Totally Peaceful (And Hypocritical) Extinction Rebellion Co-Founder Arrested For Smashing Window

This is how it begins. The Left is out in the streets, marching for something. They keep pushing the boundaries, till the violence ensues

Extinction Rebellion co-founder arrested after smashing ministry window

A founder of the Extinction Rebellion pressure group was arrested Tuesday after climbing the building housing Britain’s transport ministry in central London.

Gail Bradbrook climbed the building with a sign that read “HS2 is our climate emergency” above the revolving doors. HS2 is a high-speed rail line that will connect London with other UK cities.

Bradbrook, invoking the example women’s suffrage activist Emmeline Pankhurst, then tried to smash a window with a hammer and screwdriver. She was later brought down by a police climber.

Another activist tried to lock herself to the transport ministry but was arrested.

And now that the co-founder has done it, how many others will do the same?

‘Hypocrisy’ of Extinction Rebellion founder’s 11,000-mile trip to Costa Rica as she boasted of taking a luxury long-haul holiday on social media

The founder of the eco-activist group Extinction Rebellion boasted of a luxury long-haul holiday on social media just three years ago.

Gail Bradbrook racked up 11,000 air miles when she flew to Costa Rica in 2016 to stay at the £2,500 luxury New Life Iboga resort.

But Dr Bradbrook’s Central American trip had a carbon footprint of 2.6 tonnes – a quarter of the amount that the average Briton emits in a whole year.

She posted on Facebook that her holiday was ‘filled with nature and the warm sea’ and sightings of exotic wildlife including iguanas and monkeys that ‘smash mangoes on the roofs’.

Paul Scully, the Conservative MP for Sutton and Cheam, told The Sun: ‘This is blind hypocrisy from a group that’s spent days blighting people’s travel plans.’

It’s always about forcing Other People to live the life, never themselves.

Read: Totally Peaceful (And Hypocritical) Extinction Rebellion Co-Founder Arrested For Smashing Window »

If All You See…

…is a beach which alternates between hot and cold due to climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lid, with a post on the police officer running against Jew hater Ilhan Omar.

Read: If All You See… »

UK Guardian Wants To Change Language On ‘Climate Change’

It would probably be more helpful to prove using the Scientific Method, using actual evidence and facts and such, but, hey, this isn’t about science

‘It’s a crisis, not a change’: the six Guardian language changes on climate matters

A short glossary of the changes we’ve made to the Guardian’s style guide, for use by our journalists and editors when writing about the environment

1.) “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” to be used instead of “climate change”

Climate change is no longer considered to accurately reflect the seriousness of the overall situation; use climate emergency or climate crisis instead to describe the broader impact of climate change. However, use climate breakdown or climate change or global heating when describing it specifically in a scientific or geophysical sense eg “Scientists say climate breakdown has led to an increase in the intensity of hurricanes”.

If it’s such a crisis, why is the Guardian still using fossil fuels to gather news? Why are they not telling us that their operations, including their Internet server, are powered solely by renewables?

2.) “climate science denier” or “climate denier” to be used instead of “climate sceptic”

The OED defines a sceptic as “a seeker of the truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions”. Most “climate sceptics”, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, deny climate change is happening, or is caused by human activity, so ‘denier’ is more accurate.

I’m still waiting for that overwhelming scientific evidence. The trope of “CO2 has gone up while warming has occurred” is not proof.

3.) Use “global heating” not “global warming”
‘Global heating’ is more scientifically accurate. Greenhouse gases form an atmospheric blanket that stops the sun’s heat escaping back to space.

Yes, they do, but, how much of the warming has been caused by those released by Mankind? That is one of the arguments. Since a goodly chunk of that release from Mankind comes from agriculture, what would the Crisismongers have us do? Starve?

In order to keep below 1.5C of warming, the aspiration of the world’s nations, we need to halve emissions by 2030 and reach zero by mid century. It is also likely we will need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, perhaps by the large-scale restoration of nature. It is a huge task, but we hope that tracking the daily rise of CO2 will help to maintain focus on it.

Well, good luck with that.

Read: UK Guardian Wants To Change Language On ‘Climate Change’ »

Bummer: Democrat Debate Fails To Mention ‘Climate Change’ Yet Again

Now, Democrats keep telling us that ‘climate change’ is the most important issue of the century. That we are doomed if we don’t Do Something. They run apocalyptic story after story at media sites like the NY Times and CNN. Straight articles and opinions. Democrats make Pronouncements. Yet

CNN and the New York Times skip climate change in the fourth Democratic debate

Moderators of the three previous Democratic primary debates caught a lot of flak from environmental advocates for not spending enough time on climate change. On Tuesday night, moderators of the fourth debate paved the way for a new era of climate politics by featuring warming front and center. Just kidding. In actuality not a single question about the biggest threat facing residents of the United States, and the world, was asked of the 12 candidates who qualified for the debate.

That’s despite the fact that CNN, one of the night’s two host media organizations, recently held a climate change-themed town hall during which moderators grilled candidates on all angles of the issue. The New York Times, the other host, has a team of journalists specifically assigned to climate stories. (CNN even ran a Times ad touting its climate coverage during one of the debate’s commercial breaks). And yet, somehow, CNN and the Times were unable to muster even a yes/no question about a crisis that is projected to claim millions of lives and alter the world as we know it.

Instead, the candidates were asked about hot topics in recent news cycles, like about whether President Trump should be impeached and the commander-in-chief’s recent decision to pull troops out of Syria — as well as topics that have come up previously, like gun control, a wealth tax, and the minutiae of single-payer health care versus Medicare for all versus “Medicare for all who want it.” That’s all well and good: It’s certainly important that voters hear from the candidates on those issues. But at the 11th hour, when it seemed the moderators might finally ask the candidates a question about climate change, they delivered a disappointment of epic proportions.

And, at the end, when they still had a chance, the candidates were asked about…..the minor kerfuffle of Ellen Degeneres sitting with George W Bush at a football game.

Julian Castro also yammered on Twitter about climate change being an existential threat. He’s polling at 1% nationally. Steyer is at 1.6. Inslee, who made his whole campaign about ‘climate change’, isn’t polling, because he dropped out months ago. At the end of the day, as I’ve written many times, people may Care about ‘climate change’ in theory, but, in practice, most aren’t interested in Doing Something. They certainly aren’t interested in spending their own money or having their lives changed.

Climate change may poll high with Democrats, but, not with the general public.

BTW

Despite being the leading issue among all American voters, according to Harvard/Harris polling, CNN anchors and a New York Times reporter ignored the immigration issue that motivated millions of voters in the 2016 presidential election.

Instead, debate moderators focused largely on impeachment, gun control, health care, and abortion.

Of course they did.

Read: Bummer: Democrat Debate Fails To Mention ‘Climate Change’ Yet Again »

Democratic Debate: Beto Says To Hand In Guns Or They’ll Be Consequences

This should work out well for Beto, right? And you can bet this kind of stuff will come up in commercials for whomever gets the nomination, positioned as “this guy is in your party”

(Breitbart) O’Rourke reiterated his plan to use a government-mandated buyback to confiscate privately-owned AR-15s and AK-47s. In so doing, he claimed that each AR-15 and AK-47 in private hands is a “potential instrument of terror.”

CNN’s Anderson Cooper then asked O’Rourke how he plans to get people to hand over their rifles.

O’Rourke responded by explaining that he expects complains with the mandatory buybacks. He said, “I expect my fellow Americans to follow the law. The same way we enforce any provision, any law that we have right now, we don’t go door to door to do anything to enforce the law. I expect Republicans, Democrats, gun owners, non-gun owners alike, to follow the law.”

Why would non-gun owners comply? They don’t have guns. What’s that? He expects non-gun owners to snitch on those they know have the guns? Huh.

Cooper then followed up by asking what O’Rourke plans to do if Americans do not comply.

O’Rourke said, “If someone does not turn an AR-15 or an AK-47, one of these weapons of war, or brings it out in public and brandishes it, in an attempt to intimidate…then that weapon will be taken from them. If they persist, there will be other consequences from law enforcement.”

https://twitter.com/TrumpStudents/status/1184284563977191424

Unfortunately, Anderson did not follow up with what those consequences would be. Anyhow, how does this play with the American electorate? Might it turn off many gun owning Democrats from voting D for president? They might not vote Trump, but they won’t vote D. And many may just say “hang it all” and not bother voting at all. But, hey, what comes next? Might a President Beto go the New Zealand route?

New Zealand PM Ardern steps up fight against extremist online content

New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced more funding and support on Monday to target violent extremist content online, just months after an alleged white supremacist live-streamed a massacre at two mosques in Christchurch. (snip)

Ardern said the government was investing NZ$17 million ($15.8 million) over four years to boost New Zealand’s ability to find, stop and stamp out terrorist and violent extremist content online quickly. (snip)

The new department’s powers include investigating and prosecuting those committing offences through both proactive detection and working with international and domestic partners, it added.

“Our online world must be a force for good where we can exchange ideas, share technology, and maintain civil liberties while protecting New Zealanders from objectionable content,” Ardern said in the statement.

Who establishes what’s Wrongthink? Who controls that? I know I’ve been accused of being a Nazi, a Fascist, of posting objectionable content. This site has been banned in China, and banned in India. I read websites of the other side all the time. THey are constantly calling to shut down the sites of anyone who doesn’t agree with them, to get them banned from social media. How does it maintain civili liberties when the government is going to force bannings? Will that be Beto’s next step?

Read: Democratic Debate: Beto Says To Hand In Guns Or They’ll Be Consequences »

Some Cities Are Banning Drive-Thrus Because Of Hotcoldwetdry

It’s for your own good, you know. Government knows better

Moving to curb carbon emissions, cities put brakes on drive-thrus

Drive-thru windows at fast-food restaurants, banks and other businesses have long represented the convenience for which American businesses are renowned. But the ease of idling in a vehicle while waiting for your order is now associated with another development: climate change.

As a result, some communities across the U.S. are banning drive-thrus, citing the additional carbon emissions that are released. Minneapolis this summer banned construction of new drive-thrus, while officials in Long Beach, California, have imposed a six-month ban on new drive-thrus while they study the issue. Similar ordinances restricting or prohibiting fast-food windows have also been adopted in communities including Creve Coeur, Missouri; Fair Haven, New Jersey; and Orchard Park, New York.

Minneapolis cited air pollution from idling vehicles as a major factor for the ban on drive-thrus, along with litter, noise and the potential of vehicles blocking sidewalks, which can increase the risk of a pedestrian accident. The order is part of the city’s long-term plan, called Minneapolis 2040, which includes a goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050.

Every city mentioned, excluding Fair Haven, NJ, has an airport. Mostly small ones, except for Minneapolis. Orchard Park is the actual home of the Buffalo Bills stadium. What of all the idling vehicles there? Will they be banned? This is just a bunch of climanuts being climanutty.

Read: Some Cities Are Banning Drive-Thrus Because Of Hotcoldwetdry »

If All You See…

…is horrible heat snow from Other People driving fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Last Refuge, with a post on Trump’s Syrian maneuver working, as Erdogan asks for negotiations with Kurds.

Read: If All You See… »

London Police Have Had Enough Of Extinction Rebellion, Ban All Protests

The Metropolitan Police have had quite enough of these unhinged people creating problems in the streets

British police issue a city-wide ban on climate change protests in London

British police have ordered Extinction Rebellion activists to stop their demonstrations immediately or face arrest, issuing a London-wide ban on the group’s climate change protests.

In a statement issued on Monday evening, the Metropolitan Police said that anyone who ignores the ban would be detained and face prosecution.

“Any assembly linked to the Extinction Rebellion ‘Autumn Uprising’… must now cease their protest(s) within London,” the police said, marking 21:00 London time on Monday evening as the cut-off for protesters to stop what it called “ongoing serious disruption to the community.”

Activists based in Trafalgar Square, which until Monday had been specified by the Metropolitan Police as the only legitimate protest site in the city, were ordered to remove their tents and clear the area almost without warning.

Extinction Rebellion’s London branch described the move as an “outrage,” before calling on the police to “respect the law.”

The decision comes after more than a week of civil disobedience in London, with activists targeting government buildings and major financial institutions.

The protests, which began last Monday and were due to last two weeks, have resulted in more than 1,400 arrests.

Now, Britain is not the United States. They do not have the same 1st Amendment that we do. But, remember, our 1st guarantees the Right to protest peaceably (along with petitioning for redress of grievance and Free Speech), which we should all support. With 1,400 arrests, with the blocking of streets, with causing problems for so many other Brits just trying to go about their daily lives, gluing themselves to doors and trains and streets and planes, etc and so on, this is not peaceable.

I will say that I feel that the Met Police are being a little heavy handed here. They could have set the terms of protest, saying to stay out of the streets and do not do things that interfere with the Rights of other Londoners and visitors. Instead, they just said “go home. Now.”

“After nine days of disruption we felt it is entirely proportionate and reasonable to impose this condition because of the cumulative impact of these protests,” Laurence Taylor, deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said in a statement on Tuesday.

“A significant policing operation continues and we will take robust action against anyone engaged in unlawful protests at locations targeted by Extinction Rebellion. However, I want to be absolutely clear. This does not mean people are banned from protesting in London. The condition applies specifically to the Extinction Rebellion ‘Autumn Uprising.’”

“If Extinction Rebellion, or any other group, come to us with a proposal for lawful protests then of course we will discuss that with them,” Taylor said.

It’s still a bit heavy handed, but, then, the Met Police are surely tired of these unhinged climate cultists, who waste their time when they could be dealing with real crime.

*Photo from this James Delingpole article. The Met Police just have this look like “good grief, the smell!”

Read: London Police Have Had Enough Of Extinction Rebellion, Ban All Protests »

Warmists Want To Take Advantage Of A Recession To Implement Green New Deal Or Something

Modern Socialists have been fantasizing about a recession coming soon. They’ve been yapping about it, writing articles about it, and praying that one will come, particularly a really bad one, mostly to hurt Donald Trump, as well as other non-hardcore leftist European leaders. They do not care if citizens are hurt. And

A recession is coming. When it does, we need to demand a Green New Deal

American carnage and Brexit collapse, detention camps and environmental breakdown – the daily barrage of bad news makes it easy to forget that these are disparate symptoms of the same disease unleashed by the 2008 financial crisis.

Back then, activists in Europe and the US pushed for a holistic cure: a Green New Deal to deliver necessary investments in people and planet. But establishment economists waved them off, preferring a shot-in-the-arm of easy money. Now, all the grave symptoms of recession have returned – and the old drugs don’t work any more, antibiotics to which the disease has already adapted.

But now is not the time for I-told-you-so. Never before has so much idle cash accumulated as in the past decade – and never before has circulating capital failed so miserably to invest in human health and habitat. We are long overdue for a Green New Deal.

Back in 2008, commentators were quick to announce the death of financialized capitalism. Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, was trotted out in front of Congress to apologise for his faith in self-regulating financial markets. Activists occupied town squares from Oakland to Madrid. And even the CEO of Goldman Sachs admitted he had a “reason to regret”. It seemed like radical change was around the corner.

It wasn’t. Far from collapsing, banks like Goldman Sachs turned around to record profits, hand out record bonuses, and rehash the risky practices that produced the Great Recession.

The next 13 paragraphs continue down this road of economic issues since that recession before really mentioning the GND again

If 2008 saw the original development of the Green New Deal proposal, then, 2019 is the time to deploy it: a moment when the architects of the old strategy, pockets empty, no longer seem able to defend it. “There was unanimity,” said Mario Draghi, retiring president of the ECB, “that fiscal policy should become the main instrument.”

It’s almost like the GND has nothing to do with the climate change scam nor the environment, and all about installing a Progressive (nice fascist)/Socialist economic system.

The Inconvenient Truth: Fixing Climate Requires Major Economic Change, Naomi Klein Says

Climate change denial is not driven by rogue scientists who disagree with their peers — author Naomi Klein says — but rather free-market capitalists who want to protect the economic status quo.

Klein has an inconvenient truth for climate deniers who oppose the economic changes that scientists and activists say are necessary to reduce the risk of environmental catastrophe: A government takeover of business is necessary to combat climate change.

In her new book “On Fire: The Burning Case for a Green New Deal,” Klein writes that allegiance to capitalism is at the heart of climate denial.

Klein is one of the few climate cultists who’s honest in what the Cult of Climastrology is all about.

Read: Warmists Want To Take Advantage Of A Recession To Implement Green New Deal Or Something »

Comrade Bernie Forgets Who Writes The Tax Code

Comrade Bernie, with his three houses with the money he’s made off book sales that wouldn’t have gone anywhere without being a U.S. Senator, really wants to jack up the corporate tax rate and stuff

Sanders takes aim at corporate America with new tax plan

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is shining a light on the U.S. tax code in the lead-up to Tuesday’s Democratic presidential primary debate by releasing new proposals that would aggressively raise rates on corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

On Monday, he called for raising the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 35 percent — the level it was at before President Trump’s 2017 tax-cut law — and making statutory changes to prevent companies from using offshore tax havens.

His proposal also would require large corporations to give their employees stock until the businesses are at least 20 percent employee-owned and for large corporations to have 45 percent of their boards elected by workers.

Of course, quite a bit of the so-called “loopholes” in the tax code were removed with that tax cut law, which may be Trump’s, but was passed by the U.S. Congress. Forcing companies to give employees ownership and sit on the board? Sure thing, Comrade. Off shore havens? Perhaps Sanders should read the Constitution.

“For more than 40 years, the largest and most profitable corporations in America have rigged the tax code and our economy to redistribute wealth and income to the richest and most powerful people in this country,” Sanders said in a statement. “The American people are saying enough is enough.”

In case Bernie forgot, which is easy, since he’s only been in Congress since 1991, the Congress writes the tax laws. Yes, companies can lobby and suggest and donate to get something back, but, Congress writes the laws. Perhaps there should be a law that requires sitting federal lawmakers to be taxed at an 80% rate on any book sales.

Funny thing is, quite a few of those richest people support Democrats and vote Democrat. Why aren’t they voluntarily giving up their money and giving their employees control in their companies?

The proposal comes at a key time for his campaign.

Many recent polls show Sanders in third place, trailing Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), his biggest rival for the Democratic Party base’s liberal wing, and former Vice President Joe Biden.

Like Sanders, Warren is running on a platform designed to appeal to progressives, and she has seen her stock in the Democratic primary contest rise in part because of her numerous policy proposals aimed at reducing wealth inequality and reining in corporate power.

In other words, they are pandering to the far left to get the party nomination. However, how will these far-left Modern Socialist policies play in the general election? Whomever makes it out of the fighting pits will then have Trump bringing this stuff up.

Read: Comrade Bernie Forgets Who Writes The Tax Code »

Bad Behavior has blocked 6264 access attempts in the last 7 days.