Posted on by

Permanent Drought Out. Flash Drought In

Remember all those times the climate cultists yammered about permanent droughts? And then a few years later things went back to normal or got all floody? The doomsday cult now has a solution

‘Flash droughts’: How climate change increases the risk of these short-lived but devastating events

Transcript: (WT note: this comes from an audio recording)

In 2012, spring in the Midwest warmed up early. Corn farmers planted their crops ahead of schedule, and the growing season looked promising.

But then in May and June, almost no rain fell. The extremely dry conditions stunted plant growth and devastated crop yields.

Ford: “By the time we got to mid-July, it was a really dire situation. … So that’s just a matter of maybe six weeks or so where we go from, ‘Yeah, everything’s good,’ to ‘We’re really in trouble.’”

Trent Ford, the Illinois state climatologist, says what happened in 2012 is called a flash drought.

It’s when a lack of rain, paired with hot temperatures that boost evaporation from soils, creates drought conditions that intensify quickly.

As the climate warms, flash droughts are growing more common in many areas – even in places like the Midwest that are also seeing more heavy downpours.

So, just short term droughts that come on quickly and then go away

Ford: “And then we’ve also had some recent flash droughts in the southeast U.S., parts of Tennessee, Carolinas. … That area, of course, is very heavily vegetated, and when it dries out, it creates a lot of fuel for wildfires.”

So although flash droughts may be shorter-lived than the prolonged droughts that plague the Western U.S. and other very dry regions, they can cause major damage.

Will this notion of flash droughts catch on in the Credentialed Media as a doomsday talking point, replacing permanent drought? Time will tell.

Posted on by

Appeals Court Says Planned Parenthood Ghouls Can Be Blocked From Medicaid Money

The US taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for irresponsible women to have abortions (yeah, and the men where irresponsible, as well. But, they can’t get knocked up). If they want to pay, let them. And Planned Parenthood makes more than enough yearly without government money

Trump administration can stop Medicaid spending to Planned Parenthood for now, appeals court rules

A federal appeals court is allowing the Trump administration to move forward in its plan to stop providing Medicaid reimbursement to large abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, for now.

The 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals gave the order on Thursday, while appeals continue over the legality of the section of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax and spending cuts bill law passed by Congress that restricts Medicaid funding.

The appeals court said the Trump administration can halt the funding, overriding a lower court that blocked it from doing so.

The Trump administration argued, successfully, that the congressionally approved law should go into effect while appeals courts, including the Supreme Court, weigh it.

The Medicaid determination will go into effect based on whether a health care provider is providing abortions as of October 1 and receives more than $800,000 in Medicaid payments in a year.

Seriously, the duly elected Legislative Branch passed the law, which in no way violates the Constitution, especially since the Constitution has no provision to provide any private entity money nor provide Medicaid.

“We will continue to fight this unconstitutional law, even though this court has allowed it to impact patients,” Planned Parenthood Federation of America President and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson said in a statement. “Patients who rely on the essential health care that Planned Parenthood health centers provide, can’t plan for their futures, decide where they go for care, or control their lives, bodies, and futures — all because the Trump administration and its backers want to attack Planned Parenthood and shut down health centers.”

I’ve still not seen where PP provides a substantive Constitutional rationale, they just keep screeching “unconstitutional!” If Congress can give private entities money they can also deny them money.

Posted on by

Bummer: Reports Say There Will Be 1.6 Million Fewer “Immigrants” In The US

The phrase Politico is looking for is “illegal aliens.” Heck, they aren’t even going with something like “undocumented Americans”

1.6M fewer US immigrants expected this year amid Trump, GOP policies, CBO predicts

President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, along with those in the GOP megabill enacted this summer, will significantly reduce the number of immigrants in the United States in the coming years, Congress’ nonpartisan scorekeeper estimated Wednesday.

The Congressional Budget Office now predicts that total net immigration will be 1.6 million people smaller this year than it projected in January. Contributing to that downward trend, the Republican tax and spending package Trump signed into law in January is estimated to result in the removal of 290,000 immigrants and the voluntary exit of 30,000 others over the next five years.

What the budget office has not yet calculated is how stemming the influx of immigrants will affect the federal budget. Those estimates are expected next year.

On the upside for Trump and congressional Republicans, cooling immigration is expected to shrink federal spending. But there are negative counterweights for GOP leaders too: Namely, foregone cash from taxes.

The number seems rather low. I guess we’ll have to see how many actually get deported and how many self deport. Also, remember that the border is not being overrun with illegals and fake asylum seekers. There are very few encounters, and most are not being let in.

New USCIS ‘Special Agents’ Will Be Given the Power to Arrest, Use Deadly Force Against Immigrants

On September 5, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency established by Congress to adjudicate immigration applications, made a startling announcement. For the first time since the agency was created in 2003, the agency will create a new class of “special agents,” who will be authorized to carry firearms and arrest people for both civil and criminal immigration and non-immigration violations.

This drastic change in the agency’s mission will instill fear in applicants seeking lawful status with USCIS, further pushing individuals who do not have clear-cut eligibility into the shadows, directly impacting our safety and security. The vagueness of the new rules also creates a lot of uncertainty for U.S. citizens and American businesses sponsoring family members and foreign talent, as well as for the lawyers representing individuals with difficult cases.

If they’ve gone through the standard legal channels, there is no worry. If they are illegal/fake asylum seekers, well, just self deport. Make it easy on yourself.

And things are ramping up in Chicago

It’s worth going and reading the whole DHS thread, which highlights many of the illegals caught, all sorts of very bad people. Who Democrats want to defend.

Posted on by

Bummer: UK Panel Finds ‘Climate Change’ Not Much Of An Issue

It’s kinda hard to be Concerned (theoretically) about climate doom when there are so many more important issues, which is why the cult typically polls low when matched against real world issues. It is much harder when the Powers That Be who are pushing the scam are also increasing those problems

‘There are bigger issues in the world today than global warming’

They may not have known it but the five men and five women sitting around the table in a slightly soulless hotel meeting room off the A41 had been carefully chosen.

All were swing voters but critically none had extreme views in either direction on the subject that they were there to discuss: climate change.

The Times gathered this focus group in Watford — and another in the West Midlands — with the research firm Public First to replicate a project first carried out by The Times in 2021.

The question we wanted to answer was: Have the views of swing voters towards global warming and the government’s plans to tackle the issue changed in the intervening period.

It is a question that has increasing political pertinence as the longstanding cross-party consensus on net zero is fraying and the next election is likely to be fought with two major parties — the Conservatives and Reform — arguing against large parts of the net zero agenda.

Four years ago we found the public convinced of the need for action to tackle climate change, prepared to do their bit (up to a point) but worried about the cost. But what about now?

Yeah, now

I wish they had a link to the previous article so we could compare and contrast, but, I can’t find it

But then Khuram, 35, broke the consensus.

“I think there’s bigger issues right now going on in the world, in our own lives,” he said bluntly. “Maybe we look for our kids or grandkids or whatever, but I think really, if there’s people starving today, it’s probably worth spending money on that.”

He added: “There’s more going on in my daily life. If the weather’s good outside I think great, at least the weather’s good today.”

It was as if the dam of what was politically acceptable to say among strangers had burst.

How many of these people are seeing rising crime and their nation taken over by immigrants, especially Islamists? Not happy about arrests for Mean Tweets?

“It’s not a top priority,” said Thomas, 40. “What annoys me with it is a bit like Covid, where the government said, this is what you’ve got to do and they sort of did their own thing.

“So even with climate change, they’re happy to go on their private jets and get where they need to. It’s a little bit hypocritical.” Others agreed.

I’m always happy when people wake up and notice this

It’s not a huge change, but, it is a change away from the climate cult. And they teach this hard in the UK. Their media and politicians go hard on it. The cult is dying.

Posted on by

Supreme Court To Hear Arguments On Trump’s Tariffs

Is it a good thing or bad thing that SCOTUS has agreed to hear arguments so quickly?

Supreme Court says it will hear Trump appeal on tariffs in key economic case

The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will quickly decide whether most of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs — a key part of his economic agenda — are legal.

The revelation follows the Trump administration’s request for the nation’s highest court to take up its appeal of a lower ruling. The Supreme Court placed the case on a fast track and scheduled oral arguments for the first week of its November session.

The White House defended Trump’s tariffs as a legitimate use of presidential powers to protect the economy in a statement to Fox News Digital.

“We look forward to ultimate victory on this matter with the Supreme Court,” wrote White House spokesperson Kush Desai.

A federal appeals court ruled on Aug. 29, that Trump overstepped his authority by using emergency powers to impose new tariffs on imported goods. The court said that power lies squarely with Congress or within existing trade policy frameworks. The court allowed the tariffs to remain in effect until mid-October.

Quite frankly, I’m not sure who I want to win on this. You hate to give Democrats a win against Trump, especially when the point of tariffs is meant to be punishment and reciprocal against all the nations that have tariffs on US goods imported into their countries. But, on the flip side, does the president really have the authority to implement them? It really should be something that Congress should have to pass. Has Congress truly given the Executive authority? Also, considering Biden utterly blew off the Supreme Court on student loan bailouts, Dems should be quiet in the front.

As I’ve said, what Trump should have done was threaten tariffs then negotiate with countries first. Gone to Congress and see if he could get agreement with Republicans and enough Dems to institute reciprocal tariffs, or at least similar. Not like we can charge a 25% tariff of orange juice from Canada. But, what about shoes, where they hit US goods with a 30% tariff? Why do countries get butthurt when the US imposes high tariffs when they do the same?

Posted on by

Your Fault: People Are Eating More Sugar

We could have avoided this, but, no, your ancestor worked in a coal mine and you refuse to give your money and freedom to government

Scientists find a surprising reason why people are eating more sugar

Ice creams, frozen desserts and super-chilled sodas take on a new appeal in sticky summer heat. As climate change drives hotter temperatures, Americans are consuming more and more of them, new research finds, with worrying health consequences.

There is plenty of evidence climate change will shape food availability and quality, leading to shortages, price increases and even affecting nutritional value, said Pan He, a study author and a lecturer in environmental science and sustainability at Cardiff University. But far less is known about its effects on what we choose to eat and drink, she told CNN.

The researchers scoured US household food purchasing data between 2004 to 2019 allowing them to track the same families over a long time. They then compared purchasing decisions with regional weather data, including temperature and humidity.

As temperatures ticked up, people consumed more sugar, mostly in the form of sugar-sweetened drinks such as soda and juice, according to the study published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

For every 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit of warming, added sugar consumption in US households increased by 0.7 grams per person per day, the researchers found, with a marked escalation as temperatures hit between 68 to 86 degrees Fahrenheit.

Got that? It gets warm so people drink more cold drinks and have sweets like ice cream. Big news there, eh? We can solve this if you would just buy and EV, or, better yet, take the bus

Exactly how climate change will affect humanity’s eating habits, and the potential consequences on health and inequality, still remain unclear, He said, with much more research needed across different parts of the world.

So, the entire article based on a study was….meaningless? Because they really do not know anything? Huh.

Posted on by

The Philadelphia Inquirer supports immigration lawlessness

Screen capture Philadelphia Inquirer website main page, September 8, 2025 at 8:20 AM EDT.

That our nation’s third oldest continuously published daily newspaper supports illegal immigration is no surprise to regular readers and me. The main article listed tells readers how “Rapid Response” activists have been tailing Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to try to intimidate ICE in its apprehension of illegal immigrants, but the subsequently listed articles are all pro-illegal immigration.

Chasing ICE: ‘Rapid-response’ activists follow agents, then stand up for immigrants during arrests

“They’re trying to do this quietly, they’re trying to do this when nobody is watching,” one immigrant-advocate said.

by Jeff Gammage | Monday, September 8, 2025 | 5:00 AM EDT

When ICE agents headed out to raid the Super Gigante food market in West Norriton this summer, they didn’t travel alone.

Following behind them were cars carrying members of the Montgomery County Watch rapid-response team, immigration activists who work to find and follow the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Their goal: to record agents’ activities, to alert people to protest at the scenes of arrests, and, at times, to loudly confront the officers.

The group had discovered ICE agents and cars gathering that July morning in the parking lot outside the Plymouth Meeting Regal Cinema movie theater.

From there it was 4½ miles to the supermarket. The two groups arrived nearly simultaneously.

As ICE arrested 14 people for immigration offenses, activists yelled at and questioned the masked agents, asking if they told their children that they worked separating families.

That’s what every law enforcement officer does when he arrests someone for breaking the law. When the Philadelphia Police Department arrests a gang-banger for shooting another gang-banger, he’s separating a family.

“Show your face! Show your face!” they demanded.

We know their reasons. The newspaper’s far-left columnist Will Bunch among others has decried ICE agents wearing masks for the very simple reason: they want to publicly identify and dox them, to intimidate them from doing their jobs.

“Get back!” an ICE agent shouted as a woman in sandals and a T-shirt approached him.

“Cowards!” came the rejoinder.

The agents did not respond to the taunt.

“They’re trying to do this quietly, they’re trying to do this when nobody is watching” ― and the rapid-response team aims to ensure that doesn’t happen, said Stephanie Vincent, an organizer who was among those who went to the supermarket that morning. “The citizens are front line right now.”

The front line of what, of protecting criminals? Because that’s what these people are trying to do, trying to protect people who are in the country illegally from being removed from the country. Further down, they admit that directly:

“People are showing up and protesting, to show we support [migrants] and don’t want them taken out of the community, and asking ICE to think about what they’re doing,” said Rachel Rutter, executive director of Project Libertad, a Phoenixville-based organization that assists immigrant families. “It’s a direct response to the increase in enforcement.”

In other words, they are aiding and abetting criminals, trying to keep the illegals from being deported.

ICE noted that the agents are performing legal enforcement actions, and that while everybody has freedom of speech, if they actually interfere with ICE while making arrests, they are committing a federal crime.

There’s a lot more to the article, noting the legality of the protests, but it’s heavily slanted toward glorifying the activists. That goes right along with the newspaper’s Editorial Board’s support of illegal immigration, saying “Heavy-handed immigration enforcement efforts accomplish little beyond the upheaval and inhumane treatment of people just trying to get ahead and make a better life.” They can try to get ahead and make a better life .  .  . in Mexico or Guatemala or from wherever it is they came! That’s our law, and they are breaking the law every time they cross our borders or overstay a visa and every time they provide forged documents to obtain jobs or work for cash and not pay income of Social Security taxes.

Kick them out, and if they want to return to the United States, they can apply for legal immigration from their home countries. That’s the American way!

Posted on by

Whenever There Is a Truth You Cannot Tell, That Is a Truth You Must Tell! Our Credentialed Media: All the News That's Politically Correct!

I have previously suggested that it was Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner’s devilishly clever scheme to let the thugs get away with ‘smaller’ s(tuff) until they graduated to a crime which could keep them locked up forever, and if that crime happened to eliminate other thugs, it was a win-win for the DA, getting two or more bad guys off the streets for good. Robert Stacy McCain was less charitable:

Democrats are objectively pro-crime. It is the de facto policy of the Democratic Party that mentally ill criminals should be turned loose on the streets until they stab somebody in the neck. Democrats are the psycho killer party, and the people who vote for Democrats don’t care how many people get killed as a result of their policy.

The Democrats would deny that, of course, but is there any evidence, any evidence at all that Mr McCain’s statement isn’t true? Forget what the left say; look at what they do, and Mr McCain’s statement makes perfect sense.

My good friend Matt Van Swol tweeted a list of major news sources, the credentialed media writ large, which did not cover this story, so I checked my primary newspaper, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and a site search for the (alleged) killer’s name, Decarlos Brown, returned nothing. I didn’t check Mr Van Swol’s list in its entirety, but doing site searches of the websites of The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN resulted in just what Mr Van Swol said, nothing.

Remember: bandwidth is ridiculously cheap, and there are no real limitations on space for those news organizations.

It was an old joke that New Yorkers riding the subway would have the Times very visible, while actually reading the New York Post hidden inside, and yup, the Post covered the murder with three separate stories.

I guess this story wasn’t part of the news that’s fit to print.

We’ve seen this before. The Inquirer’s publisher specifically said that, to achieve her goal of making the newspaper an “anti-racist news organization,” she was establishing guidelines that would reduce the newspaper’s coverage of crime, because it often “stigmatized” certain “Philadelphia communities”. Decarlos Brown is black, and he (allegedly) stabbed a white woman to death, for no known reason other than he is just plain crazy.

But there’s more. Mr Brown is a career criminal, with a rap sheet which dates back to his juvenile years, but while there are many arrests noted, only one actual criminal conviction is listed; he’s been let go without any serious action several times since he got out of prison. This is exactly the thing about which sensible people have been complaining, and liberals ignoring, in their zealous attempts to not ‘stigmatize’ black Americans.

Thus there are two problems for the credentialed media when it comes to Mr Brown:

  1. Mr Brown is black, while his victim was a very pretty white woman, and the media certainly don’t want to point out that; and
  2. The Brown case demonstrates what liberal law enforcement yields.

With President Trump’s actions to send in National Guard troops to help with law enforcement in our more dangerous communities, the left are saying that it’s raaaaacist to do that, because it disproportionately impacts black communities.

Imagine this story in 1985! Because the credentialed media didn’t want you to know about it, it wouldn’t have been published much beyond the local Charlotte Observer, so for the vast majority of the nation, that crime didn’t happen. It’s only due to social media and this internet thingy that Al Gore invented that this is a story at all, because as far as The New York Times is concerned, it never happened.

The Inquirer? That august newspaper is all-in on demanding new funds for SEPTA, and a story about an innocent woman stabbed to death for seemingly no reason at all certainly won’t push more Philadelphians to take public transportation!

Mr Brown should never have been out on the streets, and should have been in the loony bin, but no one wants to say that. It took the sacrifice of 23-year-old Iryna Zarutska to bring this to the fore.