Portland’s Wall Of Mom’s Accused Of “Anti-Blackness”

By William Teach August 1, 2020 – 7:08 am

Live by the race baiting, die by the race baiting

Portland’s Wall of Moms crumbles amid online allegations by former partner, Don’t Shoot PDX

Portland Wall of Moms, a group formed in recent weeks and quickly recognized as a staple of nightly downtown protests, was accused publicly Wednesday of “anti-Blackness” by leaders of an existing, Black-led community group.

Wall of Moms, whose members said they aimed to support and protect other Black Lives Matter protesters near the fence in front of the federal courthouse, announced Friday that its white leadership had rescinded their positions to allow women of color to be in charge. New leaders announced Friday include Teressa Raiford, executive director of Don’t Shoot Portland, Demetria Hester and Danialle James.

But less than a week later, Don’t Shoot Portland took to Instagram to urge people against supporting the Wall of Moms, saying that it was no longer working with the moms group. (the post is at the link. I can never seem to get IG to post)

Don’t Shoot Portland (hey, don’t attack cops, you won’t get shot) write

After leaving vulnerable Black women downtown after marching, failing to support those on the ground that put trust in them, @wallofmoms leadership also found time to make THREE registrations through Oregon’s Secretary of State. This was all done in privacy and without the knowledge of the Black leadership WOM was claiming to implement. The lies are finally clear and we are sad but ultimately not surprised that anti-Blackness showed it’s ugly face with Wall of Moms. This all came to light over the last 24 hours – We began having safety concerns within the group because Black women started saying they were not protected by WOM leadership. Too frequently would be in communication for safety, transport etc and when the time came, there would be zero response and no leadership to rely on. It’s put many on the ground in direct danger. Once these registration filings with Secretary of State came out, it became more clear – WOM was not started for BLM, but to get the feds out of PDX. None of the Black leadership WOM claimed to implement knew about this. Combined with a lack of care for and disregard of Black women, we were used to further an agenda unrelated to BLM.

Please do not support this organization anymore. We need everyone to show up against racism, but it’s even more crucial to prioritize transparency and accountability.

Well, of course it was really for the hatred of the feds, and surely other far left Progressive goals while paying lip-service to the BLM movement, just like with most of the rest of the white leftists protesting and “protesting”. These violent Antifa types, the anarchists, and others simply co-opted BLM for their own purposes.

The Wall of Moms answered a commenter’s question saying, “The founder went rogue. Many of us do not agree with her decisions. And she does not currently have access to this account.”

Blamestorm time! And Bev Barnum, the founder, responded responded

“The announcement of the 501c3 really hurt some of you,” she wrote. “That was never my intention. In fact, it was just the opposite. WOM will be led by a BIPOC board and BIPOC advisor committee. WOM is a group that supports BLM, not a BLM group. If that is not good enough for you, please feel free to leave this group. And if you currently volunteer your time, please feel free to leave your positions.”

BLPOC = “Black led people of color.” Isn’t it rather patronizing that these uber-white Progressives are always handing blacks things, as if blacks cannot earn it themselves? Isn’t that …… racist?

Read: Portland’s Wall Of Mom’s Accused Of “Anti-Blackness” »

Posted in Democrats, Liberal World | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Trump Is Emboldening Other Nation’s Bad Behavior On Climate Crisis (scam) Or Something

By William Teach July 31, 2020 – 3:00 pm

Interestingly, what’s not mentioned in this bit of Cult of Climastrology proselytizing is that the vast majority of nations aren’t even close to upholding their Paris climate agreement pledges

How Trump is emboldening other countries’ ‘bad behavior’ on the climate crisis

The origins of the world’s historic agreement to tackle climate change, in Paris in 2015, have some familiar themes. Back in 2007, there was a Republican president in the White House who had long been hostile to any action on climate change.

George W Bush had refused to give US backing to a new global roadmap on the climate. (snip)

Delegate after delegate pleaded publicly and privately, there were even tears, to no avail. Then finally, to loud cheers, the representative from Papua New Guinea summed up the whole developing world’s frustration as he called to the US officials: “If you’re not willing to lead, please get out of the way.”

That stung. And what followed, in December 2007, was a dramatic moment on the international stage, as the White House – under Bush – publicly backed down. The UN’s resolution passed and the so-called Bali roadmap, precursor to the Paris agreement, came into effect.

Bali? Would that be the UN IPCC Conference on the Parties where so many attendees took private jets that they head to deadhead (fly without passengers) them to other islands, because there was no place to park them? You ever wonder where the skeptic meme saying “the exotic vacation spot of …” in relation to COPs comes from? It was Michelle Malkin who coined that term due to Bali. And then Trump came along

Donald Trump began the process of withdrawal from the Paris agreement in June 2017, but for legal reasons it will take effect only on 4 November this year, the day after the US presidential election.

The withdrawal comes at a crucial point, as the Paris accord requires countries to come forward this year with new strengthened commitments to cut emissions, ratcheting up their inadequate initial targets from 2015. Only with fresh commitments from all nations can the aims of Paris be fulfilled, as current pledges would take the world to a potentially catastrophic 3C of warming.

“This really is absolutely vital,” says Mary Robinson, twice a UN climate envoy and ex-president of Ireland. “How can we reach the level of ambition that we need? We need leadership.”

You know, for all the anti-US sentiment around the world, they sure look to the U.S., eh? If they need leadership, why don’t they look at themselves and practice what they preach? Surely their subjects, er, citizens, won’t mind the economic devastation, right?

The possibility of a Trump delegation blinking at the last minute, as Bush did, is remote. The 45th president pays far less respect to a rules-based international system than his Republican predecessor. But some in the developing world are sanguine about the prospect of a US withdrawal.

What rules? Obama unilaterally signed Paris, which was set up in a way to avoid the US Constitutional requirement of getting the approval of the US Senate.

Opponents of Paris have viewed it as an opportunity, however, and that is where the real impact has been felt. Trump’s stance has emboldened other populist leaders and countries with previously veiled hostility to Paris. Last year’s UN climate talks in Madrid sputtered to a close without agreement on the key issues after Brazil held out, with Australia, Saudi Arabia, Russia and India accused of assisting in the obstruction at various points.

Many nations are realizing that they don’t want to tank their economies. And, again, the vast majority of nations who signed Paris are failing to keep their pledges, just like with the Kyoto Protocol.

Read: Trump Is Emboldening Other Nation’s Bad Behavior On Climate Crisis (scam) Or Something »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 31, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is a house on stilts, made to withstand rising seas from ‘climate change’, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Green Jihad, with a post on COVID cancel culture.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Tammy Bruce: If Guns Are So Readily Available Everywhere Else, Why Is It That Chicago Is A Bloodbath?

By William Teach July 31, 2020 – 10:30 am

She has a great point

And her article

Why is the desolation and violence in America’s inner cities only getting worse? That question takes on an even more urgent implication considering the Democrats have been in charge of those cities for generations.

Now, during a time of pandemic and general Democratic Party panic during an election year in which it’s becoming more and more apparent, the instinct of the incompetent and corrupt politicians running these cities cannot take any responsibility for their failure and destruction caused by their policies.

The blame game has taken on an entirely new art with Democrats in charge of the disasters unfolding in front of us.

Consider the great American city of Chicago, Illinois. Yes, it’s a city that has had a problem with gun violence for decades. What feeds that problem, as it does in many other liberal urban areas, is the fact that Chicago has “gun control,” making it less easy for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, while becoming too inviting for those who wish to do harm to a community. (snip)

[Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot] told CNN, “The fact of the matter is our gun problem is related to the fact that we have too many illegal guns on our street, 60% of which come from states outside of Illinois. We are being inundated with guns from states that have virtually no gun control, no background checks, no ban on assault weapons, that is hurting cities like Chicago.”

When Ms. Lightfoot blames guns from out of state, one must ask, if it’s because there’s no gun control in those other places, why is it only Chicago that has become a blood-soaked hellscape? She can’t answer that question because the answer would indict liberal policies in every Democratically-held city.

It’s a good point. Why is it that the most dangerous cities are those run by Democrats, especially those with hardcore gun restrictions that only affect law abiding citizens? Why do the areas run by Republicans not have these problems? Heck, why do places run by non-crazy non-progressive Democrats not have these problems? We don’t have problems like this here in Raleigh, but up in Durham it’s a lot more dangerous.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Democrat, caused a disturbance a few weeks ago by suggesting the same thing during a social media townhall. About the rise of violence in New York, she referred to the economic crisis, unemployment and rent concerns.

The implication was those who are poor or struggling, seamlessly move from being normal, law-abiding people into mindless criminals. It’s an insult to every American, and exposes the contempt with which leftist politicians hold the average citizen.

No one should be surprised that Democrats hold citizens in contempt.

What is undeniable to everyone, apparently except Democratic Party leadership, is the incendiary rhetoric condemning the police, and law enforcement in general, is fueling the willingness of marginal anarchist and Marxist groups to engage in violent mob action in urban areas run by Democrats. Why? Because for some reason the mob feels safer in blue cities. It is the literal and figurative taking of a knee in front of the mob by Democrats signaling to the malevolent everywhere that now is the time to cause mayhem and destruction.

Read the rest.

Read: Tammy Bruce: If Guns Are So Readily Available Everywhere Else, Why Is It That Chicago Is A Bloodbath? »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Current Affairs, Democrats | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: New York Removes Climate Change (scam) Bond From November Ballot

By William Teach July 31, 2020 – 8:23 am

There’s an interesting admission here by NY Gov Cuomo

NY removes climate change bond from 2020 ballot; for now

New York’s governor says the state’s economy is too “murky” to move ahead with his sweeping proposal to address climate change by borrowing $3 billion to fund environmental restoration projects across New York.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo said in a Thursday conference call with reporters that the bond won’t appear on November’s ballot but said he hopes voters will weigh in on it the following year.

The response to the COVID-19 pandemic has decimated the state’s sales tax revenues and tourism industry.

Some environmental leaders criticized the Cuomo’s removal of the bond from November’s ballot, saying it would have helped stimulate the state’s ailing economy.

Obviously, Cuomo and the people in his administration, particularly the economists, understand that this bond will not help the economy, especially when it is in such bad shape at the moment. But, why pull it, instead of letting New Yorkers vote on it? And what is it

(Adirondack Daily Enterprise) The $3 billion Restore Mother Nature Bond Act will not be seen on the ballot Nov. 3.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Thursday confirmed the state would postpone a voter referendum on the bond act — one piece of a larger $33 billion, five-year plan to fight climate change — until 2021.

If authorized by voters, the bond act would shore up new funding for projects designed to mitigate flooding, restore fish and wildlife habitats, upgrade drinking water infrastructure and preserve land. Cuomo proposed the bond act in his State of the State address this January, and it was authorized by the state Legislature in April as part of the 2020-21 state budget.

Cuomo wants financial stability before doing this. How dare he! Doesn’t he know we have to stop the planet from burning!

“We’re disappointed,” said Protect the Adirondacks Executive Director Peter Bauer. “The focus of this bond act was largely climate change mitigation. There is no vaccine for climate change other than reducing fossil fuel use and that is going to require state investment and leadership. The 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act made New York state a leader on climate change, but now we need serious funding to start building alternative energy supplies. The Restore Mother Nature Bond Act was the first serious step for New York to start seriously confronting climate change. Now, on a certain level, it’s back to the drawing board.”

Strange that the people of New York don’t want to take one for the team, eh?

Read: Bummer: New York Removes Climate Change (scam) Bond From November Ballot »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Democrats, Global Warming | Comments Off on Bummer: New York Removes Climate Change (scam) Bond From November Ballot | Trackback URL

Bat Soup Virus: And Now Dr. Birx Is Recommending Face Shields

By William Teach July 31, 2020 – 8:05 am

While Dr. Fauci was just wondering if people should wear them, mentioning that they could be a good idea, Dr. Birx seems to take this a little bit further

From the article

Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator, is recommending the use of face shields along with masks to protect against COVID-19 infection.

Face shields can offer more protection to the wearer than cloth face coverings, which are intended to prevent asymptomatic individuals from spreading coronavirus to others.

“The mask protects others, to block those droplets and block that contamination that happens when you speak or sing or talk, or even breathe,” Birx said on “Fox & Friends” Thursday morning.

“The thing about the face shields — we think that could protect the individuals and that it would decrease the ability for them to touch their eyes and spread the virus as well as those droplets coming towards them. So there are two different technologies for two different reasons.”

Will we start seeing more people wear them? Early on, there were people wearing these more often, and you’ll still see a few here and there. However, will state government start recommending them? Followed by a requirement? And remember when we were told we didn’t need to wear a mask if we weren’t sick, just social distance and wash our hands? Remember when the media was saying this wasn’t even as bad as the regular flu?

Also

New research suggests COVID-19 can spread via aerosol transmission — and might affect tall people more

After surveying 2,000 people in the UK and US, the researchers found that the data from both countries suggests that aerosol transmission of the virus — via microdroplets which are so small that they remain suspended in the air for several hours — is very likely.

Moreover, they say that taller individuals appear to be at a higher risk. Individuals over 6ft tall seem to have more than double the chance of having a COVID-19 medical diagnosis or testing positive. The researchers said this suggests that aerosol transmission is very likely, as if COVID-19 transmission was solely due to droplets, which are bigger than aerosols and are thought to travel relatively short distances and drop quickly from the air, taller individuals would not be at higher risk. In contrast, aerosols can accumulate in poorly ventilated spaces and are carried by air currents.

All those ladies with the “have to be at least 6 feet tall” in their dating profiles (but whom get upset when guys do not want fatties) might want to reconsider.

Read: Bat Soup Virus: And Now Dr. Birx Is Recommending Face Shields »

Posted in Bat Soup Virus | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Californians Totally Support Other People Paying For Climate Crisis (scam)

By William Teach July 30, 2020 – 4:15 pm

There are two big takeaways from this article. First, that environmentalism, real environmental concerns about pollution, is being confused with the climate scam. Second, that Warmists in California want other people to bear the penalty for their beliefs, just not themselves

Poll: Californians support state policies to tackle climate change

Californians across the state are concerned about climate change and support plans to reduce harmful emissions and focus on renewable sources of energy. But there are stark differences when it comes to which residents of the Golden State see pollution as a serious threat to their family’s health.

According to a new survey by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), Latinos and African Americans are more likely than whites and Asian Americans to be worried about air and water pollution in their neighborhoods.

Of those surveyed, 33% of Latinos think air pollution is a serious health threat and 24% view water pollution the same way, while 29% of African Americans see air pollution as a major health threat and 20% think polluted drinking water poses a serious health threat. For Asian Americans, 17% think air pollution is a big problem and 19% view drinking water the same way. Among white residents surveyed, just 12% are seriously worried about air pollution hurting their health and a meager 8% are concerned about polluted drinking water.

And all that is about the environment, not the climate. Linking the two makes it harder to deal with the former.

The disparity stands out amid a host of other survey questions where Californians are broadly in agreement about the need to address climate change, with 77% supporting the state law that requires greenhouse gas emissions to be scaled back to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. The same percentage of respondents approve a state policy that requires all of California’s electricity to come from renewable sources by 2045.

Now, the Mercury News article forgot to link to the poll, it’s here. On the question “Willingness to make major lifestyle changes to address global warming”, page 5, those who said yes (it’s nice that Democrats put everyone in a box, eh?)

  • African Americans 74%
  • Asian Americans 70%
  • Latinos 89%
  • Whites 62%

But, this is all theoretical, because even in uber-Leftist California ““In order to help reduce global warming, would you be willing or not willing to pay more for electricity if it were generated by renewable source like solar or wind energy?” Willing

  • African Americans 46%
  • Asian Americans 54%
  • Latinos 52%
  • Whites 42%
  • All adults 47%
  • Likely voters 50%

That’s the best you can get in California. And we all know that the minute people start seeing higher prices for energy, which leads to a higher cost of everything, they’ll scream bloody murder. I think they should give it a try, see what happens in this experimental group.

Read: Californians Totally Support Other People Paying For Climate Crisis (scam) »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is horrible summer heat snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Blazing Cat Fur, with a post on grammar being deemed racist by Rutgers.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Bed And Breakfast Removes Norwegian Flag After Accusations It Was Confederacy

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

Welcome to 2020

From the article

Bed and breakfast Nordic Pineapple in Saint Johns has removed their Norwegian flag after dozens of people confuse it for the Confederate flag.

Greg and Kjersten Offbecker moved into the historic mansion two years ago and turned it into a bed and breakfast. As decoration, they hung a Norwegian flag next to the American flag at the front entrance of the inn, but dozens of guests and people driving by have accused the couple of flying a Confederate flag.

“They are the same color, but there are no stars on the Norwegian flag, and the Confederate flag is a big ‘x’ and the Norwegian flag is part of the Nordic countries, they’re all crosses,” Offbecker said.

Last week, the couple decided to remove the flag as they were updating their marketing materials.

Offbecker said she was trying to represent her heritage, but it’s not worth the frustration. She said they have received cruel emails and phone calls over the confusion of the flag.

“What we’re getting is so much more negative now,” she said. “It’s not just, ‘hey you’re flying the Confederate flag.’ It’s, ‘you should be ashamed to fly the Confederate flag. You’re a bigot because you fly the Confederate flag.‘”

Some people are even convinced the home was built by Confederate leaders. In fact, it was built by union workers for the daughter of the Saint Johns founder.

Normally, I might wonder if they just made this kind of stuff up to get some free press for their business, like so many things are made up these days, but, you can really see this kind of thing happening during this era, right?

Read: Bed And Breakfast Removes Norwegian Flag After Accusations It Was Confederacy »

Posted in New World Happenings | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Crisis (scam) Could Maybe Possibly Increase African Yellow Fever Deaths By 25%

By William Teach July 30, 2020 – 8:15 am

We could fix this with a tax, redistributing money from the 1st World, and restricting the type of power that Africans can use

Climate change could ‘increase yellow fever deaths in Africa by up to 25% by 2050’

An estimated 25% increase in deaths from yellow fever could be seen in Africa by 2050 due to climate change.

That’s according to a new study by the Imperial College London and the World Health Organisation (WHO), which forecasts some East African countries, including Ethiopia and Somalia, will face an increase because of the changing temperature and the frequent occurrence of rainfalls.

The scientific team modelled changes in temperature and rainfall across African countries under four climate change scenarios, with the best-case involving carbon dioxide emissions peaking by the 2030s and decreasing thereafter.

The worst case of the analysis was based on the hypothesis that carbon emissions will be steadily increasing throughout the century.

The modelling demonstrated by 2050 deaths could increase by around 11% for the best-case scenario and up to 25% for the worst-case scenario.

Modelling! Doom! Here’s what the World Health Organization has to say about Yellow Fever in their key facts

  • Yellow fever is an acute viral haemorrhagic disease transmitted by infected mosquitoes. The “yellow” in the name refers to the jaundice that affects some patients.
  • Symptoms of yellow fever include fever, headache, jaundice, muscle pain, nausea, vomiting and fatigue.
  • A small proportion of patients who contract the virus develop severe symptoms and approximately half of those die within 7 to 10 days.
  • The virus is endemic in tropical areas of Africa and Central and South America.
  • 27 countries are at highest risk for yellow fever epidemics in Africa. (that’s half the nations in the continent)
  • The burden of yellow fever in Africa is estimated at 84,000–170,000 severe cases and 29,000–60,000 deaths annually.
  • In 2016, during the two-linked urban yellow fever outbreaks – in Angola and DRC – 965 cases were confirmed and around 400 people died. The epidemic created an urgent need for more than 28 million doses of yellow fever vaccines total, which exhausted the existing global vaccine supply. It also diverted public health authorities from tackling other public health issues with an impact on health systems. Additionally, 11 cases were exported to China.
  • Since the launch of the Yellow Fever Initiative in 2006, significant progress in combatting the disease has been made in West Africa and more than 105 million people have been vaccinated in mass campaigns. No outbreaks of yellow fever were reported in West Africa during 2015.
  • Large epidemics of yellow fever occur when infected people introduce the virus into heavily populated areas with high mosquito density and where most people have little or no immunity, due to lack of vaccination. In these conditions, infected mosquitoes transmit the virus from person to person.
  • Yellow fever is prevented by an extremely effective vaccine, which is safe and affordable. A single dose of yellow fever vaccine is sufficient to confer sustained immunity and life-long protection against yellow fever disease and a booster dose of the vaccine is not needed. The vaccine provides effective immunity within 30 days for 99% of persons vaccinated.

So, the study is stating that because you drove a fossil fueled vehicle and eat burgers, there could be as many as 36,000-75,000 deaths per year, an extra 7,000-15,000. Perhaps instead of playing these games the Cult of Climastrology could invest in the vaccine for the estimated 440 million (overall for Africa and Central and South America) over the next 10 years. Because it has been warmer in Africa during previous Holocene warm periods than it is today. But, climate cultists have to scaremonger.

Read: Climate Crisis (scam) Could Maybe Possibly Increase African Yellow Fever Deaths By 25% »

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