If All You See…

…is a mountain missing its glacier from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on Poland wanting the Canadian Nazi extradited.

Read: If All You See… »

PRC Looks To Be Sued Over New Gun Restrictions And Taxes

How soon will the lawsuits be filed?

New gun control laws in California ban firearms from most public places and raise taxes on gun sales

Two new laws regulating gun control in California were signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday. The laws prohibit people from carrying firearms in most public places and doubles the taxes on guns and ammunition sold in the state.

The federal government currently taxes gun and ammunition sales at a rate of 10% or 11%. The new law adds another 11% tax to sales. This makes California the only state with a separate tax on guns and ammunition, according to Brady, a gun control advocacy organization.

The money generated from gun and ammunition sales will fund several different programs in California. The first $75 million will go towards funding the California Violence Intervention and Prevention Grant Program.

$50 million generated from taxes will go towards increased security at public schools. The money will fund physical security improvements, after-school programs and mental and behavioral health services for students, teachers and other employees.

How many will simply go out of state to purchase ammo? Any lawsuit over being taxed that heavily over a Constitutional Right, being treated differently for their purchases, may not only affect the California tax but the federal excise tax. The current Supreme Court may rule, will probably rule, against California for targeting a Constitutional right.

The new law prohibits people from carrying guns in 26 places, such as public parks, public demonstrations and gatherings, amusement parks, churches, banks, zoos and “any other privately owned commercial establishment that is open to the public,” according to the bill.

A simple question that needs to be asked is “will any of this stop criminals from using guns for criminal activity?” Does California have any data that shows it will do anything other than increase revenue for legal, Constitutional right purchases? Gavin Newsome said “The carnage, it’s too much. We can’t normalize it, we can’t accept it,” Newsom said. “This is a small price to pay.” But, the criminals will not be paying it.

(AP) The California Rifle and Pistol Association has already sued to block one new law Newsom signed on Tuesday that bans people from carrying guns in most public places. The law overhauls the state’s rules for concealed carry permits in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

It specifically bans people from carrying guns in 26 places, including public parks and playgrounds, public demonstrations and gatherings, amusement parks, churches, banks, zoos and “any other privately owned commercial establishment that is open to the public” unless the owner puts up a sign saying guns are allowed.

“These laws will not make us safer. They are an unconstitutional retaliatory and vindictive response to the Supreme Court’s affirmation that the Second Amendment protects an individuals’ right to choose to own a firearm for sport or to defend your family,” said Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association. “They are being challenged, and the second they are signed, the clock starts ticking towards a judgment striking them down.”

Lawsuits should be expected on the ammo and gun taxes, as well, soon.

Read: PRC Looks To Be Sued Over New Gun Restrictions And Taxes »

NYC Businesses Look To Get Climate (scam) Regulations Rolled Back

It would be interesting to know how many of these business owners have voted for Democrats over the years

NY businesses launch $1M push to roll back climate-change laws that left city ‘at a crossroads’

New York businesses are launching a $1 million campaign to push Gov. Kathy Hochul and state lawmakers to ease anti-pollution laws battling climate change — arguing the regs are too costly to them and consumers.

The groups — representing many of the largest Empire State employers — gripe that New York’s 2019 “Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act” requiring greenhouse gases be cut 40% by 2030 and 85% by 2050 could lead to blackouts and soaring electric bills and have “adverse impacts” on economic growth.

“New York is at a crossroads,” warned Heather Mulligan, who leads one of the groups, the Business Council of New York State, on Tuesday.

“Let’s be clear: It is essential to push a green economy. It is also essential to make sure we can reach our environmental and clean energy goals without severely damaging New York’s families and businesses as well as jeopardizing the reliability of New York’s energy infrastructure,” she said.

Dottie Gallagher of the Buffalo Niagara Partnership added bluntly, “Continuing to implement climate policy without regard to energy affordability and reliability is guaranteed to raise prices on all New Yorkers, weaken our economy, and accelerate New York’s nation-worst outmigration trend.”

How many of these companies supported the “green” push back in 2019? But, now they’re seeing the negative consequences, which they should have known about back in 2019, but, they were excited and went with it. Now it’s costing them a lot of money, both in their businesses and at their homes.

Kathy Wylde, the head of the Big Apple’s chief business group, the Partnership for New York City, noted in a statement that her organization supported the state’s 2019 climate-change law — but said it needs more cautious “implementation paths” to “protect the economic vibrancy of the state.”

The statewide coalition urging the slowing down of the new restrictions also includes the chambers of commerce in Westchester County, Rochester and Albany.

Yeah, well, you wanted this, now you have it. Do they think the Elected Elites will slow down? Hell no.

Read: NYC Businesses Look To Get Climate (scam) Regulations Rolled Back »

Target To Close Nine Stores In Democratic Party Run Cities

Can you guess which cities are on the chopping block?

Target closes 9 stores in response to retail theft, adds locked cases at some stores

Target is taking action in response to retail theft.

On Tuesday the big box retailer announced plans to close nine stores, effective Oct. 21.

“We cannot continue operating these stores because theft and organized retail crime are threatening the safety of our team and guests, and contributing to unsustainable business performance,” the company said in a statement.

The stores set to close include one in Harlem, N.Y; two in Seattle, Wash.; three near San Francisco and Oakland, Calif.; and three in Portland, Ore. All “eligible” employees will be offered the opportunity to transfer to other Target locations, the company said.

The decision to close stores came after the company reported that inventory shrinkage — mostly the theft of merchandise — would cut profits by $500 million this year. In 2022, profits took a $700 million hit from inventory shrinkage.

There are only three in Seattle, three in Portland, and three in Poop City, er, San Francisco. You can bet the ones staying open are in the nicest areas of the cities. This is a direct result of hardcore Progressive policies on crime. This has nothing to do with Republicans, they have zero power in all those areas.

At some hard-hit stores, Target is finding ways to stem the losses, such as locking cases for merchandise categories that are “prone to theft,” as pictured below.

Shoppers have to ask for assistance from employees to open the cases. At this particular location in New Jersey, sections that were locked up included toiletries and higher-priced detergents.

Did anyone think that it would be necessary to lock those up? Good job, Democrats.

At the end of the day, it is the employees of those stores who will pay the price for the policies of Democrats. Do you think they will be able to move or travel far for work? But, then, how many of them voted Democrat constantly?

Read: Target To Close Nine Stores In Democratic Party Run Cities »

Lego Gives Up On “Green” Recycling, Makes No Difference On CO2 Emissions

The shameful thing here is that Lego only seems to care about their “carbon footprint”, not whether recycling plastics makes sense for real environmentalism

Green Fail: Lego Abandons Bricks Made of Recycled Plastic Bottles for Failure to Reduce Carbon Emissions

Danish toymaker Lego has halted its initiative to create its iconic bricks from recycled plastic bottles, citing the failure of the prototype to reduce carbon emissions.

CBS News reports that Lego recently admitted that its ambitious project to manufacture Lego bricks from recycled plastic bottles, specifically polyethylene terephthalate (PET), will not progress further. This decision comes after more than two years of meticulous testing and experimentation, which concluded that the material did not meet the company’s sustainability goals, particularly in reducing carbon emissions.

Despite the setback with the PET prototype, Lego remains unwavering in its commitment to sustainability. The company claims it has invested more than $1.2 billion in various sustainability initiatives, aiming to transition to more sustainable materials and achieve a 37 percent reduction in its carbon emissions by 2032.

Lego is currently exploring a range of alternative sustainable materials, including green methanol and bio-polypropylene, for developing Lego bricks. Green methanol, also known as e-methanol, is a sustainable compound composed of waste carbon dioxide and hydrogen, created using renewable energy to split water molecules. Bio-polypropylene is a sustainable and biological variant of polyethylene, a plastic used in various applications, including consumer and food packaging.

It’s all a scam. Recycling is a good thing, but, they’re doing it for the wrong reasons, and I suspect the price to do this is pretty high. Of course, did they really try, or was this all “greenwashing”, putting out statements and press releases, promising to be more sustainable, doing the minimal, all in an attempt to placate the climate cult?

Oh, and then there’s this

(Watts Up With That?) Ford said dropping the [British] 2030 deadline would be a mistake, and hinted it could put further investments at risk.

“The UK 2030 target is a vital catalyst to accelerate Ford into a cleaner future,” Ford UK chair Lisa Brankin said in a statement on Wednesday.

“Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency. A relaxation of 2030 would undermine all three.”

That’s an excerpt from a Reuters piece, leading Eric Worrall, who wrote in his headline that Ford is relying on government coercion, to opine

Is anyone awake in shareholder land? Who put the fools who bet the futures of their businesses on the trustworthiness of politicians in charge of major automobile companies?

Without government mandates, which they do not want to call mandates, so, let’s call them decrees or orders, EVs will be nothing more than niche vehicles for the foreseeable future. Few are clamoring for them. The majority who buy them make between $150k and $300K. The rich folks mostly buy super luxury cars. The working and middle class cannot afford them.

Read: Lego Gives Up On “Green” Recycling, Makes No Difference On CO2 Emissions »

If All You See…

…is a horrible fossil fueled farming instrument, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Right Scoop, with a post on Venezuelans planting their flag on the border of Texas after crossing illegally.

Read: If All You See… »

With A Supposed Soft Landing Coming, Reuters Wonders Why Americans Are So Mad About Economy

You simply un-appreciative peasants are grumbling after all the work of your betters

The elusive Fed ‘soft landing’ nears. Why are Americans so mad about the economy?

U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said emphatically last week that people “hate inflation, hate it,” but he left another fact unspoken – they also punish the politicians in charge when prices rise.

They used to. Were politicians punished in the 2022 mid-terms? Will they be punished in 2024? I’m not sure that will happen much

The central bank’s quest for a “soft landing” of more slowly rising prices and continued economic growth looks increasingly probable. In fact, the U.S. may hit a sweet spot just as the 2024 presidential election campaign crescendos next year.

It’s the sort of benign outcome that academic studies and high-ranking economists had called virtually impossible after inflation hit 40-year highs in June of 2022. Some warned that millions of workers might need to be rendered jobless to reduce the pace of price increases in a flashback to the central banking experience of the 1970s.

Rather than cheering, though, after years of economic turbulence since the coronavirus pandemic erupted in 2020, Americans grumble, at least if you ask them about the economy.

What’s there to grumble about? The pace of inflation has slowed, right?

More than 40% of U.S. voters who backed Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election say they think the economy is worse off than it was then, a Reuters/Ipsos poll published last month found.

That’s because things on the ground don’t feel as good as the positive inflation trend would indicate. With fast rising prices and the end of an array of pandemic-era government benefit programs, inflation-adjusted household income fell last year, and the poverty rate increased.

Borrowing costs also have risen sharply in the past 18 months as the Fed ratcheted up interest rates to tame the surge in inflation, adding to consumers’ sour mood.

(From NY Post article)

That’s just through 2022. Prices continued to rise in 2023, albeit more slowly. Interest rates are much higher than when Biden took office, and, in fairness, that’s the primary fault of China messing with coronaviruses, though, the Biden administration made things worse with their terrible policies.

The Biden administration has worked to lower costs by releasing stores of the country’s strategic petroleum stockpile, pushing down health insurance premiums, negotiating the cost of common prescription drugs, and trying to end monopolies in meat processing and battling “junk” fees paid by consumers.

None of those worked or will work. They just started negotiating on drug prices, and that’s only for 10 total. Junk fees? Nothing to do with inflation. Insurance premiums? I thought Obamacare was supposed to do that. Strategic petroleum? That was a fail, and gas prices have stayed high. You’re paying way more than in 2020, which helps keeps prices high.

In the 12 months through August, the CPI accelerated 3.7%, a sharp drop from its peak of 9.1% in June of 2022.

But that’s not what voters care about. Even as the pace of price hikes recedes, the sticker shock from previous increases remains. Just because inflation falls, in other words, it doesn’t mean prices fall back to where they were – only that they are growing less quickly.

Anyone in a grocery store is less likely to appreciate that meat, poultry, fish and eggs are slightly less expensive now than they were at the start of the year – inflation among those goods was negative for several months – than to grimace at the fact that those core sources of protein still cost about 24% more than they did on the eve of the pandemic in early 2020.

Cost less than the start of 2023? What are those products? None are mentioned. Surprise?

Read: With A Supposed Soft Landing Coming, Reuters Wonders Why Americans Are So Mad About Economy »

Brandon Tells Pacific Islanders He’s Going To Do Something About Climate Crisis (scam)

Hey, maybe he’s going to tell all those Pacific islands they have to do away with all their airport and stop importing all those goods on fossil fueled ships? No more tourists coming on fossil fueled airplanes?

Biden tells Pacific islands leaders he’ll act on their warnings about climate change

President Joe Biden on Monday told leaders from the 18-member Pacific Islands Forum that he has heard their warnings about the impact of climate change on their region and that his administration is committed to helping them meet the challenge.

Pacific islands leaders gathered on Monday for the start of a two-day Washington summit. Many have been critical of rich countries for not doing enough to control climate change despite being responsible for much of the problem, and for profiting from loans provided to vulnerable nations to mitigate the effects.

At the summit’s start, Biden said that his administration is requesting Congress approve $200 million in new assistance for the region, including financing to help the islands prepare for climate and natural hazards and improve infrastructure.

Not that I think they should get this money, but, Biden wants tens of billions for Ukraine, and just $200K for 18 islands?

“I want you to know I hear you, the people in the United States and around the world hear you,” Biden told the leaders. “We hear your warnings of a rising sea and (that) they pose an existential threat to your nations. We hear your calls for reassurance that you never, never, never will lose your statehood, or membership of the U.N. as a result of a climate crisis. Today, the United States is making it clear that this is our position as well.”

As part of the summit, the U.S. is formally establishing diplomatic relations with two South Pacific nations, the Cook Islands and Niue. Later Monday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken will take part in signing ceremonies with Niue Premier Dalton Tagelagi and with Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown to mark the new elevated relations.

Well, there’s no real current measurement for the Cook Islands, but, the sea had been rising just .78 feet per hundred feet as measured from 1977-2018. Most of the islands in the region, other than Fiji, are seeing similar sea rise. So, lower than expected during a Holocene warm period.

Blinken is also set to take part in an event with Kiribati President Taneti Maamau later Monday as the island country was set to sign on to a new partnership with the U.S.-backed Millennium Corporation Challenge. The group has previously assisted the country with dozens of low-lying atolls and 120,000 people to boost its workforce.

Some of the leaders attended an NFL game in Baltimore on Sunday and visited a U.S. Coast Guard cutter in the city’s harbor for a briefing on combating illegal fishing and other maritime issues. Biden announced Monday that later this year he would deploy a U.S. Coast Guard vessel to the region to collaborate and train with Pacific islands nations.

Whoa, wait a second: they were having the forum in the United States? Why, yes, yes they are. In other words, they all took a really, really long fossil fueled flight (it takes almost 13 hours from the Cook Islands). How many flew private? And then all the fossil fueled limos. They couldn’t do this somewhere within the area of the islands?

Read: Brandon Tells Pacific Islanders He’s Going To Do Something About Climate Crisis (scam) »

NJ Democrats Look To Abandon Sanctuary State Status (but, mostly just for the elections)

Claiming you are a sanctuary state is all fun and games right up till all those illegals are shipped to the state, right?

No sanctuary in New Jersey: Democrats about-face on migrants as election looms

The Biden administration’s decision to float Atlantic City International Airport as one of 11 potential sites to house migrants living in New York City put New Jersey Democrats in a tough spot.

It was merely a suggestion. But with state lawmakers up for reelection in November, Gov. Phil Murphy and other state Democrats — many who’d previously pledged to make New Jersey a “sanctuary state” — immediately pushed back. (snip)

“Atlantic City has been a perennial dumping ground,” Mayor Marty Small Sr. said at a press conference, calling it an example of so-called Greyhound Therapy. The proposal from the Department of Homeland Security never appeared to be anything approaching a “plan,” as opponents were quick to characterize it.

But it came at the unofficial start of a campaign season in which all 120 seats in the state Legislature are on the ballot, and as Democrats have already struggled to unify around a campaign message as Republicans hit them on the culture war issue of trans rights and harness the quickly-decreasing popularity of the Murphy’s wind power plans. (snip)

Democratic officials are hoping the party’s full-court press of opposition takes it off the table as a campaign issue in a long-competitive area that has been trending Republican in recent years. In the last legislative election, in 2021, Republicans gained seven seats in the Legislature, including two in Atlantic County’s 2nd district. Democrats still hold a sizable advantage — 25-15 in the Senate and 46-34 in the Assembly — but Murphy and party leaders have worried a low-turnout election like the one in November could favor the GOP.

The question here is “will NJ voters finally say “enough” for Democratic Party control?” Will they realize that Democrats are just lying about not supporting being a sanctuary state just to get votes and the minute they are back in power they will allow the importation of vast numbers of illegals?

Sara Cullinane, director of the immigrant advocacy group Make the Road Action NJ, said Democrats risk alienating their base with their “knee-jerk reaction.”

“This is a really disappointing move from Democrats who should know better,” she said. “Many New Jerseyans have an immigrant parent. We’re a state of immigrants, and alienating those voters, and coming out against refugees fleeing for their safety. These are people fleeing violence, unsafe conditions. We need to be a welcoming state. We need to uphold those values.”

Yes, ones who came here legally, not the same method all these illegals/migrants used. But, the parties have become so tribal that there will be enough residents who will never vote against Democrats no matter what.

Both parties are blaming the federal government for decades without a comprehensive immigration plan and path to citizenship for undocumented residents.

Both of those will simply lead to more coming illegally/demanding asylum.

Read: NJ Democrats Look To Abandon Sanctuary State Status (but, mostly just for the elections) »

PRC Looking To Restrict Classic Fossil Fuels Vehicles

I swear, elected Republicans across the country are a bunch of weenies, who just do not get how Politics 101 works. None of them seem to be asking why Gavin Newsome, the other elected Democrats, and the unelected and unresponsive to the citizens group known as the California Air Resources Board are practicing what they force on Everyone Else. None are asking Gavin why he is not traveling in an EV and why he takes lots of fossil fueled flights

Report: California Looking To Restrict Travel For Classic Cars

The state of California is looking seriously at instituting or allowing local governments to institute zero-emission zones in the near future. In preparation for such a move, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) reportedly is gathering information about classic cars and how their owners use them. We knew something like this was coming to the US and California would likely be first, but this is still concerning.

According to a Daily Caller report, on August 2 CARB sent a survey to owners of classic cars from model year 1978 or earlier. The questions were aimed at ascertaining how those classics are used and store, as well as where they’re driven. It even asks about how many miles show on owners’ odometers. Knowing how increasingly authoritarian many government agencies seems to be trending, this is concerning to many car enthusiasts who still live in the Golden State.

I would have told them to go pound sand. As far as authoritarian, consider that this is a state run by Democrats, and Democrats make up the majority of the bureaucracies

Of course, the justification for full-on banning older cars from certain areas or making the owners pay a daily fee to drive there is climate change. After seeing the amount of emissions produced by private jets, cruise ships, EV mining/production, Space X rockets, and many other things that are widely celebrated, defended, and/or enjoyed one can’t help but feel cynical about these mounting restrictions.

But California has a net-zero carbon emissions goal set for 2045 and so we can expect even more restrictions on the horizon. We hope it doesn’t get to the point that authorities go door to door looking for classic cars to seize and crush, but the mere mention of zero-emission zones would’ve been dismissed as crazy conspiracy theory only a few short years ago.

Well, you Californians keep voting for this insanity. The members of the CARB are mostly appointed by the governor, and the governor is mostly unaccountable to the People of the People’s Republik Of California. You’ll get what you vote for. Don’t complain when you get boned,

Read: PRC Looking To Restrict Classic Fossil Fuels Vehicles »

Pirate's Cove