Ben Sasse Calls For Abolishing The 17th Amendment

By William Teach September 9, 2020 – 10:30 am

This is a push I hope he makes hard, and convinces enough states to do, since elected senators would see their national power diminish along with all that fun campaign cash, hob-knobbing with celebs, and all the perks

Ben Sasse Calls For Repealing The 17th Amendment

Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution in an op-ed published Tuesday by The Wall Street Journal.

Proposed in 1912 and ratified by 36 state legislatures on April 8, 1913, the amendment required U.S. senators to be elected by popular votes in each state. Prior to its enactment, Article I of the Constitution mandated that each state legislature vote to send two senators to Washington.

Sasse’s op-ed, titled, “Make the Senate Great Again,” suggested several Senate reforms “aimed at promoting debate, not ending it.”

“What would the Founding Fathers think of America if they came back to life?” Sasse began. “Their eyes would surely bug out first at our technology and wealth. But I suspect they’d also be stunned by the deformed structure of our government. The Congress they envisioned is all but dead. The Senate in particular is supposed to be the place where Americans hammer out our biggest challenges with debate. That hasn’t happened for decades—and the rot is bipartisan.”

In arguing for the abolition of the 17th Amendment, Sasse pointed to the polarization and nationalization of politics, suggesting that returning control to state legislatures would be a way of implementing local control.

“Ratified in 1912, it replaced the appointment of senators by state legislatures with direct election,” he wrote. “Different states bring different solutions to the table, and that ought to be reflected in the Senate’s national debate. The old saying used to be that all politics is local, but today—thanks to the internet, 24/7 cable news and a cottage industry dedicated to political addiction—politics is polarized and national. That would change if state legislatures had direct control over who serves in the Senate.”

Unfortunately, the piece is behind the WSJ’s paywall, so, we cannot read it in full. Much like the Electoral College, which I discussed earlier this morning, the Senate was designed to give States their own voice to the federal government, like ambassadors. Who can vote. Who do the will of the General Assemblies for each state, rather than for a national party or outside special interests. It would mean people would pay attention to their state governments, who appoint the Senators. Who would vote to uphold the point of the 10th Amendment, rather than continuously give more and more power to the federal government, with almost no way to check it.

We are a conglomeration of states. Nations. The cares of North Carolina can, at points, be vastly different from Oregon, right? And visa versa? That’s one of the reasons we have a Senate. The Upper Chamber. Representatives represent the citizens (at least, that’s how it’s supposed to work, right? Not picking on her, just info I saw recently, but, 80% of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 2018 campaign donations came from outside her district. How does that represent the district? Who’s she beholden to? Same with a lot of reps), Senators represent their states. Beholden to the GA’s.

Rather than yammer on, here’s one great article on the 17th and why it should be repealed, including

The original U.S. Constitution gave state governments a strong voice in the national government by requiring them to select U.S. Senators – to serve much like ambassadors today at the United Nations – and thus created the U.S. Congress to be a political (not judicial) venue for the competition between state government interests and national government interests. The Senate provided the state governments the necessary ability to restrict the natural inclination of the national government to expand its power. It is no coincidence that the national government began its exponential growth following the passage of the 17th Amendment, just as soon as there was no longer a competing interest that could stop it. The framers concluded that the judiciary was not the appropriate arbiter (as the courts currently imagine themselves) of the line between state and national interests, in part because the courts have a self-interest favoring a strong national government (the courts being created by Congress), and in part because the framers understood that different generations may draw that separation in different ways.

And this one

Apparently, the only thing worse than peasants with pitchforks is peasants with pocket Constitutions.

But there’s nothing silly or retrograde in deploring the effects of an amendment that has done untold damage to federalism and limited government.

“Let the state legislatures appoint the Senate,” Virginia’s George Mason urged at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, lest a newly empowered federal government “swallow up the state legislatures.” The motion carried unanimously after Mason’s remarks.

There is way, way more in both, worth the read. Democrats should remember that unchecked power of the federal government every time it does something they do not like. And they complain enough about special interests, right?

Read: Ben Sasse Calls For Abolishing The 17th Amendment »

Posted in Constitution, GOP | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

You Ate A Burger, Causing 500,000 Californians To Go Without Power

By William Teach September 9, 2020 – 8:51 am

I bet you had a big sugary drink with your burger, too, right? For shame

California’s Climate Crisis Is Deepening as 500,000 Go Dark

In a matter of weeks, California has been hit with two record-breaking heat waves, hundreds of blazes, freak lightning storms and dangerously poor air quality. Now, unusually strong winds are threatening to knock down power lines and ignite more wildfires.

That prompted PG&E Corp. to impose power cuts for more than 500,000 people and could spurs utilities in Southern California to do the same on a smaller scale Tuesday night. As dangerous conditions stretch across the West, an Oregon-based utility has also switched off power to some of its customers.

The shutoffs that California’s largest utility began late Monday are the latest blow for the disaster-weary state, where climate change is making weather ever more extreme. Temperatures have soared to records from Napa to Los Angeles. Wildfires have torched more than 2.2 million acres, the most in records stretching back three decades. Hundreds of thousands of people may be in the dark for days while trapped indoors due to wildfire smoke and Covid-19 outbreaks.

Officials are responding with equally extreme measures. In August, California carried out its first rotating blackouts since the 2001 energy crisis, drawing the ire of millions who went powerless as extreme temperatures boosted demand for electricity. The Trump administration on Sunday declared a power emergency, allowing generating plants to run at full bore, regardless of environmental limits.

Let’s cut to the chase: instead of spending oodles of taxpayer dollars on the mythical climate change while increasing costs and decreasing the available energy by getting rid of stuff that works, California could have updated their electrical grid, burying more lines underground, replaced coal plants with nuclear and natural gas, and so much more. It’s a state that gets very dry and very windy, so anything, such as a gender reveal pyrotechnic, can make a tiny fire huge. There’s nothing carbon pollution related.

Just a state that bought into a cult and made bad choices, rather than realizing that the world warms mostly naturally, adapt properly. A state run by Democrats. Yet, enough people in California will keep voting for them like fools. Oh, and let’s not forget all those who voted Democrat and are now running for Arizona.

Read: You Ate A Burger, Causing 500,000 Californians To Go Without Power »

Posted in Democrats, Energy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

NY Times: The Electoral College Will Destroy America (or something)

By William Teach September 9, 2020 – 8:30 am

Who’s surprised that the NY Times is running this opinion piece by editorial board member Jesse Wegman? You’ll love the subhead

The Electoral College Will Destroy America
And no, New York and California would not dominate a popular vote.

In other words, the populous states/cities will dominate the popular vote, making it about mob rule, rather than the whole point of a Democratic Republic, hence the reason we are called the United States Of America, not just one name like Canada or Mexico. That was the whole point of an electoral college, because most states were the size, at least by volume, of the old world European ones. What is a state? It was what they called nations. The Articles of Confederation joined these states, with their own issues and concerns, together, but not strong enough to be one nation. Hence the Constitution. Anyhow, enough U.S. History/Political Science 101

Last week, Nate Silver, the polling analyst, tweeted a chart illustrating the chances that Joe Biden would become president if he wins the most votes in November.

The “if” is probably unnecessary. It’s hard to find anyone who disputes that Mr. Biden will win the most votes. This isn’t a liberal’s fantasy. In a recent panel discussion among four veteran Republican campaign managers, one acknowledged, “We’re going to lose the popular vote.” Another responded, “Oh, that’s a given.” The real question is will Mr. Biden win enough more votes than President Trump to overcome this year’s bias in the Electoral College.

Mr. Silver’s analysis is bracing. If Mr. Biden wins by five percentage points or more — if he beats Donald Trump by more than seven million votes — he’s a virtual shoo-in. If he wins 4.5 million more votes than the president? He’s still got a three-in-four chance to be president.

Anything less, however, and Mr. Biden’s odds drop like a rock. A mere three million-vote Biden victory? A second Trump term suddenly becomes more likely than not. If Mr. Biden’s margin drops to 1.5 million — about the populations of Rhode Island and Wyoming combined — forget about it. The chance of a Biden presidency in that scenario is less than one in 10.

I don’t know about you, but this makes me really angry. Yes, I am aware that the United States has never elected its president by a direct popular vote; I wrote a whole book about it. I still cannot fathom why, in a representative democracy based on the principle that all votes are equal, the person who wins the most votes can — and does, repeatedly — lose the most consequential election in the land.

Because, when it comes to the presidency, we are not a representative democracy. That’s the House of Representatives, which, if Wegman really cared, would call for term limits, dramatically increasing the number of Representatives, and reforming campaigning financing so that they are beholden to the people in their district rather than from outsiders.

It happened in 2016 to Hillary Clinton, who won nearly three million more votes than Donald Trump — a margin of more than two percentage points — but lost because of fewer than 80,000 votes in three states. Two months away from Election Day, the odds of something like this happening again are disconcertingly high. That’s a bad thing. The presidency is the only office whose occupant must represent all Americans equally, no matter where they live. The person who holds that office should have to win the most votes from all Americans, everywhere.

You can tell where this is going, right? That the Electoral College is Bad, because it rewards those who play the game and win the electoral votes of enough states and the citizens in those states. You know how this works. I’m sure Wegman, who apparently wrote a book on this, knows as well. That’s why they want the EC to go away. If they really want that, they should push for a constitutional convention. I triple dog dare them.

Or, better, let’s break up many states to be more representative. California should be like 3-4 states. Texas into 2-3. Florida in two. NY into 2-3. Heck, Washington and Oregon into 2, since more than half of those states is dominated by the uber-left wing politics of just a few cities.

Regardless, Democrats won’t give up on getting rid of the EC and instituting mob rules, rather than our existing system which is designed to protect the minority from the majority, to give the minority a voice. And it sure sounds like they are worried Biden is going to lose.

Read: NY Times: The Electoral College Will Destroy America (or something) »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Constitution, Democrats | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Cultists Hail Ed Markey Victory

By William Teach September 8, 2020 – 3:00 pm

They’re thinking this is bold action. This is from 5 days ago, but, even the UK Guardian, the most pro Cult of Climastrology major media outlet in the world, doesn’t do all that much with Hotcoldwetdry these days, because most do not not care in practice

‘Bold action is a winning message’: climate advocates hail Ed Markey win

US climate advocates have their highest-profile evidence yet that putting the crisis first can win elections. And it arrived in an unlikely package: a 74-year-old Senate incumbent, who garnered intense grassroots support from young activists.

Ed Markey this week won a decisive victory in the Massachusetts Democratic primary election over Joe Kennedy who was challenging for his seat, the latest scion of the American political dynasty who had backing from the country’s top Democrat, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi.

John Podesta, who was Barack Obama’s climate adviser, said Markey’s win “sent a resounding message: the politics of climate have changed and embracing bold climate action is a winning message in tough races”. (snip)

It came as no surprise that climate was the major focus of Markey’s campaign. He introduced the Green New Deal alongside the New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez last year. And his name is on the Waxman-Markey climate bill of 2009, which is the closest Congress has ever come to taking significant action on climate change.

Say, remember when Markey voted “present” when the Senate voted on his own GND? Oh, and how he takes long fossil fueled flights from Mass to D.C. and back all the time? And how Waxman-Markey went nowhere in a Senate controlled by the Democrats?

Read: Climate Cultists Hail Ed Markey Victory »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 8, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is a summer snow world due to carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Maggie’s Farm, with a post on media gaslighting.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Majority In Idaho Against Letting Gender Confused Men Compete Against Women

By William Teach September 8, 2020 – 10:30 am

I’ll take this survey with a slight grain of salt, as it does seem a bit biased, but, really, even without that bias, most people are probably against letting “trans-women” compete against biological women in sports

Poll: Majority of Idaho Voters Approve Law to Protect Female Athletes from Transgender Competitors

A poll conducted by Spry Strategies and the Women’s Liberation Front (WOLF) revealed what Idaho voters think about the state’s new law that protects female athletes from competing against biological male athletes who “identify” as a woman.

WOLF issued a press release about the findings:

While radical feminists and conservative Christians have together been the mainstay of organized opposition to the increasingly strange demands of the gender identity movement, these polling numbers show that our positions are solidly within the mainstream of opinion, in both red Idaho, and blue California.

Seventy-nine percent of likely voters in Idaho, and 74 percent of likely voters in California, agree with us that boys and men should not be allowed to identify their way into female-only sporting competitions.

These results track with previous polling that Spry performed for the American Principles Project this July, where an average of 77 percent of voters across ten battleground states—Arizona , Georgia , Iowa , Kentucky , Michigan , Montana , North Carolina , Pennsylvania , Texas , and Wisconsin—also disagreed with letting boys and men compete against girls and women.

The Idaho law, the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, was sponsored by State Rep. Barbara Ehardt and signed by Gov. Brad Little in March with the support of 66 percent of likely Idaho voters.

If someone wants to be gender confused, that’s on them. They shouldn’t be able to force those beliefs on Other People and take away the sporting, and other, opportunities from real women.

Of course, this isn’t really a “Christian” issue, it’s an issue that people of all stripes are against allowing to happen. And it is definitely anti-science, in that no matter what one does, one is still biologically male or female.

Double of course, this doesn’t mean the hardcore moonbats won’t stop in their attempts to force this down our throats, no matter how many girls and women are hurt. They have a Narrative, and, while they talk a lot about Democracy, they are intolerant and unaccepted when they lose.

Read: Bummer: Majority In Idaho Against Letting Gender Confused Men Compete Against Women »

Posted in Beyond Moonbat, Liberal World | Comments Off on Bummer: Majority In Idaho Against Letting Gender Confused Men Compete Against Women | Trackback URL

Boston Warmists Add Justice And Coronavirus Recovery To Their Green New Deal

By William Teach September 8, 2020 – 7:10 am

I triple dog dare the Boston government to institute all the tenets of their Green New Deal right now, which would mean shutting down their airports, most of their shipping ports, restricting all use of fossil fuels in the city, getting rid of the Celtics, Bruins, Red Sox, and minor league teams in the city limits, replacing all energy with wind and solar, including during the winter, and so much more. Give it a w whirl, Boston

Boston Progressives Expand the Green New Deal to Include Justice Concerns and Pandemic Recovery

A year and a half ago, after the House passed and the Senate defeated Green New Deal resolutions in Washington, Boston City Councilor Michelle Wu posed an ambitious question to the large local climate community: “What could the city do in the vacuum of federal leadership?”

Nice lie by Inside Climate News’ Katelyn Weisbrod: the House has never voted on it. Literally all that’s been done in the House was it was introduced. Not even referred to committee.

By the time she and her activist coterie finished answering that question this summer, the scope had grown exponentially.

“Looking at 2020,” said Nina Schlegel, a Boston climate activist on Wu’s staff, “we were like, ‘Wow, we really need to think about racial justice and make that really explicit,” and “we need to respond to the pandemic because cities are the government closest to the people. We need to be responsive, and there’s no reason why a local green new deal cannot incorporate all of that.”

The end result, released by Wu’s office last month, is called the Boston Green New Deal and Just Recovery plan. Wu and Schlegel said the document, while inspired by similar blueprints produced by cities like Seattle, Los Angeles and New York, is unique in its scope, thanks to circumstance.

Its climate ambition is clear in its section on accelerating decarbonization: the plan calls for citywide carbon neutrality by 2040, 10 years ahead of the deadline established by Boston’s 2019 Climate Action Plan, in addition to 100 percent sustainable electricity by 2035, and net-zero municipal buildings by 2024.

So, it’s a unicorn plan which is all about left wing priorities. And, why would they need racial justice? Isn’t Boston an uber-progressive Democratic Party voting city? Is this update GND admitting that Boston is super racist? It is considered to be one of the most, if not the most, racist place to play major league baseball.

It’s scope is clear in its call for issuing municipal bonds to fund solar installation on city buildings, divesting municipal funds from private prisons and gun manufacturers, expanding Boston’s canopy of about 300,000 trees, and creating an Urban Climate Corps for training and employing youth to install green infrastructure.

“We really want to zoom out a little bit and talk about how we can seek policy change that also dismantles and rectifies past injustices,” said Schlegel. “That means looking at housing and displacement and looking at the proliferation of luxury development. It means looking at unequal access to transit, and where our heat islands are located.”

Sounds like this is all about politics, not science. And you know that Cancel Culture will rear its head against everything Wrongthink

The plan calls for a comprehensive “justice audit” of city programs and spending. “The results from a nationwide survey of Black individuals shows Boston is considered the least welcoming of eight major American cities, and only 4 percent of households earning $75,000 or more across Greater Boston are Black,” the plan says. “Air pollution and related illnesses are more prevalent in communities of color and result from government decisions about zoning and transportation infrastructure. City approvals for development continue to shape structural inequities as Boston misses opportunities for equitable wealth creation and justice.”

Yup, sounds like Democratic Party run Boston is pretty racist.

Read: Boston Warmists Add Justice And Coronavirus Recovery To Their Green New Deal »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Democrats, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Joe Biden Admits His National Mask Mandate Would Be Unconstitutional

By William Teach September 8, 2020 – 6:46 am

You’d think this type of information would be somewhat news worthy, wouldn’t you? Yet, the only outlets covering this are a few Conservative leaning ones, including Breitbart, but nothing from the ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Washington Post, LA Times, NY Times, or other big outlets

Joe Biden walks back his national mask mandate, admits it would probably be unconstitutional

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden declared on Aug. 13 that he would call for a nationwide face mask mandate. “Every single American should be wearing a mask when they’re outside for the next three months, at a minimum,” Biden said in August. “Let’s institute a mask mandate nationwide starting immediately, and we will save lives.”

Biden’s running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), eagerly approved of Biden’s mask mandate. “That’s what real leadership looks like,” Harris said on the same day. “We just witnessed real leadership. Which is Joe Biden said that as a nation, we should all be wearing a mask for the next three months, because it will save lives.”

During Biden’s acceptance speech on the final night of the 2020 Democratic National Convention, he firmly declared that he would implement a national mask mandate if elected president.

“We’ll have a national mandate to wear a mask — not as a burden, but to protect each other,” Biden said on Aug. 20 at the 2020 DNC. “It’s a patriotic duty.”

Of course, if he wins, he wouldn’t be able to do this till January 21st, 2021, and we all know that COVID19 restrictions will disappear the day after the election if he wins. And there is some data suggesting that the explosion of confirmed cases occurred after the mask mandates in states, cities, and counties exploded. And some data to suggest the opposite. Regardless, the one thing I don’t like is that people feel emboldened to get close since they are wearing a mask. Stay back. Anyhow, I digress

However, Biden walked back his national mask mandate on Sunday, admitting that it would probably be unconstitutional.

Dennis Welch, political editor of the Arizona’s Family publication and host of “Politics Unplugged,” asked Biden about instituting a stronger federal response to the coronavirus pandemic, such as a national mask mandate.

“Here’s the deal, the federal government…there’s a constitutional issue whether the federal government could issue such a mandate, I don’t think constitutionally they could, so I wouldn’t issue a mandate,” Biden said.

Oops? So all the rage-whining at Trump for refusing to institute a national mask mandate is based on a lie? He continued on (from the Breitbart article)

He said he would ask governors, mayors, county executives — anyone in authority — to impose one.

“I’m a constitutionalist,” Biden declared. “You can’t do things the Constitution does not allow you the power to do.”

He can ask, but, those who were going to do so have done so. As for being a constitutionalist, what did he tell Barack when he signed an order for DACA? How long do they want us wearing masks? On the bright side, they can hide our facial expressions from people, if you can work on keeping your eyes out of it.

Read: Joe Biden Admits His National Mask Mandate Would Be Unconstitutional »

Posted in Bat Soup Virus, Democrats, Joe Biden | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Trot Out Knew Thing: Climate Alignment

By William Teach September 7, 2020 – 4:23 pm

Once you get beyond all the Duckspeak and “we’re all in this together”, it’s really just another form of government forcing the private sector to act in a certain manner

The Way The World Needs To Move Forward On Climate Action: Climate Alignment

To make fundamental breakthroughs in addressing the causes of climate change, we need to dramatically shift the way we think and act on climate. To date, the world has primarily — and understandably — tackled the issue as a project of nations, leaving countries to formulate their action plans in silos, sometimes even in secrecy. But business doesn’t stop at the border, and neither do emissions.

What’s this “we” stuff? Why don’t climate cultists practice what they preach themselves?

India, China, and the United States may appear as individual entities in the climate dialogue, but their steel, chemicals, and cement industries have a lot in common. To go far enough fast enough, we need the Paris Agreement’s nationally determined contributions, but we also need an equally strong focus on cross-cutting industrial transformation. The bottom line is that we won’t solve the climate crisis without solving industry, but our current approach is not enough.

It’s clear that if we are to have a future that avoids the worst-case climate scenarios while also being just and environmentally sustainable, and providing equitable access to opportunities for global citizens, we need to target net-zero emissions by 2050. But while 2050 sounds like it’s far away, we need to be on track for our 2050 goals by 2030. That means we only ten years (or nine and a half at this point) to drive past economic tipping points and cut emissions by half. Therefore, the 2020s have been referred to as “the decisive decade.”

Dramatic change in these sectors is possible, but it requires engaging the real economy and working directly with the leaders in the most carbon-intensive sectors in a way that hasn’t been done before. In that spirit, the emerging concept of climate alignment is critical. Climate alignment focuses attention on the disciplined stewardship of the limited carbon budget we need to work within if we want to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C.

A climate-aligned sector or company has specified a science-based transformation pathway to net zero emissions, the metrics needed to measure progress, and the range of stakeholder commitments from industry, finance, customers, suppliers, and governments needed to move down that pathway. It is a term that’s gained traction in the financial community where banks and investors are seeking to align near-term activities with technical and economic pathways that are needed to stay under the 1.5-degree target.

And it would really be government setting those metrics, and forcing the private sector to comply. Surprise? The question is, will this become one of the next things for the Cult of Climastrology?

Read: Warmists Trot Out Knew Thing: Climate Alignment »

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 7, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is heat snow from other people driving fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is No Tricks Zone, with a post on European deforestation due to CO2 targets.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 13 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove