Surprise: 72% Of West Virginia Voters Back Manchin On Build Back Bad

I probably disagree with Joe Manchin on the majority of his political beliefs. He may not be a hardcore leftist, but, he’s still a Democrat. However, he seems to understand his #1 duty is to serve the People of WV. That’s it. Not his Party. That’s the point of a Senator, to represent the needs and wants of their states, even if that goes against their Party. And he’s listening to them

72 percent of West Virginia voters back Manchin’s call to suspend Build Back Better talks: poll

Seventy-two percent of West Virginia voters support Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-W.Va.) decision to walk away from Democrats’ Build Back Better negotiations over concerns about inflation, according to a new poll obtained first by The Hill.

The survey, conducted by Remington Research Group on behalf of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW), a business group that is lobbying lawmakers to abandon the bill, found that 66 percent of voters in key swing states including Nevada and Arizona believe that the $2.2 trillion plan would make inflation worse.

“It’s clear: Americans are feeling the pressure of inflation, and they want Congress to focus on relief – not massive new spending bills that could make inflation worse and stall our economic recovery,” NAW CEO Eric Hoplin said in a statement. (snip)

The NAW poll found that 66 percent of swing state voters have seen their finances hurt by higher prices at grocery stores or gas stations. Another 9 in 10 voters said that they were either “somewhat concerned” or “very concerned” about rising costs.

Too bad they didn’t ask the specific question regarding Kysten Sinema since they were polling people in Arizona, because, like Joe, she seems to be focused on the people of her state. Before the 17th Amendment Senators were appointed by the state general assemblies, so they would do the business of the state solely. Party made no difference. These days, with direct election, senators seem to be doing the business of the special interests who are outside of their states who give them campaign bucks, along with the extremists in the Democratic party.

Of course, this isn’t going to make Joe’s donors happy, since 90% of his funding comes from out of state. Which is one of the highest I’ve seen. Sinema is at 75%. It’s beyond time that elected officials, public servants, start listening to the people of their states and districts first.

Read: Surprise: 72% Of West Virginia Voters Back Manchin On Build Back Bad »

Climate Cultists Looking To Get The Vote Out In 2022

They don’t do much else, like practicing what they preach, because this is a cultish political movement, not science

Climate change activists look to increase voter turnout in 2022 and beyond

When engineering geologist Betsy Mathieson, 66, thought about her retirement, she imagined putting her scientific expertise to use by volunteering for an environmentalist organization like the Sierra Club. But when the U.S. elected climate change denier Donald Trump president in 2016, she decided to retire early to volunteer on increasing voter turnout.

“I came to realize that if people who care about the planet don’t vote, my environmental volunteering would be of little use,” Mathieson, of Alameda, Calif., told Yahoo News. So instead of volunteering for a traditional environmental advocacy organization, she now spends several hours a week phone banking on behalf of the Environmental Voter Project (EVP), a nonpartisan nonprofit that focuses on increasing turnout among irregular voters who are likely to care about the environment.

Founded in 2015 by Boston-based lawyer and activist Nathaniel Stinnett, EVP has just five staffers and a singular mission: to identify registered voters who don’t always vote and — based on demographic and consumer data — would be likely to name the environment or climate change as their No. 1 issue, and to get them to vote.

Stinnett was inspired by polling that showed a larger proportion of Americans rate climate change or the environment as their top issue than the percentage of likely voters who choose climate as their main priority — a tendency replicated in EVP’s own polling.

At the end of the day, few people actually consider ‘climate change’ as an important issue, hence why, even in far left states like Washington, people will vote against this. Because it’s popular in theory, not practice.

Read: Climate Cultists Looking To Get The Vote Out In 2022 »

If All You See…

…is a beach that will soon be submerged under the sea from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Irons In The Fire, with a post on remembering that all cultures are equal.

Read: If All You See… »

Mayor Pete Promises To Tackle Road Fatalities, Pushes “Zero Deaths”

After being mostly absent on the supply chain issues, like clogged ports, Mayor Pete has decided to look at a pie in the sky adventure. Sure, it’s nice to say, but, it won’t happen

Tucker Carlson: $1.2 trillion in infrastructure spending should mean better roads, but it doesn’t

Think back, you may remember Joe Biden’s infrastructure bill this fall. That bill emerged from Congress in November with a price tag of $1.2 trillion dollars. That so many zeros it’s hard to imagine. How much is it? It’s more than the entire GDP of the Nation of Mexico, one of the world’s biggest oil producers, by the way. So that’s a ton of money.

So for a bill that size, you would expect, well, big results. You’d certainly want better roads than they’ve got in Mexico. So we’re getting those what are we getting exactly from that bill? Well, today the Transportation Department, which is now run by Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, finally told us the answer. Effective immediately, we learned this country will undergo a “paradigm shift” in the way we think about infrastructure. (big snip, including through how many bridges and roads have problems)

So what are we going to do about this? What is the $1.2 trillion dollar plan going to do for our crumbling infrastructure? Well, Pete Buttigieg has a plan. Here it is: More speed cameras, according to The Associated Press, Pete Buttigieg would like to quote promote greater use of speed cameras, which the department says could provide more equitable enforcement than police traffic stops.

Got that? So because of equity, you’re about to get a lot more speeding tickets from robots. See how that works? Shut up, racist, pay the fine. The government does need the money for infrastructure even after $1.2 trillion.

Alright, some might think Tucker is being over-the-top. Nope. Here’s the Associated Press, as printed by KTLA

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is pledging to tackle rising traffic fatalities through a national strategy aimed at reducing speed, redesigning roads and enhancing car safety features such as automatic emergency braking.

Buttigieg said his department is embracing a new “safe system” approach urged by auto safety advocates to bolster initiatives, underway in several cities, that seek to eliminate fatalities by taking into account more than just driver behavior.

Over the next two years, he said, his department will provide guidance as well as $5 billion in grants to states to spur lower speed limits and embrace safer road design such as dedicated bike and bus lanes, better lighting and crosswalks. When roads become safer for bicyclists and pedestrians, that opens up transit options overall and can lead to fewer dangerous cars on the road, he said.

Money for the grants is included in President Joe Biden’s infrastructure law, which has an additional $4 billion in funding through the Highway Safety Improvement Program.

Ask your local police department about traffic cameras. That they don’t work very well, and actually cost more than they bring in. And, yes, this is quite a bit about forcing you out of your vehicle. Now, if he was pushing initiatives to get people to drive safer, stop blowing stop signs, I’d be on-board.

The strategy recommends pilot programs to study and promote greater use of speed cameras, which the department says could provide more equitable enforcement than police traffic stops. Automakers will be prodded to adopt more crash avoidance features and publish detailed information about them for consumers on window stickers for new car sales.

A goodly chunk of vehicles already have crash avoidance systems. But, they are designed not to stop a crash, but, to warn on when closing speed is high up to slamming on brakes to reduce the power of impact. If they were designed to stop, everyone’s vehicles would be slamming on brakes all the time. As for the cameras? What happens if “minorities” are getting more tickets than whites? Will they be called raaaaacist?

Jennifer Homendy, chair of the National Transportation Safety Board and a strong advocate for the broader “safe systems” approach, also has praised the department’s initial steps but stressed the importance of a sustained effort to get full cooperation from states, communities and automakers.

Last week, Homendy criticized the NHTSA for moving too slowly in removing from its website statistics that suggested that 94% of serious crashes are solely due to driver error; in fact, the agency’s own research describes it as one of several key contributing factors. The NHTSA has since removed the language.

Can’t have the real data out there, you know, when it gets in the way of a paradigm shift.

Read: Mayor Pete Promises To Tackle Road Fatalities, Pushes “Zero Deaths” »

Climate Crisis (scam): Brandon Admin Cancels Copper-Nickel Mine

Old and busted: we need to do something about the climate emergency.

New and hot

Biden admin. cancels leases for copper-nickel mine near Boundary Waters

The Biden Administration on Wednesday canceled two minerals leases for the proposed Twin Metals copper-nickel mine in northern Minnesota, likely killing a project widely condemned for being too close to the pristine Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

The huge underground mine would have tapped major reserves of copper and nickel, minerals key to a low-carbon economy, but also posed serious risks of contaminating the many waters surrounding it with sulfide and toxic heavy metals. Polls showed many Minnesotans did not support creating a heavy industrial operation at a gateway to the country’s most visited wilderness.

The boreal outback covers more than 1 million acres, a maze of lakes and streams and wetlands where motorized boats are not allowed.

The U.S. Department of Interior filed its legal determination Wednesday in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington D.C., where a lawsuit challenging the leases was on appeal. The two minerals leases were essential for Twin Metals, a subsidiary of Chilean mining giant Antofagasta, to develop the mine — its first major effort outside Chile.

Now, in fairness, these types of mines can be dangerous for real environmental concerns. The DOI could have required the companies to provide safeguards for the environment. The thing is, if Brandon wants to push his electric cars, they require vast amounts of copper and nickel, among other metals. Copper itself has been called the most needed metal for “low carbon” technologies, including aforementioned EVs, along with solar technologies, wind turbines, electricity networks, and bioenergy.

Nickel is likewise huge, especially in terms of lithium batteries. It is highly recyclable.

Apparently, the “low carbon” technologies are just going to magically appear.

Read: Climate Crisis (scam): Brandon Admin Cancels Copper-Nickel Mine »

Say, Why Aren’t More Eligible Americans Getting Boosters?

Look, for me, I have no problem getting a booster. If this stuff is still around in April, I’ll get another booster if recommended. I’m not in the danger group. I’m under 55, and, while I could lose about 25 pounds, I’m at the gym 3-5 times a week, get in at least 10K steps a day, and I’m generally pretty healthy. I just like to sprain and break bones. I also despise getting sick. Maybe people aren’t getting boosters because they don’t think they’re helpful, since they all seem to lose power at about 6 months?

3 reasons why the U.S. vaccine booster drive is sputtering

COVID dancing penguinsOnly about 40.3% of eligible Americans have received a COVID-19 vaccine booster shot, according to CDC data, despite public health officials agreeing that the extra dose is the best defense against severe outcomes as the highly-transmissible Omicron version of the coronavirus circulates.

Doctors told Yahoo Finance that three primary factors are contributing to the booster drive’s struggles: confusing messaging from public health officials, misconceptions about the severity of the Omicron variant, and increased political polarization related to the pandemic.

“Much of the issue comes down to clarity of messaging,” Dr. Anand Swaminathan, a New Jersey-based emergency medicine physician, told Yahoo Finance. “We need to be crystal clear about what vaccines are intended to do, the fact they don’t work on an individual level but on a population level, and why and when boosters are recommended and for whom.”

Maybe that’s one of the problems, this whole “we’re in this together” stuff, which we’ve heard for 2 years now, which required all sorts of restrictions, lockdowns, forced masking, etc. You lived it, you know it. Many states have little to no restrictions (we really should be doing some form of pushing washing hands, avoid contact, and keep at least 3 feet distance), and many nations, such as Denmark, are doing away with everything. We need to learn to live with this, just like we have with the flu. The 1918 Spanish flu killed a much higher percentage of Americans than COVID, around 6 per 100K, vs COVID with 1 to 2 per 100K.

Anyhow, the article gives Reasons, but, it seems to forget that Omicron tends to evade the vaccines, even with a booster. Some countries, like Israel, are on their 2nd booster, and still getting hit. And people are kinda over this. Even if the Chinese flu isn’t done with us. Even lots of Democrats are over it, even while they’re president is pushing N95 masks and testing.

Yet, interestingly, the Biden admin has forgotten to research new and better treatments. It’s almost like they do not want this to end. Not sure why, since polls are not going Biden’s way on his handling of COVID.

Read: Say, Why Aren’t More Eligible Americans Getting Boosters? »

Climate Cult Finds Utility In White Hot Rage Or Somthing

These people are really not OK

The Utility of White-Hot Rage

Usually, a story like this starts with a quick roundup of alarming statistics and a reminder of all the latest climate disasters: heat domes, floods, hurricanes, etc. I’m going to skip that part. Most of us get it already. We understand with our rational minds that the climate is changing, and we feel that it is changing in the deepest pit of our gut, where dread and fury live.

A poll conducted by Yale and George Mason University researchers in September found that 70 percent of Americans are worried about climate change, and 47 percent describe themselves as “angry” about it. I’m in both of those groups. In my 15 years as an environmental journalist, I’ve always been able to ground myself on a bedrock optimism that humanity will get its act together. Lately, though, as the pandemic has dragged toward its third year, the West has continued to burn, drought has parched my part of the world, and climate action has stalled at the federal level even with Democrats in control, that has changed. I am burned out. For some people, this might manifest as fatigue, or disengagement. For me, it’s anger. On a near-daily basis, I can feel my blood sizzling in my veins.

Living in the era of climate change makes us feel lots of things: guilt for our own part in heating the planet, grief for what we have lost and will lose, fear about the future—and anger at selfish decisions made by the powerful people who got us to this moment. How do those who think about climate change every day keep getting up every morning? Taking care of their mind and body is a priority for all of the people I spoke with for this story, but so was something else: using their anger.

Strange, they never feel anger at themselves for failing to practice what they preach. Just wait till they are forced to do so by Government: I wonder how angry they’ll be then?

“There’s always either a slow burn of anger and, like, a raging fire of sadness, or vice versa,” Mary Heglar, an essayist and a co-host of the podcast Hot Take, told me. “When I’m deep in despair, I’m doing all the self-care … but when I’m deep in anger, that’s when it’s time to get active.”

Well, these people seem to be perpetually angry/upset over something. Their Cult leaders have indoctrinated them to feel that way, so they’ll give up their money, freedom, liberty, and life choices.

Read: Climate Cult Finds Utility In White Hot Rage Or Somthing »

If All You See…

…are flowers which will soon grow in the Arctic from ‘climate change’, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Don Surber, with a post noting that Justice Breyer is not saying he’s retiring.

Read: If All You See… »

San Jose Looks To Require Gun Insurance And Yearly Fees, Immediately Sued

What’s the crime rate in San Jose, California? It’s actually not that bad,a 15, at least for a California city not that far away from San Francisco and Oakland. So, why this focus on creating prohibitive rules against law abiding citizens?

San Jose Moves to Require Gun Owners to Have Insurance and Pay Annual Fees

Gun owners in San Jose, Calif., may soon be required to carry liability insurance and to pay an annual fee for suicide prevention and other safety programs intended to reduce gun violence.

Members of the San Jose City Council voted overwhelmingly in favor of a gun-ownership ordinance Tuesday night. If the measure is passed again after a second reading next month, as expected, the fees imposed on the roughly 50,000 gun-owning households in the city of more than one million residents could take effect in August.

City officials say the annual “harm reduction fee” of about $25 will go toward the cost of nonprofits that would help to run programs to reduce forms of gun violence like suicide and domestic violence, as well as to provide gun safety training, mental health counseling and addiction treatment. (snip)

What is new, San Jose officials say, is making liability insurance a requirement, similar to insurance for motorists, and seeking a fee to offset city services that go toward serving people directly affected by gun violence.

The problem really isn’t the yearly fees (though, they are problematic), it’s the insurance, which you know will be expensive. But, that’s the point, to make it too expensive to own a firearm. Even though it is rarely the legal owner of a firearm who is the problem.

And, immediately, lawsuits were filed

“If left intact,” the National Association for Gun Rights said in a federal lawsuit filed on Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, “the City of San Jose’s ordinance would strike at the very core of the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms and defend one’s home.”

California is one of the few states which has no mention of gun rights. But, the federal Constitution is the basis of the whole system, and we know this is an attempt to deny law abiding citizens their 2nd Amendment Right

The liability insurance would cover “losses or damages resulting from any negligent or accidental use” of the firearm, including “death, injury or property damage,” the ordinance reads.

If a gun is lost or stolen, the owner of that gun would also be responsible for it up until the moment the loss or theft is reported to the police, according to the ordinance.

So, if someone breaks into your home and steals your firearm and kills someone before you even know it was stolen, the gun owner would be liable. That won’t make the insurance really expensive, right? So much that people would give up their firearms. Making them at the mercy of the criminals that liberals empower. The National Association Of Gun Rights says

“We promised we would sue the City of San Jose if they actually passed this ridiculous tax on the right to keep and bear arms, and now we’re fulfilling that promise,” said Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights. “To tax a constitutional right is absolutely preposterous and places an undue burden on law-abiding gun owners. Do the members of the San Jose City Council actually believe this will do anything to stop crime?”

The National Foundation for Gun Rights sent a cease and desist letter to the San Jose City Council on July 15th, 2021 urging the city to reject the proposed ordinance.”

A right that you have to pay a tax to exercise is not a right at all. You would not dream of imposing a tax to attend a church or to disseminate or read a newspaper, which are protected by the First Amendment,” said Hannah Hill, Policy Director for the National Foundation for Gun Rights. “This is why the Foundation exists – to stand up to bullies like the City of San Jose and their tyrannical ordinance which will harm law-abiding citizens and set an ugly precedent for gun control laws all across the nation.”

This will end up in the Supreme Court.

Read: San Jose Looks To Require Gun Insurance And Yearly Fees, Immediately Sued »

Warmists Seem Upset That Courts Are Involving Themselves Against The Climate Fight

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is particularly upset

First off, Whitehouse, like most Democrats, takes a lot of campaign money from these “dark money” groups. You can look it up on on Open Secrets. Second, Sheldon, like most Warmists, isn’t willing to give up his own own use of fossil fuels. How many flights does he take too and from D.C. to Rhode Island? He could take that train. He doesn’t. Has he bought an EV? Downsized his house? Given up eating meat? And more? No. Anyhow, from the link

The baseline response of an ethical judicial system to the ongoing climate crisis should be to give wide deference to the president and Congress—the political branches—to address the impending disaster as they see fit. It’s not for unelected, unaccountable judges to decide the country’s response to global climate change, and it’s certainly not for a judiciary comprised of old people who will not live to swelter in the consequences of their actions to determine whether we take immediate action.

Instead of staying out of the climate debate, however, conservatives in the judiciary increasingly want to put courts right in the middle of it. And, of course, those conservatives reliably interject themselves on behalf of the fossil fuel industry or other anti-environmentalist forces. A byproduct of leaving a conservative majority in control of the courts for the next generation is that those conservatives simply will not allow meaningful congressional legislation to address climate change. Our children will pay the future cost of letting conservatives dominate the courts now.

Well, that’s interesting. It sounds like they want to do something to force the Conservatives off the court, or, perhaps court packing. These are the same yahoos running around yammering about Our Democracy In Peril or something. Looks more like they want a system like Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia, with no dissent allowed

This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could allow it to drastically limit the scope of the Clean Water Act. Conservatives would like to limit the term “wetlands” to areas that are physically connected to a navigable river. That rule would make it easier for industries to dump pollutants in the nation’s wetlands and make it easier for developers to build homes on wetlands without obtaining a federal permit.

And there’s the 3rd thing: it’s not like the Court is going out and attempting to insert itself into “climate” issues (and the CWA is about the environment, not climate scam): people/groups/states are filing suits, and the Court is taking up ones that involve government and Constitutional issues. And the CWA is very much Constitutional, as it involves federal control of just about all waters, including that pond in your backyard. Leftists are using it as a way to force federal dominance after Obama’s Waters of the USA was killed.

Conservative jurists claim that diminishing the power of executive agencies places more power in the hands of the people, through their representatives in Congress. But the opposite is true. Conservative attacks on the administrative state place more power in the hands of unelected judges, who can pick and choose which rules they like and which ones they don’t. And it places more power in the hands of industry lobbyists, who have merely to sway politicians and judges instead of scientific experts.

That’s an interesting, but, very silly argument. It is one, though, that is gaining traction, basically saying that anything that diminishes the administrative state at the federal level places that power anywhere but The People. Regardless, if the climate cult doesn’t want their rules and such ending up in the courts, then write proper laws and rules that do not violate the Constitution.

Read: Warmists Seem Upset That Courts Are Involving Themselves Against The Climate Fight »

Pirate's Cove