Biden Pentagon Pick Looks To Purge Military Of “Extremists And Raaaaacists”

By William Teach January 20, 2021 – 8:07 am

This is the same military that is cool with allowing transgenders, who tend to have serious mental health issues, to join, and even offered to pay for sex change operations. The same military which allowed gang members to join, and had a hard problem getting rid of them. The same military which has often put Social Justice Warrioring and Virtue Signaling above the mission of protecting the United States. One thing I’ve said many times is that Progressives have very long term plans, and work to take sectors over. I won’t go into the whole thing again, but, in the 1970’s they hated the military, and wanted to eliminate it. Since they couldn’t they infiltrated the military to change it from the inside

Joe Biden’s Pentagon Pick Lloyd Austin Vows to Rid Military Ranks of ‘Racists and Extremists’

Lloyd Austin, President-elect Joe Biden’s nominee for defense secretary, said Tuesday during his confirmation hearing that he would work to rid the military of “racists and extremists.”

During his opening remarks, Lloyd Austin stated:

We also owe our people a working environment free of discrimination, hate and harassment. If confirmed, I will fight hard to stamp out sexual assault, to rid our ranks of racists and extremists, and to create a climate where everyone fit and willing has the opportunity to serve this country with dignity. The job of the Department of Defense is to keep America safe from our enemies. But we can’t do that if some of those enemies lie within our own ranks.

Democrats in recent days have sounded the alarm over the prospect of extremists in the military, after veterans and active-duty members of the military were identified attending a pro-Trump protest at the Capitol on January 6, with some breaching the Capitol building. (snip)

He said that a 2019 Military Times analysis found that 36 percent of active duty service members have seen evidence of white supremacist and racist ideologies in the military and asked Austin what kind of training he would suggest for service members to lead to a military “immune from superstition and not so gullible as to fall for these false ideologies.”

Austin said leaders need to be trained to be in touch with their troops to understand “who they are, what they are doing, what they are reading,” and be aware of signs that could indicate something is going in the wrong direction.

What he means is that the military, which typically votes around 59-41 for Republicans, will see purges of Republican voters. They will find excuses to get rid of them as extremists and raaaaacists. Which might find the military, and Austin, being sued for violation of the 1st Amendment Rights of those military members. And, will keep a lot of people from joining the military, along with significantly reducing retention rates.

“I will want the leaders of all the services and all of the departments to make sure that they’re doing the right things to set the right example and to create the right climate that discourages and eliminates that type of behavior,” he said.

“And this is not something we can be passive on. This is something I think we have to be active on and we have to lean into it and make sure we’re doing the right things to create the right climate,” he said.

Basically, the US military is going to become the Peace Corps, rather than a hardcore fighting machine protecting the nation. You soon won’t be able to distinguish it from most left wing organizations, other than the guns and stuff. At that point, would it be a conspiracy theory to think that the US military would side with those support the Constitution? That they would be used to snuff out freedoms at home rather than protect them?

Read: Biden Pentagon Pick Looks To Purge Military Of “Extremists And Raaaaacists” »

Posted in Democrats, Dems in Charge: Now What? | 25 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Crisis (scam) Suit Heads To The Supreme Court

By William Teach January 19, 2021 – 5:01 pm

It’d be really funny if SCOTUS told Baltimore to stop using fossil fuels if they care so much

Fight to make Big Oil pay for climate change heads to Supreme Court

Baltimore may be a continent away from San Francisco, but the coastal cities have at least one thing in common: rising seas.

Both are seeing more flooding, more shoreline erosion and more battered infrastructure, and both want the oil industry to pay for the damage. They blame fossil fuels for the global warming that’s causing sea level rise.

First, there is nothing unusual about the sea rise: most of it is simply average or slightly above average, nowhere close to the norm for a Holocene Warm Period. Second, these people are nuts.

On Tuesday, Baltimore will lead the campaign to recoup billions of dollars from oil companies in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The city’s legal strategy is one that dawned in the Bay Area four years ago, when San Francisco and neighboring communities began filing lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry. The California tactics have since been embraced by nearly two dozen cities, counties and states nationwide, all of which could be affected by the high court’s pending action.

The question in front of the justices is not about the merits of the case. It’s about how a decision to hear the issue in state court versus federal court should be made. Still, the seemingly small procedural matter could have a big impact on whether the California communities and other litigants ultimately win money to cover potentially huge losses from climate change.

Oil companies should simply stop selling their products to the city of Baltimore, let’s see how the city operates, or, rather, doesn’t. They could also do away with all gas stations in the city, see how the Warmist residents like that. Same with San Francisco, along with the counties of San Mateo, Marin and Santa Cruz and the cities of Oakland, Richmond, Santa Cruz and Imperial Beach (San Diego County), who are part of this suit.

The plaintiffs want the cases to proceed in state court, where their legal challenges are tailored. They argue that companies such as Chevron Corp., Shell and ExxonMobil sold fossil fuel products while knowing their goods were harming the climate, akin to what the tobacco industry did with cigarettes and public health decades ago. They allege violations of state public nuisance law and state consumer protection law.

Conversely, the oil companies want the cases in federal court. They believe the judges there will defer to federal laws governing greenhouse gas emissions, namely the Clean Air Act, making the state-level allegations moot.

Should be interesting how it turns out. And, again, stop selling your products to people suing you.

Read: Climate Crisis (scam) Suit Heads To The Supreme Court »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Democrats, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 19, 2021 – 1:00 pm

…are horrible fossil fueled vehicles causing heat snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on building that wall.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

China Joe Rejects Trump Getting Rid Of Travel Bans Joe Was Against

By William Teach January 19, 2021 – 10:30 am

Joe was against travel bans before he was for them

(Twitchy) The Washington Post declared travel bans are a ”mistake”, but it gets worse. Politico suggested the ban would be ”antagonizing Chinese leaders, as well as stigmatizing people of Asian descent.” The New York Times asserted the ban from Chinese travel would be stoking hatred.

Democrats were against the China travel ban, and against banning Muslims traveling from Muslim nations with lots and lots of extremists (which used a model the Obama admin created)

Trump to lift some Covid travel restrictions, a move Biden quickly rejects

President Donald Trump said Monday that he is ending Covid-19 travel restrictions for air travelers from Europe and Brazil, a move the incoming administration quickly rejected.

In a proclamation, Trump said the restrictions would be lifted Jan. 26, the same day a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention order requiring negative tests for air travelers coming to the U.S. takes effect.

But by then, Joe Biden will be president, and his press secretary tweeted that the restrictions would remain in place.

“With the pandemic worsening, and more contagious variants emerging around the world, this is not the time to be lifting restrictions on international travel,” said Biden’s press secretary, Jen Psaki. “… In fact, we plan to strengthen public health measures around international travel in order to further mitigate the spread of COVID-19.”

So, travel bans work? That’s not what Democrats were saying back in February when Trump instituted them.

It leaves restrictions in place for China and Iran.

Will Joe lift those?

Read: China Joe Rejects Trump Getting Rid Of Travel Bans Joe Was Against »

Posted in Bat Soup Virus, Democrats | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Cult Still Pushing For Green COVID Recovery

By William Teach January 19, 2021 – 8:10 am

Democrats do not even know how to do a regular recovery, based on the state of their states and cities, and are often no allowing any sort of economic recovery to occur, locking people and businesses down all over the place, yet, they want a “green recovery”

New research suggests 1.5C climate target will be out of reach without greener COVID-19 recovery plans

The amount of carbon dioxide that we can still emit while limiting global warming to a given target is called the “remaining carbon budget,” and it has become a powerful tool to inform climate policy goals and track progress towards net-zero emissions targets.

This carbon budget is like a fixed financial budget: there is a cap on total allowable expenses over time, and excess spending in the near term requires deceased spending in the future. Similarly, the remaining carbon budget is a fixed total quantity of future emissions that is small enough to limit global temperature increases before they exceed our climate targets.

Scientists’ estimates of the remaining carbon budget vary widely. Studies often use different approaches or even definitions of what the carbon budget represents. This can involve different treatment of how greenhouse gases other than CO2 contribute to climate change, or the incomplete representation of some processes, such as the role of aerosols in climate change.

If all climate cultists gave up all, or at least most, use of fossil fuels, they could solve this. They don’t even have to give up their entire carbon footprint, just reduce it by, let’s say, half, which, in America, would still be higher than in most 3rd world nations.

We developed a a new way to generate a better estimate of the remaining carbon budget for the 1.5C limit of the Paris Agreement that integrates all major sources of uncertainty. Our results suggest that even if the growing list of countries committing to 2050 net-zero emissions targets reached their goals, we would still deplete the 1.5C remaining carbon budget more than a decade too soon.

Remember, 1.5 was never the goal of Paris, the number was 2C, and, despite hearing that Paris was historic Warmists immediately started agitating about 1.5C.

At the peak of global lockdowns in April 2020, daily CO2 emissions decreased by almost 20 per cent relative to the same period in 2019. These insights can inform how COVID-19 recovery investments could be used to drive emissions further downward.

The largest relative decreases in emissions came from reductions in road transport, such as commuting by car, and air travel. Although we are all suffering from the loss of in-person interactions, we have also learned a lot about how to convene meetings, presentations and collaborations online. While individual mobility will rebound as lockdowns ease, our crash course in remote working and learning means that we may not need to return to pre-COVID-19 travel levels.

The least they could do was just come out and say they want people locked down and unable to travel anywhere.

Emissions from industry and power generation did not decrease as much, in relative terms. This points to the need for systemic changes in technological infrastructure to unlock the potential for lower-carbon economic activity.

And they want to screw with the power at the place you’re being locked down. Not their own, of course, just yours.

Governments around the world are spending unprecedented amounts to support and reinvigorate national economies. We must actively pursue this opportunity for a green recovery and avoid investing in infrastructure and industries that will lock in future CO2 emissions. Yet the COVID-19 stimulus packages announced so far are “missing the opportunity,” according to the UN Environment Program’s adaptation report released last week.

Let the UN lock themselves down. Let the climate cultists lock themselves down. Let them do all the crazy things themselves. Leave the rest of us out of their cult. And, it’s still disgusting that these doomsday cultists want to take advantage of people’s deaths, sickness, and misery, of losing their businesses, losing family members and friends, to push their cult.

Read: Climate Cult Still Pushing For Green COVID Recovery »

Posted in Climate Ghouls, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Democratic Ideas: Shutting Down Free Speech, Creating A Domestic Spy Agency

By William Teach January 19, 2021 – 7:57 am

There have been plenty of hot takes from Democrats and #NeverTrumpers on what to do about “extremism” (but not from their lunatics, of course) since the mostly peaceful D.C. protest. Not that they haven’t looked to restrict free speech from political opponents for a long time, but, now they are really ramping it up

Violence at Capitol and beyond reignites a debate over America’s long-held defense of extremist speech

Sore Winner DemocratsWith most Americans hoping this week’s expected inauguration protests look nothing like the Capitol siege, questions emerge about unrestrained free expression, long championed by First Amendment theorists as a benefit to society, no matter how ugly and hateful.

The optics may be disturbing, especially so soon after the riot, with the potential of protesters — many of like mind with those who stormed the Capitol — screaming, or worse, at troops and police standing guard outside the razor wire-topped fences surrounding the Capitol.

Weird, we didn’t hear the same thing from CNN and other media outlets when Biden voters, like BLM and Antifa members, were calling to kill police officers and white people, screaming at police officers as they threw fireworks and firebombs at them and the federal justice building in Portland, right?

Is allowing this type of expression “good” for America? An old First Amendment theory – known as the safety valve — says it is, that permitting groups to express themselves releases pressure, ensuring objectionable ideas aren’t driven underground where they might boil over into violence.

Permitting free speech, including hate and extremist speech, is often cast as a universal boon, reinforced in idioms such as, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” and “I don’t agree with what you say, but I’ll defend your right to say it.”

Permitting? That’s not the way this works. Government doesn’t permit it, they are restricted from stopping it. I didn’t see Conservatives call to stop the lunatics from speaking at their protests and riots. Mocking them, yes.

Not all First Amendment scholars are buying the safety valve theory, especially after the deadly episode at the Capitol. They question if extremist speech demands more limitations when it’s inextricably linked to the violence at the nation’s legislative headquarters, after hateful online rhetoric dovetailed with politicians and activists delivering speeches to revved-up crowds that marched to the Capitol, some bent on insurrection.

Even the American Civil Liberties Union, the consummate guardian of speech, has sought to address the “competing values” its long-held defense of expression presents, and some experts say free speech theories need to take into account the way social media has transformed the marketplace of ideas.

And this is how we move towards restricting speech. Of course, we do have a Supreme Court which will knock this stuff down, and, if Democrats want a civil war, one which they are vastly outnumbered when it comes to privately owned firearms, this is one way to get it. The “article” gets into plenty of other things, let’s move on to

Josh Stein says he’s just “discussing” it

All find echoes in the events surrounding January 6. None dare say “wake-up call” or “lessons learned”—there’s been far too many of them over the decades. But one response to the 9/11 tragedy may well get renewed attention after the Capitol assault—especially if armed white nationalists are successful in carrying out more attacks in the coming days and weeks: The call for a secret police.

I’m pretty sure this violates the First Amendment, as well. As Twitchy points out, plenty of other Leftists are pushing for this. Are Democratic Party lawmakers dumb enough to give this a shot? Or Joe Biden directing federal law enforcement to focus on Republicans?

Do I need to mention that the 1st protects speech and protesting that we do not agree with?

Read: Democratic Ideas: Shutting Down Free Speech, Creating A Domestic Spy Agency »

Posted in 1st Amendment, Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 22 Comments | Trackback URL

UN Demands Money For Paris Agreement, China Joe Ready To Comply

By William Teach January 18, 2021 – 3:00 pm

Non-first world nations and small island nations loved the Paris Climate Agreement, as it created lots of redistributed climate cash to them, with no strings attached, because the 1st World nations “owed” it. China Joe will surely send it, because, lord knows, American citizens don’t need it right now, eh?

U.N. Demands Payments for Climate Schemes as Biden Readies for Return to Paris Agreement

The U.N. body charged with making the Paris climate deal work scolded the global community Sunday for not making good on promises of financial aid.

The call to “pay up” came as President-elect Joe Biden readies to drag the U.S. back into the Paris climate agreement U.S. President Donald Trump exited in 2019, as Breitbart News reported.

AFP reports the U.N. Environment Programme Adaptation Gap (UNEP) said current finance levels of around $30 billion annually for adaptation were far adrift of the $70 billion promised and the time has come for more money to be sent.

I’m shocked that all the other Paris loving signatories aren’t ponying up their fair share. Perhaps we should take it out of the budget we give the United Nations?

UNEP said the true cost of adapting to climate impacts in nations it said are at risk could be as high as $300 billion every year by the end of the decade and $500 billion by mid-century.

How much ends up in the pockets of dictators and UN employees?

As Breitbart News reported, the U.S. was singled out in 2019 by the globalist body and told it cannot avoid compensating poorer nations hit by climate change.

Sure we can. Same as most of the rest of the nations who are still in Paris. Of course, Joe will rejoin and send money that wasn’t authorized by Congress.

Read: UN Demands Money For Paris Agreement, China Joe Ready To Comply »

Posted in Global Warming, Joe Biden, UN | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 18, 2021 – 1:00 pm

…are wonderful carbon sucking trees, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Blazing Cat Fur, with a post on ice cream from China contaminated with Bat Soup Virus.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 30 Comments | Trackback URL

Who’s Up For Social Distancing Dog Collars?

By William Teach January 18, 2021 – 10:30 am

I’m not sure how I’m supposed to feel about this

High Decibel Social Distancing ‘Dog Collars’ for Factory Workers Deployed

A Swedish manufacturer in France has been accused of treating their employees like dogs after the company asked its workers to wear a social distancing device that emits a high decibel sound if employees are too close to each other.

The French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT), the largest union representing workers at Essity, a Swedish global hygiene and health company, compared the device to a dog collar, saying it is “a system comparable to that which deters dogs from barking”.

The CFDT said according to the French newspaper Le Monde, that the necklaces emit a sound of 85 decibels as soon as “social distancing is no longer respected”.

CFDT union representative Christine Duguet said that “the idea is to discipline employees and call them to order,” going on to say that the implementation of the system represents “an attack on individual freedoms”.

“Since the start of the pandemic, we have scrupulously respected distancing and wearing masks. We wear them all day, we are responsible people!” she protested.

You can see a video, in French, here or at the above link. Now, on one hand, they really look more like uncomfortable necklaces for fall prone seniors, and, let’s face it, people are social distancing less and less, because they feel that the mask is enough, plus, COVID fatigue. So, yes, we need to social distance. I’ve had more people lately wanting to shake hands or bump elbows or bump fists. No. One customer, not mine, left when the rep refused to shake hands. Bye! On the other hand, perhaps it would be better if supervisors wandered around.

According to Le Parisien, the company has already deployed the system in the United Kingdom and has been testing it in the Netherlands.

A company spokesman told the AFP that it is just being “tested” in France.

Coming to the rest of the 1st World, including America?

Responding to the story, the president of the Popular Republican Union party in France, François Asselineau, said: “The next stage will be an electric shock of 380 volts between the 2 offenders.”

I’m sure he was joking, but, I wouldn’t mind if people who get too close to me get a mild shock.

Read: Who’s Up For Social Distancing Dog Collars? »

Posted in Bat Soup Virus | Comments Off on Who’s Up For Social Distancing Dog Collars? | Trackback URL

The Earth Is Dying Faster Than We Thought Or Something

By William Teach January 18, 2021 – 7:03 am

We can solve this with a tax, you know

The planet is dying faster than we thought

Humanity is barreling toward a “ghastly future” of mass extinctions, health crises and constant climate-induced disruptions to society — one that can only be prevented if world leaders start taking environmental threats seriously, scientists warn in a new paper published Jan. 13 in the journal Frontiers in Conservation Science.

In the paper, a team of 17 researchers based in the United States, Mexico and Australia describes three major crises facing life on Earth: climate disruption, biodiversity decline and human overconsumption and overpopulation. Citing more than 150 studies, the team argues that these three crises — which are poised only to escalate in the coming decades — put Earth in a more precarious position than most people realize, and could even jeopardize the human race.

The point of the new paper isn’t to scold average citizens or warn that all is lost, the authors wrote — but rather, to plainly describe the threats facing our planet so that people (and hopefully political leaders) start taking them seriously and planning mitigating actions, before it’s too late.

So, the point is to scold average citizens, while ignoring all the elites who run around in big limos and private jets, living in their giant mansions, etc., who want to institute policies that control the average citizen

“Ours is not a call to surrender,” the authors wrote in their paper. “We aim to provide leaders with a realistic ‘cold shower’ of the state of the planet that is essential for planning to avoid a ghastly future.”

See? The leaders will institute policy.

What will that future look like? For starters, the team writes, nature will be a lot lonelier. Since the start of agriculture 11,000 years ago, Earth has lost an estimated 50% of its terrestrial plants and roughly 20% of its animal biodiversity, the authors said, citing two studies, one from 2018 and the other from 2019. If current trends continue, as many as 1 million of Earth’s 7 million to 10 million plant and animal species could face extinction in the near future, according to the new paper.

Yes, we do have a big biodiversity loss, that is true. All the urban areas full of leftists do not help, right? Climate cultists blame this all on ‘climate change’, of course.

Meanwhile, those same phenomena that cause natural disasters are all predicted to become stronger and more frequent due to global climate change. These disasters, coupled with climate-induced droughts and sea-level rise, could mean 1 billion people would become climate refugees by the year 2050, forcing mass migrations that further endanger human lives and disrupt society.

Overpopulation will not make anything easier.

Obviously, they do not mention the policy ideas of the extreme enviros and Warmists, which is to restrict population in 3rd world areas, especially where black and brown people live, just like their eugenicist (and racist) god, Margaret Sanger, wanted. And the extreme extremes simply want to kill people off, mostly in areas like Africa and Asia.

“If most of the world’s population truly understood and appreciated the magnitude of the crises we summarize here, and the inevitability of worsening conditions, one could logically expect positive changes in politics and policies to match the gravity of the existential threats,” the team wrote. “But the opposite is unfolding.”

Well, Warmists keep telling us we’re Doooooooomed, yet, they do nothing in their own lives. Go figure.

Read: The Earth Is Dying Faster Than We Thought Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Enviroweenies, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove