Excitable Adam Schiff, Other Democrats Forget To Argue Facts In Impeachment Theater

By William Teach January 24, 2020 – 6:50 am

What is Impeachment Theater? It’s just an extension of the long scream from Democrats when they realized that Trump beat Hillary by the rules, and they just can’t accept it

Schiff pleads to Senate GOP: ‘Right matters. And the truth matters.’

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead House impeachment manager, made an impassioned effort to break through to Senate Republicans on Thursday night in his closing argument by exhorting them to remove President Trump from office because “you know you can’t trust” him “to do what’s right for this country.”

Senate Republicans have said for months that there are nowhere close to 67 votes in the upper chamber to convict Trump on articles of impeachment, yet Schiff, the California Democrat who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, pleaded with them follow their consciences.

“Do we really have a doubt about the facts here? Does anybody really question whether the president is capable of what he’s charged with? No one is really making the argument, ‘Donald Trump would never do such a thing’ because of course we know that he would, and of course we know that he did,” Schiff said after a marathon day of presentations.

House prosecutors on Thursday presented a litany of facts and arguments to support their charge that Trump abused his power.

Well, not so much in terms of Facts

Tom Cotton: Republicans are surprised at how ‘flimsy’ the impeachment case is

Sen. Tom Cotton, who was required to sit through the entirety of Wednesday’s marathon Senate impeachment trial session, said on Thursday that “it certainly seems to drag on late into the night as House Democrats repeat themselves time and time again.”

Cotton, R-Ark., made the comment on “America’s Newsroom” on Thursday, adding that if House Democrats “had strong evidence though, I think they’d simply present that evidence and let it speak for itself, but they don’t.”

“That’s why what we heard yesterday were repetitive arguments over and over again based on little more than hearsay, and the House Democrats’ objections to Donald Trump being the president,” he continued. (snip)

“One thing I’ve seen as I’ve listened to these House Democrats for the last few days is just how flimsy the evidence is to support their case, based primarily on hearsay. And again, repeating themselves over and over again, because they don’t have the evidence that would just speak for itself.”

He added that he thinks his Republican colleagues are also surprised at how “flimsy” the impeachment case is.

Cotton noted that House Democrats “keep saying they have an overwhelming case.”

“If they had an overwhelming case, they wouldn’t be demanding that the Senate do the work that the House wasn’t willing to do, subpoenaing documents and witnesses and going to court if necessary to enforce that,” he said. “The Democrats refused to do that in the House because they wanted to rush this through to try to hurt the president’s reelection chances.”

Democrats do not really have any case except Orange Man Bad.

Read: Excitable Adam Schiff, Other Democrats Forget To Argue Facts In Impeachment Theater »

Posted in Democrats, Donald Trump, GOP, Unhinged Tools | 66 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: ‘Climate Change’ Is A Political Issue, Not A Reproductive One

By William Teach January 23, 2020 – 3:22 pm

Climate cultist Ramin Skibba makes an interesting admission while attempting to argue something else

Opinion: Climate Change Is a Political Crisis, Not a Reproductive One

THE CLIMATE STRIKES led by Swedish activist Greta Thunberg and youth groups around the world have achieved great strides, growing rapidly and drawing attention to the dire climate dilemma we face today. A majority of Americans are concerned about climate change and want people to address it right now, according to a recent CBS poll.

But one popular proposal to emerge, that people should have fewer kids, probably isn’t the climate panacea that would-be parents would like to believe. Going childless will do little to derail the main drivers of climate change, and asking millennials to take on that burden — as if the problem’s their responsibility — only lets the fossil fuel industry’s juggernaut off the hook.

The idea of foregoing children to mitigate climate change is essentially an extension of arguments that call for individuals to help save the climate by changing their consumer behavior — say, by switching to energy-efficient light bulbs, installing solar panels, eating less meat, or buying fuel-efficient cars. But it would surely take decades to substantially reduce the world’s population by going childless, if that is even an achievable and desirable societal goal, and we’re already set to overshoot the world’s carbon budget — the level of cumulative carbon emissions that would result in reaching the critical threshold of 2 degrees Celsius of warming — in the 2030s. Climate change is a structural problem involving politics and economics, not personal choices, and solving it will require huge political and economic changes.

See? It’s all about politics. It’s about instituting wholesale changes. Which most Warmists do not like to actually mention, because that would drive people away when they learn of the big government dominance, socialism, Fascism, taxes, fees, etc.

But a focus on population inevitably puts the burden of climate change on the backs of poorer people and people in developing countries — who tend to drive global population growth — despite them not being a major cause of global warming. No one would blame climate change on Ugandans or Afghans, even though the population growth rates in those countries are among the highest in the world. Neither would anyone blame it on the Latin American immigrants contributing to the U.S.’s (slower) population expansion. Population growth in the U.S. isn’t being driven by high-income, high carbon-emitting families having more children.

That, though, is a good point. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Warmists who do want to limit population growth in 3rd world nations, their own form of Eugenics to go with their racism/bigotry.

Environmentalists and advocates for climate action want to protect and preserve the Earth for future generations, not just current ones. Let’s stay focused on the root causes of climate change. Our climate crisis is not primarily a reproductive crisis but a political and economic one. If you’re passionate about tackling climate change, you might make a tiny difference with your individual consumer and reproductive choices. But the biggest lifestyle choice you can make to combat climate change is not to forego having a kid, it’s to become a climate activist — and raise your kid to become one too.

Warmists always want to shift from personal responsibility to walk the talk to making said wholesale changes to the political and economic systems. The chumps who believe in the scam should really sit down and do some critical thinking as to why the main Cultists want these changes, and think if this would better their lives and those of their descendants, or take away their money, freedom, and choice.

Read: Surprise: ‘Climate Change’ Is A Political Issue, Not A Reproductive One »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 23, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon bike, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Climate Scepticism, with a post on how climate cultists take over city councils.

Read: If All You See… »

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

‘Climate Change’ Could Maybe Possibly Cause The Next Financial Meltdown Or Something

By William Teach January 23, 2020 – 10:30 am

This is not the first attempt by the Cult of Climastrology to link any future recession/depression to ‘climate change’. They Warmists have been ramping up this bit of fear mongering as of late, that way when a recession happens, something which comes in cycles, they can Blamestorm you for eating a burger

Climate Change Could Cause the Next Financial Meltdown

Climate change has already been blamed for deadly bush fires in Australia, dying coral reefs, rising sea levels and ever more cataclysmic storms. Could it also cause the next financial crisis?

A report issued this week by an umbrella organization for the world’s central banks argued that the answer is yes, while warning that central bankers lack tools to deal with what it says could be one of the biggest economic dislocations of all time.

The book-length report, published by the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, signals what could be the overriding theme for central banks in the decade to come.

“Climate change poses unprecedented challenges to human societies, and our community of central banks and supervisors cannot consider itself immune to the risks ahead of us,” François Villeroy de Galhau, governor of the Banque de France, said in the report.

Central banks spent much of the last 10 years hauling their economies out of a deep financial crisis that began in 2008. They may well spend the next decade coping with the disruptive effects of climate change and technology, the report said.

See, it might possibly maybe could perchance be linked/caused by, and, even if the next one has zero to do with ‘climate change’, they’ll make sure you know you should blame the fossil fuels companies. Much like they manufactured a way to blame snow and ice and cold on heat trapping gases.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Could Maybe Possibly Cause The Next Financial Meltdown Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Economy, Global Warming | Comments Off on ‘Climate Change’ Could Maybe Possibly Cause The Next Financial Meltdown Or Something | Trackback URL

US Treasury Secretary Recommends St. Greta Get A Degree In Economics

By William Teach January 23, 2020 – 7:52 am

St. Greta of Stockholm would have to actually attend lower school and graduate from that, first

From the link, which is Very Upset that Mnuchin would suggest this

Donald Trump’s treasury secretary has dismissed Greta Thunberg’s call for immediate fossil fuel divestment, saying the 17-year-old activist should go to college and study economics.

In a withering slapdown on the climate emergency movement, Steven Mnuchin pretended not to know who Thunberg was, before dismissing her concerns as ill-informed.

Asked whether calls for public and private-sector divestment from fossil fuel companies would threaten US growth, Mnuchin jibed: “Is she the chief economist? Who is she, I’m confused” – before clarifying that he was joking.

“After she goes and studies economics in college she can come back and explain that to us,” Mnuchin added, at a press conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

It wasn’t that long ago that Warmists said we shouldn’t listen to anyone who didn’t have a degree in climate science. Greta has none, and doesn’t look to be getting close to even attempting to get a degree in anything.

Fossil fuels make the world go round. They allow people to travel inexpensively. They bring all sorts of goods and products. They are an inexpensive way to lift people out of poverty. They enrich people. Until such time as they can be fully replaced, divestment is stupid. “Leave it in the ground” is stupid. Perhaps Warmists should spend their time and money doing research to replace them.

Read: US Treasury Secretary Recommends St. Greta Get A Degree In Economics »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Excitable Adam Schiff Explains That Trump Needs To Be Booted From Office In Case You People Re-Elect Him

By William Teach January 23, 2020 – 7:13 am

I wonder if Nancy Pelosi is regretting her decision in making Adam Schiff one of the House managers for the impeachment trial? He managed to drag Russia Russia Russia into the mix, and then this

Schiff warns of Russian attack on US mainland, as Day 2 of Trump’s Senate impeachment trial concludes

House Democrats launched into lengthy arguments that broke little ground, if any, in President Trump’s impeachment trial Wednesday — as the head impeachment manager, California Rep. Adam Schiff, suggested that Russians could attack the U.S. and insisted that removing Trump from office was necessary because the integrity of the 2020 election could not be “assured.”

Trump’s lawyers sat by, waiting their turn, as the president blasted the proceedings from afar, threatening jokingly to face off with the Democrats by coming to “sit right in the front row and stare at their corrupt faces.”

The challenge before the House managers has been clear. Democrats were given 24 hours over three days to prosecute the charges against Trump, trying to win over not just fidgety senators sitting silently in the chamber but an American public, deeply divided over the president and his impeachment in an election year. (snip through paragraphs noting many were bored with the long winded speeches)

Perhaps sensing the ennui in the chamber on Day 2 of the trial, Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, sought to keep the stakes high. He suggested at one point that military aid to Ukraine was essential so the U.S. would not have to fight Russians at home, as soldiers did in the videogame “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.”

“As one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here,” Schiff said, drawing rebukes from commentators across the political spectrum.

Huh what?

Schiff attracted the most criticism, however, for later making the head-turning argument that Trump must be removed from office by the Senate — rather than by voters in the 2020 election — because it is impossible to be sure the 2020 election won’t be compromised.

“The president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won,” Schiff remarked. He did not elaborate.

OK, don’t believe Fox?

That should pretty darned concerning for everyone. A top drawer elected Democrat saying that you should not be able to vote. He’s also laying the groundwork for Dems to say that the election was fraudulent if Democrats lose. Anytime you hear Democrats yammer about “saving our democracy” think back to Schiff’s statement

“And right here is proof of the Democrats’ plan all along,” Trump campaign director of communications Tim Murtaugh said in response. “Every moment of the impeachment sham has been geared toward interfering with the 2020 election. Schiff is preemptively calling into question the results of an election that is still more than 9 months away.”

Don’t think that Schiff saying voters are too stupid to know what’s best won’t show up in a Trump campaign ad.

Read: Excitable Adam Schiff Explains That Trump Needs To Be Booted From Office In Case You People Re-Elect Him »

Posted in Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 27 Comments | Trackback URL

Good Grief: Excitable Adam Schiff Tries To Drag Russia Russia Russia Into Impeachment Theater

By William Teach January 22, 2020 – 3:02 pm

Democrats just can’t let it go, despite having zero evidence

Adam Schiff Tries to Make Impeachment About ‘Russia Collusion’ Hoax

Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) led his opening argument in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on Wednesday by citing allegations of “Russia collusion” that have been debunked.

Schiff tried to argue that the Senate had a duty to remove President Trump from office for allegedly inviting foreign interference by Ukraine in the 2020 presidential election because he supposedly invited Russia to interfere in 2016.

He said:

We also took this step with the knowledge that this was not the first time the president solicited foreign interference in our elections. In 2016, then-candidate Trump implored Russia to hack his opponent’s email account, something that the Russian military agency did only hours later.

Schiff was referring to a press conference in July 2016 at which Trump joked about Russia finding the approximately 33,000 emails that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had deleted from her illicit private email server. Trump made the joke after being badgered by the press to comment on allegations that Russia had hacked the Democratic National Committee’s email server. The Clinton campaign had blamed Russia — and had blamed Trump as well. (snip)

The articles of impeachment themselves refer to “Russia collusion,” referring to “President Trump’s previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections,” as if that were somehow an established fact.

This is delusion. This is people living in an alternate universe. They created a Narrative, that Narrative collapsed with the Mueller Report, but, like a deranged Ex constantly checking that person’s social media they can’t move on.

Read: Good Grief: Excitable Adam Schiff Tries To Drag Russia Russia Russia Into Impeachment Theater »

Posted in Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 25 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 22, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is a city that will soon be flooded from a (slowly) rising sea, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Bunkerville, with a post on the danger of civil disobedience.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Spain Declares Climate Emergency, Plans To Be A Third World Nation By 2050

By William Teach January 22, 2020 – 10:30 am

I think they should start implementing the draconian ‘climate change’ policies immediately, show the citizens exactly what they’re in for, rather than slow rolling themselves back to 643AD

Spain proclaims a climate emergency, creates plan of action

Spain’s new government declared a national climate emergency on Tuesday, taking a formal first step toward enacting ambitious measures to fight climate change.

The declaration approved by the Cabinet says the left-of-center Socialist government will send to parliament within 100 days its proposed climate legislation. The targets coincide with those of the European Union, including a reduction of net carbon emissions to zero by 2050.

Spain’s coalition government wants up to 95% of the Mediterranean country’s electricity to come from renewable sources by 2040. The plan also foresees eliminating pollution by buses and trucks and making farming carbon neutral.

Details of the plan are to be made public when the proposed legislation is sent to parliament for approval.

So, how will this work? Here are Spain’s top 10 exports

  1. Vehicles: US$58.9 billion (17.1% of total exports)
  2. Mineral fuels including oil: $26.7 billion (7.7%)
  3. Machinery including computers: $25.3 billion (7.3%)
  4. Electrical machinery, equipment: $19.5 billion (5.7%)
  5. Plastics, plastic articles: $13.6 billion (3.9%)
  6. Pharmaceuticals: $12.3 billion (3.6%)
  7. Fruits, nuts: $10.4 billion (3%)
  8. Clothing, accessories (not knit or crochet): $9.1 billion (2.6%)
  9. Iron, steel: $8.7 billion (2.5%)
  10. Articles of iron or steel: $8.5 billion (2.5%)

So, all those will have to stop. Because there’s no way they can get to net zero. The automotive one surprised me. Diamler AG, Ford, Nissan, Opel, Peugeot, Renault, SEAT, and VW all make vehicles in Spain. That will have to be stopped. No way to mass produce even pure electric cars with net zero emissions. And everything else goes out on a fossil fueled plane or ship.

Good luck with this.

Read: Spain Declares Climate Emergency, Plans To Be A Third World Nation By 2050 »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

St. Greta Says We Only Have 8 Years Left To Stop Hotcoldwetdry Doom

By William Teach January 22, 2020 – 9:18 am

And we all need to listen to the teenager with zero degrees and blowing off going to school and getting a basic education, right? (via behind the paywall Twitchy. Nope, not paying for it, I just use Pocket)

As Twitchy’s Greg P notes

Keep in mind, what Greta is saying in this speech is politically impossible. She wants zero emissions. Not net-zero emissions. Just zero emissions, which is actually more honest than the other alarmists who are hoping for technologies that haven’t been invented. Transcript via the NYT

Let’s be clear. We don’t need a “low carbon economy.” We don’t need to “lower emissions.” Our emissions have to stop if we are to have a chance to stay below the 1.5-degree target. And, until we have the technologies that at scale can put our emissions to minus, then we must forget about net zero. We need real zero.

Because distant net zero emission targets will mean absolutely nothing if we just continue to ignore the carbon dioxide budget — that applies for today, not distant future dates. If high emissions continue like now even for a few years, that remaining budget will soon be completely used up.

Even if St. Greta took a train to Davos, she did not have zero emissions. Walking wouldn’t be zero. It’s also not the first time she pulled this number out of her butt. She trotted it out last September during a climate strike in Montreal. And the only way to even get close to “real zero” is massive government control of everything. She’s just another little (uneducated) Fascist cult member.

Read: St. Greta Says We Only Have 8 Years Left To Stop Hotcoldwetdry Doom »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove