LOL: Europe Not Ready For Russian Invasion Due To Climate (scam) Rules

By William Teach June 5, 2025 – 3:00 pm

Perhaps they should ditch this idiocy, in much the same way Trump and Hegseth have dumped DEI, Trans, and green crap for the US military

Green rules ‘stop Europe preparing for Russian invasion’

European countries have blamed EU environmental regulations for hindering their preparations for defending against a possible Russian invasion.

In a leaked letter obtained by The Telegraph, the nations’ defence ministers argued that the rules had stopped the expansion of military bases and prevented fighter jet pilots from training.

In a letter to Andrius Kubilius, the defence commissioner, the ministers said it was clear that EU legislation must “not prevent member states’ armed forces from carrying out necessary activities to become operationally ready. But right now, it does.”

They said this was “mainly (but not exclusively) in the areas of procurement legislation, nature conservation and environmental protection, and more generally the administrative burden on defence organisations deriving from various EU legal acts”.

The letter was signed by the Dutch, Swedish, German, Belgian, Czech, Latvian, Lithuanian, Romanian, Finnish, Estonian and Danish governments.

In other words, they are boned. Well, at least the armaments they have left after giving so much to Ukraine

In 2023, the European commission published its Greening the Armies report, highlighting ways in which militaries present a challenge to tackling climate change.

It pushed for European armed forces to consider more virtual training exercises, rather than real-world sessions, in order to cut down on emissions.

There’s no substitute for actually doing training for real.

The EU has set itself a target to be prepared for a potential Russian invasion in five years time. It is hoped the bloc’s strategy will see around €800 billion (£674 billion) spent on defence in that period by relaxing debt rules and using joint debt to fund purchases.

The commission had promised to ease regulations that could hinder the rearmament efforts, but has yet to do so in any significant way. Sustainable finance rules, which state that investments must be made with the environment in mind, have also been considered a hindrance.

Eco-zealotry is damning Europe. Putin might have an easier time rolling over the EU than Ukraine.

A thought provoking comment at the article: “Funny they worry about a Russian invasion while welcoming the Islamic invaders into every EU nation. “

Read: LOL: Europe Not Ready For Russian Invasion Due To Climate (scam) Rules »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Europe, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 5, 2025 – 1:00 pm

…are palm trees that will soon grow in Canada due to rising temperatures, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on NPR still pushing COVID hysteria.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Implements Travel Ban On Unfriendly Countries

By William Teach June 5, 2025 – 10:30 am

Obviously, travel bans are Bad when Trump implements them. They were fine when Biden implemented them on many countries over Wuhan Flu. And when Obama had travel bans and heavy visa restrictions on some nations, including a few that Trump has restricted again

Trump signs order banning citizens of 12 countries from entering the US

Donald Trump has signed a sweeping order banning travel from 12 countries and restricting travel from seven others, reviving and expanding the travel bans from his first term.

The nationals of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen will be “fully” restricted from entering the US, according to the proclamation. Meanwhile, the entry of nationals of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela will be partially restricted.

The US president said that he “considered foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism goals” in deciding the scope of the ban. Trump had cued up the ban in an executive order signed on 20 January, his first day back in the White House, instructing his administration to submit a list of candidates for a ban by 21 March.

Trump has cited a range of justifications for the bans, including national security and concerns that visitors from those countries are overstaying their visas.

But advocates and experts have said that blanket travel bans discriminate against groups of people based on ethnicity alone. They will likely result – as the travels bans did during Trump’s first term – in the separation of families. The bans on travel from Haiti, Cuba and Venezuela could be especially impactful in US communities with huge immigrant populations from those countries.

In other words, the leftards want to continue allowing hardcore Islamists and Jew haters into the U.S. They were quiet when Biden banned visitors for COVID, didn’t care. Biden was quick to label Trump’s protectionist measures for COVID travel blocks racist and xenophobic, yet, did it himself, and the NY Times, Washington Post, etc, were silent.

“This discriminatory policy, which limits legal immigration, not only flies in the face of what our country is supposed to stand for, it will be harmful to our economy and communities that rely on the contributions of people who come to America from this wide range of countries,” said Pramila Jayapal, a Democratic representative of Washington.

Well, of course the Islamist says that

Well, they have their talking point about separating families down. She’s upset that Somalis, who are Islamists and have a 3rd world mentality, are blocked even from visiting, especially since she is here to represent Somalia first.

Read: Trump Implements Travel Ban On Unfriendly Countries »

Posted in RoP | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

California Considers Banning Plants Within 5 Feet Of Homes

By William Teach June 5, 2025 – 7:15 am

This is the same California that does a piss poor job of clearing brush, filling reservoirs, and inspecting infrastructure, which is often the start of fires. Oh, and all the homeless who start fires

California plan to ban most plants within 5 feet of homes for wildfire safety overlooks some important truths about flammability

One of the most striking patterns in the aftermath of many urban fires is how much unburned green vegetation remains amid the wreckage of burned neighborhoods.

In some cases, a row of shrubs may be all that separates a surviving house from one that burned just a few feet away.

As scientists who study how vegetation ignites and burns, we recognize that well-maintained plants and trees can actually help protect homes from wind-blown embers and slow the spread of fire in some cases. So, we are concerned about new wildfire protection regulations being developed by the state of California that would prohibit almost all plants and other combustible material within 5 feet of homes, an area known as “Zone 0.”

Wildfire safety guidelines have long encouraged homeowners to avoid having flammable materials next to their homes. But the state’s plan for an “ember-resistant zone,” being expedited under an executive order from Gov. Gavin Newsom, goes further by also prohibiting grass, shrubs and many trees in that area.

The article goes through a long discussion of how plants next to homes can help reduce the chances of a home burning

The Zone 0 regulations California’s State Board of Forestry is developing are part of broader efforts to reduce fire risk around homes and communities. They would apply in regions considered at high risk of wildfires or defended by CAL FIRE, the state’s firefighting agency.

Many of the latest Zone 0 recommendations, such as prohibiting mulch and attached fences made of materials that can burn, stem from large-scale tests conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety. These features can be systematically analyzed.

Instead of banning plants (I’m sure the state will pay inspectors some good money to go around and fine homeowners) and fences and such, how about doing the things that can actually prevent wildfires? Or, would that make too much sense in the People’s Republik Of California?

Read: California Considers Banning Plants Within 5 Feet Of Homes »

Posted in Democrats, Environment | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Crazy Leftist Judge Blocks Deporting Boulder Jihadi’s Family

By William Teach June 5, 2025 – 7:00 am

A family that is in the U.S. illegally

No one is surprised by this

Biden-appointed judge blocks deportation of Boulder attack suspect’s family despite visa violations

In an emergency ruling, a Biden administration-appointed federal judge in Colorado halted the deportation of the wife and five children of Mohamed Soliman, the Egyptian national under federal investigation for the Boulder firebombing attack on Sunday.

The temporary restraining order (TRO), issued by U.S. District Judge Gordon P. Gallagher, prevents federal immigration authorities from removing Soliman’s wife, Hayem El Gamal, and the couple’s five children from the country — at least for now.

“Defendants are temporarily restrained and enjoined from removing Hayem El Gamal and her five minor children from the State of Colorado or the United States,” Gallagher wrote in the order.

The ruling will remain in effect until a scheduled hearing on June 13.

The judge’s order is barely 2 pages long, and fails to quote any actual law for his temporary restraining order. None. Zip. Nada. Do Democrats really want to die on the hill of protecting the family of a terrorist who tried to kill Jews who are American citizens? And he and his family were let into the US despite being denied once before and because he was a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic extremists.

Gallagher (not the funny one) is another crazy leftist judge who wants is using his judicial perch based on beliefs, not law.

Read: Crazy Leftist Judge Blocks Deporting Boulder Jihadi’s Family »

Posted in Liberal World, RoP | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Your Fault: The Atmosphere Is “Thirstier”

By William Teach June 4, 2025 – 3:38 pm

All the hallmarks of a cult: they always have to come up with something new and proclaim Doom from a tiny 1.6F increase in global temperatures since 1850

It’s Not Just Poor Rains Causing Drought. The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’

Look down from a plane at farms in the Great Plains and the West and you’ll see green circles dotting the countryside, a kind of agricultural pointillism.

They’re from center-pivot sprinklers. But some farmers are finding older versions of these systems, many built 10, 15 or even 20 years ago, aren’t keeping up with today’s hotter reality, said Meetpal Kukal, an agricultural hydrologist at the University of Idaho. “There’s a gap between how much water you can apply and what the crop demands are,” he said.

By the time the sprinkler’s arm swings back around to its starting point, the soil has nearly dried out. The main culprit? Atmospheric thirst.

“A hotter world is a thirstier one,” said Solomon Gebrechorkos, a hydroclimatologist at the University of Oxford. He led a new study, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature, which found that atmospheric thirst, a factor that fills in some of the blanks in our understanding of drought, over the last four decades has made droughts more frequent, more intense and has caused them cover larger areas.

Meanwhile

Just like St. Greta, here are the XR wackos going full bore for Islamic extremists.

Read: Your Fault: The Atmosphere Is “Thirstier” »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 4, 2025 – 1:50 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon bike that Other People should have use to get to work, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jihad Watch, with a post on those peaceful jihadis in Mozambique

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Canada Considering Sweeping Immigration Restrictions

By William Teach June 4, 2025 – 10:30 am

This is Canada

The vast majority are from India, Philippines, and China. Then you get Syria, Nigeria, and Pakistan. Meaning Islamic extremists. A goodly chunk are being imported, rather than coming to Canada illegally/showing up at the border demanding asylum

Canada proposes sweeping immigration and security bill

The Canadian government has proposed a bill to restrict some asylum claims and give authorities more power to halt the processing of immigration applications.

Canada’s immigration minister Lena Diab said the Strong Borders Act is meant to curb organised crime and the flow of illegal drugs and weapons, while boosting the “integrity” of the country’s immigration system.

It includes provisions that would give police more power to monitor Canada’s shared border with the US.

It could also bar those who have been in Canada for more than year from filing a claim for asylum. But critics said the bill, which seeks to expand authorities’ ability to open and inspect mail, would breach civil liberties.

The proposed legislation comes amid increasing pressure on Canada, which has historically been open to newcomers, to restrict immigration as the country deals with strained public services and a housing crisis.

Canada has a population of 40 million, a little more than California. And they’ve already brought in a 40th of that population in just 4 months.

They would also require people entering Canada from the US under the Safe Third Country Agreement – a long-standing deal requiring migrants to seek asylum in the first “safe” country they reach, whether it is the US or Canada – to file a claim in Canada within 14 days for it to be considered.

Those who fail to adhere to those deadlines would still be able to undergo a risk assessment that would determine whether their safety is at risk if they are sent away.

But, would they actually do it? Would they boot them out? What numbers are we talking about, when the government is bringing all the immigrants in? How many of the imports are claiming asylum? There are about 3 million non-permanent residents in Canada. About 500,000 illegals. About 450,000 claiming asylum. Can Canada crack down? Can they do things to slow the flow of drugs and guns across the border? Will they?

In fairness, Indians bring value, because the ones who come over from India tend to be a higher “caste”, looking for education and strong work, especially in the tech industry. Sure, they are a pain in the ass when it comes to negotiating, and need to stop wearing sandals with long pants, but, they are not going to be drains on government resources. They take care of their own and work hard. Canada needs to stop bringing in all the Chinese and Muslim extremists.

Meanwhile

Amazing. Canada isn’t deporting her for being a terrorism supporter, but, a clerical error.

Read: Canada Considering Sweeping Immigration Restrictions »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

It’s Totally Unfair To Require Climate (scam) Professionals To Practice What They Preach

By William Teach June 4, 2025 – 7:15 am

Totally unfair!

Why climate professionals are often held to unrealistic standards

Climate professionals, people who work in roles which address climate change, are often criticised for what they eat or how they travel. Criticism of lifestyle choices by colleagues, family members or even strangers can be demotivating. Worse, it can hinder efforts towards building a sustainable future.

As more people start working in sustainability, both in traditional sectors such as climate researchers or public health professionals and within other workspaces where sustainability is embedded into an existing role, this type of criticism is in danger of becoming more familiar.

As more people start working the scam they should be expected to practice what they preach, but, you know, that is only for Other People

Climate change affects everyone, whether we like to admit it or not. It can be overwhelming to know how best to act on all the advice about living more sustainably. In fact, increased knowledge about what is necessary for a sustainable lifestyle can be paralysing, and prevent someone from taking action.

See? Everyone should be forced. Except for those pushing it, who have massive carbon footprints.

Of course, many of us do want to live more sustainably. But some people may feel restricted by the efforts and costs of taking these extra steps to change multiple aspects of our busy daily lives.

Wait, so walking the talk is inconvenient and expensive? Who knew? (well, me, because I’ve been saying and writing this stuff for 20 years)

Instead of revamping our own lifestyles, it can be easier to challenge those recommending these changes to our behaviour, to see if they are following their own rules.

Um, why would I change my lifestyle? I’m not a card carrying cult member. They are.

Climate professionals know which choices are best for the environment. But when you see one of them flying to a UN climate summit, drinking from a plastic water bottle or caught red-handed eating a beef burger, how do you feel? Confused? Vindicated? Perhaps, relief? If the very people who are advising us how to live sustainably aren’t practising what they preach, does this absolve us of responsibility to act?

Whether intentional or not, holding climate professionals to unrealistic standards is a tactic which delays effective climate action. It slows down climate action by redirecting responsibility and foregrounding low-impact solutions.

Of course, the article keeps making more Excuses for climajhypocrisy.

Read: It’s Totally Unfair To Require Climate (scam) Professionals To Practice What They Preach »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 25 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Dumps Biden Era Policy On Emergency Abortions For Hospitals

By William Teach June 4, 2025 – 7:00 am

Yeah, I can see the liberals launching more lawsuits, despite it being totally Constitutional for one president to cancel another’s EO

Trump Rescinds Biden Policy Requiring Hospitals to Provide Emergency Abortions

The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it had revoked a Biden administration requirement that hospitals provide emergency abortions to women whose health is in peril, including in states where abortion is restricted or banned.

The move by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a branch of the department led by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was not a surprise. But it added to growing confusion around emergency care and abortions since June 2022, when the Supreme Court rescinded the national right to abortion by overturning Roe v. Wade.

“It basically gives a bright green light to hospitals in red states to turn away pregnant women who are in peril,” Lawrence O. Gostin, a health law expert at Georgetown University, said of the Trump administration’s move.

The administration did not explicitly tell hospitals that they were free to turn away women seeking abortions in medical emergencies. Its policy statement said hospitals would still be subject to a federal law requiring them to provide reproductive health care in emergency situations. But it did not explain exactly what that meant.

Oh, wait, look at that, it only took the NY Times 4 paragraphs to say that hospitals couldn’t blindly turn away pregnant women in distress. Usually something like that ends up at least 2/3rds of the way in.

At issue is how the government should interpret the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, a 1986 law aimed at discouraging hospitals from turning away patients who lack insurance or cannot afford care. The law requires hospitals that receive federal funding to treat or stabilize emergency patients, or transfer them to a facility that can provide care.

The law does not specifically include abortion, but Mr. Gostin said administrations going back to President George W. Bush have interpreted it that way. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe, the Biden administration reminded hospitals that the law obligated them to provide abortions in cases where they were medically necessary.

At the end of the day, nothing is more important to Democrats than killing the unborn. Nothing.

The Biden policy resulted in lawsuits; the Biden administration sued Idaho, and Texas sued the administration. Both states asserted that their laws restricting abortion superseded the emergency medical act. Idaho has one of the strictest abortion bans in the nation, offering an exception only when the life — not the health — of the mother is at risk.

That “health” is the way the abortionistas get around everything in pushing late term abortions.

Read: Trump Dumps Biden Era Policy On Emergency Abortions For Hospitals »

Posted in GOP | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove