Washington Post Has Ideas On Solving Mass Shootings Or Something

By William Teach August 11, 2019 – 8:05 am

They end up missing the mark on what’s going on and how to solve it by a tiny bit a mile

Mass shootings are becoming routine. It doesn’t have to be this way.

THE TIME of mourning for the victims of mass shootings in America, including those a week ago in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, may never end. The time for policymaking action, though, has definitely arrived. It is long overdue.

The United States faces a grave threat to public safety. The Post reports that mass shootings took place roughly twice a year between 1966 and the massacre at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., in 1999. Between Columbine and the slaughter at a predominantly African American church in Charleston, S.C., in June 2015, the pace was roughly five times a year. Since the white-supremacist attack in Charleston, there’s been one almost every six weeks. And these data reflect a restrictive definition of mass shootings: those that claimed at least four lives, not including perpetrators, in public places or large private gatherings. GunViolenceArchive.org’s broader definition, which encompasses a wider-range of multiple-victim shootings, fatal and nonfatal — including those tied to such crimes as robbery and domestic abuse — produces 254 just this year, through last Wednesday.

The majority of those “mass shootings” actually occur in the streets of Democratic Party run cities and states with heavy gun control.

Background checks and so-called red-flag laws, the subject of another bill backed by Sens. Lindsey O.Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), represent only the bare minimum of reform. To tackle the specific, acute problem of mass public shootings, Congress must address the actual hardware: assault-style firearms, along with large-capacity magazines. Both should be banned, as assault weapons were at the federal level between 1994 and 2004, and as the law in several states already provides.

Would this include banning the weapons and mags currently owned after being purchased legally? They don’t say. If history is to be believed, there would be a blanket ban on “large” magazines for current owners, like in California and New York. And when those bans do not work? What’s next? Ban all semi-autos, including handguns and hunting rifles? Perhaps with almost impossible to get permits? The Australia/New Zealand solution? New Zealand banned pretty much all semi-autos excluding .22 rimfire rifles. So, cannot even have a big hunting rifle unless it is bolt action. No semi-auto handguns. Even pump-action shotguns holding more than 5 shells are banned.

What’s next? Revolvers? Because criminals will just go with those next. How about those .22’s, when they are used for crime. The gun grabbing never ends.

In emphasizing measures to stop mass public shootings, we do not forget that the vast majority of gun-related death occurs in — alas — more ordinary contexts. Suicide, street crime and domestic violence are chronic problems, and they also cry out for intelligent response. But what we must refer to as “conventional” homicide has waned even as mass public shootings have increased. Swift action aimed specifically at this socially destabilizing phenomenon is a must, lest our public spaces become places of permanent latent anxiety, subject to random lethal attack — or, as occurred in Times Square the other day, panicked stampedes at the sound of a motorcycle backfire.

So, what are they going to do about those? Taking away guns will not stop suicides. Democrats have been uber-soft on crime for decades. The last one who cared was Bill Clinton. Since then, their policies are like over-cooked pasta or ice cream in the sun. And, again, if “gun violence” has increased tremendously in super-gun restrictive areas like Baltimore, Chicago, New Jersey, and California, among others, how does taking lawfully purchased items away from law abiding citizens, turning them into criminals if they possess them, make a difference?

Read: Washington Post Has Ideas On Solving Mass Shootings Or Something »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Current Affairs | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Climahypocrisy: Head Of Flight Attendant’s Union Super Concerned Over Climate Scam

By William Teach August 10, 2019 – 3:47 pm

Sarah Nelson, President of the Association of Flight Attendants, is not concerned enough to stop her own high flying ways, but, she does seem adamant about putting all her Comrades out of a job

Flight Attendants President says ‘We Know Climate Change Is a Huge Threat’

Sara Nelson, who will open the first panel at the LNS Labor Convergence on Climate in June, is international president of the Association of Flight Attendants representing 50,000 workers across 20 airlines. In a recent article for Vox, Nelson writes that flight attendants and airline workers have been told by some pundits that the Green New Deal, will ground all air travel. But Nelson says, “That’s absurd. It’s not the solutions to climate change that kills jobs. Climate change itself is the job killer.”

“Extreme turbulence” she writes “is on the rise around the world. It isn’t just nauseating or scary — it’s dangerous.” Severe turbulence is becoming more frequent and intense “due in part to climate change.” For flight attendants, “these incidents pose a serious occupational risk.” And as extreme weather events become more common, more and more flights never take off at all. When the polar vortex plunged most of the US into a deep freeze in January, airlines canceled more than 2,000 flights. Heatwaves, thunderstorms, and other effects of climate change similarly make it impossible for airplanes to fly. “Grounded flights mean lost pay for flight attendants, who earn an hourly wage while we’re in the air.”

Nelson says, “Our federal government must spearhead a national mobilization that brings these efforts together, harnesses American ingenuity, creates millions of well-paying union jobs, and saves the planet for our children. That is the vision of the Green New Deal resolution. It’s the moonshot of our time.”

When is she giving up her own fossil fueled flights world killing ways?

Read: Climahypocrisy: Head Of Flight Attendant’s Union Super Concerned Over Climate Scam »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 10, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a fish made gigantic due to carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Bunkerville, with a post on California preferring free range rats over humans.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Who’s Up For A Green New Deal “Climate Corps”?

By William Teach August 10, 2019 – 10:32 am

It would be great having a bunch of government funded green shirts running around telling you how to live your life, right?

(Washington Post) Democrats running for president on promises to slow climate change are asking young people to do more than just vote for them. Many White House hopefuls are laying out plans to put teenagers and 20-somethings to work guarding the country against the worst effects of global warming.

Core to a number of Democrats’ climate plans is the creation of a “climate corps.” Akin to the Peace Corps launched in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy as a soft-power check against Russia, a climate-focused national service program would tackle what many presidential candidates see as this generation’s greatest challenge by putting young Americans to work planting trees, restoring wetlands and aiding victims of natural disasters.

The latest Democrat to propose such a program is Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, who with Rep. Deb Haaland (D-N.M.) on Thursday will unveil a bill that would establish a new civilian corps focused on environmental stewardship.

Inspired by the Civilian Conservation Corps, a New Deal-era work-relief program, Booker’s proposed Agriculture Department program would train, house and deploy youths from low-income and minority communities during two-year stints in the restoration of U.S. forests and wetlands.

Right, right, we totally need people who are triggered so badly by words that they have to go to safe rooms, freak out over improper use of pronouns, and melt-down over differing points of view to be involved in helping victims of disasters. I don’t see these city slickers doing well out in the wilderness, either. Besides the bugs and snakes and, well, nature, what if there’s no mobile service and/or wifi? How will they get a selfie to upload everytime they dig a hole? And, I don’t think the corps would allow them to wear a bathing suit or their underwear while working (because those are necessary while taking a selfie in nature, you know.) And constantly staring off into the woods to get a selfie would certainly be frowned upon, and wouldn’t get much done.

Eric Seleznow, former deputy assistant secretary at the Labor Department under President Barack Obama, cautioned administrators of any future climate corps to ensure that it gives participants marketable skills if they are going to promote it as a job-training program.

I don’t think planting trees, nagging people, and sexy selfies are really marketable skills. But, this is a good way to further indoctrinate kids into the climate cult.

Read: Who’s Up For A Green New Deal “Climate Corps”? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Collapse Of Ireland’s Green New Deal Is A Cautionary Tale Or Something

By William Teach August 10, 2019 – 7:28 am

Ireland has long been on the forefront of pushing the climate change scam in the European Union and the world. They’ve passed all sorts of scam laws and rules. A past president, Mary Robinson, was a bigshot in the Cult of Climastrology, and pushed this hard, even working for the United Nations afterwards (and taking lots and lots of fossil fueled trips around the world). They were super enthused by the Paris Climate Agreement. Of course, Ireland is also a big hypocrite, often failing to practice what they preach, being nowhere close to their Paris commitments, and then this

The collapse of Ireland’s ‘Green New Deal’ is a cautionary tale for the United States

In May, Ireland became only the second country in the world to declare a “climate and biodiversity emergency.” A month later, Minister for Climate Action Richard Bruton announced a wide-ranging Climate Action Plan outlining a path to net-zero emissions by 2050 and the restoration of habitats that can absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Irish climate activists, who had been buoyed by Green Party gains in this spring’s European Parliament election, were warily optimistic. It appeared as if the teenagers who had followed Greta Thunberg in school walkouts, or “climate change strikes,” had scored a sudden success. Ireland seemed to be fulfilling the pledge by Leo Varadkar, the nation’s taoiseach (the equivalent of a prime minister), to become a leader on climate change.

But by July 4, that optimism was dead. So was the Climate Emergency Measures Bill that represented concrete action to address the crisis. This legislation included a moratorium on gas and oil exploration in Irish coastal waters, which would make Ireland only the fifth state in the world to keep its fossil fuels in the ground.

An arcane procedural mechanism called a “money message,” which had rarely been used in the past 50 years of Irish lawmaking, was unearthed and utilized by the current coalition government to sink the bill. A money message requires the taoiseach to sign off on any legislation that would cost the government money (i.e., through a loss of tax revenue from gas and oil companies), something Mr. Varadkar has refused to do. Presumably, neither of the major parties in the current government—Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil—are willing to pass higher energy costs onto the farmers and manufacturers who are part of their political base. As a result, the Climate Emergency Measures Bill was not even debated in Parliament.

In other words, many realized that this would skyrocket the cost of living for citizens, and wasn’t worth it. Doing Something about ‘climate change’ is popular in theory, not in practice.

The sense of anger and betrayal among Irish climate activists is raw, and their options include both peaceful protest and judicial litigation. (There is already a lawsuit by environmental activists seeking to force the government to come up with a more effective response to climate change.) But the setback should not come as a surprise. In his encyclical “Laudato Si’,” Pope Francis presciently warned,“the most one can expect is superficial rhetoric, sporadic acts of philanthropy and perfunctory expressions of concern for the environment, whereas any genuine attempt by groups within society to introduce change is viewed as a nuisance based on romantic illusions or an obstacle to be circumvented” (54).

The pope still takes lots of fossil fueled trips around the world, right? And he never tells people to stop taking fossil fueled trips to visit the Vatican, right?

But, see, this isn’t cautioning America that trying to pass a boondoggle like a Green New Deal is dumb and will harm citizens lives. Nope

But U.S. citizens, particularly Catholics, must ensure the future of their common home by holding their representatives to the delivery of binding legislation on decarbonization and the promotion of policies underlined by an integral ecology. While Ireland could still become an example to follow, it is now a cautionary tale about overestimating the extent to which governments will prioritize the common good over the politically expedient and economically profitable.

They want to caution climate cultists to make sure that they just jam it through, politics and citizens’ lives be damned.

Read: Collapse Of Ireland’s Green New Deal Is A Cautionary Tale Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Marco Rubio, Rick Scott, Mitch McConnell All Hot To Pass Red Flag Laws

By William Teach August 10, 2019 – 7:16 am

On the surface, red flag laws seem to make sense. Someone is making threats, acting in a crazy manner, and so forth, and a family member or LEO can make a petition which will have their firearms taken away for a period of time, and a judge must rule on this. Much like when a person is involuntarily committed. And we have

Marco Rubio: Red Flag Legislation ‘Makes All the Sense in the World’

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., continues his push for the U.S. Senate to look at his “red flag” safety proposal, taking to the TV airwaves in Florida to showcase it.

In the aftermath of the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton this past weekend, earlier this week, Rubio urged U.S. Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-SC, and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the committee, to look at his “Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act” in their next meeting.

Rubio first introduced this bill in March of 2018, following the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland. That same year, Florida implemented its own red flag law, which has provided Florida law enforcement agencies with the ability to carry out more than a thousand risk protection orders.

Then to Rick Scott

I’m a gun owner and NRA member. I support red-flag laws.

In Florida, about three weeks after the Parkland shooting — and after the views of experts in mental health, education and law enforcement were taken into account — I signed the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act into law, surrounded by the families of those who tragically lost their lives.

Now, in the aftermath of the shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Washington should stop the partisan bickering and get to work on solutions. The steps we took in Florida, in addition to committing $400 million to increasing school safety, included a “red flag” provision. Properly constructed, the extreme risk protection order, as it’s known, is a common-sense public safety measure.

Anyone who has threatened self-harm, has threatened to harm others or is mentally unstable should not have access to a gun. At all. You can call it an infringement on rights if you want. I don’t care. Just get guns away from such people.

And

McConnell: Background checks, red flag laws will be ‘front and center’

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday that strengthening background checks and red flag laws will “lead the discussion” on addressing gun violence in the wake of two mass shootings that left at least 31 people dead.

McConnell’s remarks on a Kentucky news radio show follow a conversation he had Thursday morning with President Donald Trump, who has called for revisiting stricter background checks for gun buyers as well as red flag laws, which allows authorities to limit a person’s access to guns if they pose an imminent threat to others.

So, even Trump is thinking about them. Now, on the surface, they seem good. But, what if no one reports the person? The mother of the El Paso nutter (news of the Dayton nutter has rather dried up since he is a Democrat through and through) called the cops, but, did not identify herself or her son. What if they are abused? The system is ripe for people making false claims, leading to seizure of lawfully obtained property, with the person having to wait a long time before the property is returned, and, they don’t really work well

(Reason) Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have adopted such laws, most of them since the February 2018 massacre at a high school in Parkland, Florida. Although preventing mass shootings is the goal emphasized by advocates of red flag laws, data from Indiana and Connecticut, the first two states to enact them, show they are mainly used to protect people from their own suicidal impulses.

The evidence on whether they succeed in doing that is mixed, and so far there’s no firm evidence that red flag laws prevent homicide. One thing is clear: Taking away people’s guns based on predictions of what they might do with them raises thorny due process issues.

The Washington Post also notes the mixed results. And many have noted that they violate the 4th Amendment due process. The state cannot just come and take part of your land without a long hearings process, right? Now, if there was a guarantee that a court hearing would be held within 48 hours, it might be OK. A hearing in which someone did not have to lawyer up, costing them a lot of money. Really, the state should pay for a lawyer (a good one), since the State too away the accused’s property.

That’s the beginning of a long thread, worth the read.

The problem with red flag laws, like most of the Gun Grabbers agenda, is that they want them because it is a way to start taking away people’s guns. They slowly make them broader and broader. Chuck Schumer is warning McConnell that they best not be tepid.

If crafted correctly, they would be very specific, with little to no ability for executives and bureaucrats to rule make and expand. Here’s the law, here’s how it works, don’t go further, no mission creep. Period. If you want to change the law, it should require a 2/3rds majority to change it. Seriously, some people shouldn’t have firearms, just like some shouldn’t be allowed to drive. They’ve forfeited their Right through their own actions.

Now, though, consider, does a red flag law belong at the national level? On the surface it seems like something that states should do, right? But, the 2nd Amendment is a federal thing. Who better to implement than the U.S. Congress? And, get this: if one is passed, that is the law of the land. It would set the standard, and mean that states and municipalities cannot go further than the national red flag law. Liberals told us this when we were debating Arizona’s illegal alien law, SB1070, which was stronger than federal law. They all said that that was not allowed! So, trying to make any red flag law stronger than the federal one would nip that in the bud, putting gun grabbing states on notice that they cannot use red flag laws for backdoor confiscation gun grabbing.

Read: Marco Rubio, Rick Scott, Mitch McConnell All Hot To Pass Red Flag Laws »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Current Affairs | 46 Comments | Trackback URL

Open Borders Advocates Upset Over Deported Iraqi Man Who Died

By William Teach August 9, 2019 – 2:19 pm

People commit crimes all the time and are forced to pay the penalty. Being in the U.S. unlawfully is also, get this, a crime, for which the basic penalty is deportation. It doesn’t matter how long you were here, you aren’t authorized. But, sure, we can have some compassion. The media and the Open Borders Advocates are freaking over this story, but, you have to read deep, well beyond where most have moved to a different story after being Outrage, to find something interesting

Iraqi man dies after Trump administration deports him

A 41-year-old Detroit man deported to Iraq in June died Tuesday, according to the American Civil Liberties Union and two people close to the man’s family.

The man, Jimmy Aldaoud, spent most of his life in the U.S., but was swept up in President Donald Trump’s intensified immigration enforcement efforts.

Edward Bajoka, an immigration attorney who described himself as close to Aldaoud’s family, wrote on Facebook that the death appeared to be linked to the man’s inability to obtain insulin in Baghdad to treat his diabetes. Aldaoud was an Iraqi national, but he was born in Greece and came to the U.S. as a young child, his family friend said. He had never lived in Iraq and did not speak Arabic, according to Bajoka.

“Rest In Peace Jimmy,” Bajoka wrote. “Your blood is on the hands of ICE and this administration.”

Huh. On Trump’s hands, not Obama’s?

The battle over the fate of Iraqis with final orders of removal began shortly after Trump took office.

The government of Iraq in 2017 agreed to accept deportees after previously refusing to cooperate with repatriations. Reuters reported at the time that the concession was part of an agreement to remove Iraq from the list of restricted countries in Trump’s original travel ban.

Said final deportation order occurred under Obama. Further, in almost the last paragraph

According to the ACLU and a POLITICO search of court records, Aldaoud had a criminal conviction for disorderly conduct and served 17 months for a home invasion.

If you’re in the country illegally, or even here under temporary refugee status or something similar, you get deported when you commit a crime which puts you in jail for 17 months. If someone was applying for citizenship and did this, they’d have that status revoked and ordered out. You feel bad for Bajoka, but, this was all on him. Not on ICE, not on Trump. There are penalties for breaking the law.

Read: Open Borders Advocates Upset Over Deported Iraqi Man Who Died »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 9, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible carbon pollution infused can of beer, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 90Ninety Miles From Tyranny, with a post on the Mystery Box.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Suddenly In Favor Of Doxxing Campaign Contributors

By William Teach August 9, 2019 – 10:26 am

As long as they are Republican contributors, of course. Now, it’s not hard to find out who has donated to campaigns, especially the big contributors. You can get this information from Open Secrets, among others. It’s public record. But, to use that data to “shame” and harass is disturbing, and along comes to the NY Times Editorial Board

May the SoulCycle Boycott Make Democracy Better
Stunts like Joaquin Castro’s upstage a real concern: Americans should want to know more about who funds political campaigns.

That’s an interesting take in the subhead, since this same paper had exactly zero interest in knowing who was donating to Mr. Obama’s campaigns, especially when he had no safeguards to stop foreigners from donating through credit card. Nor are they interested in broadcasting how so many Democrats receive money from people who live in far away states.

It has been an unsettling week for some of President Trump’s political contributors.

On Tuesday, it was revealed that Stephen Ross, the billionaire real estate developer whose firm owns SoulCycle and Equinox gym, was hosting a big-money fund-raiser in support of Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign and the Republican National Committee on Friday, with ticket prices running as high as $250,000. This news did not sit well with many patrons of Equinox and SoulCycle, who took to social media to call for a boycott.

Lower down the donor ladder, 44 residents of San Antonio who had contributed the maximum legal amount to Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign found themselves in the spotlight, after their names were tweeted out on Monday by Representative Joaquin Castro, Democrat of Texas, who declared himself “Sad to see so many” of his constituents “fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders.’”

Unsettling? An elected politician, tasked with being a public servant, called for harassment of those contributors. Any violence that ensues will be on Castro’s head.

Public shaming seemed to be at the core of Mr. Castro’s tweet as well, though the outcry from Republican officials was much louder. The Texas congressman was accused of “inviting harassment” and “encouraging violence against” his own constituents. “People should not be personally targeted for their political views,” warned Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, noting that he knew “firsthand” that “lives are at stake.” (Mr. Scalise was shot by an apparently politically motivated gunman in 2017.) Donald Trump Jr. equated Mr. Castro’s tweet with the “hit list” kept by the perpetrator of Sunday’s mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio. There were calls for Mr. Castro to resign, and the hashtag #ImpeachJoaquinCastro trended on Twitter. (Note: Constitutionally speaking, impeaching House members is not a thing.)

But, in NY Times World

There is rich irony in Republican self-righteousness about public attacks on people’s political donations. Prominent Republicans routinely assert that the billionaire George Soros, a major donor to progressive candidates and causes, secretly controls the Democratic Party. Mr. Trump and his supporters spent over a year publicly smearing members of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s team as “13 angry Democrats,” based on their voter registrations or political giving, or both.

Perhaps the NY Times might investigate those links. They’re happy to rail against the Koch brothers. But, this is just an attempt to normalize the doxxing of political contributors for harassment.

As with all political tactics, there is also a high risk of escalation, to the point where each side routinely sics the dark furies of social media on their opponents’ donors.

Yet, the NYTEB is not castigating Castro for doing what he did.

And now this

https://twitter.com/OratioLiberum/status/1159540234780123137

Read: NY Times Suddenly In Favor Of Doxxing Campaign Contributors »

Posted in Journalistic Malpractice, Politics | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Germany To Tax Sausage To Fight ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach August 9, 2019 – 6:51 am

Want to get the German people to rise up, revolt, and put a stop to the climate change scam? This might be it. They had the yellow vests in France, would they be the pink vests in Germany?

Wurst Idea Ever? Germany to Tax Sausages to Fight Climate Change

German legislators have proposed raising the sales tax on meat from seven percent to 19 percent to fight climate change and improve animal welfare.

Research has shown that greenhouse gas emissions from livestock account for a higher percentage of total global emissions than the world’s 1.2 billion automobiles, a fact underscored by some German Greens who are pushing for higher meat taxes,

A United Nations report from 2012 found that the earth’s cattle population generates more carbon dioxide than automobiles, planes, and all other forms of transport combined. Moreover, the cow pies they deposit and the wind they break produce a third of the world’s methane emissions, considered 20 times more detrimental to the environment. (snip)

The idea of raising meat taxes would be to reduce livestock numbers — as well as their gaseous output — by discouraging people from eating meat.

Last June, Germany’s Green party vowed to ban industrial farming to reduce global warming if it ever were to come to power.

The measure was proposed by Katrin Goering-Eckardt, the party’s leader in the Germany parliament, as part of a massive €100 billion project to finance climate initiatives.

Or, they could just mind their own business and leave people alone. Because you don’t hear about these same elected representatives giving up their meat consumption, do you? And it is interesting that they love going to taxes, taking more money out of people’s pockets, eh?

Read: Germany To Tax Sausage To Fight ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove