Monthly Archives: July 2022

This Is Just Wrong

Posted on by

On July 5th, The U,K. Daily Mail reported that President Biden shipped five million barrels of oil from the United States’ Strategic Oil Reserve to Europe and Asia. The President told the American people that the oil was being released to help bring down the price of gasoline at the pump and thus ease expenses for Americans. Evidently, that was not the whole story.

The article reports:

The president faces accusations of a sneaky sleight of hand as it was revealed that between a fifth and a sixth of the reserve oil he bragged about releasing to boost supply made its way offshore to Europe and Asia in June.

Biden authorized the release of a million barrels a day from April onwards. But his action has done little to combat soaring gas prices, with the national average sitting at $4.74 as of Tuesday – still far above the $2.28-a-gallon average from just before he took office. 

Biden’s announcement about releasing the oil barrels was made in April, and saw him say: ‘These releases will put more than one million barrels per day on the market over the next six months, and will help address supply disruptions caused by Putin’s further invasion of Ukraine and the Price Hike that Americans are facing at the pump.’

But it has had little effect, with a closer look at the press release revealing that the oil released from the strategic reserve was always destined for the highest bidder – even if they were overseas.

That is due to strict international rules dictating the sale and supply of oil – although a regular American who listened to Biden’s proclamation in passing would likely have believed that the increase in supply would have been destined for domestic refineries, to lower US prices. 

‘Crude and fuel prices would likely be higher if (the SPR releases) hadn’t happened, but at the same time, it isn’t really having the effect that was assumed,’ said Matt Smith, lead oil analyst at Kpler.

Government officials continue to defend Biden, and claim domestic gas prices would be even higher were it not for his release.  

The release of oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve is at best a temporary fix. America was energy independent when President Biden took office and inflation was under control. The amount of money from American energy that was flowing into the tax coffers of America was also helping offset some of the out-of-control spending. The simplest way to deal with inflation and help middle-class Americans cope with rising prices would be to open up American energy development quickly. Unfortunately, as long as the Democrats control Congress and the White House, that will not happen. If Republicans take Congress in 2022, the noose around the American energy sector might be loosened, but it will take a Republican President in 2024 to bring us back to economic stability. Meanwhile, expect gimmicks before the mid-term election to try to drop the price of gasoline, but understand that as soon as the election is over, the President will go back to limiting American energy unless a Republican Congress is in place to stop him.

Why Is The Justice Department Wasting Their Time On This?

Posted on by

On July 5, ABC News reported that the Justice Department is suing the State of Arizona over a recently passed state law that requires voters to present proof of citizenship in order to vote in presidential elections.

The article reports:

The Justice Department has filed suit against Arizona challenging its recently enacted voting law that requires proof of citizenship in order to vote in presidential elections.

The lawsuit contends that certain restrictions in Arizona’s House Bill 2492 directly violate Section 6 of the National Voter Registration Act and Section 101 of the Civil Rights Act.

The Supreme Court previously rejected an effort by Arizona in 2013 to require its residents to provide proof of citizenship in order to participate in federal elections, though after President Joe Biden’s victory against Donald Trump in 2020 the state quickly sought to implement a similar mandate in passing House Bill 2492.

“Arizona has passed a law that turns the clock back on progress by imposing unlawful and unnecessary requirements that would block eligible voters from the registration rolls for certain federal elections,” Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke said in a statement Tuesday announcing the lawsuit.

Gov. Doug Ducey signed the bill into law on March 30.

The article concludes:

In a press release, the Justice Department notes the new law with violate the Civil Rights Act “by requiring election officials to reject voter registration forms based on errors or omissions that are not material to establishing a voter’s eligibility to cast a ballot.”

Arizona requires voters to prove they are a U.S. citizen when they register to vote — the only state to do so — by providing a government-issued identification, like a driver’s license, tribal ID or passport. The 2013 Supreme Court ruling allowed the requirement for state elections, but Arizona cannot require proof of citizenship for federal elections, like president.

Arizona is one of the states where Trump has falsely contended he won in 2020. Biden defeated Trump by about 10,000 votes. A GOP-led review of the vote tally in Maricopa County, the state’s largest, reaffirmed Biden’s victory, and even increased his lead by a slight amount.

Actually, the review of the vote tally simply recounted what was already counted. The chain-of-custody for the ballots was not available and there were some serious questions about deletions made during updates on the computers and information not retained on the computers involved that was legally required to be retained. Nothing discovered in the investigation into Arizona’s 2020 election indicates that everything was above board.

Why would the Justice Department be fighting a law that required proof of citizenship to vote in a presidential election?

According to the U.S. Constitution (article here):

Amendment 15 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Amendment 19 The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Amendment 24 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

(For a history of why the 24th Amendment only applies to federal elections, see here).

Amendment 26 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Note that all of the above applies to citizens. It has always been understood that non-citizens did not have the right to vote in federal elections.

Breaking The Budget In California

Posted on by

On July 4th, The U.K. Daily Mail reported that California Governor Newsom has proposed a budget that offers all illegal immigrants in the state, regardless of age, health insurance. At the same time he is doing this, he is paying for ads in Florida encouraging Florida residents to move to California. California residents are also fleeing California for Texas.

Below is a chart from June 2019 posted by fee.org:There seems to be a pattern there.

The article at The U.K. Daily Mail reports:

The expansion in healthcare is part of Medi-Cal, which already offers coverage for illegal immigrants younger than 26 and over 50 – as well as recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Now, the state is expanding that coverage option to 700,000 undocumented residents in the Golden State between the ages of 26-49 starting January 2024.

Migration continues to surge at the southern border with the third straight month of increased crossings in May.

Thousands of migrants part of a caravan that started in southern Mexico ended their travels toward the U.S. border just two days after setting off when they were handed permits to stay in the country for 30 days.

Mexican officials handed out 3,000 temporary residence permits on Sunday and ended the march of mostly Venezuelans and Central Americans.

The move comes after a United Nations Missing Migrants Project report revealed that more migrants died in 2021 in America than in any other year since it started recording data in 2014.

How many American citizens don’t have health insurance because they can’t afford it? We need to take care of uninsured Americans and veterans before we insure people who are here illegally.

 

As Florida Moves To Protect Young Children…

Posted on by

On July 4, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog about the law passed in Florida to protect young school children from inappropriate teaching about sex.

The article reports:

The Biden administration has taken strong exception to Florida’s anti-grooming law, which requires that public school teachers wait until kids are in the fourth grade before inculcating them with LGBTQTrans ideology. Biden intends to fight for grooming to the last man nonbinary person:

[T]he White House claims there will be federal intervention in opposition to the anti-grooming law. Moves for federal mediation include “monitoring” by the Department of Education and calls for people to file formal complaints about the law’s restrictions with the Department’s Office for Civil Rights.

Deprivation of the right to groom five to eight year old children. I suppose we shouldn’t laugh, next time there is a liberal majority on the Supreme Court, they might find such a right hidden where they have come up with abortion and others.

[T]he Biden White House claims the law is “part of a disturbing and dangerous nationwide trend” and is “cynically targeting LGBTQI+ students, educators, and individuals to score political points.”

Children in early grades of elementary school need to be allowed to be children. They need to be allowed to maintain some modicum of childhood innocence.

The article concludes:

Federalism is the forgotten value that inspires our Constitution perhaps more than anything else, and I would argue that it is more essential today than ever. With our country more deeply divided than at any time since the Civil War–and in some ways, the divisions are even wider now than then–disunion is a real possibility. Another possibility is tyranny imposed by one side or the other. The Biden administration is working hard on that one. The optimal solution is to let blue states be blue and red states be red, and to preserve the constitutional powers of the states.

It’s not a perfect answer–before too long, just about everyone would want to live in the red states–but it is infinitely preferable to the alternatives.

It really is time to get rid of the federalization of education. Our schools did much better when they were locally controlled and our children scored much better on achievement tests. The federal intrusion into our schools has been a disaster and needs to end.

An Example Of The Futility Of Gun Control Laws

Posted on by

On July 4th, Breitbart noted that the shooting during the Highland Park parade in Illinois occurred despite some of the toughest gun regulations in the nation.

The article reports:

Moreover, Gabby Giffords gun control group gives Illinois a grade of A- on gun control.

Illinois has a red flag law, a waiting period for gun purchases, gun owner licensing, domestic violence gun laws, “open carry regulations,” and numerous other gun controls.

The gun owner licensing is done via Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) cards. Only those with a FOID card can legally buy and possess a gun in Illinois and the process for acquiring a FOID card includes a background check.

The Illinois State Police listed the process for buying a gun in Illinois:

• Buyer must possess a valid FOID card.
• Buyer must verify local firearm ordinance requirements.
• Buyer must display valid FOID card to FFL prior to handling firearm.
• Buyer must complete Federal Form ATF 4473.
• FFL notifies the Illinois State Police (ISP), Firearms Services Bureau to perform
a background check in accordance with state and federal laws.
• FFL receives an “Approval” from ISP to transfer the firearm.
• Buyer must abide by the State of Illinois waiting period before taking possession
of the firearm. The waiting period for a long gun is 24 hours and 72 hours for a
hand gun.
• Upon taking possession of the firearm, the firearm must be unloaded and
enclosed in a case to transport.

Cook County has an “assault weapons” ban that also bans “high-capacity” magazines. In neighboring Lake County, the City of Highland Park has an “assault weapons” ban that also bans “large-capacity” magazines.

At some point authorities are going to realize that people who are intent on committing murder do not necessarily care about following laws.

Just a short note on the shooting from Red State:

His (the shooter) videos obviously indicated some concerning thoughts as they were about shootings, and it looked like he may have been contemplating this for some time. So whatever his political thoughts, it was clear he had a lot of ongoing issues.

There are some pictures floating out there that are making some on the left immediately jump to the conclusion that the Highland Park, Illinois, shooter is a Trump supporter. The pictures show him at a Trump rally and in one. wearing a Trump flag. There are also pictures of him wearing an FBI hat.

…While anything is possible and we’ll have to see what comes out as the facts unspool, we’ll note all the evidence trends away from Crimo being a Trump supporter — from the multi-colored hair to being a rapper.

The article at Red State also posts a few Tweets from President Biden that the shooter liked, further casting doubt on the fact that the shooter is a Trump supporter.

The article at Red State concludes:

Now, we’ll doubtless hear more as the story unfolds, but the likes are a good indication of where he may land on the political spectrum.

But, it’s pretty sad when you have folks on the left more concerned with trying to somehow attack President Donald Trump than about the people who were killed and hurt. Every mass shooting now becomes “who did it” and a call to get rid of guns–rather than condemning what was done and dealing with a lot of the mental health issues that are almost always involved in these cases. That’s sick, and it’s not productive to solving the real issues behind such cases.

Priorities, people.

Something Rotten In Denmark?

Posted on by

On June 30, The Epoch Times reported that George Tenney III, 35, of Anderson, South Carolina, pleaded guilty to opening the inner Capitol Rotunda doors during the breach on Jan. 6, 2021. But there are a few problems with this plea.

The article reports:

Federal prosecutors have charged a number of defendants, including members of the Oath Keepers, with “breaching” this entrance to the Capitol.

However, neither the huge bronze Columbus Doors on the outside, nor the magnetically secured inner doors can be opened from the outside.

Security video shows Tenney standing in the east foyer of the Rotunda and looking off-camera as if listening to someone.

Even though the inner doors can be opened in an emergency by holding the door handle down for three seconds, Tenney was able to open the left door as soon as he touched it, the video shows.

“A police officer who was outside tried to push [the doors] closed and Tenney resisted pushing against the door to try to keep it open,” the Department of Justice said in a news release.

“An employee of the House Sergeant-at-Arms then ran towards Tenney, pushing him aside in an effort to close the door.”

After assisting protesters coming through the door, “Tenney ultimately had to be pulled back inside so that the Rotunda Doors could be closed to keep other rioters from entering,” the DOJ said.

“He then retreated to the Rotunda and exited the Capitol through a window at approximately 2:32 p.m.”

The article concludes:

Despite Tenney’s admission of guilt as part of a plea bargain, serious questions remain about the Columbus Doors and who opened them, allowing crowds to stream inside the Rotunda.

The ornate doors are 17 feet tall and weigh 20,000 pounds.

Video evidence from the east side of the Capitol shows the Columbus Doors were wide open as crowds first approached the steps leading to the Rotunda on Jan. 6.

Just before the police line on the steps was breached by protesters, video shows the bronze doors were closed, and they remained so as crowds gathered outside the entrance. It is not clear why they were opened again, and by whom.

I wonder if someone who was out-of-sight was instructing Tenney on how to open the doors. If so, why?

The article notes:

Tenney faces up to five years in prison on the civil disorder charge and 20 years on the obstruction charge. He will be sentenced on Oct. 20.

It will be interesting to see how his sentence compares to the sentences already given. We already know how it compares to the non-existent sentences given to actual rioters in the summer of 2020.

Things That Make You Doubt People Who Scream Global Warming

Posted on by

We have  listened to some scientists, some political leaders, and some celebrities scream for years about global warming. In 1985, many of those same people were screaming about global cooling. Basically in both cases, the word was give up your lifestyle or die in five years. Meanwhile, many of the people screaming about global warming continued to fly around in private jets, buy oceanfront property, and expand their own carbon footprint while asking the rest of us to reduce our carbon footprint.

On July 4th, Breitbart posted an article about some of the recent behavior of the corporate elite regarding global warming.

The article reports:

The Financial Times (FT) reports spending by U.S. companies on private jets for personal use by chief executives and chairs hit the highest level for a decade last year as many businesses relaxed restrictions on using them because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Spending on airborne luxury rose 35 percent to $33.8mn among S&P 500 groups in 2021 — the highest since 2012, according to ISS Corporate Solutions, a division of investment adviser Institutional Shareholder Services.

The business elites have seemingly grasped the appeal long ago recognised by Hollywood, tried it and have no intention of going back to their old ways as everyday fliers are forced to in crowded commercial airports.

…Who is enjoying the corporate travel stakes? The FT sets that out:

Among the biggest spenders were Facebook parent Meta and aerospace group Lockheed Martin as many companies eased rules on using private jets because of fears over contracting Covid-19 on commercial flights. Meta spent $1.6mn on private jets for chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, while Lockheed spent $1.1mn on flights for boss James Taiclet.

Lockheed Martin said it broadened its private jet spending last year ‘in light of the Covid-19 pandemic’.

This included $353,303 for Taiclet’s personal travel as well as for commutes to his home out of state and deadhead flights, when an aircraft is used for a one-way charter, Lockheed said in a regulatory filing this year.

I don’t begrudge anyone who can afford it the luxury of flying around in private jets. However, I think it’s a bit hypercritical to fly around in a private jet with a huge carbon footprint and lecture the rest of us about global warming.

The Revolution President Trump Created

Posted on by

On July 4th, The American Thinker posted an article about the success of the Trump Presidency vs. the Reagan Presidency. It you are old enough, you will remember that the press hated President Reagan almost as much as they hated President Trump. But those were different times.

In a June 2017 article Todd Starnes notes:

A beautiful story of our true nature exemplified in the context of the political world, comes from the relationship between Republican president Ronald Reagan and Democrat Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill. Polar opposites politically–yet not allowing that to define their relationship. One time Reagan confronted O’Neill about some nasty things said in the newspaper, and O’Neil replied with: “That’s just politics, after 6 o’clock we’re buddies–we’re friends.” And that’s exactly what they were–frequently going out after work and simply having a beer together, and after Ronald Reagan was shot, the first person to come and visit him was Tip O’Neill. Reagan took it, that when things would get a little heated in some of their meetings, he would visibly set his watch to 6 o’clock, as a frolicsome reminder of their true identity in friendship.

Can you imagine a friendship between President Trump and Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi? I don’t think the responsibility for that lack of friendship falls totally on President Trump.

The article at The American Thinker notes a few significant positive changes to our politics under President Trump:

Before Trump, most Republican politicians saw lying to their base — or at least to a certain part of their base — as a necessary and proper part of their job.  Consider, for instance, this representative quote from Mac Stipanovich, chief of staff to Bob Martinez, the moderate Florida governor who later served in the first Bush administration:

There was always an element of the Republican Party that was bats— crazy. They had lots of different names — they were John Birchers, they were ‘movement conservatives,’ they were the religious right. And we did what every other Republican candidate did: we exploited them. We got them to the polls. We talked about abortion. We promised — and we did nothing. They could grumble, but their choices were limited.

The tawdry history of how the pre-Trump Republican Party has used and discarded the religious right — especially the pro-life movement — is rather long.  Even so, I think it’s important for conservatives to know it, so I will do my best to summarize it.

The article notes:

By the time that Donald Trump took office, only two pro-life justices remained: Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.  Because Trump got only three vacancies, he needed to fill all of them with men and women of principle in order for his side to come out on top.

This was a tall order, since no other Republican president had appointed more than one pro-life justice.  And yet Trump pulled it off.

The article concludes:

Trump kept his promise to move the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, even though the RINOs wailed and screeched. Trump also tried to keep his promise to build the border wall, but on that issue, his efforts sadly came up short, because he needed Congress to pass legislation that even most Republicans really, really didn’t want passed.

Fortunately, on judicial nominations, Trump had more freedom of action, and with the help of Mitch McConnel and the Federalist Society, he chose three pro-life judges in a row — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

So remember that the next time you hear anybody talking about how they wish we could all return to a time before Trumpistry made its mark on America. Remember that it is because of Donald Trump, and his unique level of respect for his base, that each state now has the right, if it so chooses, to enact laws protecting a baby’s right to life.

I will be voting for President Trump in the Republican primary if he runs. I will also be voting for him in the general election if he runs. The positive impact he had on the country is often overlooked by those who support the swamp.

Some Crimes Are Okay If You Are In America Illegally

Posted on by

On Saturday, PJ Media posted an article about a statement made by President
Biden during the 2020 presidential campaign.

The article reports:

A recently rediscovered video shows Joe Biden as a 2020 presidential candidate inexplicably declaring, “I don’t count drunk driving as a felony,” to the astonishment of his stunned interviewers.

To put his statement in context, Biden’s baffling declaration of the insignificance of DUI for illegal immigrants came during a VICE news town hall on minority issues. He was asked about his stance on illegal immigration and deportation of immigrants who have been convicted or charged with felony law-breaking while in the United States. The Democratic candidate promised listeners that if he was elected to the White House in 2020, he would waste no time issuing an executive order (EO) that would prohibit U.S. Immigration and Customs (ICE) agents from deporting any illegal immigrant who had not committed a felony. In essence, Biden said he would decide the seriousness of a crime, not law enforcement.

The article concludes:

Biden’s DUI comment is even more incredible, coming on the heels of the recent DUI arrest of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul. And even though Paul Pelosi is not a member of the Biden family, with a powerful friend like Biden (who doesn’t believe a DUI is any big deal), will Pelosi’s husband really face any substantial consequences for his reckless behavior? We don’t recommend holding your breath, dear readers.

And let’s not forget, Joe Biden is the very same man who for years falsely and repeatedly claimed the horrific car accident that took the life of his first wife and his baby daughter was caused by a drunk driver. It absolutely was not.

Despite what Biden said, most Americans — especially those who have lost a loved one to an illegal immigrant drunk driver — say driving drunk absolutely should be a felony and we shouldn’t allow illegal immigrant drunk drivers into our country. But obviously, Biden and his fellow leftists care more about protecting criminal illegal immigrants who drink and get behind the wheel than they do about protecting innocent law-abiding American citizens like you and me. Remember, dear readers, November is coming.

I am concerned about the people counting on the November election to turn our current situation around. Unless we have an honest election, we will continue to move in the same direction.

Waiting For The Court Cases On This New Law To Begin

Posted on by

On June 23rd, The New York Post reported that the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down the restrictions New York State had put on concealed carry permits.

The Court ruled:

Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said Thursday that the law’s requirement of New Yorkers who want a permit to carry a handgun in public to show “proper cause” that the weapon is ​specifically needed for self-defense “violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”

Well, the New York legislature decided that the Supreme Court decision was unacceptable.

On Saturday, The American Thinker reported:

In an act of breathtaking defiance and spitefulness not seen since Southern states engaged in “massive resistance” to the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board decision, the New York State Legislature gave a middle finger to the Supreme Court and voted Friday to effectively nullify the Court’s decision last week in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

After an extraordinary session for the explicit purpose of defying the Court, Senate Bill S51001 was rammed through on a party-line vote by the Democratic supermajority, passed the Assembly, and received the signature of Gov. Kathleen Hochul.

Writing for the majority in Bruen, Justice Clarence Thomas struck down New York’s century-old requirement that an applicant for a handgun carry permit demonstrate a “special need” if he wanted to carry for self-defense.  New York’s licensing process was entirely discretionary and arbitrary, and in many jurisdictions, licensing officers simply refused to issue permits for self-defense.  This was particularly true in New York City, where applicants were routinely and summarily rejected unless they were politically connected or celebrities — such as Howard Stern, Donald Trump, and Don Imus.  In other jurisdictions, licensing officers simply invented acceptable reasons on a whim, often issuing handgun licenses for “hunting and target shooting” only, if at all.  (In one rural upstate county, a former judge who had authority as a licensing officer invented a requirement that he would not allow any permit-holder to have more than five handguns without appearing before him personally and giving a “good reason.”)

In Bruen, Justice Thomas ruled that these arbitrary restrictions were unconstitutional and violated the Second Amendment’s guarantee to keep “and bear” arms for self-defense, ordering New York State and New York City to issue concealed carry permits to qualified applicants for that reason.

In response, Gov. Hochul (who was endorsed by the NRA in 2012 when she ran for Congress in rural Western New York) vindictively declared that New York would restrict guns to the point where the State would “go back to muskets.”  Hochul called the Legislature back from recess and presented a bill that criminalizes as a felony offense concealed carry in perhaps 98% of the state.

At some point you begin to wonder why some people in our government are so anxious to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.

Bad Behavior Never Advances A Cause

Posted on by

On Friday, The Gateway Pundit reported on a group of people called The Tyre Extinguishers deflated tires on forty SUVs in New York City’s Upper East Side neighborhood. First of all, this group needs to take a deep breath and take a good look around. If global warming were going to kill us all in the very near future, why are celebrities and politicians still running around in private jets, yachts, etc.? Why have they demanding that the rest of us decrease our carbon footprint while making no effort to decrease theirs?

The article reports:

Starting initially in the UK, Tyre Extinguishers groups have sprung up in the UK, USA, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Sweden and New Zealand. In the UK, actions have taken place in London, Brighton, Bristol, Cambridge, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester.

This is the first action in New York City, the first of many.

The Tyre Extinguishers target SUVs because:
• SUVs are a climate disaster
• SUVs cause air pollution
• SUVs are dangerous
• SUVs are unnecessary

The Tyre Extinguishers want to see bans on SUVs in urban areas,
pollution levies to tax SUVs out of existence, and massive investment in free, comprehensive public transport. But until politicians make this a reality, Tyre Extinguishers action will continue.

So the Tyre Extinguishers want the government to tell us what we can drive. I wonder if they have thought this through.

The article includes the Tyre Extinguishers rationale for what they are doing:

We are The Tyre Extinguishers.

We are people from all walks of life with one aim: To make it impossible to own a huge polluting 4×4 in the world’s urban areas. We are defending ourselves against climate change, air pollution and unsafe drivers.

We do this with a simple tactic: Deflating the tyres of these massive, unnecessary vehicles, causing inconvenience for their owners.

Deflating tyres repeatedly and encouraging others to do the same will turn the minor inconvenience of a flat tyre into a giant obstacle for driving massive killer vehicles around our streets.

We’re taking this action because governments and politicians have failed to protect us from these huge vehicles. Everyone hates them, apart from the people who drive them.

We want to live in towns and cities with clean air and safe streets. Politely asking and protesting for these things has failed. It’s time for action. Join us.

We have no leader – anyone can take part, wherever you are, using the simple instructions on this website.

The terrorists encourage attacks on hybrid and electric SUVS:

Hybrids and electric cars are fair game. We cannot electrify our way out of the climate crisis – there are not enough rare earth metals to replace everyone’s car and the mining of these metals causes suffering. Plus, the danger to other road users still stands, as does the air pollution (PM 2.5 pollution is still produced from tyres and brake pads).”

The terrorists claim attacks on thousands of vehicles around the globe.

This is not protest–this is destruction of other people’s property, and the people doing this should spend enough time in jail to rethink what they are doing.

The Science Isn’t Working

Posted on by

On Friday, Townhall posted an article that should (but won’t) give pause to the global warming advocates.

The article reports:

Global warming is not a serious topic. No one cares, but the left wants us all to suffer in order to drop the Earth’s temperature by less than a degree or whatever. 

Let’s cannibalize future economic growth, curb population growth while we’re at it, and declare war on burgers. 

These are the most miserable people on Earth. The problem is fighting back against their climate lies is hard when you have the shield of Big Tech there to flag and censor stories that shred their narrative. Before that crackdown, we used to torch the climate change crew. I’ll do so again. 

The Earth is warming so rapidly that it caused a Norwegian cruise ship to hit an iceberg that shouldn’t even exist under these harsh conditions (via NY Post)

There are some other inconvenient truths noted in the article:

…The accumulation of sea ice was documented here several years ago. Scientists had trouble reaching their research stations in Antarctica in 2015 due to the amount of ice. In fact, in 2013, some 19,000 Manhattan-sized islands of sea ice were created. It’s been noted for its resilience in these heated times. 

In that same year, the Arctic Ice Cap was supposed to be gone. By 2013, no more ice cap, right? It grew by over 533,000 square miles. These people are wrong. They were wrong in the 1970s when global cooling was the t-shirt of the week. Global warming is such a non-threat that the CIA’s operation and research into it were terminated in 2015. 

Should we be concerned about conservation? Sure—that’s an entirely different thing. Hunters are very keen on this subject as well. That’s not what the green warriors want, however. 

Notice how all these global warming policies center on controlling the means of production. They’re not even hiding it anymore, folks. 

The earth’s climate is always changing. Evidence of plant life has been discovered under the ice cap in Greenland. That plant life could not exist there today. I believe in doing what we can to keep the air clean and the earth unpolluted, but I also believe in allowing people to eat what they want, stay warm in winter, stay cool in winter, and be relatively free from government control. I am not sure many of the people running around with their hair on fire because the earth is warming understand what is actually behind the movement.

 

Promises Made, Promises Broken

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Financial Post reported that the Biden administration had failed to deliver the proposed five-year offshore oil and gas development plan that had been promised by the end of the month, according to sources.

The article reports:

Interior Department Secretary Deb Haaland in May had vowed to unveil the draft proposal ahead of the June 30 expiration of the current plan. The department will not be able to hold any offshore oil and gas lease sales until a new plan is finalized.

Briefings with officials meant to take place Thursday ahead of a public announcement were unexpectedly delayed, according to sources. The reason and length of the delay were unclear.

I will be honest, I am not a big fan of offshore drilling, but it is a fact of life, and it needs to be planned and controlled. The Biden administration’s dragging their feet on this is not helping anyone.

The article notes:

Interior had recommended to the White House that all federal offshore oil and gas drilling auctions over the next five years be located in the Gulf of Mexico, where the drilling industry has already been focused for decades, according to two sources familiar with the matter. The White House could make changes to include other regions.

The expected proposal comes as U.S. President Joe Biden seeks to balance his goal to transition the country away from fossil fuels against a Congressional requirement to hold regular drilling auctions, and intense political pressure to boost energy supplies to ease soaring inflation.

In recent years, the Interior Department has leased areas off the coast of Alaska. And former President Donald Trump had proposed a vast expansion of drilling sales to cover more than 90% of coastal waters, including areas off California that had not been offered since the 1980s and new zones in the Atlantic and Arctic. Those plans were blocked by legal challenges.

Just for the record, we do not currently have the technology to transition from fossil fuels to green energy. If the government would get out of the energy business, the free market would probably develop the technology, but we do not currently have it. Currently, the quest for green energy resembles the historic quest for a perpetual motion machine. The laws of physics make that an impossible dream. In 2021 more than 200 people lost their lives in Texas due to a cold snap that stopped the windmills they depended on for power from providing electricity. In 2014 I posted an article about what happened when Spain tried to transition to green energy. It wasn’t pretty. We don’t need to repeat their mistake.

UPDATE:  On July 1st, The Hill reported:

The Biden administration is punting a decision on whether to open up more lease sales for offshore drilling.

    • In a statement issued Friday, the administration said it is still working on a plan, and that when issued it could include as many as 11 specific lease sales for offshore oil and gas drilling or as few as zero.
    • An Interior Department official said equal weight is being given to scenarios with zero sales, some sales or all 11 sales.

The statement and department’s proposal for the program’s future was issued one day after a previous five-year offshore drilling plan expired. That plan had been launched by the Obama administration.

Another Win For The Supreme Court

Posted on by

Does anyone remember this gem from 1975:

This is a kid-oriented explanation of how laws are supposed to be passed in America. Unfortunately, many of our laws are currently being passed by unelected bureaucrats in government agencies. These bureaucrats are not held accountable by the people because they never have to run for office. Well, on Thursday the Supreme Court took a small step to bring America back to the lawmaking procedure established by our Founding Fathers.

Red State posted an article on Thursday reporting the decision.

The article reports:

The Supreme Court sharply curtailed the power of the EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change. In a 6-3 ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court sided with conservative states and fossil-fuel companies in adopting a narrow reading of the Clean Air Act.

The Court found that Congress had not authorized the EPA to induce a shift toward cleaner energy sources.

“Congress did not grant EPA…the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan,” the majority wrote.
The ruling was spurred by an appeal to a decision last year that struck down a Trump-era power plant rule.

In appealing that decision, West Virginia asked the court to consider whether the EPA has the authority to try to push the entire system away from coal and reshape the country’s electric grid.

The article notes:

Justice Kagan in her dissent acted as though it was the Court’s responsibility to address climate change, rather than interpret the law and the Constitution.

Maybe she needs to go back and reread the Constitution.

If the Biden administration wants to change the source of America’s energy, they need to ask Congress to pass a bill to do that. Elected officials need to be held accountable for the laws they make. Bureaucrats are not elected and cannot be held accountable. That is why our laws are supposed to be made by Congress and not by bureaucrats.

A Law Preventing A Ludicrous Idea

Posted on by

Some Democrats who are absolutely horrified by the overturning of Roe vs. Wade have suggested that the government set up abortion tents on federal land in states that outlaw abortion. Before we consider this, let’s remember the money aspect of abortion, which I think explains why the Democrats are so upset. For example, in 2018 Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren received $128,407 from Emily’s List, a political action committee that aims to help elect Democratic female candidates in favor of abortion rights to office. Most Democrats receive substantial campaign contributions from Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is a million dollar business that makes money from performing abortions and selling aborted baby body parts. Corporations like abortions because they are cheaper than healthcare and maternity leave. There are a lot of financial interests in keeping abortion as a million-dollar industry. Those efforts have begun (in spite of the Supreme Court ruling).

On Wednesday, The Daily Caller reported:

Despite demands from several prominent Democrats, the federal government is prohibited from using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions.

The Hyde Amendment, first included in federal appropriations bills in 1976, prohibits the federal government from funding abortions unless “the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or where the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.” Activists estimate that the Hyde Amendment prevents at least 60,000 abortions every year.

The amendment is named for Republican Illinois Rep. Henry Hyde, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who championed it.

Although support for the amendment was initially bipartisan, Democrats in recent years have attempted to pass federal budgets that do not include the provision. President Joe Biden flip-flopped on support for the amendment during his 2020 presidential campaign, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi attempted to jettison the provision for an early COVID-19 relief package. Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin’s demand that the Hyde Amendment be included in a social spending package was a key factor in the breakdown in Build Back Better negotiations.

The article concludes:

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre rejected the congressional Democrats’ suggestion Monday, but two cabinet members did suggest that they would use their agencies to promote abortion access.

“Nothing is more important to me or to this Department than the health and well-being of our Service members, the civilian workforce and DOD families,” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said in a Friday statement shortly after the ruling. “I am committed to taking care of our people and ensuring the readiness and resilience of our Force.”

“The Department is examining this decision closely and evaluating our policies to ensure we continue to provide seamless access to reproductive health care as permitted by federal law,” he added.

When contacted for comment, a Department of Defense (DOD) spokesperson cited a memorandum released Tuesday by Undersecretary of Defense Gilbert Cisneros. The memorandum stressed that the DOD will comply with the conditions laid out by the Hyde Amendment, and “will continue to follow existing departmental policy.”

Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Xavier Becerra promised to “increase access” to abortifacients, claiming that his agency has been planning for “every action necessary to protect women’s access to reproductive healthcare.”

A spokesperson for HHS did not respond to the Daily Caller’s request for comment on compliance with the Hyde Amendment.

Just for the record, abortion is not healthcare. It will be interesting to see if the Biden administration simply chooses to ignore the Hyde Amendment.

When The Money Is More Important Than The Science

Posted on by

The Covid pandemic taught us a lot of things. One of the things I learned was to do my own research as much as possible. I also became more cynical about the relationship between pharmaceutical companies and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (currently headed by Dr. Fauci). As you may remember, early in the Covid pandemic, Dr. Fauci played down the effectiveness of Ivermectin in treating the virus and limited the availability of monoclonal antibodies in some states. Dr. Fauci’s preferred treatment of Covid was a drug called Paxlovid, developed by Pfizer.

On Wednesday, PJ Media reported that Dr. Fauci had tested positive for Covid and taken Paxlovid.

The article reports:

On June 15, Dr. Anthony Fauci announced that he had tested positive for COVID-19. It was a long time coming since nearly everyone around him in the White House has tested positive at least once. In fact, the number of high-profile people with repeated infections is rising — former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and Prince Charles, to name a few. Of course, what they all had in common was every single COVID jab available to them.

Fauci was no exception. When he provided an update on his condition during a conference call on June 23, he said, “I had one day of symptomatology. I started on Wednesday on Paxlovid. And I was on Paxlovid for five days. And I have now finished Paxlovid, and I am still feeling really quite fine.”

Then he gave the obligatory nod to the treatments he has advocated and even supported mandating for others. “I think I am an example, given my age, of what we’re all talking about today. I am vaccinated. I am doubly boosted. And I believe if that were not the case, I very likely would not be talking to you looking as well as I look, I think.” In reality, he has no way of knowing that, and there is no science to back it up. Still, seven days after a positive test, he appeared symptom-free and participated in a meeting.

Unfortunately Dr. Fauci suffered a rebound of Covid:

On June 28, in another interview, Fauci disclosed that he had a positive antigen test four days after finishing the course of Paxlovid. For the three days prior, his tests were negative. “So it was sort of what people are referring to as a Paxlovid rebound. Then over the next day or so, I started to feel really poorly. Much worse than in the first go around,” Fauci admitted. Then he shared he was back on Paxlovid since it worked so well the first time.

If Pavlovid had really worked all that well, he wouldn’t be sick and need it again.

The article notes:

Remember when President Trump took Regeneron MAs, walked off a helicopter, and returned to work two days later? Were there any news stories out of Florida about rebound infections, where infusion clinics dispensed MAs at high rates for weeks? At some point, there needs to be an inquiry about what happened to the MA program. It was the only FDA-EUA treatment that prevented severe illness in between 70% and 90% of high-risk patients through the delta wave. MAs were also effective at preventing COVID in people exposed to the virus. Paxlovid is not.

While no one should wish anything terrible on Dr. Fauci, it is important to remember how he loomed large in destroying the reputations and careers of doctors who advocated using existing drugs to treat viral replication, inflammation, and clotting. Some researchers and clinicians feel that restricting these treatments is a crime against humanity that caused thousands of unnecessary deaths.

Fauci also did not advocate for infusion centers and broad distribution of the effective MA treatment that was available last summer. Instead, we waited for a pill that doesn’t always work on the first pass, may be of no value to vaccinated Americans, and appears to be declining in efficacy because of how it works.

I am glad Dr. Fauci seems to be getting better, but what about the lies told to Americans during the pandemic? How safe is the vaccine? Does the vaccine actually work? Is the vaccine being given in America approved for other than emergency use? Why was Ivermectin trashed although it seemed to work? Why was the distribution of monoclonal antibodies limited when it was known to be an effective treatment? We will probably never know the answers to these questions because of the money behind the related decisions, but I hope the American people are now awake and realize that it is up to every individual to protect their own health–the government isn’t going to do it.