If All You See…

By William Teach January 18, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle causing heat snow, you might just be a Warmist

IAYS – snow

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on more reasons Trump was elected.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Hot Take: Trump Voters Motivated By Raaaaacism May Be Violating The Constitution

By William Teach January 18, 2020 – 10:58 am

This is not something from some fringe bat guano insane lefty website: NBC News allowed this from Noah Berlatsky. This is a serious Hot Take from people unhinged over losing an election

Trump voters motivated by racism may be violating the Constitution. Can they be stopped?

If the Trump era has taught us anything, it’s that large numbers of white people in the United States are motivated at least in part by racism in the voting booth. Donald Trump ran an openly racist campaign for president, calling Mexicans rapists and criminals, regularly retweeting white supremacists and at least initially balking at repudiating former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Trump made it clear in his campaign that “Make America Great Again” meant that America was greater when white people’s power was more sweeping and more secure. White voters approved of that message by a whopping 58 percent to 37 percent.

But, see, in Liberal World, everyone who voted for Trump is a raaaaacist, so, y’all are all motivated by raaaaacism, even those who were actually voting against Hillary Clinton rather than for Trump (like myself).

Some politicians deny the evidence, no doubt because they don’t want to alienate white voters, including prejudiced ones. Other commentators try to parse whether Trump’s racism will be a winning strategy in 2020. Terry Smith, a visiting professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, offers a different response in his new book, “Whitelash: Unmasking White Grievance at the Ballot Box.” Rather than excuse racist voters or try to figure out how to live with their choices, he argues that racist voting is not just immoral, but illegal. The government, Smith says, has the ability, and the responsibility, to address it.

This sounds radical. But Smith argues that it’s in line with the Constitution and with years of court rulings. For example, Smith points out that racist appeals in union elections are illegal and that an election in which one side uses racist appeals can be invalidated by the National Labor Relations Board. Similarly, in the 2016 case Peña v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court ruled that when a juror expresses overt bigotry, the jury’s verdict should be invalidated.

“When voters go to the booth, they’re not expressing a mere personal preference,” Smith told me. According to Smith, voters who pull the levers to harm black people are violating the Constitution. If the Constitution means that overt racist appeals undermine the legality of union elections, it stands to reason that they undermine the legality of other elections, as well.

Well, good luck making this happen. Wrongthink will be verboten! And, of course, they want to do away with voter ID, because it’s raaaaacist….say, isn’t it rather real racism to think that blacks are too dumb and/or poor and/or lazy to obtain a proper ID? It’s not really hard to do, and all states with voter ID laws will give people for free the proper ID for voting.

Even more ambitiously, Smith suggests expanding the Voting Rights Act to address the racist patterns of voting in Senate elections in the South. Because the majority of white voters in the South vote Republican, and because they outnumber black voters, there isn’t a single Democratic senator from the Deep South other than Doug Jones in Alabama, who may well lose his seat in 2020. Smith argues that we could remedy these disparate, racially motivated outcomes by creating Senate districts. Presumably, that would make it at least possible for black voters to elect a senator who would support their interests.

Ah, see, they want to change elections in areas they tend to lose in order to win.

It’s difficult to address injustice, however, if you’re unwilling to say injustice exists. Politicians and pundits, Republican and Democratic alike, have been unwilling to reprimand voters or hold them accountable. But voters are not well-intentioned innocents who are helplessly manipulated by malevolent leaders. They make important decisions as constitutional actors, for which they have moral responsibility. Racist voting isn’t an accident. It’s a choice that may violate the principles of our Constitution and our legal system. We should say so, and then we should find ways to reduce the harm it causes.

What about blacks who vote dis-proportionally for black candidates? Asians for Asians? Muslims for Muslims? Hispanics for Hispanics? And so forth? Will they be blocked from voting? Of course not. This is all an extension of Trump Derangement Syndrome, for Hillary getting beaten fair and square.

Say, what of Democrats knocking all the blacks out of the primaries?

Read: Hot Take: Trump Voters Motivated By Raaaaacism May Be Violating The Constitution »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

So Sad: Kids (astroturfed) Climate Suit Tossed In Federal Court

By William Teach January 18, 2020 – 7:11 am

All that time and money for nothing. But, there’s an idea for the kids at the end

From the link

A federal appeals court on Friday tossed a climate change lawsuit brought by a group of children who sought a court order to force the U.S. government to phase out fossil fuel emissions.

A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said that while the lawsuit raised critical issues concerning the government’s promotion of fossil fuels, they were beyond the court’s power to resolve.

“Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power,” Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote for the majority. “Rather, the plaintiffs’ impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government.”

Exactly. This is a function of the Legislative Branch, not the courts. Of course, we see all the polls that show that while people might care about Hotcoldwetdry in theory, they aren’t so interested in paying for it themselves.

https://twitter.com/JesseLonnen/status/1217923451698044929

Of course, they always want That Guy to pay for it. Someone got me in a convo in the Real World (I usually avoid political convos) and went down the typical road of Warmists, namely that Big Companies should pay, and that someone should pass a law that the Big Companies should not be allowed to pass on the increased costs to consumers. Warmists never want to take responsibility of their own behavior.

Read: So Sad: Kids (astroturfed) Climate Suit Tossed In Federal Court »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | Comments Off on So Sad: Kids (astroturfed) Climate Suit Tossed In Federal Court | Trackback URL

Police Union Leader, DHS Head Blast NYC Over Releasing Illegal Who Then Murdered 92 Year Old

By William Teach January 18, 2020 – 7:07 am

NYC mayor Bill De Blasio should be charged as a co-conspirator or something

NYPD union leader sides with ICE against de Blasio over ‘sanctuary’-tied murder: ‘He owns this’

A top New York Police Department union official on Friday called on Mayor Bill de Blasio to “own” the consequences of the city’s sanctuary policies — while insisting officers want to be allowed to work with federal immigration enforcement — after an illegal immigrant who was freed in November is alleged to have sexually assaulted and murdered a 92-year-old woman.

“The mayor can say what he wants to say — he owns this,” Sergeants Benevolent Association Vice President Vincent Vallelong told reporters. “He should step up and say these are his policies, he owns it.”

Reeaz Khan, an illegal Guyanese immigrant, is accused of attacking Fuertes as she walked home on Jan. 6. Fuertes was reportedly found at 2 a.m. in 32-degree weather and near death on a sidewalk with her clothes pulled above her waist. She was taken to a hospital, where she died from injuries that included a broken spine, according to The New York Post. The Post cited law enforcement sources who said she had been sexually assaulted and strangled.

ICE revealed this week that it had issued a detainer — a request that ICE be alerted of an illegal immigrant’s release from custody so that they can be transferred into ICE custody and go through deportation procedures — in November for Khan.

But the NYPD followed the city’s sanctuary policy — which limits cooperation with federal immigration authorities and means that most detainers are ignored — and released him without informing ICE.

“A phone call, one simple phone call and Maria Fuertes could be alive today,” a visibly furious Albence told reporters.

And

(Fox News)  Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf tore into New York City officials on Friday for releasing from custody an illegal immigrant who allegedly then sexually assaulted and murdered a 92-year-old woman — a horrific crime that has led to fresh concern about the city’s controversial “sanctuary city” policy.

“It’s a completely preventable tragedy. Had they honored the [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] detainer this would never have happened,” Wolf said on “Fox & Friends.” “So if they’d cooperated with ICE officials, the individual would never have been let out, wouldn’t have committed this crime and we wouldn’t even be talking about this.”

Khan had been arrested on assault and weapons charges (now, imagine it’s you, a U.S. citizen, on weapons charges in gun hating NYC, and think what happens with you). ICE submitted a detainer. The NYPD had to ignore it. Now a 92 woman is dead at his hands, after being beaten badly and sexually assaulted. De Blasio attempted to defend the sanctuary policy with, adding some TDS

Illegals mostly do not report crime to start with, starting with the fact that they are worried about being deported themselves, which they should be. Apparently, in Bill’s NYC, assault and weapons charges are not one of the 177 crimes if that person is convicted. It sure hasn’t kept the 92 year old safe.

Read: Police Union Leader, DHS Head Blast NYC Over Releasing Illegal Who Then Murdered 92 Year Old »

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

A Massive Tax Is The Winning “Conservative” Solution To Hotcoldwetdry Or Something

By William Teach January 17, 2020 – 5:35 pm

I’m not sure that George Shultz and Ted Halstead understand what an American Conservative actually is. I’m kinda doubting that Shultz’s old boss, Ronald Reagan would approve of a massive new federal tax. But, they keep pushing this. I have many posts on these Useful Idiots, such as here and here, the latter in the same Washington Post which is giving Shultz a platform yet again

The winning conservative climate solution

The Republican Party’s position on climate change is rapidly evolving, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) saying that we need conservative solutions and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) warning that the party ignores the issue at its own peril. Just Thursday, House Republican leadership, in its first policy conference of the year, presented a new climate strategy to GOP House members.

The newfound Republican climate position can be summarized as follows: The climate problem is real, the Green New Deal is bad and the GOP needs a proactive climate solution of its own. Our big question is what form it should take.

There are essentially three ways to reduce emissions — regulations, subsidies and pricing. The first is the worst of all options for a party committed to free markets and limited government. Many Republican legislators are, therefore, gravitating toward the second option: tax credits and research-and-development spending to promote innovation. Those now introducing legislation along these lines deserve praise.

Republicans are correct to focus on clean-energy innovation as a crucial driver of climate progress. But while subsidies are an important steppingstone in fostering nascent technologies, they are hardly the best way to stimulate innovation across the whole economy. As numerous studies show, subsidies are a costly means to drive clean tech deployment at scale, requiring ever-higher taxes and deficits to get the job done.

The winning Republican climate answer is the third option: carbon pricing. Just as a market-based solution is the Republican policy of choice on most issues, so should it be on climate change. A well-designed carbon fee checks every box of conservative policy orthodoxy. Not surprisingly, this is the favored option of corporate America and economists — including all former Republican chairs of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers.

So, wait, “carbon pricing”, which is essentially a tax, won’t drive up costs? Good luck with that. As I noted when he last pimped it in the WP and how it works

Each and every one of these things gives the Central Government more control of citizens, private entities, the energy sector, and the economy. Furthermore, it makes citizens more reliant and dependent on government, because the Helpful Hand of Government will refund some of the money lost to the taxes, fees, and cost of living increases.

Is this something Reagan would have supported? Or, would he have said “where’s the rock hard scientific evidence that Mankind is mostly/solely responsible for this? Let’s see it. Oh, you only have supposition, computer models, fear mongering, and looking into a crystal ball?”

Further, he might have asked why the people pushing this the hardest have the biggest carbon footprints. Why they don’t match their lives with their rhetoric. And why they seem to be pushing their beliefs on Everyone Else. Not particularly American Conservative, which is really Classical Liberalism, with the notion that “the government that governs least governs best.”

The Republican plan should be transparent along with what the Warmists want:  “we’re going to tax and fee the hell out of citizens. We’re going to restrict your movement, dictate what you can buy, what you can eat, where you can live. We’re going to take over the energy sector and the economy. We’re going to skyrocket your cost of living. Limit you to one child. Maybe. It depends on your Beliefs. But, your leaders can do whatever they want. Y’all are good with that plan, right? Wait, you’re not? We thought you cared! No? Oh, you only care in theory, not practice. OK. Never mind.”

Read: A Massive Tax Is The Winning “Conservative” Solution To Hotcoldwetdry Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Carbon Credits, Democrat Lite, Global Warming, GOP | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 17, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil bottle of vitamins which help people live longer which is bad for climate, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Feral Irishman, with a post on a good guy with a gun.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

New Progressive Idea: Split D.C. Into 127 New “States” To Get Rid Of Electoral College

By William Teach January 17, 2020 – 10:30 am

If you can’t win by the rules, change the rules (or cheat, if you’re the Astros)

From the article

Harvard has released a radical proposal to fix America’s broken democracy.

We aren’t a democracy. Sigh. Anyhow, it’s really worse than you might think from the tweet

Researchers suggest Congress needs to pass legislation reducing the size of Washington, D.C. to just a few core federal buildings and declaring its 127 neighborhoods as states.

These new states would add enough votes for Congress to rewrite the Constitution in a way that ‘every vote counts equally’ by ratifying four amendments.

The plan entails equal representation in both the Senate and the House, replacing the Electoral College with a popular vote and modifying ‘the Constitution’s amendment process that would ensure future amendments are ratified by states representing most Americans.’

And that’s exactly why the Constitution was written in a certain way, and the amendment process in a certain way. To avoid mob rule. And this would essentially create mob rule.

The authors of the proposal suggest dividing D.C. in to states because it is the only area in the US that can do it legally and every subdivision ‘voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic party in the 2016 election.

And, according to the anonymous writers, ‘the Democratic caucus in Congress could be confident that new states created within the District would elect like-minded delegations to Congress.’

Well, good luck with this. Which, let’s be honest, most elected Democrats are not THAT dumb to try it, because things would not go well, including insurrection, revolt, and a civil war, at the worse. But, it’s nice to see where the minds of Progressives really are. This is an attempt to create one party Fascist rule.

But, wait, haven’t Democrats been whining about small population states having the same power as big states, that they are getting a say? How about a “state” with a couple hundred people? Oh, right, they are saving Democracy. My bad.

There are plenty more Hot-takes in the article. Check it out.

Read: New Progressive Idea: Split D.C. Into 127 New “States” To Get Rid Of Electoral College »

Posted in Democrats | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Every Single Day Of Weather Since 2012 Is Your Fault

By William Teach January 17, 2020 – 7:08 am

Remember that cheeseburger you at in 2011? And that fossil fueled trip you took for Thanksgiving? Where you ate too much? And all those presents you ordered that were delivered by fossil fueled vehicles? And how you bought a refrigerator with an ice maker? And refused to hand wash your clothes? Well, every single bit of weather, every rain storm, every snow storm, every hot day, cold day, nice day that was perfect for a picnic, it’s your fault

Weather shows evidence of climate change every single day since 2012

A single, torrential rainstorm one day in June. An unseasonably warm day in January. A cold snap in late April. The wind, sun, humidity, and all the other things we experience when we walk outside every day: that’s weather.

Climate, scientists have long explained, is what you get when you mash together day after week after month after year of weather. Climate is the whole cloth woven together by individual threads of daily weather.

For years, scientists have cautioned that weather can’t tell us about how the climate is changing. That 70-degree day in January? There are a whole pile of reasons that could have happened. Climate change, they’ve said, could be part of the equation, but our statistical techniques haven’t previously been finely enough tuned to pick out the direct influence on weather of human-caused global warming.

But those days are over. Climate change has dug in its claws so thoroughly into the planet that its marks can be seen in any single day of global weather since 2012. A 6-year-old child, therefore, has never lived a day without feeling climate change’s influence.

Um, in reality, no one has ever felt a day of weather that isn’t climate change. Climate is the averages of long term weather. Averages are made through lots of numbers. And, with weather, there will always be outliers which factor in. The climate is always changing. But, of course, they mean “this is your fault for refusing to pay a tax and give up your liberty, freedom, and choice.”

A climate scientist “could sit on the space station and look down at Earth and actually see the fingerprint of climate change on any given day” just by watching the global weather pattern, says Reto Knutti at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science at ETH Zurich and an author of the research, published in January in Nature Climate Change. “We’re so far into uncharted territory in terms of climate change that we can see things clearly now.”

Nope, not a cult with cultish beliefs.

The “signal” scientists search for is this: what’s actually happened to temperature and humidity over the years, according to weather records, compared to what climate models predict would have happened without human-caused global warming in play. The more those two things diverge, the stronger the signal is considered to be.

OK, once you thrown in the computer models, bases on notions and retroactively changed to prove their Beliefs, it’s over. It’s like those pamphlets they leave in public bathrooms that say that God planted dinosaur bones to fake us out. Or like Scientology, which says that if you spend all this money and read these books you’ll get wiser and wiser.

“The last decade was warmer than any decade ever. The signal is so strong now that without doing super complicated work, we can actually detect these patterns,” she says. “The signal has emerged and evolved so much in such a short time frame.”

First, it was warmer during the three previous Holocene warm periods. Second, there’s no proof that it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind. Other than the actually easy to see urban heat island effect and land use. And massaged/fabricated data.

I do laugh at them blaming a cold snap on heat trapping gasses, though. Not a cult.

Read: Good News: Every Single Day Of Weather Since 2012 Is Your Fault »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

GOP Is Threatening To Weaponize Impeachment Witnesses Or Something

By William Teach January 17, 2020 – 6:50 am

How dare they play politics with a completely political process that was designed to overturn the 2016 elections because Democrats have much Butthurt?

GOP threatens to weaponize impeachment witnesses amid standoff

Republicans are threatening to weaponize a fight on Senate impeachment witnesses amid growing concerns that moderates within their caucus could help Democrats call former national security adviser John Bolton to testify.

After weeks of pledging that they would hold a quick trial with no witnesses from either side, Republicans — from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on down — are sending public warning shots that if their GOP colleagues open the door to Democratic witnesses they’ll respond in-kind, forcing votes on a slew of controversial individuals.

The pressure tactics are the latest shift in strategy as Republican leaders try to navigate the factions in their caucus, where moderates want to leave the potential for witnesses on the table and conservatives are anxious to quickly acquit President Trump.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said if GOP senators support calling people “who are unhappy about being fired,” a reference to Bolton, “then I think the president should get to call his [witnesses] and we should have votes on those.”

“The president gets to call anybody he thinks would be good for his defense, the prosecution can call who they want, but I don’t think we should selectively call witnesses that don’t like the president,” Paul said.

Isn’t that kind of the way our system of legal justice works, as laid out by the Bill Of Rights?

The threat, Republicans hope, could help dissuade Democrats, and a handful of their Republican colleagues viewed as swing votes, from agreeing to subpoena Bolton or one of the other witnesses being requested by Democrats.

Besides, why do we actually need witnesses? Isn’t that what the House hearings were about?

And it was Schumer who, three days after Clinton’s Senate trial began, contended on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that further testimony was unnecessary. “I do not think we need witnesses,” he said, “because we have studied this for a year.”

In his final floor speech in the House on the day before that GOP-run chamber voted to impeach Clinton, Schumer sounded a dark warning. “I expect history will show that we’ve lowered the bar on impeachment so much, we have broken the seal on this extreme penalty so cavalierly, that it will be used as a routine tool to fight political battles,” the outgoing congressman and senator-elect from New York intoned. “My fear is that when a Republican wins the White House, Democrats will demand payback.”

Yeah, that was Schumer back then.

And back to Schumer

I say the GOP should call their own witnesses, and block the Trump haters. The House Democrats set this standard by blocking GOP witnesses. Call Biden, Schiff, Nadler, Democrats who called for Trump to be impeached as soon as he won the election. Pro-Trump witnesses.

Or, just say “here’s the evidence the Democrats sent over. You have two days to read it, then we’re voting. Because there was no obstruction of the Senate, and teh other charge was just much Democrat butthurt.”

Read: GOP Is Threatening To Weaponize Impeachment Witnesses Or Something »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, Donald Trump, GOP | Comments Off on GOP Is Threatening To Weaponize Impeachment Witnesses Or Something | Trackback URL

People Who Take Lots Of Fossil Fueled Travel Will Challenge Trump On ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach January 16, 2020 – 3:00 pm

So, a couple thousand people, primarily CEO’s of companies that use lots of fossil fuels, lots of energy, make consumer products which are Bad for Hotcoldwetdry, will take long fossil fueled flights, and they want to lecture Trump? When most nations which made pledges for the Paris Climate agreement are failing to abide by their own pledges? Maybe these CEOs should practice what they preach, stay in their own lanes, and make their companies Paris compliant, rather than pushing their beliefs (or expressed beliefs that are false) on other people

Trump will be challenged on climate change at Davos, WEF president says

climate change joke

President Donald Trump will likely be questioned on his climate change beliefs when he visits Switzerland for the World Economic Forum on Tuesday next week.

That’s the opinion of WEF President Borge Brende who told CNBC’s Steve Sedgwick Wednesday that Trump appreciated candid conversation about any topic.

The Norwegian politician added he was “pretty sure” that when Trump was in Davos, surrounded by 2,000 world CEOs and environmental leaders that climate change and a loss of biodiversity would be on the agenda.

“On climate change, that will be a topic that will be raised with him I am sure when he is in Davos … We like frank conversations to move the world forward,” said Brende.

OK, let’s be frank: I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis act like it’s a crisis in their own lives. And stop trying to tell Other People how to live their lives.

Read: People Who Take Lots Of Fossil Fueled Travel Will Challenge Trump On ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 19 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove