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

Impeach Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd! He thinks the General Assembly doesn't matter

We knew that this bovine feces would happen!

Judge rules in Beshear’s favor, blocks laws limiting governor’s COVID-19 powers

By Jack Brammer | March 3, 2021 |3:31 PM EST

Franklin Circuit Judge and Authoritarian Enabler Phillip Shepherd. Photo: Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts.

Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd temporarily blocked Thursday three new laws that limit the governor’s powers to deal with emergencies like the coronavirus pandemic.

In a 23-page order that is a legal victory for Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and a defeat for the Kentucky General Assembly, the judge granted Beshear’s motion for a temporary injunction and partially stayed the effectiveness of the three new laws the legislature approved earlier this year.

Besherar spokeswoman Crystal Staley said, “We appreciate the order. The ability to act and react quickly is necessary in our war against the ever-changing and mutating virus.

Apparently, according to Judge Shepherd, ‘need’ defines the Governor’s powers, not the General Assembly. What powers wouldn’t the Governor have, if he declares a state of emergency, under this kind of standard?

Shepherd said the court “is mindful that the challenged legislation seeks to address a legitimate problem of effective legislative oversight of the governor’s emergency powers in this extraordinary public health crisis” but “is also mindful that the governor and the secretary (Health and Family Services Secretary Eric Friedlander) are faced with the enormous challenge of effectively responding to a world-wide pandemic that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of Kentuckians and over 500,000 people in the United States.”

Republicans campaigned against the authoritarian use of power by Governor Beshear in last November’s elections, and the voters rewarded the GOP with 14 additional seats in the state House of Representatives, bringing their majority to 75-25, and 2 additional seats in the state Senate, bringing their majority to 30-8.[1]Only 19 of the 38 seats were up for election in the state Senate.

The judge said all parties in the case “are acting in good faith to address public policy challenges of the utmost importance” but “the governor has made a strong case that the legislation, in its current form, is likely to undermine or even cripple, the effectiveness of public health measures necessary to protect the lives and health of Kentuckians from the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Oh, so as long as the Governor is “acting in good faith,” he is exempt from legislative oversight?

The Judge stated that the Governor has been ‘adjusting’ his executive orders to be less restrictive as time passes, as current conditions warrant and public health concerns decrease, but that “the court believes those decisions should be made based on medical and scientific evidence, not on arbitrary deadlines imposed by statutes irrespective of the spread of the virus.” Since when does a judge have the authority to decide what motivates the legislature or whether the legislators have taken their decisions based on the right things?

The governor’s general counsel, Amy Cubbage, recently noted that the current executive orders dealing with COVID-19 would expire March 4 unless the legislature extends them or the court rules in Beshear’s favor.

Did the Governor ask the General Assembly to extend them? The Governor filed suit as soon as the General Assembly overrode his vetoes, but if he attempted to work with the legislature, as Judge Shepherd had “strongly urged” him to do, I found no story in the Lexington Herald-Leader telling us about it. All I could find was an article entitled “‘See you in court,’ Beshear tells legislative leaders on taking up his vetoes this week.”

One hopes that the legislature and Attorney General Daniel Cameron immediately appeal the decision to the state Court of Appeals, which has been friendlier to restraining our authoritarian Governor, but we can count on the Governor then taking it to the state Supreme Court which, though officially non-partisan is in practice controlled by Democrats.

It may be time for a little revolution!

References

References
↑1 Only 19 of the 38 seats were up for election in the state Senate.
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

Nate to the rescue!

From what I used to call the Curious-Journal:

Beattyville one of many cities hit by flooding in Kentucky

35 Photos | March 2, 2021 | 3:14 PM EST

Search and rescue volunteer, Nate Lair, drives a boat through downtown Beattyville after heavy rains led to the Kentucky River flooding the town and breaking records last set in 1957. March 1, 2021
Alton Strupp / Louisville Courier-Journal

Note that Mr Lair is piloting that boat down one of the main streets in Beattyville. Last I knew, there wasn’t supposed to be deep water in the middle of the street.

My good friend — OK, OK, I’ve never actually met her! — Heather Long wrote a series about Beattyville, Kentucky, when she was still with CNN, a place called the “poorest white town in America” from 2008 to 2012. These floods are the last thing the people of Lee County and Beattyville need.

It’s been a few years now, but Beattyville is still poor . . . and the next county over from where I live. The Kentucky River has flooded my property as well, with water into the crawlspace, and, sadly, 3½ feet into my shop/garage, but it stayed in the concrete block foundation area, and didn’t get into the wooden sills, beams and floor joists of the house. I’m sure that my furnace, which is in the crawl space, is shot, but it was 20 to 25 years old. I may have to rip out and replace some of the insulation between the joists, but I can do that work myself. The main thing is: we didn’t lose our home, something too many people around here — and one is too many — can’t say. My thanks to William Teach for contributing articles to this site, because I wasn’t sure that I’d have sparktricity through all of this.

The river gauge closest to my house, in Ravenna, got stuck, and the last reading was from 5:30 PM yesterday. The water definitely got higher than the 38.11 feet registered then, cresting at my house at sometime around 10:00 this morning. It’s starting to recede now.

And it’s been neighbors helping neighbors. Steve, a guy as poor as a church mouse, brought me two electric heaters to use to warm the place up. Chad, a volunteer fireman, brought two kerosene heaters, one for my (only) neighbor and one for me. Since I now have the two electric heaters, I told David, the neighbor, to keep them both for now. Tomorrow, I’ll (probably) be helping David set his propane tank right.

Main Street in the city of Beattyville sits underwater following heavy rains which caused the Kentucky River to flood, Tuesday, March 3, 2021. Alex Slitz / Lexington Herald-Leader

Posted on by

Our Betters believe COVID-19 restrictions are being eased too quickly

The vaccines are out, and some states are loosening their (mostly unconstitutional) restrictions, so naturally the left are worried:

The positive signs come with caveats. Though the national statistics have improved drastically since January, they have plateaued in the last week or so, and the United States is still reporting more than 65,000 new cases a day on average — comparable to the peak of last summer’s surge, according to a New York Times database. The country is still averaging about 2,000 deaths per day, though deaths are a lagging indicator because it can take weeks for patients to die.

More contagious variants of the virus are circulating in the country, with the potential to push case counts upward again. Testing has fallen 30 percent in recent weeks, leaving experts worried about how quickly new outbreaks will be known. And millions of Americans are still waiting to be vaccinated.

Given all that, some experts worry that the reopenings are coming a bit too soon.

“We’re, hopefully, in between what I hope will be the last big wave, and the beginning of the period where I hope Covid will become very uncommon,” said Robert Horsburgh, an epidemiologist at the Boston University School of Public Health. “But we don’t know that. I’ve been advocating for us to just hang tight for four to six more weeks.”

The director of the C.D.C., Dr. Rochelle Walensky, said at the briefing on Monday that she was “really worried” about the rollbacks of restrictions in some states. She cautioned that with the decline in cases “stalling” and with variants spreading, “we stand to completely lose the hard-earned ground we have gained.”

And the plateauing case levels “must be taken extremely seriously,” Dr. Walensky warned at a briefing last week. She added: “I know people are tired; they want to get back to life, to normal. But we’re not there yet.”

There’s more at the link.

Let’s face it: disease control experts would like for us to wear face masks and practice social distancing for the rest of our lives. After COVID-19 is over — if it’s ever over — they’ll insist on masks every flu season.

CDC: COVID-19 Wiped Out the Flu Around the World This Year

Community mitigation measures halted the other pandemic here and abroad… but winter is coming

by Molly Walker, Associate Editor, MedPage Today September 17, 2020

Flu numbers in the U.S. were historically low during COVID-19 in the spring, with deep declines also occurring in the recently completed Southern Hemisphere flu season, CDC researchers found.

Influenza positivity rates in specimens tested (a standard metric of community flu activity) fell 98% in 2020 during March 1-May 16 relative to Sept 29, 2019-Feb. 29, 2020, plummeting from a median of 19.34% to 0.33%, reported Sonja Olsen, PhD, of the CDC in Atlanta, and colleagues.

Indeed, circulation of influenza in the U.S. hit historic lows in summer 2020, with a median of 0.20% positive tests from May 17-August 8 versus 1%-2% from 2017-2019, the authors wrote in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. A graph indicated that influenza positivity rates dropped off sharply, approaching zero by early April — a time that, in previous seasons, it hovered around 15%.

Olsen and colleagues noted they used March 1 as a benchmark because it was closest to when the U.S. declared COVID-19 a public health emergency, and when “widespread implementation” of community measures such as school closures, social distancing, and mask wearing started around the country.

Because influenza is less transmissible than SARS-CoV-2, these measures “likely contributed to a more substantial interruption in influenza transmission,” according to Olsen and colleagues. “Although causality cannot be inferred from these ecological comparisons, the consistent trends over time and place are compelling and biologically plausible.”

So, if the draconian measures imposed to reduce transmission of COVID-19 brought transmission of influenza to almost a halt, and we have allowed elected officials to impose those measures due to COVID-19 and get away with it, what is to prevent them from imposing the same restrictions every flu season? After all, we are being told, it worked, didn’t it?

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.

Posted on by

Democrats Not Taking Potential Death Of $15 Minimum In “COVID” Bill Very Well

But, then, it’s nothing new for hardcore Leftist to lose their minds when they don’t get their way, much like a 2 year old losing their minds of really dumb things

Liberals on fire over failure on $15 minimum wage

“Why is my child crying”

Liberal senators and outside pressure groups are steaming over the Senate’s seeming failure to move a COVID-19 relief package with a provision hiking the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour.

An adverse decision from the Senate parliamentarian means Democrats can’t move the $15 minimum using special budgetary rules meant to sidestep the filibuster.

That is leading to calls to overrule or fire the parliamentarian, or to get rid of the filibuster, which essentially requires legislation to secure 60 votes to proceed through the Senate.

Don’t like the rules? Fire the person who explains them and try and install someone who’ll ignore the rules. If they get rid of the filibuster they should remember that they won’t have control of the Senate forever, and you know they’ll caterwaul when the GOP runs roughshod over the minority party. If the minimum wage going to $15 is so popular, why not pass a separate bill? Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema have both stated they won’t vote for it in what is supposed to be a COVID relief bill, so even nuking the filibuster would leave Dems a few votes short of passage, but, they would be open to doing it separately.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the Senate’s leading proponent of a $15-an-hour minimum wage, on Monday called on Democratic colleagues to “ignore” the parliamentarian’s ruling and pledged he would force a vote on the issue his week.

“My personal view is that the idea that we have a Senate staffer, a high-ranking staffer, deciding whether 30 million Americans get a pay raise or not is non-sensical,” he said. “We have got to make that decision, not a staffer who’s unelected, so my own view is that we should ignore the rulings, the decision of the parliamentarian.”

So, don’t listen to the person who understand the rules. This brings to mind the old saying about the US being a nation of Law, not of Men. But, go ahead and attempt to pass it. If you manage via reconciliation there will be lots of lawsuits filed immediately, and no one will get COVID relief.

Nearly two dozen House progressives called on Biden and Vice President Harris to overturn the parliamentarian’s ruling, something that would require the support of all 50 Senate Democrats plus Vice President Harris’s tie-breaking vote.

“Eighty-one million people cast their ballots to elect you on a platform that called for a $15 minimum wage,” the progressive lawmakers wrote in a letter to Biden and Harris.

“We urge you to keep that promise and call on the Presiding Officer of the Senate to refute the Senate Parliamentarian’s advice … and maintain the $15 minimum wage provision in the American Rescue Plan,” they wrote.

Again, if it’s so darned popular, why do the Democrats have to play this game of sticking it in what’s supposed to be about COVID relief?

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), another influential progressive who ran a strong campaign for president in 2020, said Monday she supports a vote to overrule the parliamentarian but said the bigger problem is the Senate’s filibuster rule, which requires that legislation pass with 60 votes if it faces procedural objections.

“If we would get rid of the filibuster, then we wouldn’t have to keep trying to force the camel through the eye of the needle. Instead, we would do what the majority of Americans want us to do, and in this particular case, that’s raise the minimum wage,” Warren added.

Joe Manchin won’t vote to get rid of it, and, there are those quiet Democrats out there who may not, either, knowing that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and there’s an old saying about coming back to bite one in the ass.

Brian Fallon, the executive director of Demand Justice, another progressive advocacy group, is also urging Senate Democrats to overrule the parliamentarian.

“Overrule the parliamentarian or end the filibuster. Senate process is not an excuse for failure to get results,” he tweeted.

The people screaming about following the rules in our Democracy!!!!! are the same ones saying to ditch the rules for convenience.

Meanwhile, since we’re talking supposed COVID relief

California poised for $19 billion surplus, despite COVID-19 lockdowns

By the end of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic eviscerated roughly 1.6 million jobs in California and slashed the value of business properties by more than 30%. Despite it all, California managed to collect $10.5 billion more in taxes than predicted, putting the state on track for a $19 billion surplus to spend by the end of the fiscal year on July 1.

It’s so much money that, for just the second time ever, the state is projected to trigger a state law requiring the government to send refunds to taxpayers.

This doesn’t even get into the notion of how much California might have saved from government outlays being a lot lower with people on furlough, from not having to use much electricity and water at many state government buildings, etc. So, why is it necessary to have the huge slush fund for state and local governments in the COVID bill? Money states and cities do not actually need?

Posted on by

Maybe gun ownership isn’t the problem?

As always, I check the Philadelphia Police Department’s Current Crime Statistics page, and I found that the City of Brotherly Love had seen 77 homicides through the end of February, compared to ‘just’ 60 on February 28th last year. 2020 was in second place, all time, for Philadelphia, with 499 homicides, and it looks like the good people of Philly have taken beating the record of 500, set in 1992, as a personal challenge.

Then I came across this interesting map. You can click on it to double its size.

It seems that Philadelphia, with its population of 1,579,000 has a murder rate of 31.60 per 100,000 population, all in a state in which 37.1% of the people own firearms. Meanwhile, in Lexington, Kentucky, a city of 320,601 people, there were 34 homicides all of last year. That makes Lexington’s homicide rate 10.60 per 100,000 population, yet 42.4% of the people in the Commonwealth of Kentucky own firearms.

If the problem is too many guns, why is Philly thrice as dangerous as Lexington?

If you look at that map, you’ll see that some of the real murder capitals in our country — Chicago, Baltimore, St Louis and anyplace in New Jersey — are in states which have lower rates of firearms ownership.

How can that be?

The left seem to think that restricting the rights of people who have not committed any crimes will somehow reduce the violent crime rate, but the numbers don’t appear to bear that out. And while it could be argued that the map does not account for people who have firearms illegally, that completely undercuts any arguments that restricting legal gun ownership will reduce crime.

The only thing that will do is make crime victims more helpless.