More Than Four Million Schoolkids Subjected To Lockdowns Because They’re Gun Free Zones

This is all about the anti-gun narrative

More than 4 million students participated in lockdowns over 2017-18 school year: report

More than 4 million school students in the United States participated in lockdowns during the 2017-2018 school year, according to a new Washington Post analysis on school safety.

According to the analysis, 4.1 million students had to participate in at least one school lockdown during the school year, and on average 16 campuses per day across the U.S. were placed on lockdown. There was not a single day between Labor Day of 2017 and Memorial Day 2018 without a lockdown, according to The Post.

Of those lockdowns, 15 percent were reportedly due to bomb threats, while 61 percent were related to firearms.

Many times there was no actual gun, just someone freaking out about what they thought was a gun. And since schools are gun free zones everyone is worried that some nutjob will come in and shoot the place up. Because there is no one to stop them.

Reading the actual Washington Post article, you come away with an impression that many of the lockdowns are caused  by rumors, fearmongering on social media, and perceived danger, not actual real danger. Also, a lot of these occur in Democrat run areas with heavy crime, where gun fire and what they think is gun fire occurs in the neighborhood around the school.

The Post notes that the number of students who participated in lockdowns is larger than the combined populations of Maine, Rhode Island, Delaware and Vermont. As the first study of its kind, there is currently no comparable data on lockdown frequency from past school years.

Wait, if the populations of those states are that small then we should be taking away one senator from each, according to Democrat talking points, right?

The study comes at the end of a year dominated by debate over gun control laws and school safety, after February’s school shooting in Parkland, Fla., refocused the nation’s attention to the issue.

Perhaps we can discuss why the law enforcement in Parkland failed to go in to stop the nutter. And why so many levels of government failed in noting that the Parkland shooter was a raving nutjob beforehand, and that all the signs were there.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who is expected to return as Speaker in the next Congress, has promised that gun control will be a priority under the newly elected Democratic majority. Democratic lawmakers have floated legislation ranging from universal background checks to an assault weapons ban in the wake of recent shootings.

They’ll just highlight that they want to disarm law abiding citizens. Over to a quote from the WP article

While most kids won’t suffer long-term consequences, experts who specialize in childhood trauma suspect that a meaningful percentage will.

“This is a clear and pressing public health issue,” said Steven Schlozman, a child psychiatrist and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, after learning of The Post’s findings, which he called “staggering.”

And this is how they’ll attack the rights of law abiding citizens: for the children. And the article leans heavily on this. The gun grabbers will do anything to take away Other People’s guns. Just not those of the actual criminals.

Read: More Than Four Million Schoolkids Subjected To Lockdowns Because They’re Gun Free Zones »

Trump Imperils The Planet Due To ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

Funny, when Mr. Obama was traveling all over the nation constantly, and the world, in fossil fueled airplanes, taking constant vacations and seemingly heading to the west coast for fundraisers every other week, when his family, and even the dog, traveled in separate airplanes, the planet was fine. Now, though, the NY Times editorial board, featuring confirmed racist Sarah Jeong, is Very Upset

Trump Imperils The Planet

It’s hard to believe but it was only three years ago this month — just after 7 p.m., Paris time, Dec. 12, to be precise — that delegates from more than 190 nations, clapping and cheering, whooping and weeping, rose to celebrate the Paris Agreement — the first genuinely collective response to the mounting threat of global warming. It was a largely aspirational document, without strong legal teeth and achieved only after contentious and exhausting negotiations. But for the first time in climate talks stretching back to 1992, it set forth specific, numerical pledges from each country to reduce emissions so that together they could keep atmospheric temperatures from barreling past a point of no return.

Two weeks ago, delegates met at a follow-up conference in Katowice, Poland, to address procedural questions left unsettled in Paris, including common accounting mechanisms and greater transparency in how countries report their emissions. In this the delegates largely succeeded, giving rise to the hope, as Brad Plumer put it in The Times, that “new rules would help build a virtuous cycle of trust and cooperation among countries, at a time when global politics seems increasingly fractured.”

But otherwise it was a hugely dispiriting event and a fitting coda to one of the most discouraging years in recent memory for anyone who cares about the health of the planet — a year marked by President Trump’s destructive, retrograde policies, by backsliding among big nations, by fresh data showing that carbon dioxide emissions are still going up, by ever more ominous signs (devastating wildfires and floods, frightening scientific reports) of what a future of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions is likely to bring. (snip)

Wells Griffith, Mr. Trump’s international energy and climate adviser, managed in one quote to summarize the dismissiveness of the American delegation and its fealty to the president’s apparently unshakable conviction that anything that helps the environment must inevitably hurt the economy. “The United States has an abundance of natural resources and is not going to keep them in the ground,” he said. “We strongly believe that no country should have to sacrifice their economic prosperity or energy security in pursuit of environmental sustainability.” The administration is full of zero-sum philosophers like Mr. Griffith. The idea that sustainability may be a necessary condition of future economic growth appears never to have crossed their minds.

The NY Times, which uses vast amounts of fossil fuels to gather and disseminate the news, seems a bit upset.

Further depressing the proceedings were recent defections and political troubles in countries that, along with the United States, had been expected to lead the way to a low-carbon energy future. Germany, which long ago walked away from carbon-free nuclear power, is having a hard time cutting back on coal because of political opposition. In Australia, a prime minister was kicked out of office because he wanted to reduce the use of coal, which Australia produces in abundance. China, despite admirably aggressive investments in wind and solar power, has yet to get a firm grip on its emissions from coal-fired plants. The new president-elect of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, not only named an outspoken climate-change denier as his foreign minister but also, reversing his predecessors’ policy, pledged to open up the Amazon to mining and farming. This will threaten biodiversity in one of the world’s great rain forests while crippling its ability to act as a sink for carbon emissions.

In other words, nations are realizing that we can’t just wish away the use of reliable, low cost coal and other fossil fuels for the pie in the sky “green energy” sources. When will the Times get all its power from solar and wind?

No country’s backsliding, of course, compares with Mr. Trump’s. Determined to demolish President Barack Obama’s entire climate strategy, Mr. Trump has in the past year replaced Mr. Obama’s clean-power plan, which was aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, with an essentially useless substitute that would emit 12 times the pollution envisaged by the Obama plan. He has proposed weakening a major Obama regulation requiring automakers to nearly double the fuel economy of passenger vehicles by 2025. (This rollback, The Times reported this month, came after a lot of whining by oil interests, not, as one might suspect, from the auto companies, which had accepted the challenge.) And the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department have taken multiple steps to roll back Obama-era efforts to control emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas many times more powerful than carbon dioxide. These three programs formed the basis of Mr. Obama’s pledge at the 2015 Paris meeting to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

Mr. Obama’s pledge, not the pledge of the United States of America, as it was never meant to be anything that the duly elected lawmakers would vote on. Don’t forget, Obama’s Clean Power Plan was still stuck in court, and was never implemented.

The bottom line, according to the Global Carbon Project, is that after three years in which emissions remained largely flat, global levels of carbon dioxide increased by 1.6 percent in 2017 and are on pace to jump by 2.7 percent this year. Some scientists have likened the increase in emissions to a “speeding freight train.” That has a lot to do with economic growth. It also has a lot to do with not moving much faster to less carbon-intensive ways of powering that growth. Or in Mr. Trump’s case, moving in the opposite direction.

See? We’re doomed! Except, of course, that America’s carbon footprint has actually gone down, while a goodly chunk of the nations which are still in the Paris Climate Agreement are seeing their own CO2 output go up up up. But, hey, Trump lives rent free in the head of every Warmist.

The planet will be just fine.

Read: Trump Imperils The Planet Due To ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Trump Visits Iraq, Media Find Ways To Complain, Including Over Melania’s Shoes

And the Credentialed Media wonders why Trump battles with them?

Fake News: NBC Spreads False Claim President Trump Did Not Visit Troops at ‘Christmastime’

NBC News and a variety of other media outlets falsely reported that President Donald Trump did not visit U.S. troops in a combat zone during Christmastime. NBC has yet to retract its demonstrably fake headline, and has left the fake story up on its website as of publication of this article.

On Wednesday afternoon, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed that President Trump and first lady Melania Trump made a surprise secret Christmas visit to U.S. troops in Iraq.

It is customary for the White House to be secretive when it comes to presidential travel to war-torn areas and active combat zones. The White House did not confirm the trip until mid-afternoon on Wednesday.

In the White House press pool report from Time Magazine’s Brian Bennett, filed from Iraq, he notes that the president left the White House late on Christmas night and arrived in Iraq on Wednesday.

The troops loved Trump being with them in Iraq, and having Melania there even more. Thunderous applause. Of course, the news media got all jiggy wit it, as the above article delves deeper. We even have Brit Hume causing Soledad O’Brien to meltdown over her time traveling tweet on Trump in Iraq.

But here’s where it gets more fun, with multiple outlets running articles on Melania’s shoes

Melania Trump gets mocked for wearing Timberland boots while visiting the troops

Melania Trump made a surprise trip to Iraq on Wednesday with her husband President Donald Trump to meet with American troops stationed at Al Asad Air Base.

For the visit, which was unscheduled, Melania broke first lady precedent by traveling to an active combat zone. To take selfies with soldiers and speak military members, FLOTUS wore a suede mustard belted blouse with dark green pants.

It’s Melania’s shoe choice that really stood out though. The Timberland boots are being called an “out of touch” style selection by some on Twitter.

Seriously, people have issues with everything, as we all know. But major media outlets watching people be Upset and Outraged by Melania wearing Timberland boots and writing actual articles is the height of idiocy. This semi-literate tweet explains the Upsetness

Apparently, only black people are allowed to rock some Timbs. And the media is there to attempt to create a Narrative of raaaaacism.

Read: Trump Visits Iraq, Media Find Ways To Complain, Including Over Melania’s Shoes »

1.6 Million Sign Petition To Sue French Government Over ‘Climate Change’

Apparently, they missed all the people rioting in the streets over the French government jacking up their cost of living

More than 1.6M sign petition to sue France over climate

More than 1.6 million people have signed an online petition to take the French state to court for not doing enough to fight climate change.

Greenpeace, Oxfam and two French environmental groups launched the petition last week. Their signature drive received exceptional support in just a few days, including from film stars Marion Cotillard and Juliette Binoche.

Greenpeace France director Jean-Francois Julliard said on France’s BFM television Monday that the groups hope for an eventual court ruling requiring France to further lower carbon emissions.

Julliard says the legal effort could take years, but cited a similar, successful effort in the Netherlands.

When President Emmanuel Macron tried to raise fuel taxes to help wean France from fossil fuels, it sparked a nationwide movement last month. Macron scrapped the tax hike.

All these people either think that Other People will be affected by Doing Something, or they are rich people who aren’t negatively affected by a large increase in the cost of living. Nor do these people tend to give up their own big carbon footprints.

But, this is what’s going on: Warmists attempting to use the courts to force governments and companies, and by extension, Other People, to comply with their rigid cultish beliefs.

Read: 1.6 Million Sign Petition To Sue French Government Over ‘Climate Change’ »

If All You See…

…is evil heat snow due to Other People taking fossil fueled flights to visit their families, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Hogewash, with a post on an SJW’s New Year’s resolutions.

Read: If All You See… »

The “New Green” Youth Movement Is Pretty Much Idiots Calling For Government To Control Their Lives

Nor will they give up anything in their own lives that would reduce their own “carbon footprint”. From the Axios article

A youth movement that was founded less than two years ago and that stages most of its protests by singing has been lobbying on Capitol Hill for the “Green New Deal” — and has become “the dominant influence on the environmental policy” of the young, progressive Democrats, The New Yorker’s Emily Witt writes.

Why it matters: The Green New Deal is an economic and climate plan supported by incoming Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and about 40 lawmakers. The youth movement, which goes by the name “Sunrise,” is one of the reasons the plan is getting so much attention.

Here’s where it gets fun

Details:

  • Their inspiration comes from Occupy Wall Street, the Movement for Black Lives, United We Dream, and Cosecha.
  • “They studied the wins and the losses of the climate movement in its forty-year history,” Witt writes, and they “tend not to talk about starving polar bears, melting ice caps, or ocean acidification. Instead, they talk of family members who have lost their homes to floods or fires, young relatives who have asthma, or beloved landscapes that have been degraded or destroyed in the spans of their short lifetimes.”
  • They focus on racial and economic justice in their message, since poor communities of color are disproportionately affected by climate change.
  • The activists are working to get out the youth vote and getting politicians to back away from accepting donations from fossil-fuel billionaires.

So, let’s see: they get their inspiration from OWS, which featured filthy people do hard drugs, pooping on police cars and people’s doorsteps, stabbings, and the need for “rape free zone” tents to keep from being raped by other Occupiers. Plus, all the attempted bombings and such. BLM? Riots, arson, theft.

Wins and losses? People have always lost homes and gotten asthma. It’s called weather.

The big one is the third one, which highlights that this has zero to do with science and everything to do with far left politics. And then “Go deeper: Democrats’ left turn on climate change

The details: Ahead of any actual legislating, the Green New Deal is mostly a catchy slogan, largely unknown by the public, which represents broad progressive policies. What details are available are outlined on Ocasio-Cortez’s election website:

  • An eventual goal of 100% of electricity coming from renewable energy, a controversial proposition. Right now, such sources make up just 17% of the nation’s power mix, with nearly half of that coming from hydropower.
  • A guarantee of federal jobs for those working in the transition from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources.
  • Federal programs guaranteeing basic income and universal health care. While health care has little to do with energy and climate, the outline says it would help “promote economic security, labor market flexibility and entrepreneurism.”
  • There’s no price tag on the plan yet, but the outline says it would be paid for by a combination of the Federal Reserve and a collection of even more unprecedented funding sources, including a new public bank. A tax on carbon emissions could be one way to raise revenue, says Ocasio-Cortez spokesman Corbin Trent.

Funny how this is all about more and more government control while taking even more money, while initiating a host of left wing policies.

Read: The “New Green” Youth Movement Is Pretty Much Idiots Calling For Government To Control Their Lives »

Democrats Want “Smart” Border Security Or Something

See if you can pick out exactly what’s wrong with this Democrat talking point, which many are using (video available at the link)

Dem Rep. Cicilline: ‘Democrats Support Border Security’ — ‘In a Smart Way’

Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) during an appearance on “Sunday Morning Futures” on Fox News Channel argued Democrats support border security when it is done “in a smart way.”

Instead of a wall at the border, Cicilline suggested using the best technology available to protect the border, which he said would be a better use of taxpayers’ money.

“Democrats support border security,” Cicilline told host Maria Bartiromo. “We appropriated in the last two years $1.6 billion for border security, and Democrats support that. We just think it should be done in a smart way — use technology, use sensors, use drones, use more personnel; use it in a way that’s effective.”

“Let’s secure the borders in a cost-effective way, using the best technology that will keep our borders safe,” he added.

The problem here is that other than personnel, those methods do not actually stop anyone from coming across the border, they just alert us that something, maybe a human, has crossed the border. We have a lot of that now, and sometimes the Border Patrol and other law enforcement gets the illegals, more often not. If you have no front door and rely on a security camera while you’re at work, does this stop anyone from coming in and taking what they want? Oh, the police will come when the alarm goes off? Too bad, the nearest police are 20 minutes away.

The border wall, along with personnel, in San Diego reduced the flow of illegal aliens from half a million a quarter century ago to 32,000 in 2016. We do not need a wall along the entire border: in certain specific areas it is necessary. We saw it stop most of the migrant caravan, did we not?

Democrats really do just want open borders.

Read: Democrats Want “Smart” Border Security Or Something »

“Journalism”: NY Times Is Just Wondering If A Queens Podiatrist Helped Trump Avoid Vietnam

One could mention that the NY Times and other leftist outlets had zero problem with Bill Clinton getting out of Vietnam, not too mention other Democrats. We could also note that the NY Times couldn’t be bothered to look at things that happened during the Obama administration years, such as Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, Hillary’s server, and so much more, much less look back at Obama’s pre-presidential history, such as his relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Heck, they couldn’t be bothered to investigate his years in school, such as Columbia U. But, they can pull this

Did a Queens Podiatrist Help Donald Trump Avoid Vietnam?

In the fall of 1968, Donald J. Trump received a timely diagnosis of bone spurs in his heels that led to his medical exemption from the military during Vietnam.

For 50 years, the details of how the exemption came about, and who made the diagnosis, have remained a mystery, with Mr. Trump himself saying during the presidential campaign that he could not recall who had signed off on the medical documentation.

Now a possible explanation has emerged about the documentation. It involves a foot doctor in Queens who rented his office from Mr. Trump’s father, Fred C. Trump, and a suggestion that the diagnosis was granted as a courtesy to the elder Mr. Trump.

The podiatrist, Dr. Larry Braunstein, died in 2007. But his daughters say their father often told the story of coming to the aid of a young Mr. Trump during the Vietnam War as a favor to his father.

“I know it was a favor,” said one daughter, Dr. Elysa Braunstein, 56, who along with her sister, Sharon Kessel, 53, shared the family’s account for the first time publicly when contacted by The New York Times.

Elysa Braunstein said the implication from her father was that Mr. Trump did not have a disqualifying foot ailment. “But did he examine him? I don’t know,” she said.

So, this is all based on what, the feelings of his daughters? Here are the most important paragraphs of the “article”

No paper evidence has been found to help corroborate the version of events described by the Braunstein family, who also suggested there was some involvement by a second podiatrist, Dr. Manny Weinstein. Dr. Weinstein, who died in 1995, lived in two apartments in Brooklyn owned by Fred Trump; city directories show he moved into the first during the year Donald Trump received his exemption.

Dr. Braunstein’s daughters said their father left no medical records with the family, and a doctor who purchased his practice said he was unaware of any documents related to Mr. Trump. Most detailed government medical records related to the draft no longer exist, according to the National Archives.

It’s like telling a tall tale to your friends about going to Scotland and seeing the Loch Ness monster, then one of them demanding evidence, including the tickets for your flight, because they knew you were sitting at home playing video games all weekend.

This is some of the worst of journalism. When McCain was running, the NY Times ran a story twice where they were “just wondering” if McCain was actually eligible to be president, as he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Other outlets ran just wondering articles, which are really just uncorroborated hitjobs featuring no evidence, using the tried and true maxim “people read the first three paragraphs or 30 seconds on the Internet.” How many Times viewers will see the headline and decide that Trump pulled something shady to get out of Vietnam, or just make it through 3-5 paragraphs, never getting to the part about “no paper (or any other) evidence”?

And they pull this stuff, yet when they aren’t protecting Democrats over issues, they refuse to investigate them.

Read: “Journalism”: NY Times Is Just Wondering If A Queens Podiatrist Helped Trump Avoid Vietnam »

Merry Christmas! (sticky for the day)

Merry Christmas to all my readers and their families. Hope it is a wonderful day full of love and friendship. And some new pinups!

Read: Merry Christmas! (sticky for the day) »

How Did “Silent Night” Become Such A Christmas Classic?

I like the song. It’s catchy, it’s not overblown, I haven’t heard a “today’s hot music” artist ruin in. It tends not to play on most business music systems, so you aren’t overloaded by listening to it again and again and again. How about you? Do you like it? (I also have an ulterior motive for this)

How ‘Silent Night’ became the most popular Christmas song of all time

The gentle, familiar lyrics will emanate across the world on Christmas Eve, at church services, across radio airwaves and through living room speakers.

Silent night, holy night.

It’s a song that experts say transcends generations, cultures, even religion. “Silent Night” — first performed in a small Austrian church 200 years ago today — has not only stood the test of time, but found its own place in history. More than 300 translations exist worldwide, with recordings spanning nearly every genre.

Time magazine in 2014 declared “Silent Night” “the most popular Christmas song ever,” based on an analysis of U.S. Copyright Office records dating to 1978. In the past four decades alone, artists have recorded more than 730 versions, nearly twice as many as No. 2 on the list, “Joy to the World.”

So how did a six-stanza poem become the most popular Christmas song of all time?

Experts point to the song’s universal simplicity, and note that it bridges secular and non-secular Christmas music. Plus, they say, it’s easy to record — the song has long existed in the public domain, and artists have partnered its lyrics with a range of vocalists and instruments. In addition, it had the benefit of being circulated during the 19th century by missionaries and traveling singing groups.

But perhaps just as important is the song’s original message of hope and peace — one that still resonates today.

“It spoke about circumstances that are just inherently human, and adaptable to all people,” said Sarah Eyerly, an assistant professor at Florida State University and an expert on historical songs. “The song has a message of hope in the midst of suffering that I think almost anyone can identify with, regardless of their culture.”

The poem that would become “Silent Night,” written in 1816 by Joseph Mohr, came to life amid regional conflict, natural disaster and — yes, even 200 years ago — climate change.

The climate change being referred to is the eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815, which created quite a bit of cooling which lasted for years and affected places around the world. But throwing the phrase climate change in there like that is supposed to increase the fears of utter ecological doom from Other People driving fossil fueled vehicles, a wonderful message for Christmas, eh?

Read: How Did “Silent Night” Become Such A Christmas Classic? »

Pirate's Cove