Almost 200 People Have Had Their Guns Take Via NJ’s New Red Flag Law

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

I’ve said before that I am not fully against red flag laws as long as they protect Constitutional rights, such as due process, are not abused, and offer penalties for those who frivolously attempt to take people’s 2nd Amendment rights away. But, that’s not the way most Red Flag laws are structured

Nearly 200 people have had their guns seized in N.J. under new ‘red flag’ law

Nearly 200 people in New Jersey have had their guns seized under a “red flag” law that went effect last year, according to data obtained by NJ Advance Media.

The Extreme Risk Protective Order Act, which went into effect Sept. 1, allows a law enforcement officer, family or household member to submit a petition to state Superior Court showing why a judge should issue an order to keep guns away from someone who potentially poses a danger of causing bodily injury to themselves or to others.

So far, 186 temporary extreme risk protective orders have been granted as of Jan. 22, according to the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts, meaning more than one person a day has had their guns taken away — at least temporarily — in New Jersey since the law went into effect. In 25 cases, a petition was made but the temporary order was denied by a judge, according to court data.

There have been a total of 88 final orders granted since the law went into effect, according to the Administrative Office of the Courts. Judges have denied 29 final orders, according to the courts.

Should some people have their weapons taken away?

The law is at the center of a proposed class action federal lawsuit filed by a South Jersey man who had his firearm seized by authorities after he had “threatened, advocated and celebrated the killing of Jewish people” on an online forum.

David Greco filed the lawsuit in October, alleging his due process rights, along with other gun owners in New Jersey, had been violated, as they are not given a chance to be heard in court before a temporary order is issued and police confiscate the firearms.

Should Greco have his weapons taken away? Sure seems like it. But, he was not afforded Due Process.

But the lawsuit alleges that because the order is contingent on “good cause” and not the legal standard of “probable cause,” executing a search warrant is unconstitutional.

So, they’ve changed the legal standard to a much, much, much lower one in order to take people’s legally acquired and Constitutional property.

But, let’s go back: 50% of the final orders have been denied. So, does that mean the other 50% were frivolously filed? That there was no real preponderance of evidence to take away people’s property without due process and any real threat? How many Citizens had to spend lots and lots of money on lawyers, and how many couldn’t afford a good attorney to defend themselves in a “guilty till proven innocent” court preceding? This is all an end run around the Constitution.

Read: Almost 200 People Have Had Their Guns Take Via NJ’s New Red Flag Law »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Constitution | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

It’s All About The Science: St. Greta Looks To Trademark Her Name

By William Teach January 30, 2020 – 8:35 am

Hmm, so, it seems to be more about getting famous then making some cash off that fame

Climate change activist Greta Thunberg applies to trademark her name

Climate activist Greta Thunberg said Wednesday that she has applied to trademark her name and that of the international school strike movement she inspired — a move meant to protect the movement from misuse for commercial purposes.

In an Instagram post, the 17-year-old Swede said that she and fellow activists have “absolutely no interests” in trademarks “but unfortunately it needs to be done.”

Thunberg said the application covers her name, the name of the Fridays for Future movement, and “Skolstrejk för klimatet” (Swedish for “School strike for climate”), which was the slogan on a sign she held during the weekly solo protests outside Sweden’s parliament that inspired similar actions by other young people.

She added that trademark protection is needed because her name and that of the movement “are constantly being used for commercial purposes without any consent whatsoever.”

“It happens, for instance, in marketing, selling of products and people collecting money in my and the movement’s name,” she wrote.

Oh, please. For all the protests about this not being about the money, it’s about the money. In the Instagram post (which I won’t be embedding, can never get those to work) we see

And third: together with my family I’m setting up a foundation. It’s already registered and existing, but it not is not yet up and running. This is strictly nonprofit of course and there are no interests in philanthropy. It is just something that is needed for handling money (book royalties, donations, prize money etc) in a completely transparent way. For instance, taxes have to be paid before we can give them away to specified purposes and charities. This takes a lot of time and work, and when the foundation is fully up and running I will tell you more.
The foundation’s aim will be to promote ecological, climatic and social sustainability as well as mental health.

Handling the money. Uh huh. Getting rich off scaring people and giving them “climate grief”. Is this the endgame she and her family and her enablers were aiming for, much like with Al Gore getting massively rich off duping idiots, or just them going “hey, we should get rich off Greta blowing off classes on Fridays”? How soon till St. Greta starts traveling around in big fossil fueled vehicles because she “needs the protection”? And many other climahypocrite things?

Read: It’s All About The Science: St. Greta Looks To Trademark Her Name »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Hot Take: Excitable Adam Schiff Says Senate Can’t Only Rely On House Investigation

By William Teach January 30, 2020 – 8:16 am

So, is Schiff saying that they didn’t actually have the evidence in the House? He’s saying that the House investigation was incomplete and unreliable

Adam Schiff Tells Senate: You Cannot Simply ‘Rely on What Was Investigated in the House’

Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) tried to convince the Senate on Wednesday that it had to subpoena more witnesses and documents because it could not “rely on what was investigated in the House.”

Schiff’s odd argument appeared to admit that the House investigation was insufficient, even as fellow House impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) claimed that the impeachment case had already been “proven beyond any doubt at all.”

Schiff claimed that it would be unprecedented to hold a Senate trial without witnesses. However, he denied all Republican requests for new witnesses in the House Intelligence Committee, which he chairs — which was also unprecedented. (snip)

When asked why the Senate should call more witnesses and documents if the House Intelligence Committee would not release the testimony of the Intelligence Community Inspector General, Schiff dodged the query, saying that whatever deficiencies the House may or may not have brought to the Senate were not “sufficient to relieve the Senate of the obligation to have a trial.”

So, he realized later he made a big mistake and tried to correct it. It’s all a clown show. If the house wants a do-over let them come up with new articles. Let’s have a vote right now on the articles submitted.

But Schiff is making this claim despite Nadler saying the case had been “proven beyond any doubt at all.” What case? Abuse of power? Not in the Constitution. Obstruction of Congress? How is that possible when they never voted on an actual impeachment investigation? That makes any demands moot. Further, we have a 5th Amendment for protection. The Executive Branch also has executive privilege. If the Democrats in the House don’t like that, well, tough. Change the Constitution.

And they should all remember that these standards being set can and will boomerang back on them with any future Democrat administration.

Read: Hot Take: Excitable Adam Schiff Says Senate Can’t Only Rely On House Investigation »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, Donald Trump | 56 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: UK Guardian Finally Refusing To Take Money From Oil And Gas Companies

By William Teach January 29, 2020 – 4:07 pm

The UK Guardian has long been one of the biggest and most consistent Cult of Climastrology news outlets for decades (in fairness, they do some good work on real environmental issues, though). The have a section devoted strictly to it, and have for a long time. They’re the only ones still focusing on the Keystone XL pipeline. But, um

Take it further? Good question. From the link in the St. Greta tweet

The Guardian will no longer accept advertising from oil and gas companies, becoming the first major global news organisation to institute an outright ban on taking money from companies that extract fossil fuels.

The move, which follows efforts to reduce the company’s carbon footprint and increase reporting on the climate emergency, was announced on Wednesday and will be implemented with immediate effect. The ban will apply to any business primarily involved in extracting fossil fuels, including many of the world’s largest polluters.

So, when will the Guardian take it further and stop using fossil fuels to gather the news, create the news, and deliver the news? They’d go out of business without fossil fuels.

https://twitter.com/headspace66/status/1222522997824606209

Read: Surprise: UK Guardian Finally Refusing To Take Money From Oil And Gas Companies »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 29, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible ice cream from world killing cows, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jihad Watch, with a post on what happened when a 16 year old French girl insulted Islam.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 41 Comments | Trackback URL

And Here We Go: Warmists Link Coronavirus To ‘Climate Change’ (scam)

By William Teach January 29, 2020 – 10:30 am

I’ve seen lots of this in Twitter

The colon seems to denote that all those things are being caused by anthropogenic climate change. All the cultists have been blaming the earthquakes in Puerto Rico and now between Jamaica and Cuba, which were even felt in Miami, on ‘climate change’, and now they’ve added Coronavirus. And along comes the Daily Beast

Zombie Viruses and ‘Super-Shedders’: Coronavirus Is Just the Start

Zombie Viruses. Drug-resistant fungi. “Super-shedding” animals.

Even as officials around the world are scrambling to control a new and increasingly deadly coronavirus outbreak, public health and infectious disease experts are sounding the alarm about climate change making the risk of other novel afflictions much more explosive.

Read: And Here We Go: Warmists Link Coronavirus To ‘Climate Change’ (scam) »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Rep Kathy Castor (D) Tells Youtube To Censor Climate Skeptics For Wrongthink

By William Teach January 29, 2020 – 8:01 am

Has she read the Constitution? The 1st Amendment? This doesn’t violate the letter of the 1st, but, it sure violates the spirit with a sitting, elected federal representative pulling this

Congresswoman calls on YouTube to stop promoting climate misinformation

Congresswoman Kathy Castor (D-Florida) is calling on YouTube to stop including climate change misinformation in its recommendation algorithm and to demonetize videos that deny climate change. In a letter addressed to Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Castor references a report by Avaaz, which claims that YouTube is sending millions of users to climate change misinformation videos every day.

Castor, chair of the US House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, asks that YouTube label climate-related misinformation as “borderline content.” She notes that just last year, YouTube stopped running ads along anti-vaccine content and could take a similar approach in this case. Castor is also asking that YouTube take steps to “correct the record” for the millions of viewers exposed to climate misinformation on the platform. (snip)

According to the report Castor referenced, for the search term “global warming,” 16 percent of the top 100 related videos under the up-next feature had climate disinformation, and the climate misinformation videos Avaaz reviewed had over 21 million views collectively. Avaaz says some of the largest household brands, including Samsung, L’Oréal and Warner Bros, as well as Greenpeace International, Save the Children and the World Wildlife Fund, have ads running on climate misinformation videos. It’s unclear if those companies are aware of this, or if they’ll pull their ads as a result, as we’ve seen companies do in the past.

She calls them misinformation, others call them science (though, let’s be honest, some are really out there, just like Warmist stuff). But, it doesn’t matter, because it’s not her job to tell Youtube to censor videos like this, nor to recommend in a roundabout way that companies pull their ads. If she was a Republican calling for Warmist propaganda to be removed, I’d say the same thing: it is inappropriate. Elected officials should not be doing this. It’s one thing if it was jihadi propaganda calling for violence. This is not that. Let people watch the videos and make their own choices.

Is anyone surprised that a Democrat is attempting this type of Progressive (nice Fascism) move? The letter is way worse than portrayed in the article. The letter is signed by 14 members of the so-called Select Committee On The Climate Crisis (scam).

See, they aren’t simply calling for the removal of “disinformation”, but all “denial” videos. Any that is involved in Wrongthing, that doesn’t obey the rules of the Cult of Climastrology, should be removed per this committee. Remove any monetization.

This is censorship when the government is involved. You want to impeach someone? Impeach these folks for violating the spirit of the 1st Amendment.

Read: Rep Kathy Castor (D) Tells Youtube To Censor Climate Skeptics For Wrongthink »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Democrats, Global Warming | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

There Are Probably Enough Votes To Force Witnesses, Including Joe And Hunter Biden

By William Teach January 29, 2020 – 7:39 am

The Washington Post is giddy about calling witnesses, because the House failed to do their job, so they have the big front page headline (and the article even notes calling witnesses is worthless)

McConnell says he currently lacks the votes to block witnesses

White House lawyers pleaded with senators Tuesday to acquit President Trump based on “the Constitution and your common sense,” concluding their defense even as Senate GOP leaders struggled to block demands for new witnesses that could throw the trial into turmoil.

In a closed-door meeting following closing remarks, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told colleagues he doesn’t have the votes to block witnesses, according to people familiar with his remarks who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe them. Just four GOP senators would have to join with Democrats to produce the majority needed to call witnesses — an outcome McConnell has sought to avoid since it could invite new controversy and draw out the divisive proceedings.

An initial vote to allow witnesses, expected Friday, doesn’t ensure witnesses would actually be called, since the Senate would have to subsequently hold separate votes on summoning each individual witness. And Trump’s ultimate acquittal still remains all but assured, since a two-thirds vote would be required to remove him in the GOP-run Senate.

Does the liberal news media ever have actual named sources nowadays? Regardless, even calling witnesses in an attempt to hurt Trump won’t matter: even if Trump attempted a quid pro quo, that’s politics. There are not enough votes. This is about politics for the 2020 election. Democrats are criminalizing normal, everyday, run of the mill politics. Weaponizing it. They should have been careful, because it can boomerang back on them in the future. And in the near term

Graham Predicts 51 GOP Sens. Will Vote for Testimony from Bidens: Hunter Turned Ukraine into ‘ATM Machine’

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), while talking to reporters on the sidelines of the Senate impeachment trial, predicted that a majority of Republican senators would likely vote in favor of testimony from former Vice President Joe Biden, his son Hunter, and the “whistleblower.”

Graham also said Republicans would be interested in hearing from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) official who allegedly worked with Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 election on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

“I’ll make a prediction; there will be 51 Republican votes to call Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, the whistleblower, and the DNC staffer at the very minimum. (snip)

You have to be willfully blind and say that Democratic misconduct doesn’t matter to you not to believe that the [U.S.] president had a good reason to ask the Ukraine to look into the Biden affair… as much as I like Joe Biden, he needs to answer questions of why he allowed his son to continue to receive millions of dollars from [allegedly corrupt Ukrainian company] Burisma when he should’ve known it was a conflict of interest.”

The only reason to call Hunter is to note that he had zero experience, zero knowledge, for the “job” at Burisma. That sets the stage to call Joe, who would be pleading the 5th quite a bit. But, being Joe, he’ll want to yammer a lot, especially after they play the video of him bragging that he extorted Ukraine with $1 billion in aid if they didn’t fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma.

Let’s call that prosecutor (well, ask if they’d like to testify). Let’s call the whistleblower. Let’s call witness 18. Let’s call pro-Trump witnesses, since the House tried to call anti-Trump ones.

Democrats wanted to create an issue to stop Trump’s re-election in 2020. That’s why they want Bolton. Well, the GOP should drop the napalm on the Democrats with anti-Dem witnesses. At the end of the day, there are not 67 who will vote to kick Trump out, so, fight fire with fire, hurt the Democrat chances to win in 2020. Not just the White House, but Senate and House.

Read: There Are Probably Enough Votes To Force Witnesses, Including Joe And Hunter Biden »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, Donald Trump, GOP | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Vermont Tries Playing Games With Carbon Taxation Since They Can’t Pass Legislation

By William Teach January 28, 2020 – 4:58 pm

Climate cultists are always playing games

Basically, the Warmists have failed to get legislation implementing a climate tax passed even in uber-leftist Vermont, so, from the link

Over the past 50 years I have seen a lot of bills introduced into the Vermont Legislature. Of all the bills over all those years, the absolute worst was just introduced in the House, with 87 co-sponsors (all Democratic and Progressive). It’s titled the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA, H.688).

The Climate Action Coalition believes that the planet faces a climate emergency due to human-caused carbon dioxide emissions. Every year for the past five years its dozens of lobbyists have labored to persuade the legislators to take bold and far-reaching steps to drive down those emissions.

The centerpiece of those efforts has been a carbon tax. The argument has three components. First, we must drive down the use of carbon-based fuels by Vermonters using heating oil, natural gas, gasoline, diesel and propane. (snip)

For five years, however, the Climate Action advocates have failed to find the votes, even in this green-friendly Legislature, to enact even the beginning stages of a carbon tax. So here comes their Plan B: The Global Warming Solutions Act. (snip)

Since there aren’t enough  votes for a carbon tax, the GWSA would replace the 2006 “goals” with much stricter “mandatory requirements”; create a 21-member climate action super-government  (the Climate Council, controlled by legislative leaders); task it with developing a sweeping plan to regulate anything and everything that might reduce CO2 emissions; implement the plan with state agency rules backed by penalties; authorize the Conservation Law Foundation to bring suits to get judges to order the rule-making agencies to move faster and further to save the planet  from the “climate emergency”; and use tax dollars to pay the plaintiff’s legal costs if it “substantially prevails” in a courtroom.

Two things are perfectly clear here. The bureaucrats can’t levy a carbon tax, but the scope of rules they may find essential to defeating climate change is unlimited. After all, this is an “emergency”!

And most importantly — read this carefully — no legislator will ever vote on wave after wave of sweeping rules that will affect the lives of every Vermonter.

It’s just an attempt to sidestep the voting citizens and take power out of their hands as they elect lawmakers. Hooray Fascists!

Add to the utter lack of accountability, and the cost of the army of regulators and enforcers needed to carry out the plan, and the invitation to CLF and others to sue the state to force quicker and more far-reaching oppression (as CLF did under a similar statute in Massachusetts), and you have a Green Police State, financed by the victims.

Read the whole thing. Warmists will attempt anything to force their Fascist policies through.

Read: Vermont Tries Playing Games With Carbon Taxation Since They Can’t Pass Legislation »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 28, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Blazing Cat Fur, with a post on how drag queen story hour expanded across America.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 6 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove