Say, How Often Are Background Checks, Red Flags, And Assault Rifles Involved In Mass Shootings?

By William Teach August 27, 2019 – 10:56 am

Good on John Woolfolk of the Mercury News to do actual research

Mass shootings: How often were background checks, assault weapons and red flags a factor?

In the wake of three deadly shootings in Gilroy, Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas, Congress is being pressured to consider a trio of gun laws — already used in California and other states — designed to keep weapons out of the hands of potential killers.

But would universal background checks, red flag laws and a ban of assault weapons reduce the bloodshed? This news organization looked at three years worth of recent active shooter incidents from 2016 through 2018 compiled by the FBI to see how often they involved background check loopholes, disturbing “red flag” signals from the shooter beforehand, and military-style assault weapons.

In more than two-thirds of the 75 cases reviewed, the shooters telegraphed their troubled state on social media, in remarks or messages to friends or family or with signs of mental illness or distress.

That raises the potential for them to have been disarmed beforehand through red flag laws like those in California and 16 other states. A recent study found 21 cases in which California’s red flag law appears to have headed off threatened mass shootings since it was enacted in 2016. Last week, a Long Beach hotel worker was arrested after a co-worker told police he threatened to shoot up the place, and a teenage girl in Orlando was arrested after her threats to shoot people at her sister’s school were reported.

But, do the people who are giving the ability to file a red flag see this information? The Dayton shooter’s mom did, but she did not report his actual name. Red Flag laws, if done properly could work, especially if they included the ability to charge someone who falsely reports it.

In nearly a third of the cases, military-style assault weapons banned in California and six other states were used, though the shooters often had other types of guns too. Most used ordinary pistols, shotguns and rifles.

So, even though banned in California, they were still used. But what of the other 2/3rds? Will the gun grabbers demand that they be banned, too?

The review found that guns were obtained in a variety of ways. Most of the shooters either legally bought weapons and passed background checks or used a gun that was stolen or belonged to a relative or friend.

Hmm, so enhanced background checks wouldn’t work? How about that? All they’d do would be create a database of who owns what, the easier to confiscate.

It’s a long read that delves into all three, worth the read.

Here’s an idea: go hard on people who use a firearm in the commission of a crime. Go hard on those who unlawfully possess one.

Read: Say, How Often Are Background Checks, Red Flags, And Assault Rifles Involved In Mass Shootings? »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Current Affairs | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Comrade Bernie’s ‘Climate Change’ Plan Will Require Nationalization Of U.S. Energy Production

By William Teach August 27, 2019 – 8:19 am

It may seem like beating a dead horse on Comrade Bernie’s version of the Green New Deal, but, it’s important to keep exposing this kind of stuff, which is generally believed by a lot of Democrats, and which shows that this whole schtick is more about Big Big Big Government that wanting to solve the climate crisis (scam). This is the type of thing they do in Fascist governments

Bernie Sanders indicates climate plan will require nationalization of US energy production

The “Green New Deal” proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., seeks a complete transition to “energy efficiency” and “sustainable energy” — much of which would be owned and administered by the federal government.

During an appearance on MSNBC Thursday night, Sanders told host Chris Hayes that the U.S. needed an “aggressive” federal approach to producing electricity and nodded after Hayes claimed he proposed a “federal takeover of the whole thing.”

Sanders agreed with Hayes’ assessment that he wanted to create a “Tennessee Valley Authority [TVA] extension for the whole country.” “You can’t nibble around the edges anymore,” Sanders added.

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1164714638703022081

Surprise? Why does it seem that no matter the issue, the answer from Democrats is to empower government with more and more power? Except with abortion, where they want zero government involvement, except to fund them with taxpayer money?

Sanders has claimed that his $16 trillion plan would “pay for itself,” something Heritage Foundation scholar Nick Loris suggested was ridiculous.

“Sanders’ plan would cause energy prices to skyrocket, bankrupting families and businesses and empowering the federal government to control America’s energy economy,” he said in a statement provided to Fox News. “And what would we get for it? A change in the earth’s temperature that’s barely measurable. The Green New Deal isn’t a ‘climate thing’ at all. Turns out it’s a green-glossed Trojan horse designed to increase government control over the economy.”

And, since these people would then be getting lots of “help” from the Central Government, they would then be more beholden, and would vote for the party that keeps the money train rolling. Funny how that works.

Read: Comrade Bernie’s ‘Climate Change’ Plan Will Require Nationalization Of U.S. Energy Production »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Democrats, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Poll: 22% Of Democrats Are Super Excited For Medicare For All!

By William Teach August 27, 2019 – 8:10 am

Of the things that Democrats are running on, Medicare For All, or some form of single payer, is huge in their talking points, especially for the 365 running for president. Many are yammering about getting rid of private insurance. How’s that working out?

Poll: Only 22 Percent of Democrats Prefer Medicare for All

Only 22 percent of Democrat voters want to eliminate private health insurance in favor of a Medicare for All system, according to a poll released Monday.

A Monmouth University poll released Monday found that many Democrat voters remain uneasy about eliminating America’s private health insurance system in favor of the single-payer Medicare for All system.

Twenty-two percent of Democrats said that they would want to eliminate private insurance for Medicare for All when asked what healthcare policy they prefer.

Fifty-three percent of Democrats prefer a system to either allow Americans to opt into Medicare or keep their private coverage, seven percent want to keep private insurance for those under age 65 but “regulate the costs,” and 11 percent want to keep the private insurance system under Obamacare as is.

Monmouth then polled Democrats who selected the option for either allowing Americans to opt into Medicare whether they would want to move to a private health insurance system.

Of those Democrats that they would prefer a system where Americans could opt into Medicare, 18 percent said they would want to move to Medicare for All-style system eventually, 33 percent said there should always be a private health insurance option, two percent said that they did not know, and 21 percent said that there should be no minor changes after they allow for a Medicare opt-in option.

So, it’s not all bad, but, again, most of the big wigs in the Democrat primary standings have said at some point that they want to do away with private insurance.

A recent poll found that 64 percent of battleground state voters prefer lowering healthcare costs over universal healthcare access.

So, essentially, Medicare for All is not a position that will help them in the general election. Keep running on this, Democrats!

Read: Poll: 22% Of Democrats Are Super Excited For Medicare For All! »

Posted in Democrats, Healthcare | 24 Comments | Trackback URL

Liberals Seem Upset That Conservative Groups Using Same Media Matters Created Targeting Template

By William Teach August 26, 2019 – 4:34 pm

Liberals are never happy when people use the same methods back at liberals, eh?

Trump Allies Targeting Journalists Are Following Media Matters Template: NY Times

New York Times media reporter Jeremy Peters appeared on Morning Joe on Monday morning and discussed a stunning report he co-authored with Ken Vogel that detailed how a networks of Trump allies are digging up negative information on journalists critical of President Donald Trump.

The report claimed that a network of conservatives allied with the White House is pursuing an aggressive operation designed to discredit news organizations that are deemed hostile to the president by publicizing damaging information about journalists. Citing four sources familiar with the plan, the report found that the group has compiled dossiers of potentially embarrassing social media posts and other public statements by hundreds of people who work at some of the country’s most prominent news organizations. The research is said to extend to members of journalists’ families who are active in politics as well as liberal activists and other political opponents of the president.

From the report:

The operation has compiled social media posts from Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, and stored images of the posts that can be publicized even if the user deletes them, said the people familiar with the effort. One claimed that the operation had unearthed potentially “fireable” information on “several hundred” people.

Media Matters and other leftist outlets, and the Credentialed Media, have been doing this for quite some time against Republicans

MSNBC host Joe Scarbrough asked how this effort is any different from controversial and partisan media watchdogs like the progressive Media Matters or the conservative Newsbusters. “How is this different from what say Media Matters has been doing for quite some time and what NewsBusters has been doing in defense of Donald Trump?”

Peters replied that the reported effort is “not really all that much different,” adding that “in fact the people we spoke to, we interviewed them for the story, kind of uncovering the depth of this here told us that their template was Media Matters and kind of this exhaustive — basically what’s called opposition research that people do all the time.”

But, see, again, these are Trump supporting groups doing this against Democrats, including in the Credentialed Media, so, they are saying that doing this is out of bounds. Even though Liberal groups, and the media, do it all the time.

Peters added that the difference is that “it’s being deployed against very low-level people in a lot of cases,” adding “if you look at what these guys have uncovered here and who it’s hurt its low-level journalists at places like CNN. A photo editor who had nothing to do with the coverage of Donald Trump. Media Matters would do after big targets at Fox News, the anchors like Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson. These guys that we have investigated here for our piece here will go after anybody no matter how low level or irrelevant to the coverage of American politics.”

Except, the media and these leftist groups do, in fact, go after small people. They are upset that they’re getting exposed using the same methods.

https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1165814378354155520

Read: Liberals Seem Upset That Conservative Groups Using Same Media Matters Created Targeting Template »

Posted in Democrats, Wonky Media | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 26, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible evil road used to move fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Hogewash, with a post noting that the easiest way to discredit the NY Times is to quote the NY Times.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Yet Another Court Rules That Obama’s “Waters Of The U.S.” Rule Is Unlawful

By William Teach August 26, 2019 – 10:30 am

The Waters Of The Unites States is one of the worst rules to come from the Obama administration, and that’s saying quite a bit

Obama sees his legacy dying one issue at a time

(Legal Insurrection) Back in 2015, we covered the Obama administration’s far-reaching Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Rule and the pushback it received at the time.  States’ suits are making their way through the courts, and there is good news to report!

U.S. District Judge Lisa Godbey Wood has handed a victory to the state of Georgia and nine other states that sued the federal government (and to the rest of the nation) by declaring that the  WOTUS Rule is unlawful.

Wood stated that the rule, which was intended to provide better protection of the nation’s water, violated the Clean Water Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, and she remanded it back to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers for further work.

She wrote that while the agencies have authority to interpret the phrase “waters of the United States,” that authority isn’t limitless, and therefore their decisions in doing so do not fall under what’s called Chevron deference, a matter of case law in which — for lack of a better phrase — the tie goes to the agency.

Legal Insurrection readers may recall that implementation of the rule led to a Wyoming farmer being fined $37,500 a day for constructing a stock pond on his own property.

The Trump administration had scuttled the rule back on January of this year, but, of course, was then faced with tons of lawsuits by the Big Government type groups who are happy for the Central Government to control every bit of water in the U.S.A. Regardless, remanding it back to the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers means little, because the rule was killed, but, this ruling by Judge Wood will make it harder for the unhinged Authoritarian leaning “environmental” groups to stop the full kill-off of the rule.

Read: Yet Another Court Rules That Obama’s “Waters Of The U.S.” Rule Is Unlawful »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs, Enviroweenies | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Sad: Washington Post Says Comrade Bernie’s Plan Will Take Us Nowhere

By William Teach August 26, 2019 – 8:14 am

When your plan is so far to the loony side that you’ve even lost the Washington Post Editorial Board

Bernie Sanders’s climate plan will take us nowhere

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-Vt.) released a climate plan last week. In his characteristic style, he excited a class of left-wing ideologues — and elicited eye rolls from everyone else.

The proposal calls for $16.3 trillion in new spending over a decade to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in electricity production and transportation by 2030 — nearly 10 times the amount former vice president and fellow Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has proposed spending. By 2050, the country would no longer produce net greenhouse gas emissions. At least this latter goal is right. So much else in the plan is wrongheaded.

(a couple paragraphs discussing the idiotic plan, including stopping all future nuclear plants and getting rid of existing ones)

As with practically every grandiose program Mr. Sanders proposes, we are left wondering what the democratic socialist would actually do as president. Nothing resembling his climate plan could pass Congress, even with a strong Democratic majority. Mr. Sanders typically retorts that he will lead a political revolution. But he will not change the fact that the nation is ideologically pluralistic.

On climate policy, the key is to get the most bang for the nation’s buck. The task is so large that direct government spending on projects such as power plants is a recipe for unconscionable waste. Mr. Sanders’s promise to divert national wealth into proven boondoggles such as high-speed rail is another red flag.

The entire thing is a red flag.

No central planner can know exactly how and where to invest for an efficient and effective energy transition. That is why economists continue to recommend that the government take a simple, two-pronged approach: invest in scientific research and prime the market to accept new, clean technologies with a substantial and steadily rising carbon tax. People and businesses would find the most effective ways to avoid the increasingly high, tax-inflated costs of using dirty fuels. Maybe that would mean building huge new solar farms throughout the country. Maybe it would mean massive energy efficiency gains driven by home retrofits or new appliances. Maybe it would mean continuing to accept some role for nuclear power.

We do not know, precisely, what the most efficient path looks like. We are also certain that Mr. Sanders does not.

Even the climate cultists on the WPEB know that Comrade Bernie is stark raving mad with this plan, which is more like the central planning from the Soviet Union than anything else. What they are missing, though, is that the hardcores in the Cult are super enthused by the plan, because they do not stop to think, they just react. You know, like the loonies in the Sunrise Movement and the U.S. version of Extinction Rebellion.

Read: Sad: Washington Post Says Comrade Bernie’s Plan Will Take Us Nowhere »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Democrats, Global Warming | Comments Off on Sad: Washington Post Says Comrade Bernie’s Plan Will Take Us Nowhere | Trackback URL

Narrative Busted: Psychiatrist Says Trump Isn’t Mentally Ill, But, It’s Cool To Say He Is

By William Teach August 26, 2019 – 7:50 am

Most are concentrating on this bat guano crazy pronouncement

…which Stelter breezed on by and is offering Excuses. Imagine had a Conservative said something similar about Obama. You can bet it would be a National Discussion today. But, there was something a little more low key from Excitable Allen Frances, that was a bit more important

Former Duke Psychiatrist Admits Trump Isn’t Mentally Ill, But ‘Go With It If It Will Get Him Out Of Office’

Former Duke Chair of Psychiatry Dr. Allen Frances admitted Sunday that President Donald Trump was not mentally ill, but suggested that if using that argument would get Trump removed from office, he would do it.

Frances appeared on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” with Brian Stelter to discuss what he felt were the dangers of declaring Trump mentally unfit — namely, he said, calling Trump “crazy” was an insult to people who do have mental illnesses.

“There is absolutely no doubt that Trump is dangerous,” Frances claimed, arguing that Trump was “dangerous because he’s a bad, evil con man” rather than because he was mentally ill. He then suggested that it would be acceptable to lie about Trump’s mental state if there was a way to use that false narrative to get him out of office.

“I think it’s very clear that he’s dangerous because he’s evil, he’s not dangerous because he’s mentally ill, and the mentally ill argument, if it would get him out of the office, I would say go with it even if it’s inaccurate,” Frances continued. “Anything to get this man out of office. But it won’t work, so piling on inaccuracy, stigma, the press will get people who know nothing about psychiatric diagnosis spouting off at the mouth, it won’t add to the discussion, it will distract from the political stuff and we have to focus on how evil —”

So, lying in the media is fine. Though, consider, he starts to say it won’t work. And

Stelter interrupted but did not push back on Frances’ willingness to lie to push Trump out of office. Instead, he said that he felt there was a need to “connect the dots,” adding, “There is something wrong here when he’s attacking his Federal Reserve chair, misspelling the guy’s name and doing 50 of those things a day. I’m kind of grasping for the language to use around this, but it’s —”

So, Stelter wants to continue to push the narrative. You run with it, media. You run with it.

Read: Narrative Busted: Psychiatrist Says Trump Isn’t Mentally Ill, But, It’s Cool To Say He Is »

Posted in Democrats, Donald Trump, Liberal World | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Reading Festival Slammed For Serving Chicken Nuggets ‘Cause Hotcoldwetdy

By William Teach August 25, 2019 – 3:21 pm

See, Warmists trotting around the world in fossil fueled private jets, such as Bon Jovi and

is OK for climate cultists, who will make Excuses. But, nuggets?

Reading festival accused of ‘hypocrisy’ for giving away free chicken

Organisers of the Reading festival have been accused of hypocrisy for giving away free McDonald’s food while demanding climate change action.

The fast food giant is sending a van to various summer festivals to give away chicken McNuggets.

It has already been to three festivals, but Reading looks set to be the most controversial so far.

Reading, which was last year crowned best festival in the Creative Green Awards, boasts of its green credentials on its website.

“Climate change requires urgent action,” it states. “We can no longer ignore the damaging effects we’re contributing to our planet!”

They’re just nuggets, right?

Extinction Rebellion has been invited to the festival and ticket-holders are asked to bring refillable bottles.

But activists from the Humane League say this is double standards, since giving away meat undermines efforts to tackle climate change, and sends the wrong message in view of advice from the United Nations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the UK’s Committee on Climate Change for the world to cut meat and dairy consumption to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

So, they’ve invited compete wacko nutjob crazy-ass Extinction Rebellion wankers, and, ZOMG, chicken nuggets!

And you can bet a lot of the people whining get nuggets from McDonald’s themselves. Oh, and will take a fossil fueled vehicle to the festival.

Read: Bummer: Reading Festival Slammed For Serving Chicken Nuggets ‘Cause Hotcoldwetdy »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 33 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 25, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a sea that will inundate the land sometime soon!, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Last Tradition, with a post on Joe Walsh who?

It’s legs week!

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove