Bummer: California’s Climate Scam Plan Pleases Few

By William Teach June 25, 2022 – 7:15 am

They should have asked me. It would start with requiring all state government operations to stop using fossil fuels. For the first year this would apply to all elected state officials, their staffs, and appointed positions. And they cannot turn the heat up higher than 65 or the AC below 82. After that, we’ll start applying it to other state government functions. And to anyone who voted Democrat

California plan to combat climate change pleases few

electric vehicleHeat waves and drought gripping California highlight the urgency to slash fossil fuel use and remove planet-warming emissions from the air, a top state official said Thursday during discussions of a new plan for the state to reach its climate goals.

“I think every single Californian today knows that we’re living through a climate emergency,” said Jared Blumenfeld, secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency.

He spoke as the California Air Resources Board opened a hearing on a plan for the nation’s most populous state to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. That means the state would remove as much carbon from the air as it emits. The timeline is among the most ambitious in the nation and in the world, but few who offered public comment were happy with the state’s plan for reaching that milestone.

Environmental groups, academics, and people who live in heavily polluted neighborhoods said the plan doesn’t do enough to reduce the production or use of fossil fuels. Some business, industry and labor groups, meanwhile, said the transition could raise prices and hurt workers.

Hey, perhaps we can include all these people in the first year of forbidding them from using fossil fuels to travel.

Critics from environmental groups say California’s plan doesn’t call for deep enough emissions cuts and relies too heavily on unproven and energy intensive carbon capture and removal. The concerns about such technology track with global concerns about the best way to tackle emissions goals.

So, basically it’s dependent on unicorn farts and pixie dust?

The meeting grew tense in the mid-afternoon as environmental justice advocates who had been rallying outside walked into the hearing room and began singing and chanting over a speaker representing business interests. The air board briefly paused the meeting as chants protesting the use of fossil fuels continued.

Oh, look, more people to include in the first year plan.

Read: Bummer: California’s Climate Scam Plan Pleases Few »

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

Abortion Will Still Be Legal In NC, But, There Will Be A Change

By William Teach June 25, 2022 – 7:00 am

Even if the Republican dominated general assembly wanted to put in big restrictions or and abortion on demand, anything they pass will require the Democratic Party governor to approve it, which won’t happen, and the GOP doesn’t quite have enough seats for a super majority. They could attempt to get it on the ballot as a referendum for a constitutional amendment, though

Abortion is still legal in NC. Here’s what the law says

Abortion remains legal in North Carolina under state law even with Friday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

North Carolina law says abortions during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy are lawful and that abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy are lawful if there is a medical emergency. That can only be changed if the state General Assembly changes state statutes and the governor signs that legislation into law or if a gubernatorial veto is overridden.

In 2019, a federal court extended the right to obtain an abortion in North Carolina beyond the 20-week deadline through the point of viability. The ruling in the case, Bryant v. Woodall, was based on Roe v. Wade and subsequent court rulings.

The impact of Friday’s Dobbs decision on that ruling which allows for abortions after 20 weeks but before the point of viability in North Carolina will need to be determined, the attorney general’s office said in a statement.

Most likely, NC law will be fully reinstated, and no abortions beyond 20 weeks except in real medical emergencies. Hey, maybe liberals practicing irresponsible, unprotected sex will realize there are these things called contraceptives?

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin Vows Access to Abortions for Troops After Roe v. Wade Overturn

Shouldn’t the DOD be teaching and demanding responsible behavior from their service members?

If it’s not in the Constitution specifically, it’s left to the States and the People. One side benefit will be liberals deciding to not move from to Red states because they’ve ruined Blue states, and for the ones who already escaped Blue states to move back, taking their leftist crazy with them.

Read: Abortion Will Still Be Legal In NC, But, There Will Be A Change »

Posted in Constitution, NC News | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Here We Go: Climate Cult Already Linking End Of Roe To ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach June 24, 2022 – 3:00 pm

It really didn’t take them that long at all, because, really, the hardcore abortion supporters are also the hardcore Warmists

Yeah, a piece from last year

When Hurricane Ida barreled through Louisiana last month, its 149 mph winds didn’t just ravage the state’s power grid and leave residents cooking in sweltering heat — they also took two of the Pelican State’s three abortion clinics offline.

From a reproductive health perspective, the storm couldn’t have come at a worse time — just days after a Texas law effectively banned abortions and sent hundreds of people over state lines looking for care. (snip)

Now, with the Supreme Court weighing two abortion-related challenges this term, reproductive rights advocates fear that the story of Hurricane Ida and Texas’ S.B. 8 could soon be repeated on a national scale as climate change intensifies extreme weather, creating even more hurdles for the 615,000 women the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says seek abortions annually.

Hurricane Ida is just the most recent example of how natural disasters fueled by climate change can limit access to abortion — a procedure that must be precisely timed due to legal restrictions. In 2017, both Hurricane Harvey and California wildfires, including the Tubbs Fire, also forced abortion clinics to close and left people scrambling for care at the last minute. (snip)

But health care advocates have long sounded the alarm on the ways in which climate change could decrease access to medical care more broadly, and reproductive health care is no exception.

Indeed, a recent White House National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality lists climate change, and its impact on health care for women and girls, as one of 10 key “interconnected priorities.” It discusses how climate change, through increased prevalence of heat waves and natural disasters, poses a unique threat to pregnancy, and adds: “Climate-related disasters hinder access to essential services, including sexual and reproductive health care.”

No matter the issue, the climate cult wants in on it.

Her clients face all sorts of financial pressures in seeking abortions, beyond just the cost of the procedure itself. Many must travel long distances, particularly if they are seeking care further along in their pregnancy and must either take two trips to the clinic or find a place to stay far from home during the 72-hour waiting period. Many also must secure child care and find a family member or support person to come to the procedure with them.

If you cannot afford it, perhaps you should be practicing responsible, protected sexual congress. And, yes, almost every case is someone making poor life choices

Read: Here We Go: Climate Cult Already Linking End Of Roe To ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Climate Cult, Current Affairs | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 24, 2022 – 12:59 pm

…is an Evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Don Surber, with a post thanking Donald Trump for overturning Roe v Wade.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Already Looking To Push Scary Looking Rifle Ban

By William Teach June 24, 2022 – 10:30 am

A bunch of interesting gun news. First, the Supreme Court did their thing

If you scroll around the news outlets, most are not taking it well, failing to understand that the 2nd Amendment is a national Amendment, and does not preclude some gun control. What States cannot do is restrict a state from requiring citizens to show “need” for a permit. New Yorkers do not need to show a need to purchase a guitar, SUV, or fish tank. None of those are actual rights, so, the State could actually do that, right? If they were complete morons. Guns are a right.

Here’s The Hill: “Supreme Court expands gun rights in major Second Amendment ruling.” It’s not expanding, it’s returning. The Washington Post editorial board goes with “The Supreme Court supercharges the 2nd Amendment.”

How’d all that gun control work for the Buffalo wackjob? How’s it working with all the shootings in NYC? If guns are so dangerous, when will Hochul give up her own armed protect?

(Breitbart) The Senate on Thursday easily approved a bipartisan gun violence bill that seemed unthinkable just a month ago, clearing the way for final congressional approval of what will be lawmakers’ most far-reaching response in decades to the nation’s run of brutal mass shootings. (big snip)

The vote on final passage was 65-33.

Yup, 15 Republicans voted for it. Most are either retiring or not up for re-election til 2026. The only section that will truly have any impact will be looking at juvenile records for those 18-21 who are applying for a gun permit. Pelosi is looking to take it up today

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced on Thursday that the House will take up the Senate-passed gun safety bill “first thing” Friday morning, after the legislation cleared the upper chamber in a bipartisan vote.

“First thing tomorrow morning, the Rules Committee will meet to advance this life-saving legislation to the Floor. When the Rules Committee finishes its business, we will head immediately to the Floor,” Pelosi wrote in a statement minutes after the Senate approved the measure.

How long will it take before it gets a vote? How much more crazy will they add into it, which would require another vote in the Senate, which might lose the support of the 15 Republicans?

And, of course

Dems toe delicate line on assault weapons ban

House Democratic leaders are toeing a delicate line with their promise to consider legislation this summer banning assault weapons — a politically explosive concept that divides both the Congress and the country. (snip)

The concept is overwhelmingly popular in the Democratic Caucus — a proposal sponsored by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) has attracted 209 cosponsors — and liberals in the ranks are pressing the party brass to bring the legislation to the floor before November’s midterm elections.

“I would love a chance to vote for it,” said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), “and I would love a chance to put others on record.”

But there’s a much smaller group of centrist Democrats, some of them facing tough reelection contests, who oppose banning a class of firearms that has emerged in recent years as among the most popular guns in the country. Most of those centrists voted earlier this month for a package of separate gun reforms — which included provisions to raise the age for assault weapons purchases and bolster state red flag laws — but are set against an assault weapons ban.

So, it might be popular with the gun grabbing caucus, but, there are too many centrists to get it done. And not enough to pass in the Senate. But, they’ll still try. Before they lose Congress after the mid-terms.

Read: Democrats Already Looking To Push Scary Looking Rifle Ban »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

California’s Climate Crisis (scam) Plan Would Skyrocket Electricity Use

By William Teach June 24, 2022 – 7:15 am

Good thing that California hasn’t gotten rid of so many reliable, affordable, dependable forms of energy generation, eh?

Electricity use would surge under California’s new climate plan

California’s sweeping climate plan would increase electricity consumption by as much as 68% by 2045 – which would put an immense strain on the power grid unless hefty private and public investments are made in clean energy, state air quality officials said today.

In other words, Californians are doomed to constant blackouts and government limits on when they can use electricity

The California Air Resources Board is holding its first day-long public hearing today on its proposed climate-change blueprint, called a scoping plan, for reducing greenhouse gases.

The state’s power grid — marred by outages in previous years and increasingly extreme weather — needs massive investments to attain the clean-energy future outlined in California’s five-year climate roadmap.

Sure thing, blame a tiny increase in the world’s temperature since 1850 for idiotic policies

At least 450 speakers lined up to voice concerns about the plan at the hearing, which is expected to continue late into the evening and possibly on Friday. The hearing was temporarily interrupted when environmentalists and their supporters who were rallying outside entered the packed room, protesting the state’s plan and demanding environmental justice.

Looks like even the reliable Warmists in California are not fine with moving the plan from theory to practice

To achieve the plan’s goals, air board officials project that California will need about 30 times more electric vehicles on the road, six times more electric appliances in homes to replace gas appliances, 60 times more hydrogen supply and four times more wind and solar generation capacity.

Read: California’s Climate Crisis (scam) Plan Would Skyrocket Electricity Use »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

GoTriangle Looks To Spend Up To $3.2 Billion For Rail Line

By William Teach June 24, 2022 – 7:00 am

Back during the Bush years, the Triangle area leaders were looking to build a light rail system that would run from the east side of Raleigh way up Capital Blvd, down through downtown, over to Cary, then up deep into Durham. That was killed off, primarily because they realized how few would actually ride it. And now

Proposed 43-mile commuter line from Durham would cost up to $3.2 billion, GoTriangle leaders say

GoTriangle leaders told WRAL News on Thursday that they are considering a new proposal for a 43-mile commuter rail line, to run from Durham to either Garner or Clayton, with a cost of between $2.8 billion and $3.2 billion.

The first step, a two-year feasibility study, would cost $9 million, according to the plan.

“There is a need to have a strong transit service in the Triangle region to supplement the roads we have, because congestion is just going to grow,” said GoTriangle CEO Chuck Lattuca.

Whoa, whoa, what’s that about $9 million for a study? Really? This is how government pisses away taxpayer money. Should a study really cost $9 million? What makes it cost that? What do they need to know that costs $9 million? How is that possible? It’s pretty simple: what’s the route, what types of cars are to be used, how many are needed, how often it would run, where are the stops, and, oh, yeah, how many people will actually take it? And don’t forget, how much money will it lose annually? Still shouldn’t cost $9 million. Durham could do a lot with that money, especially with skyrocketing crime, and having always been a dangerous city

The new proposal for commuter rail comes after the failed Durham-Orange Light Rail project cost taxpayers $157 million. Lattuca said if surrounding communities approve the new proposed commuter line, the project would have more stringent oversight compared to the failed line.

We’re supposed to trust them with the money? I really do not care if the leftist lunatics in Durham County want to piss away their taxpayer money. I do care if this affects Wake County, which is where Garner is. Clayton is just south of that in Johnson County. I live in Wake. The route would run through Wake, meaning my taxes could be affected.

The proposal does not include plans for rail service to Raleigh-Durham International Airport, despite the popularity of such connections in other cities. There are plans for a bus connection to RDU.

Well, that’s a massive fail. If it had any speed, I’d consider it rather than parking at the airport.

GoTriangle estimates 10,000 to 18,000 people would ride a commuter rail each day, depending on the cost of service.

OK, they already have an estimate, which is a pretty wide one. In reality, you’d probably cut the daily riders by half. Unless it bring people close to their jobs, particularly in the Research Triangle Park, people would ignore it.

If communities approve the project, the full service could be up and running by 2033 to 2035. The shorter starter service from Raleigh to Garner could start a few years sooner.

A good plan which would make it easy for people to travel would be great. You know we won’t get it, and it is not easy, because things are really, really spread out because of the way Southern cities grow out from the center and mix land use between housing, shopping, and so forth.

Read: GoTriangle Looks To Spend Up To $3.2 Billion For Rail Line »

Posted in NC News | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Brandon Wants To Force Millions Of Cars Off The Road

By William Teach June 23, 2022 – 3:00 pm

See, none of this will affect him or the upper upper middle class or rich folks, just the poor and (shrinking) middle class

Joe Biden Plans to Take ‘Millions of Cars Off the Road’ to Reduce Oil Consumption

President Joe Biden on Wednesday again promoted his infrastructure dreams of taking people out of their gas-powered vehicles and putting them on trains and other forms of public transit.

“We’re investing almost $100 billion in public transit and rail, for all the studies show that it will take millions of cars off the road and significantly reduce pollution if there’s a serious transportation system available,” he said.

So, if I want to go to Wrightsville Beach, how will that work? Take a bus? It takes me a bit over 2 hours to get their in my car. There’s no train going down I-40, and there’s still a bunch of road to get from Wilmington to Wrightsville. I can take Amtrak to NJ (and, I may do that for Christmas, if air flight costs skyrocket), still requires I get picked up for a just over 1 hour trip to the parents house.

The president spoke about public transit during his speech on high gas prices Wednesday, promoting it as a potential solution.

Biden frequently talks about trains, since he has a deep love for them after traveling aboard the Amtrak commuter train to Delaware. (snip)

During the event, he admitted he was envious of China’s high-speed trains and wanted more of them in America.

“If you can get in a train and go from here to Washington much faster than you can go in an automobile, you take a train,” he said.

A train from Raleigh to Trenton takes well over 10 hours. Even if I hit stupid traffic in northern Va and up to Baltimore, still takes me, at most, 9 hours. And how often does he take the train now? What’s the over/under he takes a fossil fueled helicopter flight to Delaware Friday?

All this for a scam issue.

Read: Brandon Wants To Force Millions Of Cars Off The Road »

Posted in Global Warming, Joe Biden | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 23, 2022 – 1:00 pm

…is a holiday with lots of gifts and travel which is Bad for ‘climate change’, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Chicks On The Right, with a post on AOC complaining she can’t start a family on her $174K a year salary.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Liberal Gun Grabbing Groups Are Fine With Modest Gun Package, As It’s A “Step Forward”

By William Teach June 23, 2022 – 10:30 am

And you know that “a step forward” means “we get this through, then something else, then something else, and pretty soon we have made it really, really difficult for law abiding citizen to own and carry firearms”

Liberal gun control groups back bipartisan Senate bill despite modest provisions

The bipartisan gun bill on track to pass the Senate before the July 4 recess doesn’t go nearly as far as many liberal gun control groups would like, but they’re supporting it anyway, saying it’s an important step to reduce shootings.

“This package is not perfect. It doesn’t go as far as we would like. But it is an incredibly meaningful step forward,” Christian Heyne, Brady United vice president for policy, said in an interview with Fox News Digital. “A month ago, I would have said that a package like this would have been impossible.”

“We know that this bill is going to save lives” said Robin Lloyd, managing director of Giffords, another gun control group. She told Fox News Digital the bill is a “historic moment in bipartisan cooperation on the issue of gun safety.”

Of course, it mostly fails to address the reality that most shootings are committed by people not lawfully allowed to have a gun. Again, I do agree with the section on being able to look at the juvenile criminal records of the young folks, especially those who just turned 18, to see if there is a reason to deny a permit.

Lloyd lauded the $750 million in federal funding proposed for red flag laws. That money can also be used for other types of interventions aimed at the same goal, including drug courts and mental health courts.

Huh what? Sounds like it’s pretty much going to be wide open usage, rather than targeted.

“This bipartisan legislation meets the most important test: It will save lives,” Everytown for Gun Safety President John Feinblatt said. “The bill text lives up to the framework released last week, and we now move one big step closer to breaking the 26-year logjam that has blocked congressional action to protect Americans from gun violence.”

“Our grassroots army has been demanding action from the Senate for nearly a decade, and today we’re one step closer to making history and ultimately saving lives,” Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts added.

Question: how many lives? Can they quantify this? Because there needs to be a measurement of success, not just throwing out a big bill for the hell of it that won’t make much of a difference but will interfere with the Constitutional Right of law abiding citizens.

Because a plurality of those polled think the red flag laws will be abused

Poll: Most Independents, Republicans Believe Red Flag Laws Would Be Abused by the Government

Most independent and Republican voters believe that the government would ultimately abuse “red flag” laws, a Convention of States Action/Trafalgar Group survey released Wednesday found.

The survey asked, “Do you believe that the ‘red flag’ gun control laws designed to temporarily take guns away from individuals has the potential to be abused by local authorities and government officials to disarm their political opponents and/or citizens who disagree with them?”

Overall, a plurality of voters, 46.7 percent, believe that “red flag” gun control laws, which essentially allow for a petition to temporarily remove firearms from a person of interest, could be abused. Another 22.5 percent are unsure, and 30.8 percent do not believe it could be abused.

72.2% of Republicans believe red flag laws will be abused. 52.2% of Independents see the possibility of abuse, and another 24.3% are unsure. They won’t be when it starts happening. Obviously, Democrat belief of abuse is low, 16.4%, because they want the red flag laws snagging guns away from citizens with no due process. Right now, only 19 states have red flag laws, and they’re all reliably Democrat except Virginia, which is more purple

(Newsweek) According to data from Everytown for Gun Safety, as of April of 2021, at least 19 states and Washington, D.C. had “red flag” gun laws. The states are: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.

How many of the remaining 31 will pass them? Certainly, almost none of the states Trump won in 2020 will pass one. The Democrat gov of NC might try, but, not with the GOP in control of the General Assembly. Even though Biden won (sic) Georgia and Arizona, little chance. Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania? Very doubtful. The only ones with a decent possibility are New Hampshire and Maine. No others will do it, because there are laws on the books that provide constitutional due process, required by the federal and state constitutions. They may, and they should, update the laws to encompass domestic abusers and those who make serious threats in full.

And when none of this really works, the liberal gun grabbing groups will demand more laws at the federal level. Heck, they probably won’t wait to see if the law makes a difference. Look, more evidence

Senator Amy Klobuchar responded, “We have worked on this for decades. And after Parkland, I sat across from Donald Trump at the White House, along with a number of senators, he said he was going to do something about background checks. I still have the piece of paper, eight times, nine times, he said it…nothing happened. After Sandy Hook, nothing happened. And when you talk to the families who have been working on this for so long, they understand how difficult this has been, how disappointing this has been. So, to start with something that’s going to save lives, even if a particular provision wouldn’t have saved their own babies’ lives, that is an act of love and generosity of spirit that you hear from the families of those that have lost loved ones. That’s why we’re moving ahead. And I think it actually paves the way in the future to look at some of these other provisions. But if you do nothing and you just go home, then we’ve got nothing. And that’s why it’s so important to pass this bill on a bipartisan basis.”

Yeah, the bill is a gateway bill.

Read: Liberal Gun Grabbing Groups Are Fine With Modest Gun Package, As It’s A “Step Forward” »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Politics | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove