…is concrete cracking due to carbon pollution Bad Weather, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on the Nashville wackjob potentially ignoring another target because of too much security.
Read: If All You See… »
What happened with all that $100+ billion the U.S. gave them, plus all the aid from EU countries? Oh, right, a lot of it was for paying government employees and elected officials, rather than fighting a war. And all the siphoning off, graft, etc, particularly since the money and aid have not been tracked
Zelensky Admits Ukraine Already Ran Out Of Ammo
The US-led West’s Mainstream Media (MSM) began reporting more accurately on the military-strategic dynamics of the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine since the start of the year, but the true test of their comparatively improved integrity will be whether they raise awareness about Zelensky’s latest damning admission. In an interview with Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun, he candidly told his interlocutors that “We do not have ammunition. For us the situation in the East is not good.” (snip)
The very fact that Ukraine is out of ammunition proves that the West’s defeat in its self-declared “race of logistics” with Russia might already be a fait accompli by this point since it’s clear that Kiev can’t keep pace with its opponent despite being backed by all of NATO’s military-industrial capacity. Zelensky almost certainly didn’t realize that his candid admission essentially amounted to this, but it’s presently unclear whether the MSM will inform their audience about this or not.
On the one hand, doing so could contribute to his forthcoming begging campaign, but it could also backfire if taxpayers start asking whether it’s worth ponying up even more money if Ukraine already ran out of ammo despite the over $100 billion in aid that it’s received thus far. After all, if that astronomical sum wasn’t enough to keep their guns firing, then there’s no telling how much will be needed for Kiev to reconquer more of its lost territory like it intends to do.
Of course, those looking to foment WWIII really push hard
The West Must Give Ukraine the Weapons It Needs to Win
For the past four months, people around the world have witnessed the macabre process of Russian forces making repeated assaults near the Ukrainian city of Bakhmut for only the tiniest of gains. By some counts, Russia has lost about five of its soldiers for every Ukrainian soldier lost—to say nothing of massive equipment losses. Although in theory a country can win a war by using its military forces to make forward assaults against an enemy’s forces, that’s just not a smart way to fight. Military technology long ago evolved to arm both sides in conflicts with extremely lethal weaponry, and any army that tries to approach this machinery head-on is likely to suffer major, and in some cases horrific, losses.
Far more effective is to weaken your opponent’s forces before they get to the battlefield. You can limit what military infrastructure they’re able to build, make sure what they do build is substandard, hamper their ability to train troops to operate what they build, and hinder them from deploying their resources to the battlefield. These steps are doubly effective in that they save your own forces while degrading the other side’s. Over the past two centuries, the powers that have emerged triumphant have been the ones that not only fought the enemy on the battlefield but also targeted its production and deployment systems—as the Union did by controlling the waters around the Confederacy during the Civil War and as the United States and Britain did from the air against Nazi Germany.
In light of such dynamics, the manner in which the West is supporting Ukraine’s war effort is deeply frustrating. Though NATO countries have a variety of systems that can target Russian forces deep behind their lines, recent aid has been overwhelmingly geared toward preparing Ukraine to make direct assaults against the Russian army. The most widely discussed forms of equipment—such as Leopard 2 tanks, Bradley armored personnel carriers, and even Archer long-range artillery—are not the kinds of systems that can disrupt or degrade Russian forces far behind the front lines.
So, what does Phillips Payson O’Brien at the Atlantic suggest? Missile systems that can strike Russia well behind their lines, even into Russia, in the form of “longer range systems.” I just don’t get why so many want to start WWIII, all for a non-strategic nation.
I wonder if they will blame all the earthquakes on ‘climate change’?
UN meeting on climate change kicks off in Chile
Experts from all over the world convened in Santiago, Chile, Monday for the opening day of a United Nations (UN) week of adaptation to climate change to address impacts and challenges, it was reported.
Global warming is already causing losses and damage, the Chilean government said. “The intensification of droughts, forest fires, and extreme weather events, the loss of our biodiversity, the degradation of our lands and our forests, are just some of the challenges we face today as a country,” Chilean Environment Minister Maisa (short for María Heloísa) Rojas said in her speech at the opening ceremony.
Rojas also pointed out that several developing countries have been affected by the climate crisis, especially those with fewer resources and less capacity to adapt to these onslaughts.
They claim that around 400 people are attending. How many took very long fossil fueled flights to get to Santiago? How many on private jets? How many will be demanding the 1st world give lots and lots of money with no strings attached?
Read: We’re Saved: UN Holding Big Climate (scam) Meeting In Chile »
The NY Times are oh so close to the truth, but, their job is to protect Biden and Democrats
U.S. Border Policies Have Created a Volatile Logjam in Mexico
A series of tough new border policies have sharply reduced the number of migrants crossing into the United States to their lowest levels since President Biden took office, but the measures have created a combustible bottleneck along Mexico’s northern border, with tens of thousands of frustrated migrants languishing in overcrowded shelters from Tijuana to Reynosa.
The situation exploded on Monday when a protest at a government-run migrant detention center in Ciudad Juárez led to a fire that killed at least 40 people. But scenes of overcrowding and desperation have been unfolding in recent weeks along the length of the border as the Biden administration prepares for yet another surge in migration this spring.
Migrants have been waiting in anticipation of a major policy shift, expected in May, when the United States plans to lift a pandemic-era health policy that has allowed U.S. border authorities to swiftly expel many unauthorized migrants crossing the border from Mexico.
Wait, so this is Biden’s fault?
Separate new entry restrictions that have already taken effect require most migrants hoping to win U.S. asylum to apply for an appointment at a port of entry. Problems with the new mobile app have left thousands trying in vain for an appointment while stranded in Mexican border towns, where many have already been waiting for months.
“What we have in Tijuana and other Mexican border cities is a bottleneck,” said Enrique Lucero, director of the migration services office for the city of Tijuana, across the border from San Diego. “Thousands of migrants are waiting for the opportunity to enter the U.S., and more keep arriving.”
The vast majority do not qualify for asylum, but, they’ve been led to believe by Democrats that if they just show up at the border, if they cross illegally, that they will be allowed to stay and receive lots and lots of free stuff. Democrats created this situation with their lax border policies and invitations. And now Mexico has to deal with this, which is rather ironic, no?
“It’s desperation,” said Ricardo Samaniego, the county judge in El Paso, which lies across the border from Ciudad Juárez. “You dangle the end of Title of 42 and then you say, ‘Nevermind,’ and people get stuck.”
He said he had learned through his counterparts in Mexico that shelters and detention centers in Juárez were at near capacity and that they were bracing for yet another surge in the days and weeks to come with plans to lift Title 42 on May 11.
This is decades in the making.
Read: Democrats Enticing People To Come To U.S. Illegally Creates Deadly Logjam »
Trackback URL
Interestingly, the people pushing this the hardest are the ones who do not ride them
Democrats want to make electric bikes much cheaper by giving you up to $1,500 to buy one
Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill last week that would give Americans up to $1,500 off the purchase of an electric bicycle. The legislation, the Electric Bicycle Incentive Kickstart for the Environment (E-BIKE) Act, is a new version of a 2021 bill with the same name and offers a more generous tax credit to more Americans for a broader range of bikes.
The new and expanded legislation would give Americans who earn up to $150,000, or up to $300,000 for joint tax filers, a refundable tax credit of 30% off, up to $1,500. The credit applies to e-bikes that cost under $8,000.
Wait, how much? You could buy a nice scooter/moped for much less.
The new E-BIKE Act, which was introduced in both the House and Senate on March 21, is backed by a much larger set of environmental groups, and is sponsored by more lawmakers. Reps. Jimmy Panetta, Mike Thompson, and Adam Schiff of California, Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, and Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii introduced the bill.
“Many people are looking to get out of their cars and get on to e-bikes not just for recreation, but also for transportation purposes,” Rep. Panetta said in a statement. “By incentivizing Americans to own and use e-bikes, we are allowing them the chance to help improve the quality of life in our communities and tackle the climate crisis in our country.”
They are? Then why do the bike ride-share businesses keep collapsing in big cities? In fairness, if I lived near the beach, I might consider one, though, I’d probably get a scooter, but, it wouldn’t be for replace my car, just for cruising up to the beach. Southern cities are not set up for biking as such. It would be good to reduce the use of private vehicles in big cities like D.C. and NYC.
While this year’s bill has more support both in and outside the halls of the Capitol, it will need Republican backing to pass the House, and it remains to be seen whether that will materialize.
I don’t see what it would hurt to vote for it, but, passing it will most likely cause the price of the ebikes to go up. And a bike that costs thousands of dollars is a perk for rich folks, not the working class and middle class.
E-bikes have increasingly been embraced by environmental advocates as the best alternative to cars and a key way to reduce carbon emissions and fight climate change. If people rode an e-bike instead of driving a car just 15% of the time, it would reduce emissions by 12%, a study found in 2020.
The general population hasn’t embraced them. Perhaps they should push them for health benefits, but, then, the same wackos also try to normalize obesity.
Read: Climate Cult Democrats Want You To Ride An Electric Bike »
…is a wonderful induction stove, which everyone should be forced to use, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on on a whiny transgender at the airport.
And, no, I’m not going to mention the mass shooting by the wacko gender confused. You’re welcome to discuss yourself.
Read: If All You See… »
I mean, how dare the GOP do this!
Two key Biden nominees cave to GOP pressure campaign: Why it matters
Two of President Biden’s picks for top administration posts have withdrawn their nominations in the past month, both caving to Republican pressure campaigns while also failing to get enough support from enough moderate Democrats.
Phillip Washington, Biden’s pick to lead the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), withdrew his nomination this week amid criticism that he doesn’t have enough experience in the area. And earlier this month, Gigi Sohn, Biden’s pick to serve as the top telecommunications regulator for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), withdrew her name after facing months of controversy.
Both have served as blows to the president, as the FAA has been struggling with high-profile mishaps and the FCC lacks a regulator to help push through Biden’s internet agenda.
The politically charged environment going into the 2024 election cycle, coupled with the Democrats’ narrow majority in the Senate, has also put Biden’s picks under increased pressure.
“The withdrawals, in my view, stem from a combination of factors — a very tight Democratic majority so that almost every vote counts, absences of key Democratic senators due to health, and persistent and effective Republican attacks,” said Anne Joseph O’Connell, a federal bureaucracy expert at the Stanford Law School.
Several Democrats opposed them, as well, including Joe Manchin, Jon Tester, and Kyrsten Sinema
“Withdrawals happen in every administration. These two have meaningful consequences — a continued 2-2 split at the FCC and lack of a confirmed leader at the FAA as safety and other issues plague air transportation,” she added.
Yeah, well, we really do not need more who are completely and unwholly unqualified, even for an appointee. Like Mayor Pete. Washington was grilled in a Senate hearing, and truly had little knowledge of aviation safety, and was unable to answer basic questions on aviation issues. It’s not a position for on the job training.
As for Sohn, Ted Cruz said “Her record demonstrates extreme partisan bias, multiple conflicts of interest, and I don’t think she has the votes to be confirmed. I don’t know why the White House is wasting its time with the nomination.” She’s hyperpartisan, she’s against free speech and freedom of the press for those who do not toe the Progressive line, she benefited from copyright violations, and shows disdain for rural Americans.
So, bad choices. We already see how unqualified and unserious Pete Buttigieg is. We do not need more box checkers.
Read: GOP Pressure Causes Two Biden Appointees To Drop Out »
Even if you don’t have a gas stove, you’ve thought about it, which is just as bad
Climate change: trees grow for extra month as planet warms – study
Global warming is changing the way trees grow, new research suggests.
Researchers studying hardwoods in northwest Ohio say a century of warming has extended their annual growing season by a month on average.
The scientists from Ohio State University compared recent observations to detailed notes a local farmer began taking in the 19th Century.
They say the research has implications for how well different types of trees will cope with future climate change.
Between 1883 and 1912, farmer Thomas Mikesell made meticulous notes on local tree growth, precipitation and temperature in his home town of Wauseon, Ohio.
Our planet has warmed by 1.1C since the industrial revolution about 200 years ago. With most of that occurring in recent decades, researchers say Mikesell’s observations are a near unique pre-warming dataset to compare with modern times.
Wait, go back to that first paragraph: “research suggests.” That is virtually meaningless. The research should either say it is occurring or not occurring. Plus, it’s in a very limited area. In fairness, though, I wouldn’t be surprised if this was correct, because you can expect growing seasons to be longer during a Holocene warm period. And shorter during cool periods. Which the Earth was coming out of. Of course, this is being positioned as Bad
Trees are vital in sucking planet-warming carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, and the researchers said a longer growing period probably meant they did more of that. But they warned that higher, fluctuating temperatures may also stress trees in ways so far unknown.
No matter what, everything is Doomy in Warmist World.
Read: Horror: Trees Grow An Extra Month Because You Have A Gas Stove »
Before another dime is spent on Ukraine there needs to be an accounting of where it’s all gone so far. Here’s Senator Josh Hawley
Where’s all the Ukraine money going? This person can help find the truth
Over the last year, our leaders have sent a mind-blowing amount of money to Ukraine. If Congress cares about making sure that cash is well spent, they should go on record about it.
This week, the Senate will vote on my amendment to set up an inspector general to track every single taxpayer dollar going to Ukraine. Who could oppose that?
Since Russia’s invasion began in February 2022, Congress has lavished Ukraine with $113 billion in aid spending – including both weapons and direct payments to the Ukrainian government. That’s almost four times the annual budget of my home state of Missouri. And it doesn’t look like they’re poised to turn off the spigot anytime soon.
To be clear, that’s the wrong call. America needs those resources elsewhere – to stop the cartels on our southern border; to deter China in the Pacific. It’s long past time for our European NATO allies to step up and take primary responsibility for Europe’s security. Continued spending on Ukraine isn’t serving the American interest.
But set that aside. Everyone – especially Washington Republicans – should at least agree that Americans deserve to know how their money is being spent.
Astoundingly, right now that isn’t the case. Despite repeatedly asking for more funding for Ukraine aid, the Biden administration hasn’t rigorously kept track of the money. That’s right: billions upon billions of American dollars are pouring into a war-torn country without any serious oversight.
Yes, we should know. His amendment would require a special inspector general to see where it all went and track any further allocations. The big question here is “will there be 60 votes to move it forward?” Will Democrats vote for it, or all vote against? Will all Republicans vote for it, or will a few of the squishes vote against it?
Read: Senate Will Vote On Having Inspector Track All The Money Going To Ukraine »
Well, of course he does. Do you want to give up your modern lifestyle? Do you want to stop driving, stop flying, stop eating meat, turn your AC up to 80 and heat down to 60, etc and so on? No, you don’t, and neither do the vast majority of Warmists, especially the rich Elites, who live even bigger lifestyles
The rich can buy “climate offsets”… the rest of us can enjoy energy poverty#DefundTyranny #EnergyFreedom https://t.co/94b04a54rS
— Chip Roy (@chiproytx) March 27, 2023
Yeah, they’re working harder to enact the scam they created. Sure thing, Sparky. That was just part of a much longer interview with Ben Adler.
BEN ADLER: There are some people who don’t want to change their lifestyle. We’re going to have to switch at some point from gas for heating and cooking to electricity if we’re going to reach net zero.
JOHN KERRY: Unless somebody were able to provide that with zero carbon intensity, I mean, if you can do that. Now that’s not doable today. So yes, gas at a certain point becomes a serious challenge here. Let’s say you’re going to take a coal plant, you want to shut it and you’re going to do gas instead.
For about the next seven, eight years or so, that’s something that you could do because it’s an immediate 30% to 50% reduction in the emissions. But after that period of time, we have to meet the net zero 2050. So you’ve got to be able to reduce gas emissions also. That’s the challenge for the industry.
Kerry claims you won’t have to change your lifestyle, but, we all know that’s mule fritters, because they’re saying things will change our lifestyles. He says that Biden will throw out a ton of executive orders affecting cars and trucks of all weights, and more. They’re going after gas stoves, air conditioners, washing machines, refrigerators, and more. But, hey, no changes.
Read: Climahypocrite Climate Czar John Kerry Says It’s Just Fine That The Elites Are Climahypocrites »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.