…is horrible heatsnow, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on Sam Brinton and the Sisters Of Perpetual Indulgence.
Doubleshot below the fold, check out neo-neocon, with a post wondering where Woke companies go from here.
Everyone seeing everything going OK with the server?
Read: If All You See… »
That’s strange, as I thought all the gun control measures passed post-Sandy Hook were all that was necessary? No? In fairness, there are some components which crack down on repeat offenders
New Gun Regulations Clear Connecticut House: Extends Assault Weapons Ban and Restricts Open Carry
The House voted Thursday to advance a sweeping package of gun regulations including provisions expanding Connecticut assault weapons ban, increasing bail requirements for certain repeat gun offenders and largely prohibiting the open carry of firearms.
Proponents hailed the bill, which will head to the Senate on a 96-51 vote, the most significant update of Connecticut’s gun laws since a landmark law passed a decade ago in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
The bill consists of elements of legislation proposed by Gov. Ned Lamont as well as recommendations from a coalition of mayors from Connecticut’s largest cities.
Among its policies is a provision to ban the open-carry of guns. Stafstrom said the language was tailored to apply to only overt displays of firearms. “A so-called fleeting glance or just catching a bulge of a firearm is not enough.”
That would be called concealed carry, not open carry. Most engaged in open carry are law abiding citizens. Now they’ll be turned into criminals, and treated harsher than the actual criminals who the Soros-style prosecutors let go. This part will certainly see an immediate lawsuit if it passes the Senate (it will) and then be signed by the governor (it will).
The legislation broadens the assault weapons ban passed after the Newtown shooting to include more weapons with banned features as well as previously exempted weapons manufactured before September of 1994. Residents who already own these guns will have until next May to register them with the state.
Da, Comrade, so the state knows where they are, and can come get them during the next time the Democrats pass legislation. I’m betting few will register them. Anyhow, there is very little in the bill which goes after those who illegally own, possess, and/or use guns in the commission of crime.
The bill also includes a provision designed to ensure local police departments quickly process applications for gun permits. If a local agency takes more than 16 weeks to act on an application, the bill allows residents to submit the application directly to the state.
Sixteen weeks to process an application for a Constitution Right? How long is it taking now if they’re putting that limit in? While there are a few negative comments from Republicans, let me flip to PBS Connecticut
GOP Rep. Cara Pavalock D’Amato, who wore a white T-shirt with images of handguns and the words “Love guns” under her blazer, said during the debate that this latest proposal continues the state’s pattern of “chipping away” at the rights of legal gun owners. At four-foot-10-inches tall, the legislator said she personally relies on a gun to keep herself and her son safe.
“Having a firearm is my only shot if somebody is coming at me,” she said.
So many of these “common sense gun laws” hurt women. If someone like D’Amato is walking around with open carry, people with bad intentions will most likely leave her alone.
Republican Rep. Doug Dubitsky, an attorney, predicted this latest proposal will ultimately be overturned by the courts for violating both the U.S. and Connecticut constitutions.
“Courts are stepping in, finally,” he said during Thursday’s sometimes emotional debate. “This bill, like all the bills like it, are slow tyranny. And thankfully, tyranny cannot outrun the Constitution.”
Some many, some might stand. It does depend on whether severability is included in the bill. Section 15 of the Ct. Constitution does state “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” Pretty damned specific.
Read: Connecticut House Passes New Slate Of “Common Sense Gun Reform” Measures »
Trackback URL
Who would have thought that cliffs in a seismic zone would crumble? That the seas would cause cliffs to erode? This never would have happened if you weren’t driving a fossil fueled vehicle
California’s cliffs are crumbling as climate change reshapes the coast
Among the coveted places to live in this city, if you have the money, is West Cliff Drive. How much longer that will be true is the question.
The cliff-top road is falling into the Pacific in large chunks, leaving gaping holes and closing lanes along a normally busy street. A process that has taken place over centuries is quickening after a rare series of winter and spring storms that brought abnormally high tides, potent surf and lots of rain.
The sea is taking back the land. It is happening at various speeds along much of California’s coast, changing the ragged western edge of the country and threatening neighborhoods, highways and ways of life.
For decades, California has built to the brink of the continent, a risk-reward calculus where the reward of a sparkling Pacific Ocean with your morning coffee easily trumps some future risk of a collapsing cliff. The cliffs, some more than 300 feet straight up, star in car commercials and TV shows, the edge-of-seat finales of action movies and, in real life, serve as the perfect takeoff point for paragliders.
If you build in places that are not stable, don’t be surprised. Or blame it on witchcraft, er, ‘climate change’.
But today it is some of the state’s most famed cliffs, overlooking about 500 miles of California’s coast, that are among those most imperiled by rising sea levels and more potent storms.
In Isla Vista, the site of University of California at Santa Barbara, apartment buildings regularly lose front patios and facades to the encroaching ocean, sliding down 200-foot cliffs toward the beach. A major coastal railroad track between Orange County and San Diego is closed frequently — most recently in April after new slides — as erosion undermines the ground beneath it. Repair costs for several sliding sections have reached $14 million so far.
Santa Barbara’s gauge, which is short term, shows barely any rise. Port San Luis, 90 miles away, which is long term, shows just .31 feet per 100 years of rise. Santa Monica shows .50 feet. That’s well below where a warm period should be. LA goes back to 1923, just .34 feet of rise. How is this Doom?
A year ago, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted that sea level would rise 8 inches in California and along the West Coast within the next 25 years. At the same time, though, the state government is trimming funds for and discouraging cities from strengthening weak bluffs and cliffs with relatively short-term measures.
There’s one gauge that shows even a foot of rise per 100 years, North Split, and it has to be an outlier, because the next northern gauge, Crescent City, shows negative .27, and it goes back to 1933. San Francisco goes back to 1897, showing .64 feet. It’s all just apocalyptic Scaremongering, expecting weak minded cultists to just buy into it with zero evidence.
Read: Your Fault: California Cliffs Crumbling Faster Or Something »
It’s 500 pages. Can’t wait to see what it does. Since I can’t find any media outlets trashing it, I’m betting it gives way more assistance to illegal aliens and Democratic Party priorities
Unorthodox immigration bill catches both parties by surprise
A new bipartisan immigration bill is spurring mixed reactions from lawmakers eager to reform the system following an unorthodox rollout that caught many by surprise.
The legislation, spearheaded by Reps. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) and Veronica Escobar (D-Texas), was unveiled Wednesday, with Republican sponsors wearing blue and some Democratic sponsors in red.
The 500-page Dignity Act is seeking to become the first bipartisan immigration bill to gain traction in a decade.
I have little hope with that name that it’s going to be more than an amnesty bill
The legislation includes significant resources for beefing up security at the border, a priority for the GOP, but primarily focuses on creating a 12-year pathway to citizenship at a $10,000 cost for those already in the U.S. — a priority for Democrats.
Hey, remember when Reagan agreed to amnesty for security, and the security barely materialized, and even more illegals streamed in? Who’s paying the $10K? You know it won’t be the illegals.
The legislation would also revise the process for seeking asylum, which has been at the center of the controversy around the removal of the COVID-era Title 42 rule, and create new immigration options for those seeking to come to the U.S.
Again, that the revisions are not being trashed tells me they are very generous. Going back to the previous The Hill article
Reps. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) and Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) see their legislation as having a better chance for success that the hardline GOP bill, charging undocumented workers a “1.5 percent dignity levy” in taxes and other fees that will pay for both border security and job training for American citizens.
LOL. They shouldn’t even be here, so, it really is looking more of amnesty. And one can certainly see the Biden regime waiving that fee. Or redirecting the money to other Progressive priorities
For those already in the U.S. with no criminal record, the legislation would allow undocumented workers to enter with “dignity status,” allowing them to work anywhere and travel abroad freely. They must pay $700 in fees a year for seven years — just under $5,000 dollars — while under the status. Meanwhile, their payroll taxes will drop from 7 percent to 1.5, as they will not be charged for contributing to U.S. government programs for which they are not eligible. She noted those under dignity status will be responsible for paying for their own health care.
So, yeah, amnesty. You know the fees will be waived, and we’re talking tens of millions of illegals (they keep saying 10 million. But, it was 15 million just a few years ago. During the Bush admin they were saying 15-25 million), and this will cause more to stream into the U.S.
Getting on the path to citizenship would kick off another five-year process for those with dignity status, one that takes five years and requires another $5,000. But it comes with a major snag — no one would have citizenship granted through the program unless the Government Accountability Office determines the border has remained secure for a year.
Is this like how Biden and his people say the border is currently secure?
For those seeking asylum at the border, the bill would establish humanitarian campuses, where migrants would be housed while they await a determination in their case — something the bill mandates must take place within 60 days rather than the years-long process many await in immigration court currently.
It really is all window dress for amnesty. A bill that’s 500 pages is going to give the Executive Branch a lot of leeway to do as they please. It would not be pretty. Just say no.
Read: “Unorthodox” 500 Page Immigration Surprises Both Parties »
This had made liberals very mad…right up to the point where Los Federales decide to regulate the small pond on their own property. In fairness, this doesn’t directly smack around the rule, but, puts it on notice to just stop right now
Supreme Court rules against EPA in dispute over regulating wetlands
The Supreme Court on Thursday curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate certain wetlands that qualify as “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act, curbing what has long been seen as a key tool to protect waterways from pollution.
The high court ruled against the agency in a long-running dispute with Idaho landowners known as Sackett v. EPA. In an opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the court found that the agency’s interpretation of the wetlands covered by the Clean Water Act is “inconsistent” with the law’s text and structure, and the law extends only to “wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies of water that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right.”
While the majority acknowledged that weather and climate events like low tides and dry spells can cause “temporary interruptions” between bodies of waters covered by the law, the court said that wetlands protected under the Clean Water Act should be otherwise “indistinguishable” from other regulated waters.
Protecting wetlands is great. I’m all for it, though, if they are solely in a state that should be up to the state, not the federal government. Extending it out to just about any running water? No. Do you really want the EPA to regulate that small pond behind your house and make you get all sorts of permits? How about for temporary streams? It really is just a power grab
In a concurring opinion authored by Kavanaugh and joined by the three liberal justices, Kavanaugh argued the “continuous surface connection” test adopted by the majority “departs from the statutory text, from 45 years of consistent agency practice, and from this court’s precedents.”
By narrowing the scope of Clean Water Act, Kavanaugh warned some long-regulated wetlands will no longer be covered by the law, which will have “significant repercussions for water quality and flood control” throughout the nation.
I understand their reasoning, but, the EPA is contending that a small stream is navigable and under their purview and control, a massive stretch, as the EPA, and most federal agencies like to do. There would be no need for this ruling or even a case if the EPA wasn’t continuously attempting to grab more and more power.
The decision from the conservative court is the latest to target the authority of the EPA to police pollution. On the final day of its term last year, the high court limited the agency’s power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, dealing a blow to efforts to combat climate change.
It’s not about targeting their authority, it’s about reigning in their authority as deemed by law which the EPA wants to expand.
President Biden criticized the Supreme Court’s decision as “disappointing” and pledged to work with the Justice Department and relevant federal agencies to use their legal authority to protect the nation’s waters. Mr. Biden said the ruling puts wetlands and connecting bodies of water at risk of “pollution and destruction.”
What if the EPA decided to crack down on Biden’s properties using the same rule? I wonder how he would respond?
Read: Bummer: SCOTUS Rules 9-0 Against Biden’s Waters Of The USA Rule »
…is an area flooded by too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on Philly potentially seeing “only” 450 murders.
OK, we’ll see if this stays stable. The backend server was having a lot of issues, and, combined with the large amount of ram this little site uses (kinda shocking, but, there are so many posts since 2005, and idiots who think hitting me with their bots will gain anything), it was really tits-up. Newer server, new plan which costs less monthly and a lot more RAM. We’ll see if it is stable. Then I had issues getting into the admin page, had to do some web FTP and add a little code regarding http versus https. Crossing my fingers it stays stable. If not, going to have to start wacking plugins. Jetpack is tops on my list. I know it causes issues. I can bring up the panel, see the traffic trying to load, it fails, then everything is down. I won’t bore you with all this.
Read: If All You See… »
With the backlash from Republicans in the House and in states the insurers feel free to bot be involved in the scam. Except, there’s a wee bit of a problem
Insurers flee climate alliance after ESG backlash in the U.S
A United Nations-convened climate alliance for insurers suffered at least three more departures on Thursday including the group’s chair, as insurance companies take fright in the face of opposition from U.S. Republican politicians.
At least seven members of the Net-Zero Insurance Alliance (NZIA), which launched in 2021, have now left including five of the eight founding signatories.
Departures on Thursday included AXA, whose Group Chief Risk Officer Renaud Guidée had chaired the alliance. The French insurer said in a statement it was leaving to “continue its individual sustainability journey.” Germany’s Allianz and French reinsurer SCOR also quit.
NZIA, part of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero set up by U.N. climate envoy Mark Carney, requires members to commit to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.
The group has been buffeted by growing political opposition from some Republicans in the United States, who say the group could be violating antitrust laws by working together to reduce clients’ carbon emissions.
How many of these insurers actually operate in the U.S.? Hence, Republican policies would have little to no effect on these insurance companies. It looks more like these companies are realizing that all this ESG and climate scam stuff is not good for the bottom line, and are certainly getting pushback from consumers and, more importantly, investors. And now that the United States is pushing back on all that crap they’re taking the hint to get back to proper business practices.
One company is involved in the US
This month 23 U.S. state attorneys general told NZIA members that the group’s targets and requirements appeared to violate both federal and state antitrust laws.
They gave insurers a month to respond in a May 15 letter – the latest salvo from the Republicans against financial institutions factoring environmental, social and governance-related (ESG) factors into their decision making.
So, it’s basically almost a crime racket. Good to know.
Read: Bummer: Insurers Bowing Out Of U.N. Climate Alliance »
Trackback URL
It’s always interesting when Democrats start yammering on about inequities and expose what they really think about black people. Even the Elitist blacks think the black peons are a problem
132 Dems vote against bill cracking down on fentanyl, cite ‘inequities’ in criminal justice system
The House on Thursday passed legislation that would permanently classify fentanyl-related substances (FRS) as Schedule I drugs that are subject to the toughest federal prison terms and penalties, over the objection of most Democrats.
Lawmakers approved the Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act in an 289-133 vote that saw 132 Democrats oppose the bill even though the White House signaled support for it. In the final vote, 74 Democrats supported the bill and only one Republican voted against it. (snip)
But during floor debate on the bill, several Democrats argued against the bill by saying the penalties it imposes for producing and selling fentanyl analogues would fall unfairly on minorities. Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove, D-Calif., said the bill is a repeat of the “war on drugs” from the 1980s that will result in jail time for “Black and Brown” people.
Apparently, these Democrats think black and brown people are selling and doing a lot of drugs. Isn’t that rather racist?
“Did we learn nothing from the war on drugs? I guess not,” she said.
“Back then we enacted ineffective and punitive laws that only worked to expand mass incarceration, mostly of Black and Brown folks,” she said. “This legislation will enact ineffective and punitive drug laws that only work to expand mass incarceration.”
Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., said Democrats support permanently classifying FRS on Schedule I, but only if the bill is “carefully designed to avoid exacerbating inequities in our criminal justice system.”
Yes, it is racist. Perhaps if Democrats weren’t trying to keep black and brown people in poverty while being reliant on Government there wouldn’t be some much crime and use of drugs in their neighborhoods.
Republicans dismissed these worries and said tough penalties against FRS need to be made permanent because tens of thousands of Americans are dying every year due to fentanyl or FRS overdoses. Report language on the bill said more than 71,000 Americans died this way in 2021.
“If you are selling fentanyl to our kids, you deserve to be incarcerated,” Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., said in response to Democrats’ arguments. “We don’t apologize for that.”
And the government needs to be going hardcore at the flow of fentanyl coming across the border and slapping massive penalties on the biggest importers and dealers. But, you know, we apparently do not want to upset all the black and brown people Democrats say are dealing and using fentanyl.
Read: 132 House Democrats Think Lots Of Black People Do Fentanyl »
This couldn’t possibly have anything to do with nature, and what happens during a Holocene warm period, could it? Are the researchers comparing now to previous warm periods? Because that would be rather necessary to do Proper Science
Climate change is moving hurricane risks further inland
The Atlantic hurricane season starts on June 1, but you don’t have to be on the coast to be in the path of dangerous winds and flooding.
Researchers say climate change and rapid development are moving danger zones farther inland, putting more people in harm’s way.
This is troubling news for the many North Carolinians still reeling from the impact from Hurricane Florence in 2018. That storm dropped over three feet of rain – the state’s wettest hurricane.
The behavior of tropical systems is changing due to climate change. Now they are producing more rain, moving slower, and lasting longer over land.
And? Nature happens
As temperatures rise, warmer air molecules carry around more water vapor, causing more potential rainfall and increasing the chance of inland flooding.
The North and South poles are also getting warmer, and the pressure differences between the poles and tropical systems is now smaller, slowing down the steering currents that push these tropical systems along.
A recent study shows that tropical systems have slowed down by 10% in the past 75 years.
Another study shows that tropical systems are lasting longer over land. Fifty years ago, a typical tropical system would have lost more than three-quarters of its intensity in the first 24 hours of landfall. Now, it would only lose half.
How does this compare to the Medieval and Roman warm periods? Can we also look at the behavior during the Little Ice Age and Dark Ages? No? We’re just supposed to take it on faith, and do as the climate cult tells us? Interestingly, the article provides zero links to this new study. Just take it on faith and give your money, liberty, and life choices to government.
Read: Your Fault: Risk For Hurricanes Moving Further Inland Or Something »
…is coffee which will soon be really expensive due to ‘climate change’, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post on Texas continuing to bus illegals to sanctuary cities.
Read: If All You See… »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
