Or call this one Speedy Gonzales…Not sure what happened but this is a supercharged Episode this time, with no holds barred, as they say… getting looser and looser every time, getting more relaxed and at ease.
But first with the NEWS-BLIPS, in particular the Biden Documents, Al Gore/Greta Thunberg and the Alec Baldwin/RUST story, in which I allow myself a little rant on KARMA/NATURAL LAW and a little “gun safety and responsibility”, Luca-style. Not to be missed.
THE MEDICAL SEGMENT offers me time to share what I’ve been through vs. someone on pills, vaccinated, etc. I am also pleased that finally, I am able to share information on walking, balance, and other challenges I faced during my Healing, and even now. The medical establishment sure doesn’t seem interested in my “miraculous” recovery…
Believe it or not, VOLUNTARY BOWEL CONTROL is also ‘on the menu’… I will leave that one here.
Jumping from Medicine to Nature is my next quest… Approaching a subject that I have not heard done before as of yet on a radio show.
Weather warnings ignored, countless deaths, and people NOT taking heed, and I give my own examples, speaking on ‘layers’ of clothing, of self-care with regard to weather, special moments I have rarely shared…
Coming back from the break, I continue with my Sailing adventures vs Mother Nature, and how I learned quick. This story strongly related to the weather and caution segmet as well.
(please listen!), starting with my very own definition of what LOVE is, one of the best quotes I have ever read on Facebook, and this one from Jeff Brown!
THE FOUR-DAY FAST or “Because you’re not allowed to” is what I call a Spiritual Exercise, and those who aren’t interested will just fast-forward, but in this is most of the Teachings during this Ceremony, of which FOUR are asked from you in one year, following the seasons.
My love and eventual understanding of the fundamentals of WATER are shared in this segment: “Me and God”.
We continue with an unusual writing that I did last Sunday, on Indian Life, mingled with my own life, in the abusive environment of the private schools ran by the same church as the ‘residential schools’ for Indians… An Ode to the Original Indian Spirit.
••••
Listen Up …
••••
Hope you enjoyed reading and listening and yes, I will be back next week, Creator Willing!
And as always …
••••
I really hope that you, the listener, will take heed, and check out TLBTalk.com as well… A lot of the information helping me to prepare these episodes rests on this site, our site, … MY SITE… because I am contributing to keep it going … Imagine, No censorship. (click on link below video to visit site)
Your Show Host: Luca Majno is the TLB Project Media Technical Director, an investigative journalist, researcher and passionate advocate of Indigenous People (The Original People), of their ‘Turtle Island’ which is now North America. Born in Boston, Ma. and raised in Geneva, Switzerland, he has lived for the last 25 years in Canada, where his activism started, and has since lived in Tennessee and Keokuk, Iowa, where he now resides. Exposing past and present crimes of any nature is a sure way to change the course of humanity towards a brighter future.
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
One billion people should stop eating meat in order to save the climate, the chairman of the largest industrial manufacturing company in Europe told a panel at the World Economic Forum.
Danish businessman and chairman of the German manufacturing giant Siemens, Jim Hagemann Snabe pushed the Great Reset agenda of replacing meat with synthetic proteins at a “Mobilizing for Climate” panel at the annual globalist meeting in Davos, Switzerland on Wednesday.
“If a billion people stop eating meat, I tell you, it has a big impact. Not only does it have a big impact on the current food system, but it will also inspire innovation of food systems,” Snabe said, adding: “I predict we will have proteins not coming from meat in the future, they will probably taste even better.”
“They will be zero carbon and much healthier than the kind of food we eat today, that is the mission we need to get on,” the Siemens boss continued.
The German multinational conglomerate has been a central figure in the so-far disastrous green agenda in the economic heart of Europe, which has left Germany vulnerable to the machinations of global politics, namely Russia’s war in Ukraine. However, the push towards an allegedly greener future has seen Siemens criticised for its alleged ties to the forced labour system in the Communist Chinese concentration camp region of Xinjiang, which is a leading producer of solar panel components.
Despite Seimens’ own sordid history of using forced labour during the reign of Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist Party, the current CEO of the company, Roland Busch, said last year that the EU should not pressure Beijing over forced labour as it might stall the progress of the green agenda.
.@Siemens Chairman Jim Hagemann Snabe at #wef23: “If a billion people stop eating meat, it will have a big impact … I predict we will have proteins that don’t come from meat in the future, they will probably taste even better … They will be zero carbon and much healthier” pic.twitter.com/wno0Ar49hf
The World Economic Forum has also been at the forefront of the meat-free future movement, arguing that people should opt for more “climate beneficial foods” such as algae, seaweed and cacti.
The Klaus Schwab-founded organisation that pioneered the idea of a “Great Reset” of capitalism, has also promoted the idea of eating insect protein rather than meat to lessen the impact of supposedly man-made climate change.
It is questionable, however, how much impact a move away from meat would actually have on carbon emissions. Danish climate Bjørn Lomborg has previously noted that studies have shown that should the average person in the industrialised world cut out meat from their diet it would only result in an individual emissions reduction of 4.3 per cent.
Yet this is likely a generous estimate, Lomborg said, as other studies have shown that because vegetarian diets are cheaper, a “rebound effect” has been seen, meaning that vegetarian consumers use their cash savings on other products that also drive up carbon emissions, thereby mitigating most of the supposed benefits of a virtue-signalling vegetarian diet.
Nevertheless, the anti-meat push has continued to be a central theme of the radical climate agenda throughout the West. Some, including researchers in the Netherlands, have even suggested that the economic crisis befalling the world could end up being a positive for the climate as people will have less money to spend on meat, flights, and driving.
President Joe Biden blamed the latest storms in California on climate change while visiting the damaged Golden State on Thursday.
Though California has been through a series of droughts and wildfires in recent years, during which the left cited climate change as the catalyst, the left now charges that climate change helped cause the rainstorms in recent weeks that led to mudslides and flooding in certain areas. The president said as much during his visit to the Seacliff State Beach along the Santa Cruz coastline on Thursday.
“If anybody doubts that the climate is changing, then they must have been asleep during the last couple of years,” Biden said.
The president said this while traveling with Deanne Criswell, the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), after arriving south of San Francisco where he was greeted by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D).
A helicopter drops water on the Fairview Fire burning on a hillside Thursday, Sept. 8, 2022, near Hemet, California. (AP Photo/Ringo H.W. Chiu, File)
“California has really experienced some unprecedented storms,” Criswell told reporters.
Per Reuters:
Biden then flew by helicopter over other storm-stricken locations in Santa Cruz County, where flash floods, pounding surf and runoff from local mountains had forced thousands of residents to evacuate from low-lying communities.
He also paid a personal visit with residents and business owners along the waterfront in Capitola, where the picturesque coastal enclave’s wharf lay in ruins, then stopped in nearby Seacliff for brief remarks promising that FEMA teams would stay “until it’s all fixed and done.”
As many as 20 deaths have been attributed to the storms.
Interestingly enough, the Los Angeles Times actually argued the opposite of President Biden on Thursday, charging that the storms were not the results of climate change despite their severity.
“As California emerges from a two-week bout of deadly atmospheric rivers, a number of climate researchers say the recent storms appear to be typical of the intense, periodic rains the state has experienced throughout its history and not the result of global warming,” noted the Times.
Rocks and vegetation cover Highway 70 following a landslide in the Dixie Fire zone on Oct. 24, 2021, in Plumas County, California. (AP Photo/Noah Berger, File)
“Although scientists are still studying the size and severity of storms that killed 19 people and caused up to $1 billion in damage, initial assessments suggest the destruction had more to do with California’s historic drought-to-deluge cycles, mountainous topography and aging flood infrastructure than it did with climate-altering greenhouse gasses,” it added.
Alexander Gershunov, a climate scientist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, told the Times that scientists have not yet made the connection between climate change and the latest storm.
“We know from climate models that global warming will boost California storms of the future, but we haven’t made that connection with the latest storm systems,” said Gershunov. “Assuming that these storms were driven by global warming would be like assuming an athlete who breaks a record was on steroids.”
Mike Anderson, California’s state climatologist, said the atmospheric rivers were a reminder that a dry state like California can turn to instant flooding in the right conditions.
“Each of the recent atmospheric rivers were within the historical distribution of sizes of atmospheric rivers,” Anderson said, “It will take further study to determine how warming temperatures influenced the sequence or the sudden transition from dry to wet and soon back to dry.”
ER Editor: We’ve seen this reported elsewhere, but these bugs the WEF optimistically tells us we should be eating carry their own parasites, putting us at risk. Here’s Rebel News on this topic:
‘Edible insects are an underestimated reservoir of human and animal parasites.’
********
Officially approved by the EU: Four insects hiding in your food
EU citizens who do not want to unknowingly eat insects should be particularly careful: The EU Commission has already approved four types of insects in different forms as “edible insects”.
FREEWEST MEDIA
BRUSSELS – The most recent approval was on January 5: From now on, after mealworms, grasshoppers and crickets, the grain mold beetle can also be used as an ingredient in foods such as bread, soups, pasta, snacks, peanut butter and chocolate products.
The mealworm received the first approval for a so-called “edible insect” in June 2021 : The EU Commission’s Implementing Regulation 2021/822 approved the placing on the market of dried larvae of Tenebrio molitor(meal beetle) as a “novel food”.
The SAS EAP Group from France has submitted the application and is allowed to market the mealworm in the Union. It may be sold individually or with a maximum content of 10 grams in protein products, cookies, dishes made from legumes and pasta products.
If insects are used, there must be a note on the packaging of the food that consumption may cause allergic reactions in people with known allergies to crustaceans and molluscs and their products and to house dust mites.
In November 2021, the second “edible insect” was approved by Implementing Regulation 2021/1975 : “Fair Insects BV” from the Netherlands has since been allowed to market frozen, dried and powdered Locusta migratoria (migratory locusts) in the EU.
Depending on the form of processing, the locusts may be used as ingredients in different maximum levels in the products such as processed potato products; dishes made from legumes and products made from pasta, meat substitution, soups and soup concentrates, legumes and vegetables in cans/jars, salads, beer-like beverages, alcoholic beverage mixes, chocolate products, frozen milk-based fermented products, cured meats.
Since 2022 and 2023 respectively, the domestic cricket (Acheta domesticus) has been permitted in various forms of processing. Implementing regulation 2022/188 allows the use in frozen, dried and powdered form. The application came again from “Fair Insects BV”. The house cricket, just as locusts, may be used in similar foods.
Since January 3, the Vietnamese company “Cricket One Co. Ltd” has also been allowed to sell “partially defatted powder from Acheta domesticus” in the EU by implementing regulation 2023/5 . Potentially affected foods are multigrain bread and rolls; crackers and breadsticks, cereal bars, dry bakery premixes, cookies, pasta products and many more.
The executive order 2023/58 of January 5 allows “Ynsect NL BV” from the Netherlands to bring larvae of Alphitobius diaperinus (grain mold beetle) in frozen, paste, dried and powdered form as a new food to EU citizens. The list of food categories in which the larvae can be used as an ingredient in most processed foods.
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
“A US federal agency is considering a ban on gas stoves.”That was the January 10 headline at CNN, so you know it’s well sourced to Democratic thinking.The piece quoted Richard Trumka Jr., appointed by President Joe Biden to be a commissioner at the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), saying that gas-powered stoves were a “hazard.”
“Any option is on the table.Products that can’t be made safe can be banned,” Trumka added. And if Democrats now say they are backing away from the idea, don’t be fooled. The ban-stoves mission is about climate change, and the greens who control the Democratic Party aren’t going to give up on that quest. Tactical retreat maybe, but strategic advance, always. Think Trojan Horse.
(Géza Bálint Ujvárosi/ EyeEm)
But first, let’s consider how the stove issue burned so hot. Established in 1972, CPSC is an independent regulatory agency.However, the chair is appointed by the president, and three of the four commissioners are Democrats (there’s a fifth slot, which is vacant).
Perhaps just as importantly, CPSC is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, right across the line from the District of Columbia.Bethesda is a Deep State Suburb, inside Montgomery County, where in the 2020 presidential election, the Biden-Harris ticket got 78.6 percent of the vote.
Yet interestingly, CPSC seems to be just as much green as blue.And Biden wants that as well.In 2021, the president issued Executive Order 14057, declaring:
It is therefore the policy of my Administration for the Federal Government to lead by example in order to achieve a carbon pollution-free electricity sector by 2035 and net-zero emissions economy-wide by no later than 2050.
That executive order sounded the trumpet, and the administration stood up a Sustainability Office to make sure everyone in the federal government heard the blare. Now it’s all aboard the climate-change express. So we can see: Trumka and CPSC didn’t just wake up and discover that gas stoves are bad.Instead, they woke up and realized that a stove-ban was their ticket to ride, alongside their fellow green Democrats. (Trumka, by the way, is Democratic royalty: His late father was the head of the AFL-CIO.)
President Joe Biden posthumously awards the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Richard Trumka as Richard Trumka Jr. accepts the award for his father during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House on July 7, 2022. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
Needless to say, CNN, too, is on board.Its original article on Trumka and CPSC cited various supposed dangers from gas stoves—nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, fine particulate matter—while glossing over the reality that gas stoves have been in existence for 200 years. But then the CNN story edged over to the real purpose of the proposed gas-stove ban: fighting climate change.The article noted, approvingly, that cities such as San Francisco and New York have banned gas stoves in new buildings, “to reduce greenhouse emissions.”
Indeed, the story helpfully linked to another CNN story, headlined, “Gas stoves are a threat to health and have larger climate impact than previously known.” Did you catch the “climate impact”?Of course you did—and so did the greens.As in, climate is what this is all about.
It’s impossible to read news items about stoves and the stove-ban and not see at least some reference to climate change; for example, here, here, and here.In the meantime, another green liberal outlet, Bloomberg News, owned by you-know-who, ran an interview with Trumka which helped inspire the CNN story.
The Bloomberg article casually mentioned “parallel efforts by state and local policymakers” that are “targeting the use of natural gas in buildings more broadly, in a push to reduce climate-warming emissions . . . that exacerbate climate change.”We might linger over the telltale phrase, “parallel efforts.”Bespeaks concerted action, doesn’t?Yes, the greens are workin’ it.No wonder Bloomberg put its CPSC story in its “Green/Greener Living” section.
So now it’s all coming together for climate activists. In a December 14 webcast, Trumka volunteered, “We could get a regulation on the books before this time next year.”Meanwhile, friendly pressure has been coming from Democrats in Congress, pushing the agency to address the “climate impact” of stoves.
Yes, the path to a stove-ban has been green-greased, there will be obstacles. Big ones, starting with public opinion.
We’ve Been Down This Road Before—and Sanity Won
Some 35-40 percent of homes in the U.S. have gas stoves.As one wit had it, tweeting to the news of the potential ban, “My wife will become a single issue voter.” And how many restaurants, hospitals, schools, and other institutions have them?How much dislocation and expense will Americans tolerate in the name of “combating climate change,” even as China and the rest of the world busy themselves mining and burning record amounts of coal?
In their green zeal, CPSC bureaucrats might be biting off more than they can chew.It’s happened to over-eager regulators before. And in terms of overreach, the looming stove ban reminds this Baby Boomer of the Food and Drug Administration’s ban of saccharin, announced on March 9, 1977.Back then FDA trotted out the usual arguments about “the science,” and about how high doses of saccharin caused bladder cancer in mice, yada, yada, yada.I can remember watching late-night host Johnny Carson joking, “And if mice drink 800 glasses of milk a day . . . they will explode.”
Indeed, the backlash was so fierce that in November 1977, Congress, then overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats, overrode FDA’s saccharin decision.Forty-five years of saccharin consumption later, there’s been no cancer epidemic.
A group of diabetics from Atlanta arrive at Union Station after an overnight train ride on a train they dubbed the “saccharin special” so they could tell the Food & Drug Administration what they think of its proposed ban on saccharin on May 18, 1977. (Getty Images)
Fighting Back
Okay, so what might be done to stop FDA—oops, I mean CPSC—from trampling the American people today? Once again, just because they say that they’re backing away from banning stoves doesn’t mean they really are. Most likely, they will seek new angles that go under the radar, such as piecemeal regulation, combined with BlackRock/ESG-type corporate defunding. Still, normies are not without resources. Indeed, it’s possible to see aneffective counter-strategy on three levels:
First, federal legislation. That’s what worked in 1977.Already, some Republicans are on the case: Sen. Ted Cruz tweeted an image of stove, adding the defiant words, “Come and take it.”How many in Congress will join Cruz? Undoubtedly a lot, but we’ll have to see if they’re enough.And what will the Biden White House will do? Yes, it’s been scurrying away, and yet the federal government is big and complicated–the Deep State is very deep–and so little green gremlins could be changing stove-policy if they think nobody’s looking.
Second, federal litigation.Thanks to the personnel changes that Donald Trump and Senate Republicans made in the Supreme Court, a solid majority of the nine takes the Constitution seriously, as well as the letter of the law.And that could spell trouble for the stove-banners.
The powers of CPSC are extensive—but they might not be extensive enough for it to be a part of Biden’s green crusade.If we go back and look at Public Law 92-573, the Consumer Product Safety Act, we see that the legislative language gives the agency a broad mandate to regulate, even ban, just about anything that endangers a consumer.That wide power explains why, over the past half century, the agency has been able to order many thousands of recalls and make countless other interventions.(A half century in which CPSC thought gas stoves were okay.)
More precisely, its underlying statutory authority does not allow CPSC to play climate cop.So if it can be shown that CPSC is just pretending to worry about about consumer safety, when its real motivation is to join the Biden administration’s green climate crusade, the courts, and most of all the Supreme Court, will likely reject a stove ban.
Yet the green left is likely to keep coming, because climate change is everything to the true believers. A “major” study (they’re all major studies) published in Environmental Science & Technology last year tells the faithful that “annual methane emissions from all gas stoves in U.S. homes have a climate impact comparable to the annual carbon dioxide emissions of 500, 000 cars.” To a good green, what’s worse than an internal-combustion-engine car? And so maybe a gas stove is as bad! Just on January 10, New York’s Democratic governor, Kathy Hochul, announced that she would seek to ban new installations of gas appliances in the Empire State. Her rationale: “We’re taking these steps now because climate change remains the greatest threat to our planet.” So we see: The real motivation for banning gas-fired stoves is unapologetic green zealotry. (Never mind that many big-name Democrats have been proud to show off their gas stoves.)
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) speaks to reporters at the state Capitol on July 1, 2022, in Albany, NY. (AP Photo/Hans Pennink)
Begun, the Stove Wars have. Happily, the newly conservative Supreme Court is on our side. It has been pushing back on reckless bureaucratic power.That pushback has been most evident in three big wins against overreaching regulatory agencies in the past two years: against the Centers for Disease Control (on the rent moratorium), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (on workplace vaccine mandates) and most pertinently, against the Environmental Protection Agency (the high court ruled that EPA bureaucrats couldn’t make up new rules on carbon dioxide, beyond the statutory language of the Clean Air Act).
This is the key point: Our constitutional system allows federal regulatory agencies latitude on rule-making, including CPSC’a product-banning.But if it’s what the Supreme Court judges to be a “major question,” then no, the bureaucrats can’t just wing it; they need to get authorization from Congress.And it seems obvious that on stoves, CPSC is just winging it, thinking about green goals, as opposed to black-letter law.
To be sure, in a court case, it will be necessary to prove that CPSC has gone rogue.That is, litigants will have to show, to the satisfaction of judges, that CPSC-crats are guided by the extra-statutory goal of climate change, as opposed to consumer safety.And the making of that case against CPSC will require lots of digging.That is, discovery, subpoenas, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, under-oath testimony, and anything else that shines light on murky procedures and secret treaties.As we have seen, the evidence of green zealotry is all around, but it will have to be definitively found within CPSC’s decision-making process.Which is to say, the litigation will be lot of work; the hard work of freedom.
Third, state sovereignty.The last few years have seen an upsurge in the assertion of federalism, also known as states’ rights.During the Trump years, it was blue states up in arms, legally, against the federal government; the state of California filed 110 lawsuits against the Trump administration. Liberals loved that.
These days, of course, the opposition is coming from red states, rising against the Biden administration.Florida governor Ron DeSantis has been perhaps the most visible–and he’s been vocal, and visual, in opposition to the stove ban– but others, too, have been litigating, over everything from education to immigration to ESG to CDC.
So what will these states do if CPSC does, in fact, ban gas stoves? Or maybe it just bans new ones? Or maybe it seeks to mandate some major modification. Beyond suing, might some red-state governor, or other official, declare that CPSC has gone too far, and is unduly endangering the safety and well-being of its residents in this winter—or the next winter?And announce an emergency solution, defying CPSC?If so, the state would be writing a new chapter in the long struggle to limit the power of the federal administrative state.
Evidently, CPSC will back off on a formal ban. In the meantime, the agency’s MSM allies seek to obscure the original issue in clouds of disdain and mockery; on January 13, The New Republicsnapped that it was “tiresome” that “right-wing gasbags” could be worried about a non-issue such as stoves. Yet under cover, CPSC regulatory could start nibbling away at stove rights. That’s certainly a familiar pattern of stealth regulation: when the cat’s away, the regulatory mice will play, unspooling their red tape.
After all, having marinated in Naderite green liberalism for so long, CPSC is a strange agency.On January 1 it tweeted, “Deep in your heart you are a pigeon on a journey.”Now what does that mean?Is it some sort of inside joke?Some sort of coded signal?Or just random your-tax-dollars-at-play?
— US Consumer Product Safety Commission (@USCPSC) January 1, 2023
Equally strangely, CPSC’s Trumka, under fire even from some Democrats, suggests that his comments about banning stoves have all been a big misunderstanding. A CPSC ban, or other “regulation,” he now says, would only apply to new equipment. It’s nice to hear that CPSC won’t be coming for your familiar stove (the supply-chain for replacement parts could be another matter) but of course, if there is any actual danger from a gas stove, it’s the older models. So in saying that CPSC will only be targeting new stoves, Trumka is, in effect confirming that the ban is about climate, not safety. And such banning, of course, would be completely beyond CPSC’s legal writ.
In addition, we need to remember that Trumka & Co. could change their mind yet again, were they ever to sense that they could get away with it. Moreover, whatever he and CPSC do, there’re raft of greens in high places elsewhere in the government, eager to pull levers of power to accomplish the stove ban through some other mechanism, such as a credit squeeze. Because after all, in their view, there’s a climate to be saved. And if ordinary Americans are in the way? Well, the greens know what to do.
So most likely, we’re headed towards a hot fight over stoves.In the meantime, Republicans should stay cool, even as they ready themselves for a heated rumble.
Common sense and a little knowledge easily debunk the left and the media’s latest “fashionable” hysteria, the so-called threat of gas stoves.
Democrats are coming for our children, our guns, our pickup trucks, and now our gas stoves. Using hoaxes about Climate Change, gun violence, racism, and health, the left’s goal is obvious: centralized, authoritarian control. By killing gas-powered appliances, we are all stuck using the centralized electrical grid. We’ve seen in Blue America where that madness is heading, including control over our thermostats.
Here at Breitbart News, we do our best to debunk this nonsense, so allow me to use a little logic and history to debunk the electric stove hoax.
It seems to me — and keep in mind I’m just a regular guy with an average IQ — that at no time in recent history have we had less natural gas burning in our homes.
You can go back nearly 200 years with this.
Back in the early 19th century, right up until Edison invented the light bulb, countless homes were lit using natural gas by way of gas lamps. So, imagine how much gas was burning and for how long back then. It’s nighttime, and you light up the natural gas lights. Result: hours and hours and hours, every night, decade after decade, of gas burning in your home. A century of this, and no one said anything about asthma or cognitive impairment.
Engraving depicting a gas lamp on a bracket, dated 19th century. (Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
A few decades ago, I worked as an apartment manager in two separate buildings. I wasn’t very good at my job, but I do remember this: Each tiny apartment, maybe 400 square feet, had natural gas burning in them 24/7. You see, each stove had three pilot lights. One for each pair of stovetop burners and one for the oven (which was a bear to light). Year after year after year in that enclosed tiny space, natural gas burned. The pilot lights were about half the size of a dime, but still, it added up.
What’s more, in homes throughout the country, natural gas burned 24/7 in gas dryers, furnaces, water heaters, and stoves. These appliances all had pilot lights in them. So you could be talking about five or six pilot lights burning 24/7 in a home decade after decade…
That’s all gone now.
There are no pilot lights anymore.
Which means a whole lot less gas is burning in the average American home.
Unless you own an old appliance, your gas appliance has electronic ignition. This wonderful advancement eliminates the need for a pilot light. I would add that electronic ignition really is a lifesaver. It used to be that if your pilot light went out, you had a deadly gas leak in your house. That risk is now gone.
Anyone aware of the past knows how absurd this latest hysteria is. In a few short decades, we have gone from natural gas burning 24/7 in homes by way of pilot lights to natural gas only burning when the appliance is in use. Additionally, most natural gas appliances are vented in some way, so there are no fumes at all.
Compare natural gas burning 24/7 in your home to today — the few minutes you use the burners on your stove. That’s going to harm your child? If that were the case, kids would have been dropping like flies fifty years ago due to being literally surrounded by a half dozen inescapable pilot lights.
The left counts on us to do three things: 1) be ignorant of history, 2) accept “the science” without question, and 3) use the latest scare as a means to puff ourselves up as morally superior. In other words, be lemmings with each New Thing: fly your Ukraine flag high as you toss out your gas range while wearing a mask.
One more thing: There’s less gas burning in homes than ever before in history, and we’re becoming dumber and dumber.
Doesn’t that alone debunk this ridiculous hysteria?
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.
The safety risks posed by heavy electric vehicles in any collision with lighter vehicles has pushed the head of the National Transportation Safety Board to issue a general warning to all road users.
The official, Jennifer Homendy, raised the issue in a speech in Washington to the Transportation Research Board. AP reports she pointed, by way as an example, to an electric GMC Hummer that weighs about 9,000 pounds with a battery pack that alone is 2,900 pounds — roughly the entire weight of a typical Honda Civic.
“I’m concerned about the increased risk of severe injury and death for all road users from heavier curb weights and increasing size, power, and performance of vehicles on our roads, including electric vehicles,” Homendy said in remarks prepared for the group.
File/Jennifer Homendy of the National Transportation Safety Board speaks during a news conference, Oct. 3, 2019, in Windsor Locks, Conn. On Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2023, Homendy raised concerns about the risk heavy electric vehicles pose if they collide with lighter vehicles. (AP Photo/Chris Ehrmann, File)
The extra weight EVs typically carry stems from the outsize mass of their batteries. To achieve 300 or more miles of range per charge from an EV, batteries have to weigh thousands of pounds, the AP report sets out.
Homendy said her worries about safety risks stem from a steady proliferation of EVs on roads ands highways.
“We have to be careful that we aren’t also creating unintended consequences: More death on our roads,” she said. “Safety, especially when it comes to new transportation policies and new technologies, cannot be overlooked.”
The official noted Ford’s F-150 Lightning EV pickup is 2,000 to 3,000 pounds heavier than the same model’s combustion version. The Mustang Mach E electric SUV and the Volvo XC40 EV, she said, are roughly 33 percent heavier than their gasoline counterparts.
“That has a significant impact on safety for all road users,” Homendy added.
Hurricane Ian Has Turned Electric Vehicles into Ticking Time Bombs: “Extreme Hazard” pic.twitter.com/MW8XlQMUbO
Reuters reports acting NHTSA Administrator Ann Carlson told reporters Monday the agency was studying the impact of vehicle size on roadway safety.
Carlson said the agency was “very concerned” about the “degree to which heavier vehicles contribute to greater fatality rates,” further noting some subscribe to the “mantra that bigger is safer” but that did not necessarily take into account other factors.
“Bigger is safer if you don’t look at the communities surrounding you and you don’t look at the other vehicles on the road,” Carlson said. “It actually turns out to be a very complex interaction.”
Follow Simon Kent on Twitter:Follow @SunSimonKentor e-mail to: skent@breitbart.com
It is a puerile media propaganda trick to make specious claims carry some weight by adding “scientists have discovered that . . . ” or “experts say . . . ” or some such thing.
Without specifying WHICH scientists or experts of course.
IT is a known trait of suppressive/antisocial personalities that they will use broad generalities to cow others, convey dismay, alarm and so forth – of the “everybody knows . . ” variety. Ask “WHO, specifically, is everybody?” and they can’t give you a straight answer.
One variant of the suppressive generality virus to spread alarm or dismay and cow the populace is the one discussed and very ably dissected and exposed in this video.
Well worth watching. Knowing the mind games deployed by the suppressives is well worth the effort especially when those suppressives have been gifted key channels of information such as the media.
“In this updated “Fact Check” video from the Climate Discussion Nexus, Dr. John Robson investigates the unsound origins and fundamental inaccuracy, even dishonesty, of the claim that 97% of scientists, or “the world’s scientists”, or something agree that climate change is man-made, urgent and dangerous.”
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
We use cookies to optimize our website and our service.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.