“Remove CO2 from Atmosphere”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s John Kerry’s claim and goal as he stated at the recent, pretentiously styled, Leaders Summit on Climate.

Net zero is not enough. We need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

There are two interpretations for Kerry’s claim.

One is that he meant complete removal, which would have the effect of starving to extinction all plant life, and from that all life on Earth.

The other interpretation is that he meant removal of “excess” CO2 from the atmosphere. He—and climatistas everywhere—decline to define “excess” in any concrete, measurable terms.

Either interpretation represents Kerry’s utter dishonesty. Dishonesty, I claim, because I don’t believe Kerry, the self-proclaimed Smartest Man in the Room, is that ignorant or that stupid.

Is “systemic racism” really behind every tragic shooting?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the question a Wall Street Journal editorial subheadline asks. This is how President Joe Biden (D) answered the question, using his Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s mouth:

We know that police violence disproportionately impacts black and Latino people in communities and that black women and girls, like black men and boys, experience higher rates of police violence.

Indeed. How systemically racist it is for a white cop to save the lives of one or two black girls who were under knife attack by another black girl. That’s the Biden line.

Because, I suppose, saving those two black lives was just the act of a Great White Savior.

Consider, also: that life-saving shooting happened fully 24 hours before Biden trotted Psaki out to speak his lines. He knew the situation full well. He knew the circumstances of the shooting full well. He knew that one of those black girls was under proximate attack, knife raised in the hand of her (black) attacker to strike at the time the (white) cop fired.

To answer the question, then, yes, systemic racism is behind every tragic shooting. But only in the minds of the racists who manufacture their racist beefs out of the empty æther. Or in the minds of Progressive-Democrats.

The Basis for Denying/Accepting Admittance to Statehood

Posted on by
Reply

In the current debate over whether the District of Columbia should be admitted as a State, Congressman Jamie Raskin (D, MD) made this claim.

All that they [Republicans] see is two new liberal Democrat senators, but that cuts against everything that we believe in about American democracy. We do not deny people the right to vote based on our expectation of how they will vote.

What the Democratic Party and its politicians do, though—until the Civil War they forced over their demand to keep slaves—is demand that any State admitted to the United States as a Free State be balanced by the admission of another State as a Slave State—so that those Senators could be voted for by slaveholders.

Raskin knows the history of his Progressive-Democratic Party full well. Of course the move to admit DC as a State is all about getting two more of his Progressive-Democratic Party Senators. His Party has been pushing for voters who will vote for his Party in particular throughout its history.

Were the move centered on getting DC residents the right to vote in Federal elections, it would be straightforward enough to return the ex-Maryland portion of DC to Maryland (the ex-Virginia portion having already been returned), where they would have full representation. Straightforward, that is, were the Progressive-Democrats not in the way that simple granting of the Federal franchise.

The Relevance of Constitutionality

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal had an editorial Wednesday that decried Progressive-Democrats’ (my term; the editors wrote only of “Democrats”) DC statehood “gambit.” In their piece, the editors made the case that the move, as designed by Congressional Progressive-Democrats, was unconstitutional.

One part of their writing jumped out at me.

But the impetus behind both measures [Supreme Court packing and DC “statehood”] is the same—to tilt the constitutional playing field and consolidate liberal power.

Indeed. It’s important to keep in mind that today’s liberals, far from being classically liberal, are 18th century monarchist, Big Government Knows All/Controls All proponents. For such as these, our Constitution is whatever they say it is—if it has any value at all. Their own hero, Woodrow Wilson, insisted that our Constitution is obsolete and ought be done away with altogether.

Today’s monarchist liberals are bent on the same aim, this time by simply ignoring it.

This is Why…

Posted on by
Reply

…we can’t afford any more Progressive-Democrat-appointed judges or any more judges appointed by anyone who want to argue politics rather than confine themselves to the law. Especially when the politics they argue are so blatantly biased and un-American.

The Sixth Circuit ruled, in a case in which Imelda Lopez-Soto, a Mexican citizen who came to the US illegally in 2000 at age 19, was contesting a removal order, that the immigration court had not erred, and Ms Lopez-Soto had not been denied due process. (The immigration court’s removal order was upheld.) The two Liberal judges, Martha Daughtrey and Karen Moore, ruled that

[i]n an era in which it is difficult to find any issue upon which a large percentage of Americans agree, few people would dispute that our nation’s immigration system is broken and is need of a structural overhaul. Admittedly, a not-insignificant number of Americans believe that any change to our immigration statutes should result in shutting our borders to almost all individuals, or at least to all potential immigrants who are not blond-haired and blue-eyed.

Judge Amul Thapar, a son of immigrants, had a different take, even though he agreed with the basic ruling:

I have my doubts about the wisdom of courts opining on hot-button political issues or the motives of citizens who hold one position or another in those debates. And as someone who is neither blond-haired nor blue-eyed and who has benefited directly from the kindness of the American people, I believe that the American Dream is alive and well for persons of all stripes. Thus, I respectfully concur only in the judgment.

Daughtrey and Moore, with Thapar sitting right next to them, acted like he was invisible to them and they couldn’t hear him speaking.

Did the two women not see or hear him because he is a member of the male patriarchy, or did they not see or hear him because he’s an immigrant who defeated their seeming accusation of racism on the part of those not-insignificant number of Americans?

Wow.

The appellate court’s ruling can be read here.