…are palm trees that will soon grow in Antarctica, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Geller Report, with a post on Chicago changing tracks by electing a Progressive mayor who hates white people and law enforcement.
Read: If All You See… »
There’s going to be a lot said about this over the, well, next few years, because Comrade Bragg wants the trial in January 2024, right in the middle of the primaries
I have a feeling they're trying to jam up the system for 2 years of legal rangling, hoping that keeps Trump from being the candidate
— William Teach2 ??????? #refuseresist (@WTeach2) April 4, 2023
What’s the underlying crime that allowed Bragg to elevate this to a felony? No one knows. Bragg won’t say, so, there should be some interesting motions in the next few weeks
Bragg’s Trump Indictment Folly
A long-standing progressive fantasy was fulfilled Tuesday afternoon when Donald Trump was arraigned on criminal charges in Manhattan.
The spectacle of a former president driving in a motorcade to the courthouse and sitting at a defense table surrounded by his attorneys will long be remembered as a symbol of the poisonous politics of the Trump era.
It’d be one thing if there were a clear felony violation that is consistently prosecuted, but the unsealed indictment is as weak as advertised. (snip)
Hush payments aren’t illegal. But the reimbursements from the Trump Organization to Trump fixer Michael Cohen were logged as legal expenses. This was misleading and is potentially a misdemeanor. Prosecuting Trump over misdemeanors would be too ridiculous even for Bragg, who campaigned on nailing Trump and showing leniency to street criminals. It would also run afoul of the fact that the statute of limitations has lapsed on any misdemeanor.
So Bragg needed a way to transform the misdemeanors into felonies, which he can do, in theory, if the false business accounting was in the service of another crime. There’s been a great deal of speculation about what that other crime is, and the much-anticipated indictment . . . doesn’t say.
He states he doesn’t have to say it, but, isn’t it required that the defendant be appraised of what they’re being charged with?
Asked why he didn’t mention the other alleged crime in the indictment at his post-arraignment press conference, Bragg said the law doesn’t require its being specified in the indictment. Even he must know that’s absurd. The purpose of an indictment is to put the accused on notice of what crimes he has committed, and this other “crime” that Trump allegedly concealed by misdemeanor records violations is essential to the case; the indictment fails its most basic function by failing to specify it.
At the press conference he held after his subordinates unsuccessfully sought a gag order against the defense, Bragg cited New York election law (which doesn’t apply to a federal race), a plan to make false statements to tax authorities (he didn’t say whether these alleged misrepresentations were ever actually made), and a violation of federal campaign-finance law (although it’s doubtful the payments constitute campaign expenses). If Bragg had evidence that Trump committed state tax or election-law crimes, he wouldn’t hesitate to charge them. And if he really thought he had jurisdiction to enforce federal laws, he’d have proudly cited campaign-finance offenses as the crimes Trump was supposedly concealing.
There should be a motion to dismiss over this very lax charging statement, which fails to lay out why this can be a felony when the statute of limitations ended for minor misdemeanors, and Bragg has no authority over what would be federal charges, which Los Federales all passed on. There are so many holes and issues, that, yeah, I think this is all about jamming up Trump to make sure he either cannot win the primary, or, baring that, can’t win the general, and then Bragg would just drop the case.
And, ignore that this is Trump for a moment: this is a political witch hunt and a perversion of the US justice system.
Read: The Charges Against Trump Are Even Weaker Than You Thought »
Well, this is a new one. I do not believe I’ve ever heard the climate cult blame personalized ads before
How personalised ads are contributing to climate change
A new report from Global Action Plan analysing the scale of unnecessary emissions being generated by Big Tech’s business model has uncovered just how energy intensive it really is.
Recently, it’s become all but impossible to use social media without being constantly bombarded with ads.
And while online marketing is nothing new, you may have begun noticing that whenever you open up your favourite apps these days, the products being pushed onto you are scarily in line with your actual interests.
This is known as ‘surveillance capitalism,’ whereby companies pull together data on us from a myriad of sources to make a far more targeted bid.
It operates by algorithmically profiling users – monitoring, processing, and predicting our digital lives to coerce us into splashing the cash on items we weren’t even tempted by in the first place.
I mean, how often do you mention something in passing only for it to appear several minutes later on your Insta stories?
The interesting part is that most of the tech companies who are slamming you with personalized ads are run by leftists, and typically yammer about climate doom.
Besides, of course, the obvious role it plays in turbocharging unnecessary consumerism, which last year added an extra 32% to the annual carbon footprint of all UK citizens alone through the greenhouse gas emissions that result from the dramatic uplift in sales generated by it.
According to a report from Global Action Plan, Big Tech’s ‘toxic’ business model is extremely energy intensive.
Is there anything that the climate cult doesn’t complain about?
In this regard, Global Action Plan argues that Big Tech billionaires are the ‘oil barons of the 21st century’ and that their exponentially growing contribution to the climate crisis is making it harder for the rest of the world to take crucial action.
Urging activists to turn their attention to this multidimensional problem, the charity is focused on exposing the industry as a foundational blocker to meaningful change so that we can start holding the necessary people accountable.
‘Big Tech’s way of doing business is fundamentally at odds with efforts to stave off the deepening climate crisis. These platforms and their eye-watering profits rely on processing massive quantities of data at a huge direct carbon cost,’ says policy and campaigns lead, Oliver Hayes.
So, what, they want to stop the ads? Good luck!
They really weren’t thinking about what they were doing, just playing it by ear, and the grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence
Great Resignation becomes Great Regret as workers long for their pre-Covid jobs
Most office workers who quit their jobs during the pandemic now regret the decision, with almost three quarters pining for their pre-Covid roles.
A survey of 3,000 white collar workers who moved jobs during the pandemic found that 71pc wanted to return to their pre-pandemic employer.
The finding suggests that the so-called Great Resignation is now leading to a Great Regret, according to recruiter Robert Walters, which conducted the research.
Thousands of workers began quitting their jobs in early 2021 amid dissatisfaction over pay and working conditions during Covid lockdowns.
Things just didn’t work out that well as time went by, especially as inflation ate the increased pay at the new jobs
Toby Fowlston, chief executive of Robert Walters, said: “Across 2021 we saw record pay rises offered to professionals, with promises of an uber flexible and hybrid culture.
“Come 2023, and these pay rises now pale in comparison to the rising cost of living and inflation – with those new starters who were offered inflated salaries being much less likely to have received a pay increase this year.
“It appears that workers are realising that the grass may not have been greener after all.”
New folks are less likely to get raises, right? Also
Dissatisfaction in the workplace sparked a new trend dubbed “quiet quitting” last year. The phrase captured the idea of putting in the minimum effort required at work.
However, rounds of deep lay-offs in the tech sector and warnings of looming recessions appear to have ended this trend.
That, and people realizing they need the job with inflation raging.
Of all the things that can be problematic with wind turbines, this is not one I’d thought of or that had been discussed much at all
Red lights blinking 24/7 atop wind turbines may stop with deal by Kansas lawmakers
Kansas lawmakers have sent a bill to the governor designed to make the night sky in rural areas less interrupted by flashing red lights atop wind turbines.
If Gov. Laura Kelly signs Senate Bill 49 into law, it would require installation of light-mitigating technology on new and existing wind farms.
The aircraft detection lighting system technology would turn off the lights except for when aircraft are near. Aircraft aren’t near a wind farm about 97% of the time the lights are blinking, said Rep. Lisa Moser, R-Wheaton.
“This bill came about because there are thousands of Kansans who see red blinking lights every three seconds, 24 hours a day,” Moser said, “and this is legislation that will mitigate that.”
Funny how the climate cult needs to have the wind turbines way far away from where they live in the urban areas, eh, which burdens the rural folks to see constant flashing red lights
Rep. Joe Seiwert, R-Pretty Prairie, said the lights make it difficult for people to sleep and can cause traffic accidents.
“These blinking red lights drive people crazy. They’re super annoying,” said Rep. Carrie Barth, R-Baldwin City. “They’re out in the country. They have a clear night black sky that they’re used to, and all of a sudden, now these are blinking on a nonstop basis.”
The average height of a wind turbine is 280, depending on the outlet. Regardless, why would planes be flying that low at night in the rural areas? Interestingly, some of the same enviroweenies complain about light pollution. Let’s start putting these up off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard and the fancy pants places.
Read: Kansas Citizens Are Tired Of Blinking Red Lights On Wind Turbines »
…is a horrible air conditioner controller causing Bad Weather, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The OK Corral, with a post on sex dolls in the faster transit lane.
Read: If All You See… »
Their false attacks on Trump in 2016 didn’t work, especially with an unlikable person like Hillary Clinton running. And when American citizens could see that Hillary was given special treatment over her email felonies. Without COVID, Trump would most likely be president now, even with the Democrat cheating
‘We’ve seen this story before’: Dems grow anxious of a Trump ’16 redux
These should be celebratory times for Democrats. But as Donald Trump is set to get booked on Tuesday over a hush money payment he made to a porn star, a chunk of the party is growing anxious. An uneasy déjà vu has set in.
“Last time people were rooting for Donald Trump, he ended up president of the United States,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif). “We’ve seen this story before.”
The electoral potency of Trump is once more the central element of the Democratic Party’s internal debates. Back in 2016, Trump was supposed to have been the perfect opponent: too crude and way too outrageous to win a general election. As Hillary Clinton’s campaign geared up for that November’s race, many were rooting for Trump to be the GOP nominee, believing that he’d be the easiest Republican to beat.
It didn’t work out as planned. And the shock many in the party experienced because of it compelled them to pledge that they’d take a more sober-minded approach to the possibility of a Trump revival.
But with Trump once more eyeing the White House, the conventional wisdom is again forming that he would be the easiest Republican to defeat, owing to the myriad of legal problems he’s facing.
Even quite a few Democrats realize that the charges from Alvin Bragg are complete mule fritters, that they are ginned up by a guy who ran on promising to prosecute a US citizen no matter what. That’s not justice. And they realize that it could be them on the chopping block next if this continues.
Biden’s people aren’t so sure
They also point to the affirmative case for Biden, including two years of job growth, as well as steady leadership during the COVID pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
You mean how more people died under Biden from COVID, how he instituted mandates and ruined businesses, how the jobs that came back were due to lockdowns instituted mostly by Democrats, and the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal, leading to Putin invading Ukraine, where Biden is sending gobs of money and arms?
But even as many Democrats are quietly betting that Trump is the most damaged potential GOP nominee, some are wondering whether that viewpoint misses something fundamental about his support. They fret that they might jinx the election too.
“Trump is a tremendously flawed candidate who has hurt his party in every election since 2016, but it’s impossible to say that he is the weakest because none of these other Republicans have been on the national stage before,” said Dan Pfeiffer, who served as an adviser to former President Barack Obama. “Given the Republican bias in the Electoral College — any Republican, including Trump, could win the election.”
Trump defied the odds once before. While his portion of the electorate may have shrunk since leaving office, he won more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016 and his MAGA base remains fervent.
The witch hunt is driving people to support Trump, and Trump isn’t brain-addled like Biden. Trump didn’t attempt to control the citzens at every turn like Biden. For all the calls of Trump being a Fascist, he was reducing the power of the federal government. These witch hunt attacks on Trump only serve to show the citizens that the government is not there to serve them, and can go after anyone for anything.
Time will tell.
Read: Democrats Start To Realize Their Witch Hunt For Trump Could Backfire »
Did anyone consider the consequences when they passed the idiotic net zero climate cult laws, or just say “hey, y’all, watch this”?
London just lost 10,000 offices – and even more will be wiped out
Thousands of offices across Britain have become unlettable after new net zero rules left landlords unable to let them out.
New laws that came into force on April 1 ban landlords from renting offices with an energy efficiency rating of E or below.
The minimum E rating that came into force on Saturday has left around 8pc of offices obsolete, according to BNP Paribas.
That equates to 10,000 office spaces in London alone, the bank says.
Landlords are facing a choice between either doing expensive renovation work to bring buildings up to standard or cutting their losses and trying to sell-up.
It has led to concerns that green targets could trigger a sharp downturn in the office market, mirroring the recent collapse in the rental market triggered by tougher Government rules and higher taxes.
Is anyone in the UK government considering fixing this? Heck no
The Government intends to ratchet up the new Minimum Energy Efficient Standards (MEES) for commercial properties over time as part of efforts to hit national net zero targets.
It plans to introduce a minimum rating of C by 2027 and a B in 2030.
You know that if the landlords make the renovations they will pass on the costs to the tenants, who will pass it on to the consumers. But, hey, I don’t feel too bad for the UK citizens, because they voted for this. They’re getting what they asked for. Suck it up, buttercups.
Read: UK Net Zero Law Causes Landlords Unable To Rent Over 10K Offices In London Alone »
Should legal adults be able to carry a handgun? They pay taxes, they’re required to file for the draft (at least the males), they can join the military, they have duties and responsibilities of adulthood
Minnesota gun ruling is latest citing Supreme Court decision
A federal court ruling that a Minnesota law prohibiting 18-to-20-year-olds from obtaining permits to carry handguns in public is unconstitutional remained on hold Monday while the state pursues a potential appeal.
A reluctant U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez struck down the state law on Friday, citing a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on gun rights last year. But after the state attorney general’s office filed an emergency motion for a stay, she agreed to hold off, meaning 18-to-20-year-olds still can’t apply for carry permits in Minnesota until the matter is resolved.
The ruling is the latest example how the Supreme Court case, known as the Bruen decision, has upended gun laws nationwide, dividing courts and sowing confusion over what restrictions can remain in force.
The plaintiffs are three gun rights groups, including the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and three individuals who were over 18 but under 21 when the lawsuit was filed in 2021. They have until Wednesday to file a response. The judge has not set a hearing date.
Menendez said in her order Friday that she was obligated by the Bruen decision to conclude that that Second Amendment guarantees the rights of 18-to-20-year-olds to bear arms in public for self defense.
So, it has to go through more yapping to resolve in full. It is interesting that the same people who want to restrict legal adults from exercising their Constitutional right also want to let minors vote and cut off their breasts and tallywackers.
Meanwhile
Six ideas to reduce firearms deaths
(skipping right to them)
1. Ban aftermarket firearm modification of any sort, including cosmetic changes (so, no scope? No laser designator? Scope rings? Making it a Hello Kitty paintjob?
2. Tax ammunition, scale it with killing power (this will only affect the law abiding, and is an unconstitutional excise tax, as courts have ruled many times
3. Hold people responsible for crimes committed with their guns (to a degree, I agree, but, we know the gun grabbers will make the penalties so high as to make firearms unaffordable or worthless for self protection
4. Absolute ban on names and images of perpertrators unless they are at large. (while I agree, this violates the 1st Amendment, but, then, when do leftists care about Rights?)
5. End No-knock raids (it’s a rather dubious argument at the link)
And tell me you don’t understand firearms without telling me
6. Ban assault weapons
Let’s close with most discussed policy solution, an outright ban based centered around power and kill capacity. Banning a good with high demand is always difficult, just ask the war on drugs. If we’re going to try to ban assault rifles, we need to go in with our eyes open. Assault weapons are by and large consumption goods, if not outright toys, and in case you can’t hear the derision in my tone let me be clear I am absolutely judging you for owning one. They have zero value for hunting: a .556 round from an AR-15 will destroy your quarry. Better hunting option: anything firing .45-70 caliber ammunition. An assault rifle has negative value for defending your family at home. The through-wall collateral damage leaves you as likely to harm your family as any intruder. Better home defense option: any 12 gauge shotgun. An assault rifle is not a bulwark against tyranny any more than a samurai sword would have been living in a rural town in the Jim Crow South. We all need to accept that we are woefully out matched in terms of physical and human capital in a confrontation on the local monopsolist on violence. Better option: join a peaceful political action organization. Join a major political party. Hell, join a local religious group. Resistance against tyranny is about numbers, not the stopping power of the weapon you or your drinking buddies are holding.
“Destroy your quarry.” No. Most hunters use much more powerful rounds.
Read: Federal Judge Strikes Down Law Restricting 18-20 Year Olds From Constitutional Carry…Sort Of »
She’s all about forcing you, the peasants, to be restricted from using fossil fuels, rather than actually doing the job she was nominated for
Biden nominee wants to hijack little-known agency to ram through climate agenda
President Biden’s nominee to lead a little-known Department of Transportation safety subagency privately boasted that she would use her position at the agency to push aggressive climate policies.
Ann Carlson — an environmental law expert who Biden nominated in February to be National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administrator — boasted in 2021 that she was recruited by the administration to oversee climate standards for cars and trucks, according to emails obtained by the watchdog group Government Accountability & Oversight (GAO) and shared with Fox News Digital.
“With agenda-obsessed banks collapsing, a new and constant threat of winter and summer electricity blackouts and an absentee Transportation Secretary waving off disasters when he isn’t ignoring them, even the most blinkered White House might discern a sign that, just maybe, government appointments are jobs with responsibilities, rather than taxpayer-financed activist platforms,” Chris Horner, a lawyer who represented GAO in a case involving the emails, told Fox News Digital.
“But this is what the Biden White House’s ‘whole of government approach’ to the ideological climate agenda means,” he added.
Rather than dealing with the core functions of government, these cultists are simply pushing their agendas. Why does no one in the media ask them directly if they’re practicing what they preach?
In addition, in 2017 and 2018, Carlson helped coordinate high-profile climate nuisance lawsuits filed by a dark money-fueled law firm against fossil fuel companies. The firm, California-based Sher Edling, has filed more than a dozen such lawsuits on behalf of cities, counties and several states.
A climahysteric grifter lawyer. What experience does she have in leading the NHTSA? Is Biden capable of nominating someone who brings experience and capability?
Read: Biden Transportation Nominee Is Hardcore Climate Cultist »
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.
