…is a wonderful wild space that would be perfect for a wind turbine, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Gates Of Vienna, with a post on The Islamic State in Eindhoven.
Read: If All You See… »
…is a wonderful wild space that would be perfect for a wind turbine, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Gates Of Vienna, with a post on The Islamic State in Eindhoven.
Read: If All You See… »
For all the yammering about leaving the U.S. because Orange Man Bad, it seems it’s actually large debt acquired from attending Democrat run colleges
Student Debt Burdened Them, So They Moved Abroad and Stopped Paying
Amanda Lynn Tully spent her teenage years as a ward of the State of Colorado and believed a college degree was her ticket to a better life.
So, when she graduated in 2017 with a master’s degree in historic preservation from the University of Oregon, $65,000 in federal student loans and no job offers in the conservation field, she felt misled.
“I was never financially stable because I was never taught to be financially stable,” Ms. Tully, 37, said.
Less than a year after graduating, Ms. Tully made a drastic decision: She moved to Prague, where she had completed an internship, and defaulted on her loans. She hasn’t made a payment in over seven years.
Wait, how much for what degree? Perhaps it should be considered the kind of worthless degrees Democrat run universities are offering and how much they are charging for them. There should probably be classes on this stuff during the early part of the kiddies’ senior year in high school. Teaching what that kind of debt means and what choosing a worthless degree means.
More than 40 million borrowers are saddled with federal student debt, and a record number — 7.7 million — have defaulted on their loans, according to recently released data from the Education Department.
For some borrowers, moving abroad and out of reach of debt collectors can be tempting. In interviews, people who made this decision cited relieving the psychological burden of student debt as a motivator, as well as having a higher quality of life, even on a lower salary, outside the United States. Many who fled abroad, including Ms. Tully, said they had no plans of ever returning.
The class can teach the kiddies how loans work so they do not get saddled with absurd loans that make buy here pay here ones look reasonable. It boggles my mind that banks and such are giving these loans to 18 year olds with no credit and no jobs when they wouldn’t even be able to get a $20K car 99% of the time without someone cosigning. Anyhow, sadly, the article is too new to get the whole thing using one of the various ways I have to bust the paywall, so, not sure if the article says how many are bolting. But, it must be enough to write an article. Nor can we see if they Blame Trump.
But, what happens if they do not pay it? Well, one is that the payment drops to $0, because it’s tied to income, and there’s no income. But, the loan still continues to accrue interest. The second
If payments stop, the loans eventually default. The debt remains legally owed, but enforcement is limited to U.S.-based systems. For federal loans, that includes credit reporting, tax refund seizure, and offsets of certain federal benefits. For private loans, collection requires litigation.
There is no criminal enforcement, arrest, or extradition tied to student loan nonpayment.
But, there best be no US connection to your money, because then seizure can occur via those accounts, be it federal or private that are owed. And, a private loan holder can potentially get a legal judgement which would then apply in those countries, which will probably be in Europe or Canada. This financial obligation persists because there is no U.S. law that discharges debt simply because a borrower moves abroad, and the debt can grow. Will grow. And it means you’re pretty much going to see that debt if you move back. What if the country you moved to eventually says “get out. Your work permit has expired”? You can keep moving to different countries, but, that would make establishing a good career difficult.
Back in 2024 the UK Telegraph noted that at least 70,000 bolted the US for overseas, so, it can’t all be Orange Man Bad. And there are articles about people doing this even before the 1st Trump administration. Perhaps it is high time for a fix to the student loan system, with costs exploding particularly once Los Federales backed all the loans via a bit of language in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, ie, Obamacare. Higher education is great, but, not when yutes are getting themselves into massive debt with insane terms for silly degrees. Heck, even good degrees. In a “get off my lawn” moment, this really didn’t happen much at all back in my day. Most degrees had value and the loans made financial sense, nor were they being taken out in these high numbers.
And, let’s consider, how much blame must be placed on the colleges/universities for burdening young people with these loans? Sure, the kids are legally adults, but, come on, most know nothing about loans and no one is guiding them to make good decisions on their degrees. The Adults In Charge failed them.
More: the Fish Wrap article is now available via archive now, so, this part is hilarious, applying to the woman mentioned at the beginning
Ms. Tully was on an income-based repayment plan, which allows many borrowers to have their remaining debt forgiven after 20 years of making qualifying payments. She was paying $60 per month when she defaulted. This amount, to many, may seem manageable. But for her, it remained psychologically burdensome.
“The payments weren’t even paying off the interest, so it was frustrating,” Ms. Tully said.

It makes no sense. Let’s say you’re financing a vehicle for $65K. Six year loan, 7.99 APR (which would be generous when you got it at 18): the payment is $1139.25 a month. Even a 30 year loan (not that you would get one) is $476. Yet, paying $60 a month?
BTW, the rest of the article really highlights why the whole student loan situation (as driven by Dem run colleges) is insane.
Read: Bummer: Kiddies With Massive Student Loan Moving Abroad »
This gives Warmists a big sad, even though they rarely practice what they preach
“President Trump is committed to eliminating funding for the globalist climate agenda while unleashing American energy production,” the White House said of the plan.
Some Democrats and environmental groups have already vowed to oppose it.
“It’s just an out-of-touch plea for more money for guns and bombs, and less for the things people need, like housing, healthcare, education, roads, scientific research, and environmental protection,” read a statement from Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, the top Democrat on the budget committee.
Among the big ticket, climate-related items in the proposed budget are the proposed cancellation of more than $15 billion in Department of Energy funds for programs geared toward “unreliable renewable energy, removing carbon dioxide from the air, and other costly technologies that burden ratepayers and consumers,” the proposal says.
“The U.S. Government will no longer subsidize intermittent energy forms that destabilize the grid or Green New Scam projects that increase consumer costs and promote radical leftist policies,” it says.
Obviously, this is what Trump is proposing, not necessarily what will be pushed in the GOP run Congress. How many Republicans will cave to Democrats on this?
The budget would redirect about $4.7 billion from President Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act toward the deployment of firm baseload power, or power that runs 24/7 and typically does not include wind or solar. It would also cut about $1.1 billion from the Energy Department’s Office of Science, which runs national laboratories and funds research into energy technology.
There’s lots and lots, and those billions add up to tens and maybe hundreds of billions.
The thing is, if there wasn’t so much graft, waste, abuse, and fraud in federal spending the Warmists could probably get what they wanted. If they had any brains they’d spend the money properly and show Trump the audits saying “look, we spent it like it was our personal money. Like we were building a deck in our back yard and wanted everything correct, like we didn’t want to get taken to the cleaners.” Really, that should be with everything.
Read: Trump’s Budget Taking A Chainsaw To Climate Scam Garbage »
This gives the Washington Post a sad, but, then, Democrats are upset when illegals with felonies are arrested
Despite signaling change, ICE still arrests many immigrants with no record
Federal immigration officers continued to target large numbers of immigrants with no criminal record in the weeks after two U.S. citizens were shot and killed in Minneapolis, newly released government data shows, despite statements from Trump administration leaders indicating they wanted to take a more targeted approach.
White House border czar Tom Homan said in late January that “all operations will be targeted” and prioritize “criminal aliens, public safety threats and national security threats.” President Donald Trump said he wanted to see “a softer touch” following the unrest in Minneapolis. The shift in rhetoric came as polls indicated that a growing majority of Americans thought the administration had gone too far in deporting undocumented immigrants.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Deportation Data Project indicates that arrest numbers have dropped. ICE averaged about 7,000 arrests a week in the six weeks since Alex Pretti was shot and killed on Jan. 24 — down from 9,000 earlier in January.
But a Washington Post analysis of the data shows that people with no criminal record still make up the largest share of those detained. In all, 42 percent of those detained in the six weeks after Pretti’s death had no criminal record. That is a slight drop from the six weeks that preceded his death, when that figure was 46 percent. Thirty percent had prior convictions and 29 percent had pending charges in the latter weeks.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you wacktard illegal alien supporters would simply hand the ones caught breaking the law over to federal law enforcement then these big immigration raids wouldn’t really happen. Sure, many of the “non-criminal” illegals would still get picked up, but, not in these numbers. If ICE and CBP are going to do big raids in locations they’re going to scoop up everyone they can. They pretty much know who they are and where they are, regardless of criminal history.
Julia Gelatt, associate director of the U.S. immigration policy program at the Migration Policy Institute, said the data reflects the view of senior Trump officials that “anybody without authorization should be arrested and deported.” While Homan stated that ICE would take a targeted approach after Pretti’s death, he also noted that “if you’re in the country illegally, you’re never off the table.”
Well, yeah. Get this: that’s the law. Surprise!
Meanwhile
Half of those arrested by federal agents in Minnesota this winter have already been deported
Two female ICE agents posed as motorists with car troubles outside the home of mechanic Jesus Flores Aguilar on Feb. 12, according to the man’s attorney. When Flores Aguilar went outside to help, he was arrested by immigration agents.
Four days later, he walked across the border to his native Mexico, what federal authorities refer to as “self-deporting.”
“His six kids are now without their father,” Attorney John Hayden earlier told MPR News.
Flores Aguilar is one of nearly 1,700 people arrested in Minnesota by federal agents this winter who have already been deported.
His six kids and his wife can join him in Mexico. But, hey, the Trump admin needs to bump those numbers up.
That total accounts for almost half the people who were arrested during the federal operations in the state, according to recent data released through a federal lawsuit. The data shows that the Trump Administration has been shuttling many of the people it arrests out of the country at a rapid clip — leaving them little time to challenge their detentions or make a case for why they should be allowed to stay.
Are they here illegally? Yes? Bye!
Read: Bummer: ICE Still Arresting Illegals With No Criminal Record »
Of course, this won’t really affect the rich folks in the government of the People’s Republik Of California
This California Law Will Make Housing More Expensive
Last year, Governor Gavin Newsom signed several bills to reform the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the 1970 statute that has long empowered opponents of development to delay or block new housing. Republicans and Democrats alike heralded the changes as a way to address the state’s chronic housing shortage and offer residents an easier path to the California Dream. “We’ve got to get out of our own damn way,” Newsom declared at the time.
But few noticed that tucked into one of the laws is a provision authorizing state and local agencies to impose substantial fees on new residential projects in the name of fighting climate change. The provision creates a hidden tax on housing that would otherwise be affordable for many families.
This provision, and the regime it sets up, is social policy cloaked in environmental rhetoric. Once again, California is blocking the path to making homeownership attainable, let alone affordable or abundant.
Did those who voted on this read the bill? Or, just the summery, and miss the trees for the forest?
At issue in the law, Assembly Bill 130, is how CEQA treats “vehicle miles traveled” or VMT, associated with new development. Under CEQA, passenger vehicles traveling to or from a project during construction and for the first 20 years of occupancy create “impacts” equal to the estimated total mileage traveled. The “total” VMT for the project are then divided by a “per capita” VMT factor. Only projects with an estimated per capita VMT 15 percent less than the “average” per capita VMT for that city (or the entire county, if outside city boundaries) have “less than significant” VMT impacts, according to the regulation.
Projects that cannot meet the “less than significant” threshold must “mitigate” their VMT impact, either by finding ways to reduce driving below the threshold or, under AB 130, by paying a “mitigation fee” into government-run “mitigation banks.” These banks then disburse the funds to support projects elsewhere—such as transit service or subsidized housing—that in theory will reduce driving. For example, money could subsidize income-restricted apartments that cost more than $800,000 per one-bedroom unit to build in Los Angeles or San Francisco—four times the cost in Dallas. Or it might fund expanded bus service at costs exceeding $1 million annually on the theory that someone elsewhere will ride that bus instead of driving.
Or, it might go in the pockets of NGOs and donors who then return a kickback to the politicians, while maybe 20% makes it to those projects.
The costs of complying with VMT mitigation requirements can be substantial. According to the Coalition for Affordable, Reliable, and Equitable Housing, VMT mitigation fees could reach a 20-year total of $324,000 per home or apartment—roughly $16,000 per year, or $1,350 per month.
They do mean raising the costs by $324K per new construction. From that last link
The Coalition breaks down the Impact of the new VMT housing tax:
- Raises new home prices on top of existing mandates that already add $197,000 to the price of a new home.
- Increases monthly rents by $1,350 — a 48% jump over the state median.
- Disproportionately harms low-income and minority households of color.
- Stalls housing production and eliminates construction and trade jobs.
And, remember, this will easily raise the selling costs and rents of existing homes and apartments, because that’s the way it works. But, I have no sympathy or empathy for those in the PRC who keep voting for the same people who pass this cult crap. What did they think was going to happen?
Read: Good News: New Climate (scam) Law Will Make Housing In The PRC Even More Unaffordable »
…are horrible moo cows causing the temperature to skyrocket, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Cold Fury, with a tribute to the original Bat Girl.
Read: If All You See… »
It’s wild what a 1.7F increase in global temperatures since 1850 can do, eh?
Climate change will push venomous snakes towards highly populated coastlines, study finds
Climate change will drive venomous snakes away from arid interiors and towards densely populated coastlines, increasing the risk of deadly encounters for millions of people, a new global study says.
It notes that snake populations will broadly move towards higher latitudes and more heavily populated areas as rising temperatures make their current habitats less suitable.
In Australia, the shift is expected to be especially pronounced along the east coast where snakes will move from the arid centre into more heavily populated southern areas.
The research published in the journal PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases models the habitats of all 508 medically important venomous snake species and projects how their ranges will shift by 2050 and 2090.
“Before this study surprisingly little was known about the exact distribution of many medically important snakes, even some widespread ones that cause many bites,” the study notes.
Yeah, I think we can stop there, once they mention “models”.
It draws on public and private databases, citizen science platforms, museum records, scientific literature and expert observations, with all data vetted by an international panel of around 30 specialists.
And then they claim this will all happen in the future. All over the world. It’s all very culty.
Read: Your Fault: Hotcoldwetdry Pushing Dangerous Snakes To Coastlines »
I had actually planned to post on another wacko detained by ICE, but, this is even crazier
Immigration judge overturns decades-old deportation order against Subu Vedam
Taking the stand and fighting for his freedom turned into a victory for Subramanyam Vedam.
An immigration judge on Thursday morning granted Vedam’s appeal, allowing him to remain in the United States and overturning a deportation order that was first issued more than 30 years ago.
In issuing the ruling, the judge said Vedam “does not pose a danger to the community” and pointed to his actions while incarcerated as evidence of “good moral character.”
The judge cited a long list of accomplishments during Vedam’s decades in prison, including educating himself and starting a literacy program.
The Department of Homeland Security now has until May 4 to appeal the judge’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeal.
Wait, what was that about incarceration?
Much of his testimony focused on his criminal history, primarily between 1980 and 1983, with Vedam describing himself at the time as “young and stupid.”
Vedam was convicted in 1983 of first-degree murder in the shooting death of Thomas Kinser. During the hearing, he denied shooting Kinser or anyone else, saying he had been smoking marijuana and drinking beer with Kinser and was shocked to later learn of his death.
That murder conviction was vacated last year. However, Vedam also acknowledged that in the early 1980s he sold LSD, charges to which he later pleaded no contest.
Murder, huh? But, he’s saying he’s supposed to be allowed to stay in the U.S. because he’s been in prison for 43 years instead of being repatriated to India. Seriously, multiple laws say he is to be deported after his jail stint. A judge can’t randomly change that law. He’s not an America. Judges like Judge Adam Panopoulos are unhinged and need to be yanked from the bench.
President of Wisconsin’s largest mosque detained by US immigration agents
The president of Wisconsin’s largest mosque was detained by federal immigration agents, drawing accusations from local officials and religious leaders that the arrest was motivated by his statements against Israel.
Salah Sarsour, a Palestinian-born legal permanent resident of the United States, was taken into custody by nearly a dozen US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents on Monday in Milwaukee after he left his home, according to the Islamic Society of Milwaukee.
Supporters called for his immediate release on Thursday and his attorneys said he was detained on the grounds that he is a foreign policy threat. His attorneys say the claims have no merit.
Instead, they believe Sarsour, 53, was targeted for speaking out against Israel and for a conviction as a minor by Israeli military courts, which have faced scrutiny over allegations of limited due process and high conviction rates of Palestinians. Israel rejects those claims. The offenses included allegedly throwing rocks at Israeli officers, according to attorney Munjed Ahmad.
Could it be that he’s a Jew hater and a supporter of a US designated terrorist organization, Hamas?
(Amy Meek) This isn’t some innocent “community leader.” Sarsour is a documented Hamas supporter with a rap sheet going back to the 1990s, one that U.S. authorities let slide while he built mosques, businesses, and a jihad fundraising machine right here on American soil.
This is the enemy within that patriots have been warning about for years: a Hamas financier who used green cards and furniture stores as cover to send cash to terrorists, then rebranded as a “Palestine advocate.”
Decades of Direct Hamas Ties:
Jailed 8 months in Israel in 1995 for supporting Hamas — where he buddyed up with Adel Awadallah, West Bank commander of Hamas’s Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades.
Named in 2001 FBI memos as a Hamas fundraiser tied to the Holy Land Foundation (biggest terror-financing conviction in U.S. history).
There’s more at the tweet. Hamas should not be in the U.S.
Read: Unhinged Federal Judge Overturns Old Deportation Order For Convicted Murderer »
The complaint from the NY Times might have some grounds if all the employees and the company itself had stopped using fossil fuels. Same way with all Warmists
Republicans Seek Protections for Oil Giants Against Climate Lawsuits
Republicans at the state and federal levels are working to shield fossil fuel companies from laws and legal claims that aim to make them pay for some of the damage caused by climate change.
Lawmakers and oil-industry advocates are running a two-track campaign, in statehouses and in Congress, to pass laws to protect companies from paying some of the costs of intensified wildfires, storms, floods and other effects of global warming. The goal is broad immunity, similar to what Congress granted to gun manufacturers two decades ago.
The effort comes as major fossil fuel companies including Exxon, Chevron and ConocoPhillips face a wave of lawsuits from cities, states and individuals who say the companies knew their products would dangerously warm the planet.
The companies, which did not respond to a request for comment, are also battling new “climate superfund” laws, so far enacted in Vermont and New York, that hold them liable for emissions. New York is seeking $75 billion over 25 years. Similar laws are under consideration in a dozen other states.
Last week, Utah became the first state to enact a law that shields companies from climate related claims. Republican lawmakers in at least four other states, including Oklahoma, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Iowa, are working on similar bills.
Most of the climate cult lawsuits and laws are winning during the first round, but, losing on appeal, because they are trying to apply state laws to national issues. As a NJ judge said when killing a lawsuit by the State of NJ
“Because Plaintiffs seek damages for alleged harms caused by interstate and international emissions and global warming, their claims cannot be governed by state law. Under our federal constitutional system, states cannot use their laws to resolve claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by out-of-state and worldwide emissions,” Hurd said in the decision.
I’m still rather shocked that none of the lawyers for the fossil fuels companies ever argue “have the plaintiffs stopped using fossil fuels themselves?” Yeah, I’m not a lawyer, but, that seems rather important.
Read: Fish Wrap Rather Upset GOP Looking To Protect Fossil Fuels Companies From Climalawfare Suits »