If All You See…

…are trees dying from carbon pollution in a drying wetland, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Doug Ross @ Journal, with a post on a lawsuit over the Inspector General ignoring Hillary’s hacked server.

Read: If All You See… »

Judge Rules California’s Ban On “Large Capacity Magazines” Un-Constitutional

See, according to gun grabbers, 10 round magazines are safe. 11 rounds are doom

Prop. 63: Federal judge declares California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines unconstitutional

A federal judge on Friday declared unconstitutional a key provision of California’s Proposition 63 that banned possession of high-capacity gun magazines often used in mass shootings, ensuring that the voter-approved prohibition will remain tied up in court for some time to come.

San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote in his 86-page decision, upholding a lawsuit against the proposed ban of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, that such a statute “hits at the center of the Second Amendment and its burden is severe.”

“Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts,” he wrote. (snip)

A 2000 law had already made it illegal for Californians to buy or sell magazines that hold more than 10 cartridges, but it allowed people who already owned them to keep them. Prop. 63, among other provisions which tightened ammo regulations, went a step further by requiring anyone who owned such magazines to turn them in, remake them to comply with the law, or send them out of state.

That law never took effect as it was pending lawsuits, and now the whole scheme about restricting magazine size has been stopped. Expect suits in other states.

In his Friday ruling, the judge cited three home invasions in which women fought against the attackers and, he said, would have been more effective if they’d had higher-capacity gun magazines. He wrote that although mass shootings are “tragic,” they are far less prevalent than robberies, aggravated assaults and homicides in homes — and those more common crimes sometimes require maximum firepower because “unless a law-abiding individual has a firearm for his or her own defense, the police typically arrive after it is too late.

“The size limit (on magazines) directly impairs one’s ability to defend one’s self,” he wrote.

The judge has specifically enjoined California AG Xavier Becerra from enforcing the magazine ban, especially since Becerra attempted to defend the law using ….. articles from Mother Jones, rather than actual studies. The judge rips Becerra for this, going as far as explaining that “this is a federal court.” There’s a good thread at Twitchy from Gabrial Malor, who breaks down the ruling, as it is based on the Supreme Court’s Heller decision

Becerra will surely appeal, though he’ll have to get better material to back up his legal position. And, again, you can bet lawsuits will soon be filed against all states that have magazine bans.

Read: Judge Rules California’s Ban On “Large Capacity Magazines” Un-Constitutional »

You Know That Gorgeous Poppy Superbloom In California? Yeah, It’s All About ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

I’ve mentioned the superbloom of poppies before, in terms of idiots ruining it as they step on all the flowers in a mass inflow of people looking to get their social media photo of themselves, which forced the town to shut visitation down. Heck, you even had some idiot land a helicopter on the poppies to get a selfie (they didn’t, a ranger chased them off, and they are now under investigation). The IAYS photo from yesterday is from the superbloom. A super bloom is not in any way unusual, it happens now and then, just like you’ll all of a sudden see all the trees bloom. But, you know, unhinged Warmists, like Miriam Pawel, who, like most Cult of Climastrology cultists, sees beautiful flowers and screeches “climate change!!!!!!”

California Is Swooning Over a Heavenly Super Bloom of Wildflowers
Exceptional beauty is a welcome respite in a place that has been battered by extreme climate conditions.

Can’t even make it past the subhead

When I first moved to Southern California, I was struck by the Friday afternoon conversations in which colleagues discussed their weekend hiking plans the way New Yorkers would talk about where they might have brunch. Almost everyone hiked, and they were eager to extol the merits of favorite trails.

I soon came to understand that this reflected something larger: the importance of Californians’ relationship with the outdoors. The climate was not a punch line, but a reality that shaped lifestyles. Only after years of reading history did I appreciate the extent to which the natural world has always been intrinsic to California’s identity. (the tweet is not part of the story, just wanted a few gorgeous photos)

So the exuberant embrace of this year’s “super bloom,” an exceptional show of wildflowers coloring normally barren hillsides and desert valleys, makes perfect sense. The wildflower hotlines and daily website updates, the Instagram selfies in poppy fields, the pilgrimages to find the rare ghost flower, represent the latest iteration of traditions that date back to the 19th century, when thousands of hikers took to the Southern California foothills every weekend.

This super bloom has offered a particularly welcome respite, a reminder that the increasingly extreme climate conditions can produce beauty as well as destruction, wondrous golden fields as well as mudslides and wildfires. The conditions necessary to transform millions of long-dormant seeds into an explosion of flowers generally occur about once a decade; they are drought followed by abundant rain, temperatures not too hot and not too cold, and an absence of strong wind. Parts of the state had abundant displays of wildflowers in 2005, and again in 2017, after several years of severe drought had cleared out invasive plants that can choke the delicate flowers. This year’s bloom is more widespread — purple and yellow sprays along freeway medians, golden poppies covering hillsides that glow orange from miles away, and desert valleys filled with dozens of species, some not seen for decades.

See? There’s absolutely nothing unusual about the super bloom, but, it’s still all your fault for daring to drive a fossil fueled vehicle instead of taking the train and eating cow burgers instead of going vegan.

Oh, and the exuberant embrace wasn’t because so many people wanted to be awed by the super bloom: it was because they wanted a narcissistic photo of them there for their Instagram and other social media. Not everyone, mind you. But, they were the ones ruining it for everyone else.

Read: You Know That Gorgeous Poppy Superbloom In California? Yeah, It’s All About ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

AG Barr To Democrats: Everyone Will Get To Read The Mueller Report, Shut Up And Give Us A Minute

Well, AG Barr didn’t actually say shut up, he just implied it. It would be more fun if Barr was more like Trump, then he would have told the Democrats to cool their jets and untwist their granny panties due to the constant whining about releasing the full report

‘Everyone will soon be able to read it,’ Barr says of Mueller report

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report detailing his investigation of President Trump and Russia’s election interference will be delivered to Congress by mid-April, Attorney General William P. Barr said Friday in a letter to lawmakers offering important new details about how the document will be edited before its public release.

“Everyone will soon be able to read it on their own,” Barr wrote.

Barr’s new letter lays out a timeline for the next steps of the hotly-debated process by which Justice Department officials are sharing the nearly 400-page report.

In the letter, Barr said he does not plan to submit the report to the White House for review.

“Although the president would have the right to assert privilege over certain parts of the report, he has stated publicly that he intends to defer to me and, accordingly, there are no plans to submit the report to the White House for a privilege review,” Barr wrote. (snip)

Since that Sunday letter, Democrats have demanded to see Mueller’s full report immediately — and they have threatened to issue a subpoena for the document if they don’t get it by Tuesday.

That second to last paragraph is rather important, as it means there really isn’t anything that will hurt Trump and his team. It means that the full release of the Mueller report will be another Big Letdown for the Russia Russia Russia crowd, though, as Rush always says, don’t doubt me on this, Democrats will seize on the redactions and caterwaul over them. Barr is also offering to testify in front of Congress on it. Democrats are not going to get the Muellermas they thought. If they were smart, they’d just admit defeat and move on. “Russian collusion? What are you talking about? You’re weird.” They won’t.

Meanwhile, at the NY Times we get this piece written by Alexey Kovalev, who is not an NHL player, but a Russian journalist

Russians Always Knew There Was No Collusion

Russians weren’t waiting for Robert Mueller’s report with quite the same excitement as Americans.

Russian state media’s coverage of Donald Trump’s campaign and presidency has vacillated between breathless adoration, mockery and outrage, but one thing has been consistent: The idea of Russia electing and controlling an American president has always been deemed absurd. Most references to the Mueller inquiry and the Trump-Russia story in state media are preceded by a qualifier: “the so-called Russia investigation,” as the prominent TV host Dmitry Kiselyov puts it.

It’s not just the state media that has rejected the idea that Mr. Trump colluded with Russia. Even liberals and opponents of President Vladimir Putin have been deeply skeptical, pointing out that Russia’s ruling circles are barely competent enough to prop themselves up, let alone manipulate a superpower.(snip)

Alexey Pushkov, a former diplomat and a political analyst, tweeted to his 360,000 followers on Tuesday, following the release of Attorney General William Barr’s summary of the report: “The results of Mueller’s investigations are a disgrace to the U.S. and their political elite. It’s now confirmed that all their allegations have been plucked out of thin air. The media have played a shameful role of lie-mongers in a campaign built on lies. The adherents of this conspiracy theory are discredited. Only an idiot can believe them now.”

The rest if good. Of course, collusion conspiracists will say “well, that’s what those involved in collusion would say, wouldn’t they?” Probably starting with Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff.

Read: AG Barr To Democrats: Everyone Will Get To Read The Mueller Report, Shut Up And Give Us A Minute »

UK Warmists Trying To Push Their Own Green New Deal That Is All About Their Modern Socialist Politics

Funny how something that’s supposed to be about solving anthropogenic climate change is all about every other issue Leftist push, as Caroline Lucas, the MP for Brighton Pavilion, holds forth

The answer to climate breakdown and austerity? A green new deal

Faced with unprecedented challenges, politicians appear more divided than ever – that’s why Labour’s Clive Lewis and I are doing something bold. We are jointly tabling a bill in parliament designed to address two of the greatest threats we face – climate breakdown and spiralling inequality. Our bill would introduce a “green new deal” – an unprecedented mobilisation of resources invested to prevent climate breakdown, reverse inequality, and heal our communities. It demands major structural changes in our approach to the ecosystem, coupled with a radical transformation of the finance sector and the economy, to deliver both social justice and a livable planet.

It’s an idea congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has recently reinvigorated in the US. And it could scarcely be more urgent. The UN’s top scientists have warned we have just 11 years to halve global emissions and avoid climate catastrophe. Global wildlife populations have collapsed by nearly 60% in our lifetimes. This has led 1.4 million young people to join the inspiring global school strikes movement to demand change. The response from ministers? To continue to force fracking on local communities, and to hand millions in tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry. Last week, unbelievably, a new coal mine was given a green-light on their watch.

Yes, so reinvigorating that almost every single Democrat Senator voted “present”. The few who didn’t voted against it, and the refuse to vote for it in the House.

The UK is also host to grotesque levels of inequality. More than 4 million children are living in poverty. Two-thirds of the country’s highest earners live in London and the south-east, while northern areas have been hit hardest by austerity and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) says incomes of the poorest 20% fell in 2018. The prime minister’s announcement that austerity is coming to an end was a lie. Benefits for the poorest remain frozen, millions are still struggling to get by on universal credit, and headteachers are still having to cut crucial staff to keep the lights on in our schools.

The response to these crises must be nothing short of a transformation of our economy, our environment and our constituents’ lives.

The green new deal would launch an unprecedented programme of investment in clean energy, warm homes, affordable public transport, sustainable farming, and restored natural habitats – delivering a decent, well-paid job to everyone who wants one. It would force the government to finally start paying attention to once proud communities that have been hollowed out through de-industrialisation and austerity – and empower them to take up the opportunities of new zero-carbon industries. This once-in-a-lifetime government intervention would involve a 10-year strategy to completely and rapidly decarbonise our economy – as well as massively reduce economic inequality.

It is not good enough to tinker with the status quo – we must reprogramme our economy so that it works for everyone. It’s about sharing our country’s wealth fairly and acknowledging that our planet’s finite resources cannot magically regenerate in an instant…

Greater market regulation will be key to tackling the terrifying threat of planetary collapse. We have always known that markets can only thrive if they are managed and accountable to the societies in which they operate. …

Go figure.

Read: UK Warmists Trying To Push Their Own Green New Deal That Is All About Their Modern Socialist Politics »

If All You See…

…is a wonderful wildspace that will soon be turned to dust from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Creeping Sharia, with a post on how Democrats in Pa reacted to reading the opening prayer.

Read: If All You See… »

Surprise: Study Shows Gun Bans Have No Effect On Homicide Rate

Usually, hyper far-left outlets like the Pacific Standard are all for banning guns, even confiscating them. This is an interesting take (but there’s something missing)

THE MOST EFFECTIVE GUN-CONTROL LAWS TARGET WHO BUYS GUNS—NOT WHICH GUNS THEY BUY

Each time there is a mass shooting, activists call for stricter laws regulating firearms. But even legislatures amenable to such actions must decide among a variety of approaches. Which types of laws—or combinations of laws—actually reduce homicides?

New research that analyzes state-level homicide rates over a quarter-century provides some clear answers. Universal background checks and state laws prohibiting handgun possession for people who have committed a violent misdemeanor are associated with meaningful reductions in the homicide rate.

The thing there is, if you punch someone who grabbed your wife’s ass and get charged with simple assault, should you be denied a firearms permit? Should you have your firearms taken by The State? There’s a serious danger in a blanket application when denying people their Constitutional Right. But, yes, certain people should be denied, I think we can agree on that.

On the other hand, “shall issue” laws, which require local law enforcement to issue concealed-carry permits to anyone who qualifies, are associated with a significant increase in homicides.

Interesting. The vast majority of these are people who have already passed background checks

Seven other varieties of gun-control laws, including assault weapons bans and bans of large-capacity ammunition magazines, had no effect on the homicide rate.

“It appears that laws that regulate the ‘what’ [what guns/products are allowed on the market] do not have much of an impact on overall population homicide,” lead author Dr. Michael Siegel of the Boston University School of Public Health writes in a “roadmap for policymakers” that accompanies the study. “In contrast, laws that regulate the ‘who’ [who has legal access to firearms] may have an appreciable impact on firearm homicide, especially if access is restricted specifically to … people who have a history of violence, or represent an imminent threat of violence.”

So, this is a double edged sword. On one hand, we see that regulating firearms doesn’t make a damned bit of difference. On the other, the focus on “who” will certainly lead to calls by the gun grabbers to restrict even more people from their constitutional right.

Also, how are you going to restrict criminals, who are responsible for the vast majority of homicides with firearms?

“Universal background checks were associated with 14.9 percent lower overall homicide rates,” they report. “Violent misdemeanor laws were associated with 18.1 percent lower homicide rates. ‘Shall issue’ laws [requiring police to issue concealed-carry permits] were associated with 9.0 percent higher homicide rates.”

“None of the other seven laws was significantly associated with overall homicide rates,” they add. “This does not necessarily mean these laws are ineffective. It may also be that the laws are not broad enough to affect overall population death rates, or that the laws are not being adequately enforced.”

Of course, in order to have said universal background checks a registry of private property mentioned in the Constitution would be required, and the second paragraph opens the door to cracking down on the “what” even more.

What’s also interesting is that someone was actually able to do a homicide involving firearms study without funding from Congress. Gun grabbers have been whining for years about not being able to get studies done without that funding. Weird, right?

Read: Surprise: Study Shows Gun Bans Have No Effect On Homicide Rate »

Hot Take: White People’s Diets Are Killing The Environment Or Something

Yup, this is all your fault, and if you’re not actually white, you’ll be deemed something like “White Hispanic” or “White Asian” (via Twitchy)

Yum, burger and fries. Makes me think of going to Steak N Shake for lunch, getting the garlic burger (damn, that’s good). Anyhow

White people are already accused of hogging the majority of jobs, film roles, and housing — and now they’re getting blamed for eating up Earth’s natural resources, too.

Caucasian populations are disproportionately contributing to climate change through their eating habits, which uses up more food — and emits more greenhouse gases — than the typical diets of black and Latinx communities, according to a new reportpublished in the Journal of Industrial Ecology.

Researchers tracked information from multiple databases to identify foods considered “environmentally intense” by requiring more precious resources such as water, land and energy to produce — and, as a result, releasing more greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide through production and distribution.

Potatoes, beef, apples and milk are some of the worst offenders.

So, wait, only white people eat and drink those? Huh.

The EPA provided data on per capita food consumption rates for more than 500 foods groups, including water, plus estimates from the NIH on individual diets. Data showed that whites produced an average of 680 kilograms of the CO2 each year, attributable to food and drink, whereas Latinx individuals produced 640 kilograms, and blacks 600.

They also found the diets of white people required 328,000 liters of water on average per year. Latinx used just 307,000 liters, and blacks 311,800. Both black and Latinx individuals used more land per capita with 1,770 and 1,710 square meters per year, respectively, than white people with just 1,550. Nevertheless, white people still made the greatest overall contribution to climate change.

“While the difference may not be enormous, these numbers are per individual, and when you add up all those individuals, it’s very clear that whites are responsible for the majority of greenhouse gases emitted as a result of their food choices,” says Bozeman.

Combining the “science” of climate change with the politics of racial division.

 

Read: Hot Take: White People’s Diets Are Killing The Environment Or Something »

NY Times: Why, Yes, Democrats Really Are Anti-Israel And Anti-Jew

The NY Times’ Nathan Thrall has a long, long, long piece on the politics of the Democrats and Republicans when it comes to Israel, which starts out with a long discussion of how the Democrats were drafting their 2016 platform. The Hillary folks were sympathetic towards Israel, arguing against much of the toxic language against Israel and against the BDS movement so popular with the Leftist base. The Sanders folks, though, were very much for slamming Israel to the point of moving from being anti-Israel to being anti-Jew, which so often happens when people start down the road of slamming Israel and taking the side of the Palestinians

How the Battle Over Israel and Anti-Semitism Is Fracturing American Politics

….

Democrats and Republicans reported similar levels of sympathy for Israel from the late 1970s until the early 2000s. But in the past decade, a series of polls by the Pew Research Center show, a yawning gap has opened between the parties, with nearly three times as many Republicans as Democrats expressing more sympathy for Israel than for the Palestinians. These changes are driven, in part, by demographic trends. More than one-quarter of voters in the midterm election were white evangelicals, who, together with Jews, are the most pro-Israel religious group in the country, and who since the 1970s have largely supported the Republican Party. At the same time, some of the least pro-Israel groups — black people and Hispanics and the religiously unaffiliated, according to a 2018 Pew survey — have become a larger share of Democratic voters. Many blacks and Hispanics draw strong parallels between the discrimination they have suffered at home and the plight of Palestinians. As the Democratic Party is pulled toward a more progressive base and a future when a majority of the party will most likely be people of color, tensions over Israel have erupted.

In the past several months, a fierce debate over American support for Israel has periodically dominated the news cycle and overshadowed the Democrats’ policymaking agenda. In January, Republicans introduced a bill — the Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act of 2019 — backing legislation adopted in more than two dozen states that denies state contracts to or bars state investments with American individuals or groups who support boycotts of Israel or who refuse to sign oaths affirming they will not boycott Israel. Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, a freshman Palestinian-American and one of two Muslim congresswomen, tweeted that the bill’s sponsors “forgot what country they represent.” A month later, Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, a freshman Somali-American who is the other Muslim congresswoman, tweeted that American politicians’ defense of Israel was “all about the Benjamins” — $100 bills — and later added that she was referring to the political influence of Aipac. As the furor grew, she apologized and deleted the tweet. A few weeks later, the storm over her remarks still raging, Omar said at a panel of progressive lawmakers, including Tlaib, that she wanted “to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is O.K. for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”

In the face of widespread criticism of Omar for wittingly or unwittingly deploying anti-Semitic tropes about “dual loyalty” and Jewish money controlling United States policy, Democratic leaders announced they were working on a resolution condemning anti-Semitism. But in response to objections from progressive lawmakers and members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who argued that Omar was singled out because she was a woman of color, the draft resolution was revised to condemn not just anti-Semitism but also anti-Muslim discrimination, upsetting some Jewish Democrats. The following day, President Trump told reporters: “The Democrats have become an anti-Israel party. They’ve become an anti-Jewish party.”

Again, what we see is that the attempts to slam Israel lead to anti-Semitism. This is rampant on many, many college campuses, where the BDS movement takes on a decidedly pro-Palestinian tone, and then the sympathies for the Palestinians (who lost the wars they started) turn towards hatred of Jews.

In 2018, the Pew Research Center conducted a poll of more than 1,500 Americans. Among Democrats who self-identified as liberal, nearly twice as many said they sympathized more with the Palestinians than with Israel. In 2016, a University of Maryland poll found that 60 percent of Democrats supported economic sanctions or taking more serious action in response to new Israeli settlements.

You can’t sympathize with terrorist and terrorist enablers and not end up hating Jews.

Members of the Democratic Party’s progressive activist base, by contrast, find themselves light years from their representatives in Washington. The Movement for Black Lives, the racial-justice coalition that includes the Black Lives Matter network, has called for supporting divestment campaigns with the goal of ending American military aid to Israel; the Democratic Socialists of America has endorsed B.D.S. Kate Gould, a lobbyist for the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker group dedicated to peace, justice and environmental stewardship, told me that generally even progressive members of Congress frame development aid for the Palestinians merely as help for people who are suffering. There is rarely any acknowledgment, she says, “that they are suffering because we are funding their oppression. Hello! You do know that we are funding the occupation?”

You used to have college kids running around with kiffeyahs on, scarfs worn by Palestinians for the Intifada, a terrorist action against Israel. Those kids are now adults and part of all these hardcore leftist groups, even leaders in them. And they’re bringing their Israel hatred turned Jew hatred views to the Democratic Party mainstream.

There is a lot more to the article. A lot. Worth the read. Further, we cannot assign anti-Israel nor anti-Jew beliefs to all Democrat, let’s be clear. Even some who want to be a little tougher on Israel are not necessarily anti-Israel. But, the movement is getting larger and more overt in the Democrat party as the younger crowd gets involved.

Read: NY Times: Why, Yes, Democrats Really Are Anti-Israel And Anti-Jew »

High Flying Mary Robinson Calls Climate Denial “Malign And Evil

Mary Robinson is an Irish Independent politician who served as the seventh President of Ireland, becoming the first woman to hold this office. She also served as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights from 1997 to 2002, as well as being involved with the #climatechangescam for quite some time, both as the Pres of Ireland and her work through the United Nations. She also takes lots and lots of fossil fueled flights around the world to push her ‘climate change’ views, which would make her a “climate delayer“. Here she is ramping up the climacrazy (via Watts Up With That?)

Climate change denial is evil, says Mary Robinson

The denial of climate change is not just ignorant, but “malign and evil”, according to Mary Robinson, because it denies the human rights of the most vulnerable people on the planet.

The former UN high commissioner for human rights and special envoy for climate change also says fossil fuel companies have lost their social licence to explore for more coal, oil and gas and must switch to become part of the transition to clean energy.

Robinson will make the outspoken attack on Tuesday, in a speech to the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew in London, which has awarded her the Kew International Medal for her “integral work on climate justice”.

Robinson is chair of the Elders, an independent group of global leaders founded by Nelson Mandela that works for human rights. She will say in her speech: “I believe that climate change denial is not just ignorant, it is malign, it is evil, and it amounts to an attempt to deny human rights to some of the most vulnerable people on the planet.”

“The evidence about the effects of climate change is incontrovertible, and the moral case for urgent action indisputable,” she will say.

Virtually no one denies that the climate has changed, going from a Holocene cool period to a warm one. The disagreement is on causation. Hell, even if we agreed on causation, ie, that it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind, we’d disagree on actions to resolve this, which, yet again, the Warmists like Mary want massive taxation and fees, along with governmental control of everything, from our individual lives to companies to religious institutions to the energy companies and the entire economy. Hence why they have to attempt to scare people into giving up their freedom and money with insane yammerings like the above.

Read: High Flying Mary Robinson Calls Climate Denial “Malign And Evil »

Pirate's Cove