DOG BITES MAN!!!

No big surprise here, I shouldn’t think.

The lying liars who talk about climate change know that they’re spouting bullshit.

More than 90 percent of NOAA’s temperature monitoring stations have a heat bias, according to Anthony Watts, a meteorologist, senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute, author of climate website Watts Up With That, and director of a study that examined NOAA’s climate stations.“

And with that large of a number, over 90 percent, the methods that NOAA employs to try to reduce this don’t work because the bias is so overwhelming,” Mr. Watts told The Epoch Times.

“The few stations that are left that are not biased because they are, for example, outside of town in a field and are an agricultural research station that’s been around for 100 years…their data gets completely swamped by the much larger set of biased data. There’s no way you can adjust that out.”

The article starts with the claim from the Useless Nations about how if the planet temperature goes up by 1.5 degrees C, then we’re all going to die.

Uh, no. There are three periods in human history when the temps went up by more than 2 degrees C. The Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period. I would point out that all three of those periods corresponded with increased human growth and technology, not less. Also, no massive planet shattering cataclysms either.

Now add in data that is blatantly biased. The whole Global Warming Climate Cooling Change cult falls apart like a junkie who hasn’t gotten a fix in 24 hours.

Well, naturally. But then, what else would any reasonably well-informed, aware person expect from them other than a perfervid aversion to facts, truth, and observable reality? FederalGovCo lies so much, so continually, it’s gotta be pretty tough for ‘em by now to even realize they’re doing it at all, forget about owning up to it and trying to do better. Dishonesty, deceit, and overweening bumptiousness are the Government Grey Man’s default response at this point, regardless of topic or context: reflexive, instinctive, as if those ignoble traits were hard-coded into their DNA.

My wise old grandma put it best: they’d rather climb a tree and tell a lie than stand flatfooted and tell the truth. That a great nation could have somehow produced such horribly diseased specimens has to be one of the most grotesque ironies in the human tragicomedy.

So, how’s that forced EV-conversion thing working out for ya, Mr “pResident”?

NOT. TOO. GOOD.

Hertz is selling 20,000 electric vehicles to buy gasoline cars instead
Hertz, which has made a big push into electric vehicles in recent years, has decided it’s time to cut back. The company will sell off a third of its electric fleet, totaling roughly 20,000 vehicles, and use the money they bring to purchase more gasoline powered vehicles.

Electric vehicles have been hurting Hertz’s financials, executives have said, because, despite costing less to maintain, they have higher damage-repair costs and, also, higher depreciation.

“[C]ollision and damage repairs on an EV can often run about twice that associated with a comparable combustion engine vehicle,” Hertz CEO Stephen Scherr said in a recent analyst call.

And EV price declines in the new car market have pushed down the resale value of Hertz’s used EV rental cars.

“The MSRP declines in EVs over the course of 2023, driven primarily by Tesla, have driven the fair market value of our EVs lower as compared to last year, such that a salvage creates a larger loss and, therefore, greater burden,” Scherr said.

Simply put, people are generally willing to pay a certain amount less for a used car than for a new one. As the price of new car goes down, that also pushes down what people are willing to pay to buy a used one.

Hertz expects to take a loss of about $245 million due to depreciation on the EVs, an average of about $12,250, per vehicle the company said in an SEC filing.

If you don’t already know it by now, you certainly should: Mike’s Iron Law #187: There’s always a workaround, and true Americans will always be able to find it. Flipping the big honking middle-digit salute at FederalGovCo like this counts as one of the very best examples I can think of.

On the other hand, though, watch now as the goobermint takes over the rent-a-car industry entire in retaliation. Who can say, maybe such a dick-move was the whole idea from the very beginning?

Just say no

Buck Throckmorton has rapidly become the go-to guy for EV news, debunkings, and unpleasant realities, and there’s a very good reason for that. To wit:

Welcome to 2024! Since New Year’s Day one year ago, the “electric vehicle transition” has gone from being a foregone conclusion to being a rolling failure. Auto manufacturers who bought into the hype are looking at a catastrophic financial miscalculation, and typical car drivers have gone from being curious (at best) to being generally negative about purchasing EVs. I believe that the conservative media’s pushback against EVs has had a considerable impact.

In other words, 2023 was a very good year – a year in which we turned opinion against electric vehicles. The people who want a boutique, status-symbol EV can continue to buy Teslas. (But can we please kill off the taxpayer subsidies for Tesla?) For all the rest, let 2024 be the year when legacy automakers throw in the towel on the eco-communist EV experiment.

For today, let’s do our periodic update on the EV Follies…

“Ford cutting 2024 F-150 Lightning production plans by half, suppliers told; The news comes amid an industrywide pullback in EV investment due to slower-than-expected sales growth.” [Automotive News – 12/11/2023]

Ford Motor Co. is dialing back planned output of the electric F-150 Lightning pickup by half next year because of “changing market demand,” a steep pullback of a high-profile nameplate the automaker spent most of this year working to build in larger numbers.

Although I’ve enjoyed writing about how emphatically consumers have rejected Ford’s flagship EV, in fairness I should point out that the Ford F150 Conflagration Lightning is a spectacularly awful vehicle. Aside from its tendency to burst into flames, it performs poorly at towing, hauling for distance, and operating in the cold – the basic functionalities that are expected of a pickup truck.

The buried lede in this story isn’t that Ford is cutting weekly production of its electric pickup from 3,200 units per week to 1,600 units per week, rather it’s that Ford’s executives still think there is a market that will absorb 1,600 of these abominations per week.

*****

It’s not just Ford that can’t sell its EVs. Half of Buick dealers would rather surrender their franchises than have to sell General Motors’ atrocious EV offerings.

“GM buys out nearly half of its Buick dealers across the country, who opt to not sell EVs” [Detroit Free Press – 12/20/2023]

GM’s awful executives, with little understanding of automobiles or their customers’ preferences, think they can simply dictate what consumers should buy. GM dealers, who actually understand automobiles and what their customers want, know better.

General Motors said nearly half its Buick dealers took buyouts this year rather than invest in selling and servicing electric vehicles as the automaker’s brands transition to all electric by 2030.

That means GM will end 2023 with about 1,000 Buick stores nationwide, down 47% from where it started the year.

*****

General Motors is rolling out an electric version of its popular Chevrolet Blazer sport utility. Well, it’s trying to, but not very successfully.

“2024 Chevy Blazer EV sales are already halted over software issues” [Elektrek – 12/26/2023]

Dozens of potential customers will have to keep waiting.

Ah well, I guess it’s nice to know it will impinge on mere dozens of the poor, pitiful fools; could be worse, could be hundreds. Nice also to see a few major manufacturers finally pushing back against being force-fed this fascistic, auto industry-killing program of FederalGovCo’s devising, instead of just lying back and taking it without demur as they have been up till now. Lots, lots more disincentives to buy into the goobermint’s credulity-straining propaganda push for these abominable, exorbitantly overpriced boat-anchors over at the Ace Place.

Peak irony?

Or peak idiocy? Yet another occasion when we must embrace the healing power of “and.”


Ms Murray asks a few pertinent questions, then hips us to the bottom line.

Haven’t we all seen diesel-powered trucks deliver diesel-powered generators, to charge dead E.V. batteries?

How does a company get the lithium to build the battery? Diesel earth-moving machinery of course.

What happens when freezing temperatures cause an E.V. to break down? What kind of tow truck comes to the rescue?

When exposure to salt water causes a dangerous malfunction and the car rolls backward into a bay, what kind of vehicle pulls the car up from submersion?

Funny enough, after I posted that video, someone in the comments (shockingly) missed the irony, making this statement:

How is this ironic? There’s [sic] only a handful of EV semis on [the] road as of right now. How else are the cars going to make it to their destination?

Yes, there are “only a handful of EV semis” on the road because they can’t even come close to what diesel haulers can do. In a free market, when an idea isn’t good enough for consensual adoption, or costs more in dollars than the value it brings to the table… you find yourself in a reality in which “only a handful of EV semis” are found clunking across the road at any one time. (And, they are only there because of large infusions of taxpayer cash to prop up this bad idea.)

The world runs on oil, the only truly renewable source of energy, and one that doesn’t have to rely on another source of energy to make up for shortcomings.

Annnnd bingo. ‘Nuff said.

Update! Oh, and about that minor little “freezing temperatures” business.

Blue Cities Went All-In for Electric Transit, But the Buses Couldn’t Handle the Cold
Virtue-signaling liberalism is fighting another losing battle with reality.

On Wednesday, the Minnesota-focused news outlet MinnPost reported that several of the state’s largest cities have encountered significant obstacles in their quest to achieve planet-friendly public transit.

Frigid temperatures and a myriad of other problems have plagued Duluth and the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul during their transition to zero-emission buses.

In subzero conditions — a staple of Minnesota winters — electric buses operate at only a fraction of their supposed 150-mile capacity.

Drew Kerr, spokesman for Twin Cities Metro Transit, explained that charged buses travel far shorter distances than manufacturers advertised.

“Using garage chargers alone, electric buses can remain in service for 70 to 75 miles before needing to return to the garage; with on-route chargers, electric buses were scheduled to be in service for up to 90 miles before returning to the garage,” Kerr said.

Duluth spokesman Dave Clark noted that the city has experienced significant problems with charging stations.

“They would fail. They would not perform. They would experience malfunctions, glitches. They were extremely problematic right out of the gate,” Clark said.

As anyone with even half a lick of fucking sense would expect, there’s much, much more at the link. In the sagacious words of Thomas Jefferson: It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Smart man, that Thomas Jefferson.

A matter of life and death

Ever wonder why moronic shitlibs hate fossil fuels so desperately? Wonder no more, friend.

We Can’t Let Fossil Fuels Die Because They Keep Us Alive
It is not just cars and leaf blowers, stoves, or even air conditioning. What is at stake is much deeper: human dignity.

This is my first Christmas without my dad. As hard as it is for me and my siblings, it’s harder still for our mother, who is having her first Christmas since 1963 without him. Dad’s days in the hospital and subsequent death ushered in a wave of emotions, memories, and ponderings about heaven, sin, salvation, and for me, fossil fuels.

The last item in that list may sound strange, but let me explain. As an advocate for the energy industry, work follows me everywhere, and I love it because I love what I do. But fossil fuels are not just my life, they are life-giving and life-sustaining.

After his heart attack, Dad had a cardiac catheterization to assess the damage to his coronary artery. A hollow, plastic tube was inserted through the groin. Then, guided by the doctor, it traveled through the blood vessels, sending back data and information. In this procedure, the plastics are made of oil. The needle is forged to the finest of points by heat produced from coal. The medicines used to prevent infection are petrochemicals likely made from natural gas. Right there: fossil fuels.

A stent was also implanted to keep the blood flowing in a collapsed artery — thinner than human hair, hollow, nontoxic, noncorrosive, flexible, and 100 percent made from oil.

Medicines, IV bags, disposable gloves, hand sanitizer, the port in his arm, the numerous beeping machines — in every corner of Dad’s hospital room were products of abundant natural resources, which professionals deploy daily to save lives and heal patients. And we take it for granted.

Those advocating for a “green transition” never tell us what the plan is to make needles and bedpans once we “phase out” of fossil fuels. What is the replacement plan for plastic, rubber, cement, steel, and the millions of products they create?

Perhaps I thought these things sitting in Dad’s hospital room to distract myself from the heartache. Perhaps I think these things because it is my job. Either way, I know the world is not ready for fossil fuels to lose this battle. It is not just cars and leaf blowers, stoves, or even air conditioning. What is at stake is much deeper: human dignity — a dignity that elevates us above the harshness of nature and cruelty of illness or allows us to cleanse ourselves from the sweat of labor. 

We do not talk about the “then what” after fossil fuels are eliminated. But I assure you, life as we know it would be absolutely, categorically impossible without them.

For you and me, sure. For them? Never. Or so they think, at any rate. All just part and parcel of being what Lenin termed a “useful idiot,” see. And if we hated Normals have to keel over and drop dead en masse so’s they can feel all smug and sanctimonious about themselves and their “noble” Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly The Weather)™ works…well, so much the better, then. For these assholes, that’s a feature, not a bug. This gem, which ran over at the Eyrie with this week’s Screamin’ meemie Monday post, is worth another look, I think.

Yes indeedy-dew. Or, as Glenn has long maintained: I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who keep telling me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis. Call it Reynold’s Law, p’raps.

Walk gently on Mother Earth

CHRIST, what a muttonhead.

Should I Stop Flying? It’s a Difficult Decision to Make.

Yes. Yes, you absolutely should, immediately. Every minute you dither makes Mother Gaia cry, you know.

Four years ago, during a Zoom work meeting, a colleague who lives in London told me she’d decided to quit flying on airplanes. She simply couldn’t stomach the cost to the climate. Due to her decision, she said calmly, she would probably never visit the U.S. again. My heart skipped a beat.

Her choice seemed so extreme. She shared it with me casually in the context of conversation, without a trace of judgment or moralizing. Still, I felt shocked and inexplicably a little defensive—but also intrigued. At the time, I traveled by air as often as ten times a year for my work as a journalist and to see family members strewn about the country. I couldn’t imagine my life without flying.

But my colleague’s comment lodged in my mind as a beautiful and challenging seed. Over the next few years, it cracked through the concrete of what had been, until then, a completely unexamined belief in my inviolable entitlement to flying. When the pandemic arrived, grounding travelers and shrinking international air travel by 60 percent in 2020, I began to see that significantly reducing air travel—or even giving it up altogether—was absolutely possible.

Rare individuals have chosen not to fly for ethical reasons for decades, but in the years leading up to the pandemic, the smattering of outliers coalesced into a movement. It took root most quickly and deeply in Sweden, which in 2017 became the first country in the world to establish a legally binding carbon-neutrality target—a year before Greta Thunberg began protesting in front of its parliament. In Swedish, the movement became known as flygskam, which translates to “flight shame,” a term commonly attributed to Swedish singer Staffan Lingberg, who gave up flying in 2017.

The number of people pledging to stop flying grew so much that Swedish air travel declined 5 percent between 2018 and 2019, and the movement strengthened in other parts of Europe as well. In the U.S., the flight-free movement, in the form of groups like Flight Free USA and No Fly Climate Sci, has been slower to spread but is growing. This year, Flight Free USA, for example, is on track to see the largest number of pledges to stop or minimize flying at 436. By comparison, tens of thousands have pledged in Europe over the past four years.

Well, an admiring pat on the head for all those Neo-Luddite lackwits, then. But y’all should by no means stop there. Ditch your cars, your houses, your modern appliances, any clothing you didn’t sew with your own two pwecious widdle hands. Throw out your computer, your tablet, and your sail foam, all of which are made of plastic derived from *gasp!!!* fossil fuels. No more mass transit, either, most of which consists of either gas or diesel-engined buses or electric trains and/or subways which rely on a mostly coal-burning power grid.

Squatting in your dark, freezing-cold cave to cook over an open fire? Perish FORBID! When I think of the miasma of planet-killing pollutants spewed into our fragile atmosphere by such unnecessary indulgences, I can but weep. Small-scale agriculture? Non: cow farts, plus plants have feewings too, you know. Composting? Nein: that is just soooo 2010; you should be scooping, bagging, and eating your own poo like more enlightened pyrsynz are doing. Travel/commuting by horseback? Nyet, nyet, NYET: animal cruelty, you heartless, soulless monster, amongst a whole slew of other objections.

Criminy, but these navel-gazing, sanctimonious handwringers really make my hair hurt sometimes.

Leftards to Normals: drop dead!

I repeat: Take. Them. At. Their. Word. And govern your response accordingly.

They Might Want You to Eat Bugs, But They Would Prefer You Weren’t Here at All
Back in January, I did a story on Jane Goodall. Someone I thought was the epitome of the schweet, uber feminine British flower, who spoke softly and risked her life nobly doing things like saving chimpanzees.

A heroine of my youth. Who just wishes there were less of us ruining the world she loves.

“We cannot hide away from human population growth, because it underlies so many of the other problems. All these things we talk about wouldn’t be a problem if the world was the size of the population that there was 500 years ago.”

That infamous little snippet was from a discussion at a WEF gathering. The same WEF/Davos conferences for which Klaus Schwab has now removed all the videos that were once available to skewer them with on Twitter. It turns out the most elite, richest, and privileged geniuses among us have very thin skins when it comes to the peasants using their own self-congratulatory recordings to eviscerate their big plans and mock them mercilessly.

But the fact of the matter is, they don’t like us very much and would be thrilled to have fewer of us both to control and despoiling their precious Gaia. Life would be better all around.

Proponents of the idea that the world would be a better place sans a significant amount of the current population have a name unto themselves – it’s “Malthusians.” It springs from a late 18th, early 19th Century English economist named Robert Malthus, who believed that over-population was literally the bane of the Earth.

Dishonorable mentions for Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly The Weather)™ idiot Michael Mann and overpopulation sub-genius Paul Erlich follow, a trio sans brio who, between them, share the inglorious distinction of having been conclusively proven all wet more times than the separate-but-equally-wrong unholy triumvirate of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin has. Then, Beege provides a link to the coup de grace for the whole sorry crowd.

If by fiat I had to identify the most consequential ideas in the history of science, good and bad, in the top 10 would be the 1798 treatise An Essay on the Principle of Population, by English political economist Thomas Robert Malthus. On the positive side of the ledger, it inspired Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace to work out the mechanics of natural selection based on Malthus’s observation that populations tend to increase geometrically (2, 4, 8, 16…), whereas food reserves grow arithmetically (2, 3, 4, 5…), leading to competition for scarce resources and differential reproductive success, the driver of evolution.

On the negative side of the ledger are the policies derived from the belief in the inevitability of a Malthusian collapse. “The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race,” Malthus gloomily predicted. His scenario influenced policy makers to embrace social Darwinism and eugenics, resulting in draconian measures to restrict particular populations’ family size, including forced sterilizations.

Science writer Ronald Bailey tracks neo-Malthusians in his book The End of Doom (St. Martin’s Press, 2015), starting with Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 best seller The Population Bomb, which proclaimed that “the battle to feed all of humanity is over.” Many doomsayers followed. Worldwatch Institute founder Lester Brown, for example, declared in 1995, “Humanity’s greatest challenge may soon be just making it to the next harvest.” In a 2009 Scientific American article he affirmed his rhetorical question, “Could food shortages bring down civilization?” In a 2013 conference at the University of Vermont, Ehrlich assessed our chances of avoiding civilizational collapse at only 10 percent.

The problem with Malthusians, Bailey writes, is that they “cannot let go of the simple but clearly wrong idea that human beings are no different than a herd of deer when it comes to reproduction.” Humans are thinking animals. We find solutions—think Norman Borlaug and the green revolution. The result is the opposite of what Malthus predicted: the wealthiest nations with the greatest food security have the lowest fertility rates, whereas the most food-insecure countries have the highest fertility rates.

Among a plethora of other examples, Ehrlich’s famous losing bet springs immediately to mind:

The Simon–Ehrlich wager was a 1980 scientific wager between business professor Julian L. Simon and biologist Paul Ehrlich, betting on a mutually agreed-upon measure of resource scarcity over the decade leading up to 1990. The widely-followed contest originated in the pages of Social Science Quarterly, where Simon challenged Ehrlich to put his money where his mouth was. In response to Ehrlich’s published claim that “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000” Simon offered to take that bet, or, more realistically, “to stake US$10,000…on my belief that the cost of non-government-controlled raw materials (including grain and oil) will not rise in the long run.”

Simon challenged Ehrlich to choose any raw material he wanted and a date more than a year away, and he would wager on the inflation-adjusted prices decreasing as opposed to increasing. Ehrlich chose copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. The bet was formalized on September 29, 1980, with September 29, 1990, as the payoff date. Ehrlich lost the bet, as all five commodities that were bet on declined in price from 1980 through 1990, the wager period.

No more snow; London and NYC underwater no later than 1990/2000/2005/2010/2020 etc etc due to rising sea levels caused by melting polar ice caps/glaciers; nonexistent global warming; the hoary old “peak oil” myth; unbreathable air; acid rain; mass starvation across the developed world; killing floods, drought, tornadoes, and hurricanes all inexorably worsening, year after year; calamitous shortages, scarcity, impoverishment, famine, and war—only shitlib Chicken Littles could be wrong again and again and again about absolutely everything, and yet still unblushingly insist that they’re the smartest people in the room anyhow…no matter what room they happen to be in at the time.

Funny, innit, how all these disparate problems always seem to have the selfsame solution: more government, less freedom, more sacrifice and deprivation, more want. For YOU, that is, not for them. Never them, perish the thought. Why, one could almost be forgiven for wondering whether they might be wrong about that, too. But nah, that couldn’t be, it’s unpossible. Right?

RIGHT?!?

“This isn’t science. It’s fraud”

Quelle surprise.

With only 9 months of reporting data, NOAA was already able to announce “Hottest Year Ever.” But to be fair, they knew well in advance that their data would show 2023 to be the hottest year ever, not only because NOAA “adjusts” much of the data they gather, but even more shockingly, because they fabricate much of the rest of the data inputs from decommissioned stations!

Meteorologist John Shewchuk has been researching NOAA’s hundreds of “ghost stations.” These are climate stations that were once in operation, but aren’t any longer. They might have been removed, or maybe they just quit operating and were never repaired, but NOAA continues to fabricate estimate temperature data for these formerly operational stations.

It gets even worse. As I’ll show in just a moment, aside from the fabricated reports from the USHCN ghost stations, NOAA adjusts the actual readings from stations that are still functioning, to support the climate hoax.

The table immediately below from the Belle Glade station is much simpler to read than it looks, and it reveals both types of fraud that NOAA is committing: 1) the adjustment of temperature data; and 2) the fabrication of temperature data.

In blue is the actual Raw data produced by the Belle Glade station until it went dark in 2005. Each row represents a year, for instance the first year is 2000. The 12 numbers that follow are the 12 average monthly temperatures for that station, shown as Celsius x 100. Therefore, the average temperature in January 2000 was 25.12° Celsius. In February 2000 the average temperature was 25.50° Celsius. (-9999 means that no reading was recorded.)

Below that table in red is the official NOAA temperature data, where two things stand out.

1) NOAA has adjusted the actual Raw data. That 25.12°C temperature for January 2000 was warmed up to 25.21°C. February 2000 was similarly adjusted from 25.50°C to 25.60°C.

2) Despite Belle Glade going offline in 2005, NOAA continues to report temperature data for that imaginary station. The “E” by the temperature indicates that this is an estimated temperature, however, that estimate is still included in the official temperature record.

With NOAA’s history of anti-scientific fraud, it should be assumed at this point that any data NOAA publishes is a fabrication.

My previous documentation of NOAA’s fraud was the progenitor of a commenter’s quote that gave birth to Throckmorton’s Razor and Minuteman’s Corollary:

Throckmorton’s Razor: “Assume that any authority which has previously provided false data is always acting dishonestly.”

Minuteman’s Corollary: “Discount everything a liar says in his argument, even if it may support your position.”

NOAA has so thoroughly compromised its integrity with its pattern of politically motivated fraud, that not only do I not believe its reporting of temperatures or tropical storm wind speeds any longer, but I don’t even trust it to accurately report the dew point. Every piece of weather data produced by NOAA should be assumed to be fraudulent.

It most certainly should, right along with any and every other syllable shat forth from any and every FederalGovCo “scientist,” “expert,” or spokescritter’s filthy maw. It’s a sad, sorry state of affairs, and an awful fix for Real Americans to find themselves in, but it also happens to be the plain and simple truth.

The “climate change” Trojan Horse

In this as in everything else, it’s never really about what they tell you it is.

I have thoroughly debunked the idea of man-made climate change in previous articles and I won’t be spending time on that here. Instead, I want to examine the end goal of climate change policies – The ultimate solution, which is NOT to save the planet, but to dominate the populace.

The names used for the climate change “reset” vary, but it is often referred to by globalists and the UN as Agenda 2030 or Sustainable Development Goals. These programs wear a facade of environmentalism but they are ALL rooted in economics. That is to say, all climate change efforts exist to destroy industry and trade and establish a government/corporate partnership to dominate production. Climate change is a Trojan Horse to introduce authoritarianism.

I believe one of the most important aspects of Agenda 2030 for globalists is something called the “15 Minute City”; a project which involves hundreds of city mayors from across the US, Europe and Asia working closely with groups like the World Economic Forum. Any mention of this idea in a negative light and the media erupts with anger as well as mockery as if it’s not a real issue worthy of debate.

The establishment paints an interesting picture of 15 Minute Cities – A Utopian future in which everything you need is only a short walk away and private transportation is superfluous (or banned). You might even live in mega-complex, much like a giant mall where you also work. You could spend months within one square mile of space, never having to leave for anything.

It’s no mistake that this idea was pushed hard during the pandemic lockdowns. The public was awash in fear propaganda over a virus with a 99.8% survival rate and that fear made the unthinkable idea of staying at home all the time suddenly thinkable. Media pundits continue to call the connection between covid lockdowns and climate lockdowns a conspiracy theory, but the idea is openly admitted in UN and WEF white papers.

Some people argue that most cities are already “15 Minute Cities” with necessities all within walking distance of their homes. These folks don’t understand what a 15 Minute City really is. As numerous establishment descriptions of the project note, it’s not just about convenience or close access, it’s about changing every aspect of our current philosophy of living. It’s not about gaining amenities, it’s about making an array of sacrifices in order to appease the gods of carbon emissions.

The 15 Minute City is more like a recipe, containing every single ingredient of the climate change and covid lockdown agendas in a single comprehensive Orwellian vision. It includes removing motor vehicles, removing private transportation and roads, smart city and AI monitoring of each person’s electricity usage, monitoring of product consumption and “carbon footprint”, biometric surveillance within a compact and stacked urban landscape, the cashless society concept, equity and inclusion cultism, population control, etc.

It is the culmination, the end game; a massive prison with no bars. A place where you are conditioned to grow accustomed to artificial limitations on privacy, no civil liberties, no private property, and no work options or mobility. You are tied to the land and the land is owned by the state (or corporation). If you want a historic comparison, the closest I can find is the feudal system of Medieval Europe.

It’s important to understand that these compact cities will not be designed for your comfort. They will not be designed so that you can have all the amenities you have today closer to your fingertips while also providing “sustainability.” That’s how the globalists try to sell it, but that’s not what it will be. Rather, these cities will be designed to better CONTROL you, so that you can be forced to make the sacrifices they say are necessary for sustainability to be possible.

They are erroneously billed as “decentralized communities,” but they are the exact opposite – They are utterly centralized, like a hamster cage where you are the pet. The core philosophy behind them is dependency. If you live in a place which is specifically constructed to eliminate your ability to provide for yourself, then you are a slave. Though, to be sure, even slavery can be made to look noble if people are convinced that their chains are necessary for the good of the planet.

Thanks to these bloated, endlessly grabby, monstrously-powerful governments, the world becomes a scarier, more threatening place with every passing day, don’t it? Why, it’s almost as if the Founding Fathers actually knew whereof they spoke when they so vehemently warned future generations against the dangers of permitting their central goobermint to outgrow the box it originally came in or something.

Lisa Liberal splutters hysterically: but…but…but…HOW COULD THEY POSSIBLY HAVE FORESEEN (fully semi-automatic assault weapon riflepistol guns at every WalMart, available for purchase by any man, woman, or child with no background check, waiting period, permit, or registration required AT ALL, EVER/unlimited-capacity self-reloading magazine clips/Cop Killer bullets/shoulder thingy that goes up/heat-seeking .50 caliber incendiary rounds/GAIA-raping ICE automobiles/rural electrification/deadly gas ranges/insert Leftard bugbear of the month HERE)?!?

Sticker shock

Just another nail in the EV coffin.

The true cost of an EV? Think tank claims subsidies for electric vehicles cost $50,000 PER CAR over a ten-year period
The true cost of electric cars to the average American taxpayer has been laid bare by a landmark new study into the eco vehicles.

In order to bring EVs to market, governments have created a variety of tax incentives for buyers and manufacturers. They have also sponsored the development of the infrastructure needed to charge them.

But those subsidies can come at a cost to taxpayers, buyers of gas vehicles or simply households that pay electricity bills.

A new paper by conservative think tank Texas Public Policy Foundation estimated that the average electric car incurs hidden costs of $48,698 over a 10-year period.

‘Electric vehicle owners have been the beneficiaries of regulatory credits, subsidies, and socialized infrastructure costs totaling nearly $50,000 per EV,’ said one of its authors, Jason Isaac.

eparately, it found that the infrastructure required to facilitate electric cars in America is not paid for directly by the owner of the car. It described those expenses as ‘socialized infrastructure costs.’

‘Home and public charging stations used by EVs put a significant strain on the electric grid, resulting in an average of $11,833 in socialized costs per EV over 10 years, which are shouldered by utility ratepayers and taxpayers,’ read the paper.

The authors argued that the gasoline infrastructure is used for other products and society at large, whereas electric vehicle charging costs currently only serve EV owners.

They also claimed that the additional strain placed on the power grid when charging electric cars would ordinarily incur ‘demand charges’ – or a premium for higher energy consumption at a certain time.

‘Currently, most utilities are socializing that cost for EV owners by not assessing demand charges on residential EV chargers, even though those chargers can use as much power at certain times as several homes,’ the report claimed.

Right up until the useless Wokester toy blows up and burns the house to cinders and ash.

So let’s see, now:

  • Random explosions;
  • Random deadly fires;
  • Hours wasted searching for and/or sitting in long, slow charging-station queues;
  • Yet more hours wasted “refueling” enough to at least maybe make it back home;
  • Unsatisfactory, grossly-exaggerated range;
  • Ruinously expensive battery replacement;
  • Total reliance on those horrible, horrible coal-fired power plants;
  • Drastically-shortened tire, hub-bearing, suspension, brake, and/or steering-component life due to the vehicle’s excessive weight;
  • Exorbitant towing charges when the PoS boat-anchor leaves you stranded;
  • Inability to enjoy battery-exsanguinating ”luxury” accessories including but not limited to heat, defrost, A/C, stereo, wipers, &c;
  • Ditto for carrying passengers;
  • Ditto for hauling loads or towing even a lightweight trailer with your electric pickup truck;
  • Don’t EVER touch ANYTHING under the hood or attempt to fix anything yourself, OR YOU MAY DIE

OOH-OOH-OOH I WANT ONE I WANT ONE I WANT ONE!

What the heck, whoever said virtue-signaling came cheap, right? Them’s the breaks. All of which I’d be okay with; hey, if smug, self-righteous Enviro-nut assholes don’t mind paying through the nose to establish their presumed moral-superiority bona-fides, well then you just have at it, fools. Unfortunately, though, we ALL get to pay for their dubious “privilege” right along with ‘em. To wit:

But the largest cost identified by the report was that on buyers of gas cars.

According to the paper, around 16 states have ‘zero emission vehicle’ (ZEV) mandates whereby the state sets a number or percentage of new vehicles sold that must be zero-emission.

‘Of course, the cost to meet these mandates is not limited to the states that impose them but spread out over the entire fleet of each automaker trying to meet them,’ read the paper.

On top of that, federal regulations impose similar obligations on automakers that incentivize them to make more electric vehicles.

‘The largest source of financial support for EVs comes not from direct subsidies but from hidden costs driven by federal regulations,’ read the paper.

‘The Biden administration’s stringent fuel economy standards and regulatory manipulations are driving American automakers toward bankruptcy and adding thousands of dollars to the cost of every gasoline vehicle,’ said Brent Bennett, another of the paper’s authors.

Just this month, Ford said during its third quarter earnings call that it lost an estimated $36,000 on each electric car it sold in the quarter.

Well, whaddya know about that: look closely enough, dig down far enough, and we learn that, of course and as always, the real problem has its roots deep within the bowels of the meddlesome, authoritarian Leviathan-state. Quelle surprise, that.

Nissan Leaf auto-torches

Hilarity ensues.

Electric vehicle fire in Franklin requires thousands of gallons of water
FRANKLIN, Tenn. (WKRN) — An electrical vehicle fire at Nissan Headquarters Tuesday afternoon required several more hours and 45 times more gallons of water to put out than a conventional vehicle fire.

It’s a challenge the Franklin Fire Department warns “all fire departments are struggling with” because lithium-ion battery fires often cannot be extinguished until the battery cell has released its energy.

Firefighters were dispatched around 4:42 p.m. after the car caught fire in the parking lot of 1 Nissan Way. According to Franklin Fire Marshal Andy King, the vehicle, a Nissan Leaf, had been charging on a Level 3 charger, which is the fastest charging device.

That’s when its lithium-ion battery cell reportedly overheated, went into a thermal run(a)way condition and caught fire. He said firefighters applied water to cool the battery cell for several hours before the fire was extinguished.

As they will do, y’know. The story goes on to relate that your typical ICE vehicle fire will take from 500 to 1,000 gallons of water to extinguish, but this deadly-dangerous but politically-correct Leaf required in excess of 45,000 gallons, administered by a massive call-up of every emergency-response unit for miles around—including, and I quote, “an engine, tower, battalion chief, rescue, hazmat, and an air response vehicle”—before all was said and done. Fire Marshall King offered a few cautionary words if you’re fool enough to actually own one of these extremely hazardous urban shitlib play-purties:

“If you think you’re having a problem with your electric vehicle, don’t continue to charge it,” King said. “Move it outside to a safe place away from buildings and other vehicles. If it’s heating up or off-gassing – call the fire department immediately and if safe, try to move it to a safe area.”

Or, alternatively, just sell the piece of shit to the first sucker you can find, for whatever he’s willing to give you for it, and be done with it.

You VILL eat zee bugs, serf!

You’ll pry my cheeseburger from my cold, dead hands, bugmen.

These 14 American Cities Have A ‘Target’ Of Banning Meat, Dairy, And Private Vehicles By 2030
Fourteen major American cities are part of a globalist climate organization known as the “C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group,” which has an “ambitious target” by the year 2030 of “0 kg [of] meat consumption,” “0 kg [of] dairy consumption,” “3 new clothing items per person per year,” “0 private vehicles” owned, and “1 short-haul return flight (less than 1500 km) every 3 years per person.”

C40’s dystopian goals can be found in its “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World” report, which was published in 2019 and reportedly reemphasized in 2023. The organization is headed and largely funded by Democrat billionaire Michael Bloomberg. Nearly 100 cities across the world make up the organization, and its American members include Austin, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Seattle.

Media coverage of C40 Cities’ goals has been relatively sparse. The few media personalities and news outlets who have discussed it have been heavily attacked by the corporate “fact-checkers.” In a “fact check” aimed at conservative commentator Glenn Beck, AFP Fact Check claimed that the banning of meat and dairy and limits on air travel and clothing consumption were actually “not policy recommendations.”

Climate dystopianism doesn’t end there.

No, of course it doesn’t…because there is no end to these assholes, unless and until they themselves have been ended. But get a load of what at least one of these wormy, meddlesome, über-superior (hey, if you don’t believe it, just ask him) douchebags is cooking up for us lowly peasants.

WEF-linked “bioethicist” Dr. Matthew Liao has proposed the idea of scientists genetically modify(ing) humans to be allergic to meat. Liao has also discussed shrinking the physical size of humans via eugenics or hormone injections so they consume fewer resources.

All of these policy proposals appear even more unreasonable and illogical when we actually evaluate the data. According to the International Disaster Database, deaths related to extreme heat, floods, storms, and droughts have plummeted as C02 emissions have risen. The fossil fuel economy has provided billions of people with heating, air conditioning, weather warning systems, mass irrigation, and durable buildings.

So-called “fossil fuels,” along with the internal combustion engine especially, have in fact been one of the greatest boons inquisitive and creative mankind has ever bestowed on itself, kindling an incredible succession of Great Leaps Forward (a-HENH!) for civilizational progress, prosperity, and general well-being. Their benignant influence is quite impossible to overstate.

Any pampered, cozened Westerner who fails to appreciate and feel humbly grateful for their impact, even while luxuriating in the benefits provided by them, is beyond contemptible. The opinion, on any and every topic, of such a brat—whatever their chronological age and/or level of “education”—not only should but must be immediately dismissed by wiser, more judicious heads as the opinion of a goddamned fool. To treat with them as if they were at all sane, reasonable, or intelligent is a suicidal act.

Oddly enough, there’s at least somewhat credible evidence that those fuels might not even come from fossils at all, and might more properly be categorized as “renewable energy,” even.

Hydrocarbons have been found in great abundance elsewhere in the solar system where there is unlikely to be evidence for life past or present. No fossils involved.

Petroleum and natural gas wells that have gone dry 50 years ago, are found replenishing a fraction of their output. No fossils involved.

Vast biomass of micro-organisms and extremophiles beneath earth surface estimated to be several times the size of the surface biomass found deriving their chemical energy for life from methane and oxygen pulled from sulfates and ferrous oxides. The source of methane way too deep to come from fossils. No fossils involved.

These recent findings and other evidence were foretold by the late scientist and researcher from Cornell, Thomas Gold, who authored “The Deep Hot Biosphere, The Myth of Fossil Fuels”.

After seeing evidence of extremeophiles in relative abundance in even the deepest of mines, Gold ties the sub-surface biosphere to the “Deep Earth Gas theory” to show a more plausible primordial explanation of hydrocarbon fuel formation than the generally accepted “fossil” theory.

He posits that “Hydrocarbons are not biology reworked by geology (as the traditional view would hold), but rather hydrocarbons are geology reworked by biology.” In other words, as in Saturn’s moon Titan and other hydrocarbon rich areas of the solar system, the source of hydrocarbons is primordial; but as they upwell into earth’s outer crust microbial life uses it as energy source.

Now wouldn’t THAT be a kick in the head to the revanchist wannabe Luddites! Maybe Gold is right, maybe he ain’t; I’m by no means qualified to declaim in much depth or detail on his theories. Which admission of fallibility—given the prophets of the Church of the Imminent Climate Apocalypse’s long, unbroken track record of failed predictions conjured from a manifestly-abysmal ignorance of how the biosphere actually does function, their Chicken Little prognistications based entirely on computer modeling and fear—puts me light-years ahead of the climate-science “experts.”

Feel free to corrrect me if I’m misremembering this and all, but weren’t London and/or New York supposed to be A) underwater; B) on fire; C) buried under a mile-thick sheet of ice; or D) subject to widespread famine and near-total depopulation by no later than 2015 or thereabouts? I mean seriously, come ON, people.

Give ‘em credit for sheer, balls-out chutzpah, though. When you’ve been as reliably wrong as they have, across a span of several decades, it takes a certain amount of gall to dare go on with the dire prognosticating. Any normal, decent hoomon bean would be too embarrassed to ever show his face out of doors again with a litany of abject failure and incompetence, untainted by even the vaguest whiff of factual truth or accuracy, so voluminous trailing along behind him.

Yet still they persist, undaunted and unabashed.

The incontinent arrogance of our present-day Leftist Scaremongers Of Science©, bought and paid-for Deep State stooges one and all, is simply staggering. The more sincere (if any) chowderheads among them think they know so very much, but actually know so very little. And even at that, pace Reagan, most of what little they think they “know” isn’t so. Yes, the depth and breadth of human knowledge has expanded exponentially over a relatively short time. So proposed, so stipulated. Nevertheless, we know virtually nothing in comparison with all the things we DON’T know. It’s grating, to put it mildly. Some fraction of these things we probably never WILL know, certain systems, phenomena, and tendencies being beyond human understanding—try as we might, we cannot know everything.

Which never has deterred self-absorbed shitlibs from fervently believing otherwise, the vain, overly prideful wretches. They could never admit that they’re no more than fleas riding on an elephant’s back—they much prefer to kid themselves that they’re driving.

Whenever some assclown climate “scientist” who can’t accurately predict next week’s weather starts in to tell you, with unwavering certitude, all about what it’s surely going to be fifty or a hundred years from now…well, Houston, we have a problem.

Probably the best thing for you to do, should you find yourself buttonholed by one of these wild-eyed climate hysterics amongst the laity who’ve gulped this noxious swill down whole as if it were strawberry shortcake topped with a bodacious dollop of fresh, homemade whipped cream, is to either point and laugh until your ribs ache or just walk away from the nutjob as quickly as you can. Let the raving, ranting whackadoo pester some other unfortunate; you undoubtedly have far more worthwhile ways to spend your time than frittering it away on him and the pseudo-scientific delusions he’s been spoon-fed by iniquitous authoritarians pimping a pre-fab agenda which is entirely devoid of concern for the climate, the future, or poor, forlorn humanity.

No real scientist would dream of contenting himself with the kind of gross, insupportable assumptions about supposedly-anthropogenic Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly The Weather)™ that these conniving reprobates routinely trade in. There’s an easily discernible distinction to be made between a scientist and just another politician in a lab coat, though. High time we all started making it, sez I. Those egregious, facile, middle school-level assumptions constitute prosecution’s Exhibit A, fully sufficient in and of themselves to persuade any jury of even inattentive, half-bright oafs to unanimously convict before needing to offer reference to the historical record; statistical patterns; the innumerable deceptions and manipulations cynically perpetrated by the other side; or basic, y’know, scientific fact, the pesky l’il booger.

As for the monstrous Dr Liao, merrily playing God in the most literal of senses with the homo sapiens sapiens species entire, a heaping helping of Tincture of .308 Caliber, administered from far off, would be excellent medicine for him and his demonic ilk. Such as they are as dangerous as they are big-E Evil—diseased in their very souls (if any), and beyond all hope of either remedy or reform.

Power failure

Coming all too soon to an aging, overburdened, decrepit electric grid near you.

A Silent Threat to the Energy Transition: America’s Broken Infrastructure Policy
So much of the conversation focuses on the tired and misleading narrative about Oil & Gas villains vs. Renewable heroes. The true enemy of our sustainable energy future is the nation’s broken infrastructure policy. We could greenlight every renewable project in development today and innovate every piece of technology needed to meet our climate goals, and it wouldn’t matter because we lack the ability to utilize and store the energy we create.

Infrastructure isn’t top of mind for most people, but it has gotten more attention in recent years, particularly after Congress passed the massive $1 trillion infrastructure bill in 2021. The legislation included funding for everything from airport repairs to clean drinking water. It also contained the largest investment in clean energy transmission and the electric grid in U.S. history – $65 billion – to be used for new transmission lines for renewable energy, advanced transmission and distribution technologies, and research hubs for next-generation technologies, including carbon capture and clean hydrogen.

But what good are new transmission lines and next-gen technologies if they never make it past the black hole of red tape, interminable delays, supply-chain problems, and exploding costs that derail so many energy projects?

Much of the U.S. grid was built in the 1960s and 1970s, and over 70% of it is currently more than a quarter-century old. But age isn’t the grid’s only problem. The U.S. power infrastructure was built to bring energy from where fossil fuels are burned to where the energy will be used. The nation’s electricity industry, meanwhile, grew via a patchwork of local utility companies whose targets were to meet local demand and maintain grid reliability.

Emissions-free energy sources like sun and wind are, by nature, intermittent. They’re abundant only in places where the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, and therefore need to be stored and transmitted to other locations where there is demand for power. 

Along with the need for new ways to transmit and store sustainable energy, the existing grid will need a major upgrade as demand for electricity rises to meet the needs of electric vehicles, heat pumps, and other replacements for conventional energy sources. A modernized and expanded grid “will be the backbone of the energy transition – and a requirement of any realistic decarbonization pathway,” according to a 2022 report by McKinsey & Company.

There is no silver bullet to fix this complex set of issues. But it’s clear we need a strategic approach to infrastructure investment, and fast. Part of that investment needs to come from Washington in the form of comprehensive policy and regulatory reform, which is the single biggest blocker to private investment and healthy competition in the energy sector. 

Simply put, building energy projects is complicated. Who pays for what is even more complicated, as processes, permitting, payment, and incentivization are all misaligned. Current policy doesn’t support the buildout we need; in fact, it slows it down and exacerbates the problem. Without policy and regulatory reform, we’ll continue to pay more and more to maintain our quality of life. Even worse, we’ll never reach the finish line in the race to a sustainable energy future.

I’ll say it yet again: funny, innit, how almost all of our contemporary woes have their origins in the same place: a greedy, grasping, over-powerful central goobermint?

(Via Bayou Peter)

Hitching a ride

Family learns the hard way that they’d be better off to spit on their asses and slide than relying on a coal-powered EV for their transportation needs.

Family ditches electric truck on drive from Winnipeg to Chicago after charging troubles
Road trip completed with rented gas-powered vehicle, while Ford says charging infrastructure is improving

The owner of a 2023 Ford F-150 Lightning Lariat with an extended-range battery regrets buying the electric truck after attempting a road trip, only to abandon it and finish the drive with a gas-powered rental vehicle.

Dalbir Bala of La Salle, Man., left the truck in Minnesota last month after he said he tried unsuccessfully to charge the battery at two different charging stations.

“It was really a nightmare frustration for us,” Bala said.

He bought the truck — which is advertised as having a range of 515 kilometres — for $115,000 in January. He spent an additional $16,000 installing chargers at his home and his trucking business, and upgrading his residential electrical panel.

Bala, his wife and three kids left on a trip to visit Wisconsin Dells, Wis., and Chicago for business, on July 27. The truck was fully charged when they left their home just south of Winnipeg, and Bala had plans to stop at level 3 charging stations, which provide faster charges, located along the planned route.

Bala’s first stop was about 350 kilometres south of Winnipeg in Fargo, N.D. He paid $56 to charge his vehicle’s battery from 10 per cent up to 90 per cent.

The trouble started at his next stop in Albertville, Minn., where Bala said the only fast charger brought up a faulty connection message in his truck when he plugged in. He called the number on the charger for help but never got a response.

He headed to another charging station in nearby Elk River, Minn., but a charger there wouldn’t work either, he said.

With only 15 kilometres remaining on his battery and no fast charger within that range, he decided to ditch his Lightning. Bala got it towed to a Ford dealership and the family rented a gas-powered Toyota 4Runner to finish their trip to Chicago.

A nightmare indeed. The ultimate lesson here was expressed in a great movie from many years ago:

There’s another great old movie clip that is quite apropos to this sad story.

Heh. Indeed.

Resuscitating the hallowed V8

As my old H-D shop boss and close friend Goose always liked to say: ain’t no replacement for cubic-inch displacement.

Report: Mercedes-AMG Bringing Back V8 Engines
Word has it that Mercedes-AMG is mulling over how best to bring back V8 power to the C and E-Class. While the performance unit downsized its powertrains in a bid to be more emissions compliant, fans pointed out that AMG had long been synonymous with under-stressed and over-engineered V8s making enough power to burn through a set of tires in a single outing.

The shift ended up being a bit of a scandal and one that left a sour taste in the mouth of the people that would actually buy AMG-branded products — which may explain the claimed change of heart.

According to two unnamed sources speaking with Car and Driver, Mercedes-AMG is in the midst of deciding how to bring back the V8. Though the overarching plan remains ambiguous, the rationale behind it is anything but.

It would be stupid to pretend that a 2.0-liter Mercedes optimized for performance can’t still be a hoot to drive. The iconic Mercedes-Benz 190E (W201) is an absolute legend with the 2.0-liter. But there’s a reason models featuring the I6 tend to be more sought after. It isn’t because they’re more reliable, it’s definitely not because they’re cheaper to run, and it might not even have all that much to do with their being faster. People want the larger engines to have the mental satisfaction of knowing they’re driving something with a larger engine.

Not to mention the mental calm of knowing they have enough horsepower to safely get around any pokey-ass, underpowered little i4 road-obstacle they might ever find themselves impeded by.

While perky little four-bangers have a lot to offer, their implementation can sometimes be a little disappointing. Imagine you’ve been given a free Ford Mustang with the badging removed and are told to open the hood to see which motor is inside. Your level of excitement is going to be determined almost entirely by how many cylinders you find.

Compact cars can thrive on small and peppy turbocharged motors. But there’s something truly sad about seeing one tucked inside an engine bay of a vehicle that could have accommodated something larger — especially when it’s also a premium luxury product that costs as much as some starter homes.

“Sad” might be one word for it, yeah. I can think of several others: disgusting, appalling, infuriating spring immediately to mind. Especially considering that those squirrel-on-a-treadmill “powerplants,” tucked away under wafer-thin sheet-tin hoods mounted on a Kleenex box rolling on four go-kart wheels, were forcibly fobbed off on the world by overpowerful goobermints in the name of coping with a climate “crisis” that never existed. More on the origins of that sorry development can be found at this recent Eyrie post.

Good on Mercedes for having the gumption to at last toss a big, fat FUCK YOU at the slimy government enviro-queefs. Would that Ford might be able to find balls enough to join them, but I won’t be holding my breath waiting for it.

(Via Insty)

CF Archives

Categories

Comments policy

NOTE: In order to comment, you must be registered and approved as a CF user. Since so many user-registrations are attempted by spam-bots for their own nefarious purposes, YOUR REGISTRATION MAY BE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED.

If you are in fact a legit hooman bean desirous of registering yourself a CF user name so as to be able to comment only to find yourself caught up as collateral damage in one of my irregularly (un)scheduled sweeps for hinky registration attempts, please shoot me a kite at the email addy over in the right sidebar and let me know so’s I can get ya fixed up manually.

ALSO NOTE: You MUST use a valid, legit email address in order to successfully register, the new anti-spam software I installed last night requires it. My thanks to Barry for all his help sorting this mess out last night.

Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site and may be deleted, ridiculed, maliciously edited for purposes of mockery, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. The CF comments section is pretty free-form and rough and tumble; tolerance level for rowdiness and misbehavior is fairly high here, but is NOT without limit.

Management is under no obligation whatever to allow the comments section to be taken over and ruined by trolls, Leftists, and/or other oxygen thieves, and will take any measures deemed necessary to prevent such. Conduct yourself with the merest modicum of decorum, courtesy, and respect and you'll be fine. Pick pointless squabbles with other commenters, fling provocative personal insults, issue threats, or annoy the host (me) and...you won't.

Should you find yourself sanctioned after running afoul of the CF comments policy as stated and feel you have been wronged, please download and complete the Butthurt Report form below in quadruplicate; retain one copy for your personal records and send the others to the email address posted in the right sidebar.

Please refrain from whining, sniveling, and/or bursting into tears and waving your chubby fists around in frustrated rage, lest you suffer an aneurysm or stroke unnecessarily. Your completed form will be reviewed and your complaint addressed whenever management feels like getting around to it. Thank you.

CF Glossary

ProPol: Professional Politician

Vichy GOPe: Putative "Republicans" who talk a great game but never can seem to find a hill they consider worth dying on; Quislings, Petains, Benedicts, backstabbers, fake phony frauds

Fake Phony Fraud(s), S'faccim: two excellent descriptors coined by the late great WABC host Bob Grant which are interchangeable, both meaning as they do pretty much the same thing

Mordor On The Potomac: Washington, DC

The Enemy: shitlibs, Progtards, Leftards, Swamp critters, et al ad nauseum

Burn, Loot, Murder: what the misleading acronym BLM really stands for

pAntiFa: an alternative spelling of "fascist scum"

"Mike Hendrix is, without a doubt, the greatest one-legged blogger in the world." ‐Henry Chinaski

Subscribe to CF!

Support options

Shameless begging

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:

Correspondence

Email addy: mike-at-this-url dot etc

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless specified as private by the sender

Allied territory

Alternatives to shitlib social media: A few people worth following on Gab:

Fuck you

Kill one for mommy today! Click to embiggen

Notable Quotes

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

Claire's Cabal—The Freedom Forums

FREEDOM!!!

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
Daniel Webster

“When I was young I was depressed all the time. But suicide no longer seemed a possibility in my life. At my age there was very little left to kill.”
Charles Bukowski

“A slave is one who waits for someone to come and free him.”
Ezra Pound

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”
Frank Zappa

“The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.”
John Adams

"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves."
Bertrand de Jouvenel

"It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged."
GK Chesterton

"I predict that the Bush administration will be seen by freedom-wishing Americans a generation or two hence as the hinge on the cell door locking up our freedom. When my children are my age, they will not be free in any recognizably traditional American meaning of the word. I’d tell them to emigrate, but there’s nowhere left to go. I am left with nauseating near-conviction that I am a member of the last generation in the history of the world that is minimally truly free."
Donald Sensing

"The only way to live free is to live unobserved."
Etienne de la Boiete

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

"To put it simply, the Left is the stupid and the insane, led by the evil. You can’t persuade the stupid or the insane and you had damn well better fight the evil."
Skeptic

"There is no better way to stamp your power on people than through the dead hand of bureaucracy. You cannot reason with paperwork."
David Black, from Turn Left For Gibraltar

"If the laws of God and men, are therefore of no effect, when the magistracy is left at liberty to break them; and if the lusts of those who are too strong for the tribunals of justice, cannot be otherwise restrained than by sedition, tumults and war, those seditions, tumults and wars, are justified by the laws of God and man."
John Adams

"The limits of tyranny are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
Frederick Douglass

"Give me the media and I will make of any nation a herd of swine."
Joseph Goebbels

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”
Ronald Reagan

"Ain't no misunderstanding this war. They want to rule us and aim to do it. We aim not to allow it. All there is to it."
NC Reed, from Parno's Peril

"I just want a government that fits in the box it originally came in."
Bill Whittle

Best of the best

Finest hosting service

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS feed

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

Copyright © 2026