarrassed for my country. Who could have imagined that any supposedly mainstream political candidate — no less the front-runner of a major political party — would propose anything so extreme?

Ruth continues with her outrage for quite some time. Maybe we should look beyond her experience

The Democratic Party platform of 1856 denounced opposition to immigration in the name of “the liberal principles… which makes ours the land of liberty and the asylum of the oppressed of every nation…“ which “have ever been cardinal principles in the Democratic faith”. (snip)

The Democratic Party’s history is an endless parade of bigotry and treason. The 1860 Democratic platform continued to campaign for immigrant rights and slavery. The 1864 platform denounced the Civil War and called for negotiations with the Confederacy. The 1868 platform denounced “negro supremacy”. Then the Democrats spent the next fifty years obsessed with Asians.

The 1876 platform warned of an invasion of Asians, “unaccustomed to the traditions of a progressive civilization” and called for “legislation” to “prevent further importation or immigration of the Mongolian race.” The 1880 platform called for “No more Chinese immigration”. The 1884 platform “reaffirmed the liberal principles embodied by Jefferson” and demanded an end to “the admission of servile races.”

The 1892 platform denounced voting rights for black people as a Republican effort at the “reviving of race antagonisms” and demanded “the rigid enforcement of the laws against Chinese immigration”. The 1900 platform called for the “strict enforcement of the Chinese exclusion law, and its application to the same classes of all Asiatic races.” By that they meant the Japanese.

In 1904, the Democrats gave the Chinese a break and attacked the Mormons. The Mormons had been Democrats, but they were turning Republican. But by 1908, the Democrats were back to beating up on the Chinese, warning of “Asiatic immigrants who can not be amalgamated with our population” and whose “presence among us would raise a race issue.”

They were still pimping opposition to Asians in 1924. This was their official party platform. During that same period, and going back into the early 1800’s, their party platform also included heavy support for slavery, at least till it was outlawed with a Constitutional amendment, which Democrats were against. Afterwards, they opposed Blacks in all manners. They were the party of segregation, Jim Crow, housing covenants (meant to block Blacks from moving into White neighborhoods), Bull Connor, George Wallace, lynching, and the KKK.

The Democratic Party’s Senator Casserly delivered a speech titled “The Chinese Evil” which warned that California would be “scourged” by the “Asiatic hordes.” Well, Democrats thought of Blacks in the same manner, all the way up through the Civil Rights era, after which they suddenly decided to whitewash their opposition and institutionalized racism and say they were the party of Blacks. Why? For one of the same reasons they opposed Asians: voters. Asians tended to vote Republican, and Democrats did not like that. Of course, we can’t forget about their hatred of Asians. And Blacks. They really hated Blacks. But, getting Blacks onto the Democratic plantation did wonders for their voting support.

One has to wonder why Democrats are so supportive of radicalized Muslims? Is it just for the votes? Back to Ruth

All Republican lawmakers, party officials and candidates must immediately renounce Trump and assert that they will not support this demagogue at the top of the ticket. Failing to do so implicitly associates them with Trump’s bigotry.

Interestingly, Democrats have never renounced their bigotry against Asians and racism against Blacks. More interestingly, they never demand that all Muslims renounce the fundamentalist, hardcore version of Islam. By Ruth’s standards, if they do not renounce, that implicitly associates them with extremist Islam.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Donald Trump Has Crossed An Uncrossable Line On Muslims Or Something »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, RoP | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise? Iran Violates UN Resolutions With New Missile Launch

By William Teach December 8, 2015 – 3:07 pm

But, hey, we can totally trust Iran to uphold the provisions of the deal Mr. Obama struck with them. Even though it has no force of law

(Fox News) Iran has carried out a new medium range ballistic missile test in breach of two United Nations Security Council resolutions, a senior U.S. official told Fox News on Monday.

Western intelligence says the test was held Nov. 21 near Chabahar, a port city in southeast Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan Province near the border with Pakistan.  The launch took place from a known missile test site along the Gulf of Oman.

The missile, known as a Ghadr-110, has a range of 1,800 – 2000 km, or 1200 miles, and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. The missile fired in November is an improved version of the Shahab 3, and is similar to the precision guided missile tested by Iran on Oct. 10, which elicited strong condemnation from members of the U.N. Security Council.

“The United States is deeply concerned about Iran’s recent ballistic missile launch,” Samantha Power, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., said in a statement after the last Iranian ballistic missile test in October.

Thank goodness, the Obama admin is “deeply concerned”. Perhaps it’s time for a new hashtag or a strongly worded letter on a Hallmark card.

Then there’s this

Read: Surprise? Iran Violates UN Resolutions With New Missile Launch »

Posted in Current Affairs, Iran | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 8, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…are glaciers that will disappear because Someone Else refused to give up meat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Doug Ross @ Journal, with a post on Obama’s new terror alert system.

BTW, you can consider all IAYS posts as open threads to discuss whatever you want.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Severed Pig Head Thrown At Philly Mosque

By William Teach December 8, 2015 – 10:19 am

Have you ever wondered why things like this, the whole “hate crime” genre, seems to happen mostly in areas chock full of Democrats and run mostly by Democrats?

(Philly.com) Philadelphia police, the FBI, and the city’s Human Relations Commission launched investigations Monday after a worker at a North Philadelphia mosque found a severed pig’s head outside its door.

Surveillance video outside the Al Aqsa Islamic Society, on Germantown Avenue near Jefferson Street, showed a red pickup truck drove past the building twice just before 11 p.m. Sunday.

The first time it crept along slowly near the curb. On its second pass, the video shows, someone extended an arm from the passenger window and tossed something that rolled to a stop near the mosque’s front door.

An employee found the bloodied animal head there around 6 a.m. Monday. Pigs are considered insulting to Muslims who observe halal dietary laws.

What’s the over/under on this being a fake hate crime, a hoax? It certainly wouldn’t be the first time, and won’t be the last. If it is real, why is a deeply Democratic city so hateful and hurtful?

BTW, it’s rather ironic that the reporter’s name is John Bacon.

Read: Severed Pig Head Thrown At Philly Mosque »

Posted in Current Affairs | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Change Not Polling Well With Farmers, Albertans

By William Teach December 8, 2015 – 8:45 am

The Cult of Climastrology has previously trotted out a talking point that we should listen to the farmers, because they are supposedly on the front lines, having to deal with the changing of planting and picking seasons. Well, what do they have to say?

(Farm Pulse) Want proof that the climate change debate has become politicized in the United States? Look no further than a Nov. 2015 survey by the Pew Research Center.

The group asked Americans if they believe global climate change is a “very serious problem.” While 68% of democrats said it was, only 20% of republicans did. Pew also asked respondents if climate change is harming people now, and 53% of democrats versus 24% of republicans agreed.

A month later, Farm Journal Pulse asked farmers the exact same question: “Do you think climate change is a serious problem?” A total of 1,783 answered, with 78% saying no and 22% saying yes.

Huh. Here’s what it looks like

So much for 25+ years of scaremongering spreading awareness.

(CBC) The NDP’s new climate change plan is not going over well with Albertans, according a survey released Monday by Mainstreet-Postmedia.

The poll suggests 68 per cent of Albertans are opposed to the overall strategy, 22 per cent are in favour and 10 per cent are undecided.

The introduction of a carbon tax was opposed by 66 per cent of respondents.

Now, why would they be against a carbon tax?

The carbon tax on industry is expected to raise $3 billion a year, to be reinvested in renewable energy sectors and cover increased costs to consumers.

But the strategy will be paid for not only by industry, but by ordinary Albertans.

The province estimates the carbon tax will amount to roughly $470 in increased heating, electricity and transportation costs for an average household in 2018.

The Cult’s policies have real world implications for people. Negative ones. And will certainly do more harm to the middle and lower classes. Only in the big city of Edmonton does a carbon tax poll above water, 45% approving, 41% against. Calgary goes 33 for and 70 against. Overall, outside the cities, just 18% support a carbon tax.

I guess they do not want to be like Ontario, which “invested” tens of billions in “green” energy, and now cannot provide basic services, they’ve seen energy costs spike, and are on the verge of bankruptcy.

Read: Climate Change Not Polling Well With Farmers, Albertans »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

“One Person, One Vote” Heads To Supreme Court

By William Teach December 8, 2015 – 8:04 am

This has made the NY Times very upset. Why?

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear arguments in a voting rights case that has the potential to shift political power from urban areas to rural ones, a move that would provide a big boost to Republican voters in many parts of the nation.

The case, Evenwel v. Abbott, No. 14-940, will address a question many thought had been settled long ago: What is the meaning of the principle of “one person, one vote”?

The principle, rooted in cases from the 1960s that revolutionized democratic representation in the United States, applies to the entire American political system aside from the Senate, where voters from states with small populations have vastly more voting power than those with large ones. Everywhere else, voting districts must have very close to the same populations.

But the Supreme Court has never definitively ruled on who must be counted: all residents or just eligible voters?

The difference matters, because people who are not eligible to vote — children, immigrants here legally who are not citizens, unauthorized immigrants, people disenfranchised for committing felonies, prisoners — are not spread evenly across the country. With the exception of prisoners, they tend to be concentrated in urban areas.

Their presence amplifies the voting power of people eligible to vote in urban areas, usually helping Democrats. Rural areas that lean Republican, by contrast, usually have higher percentages of residents eligible to vote.

Getting beyond the NY Times’ tortured concern that Democrats will lose some political power, what this comes down to is “who is represented?” SCOTUSblog noted

The Supreme Court famously said, in 1964, that “legislators represent people, not trees or acres.”  That was its basic explanation for getting away from the traditional pattern of mapping election districts by geographic area, rather than by the people who are to be represented.  But the lingering question is: who are “the people” who are represented?

They could be the voters who actually go to the polls to exercise that right.  They could be the people eligible to vote, many of whom stay away from the polls.  They could be only the U.S. citizens.  They could be all the people, even those who do not have the right to vote — because they are children, non-citizens, or prison inmates, for example.

The plaintiffs want district apportionment to be determined by voters, as in, people who are eligible to vote. The suit makes an interesting case: should people who aren’t eligible to vote be counted in the census in terms of developing voting districts? A case could be made that non-eligible to vote US citizens should be counted, but, not non-citizens, regardless of whether they are legally or illegally present.

Of course, this has driven the reliably nutjob Salon to be nutjob, and they take it down the road of raaaaacism. Shocking, eh? They say this is a “dangerous assault on voting rights”.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was enacted so that people of color would no longer be considered only three-fifths of a person; the Evenwel plaintiffs now argue that some people should now be counted as zero-fifths of a person. This offensive scheme would dilute the ability of communities to elect the candidates of their choice and would stifle resources allocated to the districts where these populations have been undercounted. This simply cannot be rationalized in a democracy.

In a sane world (which is not Salon, obviously), the discussion would be centered on whether US citizens who are not eligible to vote would be included in the population count when creating voting districts. The insane leftists have made it so that we have to discuss whether people who are legally or illegally present in the United States should be counted, because they supposedly deserve representation. The length of legal VISAs varies. But, the vast majority do not even approach 10 years. The US holds a census every 10 years. Why should they be counted?

Illegals? Why should they be counted at all?

Evenwel v. Abbott marks a critical turning point. Our nation can take a regressive pivot backwards or affirm our core values of equality and justice. While the Supreme Court could let the Evenwel plaintiffs force chaotic and discriminatory redistricting schemes upon us all, the better choice is to uphold our most fundamental right to equal representation.

The central question goes back to “why would non-US citizens be counted for representation in the first place? They aren’t US citizens.”

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: “One Person, One Vote” Heads To Supreme Court »

Posted in Constitution | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 7, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…are melting glaciers that never ever melted before fossil fuels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Patterico’s Pontifications, with a post on victim blaming.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Bernie Sanders Decides To Go Brownshirt With His Climate Plan

By William Teach December 7, 2015 – 10:52 am

This AP article at US News and World Report is about Bernie Sanders scheduled to release his big Hotcoldwetdry plan today. You know, a few days after yet another murderous rampage by Islamists here in the United States

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is rolling out a plan to slow the effect of climate change, vowing to cut U.S. carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030.

The Democratic presidential candidate said in a proposal released on Monday he would seek to impose a tax on carbon dioxide pollution, long a nonstarter with majority Republicans in Congress, and aim to slash carbon pollution in the U.S. by 80 percent by 2050 compared to levels in 1990. The proposal, he said, would put “people before the profits of polluters.”

Sanders has made efforts to reduce global warming a cornerstone of his presidential campaign and his 16-page proposal, released as negotiators meet at the U.N. climate conference in Paris, provides the first extensive details on how he would seek to address it.

I suppose it would be too much for the AP to link to the the plan. Before I get to Bernie’s hyper-leftist wish list (it’s not so much a plan as bullet points), here’s the fun part of the article

Democrats view climate change as part of a winning formula against Republicans in the 2016 elections, and Sanders’ primary opponents, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, have offered wide-ranging environmental plans. Many Republican candidates have been dismissive of global warming despite public support for efforts to combat it.

They’re more than welcome to make it a cornerstone. It’s been a minor, minor issue that hasn’t swayed voters in the past, and, when stacked up against real issues that impact everyday citizens, it is last or next to last.

A few things looking at Bernie’s so-called plan. It spends quite a bit whining about things that haven’t happened, but could possibly maybe might happen! As mentioned, he wants to cut “carbon pollution”, of which there is no such thing. Then

Create a Clean-Energy Workforce of 10 million good-paying jobs by creating a 100% clean energy system. Transitioning toward a completely nuclear-free clean energy system for electricity, heating, and transportation is not only possible and affordable it will create millions of good jobs, clean up our air and water, and decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

So far, these green jobs have barely materialized, even with the full backing of taxpayer funds. Notice he wants to also eliminate nuclear energy.

Return billions of dollars to consumers impacted by the transformation of our energy system and protect the most vulnerable communities in the country suffering the ravages of climate change. Bernie will tax polluters causing the climate crisis, and return billions of dollars to working families to ensure the fossil fuel companies don’t subject us to unfair rate hikes. Bernie knows that climate change will not affect everyone equally – disenfranchised minority communities and the working poor will be hardest hit. The carbon tax will also protect those most impacted by the transformation of our energy system and protect the most vulnerable communities in the country suffering the ravages of climate change.

He’s acknowledging that his plan will cause extreme financial pain to middle and lower class citizens.

Obviously, despite his own massive use of fossil fuels, he has his hate on for the fossil fuels industry. He’ll ban Arctic drilling, offshore drilling, pipeline projects, fracking, and exporting liquefied natural gas and oil.

There’s way to much to fisk, but, here’s where it gets really disturbing

Create a national environmental and climate justice plan that recognizes the heightened public health risks faced by low-income and minority communities. Low-income and minority neighborhoods will continue to be the hardest hit if we don’t act to stop climate change now.

Does that sound like he is going to Brownshirt away in the name of ‘climate change’?

Bring climate deniers to justice so we can aggressively tackle climate change. It is an embarrassment that Republican politicians, with few exceptions, refuse to even recognize the reality of climate change, let alone are prepared to do anything about it. The reality is that the fossil fuel industry is to blame for much of the climate change skepticism in America. Bernie recently called for the Department of Justice to investigate Exxon Mobil, which may have not only known about the dangers of climate change, but has spent millions of dollars to spread doubt about the causes and impacts of burning fossil fuels.

Yes, it does sound like he’s going to Brownshirt away in violation of our 1st Amendment. Prick a Warmist and you find a Fascist. To use a word Warmists love to throw around, I find it “chilling” that a candidate for President of the USA to put into writing a plan to go after people who hold viewpoints he disagrees with.

Read: Bernie Sanders Decides To Go Brownshirt With His Climate Plan »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove