Climate Cultists Finally Get A Climate (scam) Question At Debate, Are Still Unhappy

By William Teach October 1, 2020 – 8:24 am

The climate crisis scam has mostly been ignored at presidential debates since 2000, because there were things rather more important during the years since than to focus on a low hanging fruit, manufactured issue that people care about in theory but not practice. It’s even been mostly ignored at primary’s debates for Democrats. You’d think they would be happy that it at least got a question, right? Nope

What does the first climate question at a US debate in 20 years reveal?

The long-awaited climate question in last night’s presidential debate broke a 20-year silent streak from moderators on the crisis – thrusting it into prime time but also revealing just how stuck in the past much of the US is on the issue.

After more than an hour of chaos as the candidates talked over each other, the Fox News anchor Chris Wallace asked Donald Trump: “What do you believe about the science of climate change and what will you do in the next four years to confront it?”

Former vice-president Al Gore – who was the last candidate asked directly about climate change in a general election debate, in 2000 – praised Wallace in a tweet for “asking serious and well-researched questions about the climate crisis”. In 2008, the vice-presidential candidates were asked to debate what is true and false about the climate crisis and the presidential candidates were asked about reducing US dependence on foreign oil.

The exchange was the most substantive discussion yet of the climate crisis in a general election presidential debate, said Bracken Hendricks, co-founder of the climate group Evergreen Action. But, that is not necessarily saying much, given the previously low bar.

“However, Chris Wallace also fell into several common traps of asking whether climate change is real and discussing the cost of action without the crucial context of the cost of inaction,” Hendricks said. “The moderators of future debates should build on this foundation and investigate the candidates’ divergent plans on the climate crisis.”

See, the debate is over. It’s over so much that ….. most in a position to create the laws, rules, and regulations refuse to give up their own over-sized use of fossil fuels and make their own lives carbon neutral.

The debate could have focused on the starkly contrasted futures Americans must choose between – tackling the crisis that global leaders call the biggest ever threat to human rights, or fueling it.

Instead, Wallace framed the existence of a human-made climate crisis as something that is for some Americans still debatable, asking Trump “What do you believe about the science of climate change” and “[Do] you believe that human pollution, gas, greenhouse gas emissions, contributes to the global warming of this planet”.

Science unequivocally shows humans are the predominant cause of global warming.

Weird how they never actually link to that Belief, eh? If that is what they belief, why no lifestyle changes for those who believe that? Also, these people are never happy.

Read: Climate Cultists Finally Get A Climate (scam) Question At Debate, Are Still Unhappy »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Democrats, Global Warming | Comments Off on Climate Cultists Finally Get A Climate (scam) Question At Debate, Are Still Unhappy | Trackback URL

Good News: Saying That “Women Can Have It All” Regarding ACB “Is A Trap”

By William Teach October 1, 2020 – 8:06 am

See, it’s not actually feminist to say that women can have it all. Can you guess why? Beyond the simple notion that Liberals hate her simply because

The “Women Can Have It All” Narrative Around Amy Coney Barrett Is a Trap

What do we know about how Amy Coney Barrett—judge, mother of seven, and nominee for a seat on the Supreme Court—juggles childcare and work? Barrett has said that she and her husband have alternated periods of time when they stepped back from work to care for family, and that he has taken on more of the load since she became a judge. (But he still has a job, as a trial lawyer, so he probably isn’t doing everything…seven kids under 20 is so many kids!) She has also mentioned care provided by her husband’s aunt. (But still, seven kids! And how do they keep that nice, big, beautiful house clean?)

On Saturday, writer Vanessa Grigoriadis posed some of these questions in an (admittedly flippant) Twitter thread, and a fight ensued. “I guess one of the things I don’t understand about Amy Comey [sic] Barrett is how a potential Supreme Court justice can also be a loving, present mom to seven kids? Is this like the Kardashians stuffing nannies in the closet and pretending they’ve drawn their own baths for their kids”? she asked. Grigoriadis got ratio’d, then linked to in multiple op-eds (coming from the right, and the center-left) calling these kinds of questions “anti-feminist.” “No one would question a father of seven being selected,” ran a typical tweet sent in reply to hers. (snip)

It would be fine if we wanted to admire her for these accomplishments, full stop. But the way conservative women, interviewed by Ruth Graham for a piece in the New York Times, describe their feelings about Barrett, it’s clear that many people see her as an example—somebody whose life proves something bigger about the capacities of American women, writ large. “She shows that it’s possible for a woman to rise to the top of her profession while having many children,” one such fan said. “She’s challenging a mainstream consensus that there’s a certain way that women need to live their lives in order to succeed,” said another, who, at 30, just finished a Ph.D. and has two young kids.

You’re waiting for the but, right? Uber-leftist Slate’s Rebecca Onion will bring the but

All this talk, presented as feminist, isn’t simple “inspiration.” It’s a trap. Barrett’s success, as Graham reports, is already getting used as “proof” that women don’t need access to abortion—that women can dig deep when they need to, and succeed even with kids in tow. One woman Graham interviewed used an idiom: “Women are strong enough to walk and chew gum at the same time.” This is a saying I also saw deployed in critical replies to Grigoriadis’ tweet. (“Just because YOU couldn’t do it doesn’t mean others can’t either,” wrote former baseball player Curt Schilling; thank you so much, Curt Schilling.) But we are not talking about two trivial activities here, when we talk about working and raising kids. And we obviously do not have the full picture when it comes to Barrett’s childcare situation, or marital dynamic, or the other forces in her life aside from sheer grit that have helped make this balancing act possible. So it’s ridiculous to pretend that Barrett’s work-life equilibrium can be applied in some one-size-fits-all way as an aspirational model for womankind.

These people. Right to abortion. Do they think that all strong women who are having a great life – career, kids, great marriage, great life – are proof that women don’t need access to abortion? Apparently walking and chewing gum at the same time is now code for “women don’t need abortions” (perhaps if they used proper birth control/protection when having sex at a time they don’t want children, as Dems always push in grade schools and high schools and such, they wouldn’t need it).

Rather than trading anecdotes of “strong women” back and forth, we should look for concrete ways to support those who cannot, metaphorically speaking, do the pull-ups. In 2020, many mothers have been asked to take on burdens that are absolutely unsustainable, and are losing economic ground while doing it. Even in Normal Times, mothers’ situations vary widely. There are mothers who chose the wrong spouse, and have no support from them; who didn’t have much money to begin with, and have less since they had kids; who are managing chronic illness, and can only do the minimum; who cannot afford childcare; who have no family nearby, or family they trust, to help.

Got that? Is this like 4th Wave Feminism, we’re we only respect those who are in tough situations (and some put themselves in them), but not successful women? Only the women who should be wards of the state (because liberals love them some Nanny State, eh?)

(The Post Millennial) Bitch Media co-founder Andi Zeisler tweeted out a “short list of things that are not synonymous with feminism.” They are: “being a woman, having a successful career, being a mother, having women friends, doing a job women weren’t always allowed to do.” But the kicker, for Zeisler, is “legislating away another woman’s bodily autonomy.” (snip through a lot of ACB’s rulings, especially as they relate to abortion)

Feminism should be about gaining equality under the law for women regardless of their political views. It should not be particularly concerned with the political views of women. The attainment of equality itself perpetuates a situation where women don’t have to feel like their equality is predicated on ideological compliance. But instead, contemporary American feminism only supports women that toe progressive line.

If one isn’t a far left loon, one cannot be a part of 3rd and 4th Wave feminism.

Read: Good News: Saying That “Women Can Have It All” Regarding ACB “Is A Trap” »

Posted in Liberal World | Comments Off on Good News: Saying That “Women Can Have It All” Regarding ACB “Is A Trap” | Trackback URL

TikTokers Unite For Climate Crisis (scam) Solutions

By William Teach September 30, 2020 – 3:00 pm

Oh, no, wait, they’re just about spreading awareness

Las Vegas Student Raises Climate Crisis Awareness on TikTok

Around one-third of TikTok’s 850 million active users worldwide are between the ages of 10 and 19. But those young people aren’t just sharing dance moves and makeup lessons; they’re also spreading awareness of climate change and what can be done about it.

A TikTok collective that calls itself “EcoTok“ includes a senior at Southeast Career and Technical Academy in Las Vegas.

“I would say EcoTok is a group of environmentalist from all over the country, and all over the world really, where we just post short video clips of anything educational or comedic, and we try to inspire the youth to take their own action, and try to get them to realize they can also make a difference,“ Alex Silva told KNPR’s State of Nevada.

The collective came together over the summer when Silva started talking with Alaina Wood, who lives in Tennesee. She is also an environmental activist.

So, people with no jobs and no employable skills yapping and dancing and stuff on TikTok, while doing little to nothing in their own lives to become carbon neutral.

So far, EcoTok has between 14 and 15 creators and about 67,000 followers.

Most of the content focuses on individual actions like composting, using less plastic and recycling. They seem like small actions but Wood said those actions add up.

Those are actually environmental, and, you can bet they don’t actually do it themselves.

They also introduce more complicated ideas like corporate greenwashing and industrial agriculture. Wood said tackling larger, more complex issues in just a few short seconds can start a conversation and prompt people to do further research.

Oh, good, a conversation

Although the videos they put on TikTok aim to show people the things they can do to address climate change on their own, the EcoTok collective also recently had a series of ‘video confessions,’ where creators confessed to their missteps when it comes to the environment.

Sliva admitted he still uses single-use plastics and Wood admitted she will drive when she could bike or walk.

Silva said the idea was to show people you don’t have to be 100 percent zero waste to make a difference.

“We shouldn’t feel pressured to be 100 percent perfect,” he said.

In other words, being a climahypocrite is A-OK as long as you’re preaching.

Read More »

Read: TikTokers Unite For Climate Crisis (scam) Solutions »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach September 30, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is an area turned to desert due to carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Bookworm Room, with a post on thoughts on the Trump-Biden-Wallace brawl, er, debate.

Jenn Lee from The Amazing Race season 29. Didn’t make it far, though.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

Newsweek Wonders Why There Is A Patriotism Gap

By William Teach September 30, 2020 – 10:30 am

Perhaps because Democrats love America so much that they constantly complain about the nation and want to change everything about the nation?

Why is There a Patriotism Gap?

President Donald Trump’s announcement at the National Archives earlier this month of a forthcoming “1776 Commission” aimed at promoting “patriotic education” set off fireworks—and not in a good way.

“A nightmare,” pronounced Slate. “Part of an ongoing effort to downplay and minimize the role of slavery,” deplored the 1619 Project’s Nikole Hannah-Jones. “I thought I was listening to Mao Zedong running Communist China,” scolded Susan Rice, Barack Obama’s former national security adviser. “Proof America is spiraling toward fascism,” quivered The Guardian. Representing the ivory tower, the American Historical Association issued a florid one-pager all its own, co-signed by 30-plus groups, “deploring the tendentious use of history and history education to stoke politically motivated culture wars.”

But of course they’re going to position being positive about the nation as a Bad Thing, as opposed to what they teach now, namely that America is evil and racist and should be destroyed.

Such partisan hyperbole about the 1776 Commission might be expected so close to an election. But its critics should have stopped to ask what, exactly, might have inspired such a project in the first place. The answer is a grim reality that deserves bipartisan attention, and has for a long time now: America suffers from a patriotism gap. Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to profess patriotism. Older people are much more likely than younger ones to be patriotic, too.

For once, the answer cannot be “because of Trump.” Since at least 2001, according to regular tracking by Gallup, Republicans have been more likely than Democrats to profess themselves “extremely proud to be American”—and by wide margins. In both 2007 and 2009, for example, the patriotism deficit between Republicans and Democrats was a yawning 33 points (79-46; 78-45). In no year since 2003 has the gap been less than 14 points.

Pace the leader of the 1619 Project, and no matter where you stand in the culture wars, patriotism does matter, for at least two reasons.

First are the exigencies of domestic politics—not least for the left. Democrats and progressives hope to capitalize on the diffuse anti-authority stances of Millennials and Gen Z at the ballot box. But the patriotism gap presents an obstacle for them. It is one thing for disaffected cohorts to turn out for protests and riots in the streets. It is another to expect them to produce identification, fill out forms, stand in a polling booth and otherwise put themselves out for a country toward which many are diffident, and some outright hostile. Motivation counts. Liberals and progressives ignore the patriotism gap at their own peril.

But, Democrats are the party of governmental authority. They’ve managed to teach young mushy heads that gov’t authority and control is great but that it really isn’t authority when it is.

So since patriotism does matter, the question remains: what is smothering it among Democrats and younger Americans? This brings us to the elephant in the common room.

What, after all, do Democrats and younger Americans share that other Americans do not? Both are more likely to be found in institutions of higher learning. And as no one will contest, America’s elite colleges have been, and remain, overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic. According to Inside Higher Ed, the most thorough examination of political bias in academe—a survey of 1,417 full-time professors conducted in 2007—found that the number who identified as “conservative” was less than 10 percent.

Sadly, Mary Eberstadt doesn’t really get to the reasons why the Democrats aren’t patriotic, which boils down to “they hate America and all it stands for.” They hate the classical liberal foundings of freedom and liberty. Only by tearing the nation down can they get the Progressive (nice Fascism) government they really want, and too many people are too stupid to understand that they will give up freedom, liberty, choice, and money to this. And that all these free things and the utopia they’re promised has some serious dark ramifications. It won’t be unicorns and lollipops. Look at China, Russia, and Venezuela, among others.

Read: Newsweek Wonders Why There Is A Patriotism Gap »

Posted in American Flag, Democrats, Politics | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Biden: No More Coal And Oil, Doesn’t Support Green New Deal

By William Teach September 30, 2020 – 7:12 am

Climate cultists should be happy, as the climate change (scam) came up during the debate in what was a free for all (and the people who won were those who didn’t watch)

Trump, Biden spar over climate change at debate

President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden sparred over climate change and their respective records on the issue during Tuesday night’s presidential debate.

Moderator Chris Wallace asked Trump during one segment of the debate whether he believed that human greenhouse gas emissions contribute to warming of the planet.

“I think a lot of things do but I think to an extent yes,” the president said, later adding in reference to current wildfires blazing in the West that “we have to do better management of our forests.” (snip)

Meanwhile, Biden defended his own energy policies, saying they would create jobs.

The candidates became heated when Biden began to criticize Trump administration moves that roll back the regulations of methane emissions and weaken fuel economy standards.

Trump interjected, invoking the Green New Deal, a group of policies advocated by progressives that are aimed at mobilizing the economy to fight climate change.

Biden’s campaign has called the Green New Deal a “crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face” but has refused to explicitly endorse it.

Since Trump repeatedly attempted to link Joe the super expensive, big government plan, Joe specifically went on to say he doesn’t endorse the GND

Ed Markey, the Senate sponsor of the GND, who also voted “present” on it, had to do a little damage control

“I support the Green New Deal and I’m voting for Vice President Joe Biden,” Sen. Ed Markey — who wrote the Green New Deal with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and has made it central to his re-election campaign — said in a statement after the debate Tuesday night,

“Donald Trump is wrong,” the Massachusetts senator added. “The progressive left is with Joe Biden, and we will pass a Green New Deal.”

Perhaps Ed could ask the House sponsor, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, why the Progressive House has not only not passed it, but, hasn’t even bothered with it in committee

Ocasio-Cortez similarly dismissed an attempt Tuesday night to incite intra-party squabbles by former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway

“This isn’t news, Kellyanne,” the New York Democrat tweeted, noting that her “differences” with Biden were “exactly” why she joined — and led — a unity task force with former Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry to help shape the Biden campaign’s climate plan.

On the bright side, AOC is more about talking and taking cutesy videos and apoplexy than actually doing the hard work to get legislation passed (or even discussed in committee).

Anyhow, Warmists should be happy that it was discussed

Joe Biden: No More Coal or Oil Plants in America

Former Vice President Joe Biden said during the presidential debate on Tuesday night that, under his administration, the country will not build any more coal or oil plants in America.

“Nobody’s going to build another coal-fired plant in America. No one’s going to build another oil-fired power plant in America. They’re going to move to renewable energy,” Biden said.

Biden’s promise that the country will not create a new coal or oil plant under his administration would significantly impact America’s coal mining industries.

Realistically, it is time to move away from coal, as it is polluting, and I’m not referring to CO2, but, real environmental issues, but, Biden wants all those coal workers to learn to code. But, what of natural gas? Joe’s climate plan (written by climate extremists, of course), bans new permitting for gas and oil on federal lands. And work to disallow all gas and oil production from Arctic area.

Anyhow, you happy, Warmists? Your cult got some discussion. You know that they will demand more for the next debate.

Read: Biden: No More Coal And Oil, Doesn’t Support Green New Deal »

Posted in Global Warming, Joe Biden | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Team Hillary Had Plans To Accuse Trump Of Being Russian Assett

By William Teach September 30, 2020 – 6:47 am

Guess who knew all about this?

BREAKING: Russia Believed Clinton Was Planning Anti-Trump Collusion Campaign In 2016, And U.S. Officials Knew It

Not only were Russian officials aware of Hillary Clinton’s campaign plan to accuse Donald Trump of being a Russian asset, top U.S. intelligence authorities knew of Russia’s knowledge of Clinton’s plans, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe disclosed to congressional officials on Tuesday. Before they launched an investigation into whether Trump’s campaign was colluding with Russia, intelligence agencies learned that Russia knew of Clinton’s plans to tarnish Trump with the collusion smear.

At one point, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Brennan personally briefed then-President Barack Obama and other top U.S. national security officials that Russia assessed Hillary Clinton had approved a plan on July 26, 2016, “to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services,” according to Brennan’s handwritten notes.

Fired former FBI Director James Comey and fired former FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok were even sent an investigative referral on September 7, 2016, regarding Russia’s alleged knowledge of Clinton’s plans to smear Trump as a treasonous Russian agent, Ratcliffe wrote. Rather than investigate at the time whether Russian intelligence had infiltrated the Clinton operation’s anti-Trump campaign and sowed Russian disinformation within it, the FBI instead used unverified gossip from a suspected Russian agent to obtain federal warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.

There is no evidence the FBI ever investigated the Clinton campaign’s documented use of Russian agents and intelligence assets to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election, raising questions of whether the top federal law enforcement agency may have itself interfered in the election by using its powers to arbitrarily target the campaign of the outgoing administration’s political enemy.

That’s a hell of a thing, eh? Puts the entire Russia Russia Russia “scandal” into context, does it not?

Brennan personally briefed President Barack Obama and other top U.S. national security officials about Clinton’s campaign plan and Russian knowledge of it. Just five days after the date on which the Russians believed Clinton had personally authorized the collusion smear against Trump, the FBI formally opened its anti-Trump collusion investigation, codenamed “Crossfire Hurricane.”

That investigation relied heavily on a dossier of anti-Trump allegations compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS, a Democrat opposition research firm that had been hired by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to manufacture and spread claims that Trump was secretly working on behalf of Putin.

People have wondered “what did Obama know and when did he know it?” along with “if he knew all about Russian interference why didn’t he do anything?” Yes, Russia interfered, just like they’ve done with other nations and just like we’ve done with other countries, including Russia, Israel, and the UK (Brexit) while Obama was president (and we’ve done it with plenty of other presidents). But, Obama took very little action to deal with it. This looks like a darned good reason why.

Read: Surprise: Team Hillary Had Plans To Accuse Trump Of Being Russian Assett »

Posted in Barry Obama, Democrats, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Tonight’s Debate Won’t Include Any Climate Crisis (scam) Questions

By William Teach September 29, 2020 – 3:00 pm

If the Washington Post is so darned concerned why haven’t they given up their own use of fossil fuels to gather and disseminate the new, and made their operations carbon neutral?

The Energy 202: Climate change left off debate list even though polls show it’s a growing concern among voters

Polls show many voters say they care about climate change. But they probably won’t be hearing much about it during the first presidential debate, moderated by a Fox News host.

Chris Wallace, who will be questioning President Trump and former vice president Joe Biden, has declined to make the rise in global temperatures a topic of discussion Tuesday evening, despite surveys showing it is a growing concern for those going to the polls on Nov. 3 — at least among Democratic voters.

Instead the Fox News host has indicated he will ask the candidates about the Supreme Court, the coronavirus pandemic, the economy, election integrity, and “race and violence in our cities.”

The decision has agitated left-leaning activists who worry about a repeat of the 2016 election, when no moderator asked either Trump or then-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton about climate change over three nights of debate.

At the end of the day, people care about ‘climate change’ in theory, but, when stacked up against actual real issues, it drops to the bottom of the pack in Realityland.

“Young people across the board are resoundingly freaked out about the climate crisis,” said Evan Weber, a co-founder of the youth-led Sunrise Movement. “The only question that matters to young people for the president of the United States is: What is your plan to deal with this crisis?”

Those same young people also tend to fail to show up to vote, but, if they really care

Read: Bummer: Tonight’s Debate Won’t Include Any Climate Crisis (scam) Questions »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Elections, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 29, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is a world killing canine, you might just be a Warmist

View post on imgur.com

The blog of the day is Powerline, with a post on the local press running interference on voter fraud in Minnesota.

That’s Sarah Fowler from Season 29 of the Amazing Race.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Offer New, Slimmer Coronavirus Relief Bill

By William Teach September 29, 2020 – 10:30 am

As they say, the devil is in the details

Pelosi, Democrats unveiling new $2.2 trillion coronavirus aid bill

U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Monday that Democratic lawmakers unveiled a new, $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief bill, which she said was a compromise measure that reduces the costs of the economic aid.

In a letter to Democratic lawmakers released by Pelosi’s office, she said the legislation “includes new funding needed to avert catastrophe for schools, small businesses, restaurants, performance spaces, airline workers and others.”

“Democrats are making good on our promise to compromise with this updated bill,” she said. “We have been able to make critical additions and reduce the cost of the bill by shortening the time covered for now.”

Pelosi and Schumer initially sought a $3.4 trillion relief package, then said some time ago they were willing to scale that back by at least a trillion dollars. But it was not clear whether the White House would consider the $2.2 trillion sum proposed in the new legislation. Meadows has said that Trump would be willing to sign a $1.3 trillion relief package.

Pelosi also faces pressure from moderate House Democrats who say they want to see bipartisan aid proposals that have a chance of becoming law.

The new proposal included $436 billion for state and local governments, as well as money for education, testing, airline industry workers and for a small business loan program known as the Paycheck Protection Program, a statement from House Democrats said.

It would also provide a new round of direct payments to Americans of $1,200 per taxpayer and restore federal unemployment benefits of $600 a week through January.

The question is, what’s actually in it? Does it include all the poison pills that were in the others, like propping up all the Democrat states who lost billions in tax revenue during lockdown, vote by mail, and so many more liberal priorities that often have nothing to do with Coronavirus relief? Poison pills that were mostly meant to make sure it wouldn’t pass the GOP led Senate, in order to play politics rather than provide relief.

And that’s what this one most likely is: a way to play politics, rather than attempt to help anyone. Don’t forget how many times Democrats in the Senate have blocked Coronavirus relief bills by refusing to allow debate and a final vote using the 60 vote threshold.

If you think about it, that’s $6,666 per U.S. citizen, but, there will reportedly be two rounds of $1,200 checks, plus $500 per dependent, so $643.7 billion. Where’s the other roughly $1.4 billion going? We have the aforementioned $436 billion, $10 billion for the Save Our Stages, $25 billion for airlines, $34 billion for transit (including $2.4 billion to prop up Amtrak), $120 billion for restaurants, but

The International Franchise Association was less jubilant. Blumenauer’s bill would help restaurants with fewer than 20 locations but not franchised chain restaurants, the trade group argued. While the bill contains much the IFA supports, it would provide “funds for corporately-owned, high-end restaurants while barring independently-owned franchise restaurants from the same relief,” Matt Haller, the trade group’s top lobbyist, said in a statement. “To add insult to injury, the House bill creates a caviar carveout for these ‘Top Chef’ restaurants by allowing them a second helping of PPP funds on top of this new celebrity chef bailout. Restaurants of all types need help — regardless of the name on the door.”

Again, what are the poison pills? No one has said yet.

Read: Democrats Offer New, Slimmer Coronavirus Relief Bill »

Posted in Bat Soup Virus, Democrats, Politics | Comments Off on Democrats Offer New, Slimmer Coronavirus Relief Bill | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove