Who’s Up For Degrowth To Stop The Climate Emergency (scam)?

By William Teach May 11, 2021 – 3:00 pm

Again, it’s funny that so many people, both Warmists and Skeptics, said I was crazy for saying that the climate crisis scam was really about politics and such, not about science, back in the early part of the 21st Century. And would have issues when I said Warmists wanted to take us back to 1499. Yet, allow me to toot my own horn in saying “I’ve been right about this the whole time”

Climate Change Modeling of “Degrowth” Scenarios – Reduction in GDP, Energy and Material Use

Well-being can be maintained in a degrowth transition.

The first comprehensive comparison of ‘degrowth’ scenarios with established pathways to limit climate change highlights the risk of over-reliance on carbon dioxide removal, renewable energy, and energy efficiency to support continued global growth — which is assumed in established global climate modeling.

Degrowth focuses on the global North and is defined as an equitable, democratic reduction in energy and material use while maintaining wellbeing. A decline in GDP is accepted as a likely outcome of this transition.

Accepted by whom, exactly? The same people telling us this is a crisis while living in their palatial mansions, taking long fossil fueled flights on private jets, and generally refusing to make any changes in their lives? People who really won’t be affected by government forcing these “equitable, democratic” reductions on the common folk?

The new modeling by the University of Sydney and ETH Zürich includes high growth/technological change and scenarios summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a comparison to degrowth pathways. It shows that by combining far-reaching social change focused on sufficiency as well as technological improvements, net-zero carbon emissions can be more easily achieved technologically.

What if society doesn’t want to change? Warmists sure aren’t changing their lives. Will we be forced?

Currently, the IPCC and the established modeling community, integrated assessment model (IAM), does not consider degrowth scenarios where reduced production and consumption in the global North is combined with maintaining wellbeing and achieving climate goals. In contrast, established scenarios rely on combinations of unprecedented carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere and other far-reaching technological changes. (snip)

Mr. Keyßer said he was surprised by the clarity of the results: “Our simple model shows degrowth pathways have clear advantages in many of the central categories; it appears to be a significant oversight that degrowth is not even considered in the conventional climate modeling community.

I recommend that  the UN IPCC, elected leaders like Biden, Merkel, Trudeau, etc, trot this out to the citizens. Let’s see how well it goes when people get the implication of what these climate cultists want.

“However, a just, democratic and orderly degrowth transition would involve reducing the gap between the haves and have-nots, with more equitable distribution from affluent nations to nations where human needs are still unmet — something that is yet to be fully explored.”

A ‘degrowth’ society could include:

  • A shorter working week, resulting in reduced unemployment alongside increasing productivity and stable economic output.
  • Universal basic services independent of income, for necessities i.e. food, health care, transport.
  • Limits on maximum income and wealth, enabling a universal basic income to be increased and reducing inequality, rather than increasing inequality as is the current global trend.

See? Totally about science, not Progressive (nice Fascism) policies.

Read: Who’s Up For Degrowth To Stop The Climate Emergency (scam)? »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 11, 2021 – 1:00 pm

…is a hat necessary for protection as carbon pollution makes the sun shine brighter, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Watts Up With That?, with a post on the failure of climate models.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Cancel Culture Comes For Darwin

By William Teach May 11, 2021 – 10:30 am

Remember the days when Liberals revered Darwin and Darwinism? Think back to the Bush 43 years, when there were arguments over Darwinism, Intelligent Design, and Religion. Heck, we thought those debates could get heated. If only we knew what was coming, eh? Anyhow, Libs loved them some Darwin, and would protect his theory no matter what. Jump ahead less than 20 years and this is what you get

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Justifies ‘White Male Supremacy’, Claims Woke University

British naturalist Charles Darwin has become the latest historical scientist to run afoul of the “decolonise the curriculum” movement, with Sheffield University reportedly claiming that Darwin’s theory on evolution was used to “justify white male supremacy”.

A handbook produced by the university informs lecturers and pupils that celebrating “white saviour” figures such as Darwin serves to overshadow less privileged scientists and scholars and that the “whiteness and Eurocentrism of our science” should be deconstructed, according to The Telegraph.

The guidance, which was seen by the right-leaning newspaper, is said to add that “It is clear that science cannot be objective and apolitical,” and “the curriculum we teach must acknowledge how colonialism has shaped the field of evolutionary biology and how evolutionary biologists think today”.

The passage on Darwin also claims that his famed trip on the HMS Beagle — when he collected plant and animal specimens used to develop his theory of natural selection — was in fact a clandestine mission to map colonies for the British Empire.

This claim has been disputed by Oxford University historian Professor Nigel Biggar, who told the paper: “During Darwin’s lifetime the British Empire was busy emancipating slaves across the world.

“The ‘decolonising’ assumption that ‘colonial mapping’ was all about oppression is false, and the judgement that Darwin should be damned by association is morally stupid,” the professor said.

Facts do not matter. Reality does not matter. These moonbats have a Narrative, and will never give up on it, and will always push it forward. Darwin himself was heavily against slavery, and said and published that viewpoint. He was rather woke (not Woke) for his day.

Charles Darwin has also previously been swept up in the Black Lives Matter furore, with Britain’s Natural History Museum launching a review in September into “offensive” and “problematic” collections, including exotic birds collected by Darwin.

So, not the first time the Woke have come after Darwin. This stuff spreads like unchecked pests.

A University of Sheffield spokesman defended the push to decolonise the curriculum, saying: “We are not removing key historical figures from our curriculum, but we are adding those who have also made significant contributions to the fields of maths, science and engineering that are not currently represented.”

And turning those like Darwin into racists who need to be erased simply for the color of their skin. But don’t call it racism!

Read: Cancel Culture Comes For Darwin »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

Hotcold Take: Coral Reefs Could Maybe Possibly Stop Growing In 10 Years From Carbon Pollution

By William Teach May 11, 2021 – 7:38 am

See, it doesn’t matter that so many coral reefs started under much warmer sea temperatures and much higher sea levels, nor that corals rather like warm water. They are mostly not cold water sea life. This is all probably your fault, though

Coral reefs could stop growing in 10 years unless greenhouse gases are significantly reduced, new study says

The fate of coral reefs around the world remains grim should global warming continue at its current rate, according to new research.

Coral reefs will stop growing in the next decade or so unless a significant reduction in greenhouse gases is achieved, a new study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests.

A team of researchers led by Christopher Cornwall, a marine botanist at the Victoria University of Wellington in Australia, analyzed data from 183 reefs worldwide to estimate the effects of ocean warming and acidification, which are posing increasing threats to underwater ecosystems.

The calcifying coral reef taxa that constructs the calcium carbonate framework of the reef and cements it together are “highly sensitive” to ocean warming and acidification, the scientists said. Climate change affects both the abundance and the calcification rates, while ocean acidification, which is mainly caused by the burning of fossil fuels, also reduces the calcification rates.

Of course, the acidification is not actually happening. It couldn’t possibly be due to actual ocean pollution, including from all the boats taking tourists, and researchers, out to view the reefs, right? Perhaps we should be looking more at reducing pollution. Rather than fearfully running a study that simply “suggests.”

Under the worst case scenario presented by the researchers, 94% of all reefs could erode by 2050. Under other scenarios, declines are projected to be so severe that reef production will cease by 2100, the researchers said.

So, what happens if this doesn’t actually happen? What if the reefs are fine in 10 years? Fine in 2050. Who’ll be held responsible for positing a scaremongering study, and those that gleefully publish it in the news?

“Rapid reduction” of carbon dioxide emissions is necessary to protect coral reefs, according to the study’s authors.

The findings highlight “the low likelihood that the world’s coral reefs will maintain their functional roles without near-term stabilization of atmospheric CO2 emissions,” the study states.

“The only hope for coral reef ecosystems to remain as close as possible to what they are now is to quickly and drastically reduce our CO2 emissions,” Cornwall said. “If not, they will be dramatically altered and cease their ecological benefits as hotspots of biodiversity, sources of food and tourism, and their provision of shoreline protection.”

So, not science, but activism. Have the authors given up their own carbon footprints? Let’s go a step further: what if we implement all the authoritarian measures recommended by the Cult of Climastrology and little changes? What then? Are we allowed to get rid of all the taxation and Big Government control of our lives?

Read: Hotcold Take: Coral Reefs Could Maybe Possibly Stop Growing In 10 Years From Carbon Pollution »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 38 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post: Americans Are Facing Inflation After Recovery “Stumble”

By William Teach May 11, 2021 – 7:17 am

I’m sure this is somehow Trump’s fault, right? It certainly can’t be the fault of China Joe nor the Democrats who’s implemented all the policies causing economic problems, right?

Recovery’s stumbles leave Americans confronting unfamiliar inflation risk

Biden Brain SlugWidespread shortages and production snags are driving prices higher for many everyday items, as an uneven economic reopening leaves Americans facing the unfamiliar risk of inflation.

Significant price increases have affected used cars, medical care, appliances, energy, food and cigarettes in recent months, according to government data. Gas prices headed higher on Monday — before ending the day almost unchanged — after a cyberattack forced the closure of the nation’s largest fuel pipeline.

In all fairness, the price of used vehicles has nothing to do with Joe, Trump, Democrats, or Republicans. You can thank China for releasing the Wuhan Flu. And now with new vehicles, since many dealers are refusing to negotiate the price due to a serious lack of product. Toyota just shut down their RAV4 plant in Ontario due to an outbreak, along with the lack of computer chips. Dealers are lucky if they get a third of their normal allotment.

Most economists expect prices for many goods and services to show continued gains on Wednesday when the Labor Department releases its next monthly inflation report.

The Federal Reserve insists that today’s rising prices — up 2.6 percent over the past 12 months — will not blossom into anything like the economy-wide, double-digit inflationary spiral of the 1970s. Some economists, including Lawrence Summers, a former treasury secretary, however, warn that President Biden’s free spending could ignite inflation that would outstrip wage gains and leave consumers struggling to make ends meet.

And that is the only mention of China Joe. Will we start seeing big inflation? Time will tell.

The Fed, backed by most private-sector economists, says a temporary period of higher prices represents just the latest twist in the coronavirus pandemic’s unprecedented bust and boom. Fueled by government stimulus checks and pent-up consumer demand, the U.S. economy is galloping ahead. Yet many industries have not adjusted to the pandemic’s reshaping of demand, meaning that some factories cannot satisfy all potential customers.

While there is certainly some truth to industries adjusting, that’s mostly excuse making, since many cannot. Car makers cannot make the vehicles without the computer chips. Many do not have the manpower since some people are refusing to work, and just taking the government money in the meantime. The artificial buying power of the government checks doesn’t mean products will miraculously appear. Some disappear within 24 hours of hitting the shelves, which are usually in a central warehouse. You can go buy that TV or computer, which looked great in the store, but, they’ll have it sent within 9 days, because there’s none in the back storage room.

Even as the Fed reassures investors, expectations of future inflation, which over time can contribute to sustained price increases, reached their highest mark since 2013. A market gauge called the U.S. Treasury 10-year break-even rate reached 2.5 percent on Friday, up sharply from 1.99 percent at the beginning of the year. (snip)

Who was in office then? I think some guy named Biden was VP, and his boss’s policies helped spike prices.

The fast-growing economy is battling shortages of labor and raw materials. Freight costs are soaring. And executives are scrambling to maintain profit margins by passing on the higher costs to customers or by developing less expensive production methods.

ZOMG, they are evil for maintaining their profit margins! Anything to shift responsibility from Joe and the Dems. You know that if Trump was in office still this article would be Blamestorming him, with a little extra blame thrown at Republicans. There’s a lot more in the article, you’re welcome to read the rest, as I have to stop the excerpts somewhere. What it’s all about is starting to create a Narrative that the potential coming Jimmy Carter era inflation will not be Biden’s fault, nor that of Democrats. Oh, sure, they contributed a tiny bit in their attempt to help out suffering American’s, but, mostly not their fault. The media knows that blaming this on Trump won’t fly, they’ll just blame COVID and the evil employers.

Read: Washington Post: Americans Are Facing Inflation After Recovery “Stumble” »

Posted in Democrats, Dems in Charge: Now What?, Economy, Joe Biden | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Crisis (scam) Means U.S. Should Let In Climate Refugees Or Something

By William Teach May 10, 2021 – 3:00 pm

Will the rich folks pushing for more immigrants put them up in their palatial homes? This is a cute way to link the climate crisis (scam) and immigration, both legal and illegal

The U.S. owes a massive climate debt. One way to pay it: Let in climate migrants

The United States has generated more heat-trapping carbon pollution than any other nation, but it has not felt the impact of climate change in equal measure. Poorer countries in warmer latitudes are enduring the most devastating droughts, heat waves, and violent storms, and seeing more poverty, disease, and mass migration as a result. By doing so much to fuel climate change, the United States has incurred a massive debt to the developing world, and there is no easy way to pay down the balance.

President Biden is trying, but in a country that is largely opposed to more foreign assistance, he faces significant hurdles to ramping up aid. Biden recently promised to spend $5.7 billion a year to help developing countries cope with climate change, but that sum is far from sufficient, as critics were quick to point out. The White House, however, is also exploring other, less direct means of providing relief, among them, a major change to immigration policy that could give a measurable boost to countries hard hit by climate disasters. (snip)

A recent study from Princeton University modeled future migration in a world with more open borders and a world with closed borders to compare the movement of people and the flow of remittances. Predictably, they found that in a world with more open borders more people would migrate from Africa, Asia, Central America, and the Pacific to Europe and the United States to escape climate change. The effect of the resulting remittances would be profound. (snip to end)

The United States could be the first, creating a model for other wealthy nations to follow. Doing so would likely be administratively challenging and politically costly, but it would also go some way to settling America’s climate debt.

What this means is that since the U.S. owes these migrants for our carbon footprint, they do not owe the U.S. a thing when we let them in. We should be providing money, shelter, food, healthcare, everything, and they can just go on and not learn our language and culture, just keep doing the things they did in their home countries while here, and just not being a part of America. We have to change for them. And support them for life and beyond. Where would it end? Would their descendants decades and centuries get the same?

See, it’s not even good enough to give them all sorts of climate cash with no strings attached, the 1st world, and especially the U.S., have to take in these third world folks with little to no education nor modern work skills, who’ll just live on the taxpayer dole for life.

Read: Climate Crisis (scam) Means U.S. Should Let In Climate Refugees Or Something »

Posted in Global Warming | Comments Off on Climate Crisis (scam) Means U.S. Should Let In Climate Refugees Or Something | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 10, 2021 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible evil no good fossil fuels pump, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The American Conservative, with a post on the black deaths no one wants to discuss.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Woman Racks Up $20K In Tickets, Blames Other People

By William Teach May 10, 2021 – 10:30 am

In normal times, this wouldn’t really even be a story, except perhaps in the crime blotter when she’s arrested for failure to pay them. But, this is the Woke World, where a person who is utterly irresponsible in her driving and following the rules of the road (really, they’re laws) can blame raaaaacism and Other People and have the media back her up. This is a Yahoo News reprint of an NBC News (national) article

Her unpaid tickets put her $20,000 in debt and at risk of jail. Activists are fighting for changes.

Jessica Washington, a single mother of two, moved from Chicago to Las Vegas in 2006 after she lost her airline job and needed a fresh start. In some ways, she found it: She moved into a roomy apartment, got hired by the Transportation Security Administration, and bought a used BMW.

Then the police began stopping her.

The first time was for a broken taillight, which she said came with a warning from the officer: “You’re going to get pulled over a lot driving this car.” Washington took it to mean that as a Black woman driving a nice automobile, she would be seen as suspicious.

Any proof of that? Or just casually saying the officer was racist and the news letting her get away with it.

The stops continued, for minor violations, even after she switched cars. She soon fell behind paying the tickets and her insurance, which led to more tickets, and more fines and fees that she couldn’t cover.

Then she learned how harsh her adopted state was for drivers in her predicament: Nevada is one of 13 states that consider traffic violations misdemeanor crimes, and when she didn’t pay, courts issued warrants for her arrest that included additional fines on top of what she originally owed. When she found a better paying job as a casino security officer, a warrant turned up on the background check; she settled it by rushing to court to get on a payment plan, which included more fees.

Since moving to Nevada, Washington has received dozens of tickets totaling about $4,431, a debt that ballooned to more than $20,000 with additional fines and fees, according to data analyzed by a law clinic that recently began helping her. She has paid more than $11,000, and the clinic’s volunteer lawyers helped her get some of the fines and fees waived. But she still owes $1,886.

The system is “money hungry,” Washington, 37, said. “And it’s hard to dig your way out of that hole.”

Right, it’s the system. Which, BTW, is the same Big Government liberals push for. But, let’s be honest, most of the time an officer pulls you over for a reason. They weren’t the ones with a broken tail light. They weren’t speeding, careless driving, driving without proof of insurance, expired tags, no registration or an expired license.

Washington is among thousands of people in Nevada with warrants out for their arrest because they have not paid traffic tickets. And it doesn’t affect everyone equally: A 2003 study found racial disparities in traffic stops, with Black and Hispanic drivers more likely than whites to be pulled over statewide and in Las Vegas.

2003? But, muy raaaaacism! And there’s lots more of that through the article, till we get to this

Born and raised on the West Side of Chicago, Washington said she’d never been pulled over, let alone received a ticket, before moving to Nevada. When she was stopped around Las Vegas — sometimes for speeding, sometimes for careless driving — she also got cited for secondary offenses like driving without proof of insurance, expired tags, no registration or an expired license. (snip)

Washington acknowledged that some of the stops were legitimate, but others she said she believed were the result of officers targeting her because of her race. If she was wearing her TSA or casino security uniform, their tone usually changed, she said, and they let her off with a warning.

See, she was speeding with lapsed insurance, expired tags, and an expired license, but, it’s Someone Else’s fault and raaaaacism. And, yes, cops sometimes do go out of their way to pull people over, sometimes over race, sometimes over something else. I had a run in with a cop in NJ which was a load of crap, and he searched my car illegally. I requested a supervisor. But, a state trooper showed up, berated the local, and asked if I wanted to file a complaint. Nah. I just wanted to get back to NC. But, I’ve been pulled for speeding. I didn’t blame the cop. I was speeding. Take responsibility for your own actions. Articles like this take the blame away from people who’ve done wrong.

Read: Woman Racks Up $20K In Tickets, Blames Other People »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Cultists Now Advocating Violence And Criminal Activity To Stop Climate Crisis (scam)

By William Teach May 10, 2021 – 7:19 am

Of course, most of them won’t give up their own big carbon footprints, won’t stop using fossil fuels, won’t go vegan, or live in tiny homes, and so forth

Can sabotage stop climate change?

Despite the climate movement’s growth, epitomised by Extinction Rebellion and Student Strike for Climate, fossil fuel extraction continues to grow, and a safe climate can seem dismayingly distant. Given a choice between forgoing capital accumulation and tipping the whole world into a furnace, our rulers prefer the furnace.

In How to Blow up a Pipeline, Andreas Malm asks how the climate movement can emerge from the COVID-19 hiatus as a stronger force. In particular, he questions whether the movement’s until now near-universal commitment to non-violent protest is holding it back. “Will absolute non-violence be the only way, forever the sole admissible tactic in the struggle to abolish fossil fuels? Can we be sure that it will suffice against this enemy? Must we tie ourselves to its mast to reach a safer place?”

To make his point, Malm cites examples of popular historic movements, some of which are invoked by today’s climate campaigners as examples of non-violent change.

The overthrow of Atlantic slavery involved violent slave uprisings and rebellions. The suffragettes of early 20th century Britain regularly engaged in property destruction. The United States civil rights movement was punctuated by urban riots. As part of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, Nelson Mandela co-founded the armed wing of the African National Congress. The Indian National Congress is known for its non-violent tactics, but violence also played a role in the resistance to British rule from the Great Rebellion of 1857 until independence.

Malm absolutely rules out violence that harms people, but he wants the climate movement to include sabotage and property destruction in its plans.

Oh, sure, that harms people now, but, that won’t last, seeing how the “peace loving liberals” love assaulting people, believing it is OK because they are on the right side of history. But, property damage and destruction does hurt people. What of when they cause power to go out and someone dies because their ventilator gets shut off? What if they destroy someone’s business? What if they kill the power for people during a winter storm or during a heat wave?

Malm’s arguments have been met with alarm in some quarters. In a review posted on the Global Ecosocialist Network website Alan Thornett says adopting the book’s proposals would “not only be wrong but disastrous” and anyone who did so would soon have “armed police kicking down their door”. He calls Malm’s argument an impatient “bid for a shortcut” resulting from “frustration compounded by the lack of a socially just exit strategy from fossil energy”.

Some others say this is a Bad Idea, but, now that it is out there, you can bet climate cultists are considering it. And will do it. You just had the hack of a pipeline. You had Extinction Rebellion splashing fake blood on buildings and people. And so much more

Malm opposes reckless actions — “controlled political violence” should be regarded a “fine art to be mastered” and “time and timing are of the essence”. Because violent actions could backfire and “make a movement look so distasteful as to deny it all influence”, climate saboteurs must be “especially circumspect and mindful” of the wider cause, as the “negative effects could be unusually ruinous”.

He is very critical of the sabotage tactics of groups such as EarthFirst! and the Earth Liberation Front in North America in the 1980s and 1990s. Their acts of “ecotage” produced “no lasting gains” because “they were not performed in a mass movement, but largely in a void”.

And you know that many Warmists are taking this to heart. It’s the inner Antifa in all of them, willing to get violent.

Malm is genuinely committed to advancing the climate movement, making it more radical and hence more effective at dealing with a crisis caused by capitalism, but his call for sabotage and property destruction by a minority is misplaced, despite the many qualifications he includes.

No matter how sincere it is, How to Blow up a Pipeline undermines the more radical strategy of bringing wider layers of people into struggle and helping them to see themselves as key protagonists in this fight for the future.

Surprise! He’s against capitalism. And, sure, the article takes issue with his ideas as bad for this “bringing wider layers of people into the struggle”, but, it really doesn’t say “hey, this is criminal”, does it?

Read: Climate Cultists Now Advocating Violence And Criminal Activity To Stop Climate Crisis (scam) »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Rep Clyburn May Be Possibly Willing To Keep Qualified Immunity For Police Officers

By William Teach May 10, 2021 – 7:03 am

Even if he’s willing to forget about the whole “take qualified immunity away from police officers but leave it for other government officials” part of a police reform bill, will other Democrats do the same? Lots and lots of them have been showing their hatred for police for some time now (while protected by law enforcement, of course), and might not be willing to vote if doing away with QI is not part of a bill

Rep. Clyburn says qualified immunity doesn’t have to be part of policing reform bill

House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.) suggested Sunday that he would be willing to support policing reform legislation even if it did not end qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that shields individual officers from lawsuits.

“I will never sacrifice good on the altar of perfect. I just won’t do that,” Clyburn said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“I know what the perfect bill will be. We have proposed that. I want to see good legislation. And I know that, sometimes, you have to compromise. … If we don’t get qualified immunity now, then we will come back and try to get it later. But I don’t want to see us throw out a good bill because we can’t get a perfect bill,” he said.

Clyburn’s remarks were a departure from members of his own party who, along with civil rights activists, have pushed for the doctrine to be eliminated or changed. Qualified immunity has become the biggest sticking point in negotiations on police reform legislation between Democrats and Republicans, who have proposed preserving qualified immunity for individual officers and instead holding local governments liable when officers harm people.

So, essentially, he figures they can ram through the current bill without QI, then force QI later, probably by jamming this into an unrelated bill, like lawmakers love to do, especially Democrats. Yet, Congress will still have QI, as will most other government workers. Just not the people tasked with protecting citizens and government employees and solving crimes against them, who are often put in bad situations.

“I have been saying from the beginning we have well-trained police officers. We have got to do a better job of recruiting police officers. We have got to get good people. No matter how good the training, if you don’t have good people, the training does no good,” he told “State of the Union” host Jake Tapper. “Now, the problem we have got now is that there are some bad apples in policing. We have seen it in our living rooms. We know it’s still there. We have got to root out the bad apples, and let’s go forward with a good, solid program.”

Is he talking about police or government employees? Or, perhaps, elected officials? There are always going to be bad apples in everything. The question here is “why is the federal government determining how state, county, and local police departments operate?” This isn’t the business of Los Federales. This is not a power prescribed by the Constitution to the federal government. Perhaps James should look at the FBI, who investigated a president elect and his people over a fake report.

In March, the House passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, an overhaul of police practices that would ban the use of chokeholds, strengthen federal civil rights laws, create a national database to track officer misconduct and end qualified immunity, making it easier for officers to be sued for their actions in the line of duty. The legislation has failed to advance in the Senate.

Is it any wonder that police are quitting/retiring in droves? Just the threat of doing away with QI for cops who suddenly find themselves being accused, who got stuck in a bad position (and, sure, some who created that situation because they probably shouldn’t be in the job), falsely accused, and so forth, will see them leave and make it harder to recruit new officers. That the Feds are watching them all, when they do not work for the feds. That the feds could come after them in a heartbeat. That people who have never had to attempt to control a criminal will ban chokeholds. What do the feds want, cops to use harsh language? Which then will probably have the feds filing a federal hate crimes charge.

Since then, a bipartisan group of lawmakers has sought to reach a deal. A recent meeting included Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.), Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), as well as Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.).

I hope the three Republicans realize that the Dems will never give up on getting rid of QI for cops. It might not be in this bill, which is a typical Congressional overreach, but, they’ll attempt to jam it through later.

Read: Rep Clyburn May Be Possibly Willing To Keep Qualified Immunity For Police Officers »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove