Deroy Murdock: Voters Should Focus On Policy Vs Personality

This is what I keep saying, in a few posts, and especially in comments at other sites, on Twitter, and definitely when I talk to the Trump haters in person. There are even people I know who say “I’m a Republican, but I can’t stand Trump.” Well, that’s great an all, what policies of his do you not like? They can’t even talk policy

Deroy Murdock: Trump vs. Biden – voters in 2020 should think long and hard about policy, not personality

Focus on public policy!

This is what I have done, and advised others to do, since Donald J. Trump secured the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

Some people, including otherwise intelligent and thoughtful free-market and cultural conservatives, cannot tolerate Trump’s larger-than-life persona, his often grandiose statements, his Twitter blasts, and the sneaking suspicion that he might be the reincarnation of P.T. Barnum. Some Americans find the president’s quirks and conduct amusing. Others are appalled.

President Trump’s antics make me grin more than they make me grimace, Regardless, I focus on public policy: What legislation has he signed? What has he vetoed? Do his actions as president make Americans freer, safer, and more prosperous? Do America’s enemies advance or retreat in his presence?

As voters pick the Oval Office’s next occupant, they should imagine it’s Christmas morning. A large, mysterious box sits beneath a shimmering tree. Is it covered in soothing, lovely wrapping paper or in months-old newsprint? Who cares? The box’s contents matter.

I’m stealing that one, Deroy. It’s a hell of an analogy.

Former vice president Joe Biden generally exudes a vaguely calming tone. His empathetic demeanor, perhaps forced by multiple family tragedies, also amplifies his appeal. For some people, that’s plenty. They, especially Republicans in their midst, should meditate long and hard on what Biden actually would do as president.

Deroy points out that Joe is against school choice, while Trump is for it

President Trump has created 8,700 Opportunity Zones, largely in low-income minority neighborhoods. Incentives have attracted some $75 billion in private investment to these communities.

If Biden kills the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, as he has pledged, wave goodbye to Opportunity Zones.

Joe can talk all he wants about killing that act, and how he would only increase taxes on those making $400k or more: it would harm a lot of different things, and, really, small business owners. Plus, we know how this works: all his Comrades in the entertainment industry, sports, lawyers, media, etc, will be give exemptions so they pay not a dime more.

Deroy goes through a few more things in the article, let’s note a few more: Harris-Biden would attempt to reinstate the Paris Climate agreement, the Clean Power Plan, Waters of the USA (one of the most onerous rules ever passed), they’d push for single payer (Medicare for all), massive gun restrictions (their nutty base wants the Australian solution, which is banning most private ownership), and so much more.

Trump keeps passing legislation and pushing rules/regs that are good for citizens, including blacks, Latinos, and LGBT. Heck, read through this thread, it’s a great one. If you’re a right leaning Never Trumper, think about what voting against Trump, whether for Biden, a 3rd party, or just not voting, brings if Biden wins. Is that what you want? Can you hold your nose and check the box for Trump/Pence as a vote against Biden/Harris? I’ve said before that my vote in 2016 was more about being against Hillary than for Trump. Give it a try.

Read: Deroy Murdock: Voters Should Focus On Policy Vs Personality »

Good News: Meteorologist Genger Zee’s Body Has A Message About ‘Climate Change’ (scam)

See if you can get the message (you can see the whole picture at the link, embedding Instagram never works for me)

Well, darn it, Bill beat me too it. From the link

If you have ever posted a picture on Instagram that you thought was going to be a hit and it got barely any likes, then you certainly know what Ginger Zee is going through.

ABC News’ chief meteorologist took to social media Friday with an offering and a plea to her followers. “Photos of my body, hair and legs get so many more comments than my important climate stories so HERE — here’s a photo I know will get the attention,” she wrote next to a photo of her in an orange dress, sitting on a step, with her legs exposed.

The text of her Instagram post reads

PLEASE READ: Photos of my body, hair and legs get so many more comments than my important climate stories so HERE — here’s a photo I know will get the attention — NOW, PLEASE KEEP READING: I appreciate all the interaction but I really want you all to HEAR what I’m saying too.

DON’T comment on this photo— go click on and WATCH my next post. Learn. Then comment there.

I will do whatever it takes for everyone to realize we need to make changes and clean-up our planet— NOW.

I post my stories every Friday and they often get only 6 comments and very few views. Hope this helps change that.
#itsnottoolate

It’s totes serious, people! If the climate crisis was real, would people have to do this kind of thing? Of course, let’s be honest, she’s really looking for likes and adoration for her body and viewpoints. But, hey, if she really wants to do something, she’d get ABC to stop using fossil fueled vehicles for all its operations and only use solar and wind for their broadcasts, right?

Read: Good News: Meteorologist Genger Zee’s Body Has A Message About ‘Climate Change’ (scam) »

If All You See…

…are leaves falling due to carbon pollution driven climatic changes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 357 Magnum, with a post fact checking the Harris-Biden tax plan.

Read: If All You See… »

Democratic Apoplexy Over ACB Could Lead To Changes They Don’t Want To Talk About

If you’re a politician and you do not want to discuss your plans openly because your opponent might take advantage of it, it might not be a good thing you’re planning to do, right? The NY Times doesn’t seem all that interested in what the agenda, is, just that something is there and Republicans might pounce and ZOMG ACB!

Democrats’ Anger Over Barrett Could Have Big Consequences in the Senate

Sore LosersJudge Amy Coney Barrett is on a glide path to the Supreme Court, but she will leave behind a Senate badly torn by its third confirmation blowup in four years, with the potential for severe repercussions should Democrats take control next year.

The decision by Sen. Mitch McConnell and Republicans to push through Barrett’s nomination to the high court on the eve of the election, after blocking President Barack Obama’s pick under similar circumstances in 2016, enraged many Democrats, who saw it as a violation of Senate norms and customs. With some already contemplating consequential changes, they were coming under increased pressure from progressive activists demanding payback in the form of an end to the legislative filibuster and an expansion in the size of federal courts should Joe Biden triumph in the presidential race and Democrats take the Senate.

In the aftermath of the confirmation hearing, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, said it would be premature to discuss what Democrats might do if they won the Senate majority. But he did not dismiss the idea that changes could be in store should the party prevail, only to hit roadblocks erected by a Republican minority in 2021.

Man, if only there was a huge news outlet which could badger Schumer to tell us, doing the job of a reporter, as protected by the 1st Amendment

Democrats have been hesitant to discuss their plans should they gain power, not wanting to provide Republicans — who are playing defense around the country — with an issue that could alienate voters. Biden has pointedly declined to give his opinion on adding seats to the courts, but during a Thursday night town-hall-style interview on NBC, he said he was “open” to the idea depending on how Republicans handled Barrett’s nomination.

Think about that: if those changes were good, they would have zero problem saying what they are, instead of worrying that they will alienate voters. That tells you all you need to know about their agenda, just like Handsy Joe refusing to really say whether he would be in favor of packing the courts.

Whether Democrats would move to gut the filibuster, expand the court or institute other changes would depend on multiple factors even should they win. Biden, a former longtime member of the Senate, would be cautious about upending an institution he reveres. In addition, how the Republicans respond to a Democratic takeover would be a major consideration. Plus, the margin of victory and the size of the party divide in the Senate would also factor into the debate.

Joe is in La La Land, and will do whatever Harris and the hardcores in his Party tell him to do.

Read: Democratic Apoplexy Over ACB Could Lead To Changes They Don’t Want To Talk About »

Trump Slams Green New Disaster, Says AOC Has Some Great Mule Fritters

He’s not wrong, you know

Trump says AOC has ‘a great line in bulls***’ as he slams Green New Deal

Donald Trump attacked Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for having a “great line of bulls***” but knowing nothing about the environment, as crowds at a rally in Macon, Georgia cheered.

The president took a swing at the New York congresswoman as he mocked her Green New Deal proposals to deal with the climate crisis.

Mr Trump made the dismissive comments to a campaign rally crowd on Friday, his third public event of the day following a speech to seniors and another rally in Florida.

“She doesn’t know anything about the environment, she doesn’t know, she has got a great line of bulls*** thats about it,” said Mr Trump to huge cheers.

Remember, her former chief of staff said it was all about economic, not the “environment”.

It was introduced in 2019 by Ms Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey.

Poor Ed Markey, he’s always left out of the discussion on the GND, but, he, if it’s not a great line of bullshit, then why have neither pushed hard to get it passed? In fact, again, you remember that Markey voted present when it was put up for a vote in the Senate, and AOC railed about the vote, wondering why the Senate was voting on her legislation, forgetting that Markey put it up in the Senate. Further, we’re fast approaching two years since it was introduce in that February, and not only has there been no votes in the House, it isn’t even being discussed in committee. Nor is AOC demanding that it get hearings and a vote.

Sounds like mule fritters to me. And now we’re just waiting for her shrieking response.

Read: Trump Slams Green New Disaster, Says AOC Has Some Great Mule Fritters »

Democrat Riot Cities Sue Trump Admin For Attempting To Keep Law And Order

Too bad this isn’t a bigger story, as voters might not be appreciative of Democratic Party cities suing over efforts to safeguard citizens and property, both federal and private. Even Democrat voters in the riot citizens might be rethinking their support for the riot enabling Democratic Party leaders

Portland, Oakland Sue Trump Administration for Efforts to Maintain Law and Order in U.S. Cities

The cities of Portland, Oregon, and Oakland, California, filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday claiming that the Trump administration’s effort to maintain law and order in U.S. cities and to protect federal property was unconstitutional. 

The lawsuit said that the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security unconstitutionally took over police duties in those cities, where, in the case of Portland, police have faced almost nightly violent riots that have resulted in property damage, injuries, and even deaths.

The genesis of the lawsuit comes from President Donald Trump signing an executive order in June to fulfill the federal government’s responsibility to protect the American people and federal property.

The local ABC affiliate in Portland reported on the lawsuit:

The cities sued the departments’ leaders, Attorney General William Barr and Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf, in their official capacities as well and asked the judge to forbid the federal agencies of sending officers to the cities. The 48-page lawsuit was filed in federal court in California.

Among the allegations, the cities said the federal government’s policies to send in officers to protect federal property instead “reveal a distinct and meaningful policy shift to use federal law enforcement to unilaterally step in or replace local law enforcement departments that do not subscribe to the President’s view of domestic “law and order.””

Seriously, what does it say about Democratic Party leaders when they let a small number of people run riot, literally, through the streets, committing violence, assault, arson, looting, and more? When they are free to attack police officers, throw explosives, attack federal buildings, destroy private businesses, and harass private citizens with virtually no penalties, and the governments of those cities sue to stop the federal government from protecting citizens and property?

“Yet again, dangerous politicians and fringe special interest groups have ginned up a meritless lawsuit,” a spokesperson from DHS said. “They aim to harm President Trump and distract from his law and order agenda.”

“Department of Homeland Security have acted entirely lawfully,” the spokesperson said. “Instead of condemning the violence we are seeing across the country, these politicians focus on scoring cheap political points to the detriment of the American people.”

We all saw the rioting on TV and the Internet. That’s what the lawsuit is trying to protect: criminal behavior.

Read: Democrat Riot Cities Sue Trump Admin For Attempting To Keep Law And Order »

NY Times: ACB Calling ‘Climate Change’ (scam) Controversial Is Controversial Or Something

See, people aren’t allowed to have opinions on political issues, and, climate cultists are kinda concerned that they will lose at the Supreme Court (because they’re arguments are not good and their facts are shoddy)

By Calling Climate Change ‘Controversial,’ Barrett Created Controversy

During two grueling days of questioning over her Supreme Court confirmation, Judge Amy Coney Barrett did her best to avoid controversy. But her efforts to play it safe on the subject of climate change have created perhaps the most tangible backlash of her hearings.

In her responses, the nominee to take the place of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an environmental stalwart, used language that alarmed some environmentalists and suggested rough going for initiatives to fight climate change, if as expected she wins confirmation and cements a 6-3 conservative majority on the court.

But with Senator Kamala Harris of California, the Democratic candidate for vice president, Judge Barrett, the daughter of an oil executive, went further. She described the settled science of climate change as still in dispute, compared to Ms. Harris’s other examples, including whether smoking causes cancer and the coronavirus is infectious.

“Do you believe that climate change is happening and threatening the air we breathe and the water that we drink?” Ms. Harris asked.

Judge Barrett responded, “You asked me uncontroversial questions, like Covid-19 being infectious or if smoking causes cancer” to solicit “an opinion from me on a very contentious matter of public debate,” climate change.

“I will not do that,” Judge Barrett concluded. “I will not express a view on a matter of public policy, especially one that is politically controversial.”

And that’s where it should be, in the legislative realm, not the justice system. But, Warmists know if they can get courts to rule in their favor they can jam through their agenda. If you make it all the to the end of this barely concealed opinion piece in the “news” section you see

To Carlos Curbelo, a former Republican member of Congress who supports action on climate change, the focus on Judge Barrett’s comments misses a broader point that the courts are not the proper venue for dealing with a problem as vast and complex as climate.

“Because Congress has been so dysfunctional for so many years, now we look to the courts,” Mr. Curbelo, “but we should be far more concerned with lawmakers and their understanding of the issue and willingness to act.”

But, see, climate cultists can’t. Even when the Democrats had full control of the Senate, House, and White House they didn’t push it through. So, they want the courts to rule. They can’t do that with ACB on the Supreme Court, and, also, she’s guilty of Wrongthink.

Read: NY Times: ACB Calling ‘Climate Change’ (scam) Controversial Is Controversial Or Something »

If All You See…

…are smaller than usual pumpkins due to carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is No Tricks Zone, with a post on a study showing East Antarctica was up to 6C higher during the Medieval Warm Period.

Read: If All You See… »

Want A Reason To Vote Trump? Just Look At The Courts

There are the Never Trumpers, who will never acknowledge anything good that Trump has done, and then the “I just don’t like him’s”. Politics is often a system where you have a bad choice and a worse choice. Complain all you want about Trump personally, but, do you want Joe Biden (OK, really, Kamala Harris) and the Democrats picking the judges? Trump, along with Mitch McConnell (go figure), has filled an enormous amount of federal judicial positions, including 2 about to be 3 spots on the Supreme Court. He has turned the worse leftist court in the nation, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a court that has been overturned by the Supreme Court more than any other because they rule on their Modern Socialist beliefs rather than Law and Constitutions, into almost a conservative court.

Supreme Court battle turns into 2020 proxy war

The fight over Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination is turning into a proxy war over the looming November election.

With Barrett’s nomination on a glide path, senators in both parties are instead using the chamber’s debate to make their case to voters in the final weeks of the Nov. 3 election, where both control of the White House and the Senate majority are up for grabs.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — while acknowledging that he believes Democrats have a “good chance” of winning the White House — predicted that the Supreme Court fight would influence voters when they cast their ballots.

“I think the public will go into the voting booth. And they’ll say, ‘Okay I’ve seen the kind of judges Democrats will nominate. I’ve seen the kind of judges Republicans will nominate,’ and that will be important to people,” Graham said.

Both sides are predicting the Supreme Court fight will pay political dividends in an already volatile election. Democrat believe the potential implications for health care give them a potent political force and Republicans are hoping for a redux of 2018, when several Democratic senators who opposed then-nominee Brett Kavanaugh lost.

Republicans are tying themselves closely to Barrett, believing the Supreme Court energizes their voters and could shore up support for GOP, or Republican-leaning, voters that might have grown exhausted by Trump.

There’s plenty more to this article, but, just consider: if you’re a squishy “zomg, Trump is a horrible person personally” Republican, is it worth it to hold your nose and vote Trump, or, if you like, against Biden, and keep putting good conservatives on the courts? I’ve said before, I held my nose in 2016 and ticked the box for Trump/Pence after doing the entire ballot first on election day, and it was more voting against Hillary than for Trump. Trump had to be better than Hillary, right, especially when Mike Pence, one of the good guys, was on the ticket, right? For all your Trump hatred, which is worse? His bloviating and stuff President Biden/Harris?

Read: Want A Reason To Vote Trump? Just Look At The Courts »

Climate Cult Report Calls For Getting Rid Of Fossil Fueled Vehicles And Home Heating Oil

The Cult of Climastrology tells us what restrictions and such they want to put on Other People: you just have to listen to what they say, yet, too many fall for the scam. This comes from the New Jersey Department Of Environmental Protection, which doesn’t seem to have given up its own use of fossil fueled vehicles

No gas-powered cars, no heating oil for homes. Climate report calls for major action

New Jersey has met a short-term goal of trimming carbon emissions but must make radical changes to transportation, electric generation, construction and industry if it is to achieve a much bigger reduction by the middle of the century, the Department of Environmental Protection said Thursday.

In a report on progress toward a legal requirement of cutting emissions by 80% from 2006 levels by 2050, the DEP called for “steep and permanent” reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions within the “next several years.”

Unless the state puts itself on a path to rapidly phase out fossil fuels and adopt renewables on a wide scale, its people will see the increasing effects of climate change including sea-level rise, increases in temperature and precipitation, chronic flooding, bigger storms and longer droughts, the “80×50” report said.

See, they have to attempt to scare people to get them to Comply with paying more taxes and fees, dealing with their cost of living skyrocketing, and giving up freedom, liberty, and choice.

Achieving transportation’s share of the shift would require a massive change in how new cars, SUVs and light-duty trucks are powered, the report said. It calculated that 88% of those vehicles would have to be driven by electricity or hydrogen by 2030, rising to 100% by 2035. For electric vehicles, that would mean expanding their number by 111,000 a year until 2035 from the current rate of only 8,000 a year, the report said.

Anyone ever been in NJ traffic? Good luck not running out while sitting in it (just like in California which is looking to do the same). Of course, you can bet it will be mandated that people take the bus or train to work rather than their own vehicle, plus, people won’t be able to really afford those pure electric vehicles, especially since power will be scarce and expensive.

And it said the experience of millions of people working from home rather than commuting to offices during the COVID-19 pandemic “provides an opportunity to realize significant short-term emissions reductions in the transportation sector.”

Looks like they want people pretty much staying home all the time.

Residential and commercial sectors account for the second-largest share of emissions, 26%, and the report said they must fall by 89% by 2050 to meet the overall target. That could be achieved in part by phasing out the use of heating oil and propane, which together account for about 10% of New Jersey residences. Legislation or directives from the Board of Public Utilities could be used to achieve a conversion of new building stock, starting at 22% by 2030, rising to 90% by 2050.

Say goodbye to your gas stove and heating, along with your propane grill, among others. Solar can provide adequate heat on a cold winter night, right? Right?

The New Jersey Business & Industry Association called the report a “first step” toward setting needed policy on reducing emissions, but said the absence of cost estimates limited its usefulness.

“It’s perfectly OK to do the analysis and say, ‘here’s where we think we need to go,’” said Ray Cantor, the BIA’s vice president of government affairs. “But DEP said there is really no analysis as to what this is going to cost, there is no analysis as to whether our energy system would actually be reliable as a result. It’s a starting point for the detailed conversations but it’s absolutely not how we should move forward.”

Cost? Pfft. There’s no need to worry about cost when you are Saving The World. When NJ gives this a whirl, and it is a when, not an if, the NJ Business and Industry Association will surely be among the first to bitch about their cost increases. NJ should try this. Like I’ve said, we need experimental groups to show us what happens.

Read: Climate Cult Report Calls For Getting Rid Of Fossil Fueled Vehicles And Home Heating Oil »

Pirate's Cove