Will ‘Climate Change’ Blow Up Kids’ Childhoods Like Chernobyl Or Something

When something happens, the Cult of Climastrology will attempt to hijack it. In this case, you had a tremendous show on HBO showing what happened during the Chernobyl disaster (watch it if you can, I’ll give it 5 stars), so, hey, why not horn in with ‘climate change’?

Chernobyl Blew Up My Childhood. Will Climate Change Do The Same For My Kids?
I was a 10-year-old in Kiev when the Chernobyl explosion destroyed my faith in my country and my family. Now I wonder if history is bound to repeat itself.

The spring of 1986 was warm in Kiev, Ukraine. White chestnut blossoms dotted the greenery. Cotton ball–sized fluff from poplar trees rolled over the grass in the courtyard of our apartment building. April 22 was Vladimir Lenin’s birthday. All of us third-graders boarded trolleys to ride to the Lenin Museum, thrilled for the ceremony we’d been anxiously awaiting — the ceremony we’d worked so hard for. We were becoming Young Pioneers. Our parents had bought us the red kerchiefs, and we’d practiced tying them around our necks just so, puffing our chests when we caught our reflections in storefront windows.

After school, I insisted on wearing my Young Pioneer uniform (white shirt, navy skirt, red kerchief) to run to a store to buy food for my birthday party the next day, April 23. My mother and I used the dining table in our communal apartment’s kitchen, which we shared with two other families, to roll out pie dough. The heat from the oven baked my neck under the starched shirt collar.

“Are you proud, little Pioneer?” asked our neighbor Irene, summoned out of her room by the aroma of the baking pie. “You look good in red.”

Who here can remember a specific event with such clarity from back in 1986? Because Sophia Moskalenko keeps going on with this very specific recollection, before

On April 29, our next-door neighbor Olena came to my mother for a cup of coffee. Usually, they sat on the landing between the apartments, sharing an ashtray atop a wooden chest that stored potatoes and onions through the winter. But that day, Olena took my mother by the elbow and escorted her into our room, closing the heavy oak door behind them. Olena’s abrupt manner troubled me. I slid up the bronze shield of the pre-Revolution lock and peeked through the keyhole.

“Don’t open the windows,” Olena said, leaning forward in the armchair, brow furrowed. “Wipe everything with a damp rag. Don’t let Sophia go outside.”

Um, most had zero idea what was going on in Chernobyl. Nothing. Because the government clamped down. Heck, most in the closest city, Pripyat, where the Chernobyl workers lived, had no idea. Anyhow, this keeps going on and on and on, till we finally get to

But decades later, I still find Chernobyl burning in me.

With extreme weather events pummeling my chosen country, the present US administration’s avoidance and outright denial of scientific evidence that an environmental disaster wrought by climate change is upon us reminds me of April 1986 in the Soviet Union, when the Soviet government said we would all be fine. In Kiev, we hadn’t witnessed the glowing fire of the nuclear reactor in Chernobyl. The radiation was invisible, its damage slow to transpire. The government’s reassurance was far more appealing than the scientists’ dire assessments. We embraced government lies then for the same reason many do now — because the threat was subtle, and the truth costly.

The comparison between Chernobyl and climate change may seem in some ways far-fetched: Chernobyl was an unexpected, localized event that resulted from bad decisions of a handful of people, whereas climate change is a slowly unfolding global issue that stems from the choices of billions. The striking parallel I see is not in the top officials’ actions but in an average person’s reactions. Both in the USSR of 1986 and in the USA of 2019, too many people choose complacency and compliance over alarm and action.

Oh, wait, you thought that was pretty bad?

Today, the average age of my three children is about 10, the age I was when Chernobyl exploded. Struggling to limit their exposure to pesticides, pollution, and plastics, I wonder if I am doing enough to shield them from the Chernobyl of their lifetimes. As I teach them to recycle and to conserve, I often feel as though I am spooning water out of a sinking boat. Perhaps my resigned perseverance is a hallmark of parenting: repetitive, seemingly futile actions that one hopes will eventually lead to a desirable outcome — like telling them to pick up their socks. Or maybe my efforts reveal a survivor’s hypervigilance — similar to the way survivors of hunger hoard food in times of plenty. Whatever the reason, I see climate change as a test of my parenting.

Read: Will ‘Climate Change’ Blow Up Kids’ Childhoods Like Chernobyl Or Something »

First Democrat Throwdown: They’re All Super-Enthused To Vastly Increase Power Of Federal Government

These Democrats are the exact reason that the 17th Amendment should be repealed: Senators would be elected by state general assemblies, as originally intended, which would pull the power of the federal government back to the states where it belongs. Because they are really, really enthused to give the Central Government more power, which means taking away your choice and liberty. And money. To the point that the Washington Post’s Dan Balz noticed

Democrats signal a turn toward liberal ambitions and government activism

The first debate of the 2020 presidential campaign offered a clear road map of a new Democratic Party, one that favors a series of ambitious and liberal domestic initiatives and that is more willing than some Democrats of the past to use the powers of the federal government to intervene in the economy.

On a range of issues, including immigration, climate change, health care, the economy and more, the Democratic candidates were unabashed in their enthusiasm for more government activism, signaling not only differences with President Trump but also with a more cautious approach by Democratic politicians of the past two decades.

Well, with the rise of the Democratic Socialist bloc in the House, and pretty much every Democrat on the stage suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, they seem more willing to expose their Progressive/Marxist/Socialist/Fascist/Authoritarian (we’ll just call that Modern Socialism) beliefs more than they normally would. This might play well with their base, but, it won’t play in the general election. And it risks turning off moderate Democrats

The economy described by the candidates bore little resemblance to the economy the president speaks about on an almost daily basis. At a time when unemployment is at a half-century low and the stock market continues to rise, the Democrats spoke of the imbalance between giant corporations and wealthy individuals and working families who candidates said are being taken advantage of.

“When you’ve got an economy that does great for those with money and isn’t doing great for everyone else, that is corruption, pure and simple,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), who is one of the leading voices pushing the party to the left. “We need to call it out. We need to attack it head on.”

Warren was far from the only candidate who offered that diagnosis of the economy. The Democrats might have differed on some of the specifics of how to attack the problem — such as the potential breakup of big tech companies — but there was widespread agreement that Democrats in the White House would seek to redistribute power and the fruits of the economy.

I’m surprised they didn’t discuss nationalizing private corporations

On health care, Democrats differed over whether the path to universal coverage should mean Medicare-for-all and an end to private insurance or be accomplished on a more piecemeal basis. But all signaled a new aggressiveness on the part of their party to move beyond the Affordable Care Act that was one of the prime successes of the administration of former president Barack Obama.

Warren and De Blasio stated that they would get rid of all private insurance.

Booker and Klobuchar are both enthused to use the power of government to violate the Constitution and restrict 2nd Amendment Rights.

They were all also super-enthused to expand abortion on demand, and then there was immigration

Immigration produced some of the sharpest exchanges, as former housing secretary Julián Castro challenged others, most specifically fellow Texan Beto O’Rourke, a former congressman, to join him in changing the offense for crossing the border illegally from a criminal to a civil penalty. But overall, the Democrats’ indictment of the Trump administration was consistent and strong.

It is technically a civil penalty for a first offense: a small fine and deportation. What they really mean, though, is “penalizing” them with no fine, no deportation, and free citizenship.

Next up is the 2nd debate with the Dems polling higher, which should also be a fun fest of increasing the power of the government.

Read: First Democrat Throwdown: They’re All Super-Enthused To Vastly Increase Power Of Federal Government »

ICE Releases Names Of Good, Upstanding Illegal Aliens Protected By Sanctuary Jurisdictions

It’s no wonder Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and others are upset and want ICE defunded when they want to deport these nice illegals

ICE releases list of accused murderers, rapists protected under state’s sanctuary law

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials in the Pacific Northwest are taking the unusual step of criticizing Washington state’s new sanctuary state law and giving detailed examples of the danger they believe it presents to the public.

The office recently issued a press release which lists seven cases in which ICE requested detainers on criminal illegal aliens being held in local jails and those requests were ignored, many with tragic consequences.

According to ICE, Rosalio Ramos-Ramos was arrested last January for murder and dismembering his victim. It happened just months after Ramos was released from a Washington jail despite ICE’s request for an immigration detainer and notification of his pending release, neither of which were honored.

ICE also cites the case of Mexican national Martin Gallo-Gallardo, who was in a Clackamas County Oregon jail. The statement said jail officials ignored ICE’s request for an immigration detainer and notification of release. Gallardo was released and within months was re-arrested, this time for allegedly murdering his wife.

The most recent case involves Francisco Carranza-Ramirez, who was also in the U.S. illegally. He was convicted of raping a wheelchair-bound Seattle woman twice. He was sentenced to time served and released, under the judge’s order that he self-deport back to Mexico. King County Sheriff’s officials say he eventually did return to Mexico, but not before assaulting his victim a third time.

These are apparently part of the “good illegals” that Democrats want to protect.

Read: ICE Releases Names Of Good, Upstanding Illegal Aliens Protected By Sanctuary Jurisdictions »

If All You See…

…is a world flooded by carbon pollution, and is that a glacier in the background?, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post on documents showing more of Ilhan Omar’s immigration and tax fraud issues.

Read: If All You See… »

Hotcold Take: The Democrat Debates Are Really All About ‘Climate Change’ In Disguise

Weren’t we told that ‘climate change’ is all about Science? Strange how it always seems to be about politics

THE DEBATES WILL BE ABOUT CLIMATE—DISGUISED AS OTHER ISSUES

SHHHHH. DON’T TELL anyone, but Jay Inslee is going to get a presidential debate focused on climate change.

Inslee, the governor of Washington state and one of two dozen candidates vying for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, has been agitating for such a single-topic debate for months. Other candidates have signed onto the idea, and activists within the party have amplified the message. But Tom Perez, chair of the Democratic National Committee, said nuh-uh. “I concluded the DNC could not allow individual candidates to dictate the terms of debates or limit the topics discussed,” Perez wrote in a post on Medium.

Starting Wednesday night, when 10 candidates kick off debate season … and then Thursday, when a second tranche gets together … and then over the course of 11 more debates … Inslee will get what he wants. Because every single issue that a presidential aspirant could conceivably talk about is, at heart, intertwined with climate change. Jobs, the economy, national security, immigration, energy, housing—they’re all facets of the same crystal. The science is clear; the politics, less so. It’ll be a climate debate, all right; the question is what the candidates will do about it.

Well, really, this is correct, because the whole ‘climate change’ push isn’t about science: it’s about taking random weather events that happen during a low ranking Holocene warm period and proclaiming Doom, which allows Authoritarian styled politicians to grab more power, more taxes and fees, while limiting freedom. The Cult of Climastrology has taken a real thing, immediately blamed Mankind, and used this to hijack every single issue they can think of.

One of the best reasons to talk about climate change and its effects in an all-Democrat debate might well be to reach Republicans—younger ones, at least. The moderate wing of that party is starting to see climate change as an imminent policy issue and a political vulnerability, especially in places like Miami, site of the debates and deeply vulnerable to hurricanes and rising sea levels. “Younger Republicans are much more open to the Democratic message about this,” Leiserowitz says. “They’re like, how come nobody in our party is talking about it, and when they do, they’re saying it’s a hoax?”

On the other hand, Democrats will worry about treading carefully so as to not blow up their electoral map. Republicans have been able to couch their lack of action and obstruction on climate laws as economic caution. They’ll say that limitations on greenhouse gases and changes in energy use threaten jobs and economies in parts of the country already in trouble…

Which is why I want them to talk about ‘climate change’ and their policy proposals. It’s easy to whine about it and say we need to Do Something. The minute people start hearing about what the policies will cost them, they tune out and say “no way in hell.” Seriously, 68% say they wouldn’t be willing to pay $10 more a month on their power bill for ‘climate change’. Heck, 43% say they aren’t will to pay $1 more a month.

Read: Hotcold Take: The Democrat Debates Are Really All About ‘Climate Change’ In Disguise »

Human Rights Might Not Survive ‘Climate Change’, Create Climate Apartheid Or Something

You know it’s summer, because the Cult Of Climastrology ramps up the doomy prognostications and such from Unhinged to Deranged. And this is a new one

‘Climate apartheid’: UN expert says human rights may not survive

The world is increasingly at risk of “climate apartheid”, where the rich pay to escape heat and hunger caused by the escalating climate crisis while the rest of the world suffers, a report from a UN human rights expert has said.

Philip Alston, UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, said the impacts of global heating are likely to undermine not only basic rights to life, water, food, and housing for hundreds of millions of people, but also democracy and the rule of law.

Alston is critical of the “patently inadequate” steps taken by the UN itself, countries, NGOs and businesses, saying they are “entirely disproportionate to the urgency and magnitude of the threat”. His report to the UN human rights council (HRC) concludes: “Human rights might not survive the coming upheaval.”

All that because of a tiny 1.5F increase in global temperatures since 1850.

Alston’s report on climate change and poverty will be formally presented to the HRC in Geneva on Friday. It said the greatest impact of the climate crisis would be on those living in poverty, with many losing access to adequate food and water.

“Climate change threatens to undo the last 50 years of progress in development, global health, and poverty reduction,” Alston said. Developing countries will bear an estimated 75% of the costs of the climate crisis, the report said, despite the poorest half of the world’s population causing just 10% of carbon dioxide emissions.

“Yet democracy and the rule of law, as well as a wide range of civil and political rights are every bit at risk,” Alston’s report said. “The risk of community discontent, of growing inequality, and of even greater levels of deprivation among some groups, will likely stimulate nationalist, xenophobic, racist and other responses. Maintaining a balanced approach to civil and political rights will be extremely complex.”

But, hey, if we give up all our liberty and money to the U.N. they can save us, right?

“When Hurricane Sandy wreaked havoc on New York in 2012, stranding low-income and vulnerable New Yorkers without access to power and healthcare, the Goldman Sachs headquarters was protected by tens of thousands of its own sandbags and power from its generator.”

Weird how government, which the Warmists want to give even more power and money, wasn’t able to protect anyone. Oh, and city hall and government properties were protected. Guess they are the evil rich? BTW, Sandy wasn’t a hurricane when it made landfall, and, there has been no repeat of the storm, despite them telling us this was the new normal.

But, hey, climate apartheid. Doom.

Read: Human Rights Might Not Survive ‘Climate Change’, Create Climate Apartheid Or Something »

Mueller Agrees To Testify In Front Of House Panels, Could Blow Up Spectacularly In Democrats Faces

Trump Derangement Syndrome infused Democrats finally have their wish: Robert Mueller will testify on his big old nothing-burger report, which took over two years to compile and showed….nothing about Trump or any other American colluding with Russia. If Dems think this testimony will help their Russia Russia Russia case, they are very wrong

Mueller subpoena could backfire on Democrats, say political, legal experts

Key Democrat lawmakers who triumphantly announced that Robert Mueller will testify under subpoena next month about his report on alleged Russian collusion may have played right into Republican hands, several legal and political experts told Fox News.

With the former special counsel set to testify on July 17 to the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees, both controlled by Democrats, President Trump’s most vocal critics hope to have the legendary lawman spell out the commander-in-chief’s misdeeds in sound bites that could fuel an impeachment drive. But given that Mueller ultimately found no evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, and his pledge to not deviate from the 448-page report made public in April, the hearing may backfire.

“The bottom line is, after all of your looking and all the time you had and all the money you spent, did Trump collude with the Russians? No - Do you stand by your report? - Yes,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity late Monday. “It is ‘case-closed’ for me. They can do anything they want to in the House, and I think it will blow up in their face.”

There’s a chance that this turns into an extremely boring hearing for Democrats, with them trying to ask TDS questions, going off the reservation, barking at the moon, and Mueller just citing the report. Meanwhile

Republicans on the two panels will get their chance to query Mueller about the dubious basis for federal surveillance warrants used to spy on Trump associates, what initially prompted the FBI probe that preceded Mueller’s investigation and, perhaps the biggest question of all: At what point during his nearly-two year probe did Mueller determine Trump did not collude with Russians.

“He can’t refuse to answer questions about the FISA application,” Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz told Fox News Channel’s Laura Ingraham, referring to a request by the FBI to surveil a member of the 2016 Trump campaign under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Excitable Adam Schiff and other Democrats are out talking about how it will be great for The People to hear from Mueller, even though he released the report, he gave a big statement about the report, for which he said everything you need to know is in the report, and then said that there was no point in testifying in front of Congress. And maybe even the Republican questions are deflected with him referring back to the report. From the Democrats, it just sounds like they want to just keep the Russia Russia Russia schtick going for their deranged base. But, if Mueller is answering questions on things like the FISA applications, this will look bad for Democrats and Obama.

“I think that the price that this testimony will cost the Democrats will be grievous to them,” Geraldo Rivera said. “They will rue the day that Nadler and Schiff let their ambition get ahead of their common sense, their political science, and drag this man back into center stage of the American public.”

Of course, no matter what happens, the Credentialed Media will report this as Bad for Trump, as we all know.

Read: Mueller Agrees To Testify In Front Of House Panels, Could Blow Up Spectacularly In Democrats Faces »

NJ Star Ledger That Rich People Don’t Pay Property Taxes On Items They’ve Already Purchased

You can almost make a case that they are calling for the end of property taxes

You pay taxes on your house. Why shouldn’t a rich guy pay them on his $8 million preserved shark? | Editorial

Most Americans agree that the ultrarich should pay more in taxes. But this is often dismissed as self-interest: Tax reform is cutting my taxes, and raising yours.

You know something is seriously rotten about our economy, though, when even the billionaires argue that they should be taxed more.

This appeal to all the 2020 presidential candidates, released in a letter Monday, was signed by moguls who amassed their own wealth, like Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, and those who inherited it, like Abigail Disney.

As has been noted again and again, go for it. No one is stopping you. You can easily send a check to the IRS.

The problem, they all agree, is that in the face of profound inequality, huge sums are sitting around untaxed by the federal government, in assets like stocks, bonds, yachts, cars and art.

Like a $590 million yacht with a basketball court, owned by Hollywood’s richest man. Or a 14-foot tiger shark preserved in formaldehyde, worth $8-10 million, owned by the hedge fund manager who inspired the series “Billions.” You get the idea.

In general, we pay taxes when we earn or spend money, but not on wealth itself. As a result, the richest 0.1 percent will pay the equivalent of 3.2 percent of their wealth in taxes this year, the letter notes, compared with 7.2 percent paid by the bottom 99 percent.

Sigh. They paid sales tax on those items purchased. Most of which went to the state and local coffers. Just like with the property tax on houses and vehicles. Most people, though, cannot afford to pay the property tax on their house and car up front. So, instead, they are subject to the whims of politicians, who can lower, and raise!, their property tax. Often to pay for things that the citizens do not want or need. And may not help them in the least. Rich people paid a sales tax on the acquisition of their property. Further, take the $590 million yacht. People were paid to build it. A company made money on it. Someone made a good commission selling it. Someone made money designing it. People make money staffing it, maintaining it, and repairing it. People make money stocking it. People make money when it is berthed. And these buffoons want to charge a property tax on the possession of it?

Assets aren’t all sitting around doing nothing: stocks, bonds, property like yachts are moving the economy.

This isn’t about class warfare; it is about a moral, economic and patriotic duty, they argue. Income inequality has grown so extreme that even the uber-rich are taking a stand. It demands a new aggressiveness on the part of government, too.

It’s about class warfare.

Democrats, on the other hand, have a torrent of proposals to address economic injustice, including a plan put forth by Elizabeth Warren to tax wealth. Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Beto O’Rourke and others have also come out in support of a tax on the wealthiest Americans.

“If you own a home, you’re already paying a wealth tax—it’s called a property tax,” Warren argues. “I just want the ultra-rich to pay a wealth tax on the diamonds, the yachts, and the Rembrandts too.”

So, what happens when the average citizen is paying extra taxes on their diamond wedding rings and small sailboats? You either tax all or none. Otherwise, this violates the Constitution. Further, this would be creating a federal property and sales tax. Democrats should be careful what they wish for: they just might get it.

Read: NJ Star Ledger That Rich People Don’t Pay Property Taxes On Items They’ve Already Purchased »

If All You See…

…are horrible fossil fueled vehicles causing rain clouds, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Diogenes’ Middle Finger, with a post on some very interesting information on Trump’s latest accuser.

Read: If All You See… »

The Climate Crisis Will End The Golden Era Of Food Choice Or Something

Remember when some Warmists were saying that the Cult of Climastrology needed to turn down the doomy prognostications because they weren’t helping? Of course, most ignored this advice, ones such as Vox’s Sean Illing. But he did get the memo to call it the climate crisis instead of climate change

The climate crisis and the end of the golden era of food choice

Imagine waking up in a world that has become so hot and so crowded that most of what you eat has disappeared from the grocery store altogether.

Or imagine eating only genetically engineered foods or a diet of exclusively liquid meal replacements.

These are scenarios that Amanda Little, an environmental journalist and professor at Vanderbilt University, envisions in her new book, The Fate of Food. Heat, droughts, flooding, forest fires, shifting seasons, and other factors, she argues, will radically alter our food landscape — what we eat, where it’s made, how we pay for it, and the choices we have. If we’re going to survive, she says, we’ll have to reinvent our entire global food system to adapt to the changing climate.

As Little puts it: “Climate change is becoming something we can taste.”

Sean Illing Which foods might we lose?

Amanda Little The most climate-vulnerable foods include those that are most fickle, needing very specific conditions to grow well, like coffee, wine grapes, olives, cacao, berries, citrus and stone fruits — as well as those that are most water-intensive, like almonds, avocados, and the alfalfa and pasture that feed cattle.

This is when some consumers start to stand up and listen: Yes, your chardonnay and strawberries are on the line.

Doooooooom! Not avocados!

Amanda: None of this means that in the future you won’t be able to eat organic, soil-grown crops or the craft meats you love today. It means that human innovation, which marries new and old approaches to food production, may be redefining sustainable food on a grand scale.

All because the temperature may go up a tiny bit more after the tiny 1.5F since 1850. Hysterics.

Read: The Climate Crisis Will End The Golden Era Of Food Choice Or Something »

Pirate's Cove