Brandonomy: Health Of Consumers Sees Troubling Sign

By William Teach June 4, 2022 – 7:00 am

It’s not a bug, it’s a feature

Gas prices are through the roof. That’s just how Biden wants it.

I did that BidenApproaching his 500th day in office this week, Joe Biden is the least popular U.S. president at this point in his first term in the modern polling era. His approval rating might drop even further now that Americans are home from their Memorial Day weekend travels. According to AAA, this was one of the most expensive Memorial Day travel periods on record, with gas prices hitting $4.62 — the highest average price at the pump ever recorded. (snipping through a bunch of things you know Biden has done to skyrocket gas costs)

Taken together, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that Democrats welcome high gas prices as part of an intentional strategy to speed our transition away from fossil fuels. They don’t like the political blowback, so they are trying to divert blame onto Russian President Vladimir Putin, as Biden did in a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week. But many Americans are beginning to suspect that, just as the government deliberately raised the cost of cigarettes to curb smoking, Democrats want to see gas prices rise so that Americans will stop using fossil fuels.

They do. He does. There certainly comes a point where you would think this isn’t incompetence, but, malfeasance. Intentional. The highest I’ve seen in Raleigh is $4.59. So far.

Gas prices: A ‘troubling sign’ emerges on the health of consumers

Sticker price shock at the gas pump may finally be breaking the back of the U.S. consumer, new data shows.

Current U.S. gasoline consumption levels are running 3% lower than a year ago and have been declining at a 3-5% clip the past seven weeks, according to researchers at DataTrek (chart below). DataTrek noted that these declines were not the case prior to April 2022, suggesting that pain at the pump is affecting consumer behavior.

“Given that commuting is the single most common reason Americans drive, we would have thought gas consumption would still be showing positive comps to last year,” DataTrek writes. “Office occupancy was barely 20% at this point last year and is double that now (43%). Lower gasoline consumption is therefore a troubling sign about overall consumer spending patterns.”

Remember, a lot of stuff wasn’t open at this time last year. A lot of people were still working from home. Travel was still rather muted. Delta was hitting hard.

Inflation — hitting necessities such as food, fuel, and housing — seems to be weighing on the minds of Americans: The University of Michigan’s final consumer sentiment measure fell to 58.4 in May, down from 59.1 earlier in the month, marking the lowest level in more than 10 years.

Consumer spending clocked in with a solid 0.9% increase in April, according to data from the Commerce Department, but the increase was fueled by consumers dipping into their savings — the savings rate fell to 4.4% in April from 5% in the prior month.

“The U.S. economy remains strong approaching mid-year,” EY-Parthenon Chief Economist Greg Daco wrote in a note to clients, “but cracks are starting to appear in the foundation.”

Republicans do not want to see this happen just to win an election, because it means Americans are getting hurt. But, we also know that Biden and his Democrat Comrades will not only not change course, they’ll triple down on their bad policies. They really do not care who gets hurt on the way to their Statist paradise. Some of you f’ing Republicans with Trump Derangement Syndrome need to own up to your horrible votes.

Read: Brandonomy: Health Of Consumers Sees Troubling Sign »

Posted in Democrats, Economy, Joe Biden | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

What’s The Cost Of Making A Home “Green” Friendly?

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

Hey, we can all afford this, right?

I moved from L.A. to Western New York because of climate change and spent $82,000 making my new home eco-friendly. Here’s how and why.

In March 2020, I was living in a one-bedroom apartment in West Hollywood with my wife, our three small dogs and one annoyed cat. Our plan had been to move “back east” sometime in the vague future, but when our jobs went remote thanks to the pandemic, and we were suddenly both working from that one-bedroom, we knew it was time.

As we made our final drive out of L.A., wildfires blazed in our rearview mirrors. Destruction we thought would happen years in the future was unfolding in real time, cementing our decision to relocate to a place with promising long-term climate projections — a move we were able to make due to our savings and employment flexibility, privileges that were not lost on us. (snip)

And so, with the help of a climate change map from the New York Times, we narrowed down our search to the seemingly unlikely Rochester, N.Y. — a charming city situated on Lake Ontario with a surprising amount of vegan-friendly restaurants (no small bonus, as we are both longtime vegans and animal activists).

Climate change map? Good grief

Now that we had found an area that was relatively promising insofar as climate, we dug deeper into what types of homes are the most eco-friendly. We considered both the structure itself — learning that refurbishing existing properties creates fewer carbon emissions than building new ones — as well as the ongoing carbon cost to heat and power a home. It became clear that moving to a climate-refuge city wasn’t enough; we needed to go net zero, and we needed to do it in an old house.

Let’s skip through all the climate cult stuff to

As for us, the costs came out to $27,318 for the geothermal system, $15,215 for the solar, $15,703 for the insulation and $23,873 for the windows — after state rebates and other incentives, which can significantly reduce the price tag of transitioning a home to net zero. While $82,000 and change is still very expensive, and not doable for many Americans — and only possible for us thanks to low-interest financing and a relatively low-priced house — the incentives may make the undertaking more within reach than you’d expect.

$82,000. That’s not saving you money. What’s your energy bill monthly? $200? It will take 34 years to break even. Nice not having to depend on the electric grid, sure. Insulation is never a bad thing. Better windows? Sure. Still, 34 years for this cult belief. And, of course, as the elitist notes, not doable for many Americans. And, if you see the article, the author pretty much looks just like you’d expect, with died hair, nose ring, over sized glasses, and a pride flag. Oh, a middle age, affluent white liberal.

Read: What’s The Cost Of Making A Home “Green” Friendly? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 3, 2022 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible carbon pollution driven cloud cover, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Geller Report, with a post on the Marine Corps going Woke for pride month.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 23 Comments | Trackback URL

Business Insider Thinks Women Will Quit The Workplace Over Ending Roe v Wade

By William Teach June 3, 2022 – 10:30 am

Sure, there are some women who are obsessed with the ability to have an abortion at the drop of a pin, forgetting about this thing called contraception. And personal responsibility. Having responsible sex. But, how many women consider abortion the Most Important Thing Ever, to the point they will quit their job and move to a state with unfettered abortion? The abortionistas think this will happen

The country’s biggest employers, including Walmart and Amazon, should ‘say goodbye to attracting top female talent’ in abortion ‘trigger law’ states

If the Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade in June — considered all but certain since a draft decision was leaked May 2 — major US companies may find themselves facing shock waves inside their organizations. But most companies appear unprepared for what’s to come.

Insider has identified the companies that would face the most immediate impact: those with the largest workforces in states with “trigger laws,” where abortion bans would automatically take effect if the court strikes down Roe. Thousands of their employees may soon be facing unintended pregnancies without access to abortion care. Over two-thirds of Americans want to uphold Roe v. Wade, and the majority support women having access to legal abortion for any reason, per a recent Wall Street Journal poll.

Walmart, McDonald’s, Amazon, the Department of Defense, and Roark Capital Group, a private-equity firm that owns Arby’s, Dunkin’, and the Cheesecake Factory, top the list, as they are among the largest employers in all 13 trigger-law states.

Workers at major brands including Kroger, UPS, Lowe’s, Tyson Foods, Marriott, and Dollar General would also be heavily affected, as each company is a top employer in at least four states with abortions bans that would be triggered by the overturn of Roe. Insider’s analysis was based on proprietary data that identified and ranked the top 25 employers in all 50 states.

So, wait, do they think that women who overly care about being able to get an abortion mostly work at low paying, service jobs? That’s rather sexist, isn’t it?

Employers in states where abortion bans take effect may face higher rates of turnover and absenteeism, research shows. Unplanned births can reduce women’s workforce participation by as much as 25%, and women denied abortions faced higher degrees of unemployment and financial distress, including unpaid debts, evictions, and bankruptcies.

They could have responsible, protected sex, right?

More than 150 economists signed an amicus brief in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case — which the Supreme Court is considering as it decides whether to uphold Roe v. Wade — arguing that “abortion legalization has had a significant impact on women’s wages and educational attainment, with impacts most strongly felt by Black women.”

Are they saying that women, especially black women, are irresponsible?

Concerns about attracting talent are now quietly rippling through the private sector. “For the first time in history, people are thinking beyond doughnuts and benefits,” said Robynn Storey, a headhunter who is CEO of Storeyline Resumes. “Political stances are definitely one of those things.”

So women won’t work for companies in states with abortion restrictions/bans? These moonbats actually think this is the only thing women care about. Anyway, this is a ridiculously long piece, but, here’s an idea: if women who love abortion on demand, who are mostly Democrat voters, are upset when/if the Red state they live in restricts/bans abortion, they should leave, and take their Dem family members with them back to Blue states. Go. Leave. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. And take the rest of you lunatic political beliefs with them.

Read: Business Insider Thinks Women Will Quit The Workplace Over Ending Roe v Wade »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Current Affairs, Democrats | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Cult Gets Dirty, Claims Pizza Sauce Is Next On The Hit List

By William Teach June 3, 2022 – 7:15 am

Well, well, well, this is a new one. I’ve never seen them go after pizza sauce, which is a pretty dirty trick, because everyone loves pizza. Unless you’re weird. Oh, and remember how some leading Warmists say to stop attempting to scaremonger?

Equilibrium/Sustainability — Climate change’s next victim: Pizza sauce

Increasingly hot and dry climate conditions are withering Californian tomato crops on their vines — a crisis that could leave pizza and pasta without a key ingredient: Tomato sauce.

“Warming winters are allowing pests and diseases to nose farther and farther north into new tomato territory,” a National Geographic report found.

Last year’s tomato season encountered such significant heat that by the end of the season, growers across California delivered about 10 percent less than their expected tomato crop, according to National Geographic.

While such amounts might not sound huge at a first glance, California is responsible for 90 percent of the country’s canning tomatoes, which are the second most valuable produce item that the state exports, the magazine reported.

“Even a 10 percent production drop left canners— who provide the tomatoes that become our pizza sauce, pasta sauce, and ketchup —in a tight spot,” the report said. “So this year, amidst an ongoing drought, everyone is hoping for a tomato-shaped success.”

Horrible! Terrible! Wait, you mean drought is something that often happens in California? That there needs be no anthropogenic causation, except an overpopulated state with terrible water management practices? Oh, and

(Vegetable Growers News) “We’ve seen our cost just skyrocket over the past six or seven years,” Barcellos said. “It used to cost us around $3,000 an acre to grow tomatoes. We’re projecting costs of over $4,000 this year coming up. We just haven’t had the revenues to match it.” Yields have been flat or trending down over the past decade, he added, and “we haven’t been able to get those yield increases to offset the cost increases.”

Bruce Rominger, who grows tomatoes in Winters and serves as board chairman of the California Tomato Growers Association, named fuel and fertilizer costs among his top concerns.

“Primarily for us, the fuel cost hurts us in our production,” Rominger said. “All our tractors, all our pickups, everything we do out here burns fuel. We are very concerned about what that does to our cost structure when we see our prices do what they’ve done in the last six months.”

So, yes, drought and heat do affect growing. So do horrible, counter-productive government policies. And with gas spiking thanks to Biden/Democrat policies, 2022 could be bad. Which means some smart farmers could make a bundle by switching to tomatoes.

Read: Climate Cult Gets Dirty, Claims Pizza Sauce Is Next On The Hit List »

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

Biden Says 2nd Amendment Not Absolute, Calls For Lots Of Restrictions

By William Teach June 3, 2022 – 7:00 am

Guy surrounded by lots and lots of people with firearms that he wants to restrict, as well as ones which most of us average citizens care not allowed to have, had thoughts

And then

Biden says Second Amendment is ‘not absolute’ in call to reinstate assault weapons ban

President Biden said the Second Amendment is “not absolute” in a speech Thursday following a wave of mass shootings across the nation, pleading with to Congress to pass what he called “commonsense” gun control legislation, including reinstating an assault weapons ban, requiring background checks, and limiting magazine capacity.

The president, speaking from the Cross Hall of the White House, told Americans that the issue of restricting access to guns “is one of conscience and common sense.”

“For so many of you at home, I want to be very clear – this is not about taking away anyone’s guns,” the president said. “It is not about vilifying gun owners. In fact, we believe we should be treating responsible gun owners as an example of how every gun owner should behave.”

Oh, really? Just days ago he said no one needed an AR-15 (well, except his security, which carries a similar version that are fully automatic)

While they are all bad, the big one is the liability shield, which would allow lawsuits that would put gun makers and gun stores out of business.

Biden will milk this hard, regardless of whether anything happens, because it’s meant to deflect from the shit economy.

Read: Biden Says 2nd Amendment Not Absolute, Calls For Lots Of Restrictions »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Joe Biden | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Pushing Gun Legislation That Wouldn’t Stop The Shooters

By William Teach June 2, 2022 – 3:00 pm

I keep saying, Republicans should offer legislation that members of Congress and the Executive Office, especially the people who work for Biden along with Biden, should not be protected by armed security armed with “assault rifles” and handguns with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds

Democrats to Vote on 6 Gun Controls That Wouldn’t Have Prevented Uvalde Attack

Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee will hold a vote on a gun control package Thursday which includes six gun control measures that would not have prevented the Uvalde attack.

The package is titled the “Protecting Our Kids Act.”

In other words, the “Taking guns away from/making it more difficult for law abiding citizens while doing nothing against criminals act”

Punchbowl News reports that the package contains eight gun controls. Six of those gun controls would not have prevented the Uvalde attack.

Those six include background checks for “ghost guns,” gun storage requirements for homes with minors present, additional penalties for gun trafficking and straw purchases, a bump stock ban, and a requirement that existing bump stocks be registered under the auspices of the National Firearms Act.

Hey, remember when Obama’s Fast and Furious trafficked guns with straw purchases? Who was the VP then?

In addition to the six gun controls that would not have prevented Uvalde, the Democrats are pushing a “high capacity” magazine ban. This ban would not prevent attacks either.

On December 30, 2012, a review board that studied the April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech shooting found that a ban on “high capacity” magazines would have had a negligible impact on the outcome of the attack. The review panel said making the attacker use ten-round magazines instead of mags that hold 15 rounds “would have not made that much difference in the incident.”

I can change mags on my 10 round Walther pretty darned quick. How about you? Also, a federal court struck down California’s high capacity magazine law, which was then reinstated by an appeals court, and the Supreme Court is set to rule on a NY law that has similar restrictions.

None of these laws would stop any of these shooters.

Read: Democrats Pushing Gun Legislation That Wouldn’t Stop The Shooters »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach June 2, 2022 – 1:00 pm

…is an area flooding from carbon pollution driven Bad Weather, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Don Surber, with a post on how Biden killed the economy.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Biden DOJ Finally Appeals Court Decision To End Masks On Public Transportation

By William Teach June 2, 2022 – 10:30 am

Requiring masks on planes, buses, trains, etc, is so important in slowing the spread of Wuhan Flu that the Brandon DOJ waited since April 18th, when the judge killed the mandate

Justice Department asks U.S. appeals court to allow transit mask mandate

The Justice Department on Tuesday called on a federal appeals court to reinstate the national mask mandate for public transit and airplanes after a U.S. district judge found the requirements to be unlawful in April.

In a brief filed with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Biden administration argued the January 2021 order from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) requiring travelers to wear masks on public transportation and in transit hubs to prevent the spread of COVID-19 “falls easily” within the agency’s statutory authority.

“Taking preventative measures is part of the CDC’s core mission. It is embodied in the name of the agency — Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” Justice Department lawyers told the 11th Circuit in their filing. “It makes no sense to suggest that the agency would not incorporate preventative measures in the actions it undertakes.”

The findings in the CDC’s mask mandate, they argued, “provide ample support for the agency’s determination that there was good cause to make the order effective without delay.”

Such good cause that they waited over a month to file it. The initial finding from the judge in April determined that the CDC did not have the statutory authority to impose the mandates

The Biden administration officially appealed the decision from U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle in April after the CDC said the transit mask requirement “remains necessary for public health.”

It does? For whom? There are almost no mask mandates left anywhere. Technically, Biden’s EO on wearing masks in federal buildings still stands, though, that has apparently been eased. Biden doesn’t seem to wear his mask inside that often. Nor do his people. Does he wear one on Air Force One or Marine One? He doesn’t seem to wear one when he’s giving wackadoodle speeches inside buildings with lots of people he doesn’t know.

The Justice Department, though, criticized Mizelle’s decision and accused the district court judge of adopting a “cramped reading of a statute aimed at preventing the spread of communicable disease.” The Biden administration also argued she erred in voiding the mask mandate nationwide and instead should have granted relief only to the five individuals who challenged the requirement.

“Article III and traditional principles of equity dictate that any remedy must be limited to redressing plaintiffs’ particular injuries,” the Justice Department argued. “Principles of comity and judicial restraint confirm that the district court should not have preempted the recent ruling by another judge upholding the CDC’s transportation mask order or the similar cases pending within other circuits.”

Same administration and CDC want to force everyone to comply, even when they are in little to no danger based on study after study after study. Remember when Biden said you could get your life back after getting the vaccine? Then told everyone, regardless of vax status, to wear a mask?

Read: Biden DOJ Finally Appeals Court Decision To End Masks On Public Transportation »

Posted in Bat Soup Virus, Joe Biden | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Your Fault: Midwestern Corn Could Be Wiped Out From ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach June 2, 2022 – 7:00 am

Of course it’s gonna happen in 80 years. But, it won’t happen if you simply Comply

Climate change could spell the end for Midwestern corn, study finds

Follow the scienceThe midwestern Corn Belt — which roughly covers parts of Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska and Kansas — will be “unsuitable” for cultivating corn by 2100 if climate change continues on its current trajectory, a new study finds.

“The future climate conditions … will significantly reshape biophysical suitability across the Central and Eastern U.S., causing a near collapse of corn cultivation in the Midwestern U.S. by 2100,” the study, published in Environmental Research Letters, concludes.

Using climate and soil data, Emory University environmental studies professor Emily Burchfield modeled where crops would be successfully grown in a warmer future. Burchfield found that under scenarios with high or moderate greenhouse gas emissions, the climatic conditions necessary to grow corn, soy, alfalfa and wheat will all shift notably northward, “with the Corn Belt becoming unsuitable to the cultivation of corn by 2100.”

Computer models. Of course.

In fact, Midwestern farmers have already been successfully adapting to climate change. Due to a variety of technological advances, U.S. farmers today harvest more than five times as much corn per acre as farmers did 100 years ago. Some of these changes, according to a 2018 study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, have been helpful to combating rising temperatures. For example, because plants have a cooling effect on their local environment, planting closer together has reduced the effects of global warming on corn crops. Farmers also have adjusted to higher temperatures by planting crops earlier in the season and cross-breeding more with more heat-tolerant Mexican varieties of corn.

Yes, because a minuscule 1.5F increase since 1850 has been hard to adapt to.

“It’s hard to gauge what actually is the trend,” Taylor Moreland, owner of Moreland Seed & Soil in Centralia, Mo., told Yahoo News. “In 2012, that was a horrible drought, Midwest-wide, that was a terrible drought and there were massive losses across most farms. 2013 was kind of a drought as well. And then ’14 was awesome, ’15 was extremely wet, to the point where a lot of corn couldn’t get planted at all because if the ground is wet you can’t plant … ’16 was another great year, ’17 was a great year, ’18 was a great year. And then, really, the past three years have been all so wet, where you typically want to plant corn in April and most farmers around here haven’t been able to plant all their corn yet this year at all, because it’s been so wet.”

But Moreland, who grew up on a farm in Missouri, pointed out that the Midwest has always seen wide fluctuations in weather.

“The weather patterns do tend to change,” he said. “If you track back before I was doing this, we had droughts, we had wet years, we had hot years. I remember my grandpa talking about this, how there were a couple years in a row where they’d have crops burn up and the family would be broke.”

Damn, things change. And this is all your fault.

Read: Your Fault: Midwestern Corn Could Be Wiped Out From ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove