Here We Go: Climate Cult Already Linking End Of Roe To ‘Climate Change’

It really didn’t take them that long at all, because, really, the hardcore abortion supporters are also the hardcore Warmists

Yeah, a piece from last year

When Hurricane Ida barreled through Louisiana last month, its 149 mph winds didn’t just ravage the state’s power grid and leave residents cooking in sweltering heat — they also took two of the Pelican State’s three abortion clinics offline.

From a reproductive health perspective, the storm couldn’t have come at a worse time — just days after a Texas law effectively banned abortions and sent hundreds of people over state lines looking for care. (snip)

Now, with the Supreme Court weighing two abortion-related challenges this term, reproductive rights advocates fear that the story of Hurricane Ida and Texas’ S.B. 8 could soon be repeated on a national scale as climate change intensifies extreme weather, creating even more hurdles for the 615,000 women the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says seek abortions annually.

Hurricane Ida is just the most recent example of how natural disasters fueled by climate change can limit access to abortion — a procedure that must be precisely timed due to legal restrictions. In 2017, both Hurricane Harvey and California wildfires, including the Tubbs Fire, also forced abortion clinics to close and left people scrambling for care at the last minute. (snip)

But health care advocates have long sounded the alarm on the ways in which climate change could decrease access to medical care more broadly, and reproductive health care is no exception.

Indeed, a recent White House National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality lists climate change, and its impact on health care for women and girls, as one of 10 key “interconnected priorities.” It discusses how climate change, through increased prevalence of heat waves and natural disasters, poses a unique threat to pregnancy, and adds: “Climate-related disasters hinder access to essential services, including sexual and reproductive health care.”

No matter the issue, the climate cult wants in on it.

Her clients face all sorts of financial pressures in seeking abortions, beyond just the cost of the procedure itself. Many must travel long distances, particularly if they are seeking care further along in their pregnancy and must either take two trips to the clinic or find a place to stay far from home during the 72-hour waiting period. Many also must secure child care and find a family member or support person to come to the procedure with them.

If you cannot afford it, perhaps you should be practicing responsible, protected sexual congress. And, yes, almost every case is someone making poor life choices

Read: Here We Go: Climate Cult Already Linking End Of Roe To ‘Climate Change’ »

If All You See…

…is an Evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Don Surber, with a post thanking Donald Trump for overturning Roe v Wade.

Read: If All You See… »

Democrats Already Looking To Push Scary Looking Rifle Ban

A bunch of interesting gun news. First, the Supreme Court did their thing

If you scroll around the news outlets, most are not taking it well, failing to understand that the 2nd Amendment is a national Amendment, and does not preclude some gun control. What States cannot do is restrict a state from requiring citizens to show “need” for a permit. New Yorkers do not need to show a need to purchase a guitar, SUV, or fish tank. None of those are actual rights, so, the State could actually do that, right? If they were complete morons. Guns are a right.

Here’s The Hill: “Supreme Court expands gun rights in major Second Amendment ruling.” It’s not expanding, it’s returning. The Washington Post editorial board goes with “The Supreme Court supercharges the 2nd Amendment.”

How’d all that gun control work for the Buffalo wackjob? How’s it working with all the shootings in NYC? If guns are so dangerous, when will Hochul give up her own armed protect?

(Breitbart) The Senate on Thursday easily approved a bipartisan gun violence bill that seemed unthinkable just a month ago, clearing the way for final congressional approval of what will be lawmakers’ most far-reaching response in decades to the nation’s run of brutal mass shootings. (big snip)

The vote on final passage was 65-33.

Yup, 15 Republicans voted for it. Most are either retiring or not up for re-election til 2026. The only section that will truly have any impact will be looking at juvenile records for those 18-21 who are applying for a gun permit. Pelosi is looking to take it up today

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced on Thursday that the House will take up the Senate-passed gun safety bill “first thing” Friday morning, after the legislation cleared the upper chamber in a bipartisan vote.

“First thing tomorrow morning, the Rules Committee will meet to advance this life-saving legislation to the Floor. When the Rules Committee finishes its business, we will head immediately to the Floor,” Pelosi wrote in a statement minutes after the Senate approved the measure.

How long will it take before it gets a vote? How much more crazy will they add into it, which would require another vote in the Senate, which might lose the support of the 15 Republicans?

And, of course

Dems toe delicate line on assault weapons ban

House Democratic leaders are toeing a delicate line with their promise to consider legislation this summer banning assault weapons — a politically explosive concept that divides both the Congress and the country. (snip)

The concept is overwhelmingly popular in the Democratic Caucus — a proposal sponsored by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) has attracted 209 cosponsors — and liberals in the ranks are pressing the party brass to bring the legislation to the floor before November’s midterm elections.

“I would love a chance to vote for it,” said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), “and I would love a chance to put others on record.”

But there’s a much smaller group of centrist Democrats, some of them facing tough reelection contests, who oppose banning a class of firearms that has emerged in recent years as among the most popular guns in the country. Most of those centrists voted earlier this month for a package of separate gun reforms — which included provisions to raise the age for assault weapons purchases and bolster state red flag laws — but are set against an assault weapons ban.

So, it might be popular with the gun grabbing caucus, but, there are too many centrists to get it done. And not enough to pass in the Senate. But, they’ll still try. Before they lose Congress after the mid-terms.

Read: Democrats Already Looking To Push Scary Looking Rifle Ban »

California’s Climate Crisis (scam) Plan Would Skyrocket Electricity Use

Good thing that California hasn’t gotten rid of so many reliable, affordable, dependable forms of energy generation, eh?

Electricity use would surge under California’s new climate plan

California’s sweeping climate plan would increase electricity consumption by as much as 68% by 2045 – which would put an immense strain on the power grid unless hefty private and public investments are made in clean energy, state air quality officials said today.

In other words, Californians are doomed to constant blackouts and government limits on when they can use electricity

The California Air Resources Board is holding its first day-long public hearing today on its proposed climate-change blueprint, called a scoping plan, for reducing greenhouse gases.

The state’s power grid — marred by outages in previous years and increasingly extreme weather — needs massive investments to attain the clean-energy future outlined in California’s five-year climate roadmap.

Sure thing, blame a tiny increase in the world’s temperature since 1850 for idiotic policies

At least 450 speakers lined up to voice concerns about the plan at the hearing, which is expected to continue late into the evening and possibly on Friday. The hearing was temporarily interrupted when environmentalists and their supporters who were rallying outside entered the packed room, protesting the state’s plan and demanding environmental justice.

Looks like even the reliable Warmists in California are not fine with moving the plan from theory to practice

To achieve the plan’s goals, air board officials project that California will need about 30 times more electric vehicles on the road, six times more electric appliances in homes to replace gas appliances, 60 times more hydrogen supply and four times more wind and solar generation capacity.

Read: California’s Climate Crisis (scam) Plan Would Skyrocket Electricity Use »

GoTriangle Looks To Spend Up To $3.2 Billion For Rail Line

Back during the Bush years, the Triangle area leaders were looking to build a light rail system that would run from the east side of Raleigh way up Capital Blvd, down through downtown, over to Cary, then up deep into Durham. That was killed off, primarily because they realized how few would actually ride it. And now

Proposed 43-mile commuter line from Durham would cost up to $3.2 billion, GoTriangle leaders say

GoTriangle leaders told WRAL News on Thursday that they are considering a new proposal for a 43-mile commuter rail line, to run from Durham to either Garner or Clayton, with a cost of between $2.8 billion and $3.2 billion.

The first step, a two-year feasibility study, would cost $9 million, according to the plan.

“There is a need to have a strong transit service in the Triangle region to supplement the roads we have, because congestion is just going to grow,” said GoTriangle CEO Chuck Lattuca.

Whoa, whoa, what’s that about $9 million for a study? Really? This is how government pisses away taxpayer money. Should a study really cost $9 million? What makes it cost that? What do they need to know that costs $9 million? How is that possible? It’s pretty simple: what’s the route, what types of cars are to be used, how many are needed, how often it would run, where are the stops, and, oh, yeah, how many people will actually take it? And don’t forget, how much money will it lose annually? Still shouldn’t cost $9 million. Durham could do a lot with that money, especially with skyrocketing crime, and having always been a dangerous city

The new proposal for commuter rail comes after the failed Durham-Orange Light Rail project cost taxpayers $157 million. Lattuca said if surrounding communities approve the new proposed commuter line, the project would have more stringent oversight compared to the failed line.

We’re supposed to trust them with the money? I really do not care if the leftist lunatics in Durham County want to piss away their taxpayer money. I do care if this affects Wake County, which is where Garner is. Clayton is just south of that in Johnson County. I live in Wake. The route would run through Wake, meaning my taxes could be affected.

The proposal does not include plans for rail service to Raleigh-Durham International Airport, despite the popularity of such connections in other cities. There are plans for a bus connection to RDU.

Well, that’s a massive fail. If it had any speed, I’d consider it rather than parking at the airport.

GoTriangle estimates 10,000 to 18,000 people would ride a commuter rail each day, depending on the cost of service.

OK, they already have an estimate, which is a pretty wide one. In reality, you’d probably cut the daily riders by half. Unless it bring people close to their jobs, particularly in the Research Triangle Park, people would ignore it.

If communities approve the project, the full service could be up and running by 2033 to 2035. The shorter starter service from Raleigh to Garner could start a few years sooner.

A good plan which would make it easy for people to travel would be great. You know we won’t get it, and it is not easy, because things are really, really spread out because of the way Southern cities grow out from the center and mix land use between housing, shopping, and so forth.

Read: GoTriangle Looks To Spend Up To $3.2 Billion For Rail Line »

Brandon Wants To Force Millions Of Cars Off The Road

See, none of this will affect him or the upper upper middle class or rich folks, just the poor and (shrinking) middle class

Joe Biden Plans to Take ‘Millions of Cars Off the Road’ to Reduce Oil Consumption

President Joe Biden on Wednesday again promoted his infrastructure dreams of taking people out of their gas-powered vehicles and putting them on trains and other forms of public transit.

“We’re investing almost $100 billion in public transit and rail, for all the studies show that it will take millions of cars off the road and significantly reduce pollution if there’s a serious transportation system available,” he said.

So, if I want to go to Wrightsville Beach, how will that work? Take a bus? It takes me a bit over 2 hours to get their in my car. There’s no train going down I-40, and there’s still a bunch of road to get from Wilmington to Wrightsville. I can take Amtrak to NJ (and, I may do that for Christmas, if air flight costs skyrocket), still requires I get picked up for a just over 1 hour trip to the parents house.

The president spoke about public transit during his speech on high gas prices Wednesday, promoting it as a potential solution.

Biden frequently talks about trains, since he has a deep love for them after traveling aboard the Amtrak commuter train to Delaware. (snip)

During the event, he admitted he was envious of China’s high-speed trains and wanted more of them in America.

“If you can get in a train and go from here to Washington much faster than you can go in an automobile, you take a train,” he said.

A train from Raleigh to Trenton takes well over 10 hours. Even if I hit stupid traffic in northern Va and up to Baltimore, still takes me, at most, 9 hours. And how often does he take the train now? What’s the over/under he takes a fossil fueled helicopter flight to Delaware Friday?

All this for a scam issue.

Read: Brandon Wants To Force Millions Of Cars Off The Road »

If All You See…

…is a holiday with lots of gifts and travel which is Bad for ‘climate change’, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Chicks On The Right, with a post on AOC complaining she can’t start a family on her $174K a year salary.

Read: If All You See… »

Liberal Gun Grabbing Groups Are Fine With Modest Gun Package, As It’s A “Step Forward”

And you know that “a step forward” means “we get this through, then something else, then something else, and pretty soon we have made it really, really difficult for law abiding citizen to own and carry firearms”

Liberal gun control groups back bipartisan Senate bill despite modest provisions

The bipartisan gun bill on track to pass the Senate before the July 4 recess doesn’t go nearly as far as many liberal gun control groups would like, but they’re supporting it anyway, saying it’s an important step to reduce shootings.

“This package is not perfect. It doesn’t go as far as we would like. But it is an incredibly meaningful step forward,” Christian Heyne, Brady United vice president for policy, said in an interview with Fox News Digital. “A month ago, I would have said that a package like this would have been impossible.”

“We know that this bill is going to save lives” said Robin Lloyd, managing director of Giffords, another gun control group. She told Fox News Digital the bill is a “historic moment in bipartisan cooperation on the issue of gun safety.”

Of course, it mostly fails to address the reality that most shootings are committed by people not lawfully allowed to have a gun. Again, I do agree with the section on being able to look at the juvenile criminal records of the young folks, especially those who just turned 18, to see if there is a reason to deny a permit.

Lloyd lauded the $750 million in federal funding proposed for red flag laws. That money can also be used for other types of interventions aimed at the same goal, including drug courts and mental health courts.

Huh what? Sounds like it’s pretty much going to be wide open usage, rather than targeted.

“This bipartisan legislation meets the most important test: It will save lives,” Everytown for Gun Safety President John Feinblatt said. “The bill text lives up to the framework released last week, and we now move one big step closer to breaking the 26-year logjam that has blocked congressional action to protect Americans from gun violence.”

“Our grassroots army has been demanding action from the Senate for nearly a decade, and today we’re one step closer to making history and ultimately saving lives,” Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts added.

Question: how many lives? Can they quantify this? Because there needs to be a measurement of success, not just throwing out a big bill for the hell of it that won’t make much of a difference but will interfere with the Constitutional Right of law abiding citizens.

Because a plurality of those polled think the red flag laws will be abused

Poll: Most Independents, Republicans Believe Red Flag Laws Would Be Abused by the Government

Most independent and Republican voters believe that the government would ultimately abuse “red flag” laws, a Convention of States Action/Trafalgar Group survey released Wednesday found.

The survey asked, “Do you believe that the ‘red flag’ gun control laws designed to temporarily take guns away from individuals has the potential to be abused by local authorities and government officials to disarm their political opponents and/or citizens who disagree with them?”

Overall, a plurality of voters, 46.7 percent, believe that “red flag” gun control laws, which essentially allow for a petition to temporarily remove firearms from a person of interest, could be abused. Another 22.5 percent are unsure, and 30.8 percent do not believe it could be abused.

72.2% of Republicans believe red flag laws will be abused. 52.2% of Independents see the possibility of abuse, and another 24.3% are unsure. They won’t be when it starts happening. Obviously, Democrat belief of abuse is low, 16.4%, because they want the red flag laws snagging guns away from citizens with no due process. Right now, only 19 states have red flag laws, and they’re all reliably Democrat except Virginia, which is more purple

(Newsweek) According to data from Everytown for Gun Safety, as of April of 2021, at least 19 states and Washington, D.C. had “red flag” gun laws. The states are: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.

How many of the remaining 31 will pass them? Certainly, almost none of the states Trump won in 2020 will pass one. The Democrat gov of NC might try, but, not with the GOP in control of the General Assembly. Even though Biden won (sic) Georgia and Arizona, little chance. Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania? Very doubtful. The only ones with a decent possibility are New Hampshire and Maine. No others will do it, because there are laws on the books that provide constitutional due process, required by the federal and state constitutions. They may, and they should, update the laws to encompass domestic abusers and those who make serious threats in full.

And when none of this really works, the liberal gun grabbing groups will demand more laws at the federal level. Heck, they probably won’t wait to see if the law makes a difference. Look, more evidence

Senator Amy Klobuchar responded, “We have worked on this for decades. And after Parkland, I sat across from Donald Trump at the White House, along with a number of senators, he said he was going to do something about background checks. I still have the piece of paper, eight times, nine times, he said it…nothing happened. After Sandy Hook, nothing happened. And when you talk to the families who have been working on this for so long, they understand how difficult this has been, how disappointing this has been. So, to start with something that’s going to save lives, even if a particular provision wouldn’t have saved their own babies’ lives, that is an act of love and generosity of spirit that you hear from the families of those that have lost loved ones. That’s why we’re moving ahead. And I think it actually paves the way in the future to look at some of these other provisions. But if you do nothing and you just go home, then we’ve got nothing. And that’s why it’s so important to pass this bill on a bipartisan basis.”

Yeah, the bill is a gateway bill.

Read: Liberal Gun Grabbing Groups Are Fine With Modest Gun Package, As It’s A “Step Forward” »

Climate Crisis (scam) Reporting Can Momentarily Change Minds, You Know

The question here is “why are news reporters publishing propaganda?” Of course, it doesn’t tend to stick, because Doing Something may be popular in theory, but, not practice, especially when real world issue intrude

Study finds climate change reporting can momentarily change minds

Accurate climate change reporting has the power to change minds if only for a moment, a new experimental study suggests.

“It is not the case that the American public does not respond to scientifically informed reporting when they are exposed to it,” said Thomas Wood, associate professor of political science at the Ohio State University, before adding that even accurate reporting “recedes from people’s frame of reference very quickly.”

Gains were also made regardless of political identity as the study demonstrated both Democrats and Republicans could be positively persuaded by accurate reporting.

But, are they actually accurate? I mentioned the new Climate Shift Index Wednesday, and already Bloomberg is pimping it to claim weather is now climate because it’s hot.

During the first wave, participants read reports that reflected scientific consensus on issues involving climate change before moving on to the second and third waves, where they read either a scientific article with counter points, an opinion article or a piece unrelated to the top.

After each wave, researchers asked participants whether they believed humans caused climate change, if the government should act through policy changes and how they viewed renewable energy.

“Not only did science reporting change people’s factual understanding, it also moved their political preferences,” Wood continued. “It made them think that climate change was a pressing government concern that government should do more about.”

You can bet they were carefully crafted to elicit the opinion they wanted, and left out the policies that would cost Americans money while taking away their freedom and life choices.

Yet the study showed that positive changes in opinion faded and suggested opinion articles skeptical of climate consensus negated progress in some cases.

“What we found suggests that people need to hear the same accurate messages about climate change again and again. If they only hear it once, it recedes very quickly,” Wood said.

In other words, they’re very upset that people might read stuff that refutes the cult propaganda, and they really, really want that stuff banned. Personally, I’d also say it fades because people really only care about doing something in their own lives in theory, and, again, that real life is just more important.

Read: Climate Crisis (scam) Reporting Can Momentarily Change Minds, You Know »

Brandon Demands Gas Stations Lower Prices Or Something

Unfortunately, independently owned gas stations cannot afford to operate at a loss, unlike the federal government. Still wondering why the elected Republicans do not offer legislation requiring Biden to give up his fossil fueled travel, especially for his weekends off, as well as for his staff and appointed officials, till 87 gas goes below $3.00 a gallon. Unless they want to pay for it themselves

Joe Biden Demands Gas Stations Lower Prices: ‘Do It Now’

President Joe Biden demanded Wednesday that gas stations start lowering their prices, in his latest attempt to address record-high prices this summer.

“To the companies running gas stations and setting those prices at the pump, this is a time of war, global peril, Ukraine,” he said.

The president spoke about the record high gas prices occurring during his administration during a speech on his imitation White House set across the street.

“These are not normal times. Bring down the price you are charging at the pump to reflect the cost you are paying for the product,” Biden said. “Do it now. Do it today.”

So, make zero profit? That totally makes sense, right? Does Brandon understand that most of those stations are not owned by the gas companies, but, are licensed, much like most fast food places are franchises, not owned by companies like Burger King and Subway?

Do the major oil companies own all the service stations in this country?

No. According to the latest information, the refiners own less than 5% of the 145,000 retail stations. When a station bears a particular refiner’s brand, it does not mean that the refiner owns or operates the station. The vast majority of branded stations are owned and operated by independent retailers licensed to represent that brand. According to the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), more than 60% of the retail stations in the US are owned by an individual or family that owns a single store. Through various branding agreements, approximately 36% of the retail stations in the US sell fuel under API members’ brands. See U.S. Service Station Outlets Summary.

That’s the reality

Biden griped that the price of oil had fallen slightly, but the price of gas had not.

“Some haven’t reduced prices at all,” he complained.

Biden called for congress to pass a federal gas tax holiday and urged states to do so as well, noting that it could help reduce prices.

“I’m doing my part,” he said defensively. “I want the congress, states, the industry to do their part as well.”

Doing his part? Asking Congress to waive 18.4 cents a gallon? While taking a lot of fossil fueled travel on the taxpayer dime? How much fuel is used to helicopter Joe to Delaware? That’s like putting Flex Tape on a leaking car radiator. Gas stations make about 10 cents per gallon. States make way more than that. How about declaring that the federal government will fast track new, next gen refineries? It’d be funny as hell if the gas stations near Joe’s Delaware beach house refused to sell gas to him for his large convoy.

Read: Brandon Demands Gas Stations Lower Prices Or Something »

Pirate's Cove