Author Archives: William Teach

Posted on by

Surprise: Michael “Robust Debate” Mann Claims Hurricane Activity Is Your Fault

His big tree ring study leading to the “hockey stick” was a bunch of mule fritters, so, sure, let’s listen to him again as he fear mongers

Humans, not nature, are the cause of changes in Atlantic hurricane cycles, new study finds

It’s well known in science that for more than a century hurricane activity in the Atlantic Ocean has oscillated between active and inactive periods, each lasting a few decades. For the past couple of decades, meteorologists and climate scientists have believed that this ebb and flow was due to a natural warming and cooling cycle built into the climate system called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or AMO.

The term was coined in the year 2000 by world-renowned climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University and author of the new book “The New Climate War.” The concept of the AMO has become ubiquitous in explanations and forecasts of active or inactive hurricane seasons.

The image below, from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), shows how hurricane activity seems to flow in roughly 60-year waves — active for around 30 years when the Atlantic in its warm phase and inactive for around 30 years when in the cool phase.

But today, in a newly released paper in the journal Science, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation may have been dealt a deadly blow — by the very man who named it. Mann now concludes the AMO is very likely an artifact of climate change, driven by “human forcing” from rising carbon emissions in the modern era and “natural forcing” due to massive volcanic eruptions in pre-industrial times.

It’s just very convenient that Mann, along with the rest of the Cult of Climastrology, can say “see, back then it was all nature but now it’s Your Fault,” eh?

The finding — which is bound to generate significant controversy and pushback from the weather and climate communities due to how broadly accepted the concept of the AMO has become — may very well shake the foundations of understanding of what has been driving historical hurricane cycles.

Simply put, if true, this discovery means that during the 20th century and beyond, humans — not natural variability — have been the main driving force in the up-and-down cycles of hurricane activity in the Atlantic Ocean.

I wonder how many faulty premises and data points will be in this study? Meh, it matters little to the Cult, because this now gives them an excuse to call for more taxes and government Authority.

 

Posted on by

Democrats Join Republicans In Scuttling $15 Minimum Wage From Senate COVID Bill

Donald Trump was 100% correct that this is something that states/cities should enact, not the federal government

Group of Senate Democrats and Republicans vote to keep $15 minimum wage out of Biden’s COVID stimulus bill

A group of Democratic senators joined all Senate Republicans in voting against Sen. Bernie Sanders’ proposal to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour on Friday.

The Vermont independent tried to add the provision to President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 stimulus bill as the Senate considered the $1.9 trillion measure. But the effort failed in a 58-42 vote with eight members of the Senate Democratic caucus voting against it.

The vote started at 11:03 a.m. EST Friday and didn’t officially end for nearly 12 hours as Democrats and Republicans negotiated changes to an extension of unemployment benefits.

The outcome of the vote could spell trouble for future Democratic attempts to raise the minimum wage, something Biden included in his initial stimulus proposal that passed the House last week.

It may or may not cause trouble in the future if they bring up a clean bill that is simply about raising the minimum wage, rather than including it in a completely unrelated bill, and, by unrelated, the minimum wage has nothing to do with COVID relief (and most of the bill is unrelated to COVID relief). It would have been against the ruled to include a minimum wage increase in the bill that they know they will have to reconcile (which also shows that it is highly partisan if they have to go that route.)

Republicans have been united against the $15 proposal, citing opposition by some small businesses and an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office which estimates it would result in the loss of as many as 1.4 million jobs. The same analysis said it would boost the pay for as many as 27 million Americans and would lift nearly 1 million out of poverty.

Higher wages increase the cost to employers of producing goods and services, and those costs are generally passed on to consumers who usually react by purchasing fewer goods and services, according to the CBO. As a consequence, employers faced with having to scale back their output usually cut back their workforce.

I’m rather shocked that the USA Today allowed that 2nd paragraph, despite being the truth as to how the economy and consumers react. The question now is not about how many times Comrade Bernie will attempt to add the $15 MW to unrelated bills, but, 1. whether the GOP can kill off lots of the unrelated garbage and unnecessary spending

and 2. what happens when the reconciled bill is reconciled with the House version, which does contain the $15 MW increase. Will the House drop it, or try to force it back in even with the knowledge that it won’t pass the Senate? And another question, why hasn’t the GOP simply submitted legislation that provides for the $1,400 checks, unemployment relief, vaccinations, and other COVID specific measures? Heck, introduce one for the checks as a stand alone, force Dems to vote on it.

Posted on by

How Farmers Can (Be Forced By Government) To Fight Climate Apocalypse Or Something

It’s always great when people who aren’t anywhere close to being experts, or even amateurs, in a field like to tell the experts how to do their jobs

How farmers could fight climate change (and make a profit)

Agriculture has never been a principal focus of efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. But farm emissions — which make up about 10% of the U.S. total — are coming under increasing scrutiny as Democrats take the reins of agricultural policy and farmers themselves awaken to the threats of climate change. One strategy in particular is getting attention this year: encouraging farmers to view emissions reduction and carbon sequestration as potential sources of income.

The idea is fairly straightforward. Farmers would take steps to reduce their carbon output, such as reducing tillage to avoid releasing soil carbon, planting cover crops to hold carbon in the soil, applying manure treatments and “digesters” to limit emissions of methane, and using nitrogen fertilizer more precisely to lower nitrous-oxide emissions. In return, they could sell credits to companies looking to reduce their own climate footprint. Private markets for such credits are already springing up, and Congress took measures to encourage similar exchanges in the 2008 Farm Bill.

So, Democrats are going to use government force to “encourage” farmers to not use their fields to grow food, and to use older, less safe processes like spraying shit instead of modern treatments on the growing food. And the farmers will somehow make money by selling credits on these mythical private markets for credits, which are really backed by and mandated by Government.

But much about this concept has yet to be worked out, notably the basic question of how to measure the climate value of various farming practices. Here the U.S. Department of Agriculture could help. A Senate bill introduced last year would direct the USDA to create standards for measuring the effectiveness of climate-protection measures on farms, certify people to help farmers take such measurements and verify their value, and work with the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor private carbon-credit markets.

More government interference and control of the agriculture sector. Which means cost increases for food. All for a mythical problem.

Such exchanges could go a long way toward encouraging farmers to reduce emissions and sequester carbon. But they won’t work unless regulators can ensure that they’ll actually bring substantial climate benefits. The danger is that a carbon-credit system might instead mainly enable airlines, investment funds, energy firms, agribusinesses and other companies to excuse their own greenhouse-gas emissions by purchasing inexpensive and largely meaningless offsets.

It won’t make a difference in the climate at all. It will make farmers, who are independent spirits, resist like heck.

By setting standards for measurement and verification, and monitoring the private markets, the USDA can maximize the potential of “carbon farming.” It can also extend the benefits beyond the big operations, which can most easily demonstrate emissions reductions, to smaller farms — by helping them participate in collective efforts. If such measurements proved reliable, the Biden administration’s proposal to create a government “carbon bank” — which would buy credits from farmers for a guaranteed price per ton — might act as a powerful incentive for farmers big and small.

Sure sounds less like a private market and more like government dominance, eh?

That said, carbon trading does hold significant promise for limiting emissions on the farm — so long as it’s based on verifiable practices that will allow markets to accurately value the credits. The first step is to get the right data.

I suggest that would start implementing these types of carbon trading schemes on credentialed news outlets, print, TV, and even Internet, let’s see if they’re good with trading schemes when they apply to their own industry. No? They’d be mad? Huh.

Posted on by

Washington Post Complains That 1,400 Americans Died During Reading Of COVID “Relief” Bill

The Credentialed Media seems pretty upset that a $1.9 trillion bill, which has very little in the way of actual COVID relief, was forced to be read on the Senate floor. Seriously, why is it necessary for anyone to know what’s in it, and for Senators who are going to vote on it to understand what they’re voting for?

Action on Stimulus Bill Halts as Senate Clerks Read All 628 Pages Aloud

With President Biden’s nearly $2 trillion stimulus bill moving toward passage, Senator Ron Johnson brought proceedings to a halt on Thursday by demanding that Senate clerks recite the 628-page plan word by word, delaying action to register his objections.

The maneuver by Mr. Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, was unlikely to change any minds about the sweeping pandemic aid plan, which would deliver hundreds of billions of dollars for vaccine distribution, schools, jobless aid, direct payments to Americans and small business relief, and has broad bipartisan support among voters. Republicans signaled that they would be unified against it, and Democrats were ready to push it through on their own, using a special fast-track process to blow past the opposition.

But in the Senate, where even the most mundane tasks are subject to arcane rules, any senator can exploit them to cause havoc. The exercise was Republicans’ latest effort to score political points against a measure they were powerless to stop and to punish Democrats with a time-consuming, boredom-inducing chore.

“Is he allowed?” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, muttered quietly when Mr. Johnson tried to explain after demanding the reading.

You can pick up the derision from the NY Times that someone would dare do this, right? Many other outlets take a similar tone. But, nothing tops Philip Bump at the Washington Post for pure, unadulterated moonbattery

While the Senate reads the coronavirus relief bill, nearly 1,400 Americans may die from the virus

Shortly after Jan. 5, it became apparent that Congress was likely to pass legislation substantially bolstering economic relief provided in response to the coronavirus pandemic. What changed was that two Democrats won runoff races for the Senate in Georgia, giving the party and incoming President Biden enough votes to pass the bill Biden wanted to see.

It’s been nearly two months since that election and, after passing the House, the $1.9 trillion bill is awaiting a vote in the Senate. But that won’t happen for a while yet, not because there aren’t the votes to pass it but, instead, because Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) has decided to force the chamber to read the 628-page bill in its entirety. The effect isn’t to change the outcome. Instead, it’s to delay the inevitable. (snip)

It’s meant to be a nuisance. But, as CNN’s Brian Fung pointed out on Twitter, it carries an additional weight this time. Included in the funding bill is financial support for millions of Americans, as well as billions of dollars meant to bolster vaccine distribution and testing — tools which could bring the pandemic to an end more quickly.

At this moment, on this issue, time can be measured in human lives. On average, nearly 2,000 people a day are dying from covid-19, the disease caused by the virus. That’s a death about once every 44 seconds. It’s an improvement over the end of January, when people were dying at a rate faster than two a minute. But it’s still a far faster rate than the country had seen for much of the pandemic.

Got that? The Democratic Party controlled House sat on putting forth a bill and voting on it (actually, much longer because Democrats refused to provide much in the way of help because it would hurt Trump) for months (and they filled it with a partisan wish list, unrelated to COVID measures, and unnecessary spending) then sat on it for a week or so before sending to the Senate, but, only now is taking a few hours to read a crazy bill a problem and killing Americans.

How much of this bill actually saves American lives? Just 1% is for vaccination. Heck, it doesn’t even have the $2,000 checks Biden promised again and again (he never promised it would add to the $600 to make that $2K). 99% of it won’t save American lives, and, if this was so darned important, why didn’t they take it up in January? The House could have sent it over to the Senate the minute the Georgia Dem Senators took their seats. But, no.

Given the current rate at which people are dying of covid-19, we can expect just shy of 1,400 Americans to succumb to the disease during that period.

It’s not the case that those lives would have been saved had the bill passed sooner. But it is the case that more immediate assistance for things like vaccines or bolstering people’s bank accounts is better than slower relief. Again, the question isn’t if the bill passes, it’s when. In that context, the argument for a 17-hour delay isn’t a robust one.

The same people that constantly yammer about Saving Our Democracy are mad when Democracy is in action, when people have to actually be told what is in a bill. A 17 hour delay when Democrats have basically been jamming up relief for 8 months.

Posted on by

#Unity: House Passes Partisan Police “Reform” Act Named After George Floyd

Democrats decided to take some sound ideas and ramp them up to Partisan Category 4

House Approves Police Reform Bill Named After George Floyd

House lawmakers on Wednesday passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, a police reform bill that would ban chokeholds and eliminate qualified immunity for law enforcement. The 220-212 vote came nine months after Floyd, a 46-year-old Black man, was killed by Minneapolis police officers last spring.

The wide-ranging legislation would also ban no-knock warrants, mandate data collection on police encounters, prohibit racial and religious profiling and redirect funding to community-based policing programs.

“Never again should an unarmed individual be murdered or brutalized by someone who is supposed to serve and protect them,” said Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., in a statement. “Never again should the world be subject to witnessing what we saw happen to George Floyd in the streets in Minnesota.”

Banning chokeholds is nice, but, sometimes police need to use them to grab hold of a perp. It’s easy to ban them, but, in practice, when an officer is attempting to grab hold of a violent criminal, it is the easiest way to grab them. It’s knowing when to let go. But, it’s doing away with qualified immunity that is the worst part of this, and will lead to huge numbers of police officers quitting the force, especially in Democratic Party run areas where crime is rampant, and would see fewer people wanting to be police officers, making the rest of us who aren’t criminals less safe.

No knock warrants are a big problem, but shouldn’t be banned: they should be reformed to make sure there are more safeguards and a stronger approval method. Profiling? We all profile constantly, and police use profiles to understand potential crimes. “Community based policing programs”? Left wing idiocy which will make the rest of us less safe.

In debate on the House floor Wednesday evening before the vote, Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota said Minneapolis is still traumatized by Floyd’s death. “Time and time again we have witnessed the people who are sworn to protect our communities abuse their power,” she said.

Traumatized? She didn’t know George Floyd. Or his family. She’s just grandstanding. Perhaps she should ask the business owners who saw their businesses trashed by the rioters. And those who were assaulted. The families of those who couldn’t get their loved one to a hospital because Ilhan’s peeps were blocking the streets, or a fire truck couldn’t make it through the blocked roads.

(KYOUTV) Iowa Congresswomen Ashley Hinson and Mariannette Miller-Meeks both issued statements on their opposition to The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives by a narrow vote of 220-212 on Wednesday night.

In Hinson’s statement, she wrote that “Law enforcement officers in Iowa and across this country put their lives on the line every day to keep our communities safe. It’s reprehensible that House Democrats would bring forward legislation to defund police departments while relying on law enforcement to protect our Capitol from imminent threats...In a chamber safeguarded by Capitol Police.

In her statement, Miller-Meeks wrote that “We need serious bipartisan police reform that holds bad officers accountable” but that “The Justice in Policing Act would eliminate qualified immunity, which would make recruitment and retention difficult,” adding that “In effect, this is a backdoor way to defund the police.”

And this bill would interfere with States Rights on how to run their police departments. This is, as usual, a highly partisan bill. The GOP attempted to pass Senator Tim Scott’s JUSTICE Act, which was well thought out and didn’t destroy the police, but, Democrats blocked it with the filibuster (you know, that thing Democrats say they hate). Dems already knew the George Floyd bill was 100% partisan, but, still voted and passed it again. And, again, the only way it makes it through the Senate is with nuking the filibuster.

Posted on by

#Unity: House Passes HR1, The “For The Democratic Party Power Act”

Democrats gave this bill a whirl last year, when it passed on strictly party lines, and then was never brought up in the Senate, because it is a Category 5 partisan bill. The Institute for Free Speech obliterated it when it was first introduced in early 2019, because it is great for certain politicians, bad for groups, citizens, and free speech. This was one of the things I was warning about if people decided to vote for Biden because Trump has mean tweets

House passes voting rights and elections reform bill

The House passed a sweeping election reform and voting rights bill along party lines on Wednesday in a 220-210 vote.

The For The People Act, better known as H.R. 1 — has been a top priority for Democrats, who argue restoring voters’ faith in the electoral process is more important than ever after former President Trump repeatedly asserted unfounded claims the election was stolen. The Biden administration has strongly advocated for its passage.

“In the wake of an unprecedented assault on our democracy, a never before seen effort to ignore, undermine, and undo the will of the people, and a newly aggressive attack on voting rights taking place right now all across the country, this landmark legislation is urgently needed to protect the right to vote and the integrity of our elections, and to repair and strengthen American democracy,” the White House said in a statement of administrative policy.

The measure would require states to offer mail-in ballots, a minimum of 15 days of early voting and calls for online and same-day voter registration. The legislation also calls for the creation of independent commissions to draw congressional districts in an effort to put an end to partisan gerrymandering. It would also provide additional resources to stave off foreign threats on elections, enable automatic voter registration, and would make Election Day a national holiday for federal workers.

Supporters of the bill said it’s a necessary step to restore faith in the electoral system and tackle dark money in politics, arguing it expands voting rights, increases transparency in elections and creates new ethics rules to tamp down on corruption.

Under the legislation, the Citizens United Supreme Court case, which dissolved certain limits on corporate and union political spending, would be overturned and coordination between super PACs and candidates would be prohibited.

That’s rather the way most articles from the Credentialed Media go, lauding the bill in flowing terms. But, there’s a reason why it was passed twice strictly on party lines

Republicans have blasted the measure as a power grab by Democrats, arguing that the provision allowing for voters to designate a person to return their ballot equates to ballot harvesting and opens the door for election fraud. They have also slammed language allowing felons to vote.

“Second: H.R. 1 would legalize voting for convicted felons all over the country even if they were convicted of election fraud. Does that make sense to you? Not only is this dangerous, it’s unconstitutional,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said in a floor speech on Tuesday.

“Third: H.R. 1 would weaken the security of our elections and make it harder to protect against voter fraud. Here’s how: It would automatically register voters from DMV and other government databases. Voting is a right, not a mandate,” McCarthy said. “In most cases, this legislation would actually prevent officials from removing ineligible voters from the rolls and would make it much more difficult to verify the accuracy of voter information. So future voters might be underage or dead or illegal immigrants or registered two or three times. Democrats just don’t care.”

It’s actually much worse than that, as John Fund points out

HR 1 would cement all of the worst changes in election law made in blue states in 2020 and nationalize them. Federal control of elections would be the norm. States would be relegated to colonial outposts that carry out Washington DC’s mandates. ‘Democracies die when one party seizes control of the elections process, eliminates the safeguards that have protected the integrity of the ballot, places restrictions on free speech, and seizes the earnings of individual citizens to promote candidates they may abhor,’ says Rep. Tom McClintock, a California Republican. ‘Democracies die by suicide, and we are now face to face with such an instrument.’

Does HR 1 justify such apocalyptic rhetoric? Sadly, yes. Hans von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission, says that while the Constitution does allow Congress to override the power of states to decide ‘the time, manner and place’ of federal elections nothing on the massive scale of HR 1 has ever been attempted.

He consulted other former members and assembled a short summary of the worst provisions of HR 1:

  • Degrade the accuracy of registration lists by requiring states to automatically register all individuals on state and federal databases. This would include many ineligible voters, including aliens
  • It would require states to allow 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to register. Combined with a ban on voter ID, this would allow underage individuals to vote
  • Prevent election officials from checking the eligibility and qualifications of voters and removing ineligible voters
  • Ban state-voter ID laws by forcing states to allow individuals to vote without an ID and merely signing a statement in which they claim they are who they say they are
  • Create vague and broad language that could be used to criminally charge someone who questions the eligibility of a voter
  • Force disclosure of names of Americans who donate to nonprofit organizations — thus subjecting them to political harassment
  • Declare statehood for Washington DC to be ‘constitutional’ despite evidence it is not
  • And finally, HR 1 would effectively ban nonprofits from contacting a member of Congress or their staff about pending legislation — a direct assault on the right of Americans to petition their government

That’s a shortened list of a shortened list. This is all about entrenching Democrats in office, and, notice that there are at least two First Amendment violations. Dare note that someone is ineligible to vote in a situation? You could be held criminally liable. Years ago I made the NC GOP and NC election board aware that I had received in the mail a letter that gave a women residency for voting rights at my address. This person was a Charlotte, NC resident, completely different part of the state. This was an attempt to be able to vote twice. I would be held criminally liable for doing that now. Then you take away the Right of people to petition their government.

This is, really, one of the most partisan bills ever passed in the House. What happened to Joe Biden calling for unity and bipartisanship? Nothing the Democrats are doing is anything but hugely partisan. Can it pass the Senate? The only way is to nuke the filibuster, something Joe Manchin said he would never vote to do. And, if they manage to suspend the filibuster for this vote, they might not get the 50 votes they need to allow Kamala to make it 51. And, if they somehow make it pass, the lawsuits will be amazing, and it is something the Supreme Court would need to take up forth with, since this deals directly with Bill Of Rights matters. If there’s no severability, it would be killed in whole.

Seriously, are Democrats asking for a civil war? Because this is the type of legislation that leads that way.

Quick More: I’d forgotten about one other issue among so many, and this is a big one that would, well, should, kill it in any lawsuits if passed, as pointed out by Betsy McCaughey

The authors of the Constitution worried that Congress would try to seize control of presidential selection using dirty tricks like those in HR 1. That’s why they acted to “to take the business as far as possible out of their hands,” according to Charles Pinckney, a framer from South Carolina.

Congress, said Pinckney, “had no right to meddle” in it. The framers provided in Article II, Sec. 1 that only state legislatures would have the power to determine how the president is chosen. No national rules.

And since every other national election is for president, this would be unconstitutional. And, it would take a constitutional amendment to make D.C. a state.

Posted on by

LA Times ClimaEditorial Board Calls For Banning All Fossil Fueled Vehicles

This begs the question: will the LA Times give up their own use of fossil fueled vehicles to gather and disseminate the news? Will the members of the editorial board declare they have each given up their own fossil fueled vehicles? Perhaps the paper can mandate that employees do not own fossil fueled vehicles? It would be fun to see how the whole of greater LA County runs without fossil fuel vehicles

Editorial: To save the planet from climate change, gas guzzlers have to die

The numbers paint a daunting picture. In 2019, consumers worldwide bought 64 million new personal cars and 27 million new commercial motor vehicles, a paltry 2.1 million of which were electric-powered. Climate scientists tell us that we have less than a decade to make meaningful reductions in carbon emissions — including those from internal combustion engines — if we have any hope of staving off the worst effects of global warming.

Yet manufacturers are still making, and consumers are still buying, overwhelming numbers of vehicles that will, on average, continue to spew carbon into the atmosphere for a dozen years after they first leave the lot. That means new cars bought this year will still be on the road well into the 2030s — long after the point when we should have slashed emissions.

Like we said, a daunting picture.

Manufacturers are still making because consumers are still buying. Consider that the local Honda dealers has 152 regular Accords and 38 Accord Hybrids in stock at the moment (I know they are we low on EXL inventory, with a lot on order). An EXL regular Accord is $32,440. The comparable hybrid is $33,885. The difference in costs is not that much with hybrids these days, but, people still prefer the horsepower of a regular. It’s those who drive a lot or really want the fuel economy (30 city/38 highway vs 48/48). The difference between a Civic and an Insight (really, almost the same car) and a CRV and CRV Hybrid are similar monetarily. It’s simply a choice. And way more will choose the non-hybrid. The thing is, all these hybrids, including Prius’ and plugins, still run primarily on gas, with an electric motor assist. So, they would have to go. Most people have zero interest in a straight plugin. The rollout of the Honda Clarity was such a disaster than they only sell them on the west coast, not even the NE states that had been selling them.

The only straight plugin really selling well is the Tesla, and not many can afford a vehicle in the upper $30k’s.

What will it take to throttle back the gas burners and expand exponentially the number of vehicles that run on electric batteries, hydrogen fuel cells or other non-fossil energy sources? Political will, strong government thumbs on the scale to favor zero-emission vehicles over gas burners (an all-out ban on their production and sale is likely too radical for the world, but it would certainly help), and increased spending on developing and producing clean energy sources, battery technologies and charging capabilities.

In other words, it will take Government flexing their authoritarian muscle. That’s not democracy, as the Dems like to put it, nor is that what takes place in a Constitutional Republic. But, hey, it’s easy for elites who make lots of money to demand these changes which will utterly hose the middle and lower classes.

Still, ending reliance on fossil fuel to power engines will be crucial, and among the most challenging tasks given how deeply insinuated such vehicles have become in global commerce and transit systems, from the personal vehicles we use to fetch groceries to the vessels that move products around the world to the airplanes that take a few hours to shuttle people to places that used to take days or weeks to reach by train or ship.

So, by gas guzzlers the LATEB seems to be also including planes and sea going vessels. I suppose this would include pleasure craft such as SeaDoos and small ski boats. This would hit Leonardo DiCarpio hard, as no more big pleasure yachts. Would this ground high flying Warmists like John Travolta and Harrison Ford? What would be the hit on California, which imports and exports huge amounts of goods via their ports on fossil fueled ships. How many would be out of a job? Warmists just think this stuff can happen without major economic disruption and pain. Because they’re nuts and cultists.

Posted on by

Democrats Reintroduce Universal Background Checks Bills In House And Senate

Surprisingly, this is not as bad as you’d expect from Democrats, which should make people think “what’s the catch?” even if there is no catch

Democratic Senator Chris Murphy introduces universal background check law

Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut is reintroducing legislation Tuesday that would require universal background checks on the sale or transfer of all firearms. Universal background checks are largely supported by Americans but have not gained traction in Congress.

Murphy’s bill, the Background Check Expansion Act, would extend a background check requirement to unlicensed and private firearm sellers before selling a firearm. Current federal law doesn’t require unlicensed sellers to do background checks before transferring firearms.

Polling from gun reform advocacy groups Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords finds 93% of Americans support a background check requirement for all gun sales. In 2019, the House passed a comprehensive background check bill, but it died in the Republican-controlled Senate. Democratic Congressman Mike Thompson of California will introduce the House version of the Senate bill on Tuesday. (snip)

Democrats hoping to pass gun safety laws have a champion in the White House, and President Joe Biden last month called on Congress to pass gun control legislation, including background checks. However, the legislation still requires 10 Republican senators to vote with Democrats to advance the bill, a significant obstacle to passage.

Senator Richard Blumenthal, who is cosponsoring the legislation, is hopeful that this time may be different.

“My conversation with Republicans indicated they get it,” he told reporters Tuesday. “The American people are responding to a political movement that has resulted from Parkland, Sandy Hook, Las Vegas — the shorthand of tragedies that have caused this political movement to be a force that has met this moment of reckoning.”

This legislation was killed in the Senate last November because Murphy asked for unanimous consent and Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith objected, wanting more time to consider and debate. As far as it goes, it is very simple (link to the legislation here), requiring a background check on all firearm transfers, with exceptions being “transfers between law enforcement officers, temporarily loaning firearms for hunting and sporting events, providing firearms as gifts to immediate family members, transferring a firearm as part of an inheritance, or temporarily transferring a firearm for immediate self-defense.” There doesn’t seem to be any tricks in it. There are no requirements to register a firearm with Los Federales or any government agency, or create a public registry, or tell government where you keep your guns, like Sheila Jackson Lee’s bill.

“The overwhelming majority of Americans support ensuring background checks on all gun sales. And for good reason; the loopholes in the current system make it too easy for guns to end up in the hands of those prohibited by law from buying them. It is far past time that Congress answers the call to better protect our communities from senseless gun violence by passing the Background Check Expansion Act,” said Durbin.

Raise your hand if you think criminals will request background checks when giving their criminal friends a firearm. Or when they are stealing one. Raise your hand if you think this will make any difference in criminals shooting each other in places like Chicago. Raise your hand if you think this will make a difference in shootings, because many of the mass shootings were committed by people who passed a background check.

So, if it passes and fails to make a dent in criminals shooting each other, what will the Democrats demand next? It might be worth passing, because then the GOP and 2nd Amendment supporters can say “hey, we just passed a backgrounds check, we need to give it 5-10 years to see if it makes a difference before pushing something more extreme” when Dems try pushing something like Jackson Lee’s bill.

You do have to wonder about poison pills, because the Senate version has exactly zero Republicans as cosponsors. The House version has 2 Republicans, so, of course the media will call this “bipartisan.”

Posted on by

Latest Warmist Idea: 250K Green Apprenticeships For COVID Recovery

Wait, aren’t apprenticeships typically unpaid positions? It’s 2021, not the Middle Ages

Boost pandemic recovery with 250,000 green apprenticeships, Friends of the Earth urges

A vast skills pipeline of 250,000 green apprenticeships leading to full-time jobs across the burgeoning low carbon economy could address both climate breakdown and the post-Covid crisis in youth unemployment, research released today by Friends of the Earth contends.

Carried out by analyst firm Transition Economics on behalf of the green campaign group, the study sets out how a major skills push backed by £10.6bn of government funding to cover wage subsidies and training schemes across the UK could create much-needed jobs in renewable energy, woodland creation, and peatland restoration.

The training could be delivered at a network of national and regional ‘Centres of Excellence for Zero Carbon Skills’ at further education colleges, while diversity measures such as bursaries of £1,500 could help promote participation in green apprenticeships among disadvantaged groups including Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic communities, women, and disabled people, it argues.

Researchers also identified the regions with the greatest potential for green apprenticeship creation. Among combined authority and metro mayor areas, London leads the pack with an estimated potential for over 44,200 green apprenticeships, while West Midlands comes second with 19,400, followed by Greater Manchester with just over 14,000.

But against its estimates for green apprenticeship potential, the report also highlights the current bleak employment outlook for young people in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. If all young people currently without a job remain unemployed for a year, it could result in £39bn in lost wages in the UK over the next two decades, it warns.

That’s around 15 billion U.S. dollars to train people for jobs that barely exist to replace jobs that COVID lockdown killed off. With wage subsidies, because the jobs really aren’t worth all that much on the market (apparently, green jobs are like working at a fast food spot). Especially since they are apparently lots of manual labor jobs, and how many of these youngsters, especially from the cities, are willing to work these types of low skill jobs in the countryside? And, of course, they have to put the racial elements into their little scheme. Why do Leftists always think that “minorities” cannot do anything without the Helpful Hand Of Government? Isn’t that rather racist?

Why does Government have to create these so-called jobs? If there was a call for them the private sector would have created them already.

Perhaps the UK, which was one of the worst nations when it came to lockdowns, could reopen their economy and the jobs could come back.

And reports today suggested tomorrow’s Budget is expected to include a £57m green jobs and skills package for Scotland, in part designed to help workers in the oil industry become skilled in working on cleaner technologies.

What if they don’t want to? What if they like working in the oil industry, and like the money? If the government has to spend lots to subsidize green jobs, perhaps they don’t pay that well.

BTW, if you don’t think the climate crisis (scam) isn’t about far left politics, look at this article and see how they write about it.