If All You See…

By William Teach January 18, 2025 – 1:00 pm

…is an ocean that is soon going to rise dozens of feet, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 357 Magnum, with a post on bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Moonbats Recommend Wearing Black For Inauguration Day

By William Teach January 18, 2025 – 10:30 am

“Hey, why did we lose the election?”

“We were nuts and out control and the American citizens saw it.”

“OK, so, let’s be less nuts.”

“No.”

Occupy Democrats Instructs Followers to Wear Black for ‘National Day of Mourning’ During Trump Inauguration

Far-left social media page Occupy Democrats has dubbed President-elect Donald Trump’s Inauguration Day a “National Day of Mourning,” and instructed its more than 10 million followers to wear black for the occasion.

While Martin Luther King Jr. Day will also be observed on Monday, the fake news outlet decided that it is not sufficient enough for anti-Trumpers, and issued a “friendly reminder” on Facebook on Thursday:

“Don’t forget to wear all black on January 20th. National Day of Mourning,” the page, founded by Mexican-born brothers Omar and Rafael Rivero in 2012, stated.

They also shared it on Instagram and Twitter, where the moonbats went nuts with comments like “We’ll be wearing black for the next 4 years.” I guess that means we’ll be seeing the return of Antifa violence in the streets. It makes it easy to recognize who the wackos are. Oh, and more wacko

Read: Moonbats Recommend Wearing Black For Inauguration Day »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Upset Global Boiling Could Reduce Inflow From Property Taxes

By William Teach January 18, 2025 – 7:00 am

They really do not like government not getting its tithe from the peasants

Climate change demands a long-overdue reform of the property tax system

The wildfires in California have destroyed thousands of homes and businesses and displaced tens of thousands of people—and the crisis is far from over. Man-made climate change is already provoking mass migration, and as environmental conditions worsen, tens of millions of Americans will likely respond by moving. The United States must do much more to prepare our political institutions for the domestic displacements that will result from climate change—as we will discuss at our upcoming event “How to prepare for climate migration in the U.S.”

One urgent area for action is fiscal policy. Climate change will destabilize local property taxation. What is more, the fiscal system built upon the housing market—already a major source of inequality in America—will, unless reformed, be a primary mechanism by which climate change exacerbates economic injustice.

Because localities rely heavily on property taxes, it will become increasingly difficult to raise regular and adequate revenue for local governments where climate change is taking a heavy toll. The massive dysfunction in the market for home insurance should serve as a bellwether for this looming fiscal threat. The U.S. local tax structure is built around homeownership. Nationally, property taxes make up nearly half of local own-source general revenue, and nearly three-quarters of local tax revenue. This percentage has declined slightly over the last 50 years, but American government remains exceptionally dependent on property taxes compared with other OECD countries.

The feudal lords need their tribute, so, what to do, what to do

The good news is that the local property tax is immensely overdue for reform. The spread of property tax limitations and tax competition between fragmented localities has made this source of revenue particularly constrained and inflexible. California’s property tax cap, for example, provides a huge windfall to longtime property owners by tightly constraining assessment increases. A study of California’s wildfires between 1990 and 2015 found that property tax revenue actually increased after the disasters, even though many homes had been damaged or destroyed. Why? Because more properties were sold, and it is only at sale that property assessments are adjusted to their actual market value. That’s right: Property taxes were so absurdly low that wildfires raised revenue. These kinds of distortions in the tax code are well worth revising, even if climate change were not endangering the stability of local public finance.

Reforming the property tax is a decades-long project—but of course, so is responding to climate change. As communities develop their climate adaptation plans, part of those plans must be a fiscal strategy that can weather the coming storms.

So, instead of governments spending money responsibly, the cult wants taxes completely revamped to make sure government gets its due. Weird how people say I was nuts when I said that the anthropogenic global warming (called that at the time) was really about increasing the power of government while taking more money from the people.

Read: Warmists Upset Global Boiling Could Reduce Inflow From Property Taxes »

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

Biden Declares Equal Rights Amendment Has Passed

By William Teach January 18, 2025 – 6:45 am

The Democrats might want to rethink this

Let’s go to a story

Biden says Equal Rights Amendment is ratified, kicking off expected legal battle as he pushes through final executive actions

President Joe Biden announced a major opinion Friday that the Equal Rights Amendment is ratified, enshrining its protections into the Constitution, a last-minute move that some believe could pave the way to bolstering reproductive rights.

It will, however, certainly draw swift legal challenges – and its next steps remain extremely unclear as Biden prepares to leave office.

The amendment, which was passed by Congress in 1972, enshrines equal rights for women. An amendment to the Constitution requires three-quarters of states, or 38, to ratify it. Virginia in 2020 became the 38th state to ratify the bill after it sat stagnant for decades. Biden is now issuing his opinion that the amendment is ratified. It would next fall upon the archivist of the United States, Dr. Colleen Shogan, to certify and publish the amendment.

“It is long past time to recognize the will of the American people. In keeping with my oath and duty to Constitution and country, I affirm what I believe and what three-fourths of the states have ratified: The 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex,” Biden said in a statement Friday. (snip)

But legal experts contend it isn’t that simple: Ratification deadlines lapsed and five states have rescinded their approval, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school, prompting questions about the president’s authority to ratify the amendment more than 50 years after it first passed.

Really, I’d say Republicans should totally support this

The equal rights amendment, in sum, would dedicate the nation to a new view of the rights and responsibilities of men and women. It firmly rejects sharp legislative lines between the sexes as constitutionally tolerable. Instead, it looks toward a legal system in which each person will be judged based on individual merit and not on the basis of an unalterable trait of birth that bears no necessary relationship to need or ability.

A major argument in favor of the ERA is that it would guarantee that all citizens, regardless of sex, are treated equally under the law. Currently, the 14th Amendment gives equal rights to all citizens but does not explicitly mention women. The 19th Amendment explicitly gives women equal voting rights relative to men but does not broaden its scope beyond that issue. An amendment combining the two — guaranteeing women equal rights with no caveats — is considered necessary by proponents of this perspective.

See, the thing is, the ERA would enshrine in the Constitution that women are actually, you know, women, and not those fake trans ones. More importantly, it would mean that men and women are, in fact, utterly equal under the law. It would mean that, get this, women would be required to register for Selective Service. Because the law must apply equally.

Another major argument against the ERA is that the ratification of the ERA would mean laws cannot be passed to protect men and women differently. The ERA states, “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex,” implying all laws must affect men and women equally. That standard is present in legislation surrounding racial discrimination. An example is present in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital from 1923. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to guarantee women a minimum wage because earlier, the court had ruled that men could not be guaranteed a minimum wage. The court based its decision on the 19th Amendment.

It could very well mean that existing laws that give extra protections to women would either be null and void or men would get the same protections, because the ERA calls for equal protection under the law.

Anyhow, we’ll see if Trump supports it and Congress does something to make it legally the 28th Amendment.

Read: Biden Declares Equal Rights Amendment Has Passed »

Posted in Constitution, Joe Biden | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Cult Is Concerned You Stupid Peasants Will Continue Demanding More Power

By William Teach January 17, 2025 – 3:00 pm

I suggest we start by putting limits on how much power NPR can use daily

U.S. electricity demand is set to explode. That will make it harder to cut climate pollution

The United States is poised to burn a lot more natural gas in the coming years to meet soaring electricity demand, potentially locking in decades of emissions that are raising global temperatures.

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions barely budged in 2024, despite huge investments the country has made in clean energy under the Inflation Reduction Act, a landmark climate law President Joe Biden signed. Market analysts say America’s goal to cut heat-trapping pollution in half from 2005 levels by the end of the decade is now all but out of reach.

For power companies charged with keeping the lights on, natural gas looks like a reliable way to boost energy supplies for new data centers and factories, as well as consumer goods like electric vehicles and heat pumps.

Utilities have to “meet demand no matter what,” says Ben King, an associate director at the Rhodium Group, an energy research firm. “And the way that they feel most comfortable and confident doing that is by [using] the same stuff that they’ve always put on the grid.”

Yes, they do, and the demand will keep growing and growing. If we have to rely on solar and wind it’s going to be rather tough, unless we want to cover large swaths of land with easily broken solar panels, and, it still won’t be enough. But, the cult is concerned over the use of natural gas. How will they power all the EVs they want Other People to buy? Oh, right, the point is actually to force Other People out of privately owned vehicles altogether.

Meanwhile

Read: Climate Cult Is Concerned You Stupid Peasants Will Continue Demanding More Power »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 17, 2025 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible, evil, no good gas grill, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jo Nova, with a post on the race to NotZero

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Majority Of Democrats Vote Against Illegal Alien Sex Offenders

By William Teach January 17, 2025 – 10:30 am

Previously, there were 159 Democrats in the House who voted against the Laken Riley act, and now

Let’s see

145 House Dems vote against bill to deport migrants who commit sexual assault

More than 140 Democrats voted against a House bill to deport illegal immigrants convicted of sex crimes on Thursday.

The legislation passed along bipartisan lines in a 274 to 145 vote. All present Republicans supported the bill, while the opposition was all made up of Democratic lawmakers.

The bill was first introduced by Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., in the 118th Congress but was not taken up by the formerly Democrat-controlled Senate. At the time, 158 Democrats voted against the bill.

“Our country has been ravaged by a horror of illegal immigrants…violently raping American women and girls,” Mace said during debate on the bill. “I know the lifelong scars, the irreversible scars, these heinous crimes leave behind.”

And what did Democrats say?

During debate on the bill Thursday morning, progressive Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., said the bill “does absolutely nothing to address the needs of the American people” and “widens the highway to Donald Trump’s mass deportation plans.”

Really? It doesn’t help Americans to boot out illegals who commit sexual assault, as well as stop them from crossing the border? Realistically, they shouldn’t be eligible to cross and declare asylum in the first place. I’m sure there will soon be articles with all sorts of Democrat Excuses.

Here’s the roll call. The text reads

This bill establishes certain criminal grounds for making non-U.S. nationals (aliens under federal law) inadmissible and expands the crimes for which a non-U.S. national is deportable.

First, the bill establishes that a non-U.S. national is inadmissible if the individual has admitted to or is convicted of acts constituting the essential elements of stalking, child abuse, child neglect, child abandonment, a sex offense, conspiracy to commit a sex offense, a violation of certain protection orders, or domestic violence (including physical or sexual abuse or a pattern of coercive behavior when it occurs within certain close relationships).

Next, the bill establishes additional grounds for deportation. Under current law, a non-U.S. national is deportable for certain criminal convictions, including domestic violence, stalking, and child abuse. The bill makes any sex offense (including crimes against minors) or conspiracy to commit a sex offense a basis for deportation. The bill also expands the domestic violence crimes that make a non-U.S. national deportable to include physical or sexual abuse or a pattern of coercive behavior when it occurs within certain close relationships.

But, Democrats support them.

Read: Majority Of Democrats Vote Against Illegal Alien Sex Offenders »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Haiti Is A Case Of Climate Justice Or Something

By William Teach January 17, 2025 – 7:00 am

The fact that Haiti is a shithole, has been a shithole, and will continue to be a shithole is not the fault of the nation being a complete shithole, nope, this is your fault

Racial justice, climate justice, and reparations: Haiti as an exemplary case

Around the world, countries that were once colonized are consistently more climate-vulnerable than the countries that colonized them—with countries that neither colonized nor were colonized falling between the two.

The coloniality of climate change operates in numerous ways. Colonialism and slavery enormously enriched colonizing countries. This violence and extraction enabled colonizing powers to accumulate wealth, fueling the Industrial Revolution and, in turn, excess greenhouse gas emissions by Global North countries. It also established a global economic model based on the extraction of resources from the Global South that continues to worsen inequality and the climate crisis today. At the same time, colonialism—and the continuing neocolonial dynamics that followed formal decolonization—impoverished colonized countries, degraded their environments, and undermined their governance: all key factors shaping their climate vulnerability.

Colonialism, slavery, and the extractive economy they created relied on racist hierarchies. This structural racism persists today and shapes who is less and more vulnerable to the harms of climate change. As the former UN special rapporteur on racism has underscored, the climate crisis is a racial justice crisis.

The nation has been given enormous amounts of money and aid over the decades, and has been a complete shithole and gotten worse, not better. The Dominican Republic has a wall to keep them out. When they are imported they bring 3rd world, maybe 4th world, lifestyles to wherever they go. This has nothing to do with ‘climate change’: it’s just an excuse for the nation being a failure.

But, they want lots of free cash, and there are plenty of leftist wackos looking to give it to them.

Read: Haiti Is A Case Of Climate Justice Or Something »

Posted in Global Warming | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Biden’s FDA Releases Plan On Nicotine In Cigarettes For Some Reason

By William Teach January 17, 2025 – 6:45 am

Really, I’m surprised Biden isn’t hanging at his beach house, whiling away his final days or something

Biden releases 11th-hour plan to lower nicotine in cigarettes

The Biden administration released a proposal Wednesday to dramatically reduce nicotine levels in cigarettes, a move that anti-smoking advocates believe would save millions of lives even as it threatens the powerful tobacco industry.

The Food and Drug Administration’s plan to slash nicotine to minimally or nonaddictive levels represents a last-ditch effort by President Joe Biden to influence tobacco policy. The agency is proposing the policy in the waning days of his term, leaving it up to President-elect Donald Trump to finalize the effort – or scrap it – once he takes office.

Under the plan, tobacco companies would be required to cut nicotine in cigarettes to no more than 0.7 milligrams per gram of tobacco, which the FDA says is significantly lower than the average concentration in products on the market. The agency’s proposal would also apply to most cigars and pipe tobacco, but not to e-cigarettes or nicotine pouches.

FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, a cardiologist, has been a champion of the nicotine reduction plan, referring to it as “the number one priority” in an interview last month. The effort also aligns with Biden’s goal of cutting U.S. cancer rates by half.

Well, Marlboro lights actually have exactly .7 milligrams per gram. But, really, is this something they need to regulate? Is this their business? If people want their nicotine let them have it. Alcohol is way, way worse, and these same lefties are legalizing marijuana all over the country. You can smoke a whole pack of cigarettes and still be fine to drive. Not so with a joint, a couple bong hits, or some gummies. And, it sure seems like the products are way more powerful these days than back in the day when I did smoke marijuana. Just the average stuff is more powerful. I don’t do it, but, if someone wants to, have at it.

The smarter move would have been to attempt to regulate all the other ingredients, less chemicals. If you cut the nicotine then people who are used to the higher nicotine will actually, get this, smoke more. Regardless, just because Califf is on a Mission doesn’t mean that every Americans must comply.

Well, good start there. Will they approve others, like Velo and On? Zyn is too expensive, especially since they only come 15 to a pack. Very good, but, I can get Velo’s for less for 20 per pack.

Read: Biden’s FDA Releases Plan On Nicotine In Cigarettes For Some Reason »

Posted in Joe Biden | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Democrats Employee Feddie And Frannie To Address Climate (scam) In Mortgages

By William Teach January 16, 2025 – 6:16 pm

This shouldn’t have any impact on mortgages from pretty much all lenders, right? It’s no big deal when a person has been in public service for decades and somehow made millions

CASTEN, WHITEHOUSE URGE FANNIE AND FREDDIE TO ADDRESS CLIMATE RISK FOR HOME MORTGAGES

U.S. Congressman Sean Casten (IL-06) and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) sent letters to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac questioning the Enterprises on how they assess and manage climate-related risks for the home mortgage loans they purchase and hold.

“The U.S. mortgage market faces severe challenges due to climate-related factors, including underinsurance, increasingly unaffordable or unavailable insurance, the over-representation of under-capitalized insurers in high-risk areas such as Florida, the transfer of high climate-risk mortgages to [the Enterprises], and a high percentage of GSE-backed loans without flood insurance,” the lawmakers wrote. “These issues are a result of the destabilizing effects of climate change. We believe that how [the Enterprises] assesses and manages these risks will be crucial in maintaining stability.”

In recent months, Hurricane Helene’s destructive path across the Southeast has spotlighted the lack of flood insurance coverage in areas that have been historically perceived as ‘less risky.’ Less than 1% of the inland areas that sustained the most catastrophic damage were protected with flood insurance. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have identified flood insurance as an important risk mitigation measure for future climate-related losses to their portfolios. However, the GSEs require flood insurance only for their loans in high-risk areas (i.e., FEMA-designated flood zones and coastal areas), and have no stated requirement for medium and lower-risk areas, leaving homeowners unaware of potential flood risks to their property. As a result, there are serious concerns that the real estate markets have underpriced flood risk, where home values do not accurately account for future and increased costs from flooding. This is contributing to the overvaluation of homes, and any correction or home value deflation would disproportionately impact low-income households.

Lenders have responded to this lack of insurance by selling their risky mortgages, including in coastal areas, to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to avoid bearing the risk that homeowners will default on their mortgages. This only shifts the risk to the federal government, and by extension, the taxpayer. In the event that the federal government needs to bail out Fannie and Freddie through a string of defaults, taxpayers would ultimately pay the price.

So, this is all about linking insurance, which has gone up mostly because A) people are building in areas that have been in risky areas for a long time but had often been avoided because they were more risky, B) too many buildings, roads, and other construction which makes the areas more risky (such as an inability to move floodwaters away), and C) fearmongering from the climate cultists. What this letter would do would be to cause home mortgages to sky rocket and/or be denied, and for home prices to skyrocket even more than they had due to COVID. I mean, hell, most of D.C. is in a danger prone area, being that a goodly chunk used to be swamp, and could easily flood.

Read: Good News: Democrats Employee Feddie And Frannie To Address Climate (scam) In Mortgages »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove