CNN Seems Pretty Upset That Those Brown People In Singapore Are Using World Killing Air Conditioning

CNN Is claiming that the use of AC is a Bad Thing. When will the main CNN building, located in the hot, humid, and sweltering city of Atlanta stop using it? Even without the massive urban heat island effect of Atlanta, the area would be rough during large parts of the year

This country’s love affair with air conditioning shows a Catch 22 of climate change

When the temperature soared to 99 degrees Fahrenheit last month, Singapore resident Chee Kuan Chew saw just one option: cancel all plans and stay indoors in air-conditioned comfort.

“You can’t survive without air con in Singapore,” Chee said. “It’s impossible with the heat.”

The 20-year-old university student lives with his family in a four-bedroom flat in Ang Mo Kio, a bustling district that made headlines in the Southeast Asian city state when its temperatures hit a 40-year high in a recent heat wave. Thankfully, Chee said, his home has five air conditioners – one in each bedroom and a larger unit in the living room.

“I drank plenty of water, took cold showers and kept the air conditioning on for the entire weekend. That’s my way of managing the heat,” Chee said.

Taking solace in air conditioning in Singapore is hardly unreasonable behavior. Situated roughly 85 miles north of the equator, the island nation is famously hot and humid, with temperatures that stretch into the 80s year-round – a climate that has helped make it one of the most air-conditioned countries in the world, with more units per capita than any of its Southeast Asian neighbors.

Singapore is a modern city, so, they can afford it. CNN doesn’t like this, and would like the use ended, like they do in developing nations.

Indeed, in this city, air conditioning has become almost a way of life. An office or mall without it is near unthinkable; 99% of private condominiums are air conditioned, as are the majority of public housing apartments.

And this is CNN’s business, why, exactly? Why do Warmists, and Progressives in general, always want to control the way Other People live their lives?

But Singapore’s love affair with air conditioning has an enormous cost.

It has trapped a nation already hot – and getting hotter – in what experts describe as a “dangerous, vicious cycle.” It’s a climate change Catch 22 paradox that faces all nations which rely on air conditioning to make life just that little bit more tolerable.

Put simply: the warmer the world gets, the more people turn to their air conditioners. And the more they turn to their air conditioners, the warmer the world gets.

Yes, just like during previous Holocene warm periods, except, they didn’t have AC to cool them down back then. Now we do, and CNN can piss off.

Read: CNN Seems Pretty Upset That Those Brown People In Singapore Are Using World Killing Air Conditioning »

If All You See…

…is a horrible painting using OIL paint*, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Cold Fury, with a post on the incuriousity of the media into Joe’s bribe scheme.

*Yeah, I kinda made that one up, unlike most. For now.

Read: If All You See… »

CBS News Wonders If Mandatory Gun Insurance Can Stop Criminals From Shooting People

Well, actually, the only ones who would be forced to obtain the insurance, which would be expensive for people with legal firearms, and unaffordable for people who live in high crime areas, would be the law abiding

Can mandatory liability insurance for gun owners reduce violence?

The idea has been floated for years, and it may seem straightforward enough: if gun owners were required to purchase liability insurance, proponents argue, they would have to follow safe practices to limit their financial and legal risk, thus reducing incidents of gun violence.

But as New Jersey and the city of San Jose, California, have found, actually implementing the idea can be quite difficult.

A recently enacted gun control law in New Jersey that among other things required gun carriers to purchase mandatory liability insurance was scheduled to go into effect on July 1, until it was blocked by U.S. District Judge Renée Marie Bumb. 

Bumb, citing the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision on gun carry permits, ruled that parts of the law went too far and infringed on the right to bear arms. “The insurance mandate does regulate who can carry firearms in public,” she wrote, explaining how the state was overreaching its constitutional authority, thus dealing a blow to the measure.

It’s essentially placing a tax, a fee, on a Constitutional Right, and it meant to make owning a firearm to expensive for Citizens. That’s it. Nothing else. Nothing more. They know it will do almost nothing to stop idiots from shooting other people, and since the majority of intentional shootings are by those who do not own the firearm legally, it is meaningless except to disarm people.

Can insurance change behaviors?

No. The people committing most of the violence using firearms are not legal owners. And have you driven out on the road? How many people are blowing stop signs and lights? How many change lanes without signaling? Cut in front of other vehicles? Speed excessively? Drink or do drugs and drive? Pay too much attention to their phones? Make illegal turns?

An insurance marketplace, proponents say, would ensure gun owners follow safe practices and avoid risky decisions in order to avoid paying high premiums or losing coverage, similar to the auto or health insurance model.

Have you driven on the roads lately? Etc. Does having the insurance actually reduce accidents? I cannot find a study that covers this. Perhaps if the insurance is really expensive, but, then, the ones I see who would be paying hundreds every month will also drive like morons, the answer is probably “not much” at best.

Proponents say that mandating liability insurance for gun owners harnesses long-held and trusted American ideas around the power of the market to tackle a uniquely American problem.

In their amicus brief, Brady referenced the first property insurance company founded by Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia in 1752 to encourage homeowners to implement safety measures after a series of fires in the city. He started it so homeowners “would come together to share the risks,” the company said on its website and highlights the lengthy history insurance plays in American culture.

Is owning a home a Constitutional Right? Is it made so expensive that it is not worth buying the home?

The NRA filed a lawsuit with its affiliate Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs against the New Jersey legislation which “requires gun owners to acquire insurance that does not appear to exist in the state.”

And when the San Jose ordinance passed the NRA published a news statement saying; “Taxing lawful ownership and requiring insurance will do nothing to reduce gun violence, which is often committed by repeat criminals who will not be paying the fees or obtaining insurance.”

That San Jose ordinance is mired in legal wrangling, and has yet to be implemented. And through this long CBS News piece there’s not one shred of evidence that forcing the law abiding to obtain insurance will reduce shootings. It’s a poll tax designed to make ownership so expensive you won’t have a gun.

Read: CBS News Wonders If Mandatory Gun Insurance Can Stop Criminals From Shooting People »

Excitable Joe Biden Says Global Warming Is The Only Existential Threat That Exists For Humanity

Well, in fairness, he’s just reading what they told him to, and probably has no clue what he’s saying

Huh. Also Biden

  • The President and The First Lady depart Joint Base Andrews en route to Goldsboro, North Carolina
  • The President and The First Lady depart Goldsboro, North Carolina en route to Elm City, North Carolina
  • The President and The First Lady depart Rocky Mount, North Carolina en route to Fort Liberty, North Carolina
  • The President and The First Lady depart Fort Liberty, North Carolina en route to Joint Base Andrews

That’s an abbreviated portion of his schedule, which doesn’t really explain how he traveled. Obviously, a helicopter to Andrews, then a jumbo jet, with a backup jet and fighter jet protection, to Goldsboro. The trip to Elm City ended at the Rocky Mount-Wilson Regional Airport. Did they take a large fossil fueled convoy, or fly there in a fossil fueled helicopter or plane? How about to Fort Liberty? They left directly from there to Andrews. Did AF1 fly solo to Andrews? They really didn’t do much of anything in Goldsboro.

Also also Biden

Biden to host thousands at White House Pride party

President Joe Biden will host the largest White House Pride Month celebration in history on Thursday, in a deliberate contrast to a cascade of Republican legislation and other attacks targeting LGBTQ+ people.

Biden, a Democrat, will host thousands of people on the White House’s South Lawn for an evening celebration of LGBTQ+ families that will feature singer Betty Who and Baltimore DJ Queen HD.

And how are they all traveling to the White House? In fairness, the party was postponed due to the air quality

President Joe Biden unveiled initiatives Thursday to protect LGBTQ communities but hastily postponed a big Pride Month celebration on the White House lawn with thousands of guests from around the country because of poor air quality from the Canadian wildfires.

The event, which will now be held on Saturday, was intended to be a high-profile show of support at a time when members of the LGBTQ community feel under attack like never before and the White House has little recourse to beat back a flood of state-level legislation against them.

Huh. All around the country. What’s the carbon footprint? Why do we listen to utter hypocrites? Why does our media not call him out?

Read: Excitable Joe Biden Says Global Warming Is The Only Existential Threat That Exists For Humanity »

Whiny People Whine About Texas Plan To Buoy Barrier In Rio Grande

Hey, all the people complaining can offer to put the migrants up in their own homes, right?

Outcry as Texas to install ‘buoy barrier’ in Rio Grande to deter border crossings

Americans before illegalsThe governor of Texas announced the state will install a barrier made of buoys along a section of the Rio Grande where people often wade or swim across the treacherous river from Mexico seeking refuge in the US, as the state committed $5.1bn towards ramping up plans to thwart border crossings.

Greg Abbott said a “new, water-based barrier of buoys” will be placed in the river. At a press conference he showed a line of large red buoys floating in the center of the Rio Grande.

The installation of the buoys would begin “pretty much immediately”, Abbott said on Thursday, in what is the latest step in Republicans’ campaign against immigration.

Republican governors from 14 states have already said they would send thousands of national guard troops and other personnel to the Texas-Mexico border, in an orchestrated effort that immigration advocates said would “put migrants’ lives at risk”.

Sounds like a great idea!

Rodolfo Rosales, Texas state director of the League of United Latin Americans Citizens, condemned Abbott’s plan.

“We view it as a chilling reminder of the extreme measures used throughout history by elected leaders against those they do not regard as human beings, seeking only to exterminate them, regardless of the means employed,” Rosales told CBS News.

Latin American. Not United States. They’re welcome to apply for citizenship the legal way.

“The governor was also concerned about loss of life – is this going to be a risk to migrants coming across, family units, along those lines,” McCraw (the director of the Texas department of public safety) said.

“And the answer is any time they get in that water it’s a risk to the migrants. This is to deter them from even coming in the water.”

Hopefully it will work

“Unfortunately, both Governors DeSantis and Abbott have used tools of intimidation in many different fashions through the past couple of years and put migrants’ lives at risk in doing so to win political points,” Hanne Sandison, director of the refugee and immigrant program at the Advocates for Human Rights non-profit, told the Guardian .

The illegals are putting their own lives at risk, as do Democrats and the Advocates for Human Rights, who entice people to make long, dangerous treks to come to the U.S. illegally.

Read: Whiny People Whine About Texas Plan To Buoy Barrier In Rio Grande »

D.C. Got A Lungful Of ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

I was trying to ignore the insane cult rambling over the Canadian wildfires, but, this is just too stupid to ignore

D.C. gets lungful of climate change

In a stunning manifestation of the dangers of a warming world, large swaths of the eastern U.S. are suffering from extreme air pollution driven by hundreds of wildfires raging across Quebec.

The smoke has spurred renewed calls for more aggressive efforts to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions warming the planet. And unlike with most climate-linked disasters, people in Washington are feeling this one firsthand.

Paul Miller, who leads a Boston-based group of air pollution regulators, said air pollution could drive real action, if history is any guide.

“People tend to act on things they can see,” he told Sean Reilly, referencing passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act. The bedrock environmental law received a groundswell of bipartisan support after smog and other pollution reached extreme levels in the 1960s.

Good grief. Wildfires are mostly natural. Lightning strikes. Of course, then there are idiots who intentionally or unintentionally start fires. This has zero to do with ‘climate change’

On the Hill: Lawmakers certainly took notice as a thick layer of smoke penetrated Washington and the Capitol.

Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, the top Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, called the plague of smoke “a sobering reminder that we must manage our forests to make them more resilient to catastrophic fires.” But he stopped short of making the connection between fires and fossil fuels.

Because there isn’t any. Fires happen. And leftist enviro-weenies stop government and groups from clearing dead brush.

Meanwhile, Republicans are still opposing multiple federal and state-led efforts to tackle climate change. This prompted Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, to deride Republican “climate denier[s]” in Congress.

“You show up to work at the Capitol today, see the skies filled with smoke … and you still don’t get that we need bold and immediate action to save our planet? Ridiculous,” she tweeted.

And how’s she, and all the others, getting around D.C. and between their districts? This is all a political movement to take your money and control your life.

Read: D.C. Got A Lungful Of ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

If All You See…

…are wonderful low carbon sailboats, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Da Techguy’s Blog, with a post on the Biden regime and the plague of loneliness.

Read: If All You See… »

Shady FBI Says “Trust Us, We Have Secret Information” In Domestic Spying Lawsuit

Da, Comrade, we should totally trust them and dismiss the case. We’ll see if the judges buy what the Stasi, er, FBI, are selling

FBI Claims Secret Evidence Trumps Religious Discrimination Charges in Domestic Spying Case

Before Irvine, Calif. had its own mosque, Muslims would gather at Ali Malik’s home for nightly prayers during Ramadan. But after an FBI informant pretended to be a convert and spied on Malik’s lay congregation—and more than half a dozen Southern California mosques, as well, in the mid-2000s—trust within the community eroded. Malik’s family pulled back. The communal prayers came to an end. “We became closed off and afraid of reaching out,” he says.

Shocked by the experience, Malik and two other plaintiffs sued the FBI, accusing the agency of religious discrimination and unlawful government surveillance. But more than a decade later, the U.S. justice system is still wrestling with whether government secrecy trumps such claims of religious discrimination in domestic national security cases.

Malik’s case, FBI v. Fazaga, came before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Thursday. The government argues that all the plaintiffs’ claims alleging religious discrimination need to be dismissed because it has secret evidence that would exonerate the FBI if made public. “Since the court cannot hear evidence as to who the FBI investigated or why, it cannot adjudicate whether the government targeted Plaintiffs based on their religion,” the FBI has said, in legal filings.

That’s not the way our legal system is supposed to work, though, it’s slightly different in civil, versus criminal, cases. Malik and the others are the ones who sued. But, really, if the government has secret evidence on the plaintiffs and refuse to reveal it, that’s a travesty, as the government should not be keeping secret spying files on U.S. citizens. This isn’t Russia, China, or the old East Germany.

The plaintiffs argue that they don’t need secret evidence to win their argument and that the case should proceed without this information; the religious discrimination claims should not be entirely dismissed, they say. The government has so far not invoked the state secrets privilege for allegations of unlawful surveillance. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from the ACLU SoCal, the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law and the Council on American-Islamic Relations of Greater Los Angeles.

Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff attorney at ACLU SoCal, says that since 9/11, the government has repeatedly deployed the state secrets defense to kill cases. “It has basically prevented judicial oversight over a whole bunch of desperately abusive national security related policies—things like warrantless wiretapping and extrajudicial assassination,” he says.

The ACLU might not want to invoke things that are irrelevant: those things were mostly done overseas, and not part of the FBI. Stick with what the FBI did, and, if they went overboard in spying on residents. And, were Malik and the two others citizens at the time, or just residents? They should demand that secret information that involves themselves.

more recent analysis in The Supreme Court Review by Laura Donohue, a professor of law and national security at the Georgetown University Law Center, says that over the past 15 years, the government has increasingly begun to assert the state secrets privilege in overly broad ways to cover entire categories of information. This happens even in cases when information poses no real risk to national security and is already in the public domain, she writes. This is a “radical departure from how the privilege has been understood for centuries,” she says.

Eight of those years were under Obama, two under Biden. Hmm.

A lot of evidence about the FBI’s surveillance of Malik and his co-plaintiffs is already publicly available. Much of it details the activities of the pretend convert, a longtime informant for the bureau named Craig Monteilh and is drawn from Monteilh’s own sworn declarations, media reports and statements from FBI agents in other cases. Monteilh, who had served time for fraud, left his key fob and mobile phone in places to record conversations when he was not around. He recorded hundreds of hours of video inside mosques, homes and businesses. He told two other Muslims that “we should bomb something.” He says he was told by his FBI handlers to date Muslim women and have sex with them to get more information. The FBI dubbed the surveillance program “Operation Flex”—a nod to Monteilh’s strategy of using workout tips to befriend young Muslim men.

Were there warrants involved for this? Did he have permission to make those secret recordings and videos? This sounds much like entrapment, and there were no criminal charges levied. The FBI has yammered periodically about “saving Democracy”, yet, they want to act like a secret police force. If the FBI was seeing specific information that the mosque and/or members had links to radical, extremist, terrorist Islamic forces, sure, spy, but, if there’s no reason, that is shady, and they need to prove themselves.

Read: Shady FBI Says “Trust Us, We Have Secret Information” In Domestic Spying Lawsuit »

Strange: Biggest Companies Making No Progress On Climate Crisis (scam) Goals

It’s almost like they were climavirtue signaling to get the cultists off their butts

The world’s biggest companies have made almost no progress on limiting global warming since 2018

The vast majority of the world’s biggest companies have done almost nothing in the past five years to cut their planet-heating pollution enough to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Large companies are either more likely to contribute to extreme levels of warming or are not disclosing their greenhouse gas emissions at all, according to a new report from ESG Book, seen by CNN.

The leading sustainability data provider found that the efforts of just 22% of the world’s 500 biggest public companies by market value are aligned with the Paris Agreement, aimed at limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. That’s a measly gain from 18% of firms in 2018.

Almost half, or 45%, of companies are aligned with warming of at least 2.7 degrees Celsius — a disastrous level of warming that could expose billions of people to dangerously hot conditions. That’s down from 61% in 2018.

“Our data presents a clear message: we need to do more, and we need to do it quickly,” ESG Book CEO Daniel Klier said.

What’s this “we”, chump? If climate cultists are averse to making even token changes in their own lives, why should they rest of us? Mind your own business.

“Without a fundamental change in the way the global economy operates, it’s not obvious how we see a significant shift.”

And what would that fundamental change be? Strange how they never come out and say what they really want.

Read: Strange: Biggest Companies Making No Progress On Climate Crisis (scam) Goals »

Obligatory Trump To Be Indicted And Biden’s $5 Million Payoff

Do they realize that this is going to drive more people into his corner, as they see this as a political prosecution?

Trump indicted on federal charges related to document handling and obstruction of justice

Former President Trump has been indicted on federal charges that emerged out of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s months-long investigation.

Trump is listed in the indictment, which has not been unsealed, as a criminal defendant charged with at least seven counts involving obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and illegal retention of classified government material. He has been ordered to appear in federal court in Miami on Tuesday.

Trump himself announced the indictment on his social media platform, Truth Social. Sources say federal prosecutors informed Trump’s attorneys of the indictment a short time before he revealed it.

“The corrupt Biden Administration has informed my attorneys that I have been Indicted, seemingly over the Boxes Hoax, even though Joe Biden has 1850 Boxes at the University of Delaware, additional Boxes in Chinatown, D.C., with even more Boxes at the University of Pennsylvania, and documents strewn all over his garage floor where he parks his Corvette, and which is “secured” by only a garage door that is paper thin, and open much of the time,” Trump said on Truth Social.

Trump said he has “been summoned to appear at the Federal Courthouse in Miami on Tuesday, at 3 PM.”

So, why is Biden not being charged? He had zero authority to have those documents. He was VP, not president. Have they raided Obama’s house and offices? How about George W. Bush? William J. Clinton? Who wants to bet they have documents they shouldn’t have? This really is a case of selective, politicized prosecution. If Trump did wrong, fine, but, justice must be blind and apply equally to all. This is the kind of thing that can tear the country apart. Though, I’m not so sure Democrats care.

Speaking of Biden

Joe Biden allegedly paid $5M by Burisma executive as part of a bribery scheme, according to FBI document

President Joe Biden was allegedly paid $5 million by an executive of the Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings, where his son Hunter Biden sat on the board, a confidential human source told the FBI during a June 2020 interview, sources familiar told Fox News Digital.

The sources briefed Fox News Digital on the contents of the FBI-generated FD-1023 form alleging a criminal bribery scheme between then-Vice President Joe Biden and a foreign national that involved influence over U.S. policy decisions.

The FD-1023 form, dated June 30, 2020, is the FBI’s interview with a “highly credible” confidential source who detailed multiple meetings and conversations he or she had with a top Burisma executive over the course of several years, starting in 2015. Fox News Digital has not seen the form, but it was described by several sources who are aware of its contents.

And the FBI did what with this, exactly? If they sat on it, covered it up, many of them need to be going to jail, along with Biden. This apparently happened in 2015 and 2016, when Biden was still in office as Vice President. Of course, the Credentialed Media is circling the wagons, taking the Biden line that this is all “malarkey“. There was a time when reporters would have seen blood in the water and gone after it, investigated, talked with their sources. Nowadays, if the person is a Democrat they play defense and act as press agents.

Read: Obligatory Trump To Be Indicted And Biden’s $5 Million Payoff »

Pirate's Cove