The Green New Deal Is The Key To Winning Back Trump Voters Or Something

Realistically, if we go by the number of news reports about the Green New Deal, it’s dying. It is rarely talked about by politicians and rarely makes the news anymore. Even Excitable AOC nor co-sponsor Senator Ed Markey rarely talk about it. It used to be prominent on AOC’s Twitter page. This is humorous, though

The Green New Deal Holds the Key to Winning Back Trump Voters

….

Today, the “Green New Deal” — a 10-year plan introduced by New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey to transition to 100% renewable energy, while embarking on major social reforms — marks the far horizon of the left-liberal imagination. For those opposed to it, the Green New Deal, like the original one, is already considered little but camouflage for a program to introduce socialism to America.

Like its predecessor, it arrives on the scene at a fateful moment. There is no way to exaggerate the gravity of the Great Depression in its time or the looming prospect of climate catastrophe in ours. The question is: Could the Green New Deal do what the first one did to stave off the worst — or even do more? In this case, facing the reality of a fast-heating planet in a country whose president is Donald J. Trump, looking back is a way of looking forward.

The author then has to lie about it

Yet the Green New Deal contains no frontal assault on private enterprise. For that matter, it doesn’t even threaten to completely abolish the fossil-fuel industry itself. A carbon tax — a levy on the carbon content of fuels — and “cap and trade” — placing a limit on carbon emissions while allowing firms that exceed it to buy the right to do so from those that stay under that ceiling — sometimes appear as part of its portfolio of solutions. Neither, however, represents a fundamental threat to capitalism’s reliance on the marketplace as the ultimate arbiter of what to produce and not to produce.

We can all read the GND, and it is all about Modern Socialism. Heck, AOC’s previous chief of staff, who was present when it was written, admitted it wasn’t about ‘climate change’.

Indeed, the Green New Deal’s promise that millions of decent-paying jobs will result from its climate-change-oriented investments echoes the rationale and real accomplishments of the first New Deal’s recovery efforts, especially its various public works. Neither then nor now, however, were or are proponents inciting the working class to run the new industries to be created.

Most of those jobs would be in government or private jobs which are funded by government. But, how does all this win back Trump voters? After going through dozens of paragraphs, the article ends with

Thanks to its promise of millions of new well-paid jobs, its concern with the health and environmental well-being of marginalized communities, and its commitment to labor’s right to organize and participate in erecting and directing the new economy, the Green New Deal offers a chance to win back people who voted first for Barack Obama and then for Donald Trump. At some point they will perhaps conclude that “yes we can” and the con-man theatrics of a billionaire populist were just two versions of fake news and search for a way out of the lockbox of the neoliberal order.

So, the idea is to offer, in reality, massive government and the illusion of good paying jobs, along with lots of lies about what the GND is really about, to win back those voters? Huh. Sure sounds like this whole ‘climate change’ thing is about politics.

Read: The Green New Deal Is The Key To Winning Back Trump Voters Or Something »

California Gov. Gavin Newsome Wants Investigation Into California’s High Gas Prices

The national average across the country is $2.68 according to AAA. It’s $2.41 here in NC. Texas, with tons of refineries, is $2.28. California is the highest in the nation at $4.117 (all the west coast states are in the highest category, as well as Alaska and Hawaii).

Let’s see

Gov. Gavin Newsom wants investigation of state’s high gas prices

California’s governor has asked the attorney general to investigate why the state’s gas prices are so high, pointing to a new report suggesting big oil companies are “misleading and overcharging customers” by as much as $1 per gallon.

Name brand retailers – including 76, Chevron and Shell – often charge more because they say their gasoline is of higher quality. But a new analysis from the California Energy Commission could not explain the price difference, concluding “there is no apparent difference in the quality of gasoline at retail outlets in the state.”

The commission said California drivers paid an average of 30 cents more per gallon in 2018, with the difference getting as high as $1 per gallon in April of this year. The result is California drivers paid an additional $11.6 billion at the pump over the last five years.

First, they can, in fact, charge what they want. The gas station I filled up at the other day was about $2.33 for my car. Filling up a different car yesterday was $2.44. Prices can be higher or lower depending on the area.

Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, said the industry trade group is reviewing the report. But she said it was important to note California’s fuel taxes and standards, which are more strict than other states, account for the first $1.07 per gallon at the pump.

The cap and trade system adds at least 12 to 20 cents per gallon

(Pacific Research) Yes, as AAA notes, some of the answer is explained by supply and demand.  They point to issues with a Chevron refinery in El Segundo and a shutdown at a Shell refinery in Martinez, as well as complications from PG&E’s blackouts shutting down some gas stations that are unable to pump gas without electricity.

But the real reason we’re paying so much more is high taxes and expensive regulations imposed by Sacramento politicians.

According to the American Petroleum Institute, Californians now pay 80.45 cents per gallon in total federal and state gasoline taxes (including federal and state excise taxes).  The price increased by 5.6 cents per gallon on July 1 thanks to another gas tax increase courtesy Senate Bill 1, the $52 billion gas tax increase enacted by the Legislature in 2017. (snip)

Adopted as part of California’s efforts to address global warming, the state’s low carbon fuel standard currently adds around 16 cents per gallon to the price of gas.  And these costs will increase.  A December 2018 report by California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s office predicts that the low carbon fuel standard will increase to approximately 46 cents per gallon by the year 2030.

That last one is on top of the cap and trade tax. And let’s not forget all the lawsuits against the fossil fuels companies, which means fewer stations being built and the cost for defending the suits being passed on.

It’s a total mystery as to why Californians pay so much. Time to spend millions on investigating this.

Read: California Gov. Gavin Newsome Wants Investigation Into California’s High Gas Prices »

Surprise: Many Democrats Liked Comparing Clinton Impeachment To Lynching

And nobody freaked out over what was just a term. See, Trump dropped this

If Leftists don’t think that a) Trump and his team knew exactly what he was doing and b) had done some research, they haven’t been paying attention. Team Trump knows exactly how to Troll (Master level) Democrats. And Breitbart’s Penny Star was able to do a quick search and find

An article published in the New York Times on December 19, 1998 during the impeachment of Bill Clinton:

Later, Representative Ike Skelton, Democrat of Missouri, said the Republicans wanted to “decapitate their Commander in Chief.” Representative Steven R. Rothman, a New Jersey Democrat, complained of a “Republican juggernaut, driven by the right wing.” Representative Patrick J. Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island, a nephew of the late President John F. Kennedy, spoke of “a political lynching,” and Representative Danny K. Davis, an Illinois Democrat, denounced what he described as “a lynching.”

The New York Times wrote about Bill Clinton’s impeachment on September 18, 1998:

A ”large volume of calls” to Senator John Glenn, a Democrat who said this week that it would be ”reckless and injudicious” for him to join ”the rush to judgment” in the Lewinsky matter, have run 2 to 1 in favor of resignation or impeachment. Mr. Chabot’s office said the tally there was 425 to 15 against Mr. Clinton since Kenneth W. Starr issued his report a week ago.

Not that the President lacks vocal supporters in this state. The Ohio Democratic chairman, David J. Leland, said, ”The vast majority of Ohio Democrats want to see this President continue in office, because they know a political lynching when they see one.”

The Baltimore Sun wrote about Bill Clinton’s impeachment on September 12, 1998:

“This feels today like we’re taking a step down the road to becoming a political lynch mob,” fumed Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington state. “Find the rope, find the tree and ask a bunch of questions later.”

Those are just three quoted uses of lynching for the Clinton impeachment. How about

CBS wrote about the “GOP Lynch mob” on April 6, 2011:

GOP lynch mob is still trying to string up the fledgling Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Members of the House Financial Services Committee met today to discuss four bills, all sponsored by Republicans and backed by the banking industry, aimed at subduing the agency even before it officially launches this summer.

And here’s Sleepy Joe

Via Twitchy, which has those two tweets (here and here). Of course, Joe is apologizing now

Read: Surprise: Many Democrats Liked Comparing Clinton Impeachment To Lynching »

Make Sure To Buy Your Sustainable Halloween Treats And Nag The Kids

There’s actually two parts to this article. One is the same old same old Hotcoldwetdry climate cultist tripe, the other is something about actual environmental damage

Sustainable Halloween treats: Better for the planet and just as sweet

It’s a given that Halloween treats are a little scary when it comes to kids’ dental health. But they can also be scary from an environmental perspective: Many contain palm oil, which may be produced in a way that causes deforestation and horrifying outcomes for endangered rainforest animals.

In September, the Toronto Zoo, the largest in Canada, launched a social media campaign asking people to “choose treats that protect rainforests,” listing brands that use certified sustainable palm oil.

Those include:

  • Mars (Twix, 3 Musketeers, M&Ms, Snickers, Dove, Skittles)
  • Hershey’s (Reese’s, Turtles, Whoppers, Twizzlers, Jolly Ranchers)
  • Frito-Lay (Lay’s, Ruffles, SunChips, Tostitos, Cheetos)
  • Quaker
  • Ferrero
  • Kraft Heinz
  • Lindt & Sprungli

OK, I’m not going to look up more than Quaker, but, really, do kids want chips and granola bars for Halloween? Good way to get your house egged. But, why do they need sustainable palm oil?

Kelly Bentley, supervisor of volunteering and engagement at the Toronto Zoo, said the campaign comes out of the zoo’s commitment to conservation and education, as well as the fact that it’s home to many species from palm oil-producing regions, such as southeast Asia.

“We have orangutans here, we have tigers, we have rhinos — these are all affected by a lot of this destruction of the rainforest in Indonesia, and a lot of this destruction has been for palm oil plantations,” she said. In fact, Indonesian officials said more than 80 per cent of the devastating wildfires raging through its rainforests in September were intentionally set to make room for palm plantations.

I’ve actually mentioned that problem many times, but, why are so many destroying jungles and intentionally wiping out species for palm oil? Part of the reason is, in fact, the ‘climate change’ (scam) push. It is used in snacks, food stuffs, cooking oil, cosmetics, biofuel, and more. It supposedly has a lower carbon footprint. And ends up doing real environmental damage. Because the Cult of Climastrology pushes it. Then they have to have a campaign to stop the bad stuff they’ve created.

Read: Make Sure To Buy Your Sustainable Halloween Treats And Nag The Kids »

If All You See…

…is coffee that will soon be too expensive from the climate crisis, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Political Clown Parade, with a post on Canada re-electing its first black prime minister.

Read: If All You See… »

California Governor Pardons Immigrants To Avoid Deportation

See, the usual talking point from the Open Borders crowd is that they do not want the bad ones, just the good ones. Yet, they keep protecting the ones who commit criminal acts

California Governor Pardons Three Immigrant Felons to Avoid Deportation

California Governor Gavin Newsom pardoned three immigrant felons last week to help them avoid being deported from the United States.

Newsom, who oversees the most pro-illegal immigration state in U.S. history, pardoned three immigrants — Arnou Aghamalian from Iran, Thear Seam from Cambodia, and Victor Ayala from El Salvador — in order to erase their criminal records and help them avoid deportation back to their native countries.

Aghamalian, a 42-year-old refugee from Iran, was pardoned by Newsom after being convicted in December 1999 for aiding in setting fire to a nightclub owner’s car. Aghamalian first entered the U.S. as a refugee when he was 15-years-old.

Seam, a 41-year-old refugee from Cambodia was pardoned following his August 1996 conviction where a jury found him guilty of robbery, as well as an accessory to a high-speed chase where he was helping a wanted fugitive evade arrest by police. Seam first entered the U.S. as a refugee when he was 4-years-old.

Also pardoned by Newsom is 38-year-old Victor Ayala, a legal immigrant from El Salvador, who was convicted in 1999, 2000, and 2001 for misdemeanor theft, hit-and-run, and felony theft. Ayala first entered the U.S. when he was 2-years-old.

Obviously, these are all legal immigrants in some form, not illegals, but, under the law, if a legal immigrant commits crimes they get booted out. If they don’t like that, well, tough. The terms are pretty clear. Yet, Democrats keep trying to shield them. They don’t have to go to their home countries, but they can’t stay here.

Interestingly, California will fine and even jail citizens for failure to pay their taxes, and is working hard to turn law abiding gun owners into criminals.

Read: California Governor Pardons Immigrants To Avoid Deportation »

Exxon Goes To Trial Today Over ‘Climate Change’, And The Lawsuit Has Shrunk

The original lawsuit was going to Take Down Exxon (despite all sorts of Warmists, from the supporters to the government agencies filing the suits, using lots of fossil fuels, including from Exxon). Now? The NY Post Editorial Board has thoughts

The incredible collapsing ‘#ExxonKnew’ climate change lie

On Tuesday, the progressive legal war on Exxon will head to trial in a case most notable for … how badly it has fizzled.

It started back in 2016, with “a move many are hailing as a ‘turning point,’ ” as EcoWatch proclaimed: 20 state attorneys general launching an “unprecedented, multi-state effort” to probe and prosecute the oil giant.

The central charge — seemingly bolstered by Pulitzer-nominated journalists: Exxon had for decades hidden “key climate science.”

Actually, only a few AGs — including then-New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who spearheaded the effort — led any investigations. And today, only two cases exist: the one from the New York AG’s office, and another from the Massachussets AG — which is on hold and likely dead.

So, what’s happening

The claim: Exxon had long known that consuming oil would cause global warming but hid the facts. In fact, the company for decades published findings closely matching mainstream science. No one has ever produced any evidence of a coverup.

Which is why Schneiderman (before the revelation of horrifying personal conduct ended his career) was forced to find a different rationale: Big Oil, he said, might be “overstating” its assets by “trillions,” by failing to account for potential future regulations that restrict fossil fuels.

Oops: The company had warned about the risks of new rules; that’s why a Securities and Exchange Commission probe cleared it of those charges.

And the case that now-AG Letitia James takes to trial Tuesday is a huge comedown from even that claim, charging that Exxon fraudulently used two sets of books to state the risks. The company says it merely releases different estimates for different purposes, with full disclosure.

The charge is not only a far cry from the original #ExxonKnew allegations, it’s also almost certain to fail. Putting the best face on this fact, climate-change warrior Andrew Revkin tweeted Wednesday: “Some lawsuits are fought for the win, some are fought for the documents. The NYS #exxonknew suit is far more likely to be the latter.”

In fact, the entire thing has been a shameless exercise in prosecutorial abuse, from the outrageous harassment of nonprofits whose research the climate-crisis crew dislikes to the ethically dubious private funding of staff in the New York AG’s Office.

They wrap up with

If you have a real case, you don’t have to make up fake ones

So what is AG James trying to accomplish? The “we need to destroy Exxon” thing has been reduced to getting some documents. The State Of NY is more than welcome to stop using fossil fuels for state operations. This was a bullying operation, which Exxon refused to bow down to. It still would have been great had Exxon, and all the other fossil fuels companies, simply refused to sell gas and oil to those states.

Read: Exxon Goes To Trial Today Over ‘Climate Change’, And The Lawsuit Has Shrunk »

Saving The Republic: Democrats To Delay Impeachment

Democrats keep telling us that impeachment is Very Important, that the very republic is at stake. That Orange Man Bad did very bad things. Yet, they refuse to take a formal vote on holding an impeachment investigation, block Republicans from being a part of it, do stuff in secret, don’t seem to want the so-called whistleblower involved, and…

From the link

House Democrats are facing a time crunch to quickly wrap up their investigation into allegations President Donald Trump abused his office in pushing Ukraine to probe his political rivals, prompting growing expectations that votes on impeaching Trump could slip closer to the end of the year.

Some Democrats had hoped that a narrow probe — focused on whether Trump put on ice efforts to bolster relations with Ukraine and provide US military aid to the country until it carried through with a political favor — could conclude swiftly, with a potential vote to impeach Trump by Thanksgiving.

But that has proven to be more complicated than it initially seemed, according to multiple Democratic lawmakers and sources. The reason: Each witness has so far provided more leads for investigators to chase down, including new names to potentially interview or seek documents from. (snip)

The challenge facing Democrats: They want to conduct a thorough investigation, but prolonging the probe will continue to consume Washington — and risks bumping into the presidential election season if proceedings drag into the new year. (snip)

“I think it’s more like between Thanksgiving and Christmas” for the end of the investigation, said one Democratic member involved in the probe. “After that, it’s a strategic decision about when to bring it to the floor.”

A committee source said that “putting an artificial time limit is the wrong way to run a credible investigation.”

The problem for them is, of course, that the whole Ukraine thing is disappearing from the public conscience, and while they say they will eventually hold public hearings and release transcripts from the secret ones, people will have moved on, as well as realized that this is international politics, heck, domestic politics, that it happens all the time. And they’re all afraid that they will have to vote at some point. That they won’t now shows that they are afraid.

The Democrats want to drag it out, hoping their pals in the news keep covering it. But, how did that work with Russia Russia Russia? Adam Schiff swore he had everything necessary on it, yet, provided nothing, and it all become a big nothing burger. Think Trump won’t remind people about that?

Read: Saving The Republic: Democrats To Delay Impeachment »

Gun Grabber Beto O’Rourke Wants To Add Boyfriends To Growing List Of Banned People

Now, on the surface, does it make sense to temporarily restrict current and former boyfriends (why not girlfriends?) who are violent and/or threaten violence from possessing a firearm? How about putting them on the watch list to deny purchase permits? Realistically, if they’ve already been convicted, they’re already banned. But, this is not a surface thing

Beto O’Rourke Adds Gun Ban for Boyfriends to AR-15 Grab

Democrat presidential hopeful Robert “Beto” O’Rourke tweeted on Saturday his support for closing what the left refers to as the “boyfriend loophole.”

This latest loophole began to emerge in the leftist thought in 2014, when Gabby Giffords pushed a gun ban that would treat a “dating partner” on par with a spouse as far as gun possession was concerned. The push has since been championed by Michael Bloomberg-funded Everytown for Gun Safety, where it is presented as an effort to close the “boyfriend loophole.”

This effort ultimately expands the National Instant Criminal Background Check System’s (NICS) prohibited purchaser’s list, adding certain dinner dates or brief, former dating partners to the left’s growing list of people who cannot purchases firearms.

O’Rourke is on board with the ban:

https://twitter.com/BetoORourke/status/1185302582685851653

See, the idea is to continuing adding more and more people who can file Red Flags against people, and expand who can have one filed against them. And, since most Red Flag laws have no due process in place, nor penalties for those who frivolously and/or falsely accuse, it is easier to just file away to erode 2nd Amendment Rights.

A goodly chunk of states already have laws that restrict firearm possession by those credibly accused of stalking and domestic violence. This is just a way to accuse and deny. Because no one has falsely accused other people of something that didn’t happen, right? There have been no false allegations of sexual assault and hate crimes, right?

The left’s efforts to use domestic monikers to prevent gun ownership by a boyfriend or dating partner is presented as a way to keep women safe. But the reality is that a woman is often at a disadvantage in an attack whether a gun is involved or not, and a woman with a gun can level the playing field (if not turn the tables altogether).

See, the gun grabbers aren’t interested in protecting women, otherwise they would make it easier for them to purchase a firearm. They want to take guns away from women, too. And that’s what their push is about: disarmament.

Read: Gun Grabber Beto O’Rourke Wants To Add Boyfriends To Growing List Of Banned People »

If All You See…

…are horrible evil fossil fueled vehicles, you might be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Real Climate Science, with a post on Alarmists getting exactly what they wanted.

BTW, someone asked why I still use Warmist in these posts, rather than Alarmist or climate cultist or something. These posts are meant to tweek the noses of ‘climate change’ believers while offering up a beautiful lady, as well as being an open post to discuss what you want. They aren’t meant to be hardcore, but light-hearted.

Read: If All You See… »

Bad Behavior has blocked 9851 access attempts in the last 7 days.