…is a horrible fossil fueled airplane, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Blazing Cat Fur, with a post wondering why Ukraine wanted F-16s
It’s women with guns week.
Read: If All You See… »
…is a horrible fossil fueled airplane, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Blazing Cat Fur, with a post wondering why Ukraine wanted F-16s
It’s women with guns week.
Read: If All You See… »
Happy Sunday! Another gorgeous day in the Once And Future Nation of America. A little bit of drizzle, the new fish in the tank are doing well, and finally finished watching Fringe (which I had only see the last 2 seasons when it was on). This pinup is by Peter Driben, with a wee bit of help.
What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15
As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page (nope, that’s gone, the newest Apache killed access, and the program hasn’t been upgraded since 2014). While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your Pinups for Vets calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me. I’ve also mostly alphabetized them, makes it easier scrolling the feedreader
Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!
Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. And do you have a favorite blog you can recommend be added to the feedreader?
Two great sites for getting news links are Liberty Daily and Whatafinger.
Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »
Hey, you know how the mayor of New York City plans on dealing with shoplifting? It’s a hoot
NYC Mayor Eric Adams just unveiled his new plan to combat skyrocketing retail theft in the city.
These are not serious people. https://t.co/ovD5hT7APb pic.twitter.com/WCGai1CRHA
— AG (@AGHamilton29) May 20, 2023
That’s the plan. How will they blame Republicans and Trump when it fails? Can you imagine giving this training to retail employees making minimum wage? Can you imagine them trying to deal with a big mob coming in to steal? How is a retail watch going to work? They report the info which a lot of retailers no longer bother to report because if the cops bother taking a statement and catching the perp the Soros-style prosecutors will let them go. And then the kiosks. It’s like some sort of Monty Python sketch.
Minnesota governor signs gun safety bills into law: ‘It’s about keeping our kids safe’
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) signed two gun safety initiatives into law on Friday that will establish universal background checks and a process for temporarily removing firearms from those who imminently pose a threat to themselves or others.
Walz signed the measures into law as part of a broader public safety budget bill after it narrowly passed by one vote along party lines in the state Senate last week.
The package includes a red flag law to allow authorities to ask courts to grant “extreme risk protection orders” for a person’s guns to be temporarily taken away if they could imminently harm themselves or other people.
“As a veteran, gun-owner, hunter, and dad, I just signed a red flag law and universal background checks into law, Walz wrote Friday on Twitter. “Basic gun safety isn’t a threat to the Second Amendment – it’s about keeping our kids safe.”
You know what they forgot? Well, that’s to explain how this will protect kids. If the background check system fails because authorities do not enter information that would deny a background, how will universal work? I’m not against requiring everyone who buys a gun, regardless of where and who from, but, they ends up requiring a database of who has what and where, and that’s not the government’s business, and can lead to confiscation. And we see how most red flag laws seem to fail, except where they are used in a frivolous manner and violate people’s Constitutional rights.
So, how does this protect kids? The hell if I know from what they’re saying. Because it’s not about protecting kids. If it was, they’d go after criminals.
Read: LOL Democrats Trying To Stop Crime: NYC And Minnesota Edition »
And interesting debate
Critics Say Montana’s TikTok Ban Is a Violation of Free Speech. Here’s What to Know
On Wednesday, Montana Governor Greg Gianforte signed a first-of-its kind law to ban the Chinese-owned social media app TikTok in the state. The law, which is set to go into effect in January 2024, quickly came under fire for violation of free speech laws.
In a statement, Gianforte’s office called the law an attempt to “protect Montanans’ personal and private data from being harvested by the Chinese Communist party.” Tech and legal experts say that how the ban is handled in the coming months could set a precedent for how TikTok, which has over 150 million users in the U.S., is regulated across the nation, especially as states and federal legislatures look towards restricting the platform’s reach. (big snip)
A lawsuit against the ban seems likely to come. Keegan Medrano, policy director at the ACLU of Montana, said in a May 17th statement that the Montana legislature has “trampled” on free speech. “We will never trade our First Amendment rights for cheap political points.”
In a statement published on Twitter Wednesday evening, TikTok said, “We want to reassure Montanans that they can continue using TikTok to express themselves, earn a living, and find community as we continue working to defend the rights of our users inside and outside of Montana.” TikTok did not return TIME’s request for comment. (snip)
Any legal challenge might closely resemble the last time a TikTok ban was attempted. In 2020, courts blocked Trump’s executive order to ban TikTok and Chinese-owned messaging app WeChat, ruling that the Trump administration hadn’t demonstrated enough of a security risk to limit users’ speech.
Free speech or not? The platform is a company, and people have plenty of ways to speak (if we wanted to use the leftist argument about guns, we could say there was no Internet when the Bill of Rights was passed. Not a good argument, but, amusing). But, should government ban it? IMO, no, except on government property. No one should be using Tiktok on their government owned tablets, computers, and phones. The people are being forced to pay for these, and they should be used for business, not stupid videos where information ends up in the hands of the Chinese government. But, no ban for private citizens. If they are dumb enough to use it, let them. That’s their responsibility and problem.
But, what about Tiktok enabling users to suggest committing criminal acts?
Weird TikTok trend which sees users walk into strangers’ homes and film them is slammed
Social media users were left open-mouthed after watching footage of a teenager and his friends wandering into a person’s home uninvited. The TikTok video, entitled ‘Walking into random houses’, showed the three youngsters approaching a London townhouse and passing into the property.
A female occupant, who is tidying up outside the entrance of the residence, could be heard asking the teenagers “what are you doing?” as they strode past her into the building.
She called her partner for help, who briefly left their children to apprehend the intruders, one of which had made themselves comfortable on the sofa.
They could be charged with multiple felonies, and, it’s also a great way to get shot. There are tons of “challenges” on TikTok which are illegal, borderline illegal, and just downright dangerous, and the platform does almost nothing to scrub these.
Read: Is Montana Banning TikTok A Violation Of Free Speech? »
…is an ocean that has swamped the land, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Independent Sentinel, with a post wondering which Woke ad you like better.
Doubleshot below the fold, check out Virtual Mirage, with a post on just reading the instructions.
Read: If All You See… »
Remember back during the Bush 43 years, when it was found that foreign surveillance picked up American citizens to a small degree, and the entire media freaked out? Was top news at all the Credentialed Media sites? Not now, and, it’s interesting to see where Credentialed Media outlets, like The Hill, are going with this
FBI repeatedly misused surveillance tool, unsealed FISA order reveals
The FBI repeatedly misused a surveillance tool in searching for foreign intelligence to use in cases pertaining to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and 2020 racial justice protests, according to an April 2022 court order publicly released Friday.
The order, which was released by the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, is significantly redacted but reveals thousands of violations of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows the federal government to collect communications between certain targeted foreign individuals outside the U.S.
FBI officials said the violations came before corrective measures the agency took starting in summer 2021 and continuing into last year.
But the release could create obstacles as the FBI seeks to have its warrantless surveillance program receive reauthorization from Congress before it expires at the end of the year. It could also expose the agency to heightened scrutiny amid recent GOP attacks on its activities.
That’s what they’re worried about? Not that they illegally surveilled U.S. citizens, violating their Rights as the FBI violated the law? Now, just imagine how Trump would be slammed if this occurred while he was president and Democrats were being thrown in jail for “insurrection” and being refused bail
The order shows the FBI turned to the database to look into someone it believed was present at the Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack, an inquiry that did not have any “analytical, investigative or evidentiary” purpose.
An analyst conducted 13 searches of people who were suspected of participating in the riot to see whether they had any foreign ties, but the Justice Department later determined that it did not meet the standard required for a search.
FBI officials also searched for information on more than 100 people arrested amid the racial justice protests in June 2020. The order states the FBI said it expected the searches to yield foreign intelligence, but the reasoning is mostly redacted.
What this could, and should mean, is that a lot of those convicted for their J6 activities, which mostly seems to be wandering around the Capitol Building, should have their convictions thrown out and their lives restored, and potentially lawsuits against the FBI, with some nice monetary compensation. Same for those for the way, way worse BLM/Antifa protests.
Top FBI officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said most of the violations were because of confusion surrounding the standards among workers. They said the agency has made significant changes — like requiring training and overhauling its computer system so officials need to type in a justification for a search instead of clicking on preset options.
One official said an internal audit showed the compliance rate increasing from 82 percent before the changes to 96 percent afterward.
Does anyone else, I don’t care which side of the political aisle you’re on, find that absurd? Confusion surround the standards among works? Compliance to 96%? That tool is pretty damned serious, and people who do not know what they’re doing shouldn’t be involved. But, really, we all know they were intentionally misusing it, knowing that the protests had nothing to do with foreign influence. And now the FBI is saying “our bad, we’ve made changes, so sorry.” Nah, bro, people need to be demoted. Fired. Prosecuted. The FBI needs a serious overhaul. Remember, the next person they plan to F with could be you.
Anyhow, remember the “thousands” above, which is repeated in the buried stories at other leftist news outlets?
(Breitbart) The FBI misused its powerful digital surveillance powers nearly 300,000 times between 2020 and early 2021, including against January 6 protesters, according to a newly unsealed court document.
That’s a far sight from “thousands”.
Read: FBI Misused Surveillance Tool “Thousands” Of Times In Relation To J6, Others »
Gizmado thinks they really have something here, attempting to paint Abbott as an Evil EV hater, forgetting that all he did was sign the law, it was passed by the Texas general assembly, with an almost unanimous vote including the Democrats
Greg Abbott Signs Law Making EV Owners Pay for Their Gas-Free Cars
EV drivers in Texas don’t pay at the pump, but will have to start paying a significant annual fee that critics are calling “punitive.”
Driving an electric vehicle in Texas is soon to become more expensive. Governor Greg Abbott signed a law (SB 505) on May 13 instituting new fees for registering and owning EVs in the state. Under the bill, electric car owners will have to pay $400 upon registering their vehicle. Then, every subsequent year, EV drivers will have to shell out an additional $200. Both of those fees are on top of the cost of the standard annual registration renewal fees, which are $50.75 each year for most passenger cars and trucks.
At least 32 states currently have special electric vehicle registration fees, according to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures. These range from $50 in places like Colorado, Hawaii, and South Dakota to $274 (starting in 2028) in a recently passed piece of Tennessee legislation. Note: Tennessee lawmakers had originally proposed a $300 fee, but lowered it in response to pushback.
Like many other states that have instituted EV fees, the reasoning behind the Lone Star State’s new law is that electric car drivers don’t buy gas. Taxes at the fuel pump are the primary way that most states, Texas included, amass funds for road construction, maintenance, and other driving-related infrastructure.
OK, they actually played fair after the headline. And this really started to hit back during the Obama years when he significantly increase the CAFE standards, which meant a lot more hybrids and vehicles that achieved pretty decent MPG, which meant lower gas tax revenues. I could find posts about states, and even the federal government, talking about increasing fees for hybrids, increasing gas taxes, and even pushing taxes for miles driven (which would, of course, mean the government tracking your vehicle), all to make up for the lost revenue.
With the push for EVs, well, that revenue has to come from somewhere to maintain roads and the infrastructure and more.
But, compared with what gas drivers contribute, Texas’s EV fees seem a little out of whack. Charging $200 per year and $400 at the outset of EV ownership places Texas’s fee schedule at the higher price end of the policies out there. In comparison, Texas’s gas tax is among the lowest in the country, at just $0.20 per gallon. Just seven states impose a lower duty on gasoline than TX. Among the 10 most populous states in the country, additional fees levied elsewhere make Texas’s gas the cheapest.
Oh, there’s the whining. Again, just about every Democrat voted for this. Regardless, people will pay more in fees for EVs. Their auto insurance will go up anywhere 10% to 25%. Repair costs will be much higher. The greater use of electricity will then cause that price to go up, including at home
Electric personal vehicles are not a perfect solution to the ongoing problem of petroleum-powered cars. Swapping every gas-guzzler for an EV still would use up an extraordinary amount of resources, that are likely to be ill-gotten. Public investment in mass transit would inarguably be a better environmental strategy. But, as long as the U.S. remains overwhelmingly car dominant and as long as most Americans lack access to adequate public transit, EV uptake remains important for lowering the nation’s carbon emissions.
And there it is: those who believe they are the Climate Cult Elites believe that they can dictate your life. And let the cat out of the bag what they really want.
Read: ZOMG: Greg Abbott Signs Law Increasing Fees On Fossil Fuels Free EVs »
I wonder, how many Democrats truly approve of dumping hundreds of billions in money, aid, and military gear to Ukraine, with very little oversight, no end in sight, and little true need. For all the attempts to state how much Ukraine means to the U.S. national security, it really doesn’t
A Loud GOP Minority Pledges to Make Trouble on Ukraine Military Aid
A congressional delegation of five Republicans and two Democrats met with representatives of Ukraine’s parliament this month in Poland, where the Ukrainians thanked the delegation for U.S. aid and asked for F-16 fighter jets to help in the war against Russia. Three members of the delegation described the meeting as cordial and informative.
One left the session in a state of indignation.
“I just got back from meeting with the Ukrainian Parliament in Poland, where they demanded F-35s and thought it was an obligation for every American to pay $10 a month to fund their war,” first-term conservative Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., wrote in a heated email to this reporter three days later. Ukrainians are not asking for the more advanced and expensive F-35s, but regardless, Luna said the U.S.’ role in the conflict could “potentially start WWIII.”
Ukraine ranked low on her constituents’ concerns, she added, vowing to brief her colleagues about the encounter.
Luna is among the boisterous proponents in Congress of former President Donald Trump’s “America first” worldview that regards financial commitments overseas with extreme skepticism. Like Trump, they maintain that every dollar spent on Ukraine — and there has been $113 billion for the war so far — is a dubious investment of taxpayer money that could have been better used on domestic priorities, like fighting the spread of fentanyl. Senior Republicans who support the war and maintain the hawkish traditions of the establishment GOP fear the movement will gain momentum as the conflict grinds on and Trump’s candidacy consumes the 2024 spotlight.
Um, yeah. What’s wrong with spending that money here? Helping Americans? Dealing with homelessness?
For the moment, America’s commitment to Ukraine seems resilient. President Joe Biden announced an additional $1.2 billion in military aid last week. Ukraine funding has gone unmentioned in the $4.5 trillion in spending cuts House Republicans are demanding in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. A House resolution introduced in February by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., aimed at halting further aid to Ukraine attracted only Luna and nine other signatories among the chamber’s 222 Republicans.
America’s? No, certain lawmakers in both the GOP and Democratic Party.
But there is evidence to suggest that the anti-Ukraine flank of the Republican Party is playing not to the fringe but to the heart of the party’s base. A survey last month of registered voters by Kristen Soltis Anderson’s Echelon Insights found that 52% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents do not think U.S. interests are at stake in Ukraine. Similarly, a survey in March conducted by Axios/Ipsos found that 57% of Republicans opposed providing weapons and financial support to Ukraine.
This isn’t anti-Ukraine. It’s simply that we really do not care. I’m not anti-soccer and NBA: I just do not care. Most of us would want to see them defeat Russia and kick them out. But, we see no need to to spend the money and potentially start WWIII. And this just keeps going and going and going. Heck, most days the MSM barely covers it, including the NY Times.
Anyhow, it bogs down in all sort of silliness as the Times tries to paint opposition as Something Bad, it’s Isolationist, it’s Trumpian, ending with
So far, defying the Republican base by supporting aid to Ukraine does not appear to be politically detrimental to the party’s incumbents.
“Not at this time,” said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., a vociferous foe of assisting Ukraine and a Trump loyalist. “But I’ll be speaking at many of the Trump rallies, and you can bet that I’ll be heavily messaging against the war in Ukraine and anyone who’s funding it. And I guarantee you that’s going to be moving the needle.”
It’s really not driving votes one way or the other. But, maybe it’s time to be diligant with all the expenditures, and consider what this is really getting us.
Read: NY Times Seems Upset That Majority Of Republicans Aren’t Into Open Ended Funding Of Ukraine »
It was bound to happen. If you took a poll, I’d bet a good chunk of the people being inconvenienced by the climate cult protests will say they support Doing Something about ‘climate change’ in theory, but, as soon as it causes a problem in their own lives they’re not so supportive
A furious passer-by confronted Just Stop Oil protesters today after a ranting man hurled a female activist to the ground and smashed another’s phone.
Police have shut down at least three marches by the demonstrators who targeted London’s streets for the fifth day this week.
One passer-by who said he had worked in the fossil fuel industry told a protester: ‘You’re talking c**p… so f*** off.’
In another protest almost 20 Just Stop Oil demonstrators wearing hi-vis vests and holding orange banners flocked to Mansell Street in east London.
Footage filmed from a window above the street showed the moment a passer-by took matters into his own hands and started snatching the protesters’ banners.
They’re just so passionate about stopping oil, despite just about everything they’re wearing being made with petroleum, along with the signs
A member of the public has lost it today with Just Stop Oil, so many have been warning about this happening.. it was only a matter of time before someone snapped.
These protesters are stopping hardworking people getting to work.pic.twitter.com/XPzZSfLQGU— Adam Brooks AKA EssexPR ???????? (@EssexPR) May 19, 2023
These demonstrations are rather counter-productive, and are driving people away. So, yeah, keep doing it!
Meanwhile, uber climate cult celebrity chef
(Washinton Free Beacon) After the owners of the mall where Andrés is set to open the restaurant threatened to sue the city, Palo Alto administrators will allow Andrés’s Mediterranean restaurant Zaytinya to use natural gas lines, despite a new law this year that bans them in construction.
The restaurant relies on “traditional cooking methods that require gas appliances to achieve its signature, complex flavors,” said Anna Shimko, a lawyer representing the group that owns the shopping center where Andrés leased space for the project.
The lawyer argued the building’s plans were approved in 2019, years before the gas ban was imposed. She added that some of the appliances the restaurant staff needs “do not have electrically powered equivalents.” Shimko added that if the ban is enforced, “Zaytinya will likely choose not to locate within the city.”
The city in a Tuesday statement called the decision a “one-off” exception and a “unique” situation.
Exemption, eh? I’m thinking there were be a lot of suits if people do not get their exemption
Read: Surprise: Just Stop Oil Protest Gets A Big Nasty And Violent »
…is an Evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Green Jihad, with a post on South Africa beating their climate goals.
Read: If All You See… »