National Review: Michigan Court Hands Down Good Decision For Law Abiding Gun Owners

By William Teach August 22, 2019 – 10:30 am

Every citizen who has a firearm for self defense should cheer this decision

A Michigan Court Case Shows the Right of Armed Self-Defense Is Broader Than You Might Think

Yesterday the Michigan Court of Appeals handed down a decision in a highly public and very controversial case that gun owners across the United States should applaud. In short, it demonstrates and validates the value of armed self-defense even when you do not pull the trigger and — crucially — have no cause to pull the trigger. It justifies the brandishing of a gun as pre-emptive measure to block the use of unlawful force.

What do I mean? Hang with me for a moment, because this case is a bit complicated. At its heart is a dispute between Siwatu-Salama Ra, an African-American concealed-carry permit holder from Detroit, and a woman named Channel Harvey. Ra was put on trial for assault with a dangerous weapon and possessing a firearm while committing a felony after she brandished her unloaded pistol at Harvey during a heated confrontation outside Ra’s mother’s house.

The facts are hotly disputed, but Ra claimed that during the course of an argument, Harvey backed her car into into Ra’s vehicle — while Ra’s two-year-old daughter was inside, playing. Ra claims she grabbed her daughter out of the car, then grabbed her unloaded gun, “pointed the gun at Harvey’s car” and then again demanded that Harvey leave. Harvey testified that Ra was the aggressor, and that she hit Ra’s car on accident only after Ra pointed the gun at her. The jury apparently believed Harvey’s version of events, and Ra received a two-year prison sentence.

The case was immediately controversial, with critics of the verdict claiming that the case represented “yet another instance of a black gun owner, with the permits to legally carry, defending themselves against violence — and getting punished for it.”

So, what happened?

Yesterday the Michigan Court of Appeals threw out her conviction. It didn’t hold that the jury got the outcome wrong but rather that it didn’t have a true opportunity to get it right. It was improperly instructed on the law, and the trial court placed too high a burden on Ra to justify her decision to brandish her weapon.

The jury was instructed only on the affirmative defense of self-defense through the use of “deadly force.” To prove that deadly force was appropriate, a defendant has to prove that she “reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.” (Emphasis added.)

Under this reasoning, a person could brandish a weapon only when she has the legal right to fire the weapon.

The court of appeals, however, said that’s not the law. When one brandishes a weapon without firing it, they don’t, in fact, use “deadly force.” They use nondeadly force, and the legal standard for the use of nondeadly force only requires the defendant to prove that she “reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.” (Emphasis added.)

Under this reasoning, a person can brandish a weapon to prevent the imminent use of force from escalating to a threat of imminent death.

Ra spent months in prison, giving birth, then having her child taken away two days later. It is important to note, as the piece later does, that this is only a Michigan case, but, it can set a proper legal foundation for any cases that arise in other states, and can be used if fought to the federal level. Of course, it also means that people can’t just whip out their firearm carelessly, nor should they, Responsibility is the key. But, if you feel your life is threatened, you should be able to pull it out to de-escalate.

Read: National Review: Michigan Court Hands Down Good Decision For Law Abiding Gun Owners »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

HotCold Take: More Poor People Are Eating Better, So They’ll Live Longer, Which Is Bad For ‘Climate Change”

By William Teach August 22, 2019 – 8:17 am

In a sane world, this tweet would never have been written. In a slightly less sane world, it would have been taken down after being written. But, this is Cult of Climastrology World, where Warmists will bob their head in agreement, so…

The article is actually from May 5th, but, they decided to repost it because someone is nuts. It’s also behind a paywall, so, make sure to watch the video. The Blaze notes

The tweet included a video discussing how an “increasing number of people in rich countries are vegan or vegetarian but in the rest of the world the trend is going the other way” while warning that “this is a giant problem for the environment.”

The video gave the reasoning that as more people in areas such as sub-Saharan Africa are able to buy meat and give up their vegetarian ways for a more nutrient-rich diet, global warming will speed up because increased livestock production will mean more greenhouse-gas emissions.

Slashdot has a couple of the further down paragraphs for the article, which also touches on China

The shift from pork to beef in the world’s most populous country is bad news for the environment. Because pigs require no pasture, and are efficient at converting feed into flesh, pork is among the greenest of meats. Cattle are usually much less efficient, although they can be farmed in different ways. And because cows are ruminants, they belch methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. A study of American farm data in 2014 estimated that, calorie for calorie, beef production requires three times as much animal feed as pork production and produces almost five times as much greenhouse gases. Other estimates suggest it uses two and a half times as much water…

Sub-Saharan Africans currently have tiny carbon footprints because they use so little energy — excluding South Africa, the entire continent produces about as much electricity as France. The armies of cattle, goats and sheep will raise Africans’ collective contribution to global climate change, though not to near Western or Chinese levels. People will probably become healthier, though. Many African children are stunted (notably small for their age) partly because they do not get enough micronutrients such as Vitamin A. Iron deficiency is startlingly common. In Senegal a health survey in 2017 found that 42% of young children and 14% of women are moderately or severely anaemic. Poor nutrition stunts brains as well as bodies. Animal products are excellent sources of essential vitamins and minerals. Studies in several developing countries have shown that giving milk to schoolchildren makes them taller. Recent research in rural western Kenya found that children who regularly ate eggs grew 5% faster than children who did not; cow’s milk had a smaller effect.

These people are deranged, and are more and more willing to show it.

Read: HotCold Take: More Poor People Are Eating Better, So They’ll Live Longer, Which Is Bad For ‘Climate Change” »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Parkland Survivors Release Their Version Of Gun Control

By William Teach August 22, 2019 – 8:01 am

It’s a very interesting plan, called “sweeping”, because it is more than gun control

Parkland massacre survivors unveil sweeping U.S. gun-control plan ahead of 2020 election

Survivors of the Parkland, Florida, high school massacre on Wednesday released a sweeping gun-control plan that would ban assault-style rifles and take other steps in hopes of halving U.S. firearms deaths and injuries. The proposal included a measure to register more young voters, and the group’s leaders addressed it to 2020 candidates seeking the presidential nomination, urging them to make gun control a top priority.

“We urge them to take a look at this agenda,” Tyah Amoy-Roberts, a former student who survived the shooting, said in a statement. “We cannot allow mass shootings in grocery stores, churches, shopping malls, and schools to be the new normal.”

The former Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students have worked to inspire a sense of urgency about gun violence since they started the national campaign “March for Our Lives” after a former student massacred 17 people with an assault rifle at their high school on Feb. 14, 2018.

First, did you catch it? No? You’ll see more of it. Second, most of those places tend to be gun free zones, where mass killers like to go because few are armed to stop them.

The Parkland student’s plan calls for several hard-line gun control measures, including a national gun buy-back and disposal program, a federal system of gun licensing that requires background checks and annual renewals, and it urges politicians to declare a national emergency around gun violence.

The plan also calls on the government to automatically register all U.S. citizens to vote when they turn 18, a measure that March for Our Lives has pushed in an effort to turn out the youth vote and sway elections to yield tighter gun policies.

And there’s the registration of firearms bit. Most who are pushing expanded background checks have stayed away from discussing that it would require registration, meaning the Government knows exactly what all your guns are, making it easier to take them. Not these kids. Remember, Australia reportedly only saw 20% of guns which were banned, which included most, turned in, because the government didn’t know who had what. New Zealand is having the same problem.

But, then, there’s the registration of citizens to vote. What does that have to do with gun control? What if someone doesn’t want to be registered? This sounds more like it is about politics.

Anyhow, the plan itself is nuts, and has zero change of going anywhere, because it is nuts. Most, like the above from Reuters, have tried to sanitize it

(Fox News) March for Our Lives, the gun control group started by Parkland survivors, announced an ambitious series of proposals that would radically change the landscape of firearm regulations, aiming to reduce gun ownership and gun-related deaths.

The plan announced on Wednesday seeks to reduce gun deaths by 200,000 (or 50 percent) over 10 years, install an apparent czar for gun violence, create a “Peace Corps for gun violence prevention,” and lower the nation’s firearm stock by 30 percent through a mandatory buyback program, according to the group.

Jaclyn Corin, the group’s co-founder, described the plan as a “Green New Deal, but for guns” — a reference to Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s sweeping plan to address climate change.

The above graphic comes from their sorta-plan page. Regarding “a higher standard of ownership”, licensing would be required

For decades, the NRA and gun lobby have focused on a singular goal: to keep the standards for gun ownership dangerously low. To make a sizable dent in reducing gun violence, we need to do the complete opposite: we need to raise the bar for gun ownership and responsibility in America. This begins with what a wide body of research and international precedents tell us is essential to reducing gun violence: a federal system of gun licensing. The facts are clear: a comprehensive system of gun licensing reduces illegal gun trafficking, cuts down on gun homicides, and reduces gun suicides.

In other words, they are going to find a way to deny people from their 2nd Amendment Right. Of course, criminals usually do not obtain a license. Nor own one lawfully.

  • A multi-step approval process, overseen by a law enforcement agency, that requires background checks, in-person interviews, personal references, rigorous gun safety training, and a waiting period of 10 days for each gun purchase.
  • Annual licensing fees for anyone who wants to obtain a national gun and ammunition license.
  • A higher standard for gun ownership, which would start with raising the minimum age for gun possession to 21.

It’s essentially a stealth ban, because Democrats will make it almost impossible for a law abiding citizens to obtain a firearm, much like was happening in D.C. prior to the Heller decision. They also want to give states authority beyond federal law. Remember when Dems stated that states couldn’t go beyond federal law vis a vis Arizona’s SB1070, the illegal alien law? Now they want to change things up for gun grabbing.

Look, it’s not all bad, there are a few good ideas in the plan, but, this is about gun bans, disarming law abiding citizens. They want the aforementioned Heller decision re-examined, meaning, overturned. They want the NRA “investigated”, which is a serious violation of the 1st Amendment. And, of course, suing gun manufacturers, which would put them out of business. And “consumer safety standards”, which would also help put maufacturers out of business, with those few left making a product almost worthless for self defense.

Will any Democrat candidates pick it up and run with it? This plan violates the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 9th Amendments.

Read: Parkland Survivors Release Their Version Of Gun Control »

Posted in 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, Constitution, Democrats | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Low Polling Jay Inslee Rolls Out More Big Government ‘Climate Change’ Plans

By William Teach August 21, 2019 – 2:57 pm

It’s a strange plan, as it appears to be more about controlling farmers, the agriculture sector, and increasing taxes and fees

Inslee completes climate change policy proposals with plans aimed at agriculture

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee released a plan on Wednesday to enlist farmers and agriculture workers in combating climate change, completing the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate’s series of proposals aimed at making fighting a warming climate a central part of the federal government’s policies.

Inslee’s latest plan — titled “Growing Rural Prosperity” — ties revitalizing rural America and ending President Donald Trump’s trade wars together with incentivizing farmers to take steps that help remove carbon emissions from the atmosphere.

Inslee, who has staked his candidacy on combating climate change, has released a series of plans that tie different issuesfacing the United States — from the economy to foreign policy — to battling climate change. Wednesday’s plan is his sixth such proposal and, according to a senior aide, his final major climate policy rollout.

Surprisingly, he’s polling at 1% and didn’t even qualify for the Hotcoldwetdry townhall.

The latest proposal pledges to triple the budget for the Conservation Stewardship Program — which looks to help farmers conserve aspects of their land — to $3 billion. The governor’s plan would also launch an initiative that would pay farmers who take certain steps to remove carbon from the environment and would increase the federal government’s research into agricultural innovations aimed at capturing carbon.

The plan takes aim at other issues facing rural America and farmers in particular. Inslee dedicates part of it to strengthening farmworkers’ rights, including protecting their right to join a union. And he proposes expanding rural broadband access by requiring that large technology companies pay into the Universal Service Fund, a program within the Federal Communications Commission that subsidizes telephone access to certain parts of the country.

Remember, though, this is all about Science, not politics!

Though voters have named the climate crisis among their top issues, Inslee and his proposals have not found a great deal of success on the campaign trail.

Again, people may Care in theory, but, in the Real World, it’s low hanging fruit. No one really wants to sacrifice.

Late evening update: guess I wasted my time writing this post

Jay Inslee Quits 2020 Race — Before His Long-Awaited Climate Change Debate

Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington state announced Wednesday evening on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show that he is leaving the 2020 presidential race — two weeks before a climate change debate for which he had campaigned.

So, now, he’s going to what, go back to doing the job the people of Washington elected him to do? Nah, I bet he’ll continue to be insufferable in pushing Hotcoldwetdry stuff, even though it keeps getting shot down in Washington.

Read: Low Polling Jay Inslee Rolls Out More Big Government ‘Climate Change’ Plans »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 21, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a field dying from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on increasing taxes on “the Rich”.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Giving NJ Taxpayer Money To Illegal Aliens For College Is A Success Or Something

By William Teach August 21, 2019 – 10:30 am

What a fantastic idea. Taking taxpayer money from legal resident of New Jersey and giving it to illegal aliens instead of using it for those legal citizens, and then having the illegals take spots at colleges meant for legal residents

N.J. gave 749 undocumented immigrants money for college. Here’s where they enrolled.

When New Jersey debuted a new program last year offering college aid to immigrants living in the country illegally, it was unclear how many undocumented students would sign up.

After a year, advocates and state official say the program has been a success.

During the 2018-2019 academic year, 749 undocumented students were awarded $3.8 million in state financial aid to attend New Jersey colleges, according to new statistics released by the state Higher Education Student Assistance Authority.

The so-called “Dreamers” — students brought to the U.S. illegally as children — had previously been permitted to attend New Jersey state colleges paying in-state tuition. But they were forbidden to apply for state-funded financial aid programs.

Gov. Phil Murphy signed a law last year opening up state financial aid programs to undocumented immigrants, offering them the same state grants, scholarships and other aid used by U.S. citizens living in New Jersey.

That $5,073 per student could have very much helped actual lawful residents, but, no, they gave it to illegals. As one person in the comments points out

This is utterly absurd! What about legal US citizens who can’t afford college tuition? What about tax paying parents, who can’t afford tuition for their children? My Son is 2, and my Wife & I started a 529 for him. Throw the illegal immigrants over the wall, and put some of that money into my Son’s account.

Where’s the money for the legal residents? Many of them will be denied, despite excellent GPAs, any assistance because their parents are legal residents and make too much money. Also

Those numbers are entirely irrelevant. What return did we get on our investment – how many of these individuals are in STEM majors, how many have a 3.2 or higher GPA, and most importantly, how many of them managed not to fail out?

That is an excellent point. What did we get in return? Many of the colleges attended (listed at the story) are pure liberal arts. Besides the notion that it is illegal to hire these people per federal law, what did they learn? We can speculate only.

If you jaywalk you can be fined. If you have a lemonade stand with no permit, you can be fined…if you are illegal, you can go to college for free. OK got it.

If you speed you can be fined. If you engage in your 2nd Amendment rights, you can be thrown in jail. But, if you’re an illegal, it’s all sunshine and lollipops.

What incentive do these people have to become US citizens if they get MORE benefits as “non-citizens”

Exactly.

Read: Giving NJ Taxpayer Money To Illegal Aliens For College Is A Success Or Something »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

What’s The Real Reason Climate Cultist Big Wigs Are Hypocrites?

By William Teach August 21, 2019 – 8:53 am

One of the reasons I would guess is because this has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics, about government control, and said government control won’t effect the big shots. Michael Shellenberger writes

The Real Reason They Behave Hypocritically On Climate Change Is Because They Want To

British Royal couple Prince Harry and Princess Meghan Markle triggered widespread outrage recently after lecturing the world about climate change while flying around the world in private jets.

“With nearly 7.7 billion people inhabiting this Earth, every choice, every footprint, every action makes a difference,” the Duke of Sussex said on Instagram a few days before jetting off with the Duchess to Ibiza, Spain and then to Nice, France.

BBC calculates that those two flights alone produced six times more emissions than the average Briton does each year and over 100 times more than the average resident of the African nation of Lesotho.

Friends of Harry and Meghan rushed to the couple’s defense. “I’m calling on the press to cease these relentless and untrue assassinations,” said Elton John.

“Imagine being attacked” tweeted Ellen, the comedian, “when all you’re trying to do is make the world a better place.”

But their celebrity defenders only added fuel to the fire. “So stop lecturing us on how we live our lives and live by example,” responded one Briton.

Exactly. They’re always tell Everyone Else how to live their lives, but, never match that rhetoric with action in their own lives.

But was the couple’s ostentatious display of climate hypocrisy really accidental? After all, celebrities have been hypocritically moralizing about climate change and other environmental issues for decades. And, now, a growing number of celebrities are getting into the act. (snip)

A simpler explanation for the hypocrisy of celebrities who moralize about climate change is that it is a way of flaunting their special status.

Hypocrisy is the ultimate power move. It is a way of demonstrating that one plays by a different set of rules from the ones adhered to by common people. Hypocrisy demonstrates how unaccountable one is to conventional morality.

Such displays work because, unlike wealth, status is inherently subjective. The more of it you are perceived to have, the more of it you actually have. (snip through a bit about the rich and powerful always having been hypocrites in certain aspects)

Why then do we get so upset when celebrities moralize about climate change? Because in doing so they are violating an unsaid social contract. You can be rich, fabulous, and showy, but you can’t tell us how to live. Two thousand years after the Christian revolution in morality, we take our relative prosperity seriously.

That is one hell of a great point. When they are out there flaunting their lifestyle (remember the days of Lifestyles Of The Rich And Famous? How about TMZ and other outlets constantly telling us how they live their lives lavishly?), fine. When they are calling for higher taxes (which won’t hurt themselves), gun control (while not giving up their own firearms and/or armed security), or, worse, a complete control of everyone’s lives and raising their cost of living (which won’t bother them) while being hypocrites themselves, it becomes a problem. They’re preaching, advocating, and this would all make Other People’s lives worse.

It’s a very long piece, well worth the read.

Read: What’s The Real Reason Climate Cultist Big Wigs Are Hypocrites? »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Trump: “Certain People In The Media Would Love To See A Recession”

By William Teach August 21, 2019 – 8:29 am

Have you noticed that Russia Russia Russia, collusion, the Mueller report, and impeachment have all but disappeared as of late? Instead, we’re getting treated to a constant litany of “a coming recession.” Why? Because the media is hoping for a recession to defeat President Trump, and hoping that their constant yammering can make it happen

(Breitbart) President Donald Trump criticized many figures in the establishment media on Tuesday for rushing to report a looming recession, despite an overall good economy throughout his presidency.

“I think the word ‘recession’ is inappropriate because it’s just a word that certain people, I’m going to be kind, certain people in the media are trying to build up because they’d love to see a recession,” Trump said. “We’re very far from a recession.”

The president commented to reporters at the White House that it was up to the Federal Reserve to keep growth going, pointing to their psychological impact on the economy.

“If the Fed would do its job, I think we would have a tremendous spur of growth,” he said.

There’s a huge difference between an economic slowdown and a recession. Places like the NY Times, Washington Post, NBC, etc, are all running fear stories, finding those economists who are Warning of a recession, and, when they are being honest, they say that it’s not the U.S. economy in trouble, but those in other nations. Also, that it’s simply a slowdown.

But, I disagree with Trump slightly: it’s not just the media, it’s Democratic Party politicians, their interest groups, hardcore leftist Internet outlets, and, sadly, right leaning #NeverTrumpers. That last group is the worst, because they’ve abandoned all their right-leaning positions to pray for a recession to get rid of Trump, never stopping to consider that it would mean a hardcore Modern Socialist winning the presidency.

They call themselves “libertarians” now, but, have been so infused with Trump Derangement Syndrome that they push Leftist positions and ideas. Nothing he does is ever good enough for them, no matter how conservative it is. They’re pushing ‘climate change’, defending Planned Parenthood, calling for banning guns and restricting the 2nd Amendment, dissing Israel. For instance, SE Cupp and Doug Mataconis. Both used to be reliable conservatives, but, if you read their Twitter feeds, watch SE’s show (no thanks) and read what used to be a conservative blog in Outside The Beltway, it’s almost all about Orange Man Bad, everything he supports Bad, and nary a bad word for Democrats.

As the saying goes, with friends like this who needs enemies? They, like the Democrats, really, really want a recession. None of them care if their loose talk hurts Americans. That’s how deranged they are.

Read: Trump: “Certain People In The Media Would Love To See A Recession” »

Posted in Democrat Lite, Democrats, Donald Trump, Unhinged Tools | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Gloom And Doom Won’t Help Us Fight ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach August 20, 2019 – 4:23 pm

Seriously, the Cult of Climastrology doesn’t have much else other than doom and gloom, all in an attempt to institute Modern Socialism. Even when they’re fighting over whether to shame heretics or not, they still push doom and gloom

Why doom and gloom won’t help us fight climate change

…

The drumbeat of news about climate change and ecological degradation is deeply demoralizing. The earth is indeed in bad shape, and the trends aren’t encouraging. (July, it turns out, was the hottest month recorded since data collection began.)

Yet the big problem with bad news about the environment is that it too easily leads to resignation and then passivity. Consider Paul Kingsnorth, the former British environmental activist who suggests that the magnitude of the “ecocide” we face means that we have to come to terms with the reality that there is no hope. “We are not going to stop this from happening,” he told the New York Times a few years ago. A group of academics and activists recently published a book with an emblematic title: “Mourning Nature.” Small wonder that a series of recent polls have detected many Americans declaring that they’re experiencing “eco-anxiety.” If nature is already too far gone, why go to the trouble of trying to save it?

These people are still nuts

We must take to heart these environmental triumphs and not just fixate on the bad news. Let’s celebrate the recovery of our eastern forests, which after two centuries of decimation have regrown to cloak hundreds of millions of acres of unproductive agricultural land. The air of New York City is substantially better today than it was in the 1950s. The water in the Potomac today is much cleanerthan it was in 1947, when Louis Halle wrote his classic nature book “Spring in Washington.” Some seriously good things have happened to our environment over the past half-century — because human beings took conscious and purposeful action to establish legal and regulatory incentives that changed society’s behavior.

But, those are environmental issues. They have zero to do with anthropogenic climate change.

Only smart collective action, led by courageous people working with intelligent and well-funded organizations and agencies, can mount the necessary effort to keep our Earth from peril. We have won these sorts of battles before, and we can win them again, even if the threats seem larger than ever. With an inoculation of the magic elixir of bountiful nature, we can engage with spirit on behalf of our wildlife and forests, our bays and seas, and our one and only atmosphere. Despair is not an option.

See? We can fix this all with Big Government.

Read: Gloom And Doom Won’t Help Us Fight ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach August 20, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…are horrible saddles made from evil climate pollution causing cows, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is American Elephants, with a post on new words devised for the presidential campaign.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove