Will Brandon Declare A Climate (scam) Emergency Wednesday?

By William Teach July 20, 2022 – 7:15 am

If he does, he’ll do it in the most climahypocrite manner possible

The Washington Post piece fails to ask Joe why he’s using so much in the way of fossil fuels for this. Nor do any other news outlets ask. No one asked Brandon’s press secretary. On one hand, the AP reported

Biden holds off — for now — on climate emergency declaration

electric vehiclePresident Joe Biden will travel to Massachusetts on Wednesday to promote new efforts to combat climate change, although he will not declare an emergency that would unlock federal resources to deal with the issue despite increasing pressure from climate activists and Democratic lawmakers.

The White House said Tuesday it has not ruled out issuing such a declaration later, which would allow the president to reroute funds to climate efforts without congressional approval. On Wednesday, Biden will announce other new climate actions when he visits a former coal-fired power plant in Somerset, Massachusetts, which shuttered in 2017 but has since been reborn as an offshore wind power facility.

But since Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., hit pause on negotiations over climate spending and taxes last week, the public attention has shifted to a presidential emergency declaration and what the Biden administration could do with the newfound powers.

“It’s not on the table for this week,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said of a climate emergency declaration. “We are still considering it. I don’t have the upsides or the downsides of it.”

On the other

White House Considers Emergency Declaration to Fight Climate Change

President Joe Biden will announce executive action to confront climate change after a key senator blocked legislation, but he’s holding off for now on an emergency decree that would allow him to marshal sweeping powers — and billions of federal dollars — against global warming.

Biden will outline his moves in a speech Wednesday at a shuttered coal-fired power plant in Massachusetts, vowing that he won’t allow a congressional impasse on climate legislation to prevent urgent work to slow rising global temperatures, according to people familiar with the matter.

Oh, wait, it’s the same type of piece saying the same thing, just with headline guaranteed to get the unhinged Dem base to think Joe’s going to declare a climate emergency Wednesday. Which would see immediate lawsuits, probably starting with Texas.

There are lots and lots of headlines out there which would make the climate cultists think there will be a declaration, with stories that say “nope, not this week.” Still, none ask why Biden will take such a huge bit of fossil fueled travel to complain about mythical anthropogenic climate change.

Read: Will Brandon Declare A Climate (scam) Emergency Wednesday? »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming, Joe Biden | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: There’s A Brain Drain Of Abortion Lovers Leaving Red State

By William Teach July 20, 2022 – 7:00 am

Hey, if they want to go, well, bye now. Take your baby killing ways with you (behind the paywall LA Times piece here)

Column: As professionals flee antiabortion policies, red states face a brain drain

A few days ago, a university headhunter reached out to Elizabeth T. Jacobs, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Arizona, to gauge her interest in moving to a leading university in Texas.

Under normal circumstances and in professional terms, the opportunity would have seemed intriguing. “It was an attractive situation,” Jacobs told me. “It was at an institution I have a lot of respect for, and I would not have dismissed it out of hand.”

But the political environment in Texas is not normal, in Jacobs’ view. She informed the recruiter that “under the current state leadership I didn’t think my family would be safe in that state.” (snip)

Really, no state is going to prosecute for saving the life of a mother in a real medical emergency, and Texas’ law allows for such. Texas, though, differs in what they consider a medical emergency, which is when a life is truly in danger, from the abortion supporters, who see not being able to go to the club and party because of a pregnancy as a medical emergency

University faculty members in red states are publicly expressing concerns about the impact of exclusionary right-wing policies on their efforts to attract students and recruit qualified people to their institutions. Some have put out public feelers soliciting job offers from states with less-restrictive abortion laws.

“As of tomorrow, I am on the open market,” University of Utah neuroscientist Bryan William Jones tweeted June 24, the day the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. Jones said he would be willing to bring his 12 lab members, of whom eight are women, with him. “I will not endanger my team,” he wrote.

Well, see ya. Enjoy the high taxes, high cost of living, high crime, and high controls on your life in the Blue states. And never come back.

Quality of life is a major issue in recruitment discussions, says David Williamson Shaffer, an education professor at the University of Wisconsin who successfully hired a candidate last year who was also being wooed by Stanford and Harvard.

Being able to get an abortion because of irresponsible behavior is a quality of life issue? Have fun walking through the drug needles, pee, and poop while dodging homeless people to your tiny apartment you can barely afford.

At the end of the day, how many will really, truly leave? Probably not a lot, especially those who escaped the hellhole of Blue states. Unfortunately. Let them all go.

Read: Bummer: There’s A Brain Drain Of Abortion Lovers Leaving Red State »

Posted in Current Affairs, Unhinged Tools | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Cultist Attributes Big Waves In Hawaii To Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach July 19, 2022 – 3:03 pm

I saying, it’s a cult that attributes everything to their cult beliefs

Pretty wild video, right? Hawaii is known for big waves, and as Joe Bastardi tweets

Did you even look at what caused this? these are known as southern swells, often the product of multiple waves that come together from distances far away. Former hurricane may have also helped.Mariners know full well about rogue waves. this person apparently does not

No, they don’t

That’s from my link in the tweet. Do you see anything Doomy? .51 feet is right about 6 inches, right? The average sea level rise over the past 8,000 years is 6-8 inches per century. Meaning a war period should be much higher to offset the low to negative sea rise of a cool period. There’s also no acceleration. So, of course we get

  • Time: Rising Sea Levels Contributed to Towering Waves Recently Recorded In Hawaii
  • Hawaii Tribune-Herald: ‘Historic’ swell: Waves swamp Hulihe‘e Palace wedding, overtop townhomes
  • Spectrum News: Hawaii waves swamp homes, weddings during ‘historic’ swell
  • Hawaii Public Radio: Waves swamp local homes, weddings during ‘historic’ south swell

They all link this to climate crisis doom. Barstool Sports gets the Stupid Award for writing “The “other factors”, according to scientists, is climate change but you can’t say that on the internet because people will get their panties in a bunch.” Some of us do have a problem with cults pushing their insanity, yes.

Read: Climate Cultist Attributes Big Waves In Hawaii To Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 19, 2022 – 1:00 pm

…is an area flooding and drying out from ‘climate change’, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Weasel Zippers, with a post on the Democrat mayor of D.C. not wanting illegal aliens sent to her city.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Pivot To Protecting Gay Marriage And Contraception

By William Teach July 19, 2022 – 10:30 am

Well, this is interesting. Democrats must realize they aren’t really winning the war on abortion, and have to find a way to whip up the base

Democrats pivot to same-sex marriage

Congress has its hands full this week as the House pushes ahead with a vote to codify same-sex marriage and Senate Democrats continue to wonder what to do about Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) amid a last-gasp effort to pass a budget reconciliation bill of any type.

For the second time in less than a week, House Democrats are focusing on responses to the Supreme Court as the chamber will vote on a pair of bills: the Respect for Marriage Act, aimed at protecting same-sex marriages, and the Right to Contraception Act, which would cement the ability to obtain contraceptives.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other top Democrats have framed the vote as a rejection of Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion in last month’s ruling striking down Roe v. Wade that the court should reexamine those two items as rights.

“This week, the House will pass two more bills to protect freedom in our nation, as extremist Justices and lawmakers take aim at more of our basic rights,” Pelosi said in a note to House Democrats on Monday.

“Our Right to Contraception Act will preserve the essential protections found in Griswold v. Connecticut. Our Respect for Marriage Act – which, proudly, is bipartisan and bicameral – will defend the right to marry whomever you love, as found in Obergefell v. Hodges and Loving v. Virginia,” she added.

The Respect for Marriage Act is set to be voted on today, with the contraceptives vote expected later this week (The Hill).

In regards to the marriage act, that might be something for which the federal congress has authority, since it would be equal treatment under the law, so, everyone would be entitled to at least a civil union. It’s a pretty simple bill that says two people can get married, and only two, and utterly usurps all power of the states. Might it lead to “activists” suing churches, mosques, etc, which refuse to perform a gay marriage?

As for contraception, it’s nice to see Democrats re-discover them, after years and years of treating abortion as contraception. Is any state attempting to restrict it? I haven’t seen any news on that. It appears as if the one they are going to vote on, and there are a whole bunch that have been submitted, is the one from Kathy Manning (D-NC), HR 8373, for which there is no text at this time. Nor a CBO cost analysis. Manning’s press release states

Specifically, the Right to Contraception Act would:

  • Create a statutory right for people to obtain contraceptives and engage in contraception;
  • Establish a corresponding right for health care providers to provide contraceptives and information related to contraception;
  • Allow the Department of Justice, as well as providers and individuals harmed by restrictions on contraception access made unlawful under the legislation, to go to court to enforce these rights; and
  • Protect a range of contraceptive methods, devices, and medications used to prevent pregnancy, including but not limited to oral contraceptives, emergency contraceptives, and intrauterine devices.

This bill is endorsed by the following organizations: National Women’s Law Center, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, Power to Decide, National Partnership for Women & Families, Reproductive Health Access Project, Association of Maternal & Child Health Programs, Catholics for Choice, National Organization for Women, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Women’s Health Network, Urge: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity, Jewish Women International, National Council of Jewish Women

Hmm, the federal government would be able to go after anyone over this? That’s an over-reach. The big one, meant to be also be a poison pill for Republicans, is codifying “emergency contraceptives”, meaning abortion pills, so states cannot block their use. Hence why so many abortion groups support the bill.

Read: Democrats Pivot To Protecting Gay Marriage And Contraception »

Posted in Democrats | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

ZOMG: Biden’s Plan To Stop Climate Doom Is Running Out Of Time

By William Teach July 19, 2022 – 7:00 am

In my best Andy Rooney, “have you ever noticed that they always say we’re running out of time? It makes you wonder what’s really going on”

The U.S. plan to avoid extreme climate change is running out of time

In 101 months, the United States will have achieved President Biden’s most important climate promise — or it will have fallen short. Right now it is seriously falling short, and for each month that passes, it becomes harder to succeed until at some point — perhaps very soon — it will become virtually impossible. That’s true for the United States, and also true for the planet, as nearly 200 nations strive to tackle climate change with a fast-dwindling timeline for doing so.

This is crucial context for the news late last week that Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), after months of negotiations with his fellow Democrats, is balking at new climate policies. The stated reason for Manchin’s hesitation is raging inflation, a serious concern. But there is always a reason to delay action, and time is not forgiving when it comes to the warming climate.

At the center of the Biden administration’s climate policy is a promise, made in 2021, to slash U.S. emissions by 50 to 52 percent by the end of 2030 — 101 months from this August — against what they were in 2005. Achieving this target would require a significant reshuffling of the American economy — millions of new electric cars on the road, transformations of key industries to rely more on renewable energy, and probably millions of jobs focused on making this happen.

Yeah, well, good luck, 101 months is almost 8.5 years, and Biden will be gone on January 20, 2025. The Republican president will put the kibosh on this climate insanity

The climate legislation making its way through the Senate would have sped that transition along through enhanced tax credits for renewable energy and electric vehicles, among other energy-related incentives and provisions.

Moving fast is necessary to maintain consistency with 2015’s Paris climate agreement, in which nations agreed to take significant measures to avoid the levels of global warming associated with severe climate impact. Scientists broadly agree that emissions need to be cut approximately in half by 2030 to avoid those outcomes.

Did the citizens agree? The Paris agreement was designed to avoid the US Senate, which was given authority over these kinds of things by the Constitution. But, hey, if Warmists really want this stuff, let them do it in their own lives.

Read: ZOMG: Biden’s Plan To Stop Climate Doom Is Running Out Of Time »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Joe Biden | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Abortion Supporters Are Supposedly Moving To Blue States

By William Teach July 19, 2022 – 6:45 am

It’s great if true. Don’t let the screen door hit you, on your way out (song at the end, love it, listen at 1:41)

Since Roe was overturned, more Americans are moving to states that better match their political and social beliefs

Although 29-year-old Jessica Hoxworth has spent her entire life in the Lone Star State, she is ready to leave it all behind.

Come February, she and her husband will say goodbye to their friends and family and trade in their condo in downtown Dallas, Texas, for an apartment in Seattle, Washington.

As legislators move to enforce stricter abortion laws across multiple states following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, she’s one of many Americans letting politics guide their homebuying and renting decisions.

“It’s a grim time for progressivists and liberal-leaning people,” Hoxworth told Insider. “The most recent Roe v. Wade decision has further reinforced our need to get out of Texas in order to maintain bodily autonomy and safety.” (snip)

“I’m encouraging my friends to get out of Texas if they can,” Hoxworth said. “Once the SCOTUS ruling happened, a couple we are friends with started looking at the Seattle area too.”

Yeah, yeah, I’m leary that they and so many are actually going to abandon the Red states, especially if they had previously moved from a Blue state to escape the Blue state policies and taxation they voted for and were unhappy when they realized the policies were going to bone them in their own lives. And then advocated for the same moonbat garbage they escaped from.

Hoxworth’s decision to move to Seattle didn’t solely rest on her reproductive rights. It also hinged on the state’s management of the pandemic and the Black Lives Matter movement.

You mean like all the burning of buildings, violence, looting? Locking people down, shutting their businesses down?

“The response in Texas to some monumental moments, including COVID and police brutality, made my husband and I want to distance ourselves from what we feel is a ‘hub’ of ignorance and hostility to truth,” Hoxworth said.

OK, go. Bye now. But, will they do it? Will others? Or, are they yapping, enjoying the lower taxes and safer communities in Red states, making the noises like when they said they’d leave the U.S. if Trump won in 2016? Bush in 2000 and 2004? But, almost none left.

But not everyone can afford a cross-country move — regardless of where they stand politically. Home and rental prices still remain at historic highs and the nation’s hot job market is competitive. Hoxworth says that without remote work, she would not be able to relocate.

So, move to a Blue area which voted in a guy who helped bring about those high prices.

“Seattle is a blue state, it’s close to Canada and it’s really beautiful,” she said. “We love nature and it has so much to offer that we believe will be very fulfilling for the both of us.”

According to Neighborhood Scout, Seattle is a 2 (100 is safest), and is “safer than 2% of U.S. Cities.” Just a few years ago it was around a 24-30, which is good for a city that size.

Read: Abortion Supporters Are Supposedly Moving To Blue States »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

EV Makers Starting To Notice The Use Of “Forced Labor”

By William Teach July 18, 2022 – 3:00 pm

It’s a very sanitary way of say “indentured servitude” and “slavery”, eh?

Chinese Lithium Giant Pulls EVs Deeper Into Forced Labor Glare

A lithium producer for carmakers including BMW AG and Tesla Inc. is beginning work to assess battery metals projects in Xinjiang, deepening links between electric vehicle supply chains and a region at the heart of human-rights allegations against China.

Ganfeng Lithium Co., China’s top producer of the material, is partnering through a subsidiary with a state-backed entity to accelerate exploration for and potentially develop lithium, nickel and other critical metal assets in the region. Ganfeng’s Chairman Li Liangbin earlier this year visited Xinjiang — where activists and Western governments say Uyghurs and other Muslim citizens have been subjected to forced labor — to discuss cooperating with the local government on the plans.

Electric vehicle makers already face criticism over labor concerns and environmental damage tied to the extraction of metals used in their products. The deepening connection between Ganfeng and Xinjiang is set to draw more scrutiny from investors and consumers. Ganfeng said in November it had won a new three-year deal to provide battery-grade lithium hydroxide products to Tesla, and has previously disclosed other contracts with companies including BMW.

It’s a long, long piece, but, come on, we all know China is using what’s essentially slave labor, and, at the end of the day, the climate cult will not care beyond making a few speeches, because Saving The Earth From Burning Up is more important to them than actual human rights, since, really, the climate cult shares the same Authoritarian beliefs as China. It goes well with the child labor in African nations so the climate elites can drive EVs.

Let’s look at that Washington Examiner piece

Extreme environmentalism is an ideology that cares little for human life, even regards it as a blight on the Earth that should be reduced. Its instinctive sympathies are against our species. It wants less economic growth, less entrepreneurial spirit, less development, less energy, less safety, less food, less comfort.

Who suffers? Those in poor nations, of course, and we in the rich nations that impose our obsessions on ourselves and on others wherever we can.

And the Elites who push this won’t suffer. But, the lower and middle classes in rich nations will suffer.

Read: EV Makers Starting To Notice The Use Of “Forced Labor” »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 18, 2022 – 1:00 pm

…is an area flooded by Bad Weather, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Real Climate Science, with a post on “global heat waves.”

Read: If All You See… »

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

Supreme Court 2nd Amendment Case Causing A War On California Gun Laws Or Something

By William Teach July 18, 2022 – 10:30 am

The LA Times seems pretty upset that law abiding citizens would get their Constitutional rights back, and starts out with a story that shows the exact problem with red flag and overly-permissive gun seizure laws (Yahoo News version here)

War on California gun laws revs up after Supreme Court’s ‘right to carry’ decision

For years, the relationship between Miranda and Richard Wallingford and their Huntington Beach neighbor Jessica Nguyen has been unhappy — if not outright hostile.

According to federal court records, Nguyen didn’t like the decades-old melaleuca tree in the Wallingfords’ yard. The couple refused to take it down. The tiff between neighbors spiraled into dueling harassment allegations in an Orange County court. In 2019, restraining orders were issued to both parties requiring them to stay away from each other and, under California law, to surrender any firearms they owned.

On Friday, attorneys for the Wallingfords and the state of California dialed into a virtual hearing of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Each side presented oral arguments about whether the state’s restraining order statute violated the couple’s 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

Apparently, that’s all it takes for the Government to take away a law abiding citizen’s 2nd Amendment Right. There is no mention of violence, no fights, no physical threats, not in any article I can find on this. Meanwhile, the same government is against things like stop and frisk, gang units, and other measures going after criminals.

Anyhow, their lawyer is appealing and amending that appeal using the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. vs. Bruen ruling to bolster the case

In less than a month, the Bruen decision has reinvigorated an already robust legal war on California’s gun laws and forced lower courts to begin reconsidering a whole host of legal challenges — with potentially massive stakes in a country devastated by gun violence on a daily basis.

The vast majority of “gun violence” comes from those who do not legally possess a firearm, and others who really shouldn’t have been given a permit to start with, but, so often, the relevant information about the person doesn’t make it into the background check system.

The cases under new scrutiny deal with some of the most consequential restrictions on firearms in the nation, including the state’s bans on military-style weapons, large-capacity magazines and adults under the age of 21 owning semiautomatic rifles. Local closures of gun stores and ranges during COVID-19 lockdowns are also facing fresh scrutiny.

As well they should.

Eugene Volokh, also a UCLA professor who studies the 2nd Amendment, said the Bruen decision was most impactful in that it removed a long-standing “balancing test” that courts have used to assess gun laws for years: whether a law’s burden on law-abiding gun owners is outweighed by the public interest.

“That test is no longer part of the argument,” Volokh said.

Winkler said Bruen precludes such analysis in favor of a “history and tradition test” that considers restrictive gun laws legitimate only if they have historical roots or are analogous to some historical gun restriction — such as on guns being carried by convicted felons or into specific, “sensitive” areas like courthouses.

As well it should, especially since it is rarely law abiding citizens who are the problem. If they were, you’d hear about it, but, the vast majority of those who own a scary looking “assault rifle” never ever use it to commit a criminal act. And, heck, if they wanted to, they could simply purchase a non-scary looking one that fires at the same rate (one round per trigger pull) and the same rounds.

The decision was in many ways a shot across the bow for California officials and residents who have long prided themselves for being a liberal bastion somehow shielded from the edicts of the conservative high court.

State officials, including Gov. Gavin Newsom and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, have said they are actively working to understand Bruen’s potential implications in California — and to minimize them. State legislators have already passed new laws that they say do not run afoul of the Bruen decision but bolster gun restrictions in the state.

How about going after criminals instead of restricting the rights of law abiding citizens? And, if liberals do not like guns, well, don’t buy one. Easy, right? Anyhow, it’s a long, long piece, worth the read.

Read: Supreme Court 2nd Amendment Case Causing A War On California Gun Laws Or Something »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Liberal World | 6 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove