In case it slipped your mind. The Econutz™ have been prophesying the end of the world as we know it for the past FIFTY NINE years.

CBS Environmental Journo Slams Trump EPA: We Have ‘Less Than 10 Years’ to Save Planet.

During the “By the Way” segment on Friday’s CBS Mornings Plus, CBS environmental correspondent David Schechter decried the Trump Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Administrator Lee Zeldin by giving away the game on the climate alarmists by reupping a line that’s been deployed for at least five decades, which is we have “less than ten years” to save Earth from climate change.

Co-host Adriana Diaz twice teased his appearance and spelled doom about what deregulation at the EPA would mean, ominously wondering “what” the “big changes at the EPA” “could cost you” as the “administration…mak[es] good on the President’s campaign promise to roll back climate protections.”

 

With the liberal media, any and all regulations are nearly always seen as a benefit and for our own good, not a hassle.

“[O]ne of the things the EPA will now, ‘reconsider’ is what its press release calls a burdensome greenhouse gas reporting program where thousands of companies have to submit their emissions levels. Zeldin said the agency would try to undo a total of 31 environmental regulations from rules governing wastewater to emission standards. The Trump administration has also…revealed plans to shut down the EPA’s Environmental Justice Division,” she added.

Schechter came out swinging with the apocalyptic analysis that Zeldin has changed “the way we interface with the environment” as the EPA has decided it has “nothing” to do with “the environment or ensuring “we have clean air and…clean water.”

He continued with the claim Zeldin doesn’t want to “talk about the environment and why we need to keep it clean and why climate change has become such an existential threat with increased floods and fires and droughts and how the EPA has a role in trying to make sure that we control that and contain that.”

Moments later, he dropped the tiresome claim about having less than a decade or we’re goners:

I think the biggest risk is that we have a small window to deal with climate change, really. It’s getting smaller and smaller, less than 10 years, to sort of level out and reduce our emissions and we had and have currently a lot of rules that deal with that. To throw those all out would undo a lot of progress that’s been made to try to reach these new standards for our country and for the world. And we will lose our opportunity to really get ahead of this problem or even stay current with the problem.

Co-host Tony Dokoupil next summarized Zeldin’s view of the EPA as “if companies save money by not having to report a bunch of things that are a waste of time, they can take that saved money and make the energy process cleaner.”

Schechter was obviously not having it because, you can’t trust non-governmental parties to behave (click “expand”):

SCHECHTER: I don’t know if, I guess if that’s your reading of that claim, I think that’s an interesting way to look at it. You know, companies, corporations, many of them do, do the right thing and do spend a lot of time on their environmental issues and reporting and things like that, but, you know, the government’s job is to set a level playing field, if that’s how you view the government’s job, to set a level playing field with regulations so that everyone is following the same rules. Some companies do get in trouble when they get ahead of their competitors and they have rules that are maybe more stringent than what their competitors have. And then the market kind of catches up to them and they take a lot of criticism for being too far ahead of the pack. So, you know, having stoplights and roads and, you know, rules of the road, is what keeps everybody sort of moving in the same direction. That’s the idea of the EPA. That’s the power of the EPA. And to say we care about the earth and we care about clean water, that’s what we’re going to do, is one thing, but to look at what they did and want to cut 31 important regulations is really what you should be looking at.

DOKOUPIL: It’s interesting. Yeah, but this is the claim from the EPA press release. Hundreds of millions of dollars saved could better be used, “to improve and upgrade environmental controls to have a noticeable impact and improvement on the environment.” We’ll see what happens.

DIAZ: Yeah.

SCHECHTER: Yeah.

DIAZ: And if companies take it upon themselves to try to make that environmental improvement without the regulations.

This Friday segment actually capped three days of rage at CBS.

Rolling back to Thursday, senior White House and campaign correspondent Ed O’Keefe appeared on both CBS Mornings and the Plus editions to say the EPA will now be “rolling back…regulations” that said “greenhouse gasses are bad for public health[.]”

And, on Tuesday, CBS Evening News co-anchor Maurice DuBois said the agency was doing away with red tape “aimed at protecting public health and fighting climate change.”

Co-anchor John Dickerson commiserated with former Obama EPA official Matthew Tejada a half-hour later on CBS Evening Plus.

Tejada went full doomsday and fearmongerer by saying Zeldin’s announcement was “taking us back to the 1960s, from before the times when we had regulations that actually cleaned up our water, protect people from across our country, from cancer-causing agents in our air, actually cleaning up legacy contamination sites that people had been living on top of for generations.”

 

 

Tejada further vented the Trump administration will “tak[e] us back to that time when we didn’t have regulation” in which Americans won’t be “healthier” as they’re purposefully “allowing polluting industries” to “hav[e] absolutely unfettered ability to pour their pollution into our communities[.]”

Always a pompous partisan, Dickerson invited Tejada to go further (click “expand”):

DICKERSON: And Matthew, one of the announcements today said the agency is, quote, “reconsidering the 2009 engagement finding.” Help us understand what that means.

TEJADA: Yeah, that was the endangerment finding. That was the finding that basically unlocked the authorities of the Environmental Protection Agency and our federal government to start combating climate change. We have seen repeatedly how our climate is changing on a regular basis and having devastating consequences, not just in our country, but across the world, how it is causing hundreds of billions of dollars in damages every single year. They’re taking us back to not even square one, to the one decision that allowed us to start to make the slightest progress that was then supercharged during the last administration through the Inflation Reduction Act, another regulatory progress that we made recently. It is taking us back in time, just like all these other decisions are taking us way back to an era when we were suffering from pollution in every part of this country.

DICKERSON: And let me ask you now, finally, Matthew, about the environmental justice offices. Remind us about — define environmental justice for us and what you think will now happen as a result of these policies.

TEJADA: So environmental justice has worked for decades to make sure that every part of our country, especially those parts of our country that have not had the power to keep pollution out of their community and to bring in the positives of a clean environment, of green space, of natural resources. Those are black and brown communities. Those are indigenous communities. Those are low-income white communities. Those communities that have not had a power to actually be protected from environmental pollution. The environmental justice program at EPA worked every single day to make sure that those communities felt heard by their government and to bring their voices back into government to make it respond and serve those people too. And they are gutting that program today as we speak.

To see the relevant CBS transcripts, click here (for March 12’s CBS Evening News Plus) and here (for March 14’s CBS Mornings Plus).

BLUF
Democrats are trying to incite violence while pretending to be proponents of peaceful protest. And the liberal media is always there to give them cover. And this isn’t a new phenomenon either.

Make no mistake about it: Democrats want a civil war.

Democrats Want a Civil War, and We’ve Got the Receipts

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) is once again stirring controversy, this time accusing President Donald Trump of pushing the country toward civil war. Speaking in an interview, Waters declared, “I’m worried that Trump is on the edge of creating a civil war. He alluded to it more than once.”
It certainly wouldn’t be a Trump presidency if Democrats weren’t claiming that Trump wants to start a civil war. We heard that kind of rhetoric during his first term, and of course, it was inevitable that we’d hear it during his second.

She went further, claiming Trump had suggested there could be a civil war if he wasn’t reelected. “Now, this president is putting us in a position where hungry people are going to be on the street,” she said, without evidence. “Where non-profits who were waiting for their checks are not going to get them. When that happens, what does Trump expect? Oh, I believe he expects violence. I believe he expects confrontation. I believe he’s working toward a civil war.”

Waters insisted, however, that Democrats wouldn’t take the bait. “We’re not going to get goaded. We’re not going to get tricked into that. We’re going to continue to do our work,” she said.

Her remarks drew immediate backlash from Trump supporters, who accused her of stoking division while blaming Trump for the very thing she appeared to be warning against. During a panel on CNN, conservative commentator Scott Jennings pointed out that Waters is far from alone in making such inflammatory comments.

“Hakeem Jeffries said earlier this year, ‘We’re going to fight in the streets.’ Ayanna Pressley, Jasmine Crockett, other members of the Democratic Conference have continuously alluded to violence because they’re so angry about the Trump administration,” Jennings said.

CNN’s Abby Phillip pushed back, arguing that Jeffries’ remarks were about protesting. “Well, I don’t — I think it’s unfair to say that they’re alluding to violence,” she said, before trying to clarify that “when Jeffries was saying that, he was talking about going to the streets in protest.”

Jennings wasn’t convinced. “He said, ‘Fight in the streets,’” he countered. Of course, he’s correct.

“Right now, we’re going to keep focused on the need to look out for everyday New Yorkers and everyday Americans who are under assault by an extreme MAGA Republican agenda that is trying to cut taxes for billionaires, donors, and wealthy corporations and then stick New Yorkers and working-class Americans across the country with the bill. That’s not acceptable,” Jeffries said back in January. “We are going to fight it legislatively. We are going to fight it in the courts. We’re going to fight it in the streets.”

The implication was clear. The left can claim that this was a call for protesting, but many saw it for what it really was: a call for violence. One only needs to look at the violence leftists are perpetrating against Tesla dealerships and owners to know that left-wing activists got the message.

Naturally, the liberal media makes excuses for this rhetoric, and Phillip, faced with the facts Jennings presented to her, most certainly knew he was right but wouldn’t admit it.

“I think that’s not what — that’s clearly not the concept,” she muttered.

Pete Seat, another conservative voice on the panel, pointed out the hypocrisy. “But if Trump uses the word ‘fight,’ everyone loses their minds,” he noted.

Democrats are trying to incite violence while pretending to be proponents of peaceful protest. And the liberal media is always there to give them cover. And this isn’t a new phenomenon either.

Make no mistake about it: Democrats want a civil war.

Head of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has been killed, Iraqi prime minister says

BAGHDAD (AP) — The head of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has been killed in Iraq in an operation by members of the Iraqi national intelligence service along with U.S.-led coalition forces, the Iraqi prime minister announced Friday.

“The Iraqis continue their impressive victories over the forces of darkness and terrorism,” Prime Minister Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani said in a statement posted on X, formerly known as Twitter.

Abdallah Maki Mosleh al-Rifai, or “Abu Khadija,” was “deputy caliph” of the militant group and as “one of the most dangerous terrorists in Iraq and the world,” the statement said.

Continue reading “”

For A Party Of ‘Joy,’ Democrats Are Awfully Miserable

In the months leading up to the 2024 election, Democrats had convinced themselves that they’d settled on the perfect campaign message. Not content with simply slandering their chief political rival as a Hitler-loving Nazi to distract from their disastrous policies, they arbitrarily declared themselves the party of “joy.”

“Forget the bad economy and border invasion, we’re all about the good vibes!” — or so went your typical Kamala Harris campaign appearance.

If it wasn’t obvious already (it should’ve been), it’s clear to any casual observer that tagline was nothing more than a facade.

Since Donald Trump’s return to the White House, Democrats have come down with a strong case of misery. No matter the policy or how much success it might reap for the American people, Democrats have treated nearly every action the president has taken as if it’s a world-ending crisis.

Case in point: Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

On Wednesday, Harris’ weird vice presidential pick threw a hissy fit before local media, in which he dramatically bemoaned Trump’s efforts to dismantle the Department of Education and return the issue to the states where it belongs. In his incoherent screed, Walz fearmongered that laying off agency employees would harm children’s learning and produce devastating consequences for America’s educators.


But the Minnesota governor’s tantrum is a microcosm of the blind rage displayed by Democrats since Trump’s comeback.

Earlier this week, a Massachusetts Democrat had a meltdown at a House subcommittee hearing after his Republican colleague correctly referred to Rep. Tim “Sarah” McBride, D-Del. — a trans-identifying man — as “Mr. McBride.” The childish display came a week after another House Democrat got kicked out of Trump’s address to Congress for repeatedly interrupting the president’s speech.

These actions don’t even include those undertaken by the party’s unhinged base, whose behavior has been equally — if not more — despicable.

Continue reading “”

Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva dead at 77. “Grijalva, D-Ariz., died of lung cancer-related issues on Thursday

And You Thought Schumer Was Upset
A mere whisper of taxpayer savings has Democrats struggling to keep their composure.

Several days after the Congressional Budget Office reported that the highly indebted United States Government ran up another trillion dollars of deficit spending in just the first five months of this fiscal year, senators are refusing to pass another spending bill without deep cuts to the federal bureaucracy. Just kidding. Democrats in the Senate are threatening to close the government unless Republicans agree to leave the bureaucracy completely undisturbed.
No, this column can’t explain the logic of that position, either. While taxpayers still yearn for some modest fiscal responsibility in Washington, the Senate minority is discussing how to prevent any of the government streamlining that voters endorsed only a few months ago.
And it was only Monday of this week when the Congressional Budget Office explained once again the size of the hole politicians are still digging with this year’s spending:

The federal budget deficit totaled $1.1 trillion in the first five months of fiscal year 2025, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. That amount is $319 billion more than the deficit recorded during the same period last fiscal year. Revenues were $37 billion (or 2 percent) higher, and outlays were $356 billion (or 13 percent) higher.

The House-passed bill does almost nothing to change this disgraceful state of the fisc, but even though Republicans have agreed to keep spending recklessly, Senate Democrats are upset about the way some of the dollars may be spent—as well as the faint possibility that a few taxpayer dollars somewhere in federal budgets may somehow not be spent at all. Terrifying, right?
In the Washington Post Theodoric Meyer, Liz Goodwin and Marianna Sotomayor report:

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) is under growing pressure to unite Senate Democrats as his party agonizes — loudly and publicly — over whether to trigger a government shutdown in less than 36 hours, or side with Trump and his allies on a potentially unpopular bill.

Schumer announced Wednesday afternoon that not enough Democrats supported Republicans’ funding bill — known as a continuing resolution, or CR — to overcome a filibuster. The federal government is set to shut down at 12:01 a.m. on Saturday unless lawmakers pass a bill to keep it open, leaving Democrats in a political quandary.

“We’re in a really terrible position,” Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minnesota) said Thursday at a Politico event.

Aishah Hasnie at Fox News reports on X from outside a meeting of Democratic senators, including the junior senator from New York:

[Kirsten Gillibrand] is screaming so loud we can all hear it through the thick wood doors…Keeps yelling at her colleagues about a shutdown.

Ms. Hasnie adds:

Obviously – press who heard it believes it was [Sen. Gillibrand] based on the voice. We could not *see* her.

Ms. Hasnie and colleagues report:

Gillibrand’s office said it could not confirm she was the person screaming when reached by Fox News Digital.

That’s not a denial but perhaps we shouldn’t jump to conclusions on the identity of the backroom howler. It’s also possible that a second screamer theory could emerge.
Congressional tantrums aside, does any of this Beltway angst come close to the outrage taxpayers feel at being treated in this manner? Niall Ferguson recently observed in the Journal what happens historically to countries that allow the costs of government debt service to rise above defense spending, as has now occurred in the U.S.
From Habsburg Spain to Bourbon France to Czarist Russia and beyond, there are not a lot of happy endings.
Perhaps more screaming needs to be directed at U.S. lawmakers from outside those thick wooden doors.

 

UN Judge, Onetime Columbia University Human Rights Fellow, Found Guilty of Slavery.

A United Nations judge was convicted on Thursday of trafficking a young woman to the United Kingdom and forcing her to work as a slave.

Ugandan judge Lydia Mugambe, 49, “exploited and abused” the victim, prosecutors said, forcing her to work as an unpaid maid and caregiver while barring her from seeking other employment. A jury found Mugambe guilty of multiple offenses, including facilitating illegal immigration, forced labor, and witness intimidation, the Independent reported.

Mugambe was a fellow housed within Columbia University’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights, whose fellows work to “address some aspect of a history of gross human rights violations in their society, country, and/or region,” in 2017.

Columbia did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mugambe became a judge on the U.N. International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals in May 2023, even though police had been called to her home in Oxfordshire three months earlier, according to the Independent. Mugambe was studying for a law Ph.D. at Oxford at the time.

A jury agreed with the prosecution’s case that Mugambe, who also serves as a judge on Uganda’s High Court, conspired with Ugandan diplomat John Leonard Mugerwa in a “very dishonest” quid pro quo. Mugerwa, the prosecutors said, arranged for the Ugandan embassy to sponsor the victim’s entry into the United Kingdom under false pretenses, while Mugambe attempted to influence a judge overseeing a case in which Mugerwa was involved.

Mugambe denied the charges, insisting she always treated the young woman with “love, care, and patience,” the BBC reported.

WINNING: CA Democrat Withdraws His Own Anti-Self Defense Bill in State Assembly

In a victory for common sense, human rights, and the Second Amendment, a California Democrat assemblyman, Rick Zbur, has withdrawn his own bill, which would have gutted legal protections for innocent citizens who use force in self-defense.

The California Globe has more details on AB 1333:

Assemblyman Rick Zbur (D-Los Angeles) announced late on Wednesday that he would be withdrawing his new self-defense limitation bill following significant public backlash and confusing language in the bill.

Assembly Bill 1333, which was introduced last month, would have eliminated certain circumstances under which homicide is justifiable, including, among others, in defense of a habitation or property. The bill would have also additionally clarified circumstances in which homicide is not justifiable, including, among others, when a person uses more force than necessary to defend against a danger.

Zbur said that AB 1333 would simply close a “legal loophole” over public confrontations and then claiming self-defense. However, AB 1333 instead sparking public outrage. Many pointed out that the bill would severely limit self defense against crime and leave open questions into when homicide was and wasn’t legal.

In non-political speech, this law could have implemented serious legal dangers, with one GOP assemblyman calling it a “complete assault on self defense.” Both Republicans and Democrats balked, forcing Zbur to withdraw the bill:

“This bill is a complete assault on self defense!” said Assemblyman Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale) last month. “Imagine this: A violent criminal breaks into your home, and YOU have to second-guess whether defending your family is ‘justifiable.’ The misguided energy behind this proposal is beyond comprehension.”

Flooded with criticism from both Republicans and some Democrats, Zbur swiftly responded on X, saying that he wanted to target vigilantes and that AB 1333 would be amended soon to clarify the bill language.

As with so many poorly thought-out gun and self-defense laws, this proposal would never have any effect on criminals but would only serve to place innocent citizens in the position to choose between suffering a criminal attack or suffering legal hassles and possible jail time.

Continue reading “”