Pa. Judge Puts The Kibosh On Governor’s Climate Scam Agenda

By William Teach July 9, 2022 – 7:15 am

Once again, climate action loses in court when the powers that be attempt to jam it through improperly

Judge blocks Wolf’s Admin’s play to fight climate change

A state judge has entered an injunction that will block Gov. Tom Wolf’s second-term crusade to ramp up Pennsylvania’s role in the worldwide struggle against climate change.

Commonwealth Court Judge Michael Wojcik’s ruling prevents, for now, the state from entering the multi-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The policy was to take effect this month.

Environmental groups decried the ruling, and Gov. Wolf’s spokeswoman, Elizabeth Rementer, said the Department of Environmental Protection will appeal Wojcik’s decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

“While only temporary, the court’s decision is yet another roadblock and stalling tactic from RGGI opponents,” said Jessica O’Neill, lead attorney for PennFuture, Clean Air Council, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council. “The impact that RGGI will have on the health, safety and welfare of our members, our climate and our environment cannot be overstated. Simply put, RGGI will save lives, create jobs and lower Pennsylvania’s carbon footprint at a time when we need it most.

Was joining RGGI authorized by the duly elected Pennsylvania general assembly?

“The court made the right choice today in pausing implementation of RGGI,” said Sen. Gene Yaw, R-Lycoming County, “and I am optimistic that we will succeed on the merits of the case. We need to pursue climate solutions that encourage collaboration with our energy sector, not regressive and unconstitutional taxes meant to destroy it and leave us reliant on foreign oil and gas for decades to come.” (snip)

In Pennsylvania, the Legislature’s Republican majorities and coal producers have strenuously battled Wolf’s plan, arguing that the price of the credits is in actuality a tax because it will raise end-of-line electricity costs, which the state’s Constitution says can only be levied with legislative approval. It also amounts to an agreement with other states.

“These kinds of course-setting decisions are reserved for the Legislature,” the state Senate’s attorneys argued this spring, calling for the administration’s push to be halted.

And in Pennsylvania, it is also clear, the plan will not pass the Republican-led House and Senate at this time.

Warmists, though, do not care about the law, or the Constitution of Pennsylvania. They want to jam their beliefs on Everyone Else, while refusing to live the life. Kinda like how all the big shots in the Chinese and Russian communist parties advocated for equality and workers rights and stuff, then killed tens of millions, brutalized and stuck tens of millions more, impoverished them, etc, all while living high on the hog.

Read: Pa. Judge Puts The Kibosh On Governor’s Climate Scam Agenda »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Education Journal Looks To “Eradicate Whiteness”

By William Teach July 9, 2022 – 7:00 am

Race relations were actually pretty good before Obama came into office, at which point things started to get bad. For most people, it really is fine. They don’t think about it that much, they don’t engage in it, they don’t talk about it. They just see another human being. But, there are some really vocal people who seem intent on starting a race war, and the anti-white people are as bad as the racists in what’s left of the KKK/ They constantly say negative things about white people, denigrate them, assault them, tear them down, but, if you say something about non-white people, oh, then you’re the raaaaacist

Education Journal Publishes Call to ‘Eradicate Whiteness,’ Send It ‘to its Grave’

An academic article, styled as a “love letter” that seeks to provide the “consciousness needed to eradicate whiteness,” was published by the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education.

“We must actively and collectively help to do the work of disrupting, dismantling, and eradicating whiteness,” California State University East Bay professor G.T. Reyes says in his call to teachers.

Titled “A love letter to educational leaders of Color: “CREWing UP” with critical whiteness studies” the article called on scholars, including white scholars, to “fully humanize themselves by abandoning whiteness, destroying it, and sending it to its grave.” Reyes quoted another article when he said that this is the “greatest act of love whites can show.”

The summary of the article, archived here, explains that the letter is addressed to scholars of critical whiteness studies and intends to engage in “intentional healing rooted in humanizing, revolutionary, and decolonial love” as it prepares them to oppose whiteness.

These people only want to see things in terms of skin color, rather than, say, content of character. They want to generalize everything. All they’ll end up doing is creating more strife. And, let’s be honest, this is primarily pitting blacks against whites. Asians and Latinos aren’t really involved, and most do not want to be dragged into it. And, so much of critical race theory is anti-Asian and anti-Latino, primarily being pro-black. If these people want to create strife and hatred, well, there’s a hell of a lot more white people in the U.S. than blacks. We would prefer not to be involved, though.

Read: Education Journal Looks To “Eradicate Whiteness” »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Brandon Admin Proposes Rule To Force Cities And States To Set Climate (scam) Transportation Rules

By William Teach July 8, 2022 – 3:00 pm

That’s so special. When do we get the rule for reducing Joe’s footprint, as he’ll be taking yet another fossil fueled helicopter ride to Delaware, followed by a large convoy of vehicles. How about Transportation Secretary Mayor Pete, who took a fossil fueled flight to Los Angeles (again)?

Biden administration proposes rule requiring states, cities to set transportation climate targets

A proposed rule released by the Biden administration Thursday would require states and cities to set carbon emission reduction targets for transportation.

The draft rule would require state transportation departments and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) with National Highway System mileage within their boundaries to both measure their transportation-related emissions and develop reduction targets.

This would build on existing regulations that require those institutions to track other forms of air pollutants. Transportation is the single largest source of carbon emissions.

Under the terms of the rule, both state departments of transportation and MPOs would be required to report their progress on meeting their emissions goals twice a year. The proposal contains no specific requirements for the goals, saying it would allow states and cities to determine which targets “are appropriate for their communities and … work for their respective climate change and other policy priorities.”

On first glance, one could say “by what right does the federal government have to dictate this? It’s not assigned in the Constitution as a power.” However, all those roads paid for with federal money could be argued to give the feds the authority. I wouldn’t be surprised if a whole bunch of states sue the minute it’s enacted, using the result of the recent West Virginia v EPA ruling. They can claim that the money is actually that of the state citizens, taken by the IRS, so, it’s a state issue. Should be interesting

“With today’s announcement, we are taking an important step forward in tackling transportation’s share of the climate challenge, and we don’t have a moment to waste,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in a statement. “Our approach gives states the flexibility they need to set their own emission reduction targets, while providing them with resources from President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to meet those targets and protect their communities.”

If the states that will oppose this are smart, they’ll ask what the plan is for Pete, Joe, and others who believe in this scam, and point out their high use of fossil fueled travel. Those states will also either ignore this rule, saying “go ahead and try to force us”, or, perhaps just send a plan in that says “we see no need to make any changes. That’s our plan.”

But, yeah, this is exactly the kind of big rule that WV v EPA was all about, requiring the Legislative Branch to get involved.

Read: Brandon Admin Proposes Rule To Force Cities And States To Set Climate (scam) Transportation Rules »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Joe Biden | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 8, 2022 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible pool constructed with evil concrete, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Gen Z Conservative, with a post on Brandon looking to federalize and protect abortion access (which will see immediate lawsuits)

And then

Read More »

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

NC GOP Leaders Unwilling To Discuss Red Flag Laws

By William Teach July 8, 2022 – 10:30 am

Mostly, red flag laws have not been working, except in Florida. Most other states seem to ignore most complaints that would take guns away from citizens, because most of those states with red flag laws are run by Democrats, and they aren’t exactly into that whole law and order thing

Although NC senators support recent gun control legislation, state GOP leaders won’t talk about red flag law

In the aftermath of the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas, federal lawmakers passed a bipartisan bill that aims to reduce gun violence in America.

To pass the historic piece of legislation, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, lawmakers had to compromise on both sides of the aisle. For Republicans, it meant embracing red flag or extreme-risk programs. Such programs allow authorities or family members in some states to ask courts to temporarily take away guns from a person who’s believed to be a danger to themselves or others. The gun owner then has a court hearing within a short timeframe to try to get their guns back. The removal can last up to a year in most states.

The idea has strong popular support. In a WRAL News Poll in June, 87% of respondents favored passing a red flag law in this state. Nineteen other states and the District of Columbia have passed them, but North Carolina is not one of them.

In fact, North Carolina does have laws on the books. More on that later, but, the thing is, we do not enact un-Constitutional laws based on public opinion polls. I’m having trouble finding the link to said poll at WRAL, to see the questions, to see if people understand how they work, and if they understand there are laws on the books. I did find a piece on red flags being missed for the Highland Park shooter, though

The new federal legislation offers incentives – money – to any state that adopts red flag laws right now. However, North Carolina is unlikely to change its stance on the issue. In June, WRAL News reported that state Republicans won’t even discuss the possibility.

State Rep. Marcia Morey, D-Durham, has filed red flag bills for six years. They’ve never even gotten a hearing. Morey told WRAL News that she tried to meet with House Speaker Tim Moore after the Uvalde school shooting to talk about it, but he wouldn’t even discuss it.

Asked about it, Tim Moore told WRAL News, “The issue is, a lot of the legislation is being pushed by those on the political left is really just gun control and it would simply take guns away from law-abiding citizens.”

There is a possibility for red flag laws to be used for political purposes, to simply take guns away for minor issues without due process

The process raises two concerns:

1. Police could infringe on a person’s “right to bear arms” without a court hearing.
This is true. If you’re thinking that sounds unconstitutional, here’s how the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University Executive Director Jake Charles explained it: “When there is an emergency, and it’s narrowly confined to emergency situations, then the constitution allows that a hearing can be delayed,” Charles said.” One context in which this happens routinely is in removing kids from their parents’ custody.

“That can happen in an emergency basis when there are credible allegations of abuse, and then the hearing is held later, and courts have upheld those as consistent with due process.”

Who defines the emergency? In NC, if children are removed from their parents this must go to court within 24 hours in said emergency, but, only in an extreme emergency, otherwise, a court must be consulted prior. That’s call due process. Required by the 4th Amendment. The problem with red flag laws is not the right to bear arms, but, due process.

2. The second concern is even after a hearing, the government can keep guns from a person who is deemed “dangerous,” which is pretty subjective.

First, someone close to the person would have to find them dangerous and call police. Then, police would have to find them dangerous and take the guns. Then, a prosecutor would have to find them dangerous enough to pursue the case on short notice. And finally, a judge would hear from both sides and still rule that the person was too dangerous to have a gun.

The arms would have already been taken away without a specific warrant. And, guess what? Article I of the NC Constitution

General warrants, whereby any officer or other person may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of the act committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are dangerous to liberty and shall not be granted.

Red flag laws are general warrants at best. Under the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution it’s simply taking property without warrant.

(US Law Shield) There are currently no red flag laws on the books in North Carolina. Though red flag legislation has previously been introduced, no bills have been passed by the legislature. It is important in discussing these red flag laws to remember that North Carolina already has similar laws in place to deal with individuals who may be a danger to themselves or others. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 122C-261 allows any person with firsthand knowledge of an individual to petition to the clerk of court to have an individual who represents a danger be involuntarily committed by law enforcement to a hospital for evaluation and treatment. Further, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 122C-262 allows for an emergency procedure whereby law enforcement, or others, can remove an individual from the community and take them to a hospital for evaluation without prior judicial approval, if they meet the criteria of requiring immediate hospitalization to prevent them from harming themselves or others. In other words, it needs to be emphasized in this debate that there are already laws in place in North Carolina to deal with mentally ill people who may pose a danger to themselves and others. Red flag laws are an unnecessary and potentially abusive solution to a problem that does not exist.

So, there are already measures. Ones that follow the law. And courts can then rule on taking firearms awa.

Read: NC GOP Leaders Unwilling To Discuss Red Flag Laws »

Posted in Constitution, NC News | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Cult Sees A Big Upside In High Gas Prices

By William Teach July 8, 2022 – 7:15 am

Of course the Associated Press’ hyper-Warmist Seth Borenstein and Tom Krishner (not familiar with him) see it this way. They don’t see the escalating cost of food, goods, and services, Americans having to stretch their budget and do without, retailers making smaller profit and seeing non-necessary goods just sitting on shelves. The climate cult doesn’t care

Higher gas prices hurt pockets, make small dent in emissions

As Congress and now the Supreme Court stymie the Biden administration’s efforts to curb climate change, one thing the president doesn’t want – sky high gas prices – actually is nibbling away at emissions of heat-trapping gas.

Gas prices in much of the United States shot past the $5 a gallon mark last month before a slight drop, and Americans have responded by driving a bit less, two sets of data show. June gas sales are about 5% below pre-pandemic 2019 levels and 2.6% below a year ago, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Americans in April, the last month data was available, drove 6% fewer miles than the same month in 2019, according to transportation analyst Michael Sivak, a former University of Michigan professor who is a long-time tracker of driving and car-buying habits. That 6% drop is tiny compared to the 40% plunge in driving miles in April 2020 as the pandemic kicked in.

Yet, a 6% drop in driving roughly translates to only a 1% drop in overall U.S. carbon emissions, Sivak said. The U.S. climate goal is to cut carbon emissions in half by 2030 compared to 2005 levels.

“High fuel prices are a really difficult thing because they’re a double-edged sword,” said Samantha Gross, director of the energy security and climate initiative at the centrist Brookings Institution. “So prices that are high and expected to stay that way have more of a longer term ability to cut demand and my guess is the administration wouldn’t mind seeing that, but the problem is that people hate it.”

Yes, people do hate it. You can bet that most of casual Warmists hate it too, because their Beliefs have now shifted from theory to practice, and they are forced to live the life they wanted to force on Other People.

High gas prices are “unequivocally” good for fighting climate change because people use less fossil fuel and emissions go down, but the poorest people, who don’t have other options also “suffer the most,” said climate economist Solomon Hsiang, director of the Climate Impact Lab at the University of California, Berkeley. Carbon emissions are causing harm, especially to future generations, but for decades cheap gas has meant “no one is paying for that harm,” he said.

So, the hardcore climate cultists are happy now

“When you talk about the real outcomes of the energy transition (to less carbon pollution) some of this does mean that things will get more expensive and we need to come up with better solutions on how we finance and ensure that everybody can participate in the energy transition and it’s not just for the wealthy or privileged few,” AAA’s Gladden said.

So, suck it up, peons. They’ll figure out a way eventually. Probably with the government making things more expensive then giving you some of your money back, which makes you more reliant on government

Some economists, such as Hsiang, have called for a carbon tax of 25 cents to 50 cents a gallon above market price “to address the harm from climate change” and reduce carbon pollution by cutting demand, but with proceeds partly returned to people and partly used for green energy projects. But at the same time, he said, “higher gas prices hurt poorer families more,” so the government should send them financial help but not subsidize cheap gas.

See?

Read: Climate Cult Sees A Big Upside In High Gas Prices »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

Army To Require Troops To Shower With Gender Confused

By William Teach July 8, 2022 – 7:00 am

We are boned if we need to get into a war, and this will further tank recruitment and retention. This was just a week ago

Every branch of the military is struggling to make its 2022 recruiting goals, officials say
With a record low number of Americans eligible to serve, and few of those willing to do it, this “is the year we question the sustainability of the all-volunteer force,” said an expert.

The Woke who want to join are so often unable to meet the standards, even the lowered standards. And probably poop themselves when they have to fire a gun. And probably want nothing to do with combat roles. And most of the lefties do not want to join. And the Wokeness of the military is driving away the patriotic men and women who make the best fighters. And this does not help

Exclusive: Army Training Says Soldiers Must Shower with Transgender Persons of Opposite Sex

An Army training slide obtained by Breitbart News instructs soldiers to shower with transgender members of the opposite sex even if they have not undergone a surgical transition.

The training slide offers a “vignette” instructing soldiers on what to do if they encounter a female soldier who identifies as male according to the Department of Defense’s personnel tracking system known as Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS), but has not surgically transitioned and still has “female genitalia.”

The slide, titled “Soldier/Unit Training Barracks, Bathrooms, and Showers,” reads:

Vignette: Following his transition from female to male (which did not include sex reassignment surgery) and gender marker change in DEERS, a transgender Soldier begins using male barracks, bathroom, and shower facilities. Because he did not undergo a surgical change, the Soldier still has female genitalia.

The slide instructs soldiers: “Soldiers must accept living and working conditions that are often austere, primitive, and characterized by little or no privacy. … Understand anyone may encounter individuals in barracks, bathrooms, or shower facilities with physical characteristics of the opposite sex despite having the same gender marker in DEERS.”

As Dana Pico notes: “Note how example given by the is female-to-male transition, but problem to which more people would object are “intact” biologically male soldiers in the females’ bathrooms.” Exactly. It’s a bunch of mule fritters gaslighting from the Army. The number of women doing this will be tiny. The number of men with gender confusion will be much higher. And, the existing soldiers will just have to suck it up and deal with. Women are once again having their spaces invaded by crazy people with penis. Ones who have a much higher rate of mental health issues (beside the fantasy that they’re the other gender) and suicidal thoughts.

The training slides warn soldiers that violations of Equal Opportunity (EO) policies may result in disciplinary actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and that EO policies “apply to working, living, and recreational environment (on and off-post, during duty and non-duty hours).”

In the military it has always been that members must conform to the long standing standards of the military. You’ve heard the slogan “An Army of One.” Now, the majority must conform to a tiny number of mental health rejects, and, if they don’t like it, they’ll be disciplined. Think this will work well for retention?

Another slide from the presentation states that a soldier’s gender transition is considered administratively “complete” once the soldier has completed the “medical care necessary to achieve stability in the self-identified gender,” but that the medical care is the “medical process identified or approved by a military medical provider in a documented medical treatment plan” and “often does not include surgical treatment.”

Why are soldiers transitioning on the military’s time? Let do it on their time.

Read: Army To Require Troops To Shower With Gender Confused »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

There’s A Nexus Between ‘Climate Change’ And Democracy Or Something

By William Teach July 7, 2022 – 3:00 pm

But, hey, don’t tell me this is not all about science, folks

The nexus between the climate change and democracy crises

he crises the U.S. is facing regarding global warming and representative democracy are similar in some ways. Both have been serious problems for several decades, but have taken on new urgency in the past five years. In both, the Republican Party is a key barrier to progress or the instigator of regress.

Both now place the U.S. increasingly at odds with our allies in Canada and Western Europe. Beyond those similarities, the two crises also are linked: To address climate change effectively requires addressing the democracy crisis.

mule fritter sherman potter

One would think the Very Smart People at Yale would understand the way our federal system works, but, nope, they’re indoctrinated

Over the past 50 years, Democratic and Republican administrations have not heeded findings of climate science and have failed to respond with adequate climate policies. But currently, the Democratic Party shows substantial interest in a rapid energy transition and other ambitious greenhouse gas mitigation policies, while the Republican Party does not. Recently, even the reinstatement of Obama-era methane regulations, which was supported by the major oil companies, attracted only scant Republican support on Capitol Hill.

Nope, not political at all. I still say that Republicans have missed a big chance to propose legislation requiring all those who vote in favor of climate crisis (scam) legislation to be restricted from taking fossil fueled trips on the taxpayer dime. Keep their office AC no lower than 78. Heat no higher than 65. No meat for them in the cafeteria. Sure, it would never pass, but, it would put the Warmists on display as hypocrites

And much stronger policies are needed to meet the United States’ nationally determined contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Climate Agreement, which requires a 50% cut in emissions over the 2005-30 period. Republicans consistently and forcefully oppose ambitious policies or any form of carbon pricing, and Republican-nominated federal judges are hostile to the Environmental Protection Agency’s use of its administrative authority to regulate emissions. As the Republican Party has moved to the right on climate policy, climate change has become a defining issue separating the parties and their base voters.

Of course, every time there is a poll asking U.S. voters if they are willing to practice what they preach in their own lives, turning the theory into practice, most say “no.” Remember this?

(The Hill) Another emerging theme from the survey is that people do not want to spend their own money to combat climate change. Thirty-seven percent do not want to pay any additional taxes, and only 14 percent are willing to pay even $1 more a month.

And

(Washington Post) For example, while nearly half of adults say they would be willing to pay a $2 monthly tax on their electricity bills to help combat climate change, just over a quarter say they are willing to pay $10 extra each month. And while two-thirds support stricter fuel-efficiency standards for the nation’s cars and trucks, increases in the gas tax remain deeply unpopular.

Instead, clear majorities say they would prefer that climate initiatives be funded by increasing the taxes on wealthy households and on companies that burn fossil fuels.

They aren’t willing to pay themselves, they want Other People to pay, failing to realize that the added costs will trickle down.

The rest of the Yale climahysterics piece is simply hating on Republicans for daring to uphold the Constitution and the wishes of their voters.

Read: There’s A Nexus Between ‘Climate Change’ And Democracy Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | Comments Off on There’s A Nexus Between ‘Climate Change’ And Democracy Or Something | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 7, 2022 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist (a lot of car enthusiasts might also be wondering why her @ss is on their car)

The blog of the day is Jihad Watch, with a post on jihadis destroying a dam, killing 173 in India.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Disinformation Is A “Problem” Government Can’t Touch

By William Teach July 7, 2022 – 10:30 am

The NY Times seems pretty upset that the Ministry of Truth was shot down in flames (you can read the piece at Yahoo, as well)

Disinformation Has Become Another Untouchable Problem in Washington

The memo that reached the top of the Department of Homeland Security in September could not have been clearer about its plan to create a board to monitor national security threats caused by the spread of dangerous disinformation.

The department, it said, “should not attempt to be an all-purpose arbiter of truth in the public arena.”

Yet when Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas announced the disinformation board in April, Republican lawmakers and conservative commentators denounced it as exactly that, calling it an Orwellian attempt to stifle dissenting views. So did some critics from the left, who questioned the powers that such an office might wield in the hands of future Republican administrations.

Within weeks, the new board was dismantled — put on “pause,” officially — undone in part by forces it was meant to combat, including distortions of the board’s intent and powers.

There is wide agreement across the federal government that coordinated disinformation campaigns threaten to exacerbate public health emergencies, stoke ethnic and racial divisions and even undermine democracy itself. The board’s fate, however, has underscored how deeply partisan the issue has become in Washington, making it nearly impossible to consider addressing the threat.

It could have been something that would have worked had it been capable of taking a light touch, but, a) not with far left moonbat Nina Jankowicz in charge (her picture is featured in the article), and b) federal agencies have their own press outlets. We don’t need some central department deciding what is “disinformation” and what isn’t, especially when we’ve seen a bunch of mule fritters coming from the federal government that was not correct, particularly on COVID. The government itself puts out plenty of incorrect, overly-partisan, and crap information. We don’t need a Ministry Of Truth strolling through social media and deciding what to attack.

Heck, elected Democrats were a font of “disinformation”: would Nina’s Orwellian agency go after them, or, would this simply be against Republicans? Democrats spent 4 years pushing Russia Russia Russia, even though it was false.

Opposition came not only from the right, however.

Three rights organizations — Protect Democracy, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and the Electronic Frontier Foundation — welcomed the department’s recognition of the scale of the problem but cited the department’s “history of flouting the Constitution in flagrant ways” as reason enough to be wary.

“In the wrong hands, such a board would be a potent tool for government censorship and retaliation,” they wrote in a letter to Mayorkas, calling for the department to reconsider the board.

If there’s a chance that the board could do wrong Constitutionally, it doesn’t need to exist. And, we all know it would have done wrong. That was the point. Look at what Democrats want now

Democrats seek to boost media literacy for students, veterans with two new bills

A trio of Democrats introduced two bicameral bills aimed at boosting media literacy skills for students and veterans by providing funding for nationwide educational programs.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), a lead sponsor of the bills in the Senate, said Thursday the effort will “help combat disinformation and misinformation campaigns that seek to manipulate perceptions and sow division.”

“These bills will provide students and veterans with the skills they need to make informed decisions about online content and protect themselves from exploitation,” Klobuchar said in a statement.

The bills, introduced with Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), and by Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) in the House, would together provide $40 million to federal agencies to fund education programs to improve media literacy for American students and veterans.

So, a Democratic Party initiative to provide a Modern Socialist world view on things they disagree with, what they call disinformation, regardless of how real it is. Attempting to get young kids to buy into that leftist viewpoint. This, at best, skirts the line that says “Congress shall make no law …. or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;… and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” It may cross that line in practice. These attempts at thought control piggyback on what they were trying to do with Net Neutrality.

Read: Bummer: Disinformation Is A “Problem” Government Can’t Touch »

Posted in 1st Amendment, Democrats, Government | 9 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove