Hot Take: Laws Barring Felons From Voting Is Raaaaacist

It’s a cute rationale to attempt to get a client off the hook for voting illegally

Charged with voting illegally, she’s challenging an NC law for its ‘racist origins’

The law preventing some people with felony convictions from voting has “toxic racist origins” and is unconstitutional, says an attorney for an Alamance County woman charged with voting illegally.

State law bars people who are on probation or parole for felonies from voting. An audit last year of votes cast in 2016 found 441 suspected felon voters. The state elections office began referring cases to local district attorneys, and prosecutors in Alamance County have brought charges against a dozen people.

A lawyer with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice argued in a court filing that the charge against Whitney Brown for voting while she was on probation should be dismissed.

“We hope that the court recognizes the unconstitutionality of this law,” said John F. Carella, the lawyer representing Brown and four other Alamance voters.

The law prohibiting people who are on probation or parole after having been convicted of felonies falls disproportionally on African-Americans, Carella said in the court document, and has origins in the state’s history of voter suppression.

So, it happens to whites, Asians, Latinos, etc. too? Huh. 68% of those the state identified as voting illegally while a felon were black, 31% were white. So, obviously, raaaaacism.

The state passed a law in 1901 to prevent people with criminal convictions from voting . It was aimed at keeping African-Americans from casting ballots and has gone largely unchanged, Carella’s court motion sa

It’s not that pretty much every state has the same type of laws. Or that the law applies equally to all felons. If some are dumb enough to get caught, that’s not raaaaacist.

Read: Hot Take: Laws Barring Felons From Voting Is Raaaaacist »

New Warmist Claim: Hurricanes Are Slowing Down Because Of ‘Climate Change’ (scam)

This is how science works in Warmist World: something happens a little bit so it’s blamed/linked to Mankind’s output of greenhouse gases and Doom is proclaimed (via Watts Up With That?, which forgot to add a link to their excerpt, so, I’m using a different one)

Hurricanes Are Moving More Slowly, Which Means More Damage

Hurricanes are moving more slowly over both land and water, and that’s bad news for communities in their path.

In the past 70 years, tropical cyclones around the world have slowed down 10 percent, and in some regions of the world, the change has been even more significant, according to a study published Wednesday in the journal Nature.

That means storms are spending more time hanging out, battering buildings with wind and dropping more rain.

“The slowdown over land is what’s really going to affect people,” says James Kossin, the author of the study and a tropical cyclone specialist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He points to Hurricane Harvey’s effect on Houston as an example of what slower storms can mean for cities.

This is basically repeated in the NY Times, Washington Post, National Geographic, and so forth. And they all yammer about Harvey, because, since it was such a slow moving storm (due to actual weather events, not climate), we’re all doomed.

The new research suggests slow-moving tropical storms such as Harvey are becoming more common because of global climate change. Climate change is causing the poles to become warmer, which in turn affects the atmospheric pressure. There is less and less difference in pressure between the poles and the tropics, and that causes the big currents of wind between the two areas to slow down.

It’s all your fault for driving a fossil fueled vehicle, using a clothes dryer, and not buying fairtrade lattes.

“This paper is very timely,” says Christina Patricola, a climate scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who was not involved in the research. She says people who study hurricanes have traditionally focused on storm frequency and wind speed — but that rainfall is an increasingly important piece of the puzzle.

In other words, it’s released just in time to blame last season’s storms on Hotcoldwetdry. It’s always something with these people afterwards. First it was that big seasons like 2005 would be the new normal. Then, when major hurricane activity dried up almost immediately, we were told that they’d be less frequent but more powerful. When that didn’t happen, and even minor hurricane activity dried up, they blamed wind sheer caused by mankind’s carbon pollution. Then it was “superstorms like Sandy will be the new normal,” but, we haven’t had one since. Then it was claiming that hurricane activity will ramp up, knowing full well that there’s a cycle of storms. And then, after last years big season, they’ve forgotten the long dearth of landfalling major and minor hurricanes, and blamed Mankind, with this silliness following up.

And, even if true about speed reduction, they still can’t prove that you’re to blame for eating a delicious steak.

Read: New Warmist Claim: Hurricanes Are Slowing Down Because Of ‘Climate Change’ (scam) »

Good Grief: Democrats Want Insider Trading Probe On Trump Jobs Report Tweet

This is the kind of thing that got Trump elected in the first place and will get him re-elected in 2020

(The Hill) Three Senate Democrats on Friday called for a broad probe into whether President Trump broke federal trading laws and executive branch protocol before the release of the May jobs report last week

Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Michael Bennet (Colo.) sent letters to the chiefs of three federal agencies and the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) regarding Trump’s knowledge of the May jobs report released on June 1.

The senators also asked the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), to investigate whether Trump or any White House staffer revealed information that led to insider trading.

“President Trump recklessly violated federal rules and years of precedent by telegraphing financial data that has the power to move our markets,” said Warren, who is seen as a likely 2020 presidential candidate.

“The [Bureau of Labor Statistics] and the CEA should examine what went wrong here — and the SEC and CFTC should investigate to make sure that no one obtained and used non-public information to feather their own nest,” she said.

Trump last Friday touted the monthly federal jobs report roughly an hour before the data was released later that day, a breach with decades of protocol on how to handle market-moving information.

His tweet was literally just

Hey, Liz, were where you in 2009?

A Reuters report from February 2009 revealed that Obama had spoken out a full day in advance of a “dismal jobs report” for January, which showed some 525,000 jobs had been cut following the loss of 524,000 jobs in December 2008.

Really, this is so much ado over nothing, so, of course Democrats will have to chase the rabbit down the hole. It’s what they do. Now, if it was something like an administration running thousands of guns into Mexico and losing track of them, resulting in hundreds of deaths and injuries, including children and two U.S. federal agents, or, say, someone flouting actual laws about handing national security material by using a home brew server in a bathroom, well, Democrats look away.

Read: Good Grief: Democrats Want Insider Trading Probe On Trump Jobs Report Tweet »

Concerned Climahysterics Plan To Sue British Government Or Something

They’re “concerned.” Not enough to give up their own use of fossil fuels and make their lives carbon neutral, nor recommend that all other Warmists do the same. But, enough to sue and demand that Other People pay the price (this is a press release)

(Renewable Energy Mag) A group of UK citizens concerned about climate change, calling themselves ‘Plan B Earth’, have announced they are going to sue the British Government over what they see as its poor response to climate change.

Climate change is already causing hundreds of thousands of deaths per year across the globe and is a major factor in provoking the mass migration of people to other countries. It is also a contributory factor to destabilisation of international politics and security, with some observers arguing, for example, that climate change was a contributory factor to the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War.

Plan B Earth believes that the 2°C global average temperature limit committed to within the Paris Agreement represents a ‘cliff edge’ of catastrophic climate change and that exceeding this level would present a possible danger of annihilation for certain countries, particularly small island states. Furthermore, they claim exceeding 2°C would incur a high likelihood of hitting ‘tipping points’, leading to runaway climate change in excess of 4˚C. The Government’s own advisory committee, the Committee on Climate Change, have described 4˚C warming as extremely dangerous, almost certainly meaning the deaths of billions of people and a devastated world for survivors. Plan B believes that the probability of hitting 4˚C this century is high.

The first duty of Government is to protect its people. Plan B believes that this begins by being honest about the nature of the threat. However, the British Government, Plan B believes, does not want to upset powerful vested interests. They say the government’s current emission reductions do not even aim at limiting warming to Paris Agreement the Government has ratified.

Plan B Earth argues that the Government’s lack of action demonstrates a serious failure to fulfil its fiduciary duty to uphold intergenerational equity and fundamental human rights. The group’s intention to take the British Government to court for a safe climate target follows the successful deployment of such action in the Netherlands, where the court ruled that:…

Blah blah blah. Someone wants some money. And to force their beliefs on other people.

Read: Concerned Climahysterics Plan To Sue British Government Or Something »

If All You See…

…is an evil gas grill cooking evil meat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jo Nova, with a post on solar overload in Australia.

Read: If All You See… »

Question For Y’all On Commenting

So, playing with texting capabilities, and I can make it so you can login with WordPress, Google, Twitter, or Facebook (or not login if you don’t want to) to comment, and the comments will appear without having to refresh or seeing the page reload, much like with Disqus (something I’m considering, as well).

However, the Monalisa emoticons you see below the commenting form would be gone. Cannot get them to work. Also, comment quick tags, things like bold, blockquote, italic, etc, would not show as buttons. You could manually use scripts.

If you want to see how it works, go here to my development site. I’ve turn on ability to comment temporarily.

Would you prefer with the emoticons and quicktags, or ability to use other logins? I can’t implement a plugin for logins, because that requires allowing new registrations to be on, and there are tons of spammers who take advantage of this. I had it open for a brief time yesterday and got three spammers.

Read: Question For Y’all On Commenting »

Democrats Are Being Advised To Avoid Discussing Single Payer

Don’t want the citizens to know that Democrats stand for government 100% controlling your health care, eh?

The 2 words you can’t say in a Democratic ad

Democratic voters want single payer health care. But don’t expect to hear Democratic candidates talk about it — at least not in those words.

To avoid divisive intraparty fights that drive candidates left — only to be attacked by Republicans for favoring socialized medicine — the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee warned aspirants last year about the political liabilities of endorsing “single payer,” according to sources familiar with the advice. An influential progressive group even urged candidates to discard the often-misunderstood phrase and embrace “Medicare for all” to draw strong connections with the popular seniors’ health program.

In other words, the DCCC wants candidates to lie.

Some Democrats argue that instead of focusing on the potentially divisive idea of single payer, the party should defend the Affordable Care Act against “sabotage” from Trump and congressional Republicans, who combined to repeal the individual mandate and scrap a key subsidy program that helps cover low-income people. That message is more compelling this year, argues Brad Woodhouse, campaign director of pro-Obamacare group Protect Our Care.

“We’re out of power right now, we can’t make any of that happen,” he said of single payer health care. The vast majority “of what you do when you’re out of power is prosecute the case against what they’ve done — otherwise there is no reason to make a change.”

They lost that power specifically because of Obamacare.

Early last year, the DCCC shared verbal guidance with candidates and political consultants about the liabilities of supporting single payer, including polls that showed support for the idea declined once voters heard that it would likely come with significant tax increases and the potential loss of private health coverage many Americans have today, according to sources who saw the guidance.

Yeah, it seems great right up to the point where people realize that government is going to be taking lots of their hard earned money to pay for it, and that they will have lost lots of control on their own medical decisions.

Oh, don’t forget that elected Republicans are complete weenies for not getting rid of Ocare like they promised. Trotting out plans that are Ocare Lite did not help.

Read: Democrats Are Being Advised To Avoid Discussing Single Payer »

Bummer: Expensive Efforts To Mobilize Youths On ‘Climate Change’ (scam) Hasn’t Worked

What happens when you spend millions and millions of dollars on spreading awareness in an attempt to get mushy young minds to buy into your cult’s beliefs?

(Daily Caller) New research suggests Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer’s multi-million dollar effort to mobilize young voters around the issue of global warming hasn’t been very successful.

“Based upon this analysis of recent global warming public opinion data, little has changed generationally in the intervening years,” Johns Hopkins University researcher Shruti Kuppa wrote in her analysis of polling on global warming beliefs done seven years apart.

Kuppa compared polling from 2017 to polling of millennials and other generational groups’ attitudes on global warming conducted in 2010. Researchers with Yale University and George Mason University conducted both polls.

Steyer founded his political group, NextGen Climate Action, in 2013 with the goal of mobilizing the youth vote behind candidates backing global warming policies, including a $25-million effort to get millennials to back pro-climate policy Democrats in the 2016 election.

How’d it all work out?

Not much has changed in the last seven years despite Steyer, and other like-minded groups, spending millions of dollars trying to mobilize young voters around global warming.

“Overall, Millennials demonstrate similar or less engagement on global warming than older generations,” Kuppa wrote. “Millennials are less likely to discuss global warming with their friends and family than the older generations.”

They’re probably more worried about making sure they take the perfect selfie and other vapid things.

A recent study found liberal foundations spent nearly $567 million on global warming-related funding between 2011 to 2015, including $92.4 million for “climate change-related communication, media, and public mobilization.”

Another $46.6 million was spent on “renewable energy-related communication, media, and public mobilization efforts,” the study found.

Polling in recent years suggests that while Americans worry about global warming in the abstract, few rank it among the top priorities elected officials should address — even among Democrats.

Only 6 percent of likely voters think Democrats should focus on fighting global warming if they take back Congress in 2019, according to a March poll by Civis Analytics, which is made up of former Obama campaign staffers.

It really comes down to the notion that many people want to Do Something, but, they do not want it to impact themselves negatively, and most do not bother to do something themselves. I would bet that Millennials are hammered with so many different things that they are Supposed To Care About that the climate change scam is just one more thing that they know a few talking points phrases, but, do not really have any sort of true belief. Seriously, how many things are being pushed by the Social Justice Warriors that Millennials are supposed to care about? There’s always something that they are meant to be Outraged over.

Anyhow, good job, Tom Steyer and other leading climahypocrite leaders: you’ve pissed away a lot of money to find that Millennials “demonstrate similar or less engagement on global warming than older generations” and “are less likely to discuss global warming.”

Read: Bummer: Expensive Efforts To Mobilize Youths On ‘Climate Change’ (scam) Hasn’t Worked »

Washington Post: Trump Admin Won’t Defend Obamacare In Court And This Breaks Precedent Or Something

It’s like the Washington Post forgets about the period between 1/20/2009 and 1/19/2017

Trump administration won’t defend ACA in case brought by GOP states

The Trump administration said Thursday night that it will not defend the Affordable Care Act against the latest legal challenge to its constitutionality — a dramatic break from the executive branch’s tradition of arguing to uphold existing statutes and a land mine for health insurance changes the ACA brought about.

In a brief filed in a Texas federal court and an accompanying letter to the House and Senate leaders of both parties, the Justice Department agrees in large part with the 20 Republican-led states that brought the suit. They contend that the ACA provision requiring most Americans to carry health insurance soon will no longer be constitutional and that, as a result, consumer insurance protections under the law will not be valid, either.

The three-page letter from Attorney General Jeff Sessions begins by saying that Justice adopted its position “with the approval of the President of the United States.” The letter acknowledges that the decision not to defend an existing law deviates from history but contends that it is not unprecedented.

Washington Post writer Amy Goldstein should first look up the definition of “unprecedented”. Then use Google or Yahoo or something. There were many laws that the Obama administration refused to defend, the biggest of which was the Defense Of Marriage Act

Obama Drops Pretense, Administration Will Not Defend DOMA

Today, President Barack Obama concluded, and Attorney General Eric Holder announced, that the administration will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  DOMA defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purposes of federal law, and clarifies that no state has to recognize a homosexual marriage from another state.  The President’s announcement is refreshing in its honesty, at least insofar as it drops the farce that the administration has been offering anything even remotely approaching a vigorous (and professional) defense of the federal statute.

On this count, even supporters of gay marriage have acknowledged that the Justice Department’s non-defense of DOMA to date has bordered on creating collusive litigation, and concluded that the “DOJ’s faint-hearted advocacy is no way to run a legal system.”  So, notwithstanding the President’s desire to undermine DOMA, his non-enforcement may actually bolster its prospect in the courts: by getting out of the way, the Justice Department will make way for competent and vigorous legal defense of the statute.

Team Obama refused to defend a few other laws, but DOMA was the biggest. And, in other cases, they simply refused to enforce laws they did not like.

And this, ladies and gentleman, is why the Credentialed Media has lost trust and is considered utterly biased in favor against Republicans.

Oh, and there’s this

https://twitter.com/_Drew_McCoy_/status/1004887299992088576

Read: Washington Post: Trump Admin Won’t Defend Obamacare In Court And This Breaks Precedent Or Something »

NJ Is Totally Not Coming For Our Guns

What happens when a state which is already one of the most restrictive when it comes to 2nd Amendment Rights decides it wants to Do Something?

Big N.J. gun bills about to clear final hurdle, and Phil Murphy wants to make them law

Gov. Phil Murphy will soon get his chance to sign tougher gun restriction rules into law, some of which were rebuffed by his predecessor for eight years, former Gov. Chris Christie.

That’s because the state Senate will vote Thursday on a half-dozen proposals at the Statehouse in Trenton, including measures that would reduce magazine capacity, armor-piercing bullets, make it tougher to obtain a permit to carry a handgun, expand background checks on private gun sales, and keep firearms out of the hands of people deemed a threat to themselves and others.

This article was from the AM. According to the AP, all six passed out of the Senate which is protected by armed personnel and going to Murphy’s desk in a building surrounded by armed security. Here’s what they do

The bills on the docket Monday include:

* A1217, which would create restraining orders in the state allowing family members and others to ask a judge to have a person’s guns seized and ban them from buying weapons for up to a year.

* A1181, which would mandate law enforcement in the state to seize a person’s guns if a mental health professional determines they pose a threat to themselves or others.

* A2758, which would strictly define that state residents need to show a “justifiable need” to obtain a permit to carry a handgun — meaning they must show they face a specific threat to their own safety.

* A2757, which would require all private gun sales in the state to go through a licensed dealer who can perform an additional background check at the point of sale.

* A2759, which would create an outright ban in the state on possessing armor-piercing bullets.

* A2761, which would ban magazines in the state that hold more than 10 rounds, with some exceptions.

Armor-piercing bullets are already illegal. I personally do not have a problem with private gun sales requiring a background check. As far as the first two, so called “red flag” laws, they are really, really broad, and provide no penalties for people pulling stunts which take away a person’s rights, both at the federal and state level.

The justifiable need bill, A2758, will surely end up in federal court, and perhaps the Supreme Court, quickly, and one of the previous cases they’ll use is District of Columbia v Heller, in which the Court ruled against the government establishing a justifiable need.

The ban on magazines with more than 10 rounds is exactly that: a ban. There is no grandfathering. If you have one, get it out of the state, turn it in, destroy it, whatever, otherwise there will be criminal penalties. Who does this affect? Law abiding citizens. Those in possession of firearms illegally won’t care. And if you have a rifle with a fixed magazine capacity of more than 10 you need to turn it in, make it inoperable, or get it out of the state.

Why does it always seem that the gun grabbers are trying to turn law abiding citizens into criminals, while giving a free pass to actual criminals?

Read: NJ Is Totally Not Coming For Our Guns »

Pirate's Cove