If All You See…

…is a wonderful low carbon carriage, which could replace fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on “sexual preference” being struck from the Newspeak dictionary.

Read: If All You See… »

Senate Panels Shows That Hunter May Have Introduced Joe To Burisma Advisor

Let me ask a question: if Ivanka or Eric introduced Donald to an advisor for a company, then, when the company was under investigation Donald threatened to withhold aid to the nation investigating, would that be a big deal?

Senate Panel Investigating Hunter Biden Emails Showing Possible Introduction Between Joe Biden, Burisma Adviser

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is looking into emails that show Hunter Biden introduced his father, former Vice President Joe Biden, to a Ukrainian adviser to Burisma Holdings in 2015.

According to a Fox News report, Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) said the committee has been in contact with the person who provided the emails, which first appeared in a New York Post report on Wednesday. The committee is working to verify the information, Johnson said.

According to the report, Joe Biden met with Burisma adviser Vadym Pozharskyi, in April 2015 in Washington D.C., at the request of his son, Hunter Biden, who was on the board of the Ukrainian natural gas company from 2014 to 2019 while his father headed the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy.

The Post report detailed a collection of documents the paper received from Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s personal attorney, which were reportedly recovered from a laptop computer that had been dropped off at a repair shop in Delaware in April 2019.

An email from Pozharskiy to Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, suggests Joe Biden may have met with the Burisma adviser: “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure.”

If the meeting did occur, it would contradict Joe Biden’s claims that he has “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.”

The media used to be hardcore into investigating wrongdoing by politicians and high ranking government employees, but, since Joe is a Democrats, they aren’t interested. In fact, they’re working the spin machine to protect Joe.

Joe admitted to using government money, forcefuly confiscated from the U.S. People, to extort a foreign government to fire a prosecutor investigating wrongdoing at the company his son got a cushy job at because his dad was Vice President, and the U.S. media doesn’t care. Perhaps COVID has been around for much longer, because they don’t seem to be able to smell the blood in the water.

Remember, this isn’t about Hunter: it’s about former Senator and Vice President Joe Biden. Hunter’s drug use, infidelity, and out of wedlock baby is only material on the periphery, this is about abuse of power and actual violations of the law by Joe, and, heck, further, what did Barack Obama know? Don’t focus on Hunter, don’t do the “where’s Hunter” stuff, wonder when the media will ask tough questions of Joe.

Read: Senate Panels Shows That Hunter May Have Introduced Joe To Burisma Advisor »

Doom: ACB Declined To Answer When ‘Climate Change’ Is Human Caused

If you’re thinking “did the climate cultist senators actually ask Amy Coney Barrett questions on the climate crisis (scam)”, well, yes, they did

Barrett deflects senators’ questions on climate change

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett refused to say whether she accepts the science of climate change, saying she lacks the expertise to know for sure and calling it a topic too controversial to get into.

On Wednesday, pressed at her confirmation hearing by Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Barrett framed acknowledgment of manmade climate change as a matter of policy, not science.

Barrett said Harris, the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee as well as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was trying to get her to state an opinion “on a very contentious matter of public debate, and I will not do that.”

Barrett was responding to a series of questions from Harris, including whether she thinks the novel coronavirus is infectious, whether smoking causes cancer and whether “climate change is happening and it’s threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink.”

The federal appeals court judge responded that she does think coronavirus is infectious and smoking causes cancer. She rebuffed Harris on the climate change question, however, for seeking to “solicit an opinion” on a “matter of public policy, especially one that is politically controversial.”

The first two are established by science, 100%. The latter is simply inferred, and, if it is mostly caused by the burning of fossil fuels, as the article goes on to say, then why do so few Warmists give up their own use of fossil fuels? Perhaps Kamala should lead the way and stop flying all over the country in fossil fueled airplanes, which then require the requisite fossil fueled SUVs to get to campaign appearances.

(Business Insider) The Supreme Court is set to hear a case related to climate change in 2021. More than four in 10 voters (42%) surveyed by Pew Research Center in late July and early August said climate change was “very important” to their vote in the 2020 election.

Ann Carlson, a faculty director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA School of Law, told The New York Times she found Barrett’s response “disturbing.”

“It’s a dodge that fails to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are causing the planet to warm,” Carlson said.

Got that? It’s a dodge! Except, being a judge isn’t about political policy, it’s about rulings based on the law and Constitution. And consensus isn’t science, it’s politics.

Read: Doom: ACB Declined To Answer When ‘Climate Change’ Is Human Caused »

Gun Grabbing Magazine For Teens Says What’s At Stake On Gun Grabbing For Election

Seventeen is a magazine for, shockingly, teenagers, which is nominally about fashion, celebs, fun stuff, you know, all the things teens care about. Of course, they also run articles on abortion because they push unsafe sex practices, anal sex, and hard left politics

From the direct Seventeen link, rather than where I found it at Yahoo

While nearly 40,000 Americans die from gun violence every year, the Trump administration continues to champion the rights of gun owners and firearm dealers, rather than focusing on the safety of the American people. In a direct response to this, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) refuses to bring H.R.8—the most historic piece of gun legislation our country has seen in decades, which requires universal background checks—to the Senate floor for a vote. It’s been sitting on his desk since February 2019.

America’s gun violence epidemic did not originate from the Trump administration, but President Trump has shown no signs of prioritizing gun safety the past four years. In fact, in the early days of the pandemic, while healthcare workers lined up outside of hospitals in personal protective equipment, Americans lined up in front of gun shops after President Trump, a friend of the National Rifle Association (NRA), deemed gun shops as “essential businesses.” While doing so, he tweeted dangerous calls to action like, “LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege!” The tweet refers to the historic gun safety legislation passed in Virginia, which requires background checks on all gun sales, mandates reporting of lost and stolen firearms, and reinstates Virginia’s one-handgun-a-month policy. Additionally, over the summer, St. Louis couple Mark and Patricia McCloskey pointed guns at peaceful Black Lives Matter protestors walking past their home. President Trump rewarded their behavior by allowing them to speak at the Republican National Convention (RNC).

If they’re lying about things like the McCloskey’s, forgetting that the “peaceful protesters” broke into a private area, tearing a gate off, threatened the McCloskey’s, and even brandished weapons, what else are they lying about?

We all know that the vast majority of background checks are actually done legally via the FBI system. And we all know that Democratic Party bills have things hidden by their flowing words of saving us all, right? Did anyone think Obamacare would hide what is essentially a takeover of the student loans industry, with loan debt skyrocketing immediately after? What’s Seventeen not telling you?

Even more than that, the bill would outlaw the “transfer” of a firearm without a Brady Check. [See the proposed language for 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1)(A) in Section 3 of H.R. 8.]

The term “transfer” is nowhere defined, but it’s clear from the bill that handing your gun to a neighbor for as little as one second is a “transfer” unless you’re covered by one of the bill’s so-called exceptions.

So if you hand your firearm to a friend while you both are cleaning weapons, and then go into the kitchen to get another towel, you’re a criminal and can go to prison for up to a year under 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(5).

Many of the exceptions also make you a criminal, like if you hand your hunting rifle to someone without a hunting license.Reason notes

HR8 requires that loans, gifts, and sales of firearms be processed by a gun store. The same fees, paperwork, and permanent record-keeping apply as to buying a new gun from the store. If you loan a gun to a friend without going to the gun store, the penalty is the same as for knowingly selling a gun to a convicted violent felon. Likewise, when the friend returns the gun, another trip to the gun store is necessary, upon pain of felony.

Seems rather burdensome for using your 2nd Amendment Rights, and quickly makes people felons, you can’t possess a firearm. If you are a domestic violence victim, and in quick need of a firearm, you cannot borrow one. You’d have to go through the laborious process and pay hundreds of dollars to purchase.

A clever trick in HR8 effectively bans handguns for persons 18-to20.

Many states do not allow those under 21 to have a handgun. Others do. This is yet another central government takeover of the 10th Amendment.

Regulators may set a minimum fee, but not “a cap on a fee.” The Attorney General is allowed to require that every gun store charge a fee of $30, $50, $150, or more. Even a $20 fee can be a hard burden to a poor person.

What if the Democrat appointed AG/regulators make the fee a couple hundred dollars? Of course, the lawsuits would come fast, but, how many would be unable to get a gun for protection?

It also creates a national gun registry, so, the government will know every single firearm you legally purchased. Back to Seventeen article

Although the issue of gun control has not been spoken about at the presidential or vice presidential debates held thus far (you can see President Trump’s unofficial record on gun reform here), Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and vice-presidential nominee Kamala Harris have laid out a clear plan to help end gun violence in America should they be elected in November. This includes, but is not limited to, the following actions:

Well, you can go over and read them, they’re all the gun grabbing and banning and more regulations that you’d expect. It would even have Los Federales searching your social media accounts without a warrant. For a magazine about women, it would put women at a disadvantage and make them less safe by making it so much harder for them to get a weapon to protect themselves.

Read: Gun Grabbing Magazine For Teens Says What’s At Stake On Gun Grabbing For Election »

Hot Take: We Need A Carbon Tax Otherwise ‘Climate Change’ Will Stop Economic Growth

See, the Modern Warm Period has seen more economic growth, primarily through the growth of technologies, than any period before. But, you like eating burgers and meat from other animals, so, you need to pay a tax

Climate change poses ‘profound threat’ to global growth – IMF chief

Climate change poses a serious threat to global growth, the head of the International Monetary Fund said on Monday, urging the world’s top emitters to agree on a floor for carbon prices.

Got that? Taxation which stifles growth will stimulate growth because too much carbon pollution might maybe possibly threaten global growth which has been doing well during this warm period (and growth tends to occur more during warm periods than cool ones).

IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva told finance ministers meeting on climate change that countries should also ensure that green investments are included in the money they are spending to contain the COVID-19 pandemic and mitigate its economic impact.

Doing so, she said, could boost global gross domestic product by 0.7% on average in the first 15 years of the recovery.

“Even while we are in the midst of the COVID crisis, we should mobilize to prevent the climate crisis,” Georgieva told a meeting of finance ministers from 52 countries working to integrate climate change into their economic policies.

The group, launched in April 2019 and led by the finance ministers of Chile and Finland, met virtually Monday on the sidelines of the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank.

In other words, they want to transfer wealth from the nations that are tops to the ones which aren’t. And, it would be ridiculous to think that any of these people have a vested monetary interest in carbon tax schemes, right? It’s all selfless, right?

Georgieva said IMF research showed that policy tools could help achieve net zero emissions by 2050 despite the pandemic, but it was imperative that countries earmarked some of the $12 trillion in fiscal stimulus toward green investments.

Dare I note that the majority of these people pushing this stuff are some of the biggest climahypocrites around? They jet around the world, drive in low MPG limos, and live in giant homes, and more.

Read: Hot Take: We Need A Carbon Tax Otherwise ‘Climate Change’ Will Stop Economic Growth »

If All You See…

…are pumpkins which will soon disappear from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Datechguy’s Blog, with a post on Seattle, Portland, and California voting themselves into the 3rd World.

Read: If All You See… »

Democrats Call Long Early Voting Lines “GOP Voter Suppression”

Another day, more Democrats going full Barking Moonbat

Long Lines at Georgia Polling Place Prompt Hysterical Accusations of GOP ‘Voter Suppression’

Footage showing long lines of enthusiastic early voters in a Georgia county drew predictable cries of “voter suppression” from Democrats and Twitter pundits, while election experts said such allegations were baseless and lacked context.

A 70-second video of the line to cast early votes at Gwinnett County station on Monday, shared by an Atlanta Journal Constitution reporter, had racked up over 7.5 million views on Tuesday, with plenty using the footage of those waiting to decry the system.

Democrats seized on the opportunity as a PR stunt to promote their own legislation and cast the long line as evidence of Republican voter suppression.

“Republicans have spent decades making it harder for Americans to vote, and we’re watching the results play out in real time,” Senator Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) tweeted, pivoting to promote his own piece of legislation — which would pay voters $100 to wait in line for at least 90 minutes.

“These hours-long lines to vote are the *deliberate* design of gop leaders and rightwing judges to steal the voting rights of communities of color and a threat to democracy in every community,” Representative Bill Pascrell (D., N.J.) added.

It’s a nefarious plot to….make people voluntarily go out and wait in a line?

But none of the reactions made note of the fact that the Gwinnett line formed on the first day of early voting, after months of corporate hype about the importance of early voting, nor that it fell on a federal holiday. Neither was it mentioned that Georgia saw a record 126,876 people vote on Monday — a 41 percent increase over the first day in 2016.

So, a big nothingburger, right? Something that one expects on the first day of early voting? That people didn’t actually have to wait, since there are many more days of early voting? Of course, what none of the unhinged liberals discuss is the speed at which the line moved. And, do those people look like they’re being suppressed?

Read: Democrats Call Long Early Voting Lines “GOP Voter Suppression” »

Your Fault: Climate Crisis (scam) Could Make Old Faithful Less Faithful

Remember back to the socially distanced gathering you had the other month, where people ate burgers, cheese, and ice cream which came from Evil moo cows? This future event is Your Fault

Climate Change Could Make Yellowstone’s Famous Geyser Less Faithful

Yellowstone National Park’s famous Old Faithful geyser is famously reliable, firing a jet of scalding water and steam high into the air some 17 times a day at 60 to 110-minute intervals.

But new research suggests that 800 years ago a severe drought caused this geyser, which was once somewhat hyperbolically known as “Eternity’s Timepiece,” to stop erupting altogether for many decades, reports Colin Barras for Science. When taken with climate model predictions of increasingly severe droughts, the findings could mean that America’s most dependable geyser will erupt less often or stop completely in the future.

Researchers arrived at the new findings, published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, by studying 13 chunks of petrified wood found on Old Faithful’s mound. Trees can’t survive the geyser’s blasts of super-heated, alkaline water, so finding trees growing on Old Faithful’s mound is a sign that its regularly scheduled eruptions were at one point on hiatus. When researchers tested the tree remnants, they dated back to around 1230-1360 A.D., reports Catherine Meyers for Inside Science.

“When I submitted the samples for radiocarbon dating I didn’t know whether they would be hundreds or thousands of years old,” Shaul Hurwitz, a geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey and first author of the new paper, tells Science. “It was an ‘aha!’ moment when they all clustered within a hundred-year period in the 13th and 14th centuries.”

One specimen was large enough to allow Hurwitz and his team to estimate it grew for some 80 years, suggesting Old Faithful stopped erupting for nearly 100 years sometime between the 13th and 14th centuries.

Did that scare you? I’m sure it did, and you’re now willing to give up your use of fossil fuels, pay lots more taxes and fees, and give up your liberty, freedom, and choice, right? Perhaps they could explain what caused the climate change at that time, which was near the end of the Medieval Warm Period, which went from around 900 AD (10th Century) to 1350 (14th Century)? Were they driving fossil fueled vehicles and taking long trips, getting consumer products and practicing capitalism?

Are they saying that the current warm period is mostly/solely natural, just like the MWP?

Today, human-caused climate change is exacerbating droughts in the Yellowstone region, per Inside Science. Hurwitz and other researchers published a paper in 2008 showing decreased precipitation in recent decades may have added a minute or two to the time between Old Faithful’s eruptions. If the climate continues to dry out, as climate models predict it will, the researchers write that Old Faithful’s “geyser eruptions could become less frequent or completely cease.”

If Old Faithful is added to the list of climate change’s casualties, Maxwell Rudolph, a geophysicist at the University of California, Davis who wasn’t involved in the study, tells Science that “the extinction of this natural treasure would be a profound loss.”

It’s always something.

Read: Your Fault: Climate Crisis (scam) Could Make Old Faithful Less Faithful »

CNN Seems Rather Concerned That ACB Owns A Gun And Could Rule On Cases

They’re Concerned

The inference here is that you shouldn’t trust her if you are a lefty gun grabber with a case in front the Supreme Court. From the link

President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court says her family owns a gun and that she thinks she can fairly judge a guns case. Asked by Senate Judiciary chairman Senator Lindsey Graham if she owns a gun, Barrett replied, “we do own a gun”.

The Supreme Court has gone a decade without acting on a major case concerning the Second Amendment, an issue that could receive rare attention in the future by the high court should Judge Amy Coney Barrett be confirmed to the bench in the coming weeks.

The court has resisted taking up a significant Second Amendment case since the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller – which held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm – and a 2010 follow-up, turning away 10 gun rights cases in the last term alone.

Here’s how that exchange went:

Graham: Okay. So when it comes to your personal views about this topic, do you own a gun?

Barrett: We do own a gun.

Graham: Okay. All right. Do you think you could fairly decide a case even though you own a gun?

Barrett: Yes.

As Jazz Shaw points out, this was part of a much longer exchange with Lindsay Graham, who was asking her just how the system works where suits get to the Supreme Court, how they can’t just say “hey, lets doing something on this issue and make a ruling”, and how personal views come into play. Well, at lest for Constitutionalists. We know how personal views work most of the time for Liberals. As Jonah Goldberg writes “Seriously, this is amazingly dumb. Imagine this framing for any other right in the Bill of Rights.”

Meanwhile, the San Francisco Chronicle is comparing ACB to a disease

Editorial: Amy Coney Barrett’s elevation to the Supreme Court is proceeding with all the inevitability of a contagion

Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s accession to the Supreme Court barreled forward in a cloud of partisanship and pestilence Monday. Introduced as President Trump’s nominee on the brink of his coronavirus-haunted re-election bid in what turned out to be a super-spreading event, Barrett appeared before a Senate Judiciary Committee hobbled by the contagion, its convalescing and quarantining members a testament to the farcically precipitous process.

Read: CNN Seems Rather Concerned That ACB Owns A Gun And Could Rule On Cases »

New Talking Poll: People Want New COVID Relief Over ACB

This is what you call a push/pull, because it was designed to elicit a very specific response

Yahoo News/YouGov poll: As opposition to Trump’s pandemic approach grows, most voters want Senate to pass stimulus before considering Amy Coney Barrett

As the Senate begins confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, two-thirds of voters say Congress should focus instead on passing more COVID-19 relief for struggling workers and businesses, according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll.

The survey, which was conducted from Oct. 9 to 11, found that large majorities of the public think Congress has its priorities backward. Not only do more than three-quarters (77 percent) of registered voters want legislators to approve another major pandemic relief package; 66 percent want the Senate to vote on it before voting on Barrett’s nomination. A full third of Republicans (33 percent) agree.

The consensus around Congress’s misplaced priorities reflects the deepening influence of COVID-19 on the final days of the 2020 election. While slightly more voters blame Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (43 percent) than President Trump (40 percent) for Washington’s continuing failure to agree on a relief bill, that dynamic has in no way boosted Trump. On the contrary, Trump continues to trail Democratic nominee Joe Biden by 8 percentage points among likely voters (43 percent to 51 percent) in large part because they have taken an even dimmer view of the president’s leadership on COVID-19 in the wake of his own recent hospitalization and the broader White House outbreak that has left dozens infected.

Pretty much most of the poll is meant to bash Trump and Republicans, and attempt to sway squishy GOP Senators into shutting down the hearings, stopping a vote, or, at least, vote against ACB. In the Age Of McCain, they might have gotten this. But, these days, even squishy Lindsay Graham has a spine.

Democrats need to just give it up. They never figured out how to attack her like they did with Kavanaugh. You just got silly questions on abortion and Obamacare, and, heck, Sheldon Whitehouse didn’t even ask a question, just yammered on about dark money and stuff.

Read: New Talking Poll: People Want New COVID Relief Over ACB »

Pirate's Cove