…is an evil fossil fueled airplane, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Weasel Zippers, with a post on CNN’s Chris Cuomo melting down.
Read: If All You See… »
…is an evil fossil fueled airplane, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Weasel Zippers, with a post on CNN’s Chris Cuomo melting down.
Read: If All You See… »
Question: why do these gun grabbers never announce anything that will cause problems for the criminals who use guns illegally? It always seems to make it more difficult for the law abiding
California mayor announces ‘first-of-its-kind’ proposal to combat gun violence
Two weeks after the deadly Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo has proposed a comprehensive plan to combat gun violence and reduce its cost on the public.
Liccardo’s proposed city ordinance, announced Monday, would require all firearm owners in San Jose to carry liability insurance for their weapons. If approved, city officials say it would be the first such requirement in the nation. Gun owners who are unable to purchase liability insurance could pay an annual fee to the city to compensate taxpayers for the public costs of firearm violence in the city.
“A mayor doesn’t have the luxury of just offering thoughts and prayers…we have to solve problems,” said Liccardo in a statement provided to ABC7 News. “While this is far from a complete solution, it is something we can do to reduce the harms of firearms, without waiting for Congress to take action.”
In addition to an insurance-or-fee mandate, Liccardo proposed imposing gun and ammunition sales taxes to help fund gun safety classes, gun violence prevention programs, and additional victim assistance services for survivors of gun violence. The city could also look into creating a program to offer cash rewards to anyone who reports someone who possesses unlawfully-obtained guns or weapons.
Liccardo says he based his design of penalties for noncompliance on California Vehicle Code Section 16209, which provides fines and other penalties for the misdemeanor of operating a vehicle without insurance.
Again, motor vehicles are not a right enshrined in the Constitution. The devil is in the details though
Law experts say the proposal is all but certain to face a legal challenge but is it constitutional?
“I think the answer to that will depend on whether it in fact keeps guns out of people’s hands or whether it’s a reasonable tax,” said Prof. Deep Gulasekaram with the Santa Clara University School of Law. “Lots of state and local regulations of firearms have been upheld because they are reasonable.”
How much will the liability insurance cost? That’s one of the big questions. Will it be so exorbitant that it restricts the ability of citizens to engage in their 2nd Amendment right? How about the taxes on guns and ammo? Of course, none of this affects the criminals. None of this would have stopped the Garlic festival shooter.
Read: Surprise: California Mayor Announces Gun Control That Only Punishes Law Abiding Citizens »
People were totally terrified of the climate crisis (scam), and willing to pay a lot more in taxes and fees and lose their choice
Seattle City Council passes Green New Deal resolution
The Seattle City Council voted unanimously Monday in support of a resolution for a Green New Deal.
Many people testified in favor of the city acting quickly to address the climate crisis, and the crowd was standing room only.
Emma Nixon brought her two young children to the council meeting.
“We are terrified that they will die an early and terribly tragic death because of the impact we humans have on our environment,” she told the council.
The Green New Deal would remake the economy with clean energy, to act on warnings from scientists that climate change will be irreversible unless drastic action is taken by 2030.
“If we need to be climate pollution free by 2030, what we’re talking about is no more fossil fuels in our city,” said Councilman Mike O’Brien, who led the effort on the council.
Who wants to be that O’Brien, and the vast majority of attendees, took fossil fueled trips to city hall?
The resolution does not make specific policy but does envision a fund to raise and spend money on green projects.
Mayor Jenny Durkan has already proposed a tax on home heating oil to help pay for transitioning the 18,000 city homes that still use it.
So, wait, they’re going to tax people heating their home, using an abundant and cheap method, to help pay for forcing these same people to move to a more expensive method? I don’t want to hear any complaining from you Seattle climate cultists about this.
(Crosscut) The resolution states that while the city has made some steps towards the goals listed within it, “that progress is insufficient to make the necessary changes to shift Seattle’s economy to be more equitable and ecologically sustainable.†The resolution suggests that financing of these actions be taken with “progressive revenue sources†and public funds.
Have fun with all the higher taxes and fees, which will skyrocket your cost of living, while also making it harder and more expensive to power your domicile. No whining, Progressive Seattlites, since this is what you wanted.
Seattle police, who won't arrest violent anarchists and Antifa nutters, finally find a criminal in their league https://t.co/SjqrUafvpo
— William Teach2 ??????? #refuseresist (@WTeach2) August 13, 2019
The police are always standing down in the face of the violent leftists, but, a little girl performing vandalism? That’s easy. The story is a hoot, though
The Seattle Police Department drew criticism after officers arrested a crying 13-year-old girl who had accidentally used spray paint, instead of washable chalk paint, to write on a wall at Seattle City Hall during a climate-change protest Friday afternoon.
According to videos and conversation posted on Twitter, one of the adults supporting the children’s protest brought a case of the wrong kind of paint.
A 25-year-old man was arrested along with the seventh-grader, according to a Seattle police blotter post that said officers were responding to a report of vandalism and that building security said they saw people damaging the building facade. Reports on Twitter said the adults who brought the paint were also questioned.
There’s a pretty big difference between spray paint and chalk, and, regardless, it is vandalism. And, perhaps these climate kids, who’ve been brainwashed and dragged to these events, should learn that there are consequences to their actions.
Former mayoral candidate Nikkita Oliver weighed in on Friday evening, saying the officers could have instead turned the incident into a teachable moment.
“Imagine if instead of arresting this little girl the cops had helped her clean it up. Imagine if they had thanked her for her service for protecting the planet,â€Â Oliver wrote. “That kind of public service would have actually been transformative and accountable.â€
Not their job. That just entices more Bad Behavior.
Read: Seattle Passes Green New Deal, Arrests Climate Kid For Vandalism »
This climate trauma thing is great. You have people yammering about other people having mental health issues from a tiny increase in the Earth’s average temperature, something that has happened many many times during the Holocene, which causes other people to think they’re mentally ill
‘Ecological grief’: Greenland residents traumatised by climate emergency
The climate crisis is causing unprecedented levels of stress and anxiety to people in Greenland who are struggling to reconcile the traumatic impact of global heating with their traditional way of life.
The first ever national survey examining the human impact of the climate emergency, revealed in the Guardian on Monday, shows that more than 90% of islanders interviewed fully accept that the climate crisis is happening, with a further 76% claiming to have personally experienced global heating in their daily lives, from coping with dangerous sea ice journeys to having sled dogs euthanised for economic reasons tied to shorter winters.
None of this proves anthropogenic causation. Oh, and it’s not like that “if the Greenland ice sheet goes on melting at this extraordinary rate, then within 12,500 years HALF of it will be gone.” Darned science
Scattered across 17 small towns and approximately 60 villages, all situated on a narrow coastal strip, Greenland’s residents have often been overlooked by data science. The island faces some of the most acute social issues in the world with high levels of alcoholism and historically disproportionate rates of suicide.
According to its lead author, Kelton Minor, the survey finally gives Greenland’s most remote and inaccessible communities a voice on the climate crisis.
Did they just try and link those issues to a tiny increase in “carbon pollution”?
For mental health professionals who specialise in the polar region, the latest survey findings from Greenland will present another red flag for the Arctic’s vulnerable Inuit communities. According to Courtney Howard, the board president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, who lives and works in the Arctic, the intersection between the climate emergency and mental and physical health will become one of the world’s major issues.
Howard said: “Temperature change is magnified in circumpolar regions. There is no question Arctic people are now showing symptoms of anxiety, ‘ecological grief’ and even post-traumatic stress related to the effects of climate change.
“We are challenging the medical profession to acknowledge the world we are inheriting. Schools and universities aren’t considering how climate change will affect people, from a medical or a psychological perspective, so we are not training a new generation of medical professionals to help people in a fast-changing planet and this is intolerable. We are moving too slowly on this.â€

We can solve this with a tax, though.
Read: Greenland Residents Traumatized With Climate Grief Or Something »
…is an area dried out from Other People’s carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on Los Angeles with no gas stations.
Read: If All You See… »
A very interesting piece by Daniel Ortner, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is a conservative/libertarian organization
Government regulation of social media would kill the internet — and free speech
Social media companies have been criticized for disproportionately restricting content that offends political progressives. For example, a Pinterest insider recently leaked documents showing that the platform censors pro-life speech as “pornography.†Popular “classical liberal†YouTuber Dave Rubin has complained that his videos are flagged and discriminated against because of alleged “right-wing†content. And Twitter got into hot water last week for suspending the campaign account of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for posting a video of angry protestors assembling outside the senator’s home.
In response, conservative politicians have advocated for greater government regulation and oversight of social media. Last week, reports surfaced that the White House is developing an executive order directed at tech companies such as Facebook and Google, demanding that these sites eliminate “anti-conservative bias.†The exact contours of the executive order are not yet known, but if it in any way resembles recent proposals, anyone who values the free exchange of ideas should run far away from this latest effort to place government oversight on social media and curtail freedom of speech in the name of “fairness.â€
Why shouldn’t the government require these companies to allow access to everyone? Because social media companies are private companies, not government actors, and these companies have their own First Amendment right to exclude anyone from their platforms for any reason at all. The government cannot force these companies to open up their sites and associate with viewpoints that their owners and shareholders find objectionable, any more than it can force you to display government-approved speech on your private property.
It is a good point: these are private companies. Should government actually be regulating how they operate and allow content on their sites?
But anyone with even a modicum of skepticism of government bureaucrats should see that this is a truly awful and unconstitutional idea. It would mean that social media companies would be required to cozy up with these regulators to secure a permit. And control of the board fluctuates based on who controls Congress or the White House, so the continued viability of social media players would be up for reexamination every time the political winds change. Aggrieved members of the public would be allowed to submit complaints and the burden would be on social media companies to refute their claims — placing the companies in the impossible position of having to prove their innocence of every charge.
Even worse, we would be trusting these unelected commissioners to determine whether a particular policy has a disproportionate impact on a “political viewpoint.†Maybe you like the idea of President Trump’s appointees deciding what must or must not be posted on social media — but how will you feel if it’s President Sanders, President Warren, or President Biden?
And there’s the rub. Democrats are super excited about Net Neutrality. Would they like that, among all the other problems, it would be controlled by whomever is in power? Daniel might be over-doing it in his piece, because, let’s face it, these tech companies are acting in bad faith, and often seem to violate their own terms of service, as well as applying them arbitrarily, however, once you start down the Government road, it’s almost impossible to get off. And that road is constantly getting bigger.
Read: Government Regulation Of Social Media Would Kill The Internet »
Hyper-warmist Justin Gillis rears his head up in the NY Times (which got rid of its climate section years ago), likening climate change to gays coming out of the closet
The Republican Climate Closet
When will believers in global warming come out?….
What exactly is going on here?
I got my first clue a decade ago, over lunch in Washington. I had just sat down with an eminent figure in the Republican Party to discuss global warming. As a condition of the chat, he made me pledge I would never print his name in association with the remarks he made.
We ordered our iced teas, and he looked me in the eye.
“We know this problem is real,†he said, or words to that effect. “We know we are going to have to do a deal with the Democrats. We are waiting for the fever to cool.â€
He meant the fever in the Republican base, then in full foaming-at-the-mouth, Tea Party mode. Denial of climate change was an article of faith in the Tea Party, and lots of Republican officeholders who had been willing to discuss the problem and possible solutions just a few years earlier had gone into hiding.
Very Brave! Said “Republican” won’t say it on the record. And, yes, it is an article of faith, because climate cultists never seem willing to practice what they preach, and, further, all their policy proposals are about taxation, control of individual lives, and Big Government.
The fever never really cooled, of course. It transmuted into the raging xenophobia and nativism that put Donald Trump in the White House. Racist demagogy about foreign invaders is his stock in trade, but he has also become the climate-denier in chief, filling federal agencies with toadies for the fossil fuel industry and crackpot scientists.
What the fellow told me that day still holds true: Lots of Republicans know in their hearts that this problem is real. I hereby posit the existence of something you might call the Republican climate closet.
I posit the existence of something you might call the Warmist climate closet. It’s the one where they refuse to come out and walk the talk, make their own lives carbon neutral, starting with a refusal to use fossil fuels.
For those Republicans still cowering in the closet, I have a question: If we really decided to commit the nation in all its might to solving this problem, do you not believe that American ingenuity and American industry could get the job done?
Sure, there are a few Big Government type Republicans who’ve bought into what the Cult of Climastrology is selling. The rest of us realize that this is all a scam. Heck, even if the climatic change since the end of the Little Ice Age was/is mostly or solely caused by the actions of Mankind, we aren’t going to buy into it, due to said massive Big Government policies, taking away our freedom, choice, and skyrocketing our cost of living, while also making us more dependent of government with their silly carbon tax schemes.
And climate cultists still won’t practice what they preach.
Read: Climate Cultists Wants To Know When Republicans Will Come Out Of The Climate Closet Or Something »
It’s time for Joe Biden to pander to the hard-left, apparently, on firearms. He never seemed to have a problem with his boss, Barack Obama, running over 2,500 firearms into Mexico during Operation Fast and Furious, which were involved in hundreds of Mexicans, including children, being wounded and killed, as well as used to kill to U.S. Border Patrol agents, and even showed up during a terrorist attack in Paris.
We have a huge problem with guns. Assault weapons — military-style firearms designed to fire rapidly — are a threat to our national security, and we should treat them as such. Anyone who pretends there’s nothing we can do is lying — and holding that view should be disqualifying for anyone seeking to lead our country.
I know, because with Senator Dianne Feinstein I led the effort to enact the 1994 law that banned assault weapons and high-capacity magazines for 10 years. Those gun safety reforms made our nation demonstrably more secure.
I fought hard to extend the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines bans in 2004. The Republicans who allowed these laws to expire asserted that they were ineffective. But, almost 15 years after the bans expired, with the unfortunate benefit of hindsight, we now know that they did make a difference.
Many police departments have reported an increase in criminals using assault weapons since 2004. And multiple analyses of the data around mass shootings provide evidence that, from 1994 to 2004, the years when assault weapons and high-capacity magazines were banned, there were fewer mass shootings — fewer deaths, fewer families needlessly destroyed.
The ban was a failure. It didn’t reduce crime. It didn’t reduce shootings. All it caused to happen was that law abiding citizens couldn’t purchase a weapon that was lighter and easier to use than a standard rifles which had the exact same rate of fire and used the same round. And those non-scary looking rifles were used more often by criminals in crimes.
We have to get these weapons of war off our streets.
Gotta get those talking points in.
And if I am elected president, we’re going to pass them again — and this time, we’ll make them even stronger. We’re going to stop gun manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor modifications to their products — modifications that leave them just as deadly. And this time, we’re going to pair it with a buyback program to get as many assault weapons off our streets as possible as quickly as possible.
He doesn’t explicitly state it, but, that sure looks like he plans on banning people who currently own them from having them, does it not? Why else have a “buyback”? Because most owners will not sell them back, unless they are old and worn out, and they want the money to get a new rifle. I’ll believe Joe is serious when he forces the law enforcement that protects him and other elected officials to stop carrying real weapons of war, since they often have ones which you and I cannot have, including automatic rifles.
I won’t stop there. I’ll get universal background checks passed, building on the Brady Bill, which establishing the background check system and which I helped push through Congress in 1993. I’ll accelerate the development and deployment of smart-gun technology — something gun manufacturers have opposed — so that guns are keyed to the individual biometrics of authorized owners.
Most of these mass shooters passed a background check, excepting those who are running around the streets of Democratic Party run cities with gun control that disarms law abiding citizens who want to protect themselves while doing nothing about the actual criminals. So, won’t make a difference. Joe should arm his security detail with smart guns. They’ll be thrilled with the .22 caliber ones, right? Perhaps he should talk to NJ, which stalled development.
This is all about pushing the emotionalism to grab guns and making it harder for law abiding citizens to engage in their Constitutional right, particularly those who want to protect themselves. None of this effects criminals in the least. Why is it that Democrats always want to punish people who had nothing to do with a crime?
(Red State) What’s worse, in the greater scheme of things, rifles as a category of weapons, used in the commission of a murder constituted just 403 out of a total 15,129 according to the 2017 DOJ/FBO Uniform Crime Report (UCR). That’s 2.67 percent. One study claims that semi-automatic rifles were used in just 25 percent of mass shootings.
According to the UCR the following instruments were used more often to kill people than rifles of any type: Knives (1,591); Blunt objects, hammers, bats etc (467); and finally, Hands/Fists & Feet (696).
One more little data point. There are somewhere between 15 and 20 million Modern Sporting Rifles in America. Using the low number and assuming for the sake of argument that all the rifles in the 2017 UCR were Modern Sporting Rifles, 403 divided by 15 million means that less than 3 thousandths of a percent of the Modern Sporting Rifles in these United States, were used in the commission of a murder.
Yeah, but gun grabbers gotta gun grab.
Read: Sleepy Joe Biden Wants To Ban Scary Looking Rifles Because It Totally Worked Last Time »
So, does this mean we have to get rid of Central Park? How about The Mall in D.C.?
Well-manicured lawns have long been a symbol of the "American dream." But maintaining them can contribute to climate change. So, why even have lawns? We traced their history. https://t.co/EDtxsEtZk2
— The New York Times (@nytimes) August 9, 2019
From the link
America’s manicured front lawns represent the pride of homeownership, and the cultivation of community. But the ways we maintain them risk hurting the environment and contributing to climate change. So why do we even have lawns in the first place? We traced their history, starting with early European colonists.
Below, you’ll find some of the sources that helped us the most and other tidbits we weren’t able to fit into the video.
The video is absurd climate cultists nutbaggery. Seriously, these wankers have to link everything to ‘climate change’. Nice lawns predate the United States itself. But, they have to drag Hotcoldwetdry in because that’s what cultists do.
Piss off.

BTW, you have to wonder as to how many employees of the Times have nice lawns.
Read: NY Times Really Wants To Talk About Your Manicured Lawn And ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »