NY Bill Would Give School Employees Right To Ask Court To Take Guns From Parents

By William Teach June 6, 2018 – 7:33 am

When we talk about slippery slopes, and a concern that if you give the gun grabbers some of their “common sense gun control reforms”, they’ll push the envelope even more, this is what we mean

Teachers in New York could gain right to ask courts to strip guns from troubled students

New York may allow teachers to report troubled students to a judge to ensure they do not have access to guns.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday proposed a law — the “red flag bill” — that would give teachers and administrators the ability to file a petition with the courts to keep guns away from students who appear to pose a safety risk.

“This bill, if it passes, would be the first bill in the United States of America to give a teacher this recourse and this solution,” Cuomo said at a news conference in Manhattan.

Students, huh? There’s a good chance it will never be passed, since Republicans control the NY Senate. But, consider, citizens under the age of 18 aren’t allowed to own firearms in the first place in People’s Republik Of New York, and the majority of students in k-12 will be under 18, so, what’s the point?

New York prohibits the purchase of firearms by anyone younger than 18, but for students who are younger, the measure could allow a judge to order a family to take additional steps to keep the guns away from their children, Cuomo said.

“If you have a young person in a home with guns in it, a judge could limit the access to those guns in the house,” Cuomo explained.

And Bamm!, there it is. A way to make accusations and have people’s gun rights stripped quickly. Current red flag law in NY doesn’t allow for guns to be seized except from those directly accused. And, it’s pretty much about family, friends, or law enforcement making the claim. Cuomo’s gun grabbing would go the extra mile

The proposal would allow police, family members and teachers — as well as school administrators, guidance counselors and other licensed school professionals — to petition the court if they believe a person is a threat.

The judge would then decide whether to issue an “extreme risk protection order.”

The potential for abuse is amazing. Consider, also, that Cuomo wants the age of purchase to go from 18-21, so, there would be no kids in K-12 who would be able to legally purchase a firearm in NY, so, this is about going after the parent’s 2nd Amendment Right. Oh, and

Cuomo said that if the gun-control measures weren’t approved before session ended June 20, the bills would become a campaign issue.

He knows there is no way this gets passed during the current legislative session, and little chance before the elections, so he’s trying to create an election issue. But, don’t think he doesn’t want to find a way to take away more guns, all while he runs around with his own armed protection.

Read: NY Bill Would Give School Employees Right To Ask Court To Take Guns From Parents »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats, Liberal World | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

AG Sessions: If Illegals Do Not Want To Be Separated From Kids, Don’t Come Here Illegally

By William Teach June 6, 2018 – 7:16 am

If you get the message out, they will hopefully not come

Sessions defends separating immigrant parents and children: ‘We’ve got to get this message out’

Attorney General Jeff Sessions delivered a vigorous defense of the hard-line Trump administration policy that has resulted in immigrant children being separated from their parents after crossing the border illegally during a lengthy interview on Tuesday.

Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, who admitted he was “disturbed” by the separations, pressed Sessions repeatedly about the morality and necessity of the familial separations. But the attorney general stood his ground.

“If people don’t want to be separated from their children, they should not bring them with them,” Sessions said, echoing some of the remarks he made in May when the Justice Department announced that it would begin to prosecuting every person who crossed the border unlawfully, including many seeking asylum. “We’ve got to get this message out. You’re not given immunity.”

And this is also a great example of a biased media spinning like they’re doing dizzy bats, because we can go to the actual transcript the Washington Post’s Eli Rosenberg helpfully provided and see something very pertinent that’s left out of Rosenberg’s article

HH: But General, what I’m pressing on, because I’m disturbed by this. I don’t think children should be separated from biological parents at any age, but especially if they’re infants and toddlers. I think it’s traumatic and terribly difficult on the child. Is it absolutely necessary to do so? Can’t we have facilities where parents remain united with kids?

JS: Well, we can, we’d be glad to work at that, and actually, to keep them as close as possible, and then they’re deported. But the law requires us to keep children in a different facility than we do for adults. And every time somebody, Hugh, gets prosecuted in America for a crime, American citizens, and they go to jail, they’re separated from their children. We don’t want to do this at all. If people don’t want to be separated from their children, they should not bring them with them. We’ve got to get this message out. You’re not given immunity. You have to, you will be prosecuted if you bring, if you come illegally. And if you bring children, you’ll still be prosecuted.

Nor do we, as Sessions points out later, have the capacity/facilities to keep the kids together with the parents. And the kids are transferred to Health and Human services. It’s a simple proposition: don’t come to the U.S. illegally and none of this is a concern. Unaccompanied minors are released “within 72 hours to the “least restrictive” setting possible — usually parents, relatives or ORR-licensed shelters.”

HH: There’s an organization called Kids in Need of Defense, www.supportKIND.org, and they are, they’re liberal activists, but they have a point that these children deserve representation, because many of them are eligible for asylum or refugee status. You’re the chief law enforcement officer. Are you guaranteeing that these 10,000 children have adequate access to legal counsel?

JS: I’m guaranteeing that they’re treated properly and lawfully. But so much of this is not valid, these claims. You just can’t decide you want to come to America regardless, and when you’re not, don’t meet the standards for asylum demand entry to the United States, demand that you appoint lawyers, and demand that you go through prolonged trials. About 20% of the unaccompanied children, come by themselves, that are stopped, are denied immediately. And 80, then the rest go through an asylum process, which is fair and just and takes time. And they get a hearing. And the judges are well aware that they’re young, and they treat them with the proper care and concern. And of the 80% who actually go through asylum processes, only 20% are successful. Most are denied, and many of them have no legitimate claim at all. They were just coming here because they’d like to make more money or for some economic reason.

Most of the asylum and similar claims are complete mule fritters for both the kids and adults. They’re just coming to the U.S.. And we might be more sympathetic if they seemed like they actually wanted to be a part of America, rather than demanding that we give them food, shelter, healthcare, money, education, clothes, change America to the way the illegals want it, not too mention being abusive and rude to America and her citizens.

Read: AG Sessions: If Illegals Do Not Want To Be Separated From Kids, Don’t Come Here Illegally »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on AG Sessions: If Illegals Do Not Want To Be Separated From Kids, Don’t Come Here Illegally | Trackback URL

Who’s Up For A Climate Positive Burger?

By William Teach June 5, 2018 – 3:05 pm

Lunch with a side of cultism

The World’s First Climate-Positive Burgers: Max Burgers Now Help Fight Climate Change

This morning, from the main stage at SB’18 Vancouver, Max Burgers’ Chief Sustainability Officer, Kaj Török, announced that the Swedish burger chain is set to offer the world’s first climate-positive burgers. Török said that customers will soon be able to “take a bite that’s good for the planet as well as their taste-buds” when eating at the quick-serve burger chain, and urged other companies to join Max in going climate positive.

The climate-positive menu will be launched on the company’s 50th anniversary on the 14th June, across all 130 stores in Northern Europe and the Middle East. According to the company, customers will then be eating burgers that have 110 percent of their climate emissions offset — meaning every Max Burger sold will help fight climate change.

So, wait, Kaj took a long fossil fueled flight from Sweden to Canada? Huh.

“First, we measure all our emissions — from the farmers’ land to our guests’ hand, as well as lots of other things like waste, and consumer travel to and from the restaurant,” Török explained in a recent interview. “The second step is to make every effort to reduce emissions. We add new approaches and solutions all the time to find ways to make reductions, like the Green Family range. Thirdly, and only after making all the reductions we can, we plant trees to offset all remaining emissions. We then go a step further to capture the carbon dioxide equivalent of another 10 percent of emissions. That’s to ensure that we can contribute to reducing the overall levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And all of this independently reviewed and done according to international standards.”

They’re also planting lots of trees. But, closing down because of all the energy and fossil fuels used isn’t in their plans.

In response to any criticisms about the climate-positive burger being just a ‘feel-good’ gimmick, Török replied: “Carbon offsetting doesn’t buy us a clear conscience. Instead, it is a self-imposed carbon tax that provides us with an incentive to continue reducing our emissions. Through our carbon offsetting, we take direct responsibility for our emissions while working hard to reduce our impact. It is both, rather than one or the other. Everyone must do as much as they can to contribute to meeting global climate goals.”

You can bet that the customers are paying for it.

Read: Who’s Up For A Climate Positive Burger? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | Comments Off on Who’s Up For A Climate Positive Burger? | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 5, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible can of either soda or beer containing evil carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Flopping Aces, with a post Democrats hating America.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

‘Carbon bubble’ Could Spark Financial Doom Or Something

By William Teach June 5, 2018 – 10:30 am

It’s always something with these people

‘Carbon bubble’ could spark global financial crisis, study warns

Plunging prices for renewable energy and rapidly increasing investment in low-carbon technologies could leave fossil fuel companies with trillions in stranded assets and spark a global financial crisis, a new study has found.

A sudden drop in demand for fossil fuels before 2035 is likely, according to the study, given the current global investments and economic advantages in a low-carbon transition.

The existence of a “carbon bubble” – assets in fossil fuels that are currently overvalued because, in the medium and long-term, the world will have to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions – has long been proposed by academics, activists and investors. The new study, published on Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change, shows that a sharp slump in the value of fossil fuels would cause this bubble to burst, and posits that such a slump is likely before 2035 based on current patterns of energy use.

Daffy Screwball photo DaffyScrewball.gif

It’s all based on reading tea leaves, er, computer models.

Read: ‘Carbon bubble’ Could Spark Financial Doom Or Something »

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

NC Democrats Look To Ban Lots Of Handguns

By William Teach June 5, 2018 – 7:20 am

Remember, they aren’t trying to take anyone’s guns, and they just want common sense reform. They’re not going to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. They’re angels!!!!

Can NC ensure ‘safe’ guns? Democrats want to ban handguns with dangerous design flaws

A trio of Democrats want North Carolina to follow California’s footsteps in governing gun safety.

The “Ensure Safe Handguns” bill instructs the NC Department of Public Safety to prohibit the use of handguns that have design flaws endangering users. The bill instructs the department to use California’s Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale as a model.

California has prohibited the sale of hundreds of handguns, affecting popular brands like Beretta, Colt and Smith & Wesson.

The department would conduct firing and other tests to determine which firearms are unsafe. Antiques, theater props and guns designed for use in the Olympic Games would be exempt from testing.

The bill itself would require that anyone who owns one of the non-certified handguns turn it in or face a misdemeanor.

Paul Valone, president of the gun-rights advocacy group Grassroots North Carolina, said the bill shows that Democrats “are trying to incrementally ban the ownership of firearms, one step at a time.” He thinks it would drive up the cost of handguns.

He’s not worried about the bill now, because he doesn’t think Republicans will even consider it.

“But people who value the 2nd Amendment should take note,” Valone said. “If Democrats win (control of the NC General Assembly this November), we would eat this bill and others just like it.”

True, it will die in committee now, because the GOP holds a supermajority. But, this is what the gun grabbers do: pass something, then expand on it.

Steve Oetzell noted in the Daily Breeze back in 2015

In 2000, California passed SB 15, creating the so-called Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale. This bill mandated that, in order to be sold in the state of California, all “pistols” (semi-automatic or not) shall be subject to a series of “drop tests” to determine the gun’s resistance to discharging when accidentally dropped. Additionally, it stipulated firing requirements to test the structural integrity of the gun.

This, presumably, was a good safety law, as the intent was to protect the public from poorly made guns. But rather than creating a much shorter list of unsafe handguns that are not approved for sale, the law created an all-encompassing list of “approved” handguns which, effectively, made all guns unsafe until the manufacturer paid a fee and submitted their handgun for testing. Once approved, a yearly fee was required to keep a handgun on the list. If the fee was not paid or the gun not resubmitted, it fell off of the list, once again, becoming an “unsafe” handgun.

Worse yet, one might argue that a citizen’s rights should not have an expiration date based on the expiration of a government fee. It also did not matter that nearly all firearms manufacturers already subject their product to testing and quality control far more rigorous than anything the state of California could ever dream up.

Guns have to be retested. But,

But that wasn’t enough. In 2003, California passed SB 489 requiring two very questionable “safety features” to be installed on any new handgun submitted for testing, approval, and addition to the list. These two features were the loaded chamber indicator (a device indicating that there is a bullet chambered in the gun) and a magazine disconnect (a device that will not allow the gun to fire if there is a bullet in the chamber when the magazine has been removed from the gun).

Suddenly, the list of laboratory drop tested firearms had been distorted into a vehicle used to enforce mandated “safety features.” This was not the intent of the original SB 15.

And then California required microstamping. And fewer and fewer handguns were available to the residents of California, who already had to deal with a huge amount of regulations and rules and laws that restricted law abiding citizens from using their 2nd Amendment Right.

Read: NC Democrats Look To Ban Lots Of Handguns »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, NC News | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Hot Take: The Constitution Needs To Be Amended After Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision Or Something

By William Teach June 5, 2018 – 7:02 am

The Supreme Court decision on whether a cake shop can refuse to make a cake for a same sex marriage was somewhat settled by the Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision. It was a very narrow decision, and came down more to Colorado being anti-religion and in violation of the 1st Amendment, but it really didn’t solve the overall question. But, of course, this means a total freakout. There was Excitable Kamala Harris

Question for Kamala: does this mean that a gay baker could be made to make a cake celebrating Hitler’s birthday? Or what if one of those marriage places in Las Vegas was asked to marry multiple people to each other? Love is love, right? Why does the government discriminate against people who want to marry people? What if someone wants to set up a cake shop that only caters to same sex couples? Isn’t that discrimination? Then, hot take in the New York Times by Jennifer Finney Boylan

After Masterpiece, It’s Time to Change the Constitution

The Supreme Court has ruled on the Masterpiece Cake case — and on the surface, it would appear to be a loss for L.G.B.T.Q. Americans. The justices ruled 7 to 2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the religious freedom of a baker, Jack Phillips, when it sanctioned him for refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, in 2012.

“The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

In spite of this, the ruling is relatively narrow. “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

At the root, Ms. Boylan gets it right. But, Virtue Signaling

In other words, while Masterpiece is a loss for L.G.B.T.Q. people, the question of how to balance religious freedom with the rights of queer people remains unresolved, and will most likely continue to be explored and debated in the future, and by the Supreme Court not least.

And this, more than the case itself, is the greater loss for L.G.B.T.Q. people. We lose when our rights are considered debatable. Even if the Supreme Court had ruled unanimously against the baker, in fact, L.G.B.T.Q. Americans would still be considered second-class citizens in many aspects of civic life.

Going down the same road, the religious lose their rights when they are debatable. And, really, we’re talking about making a cake for a wedding. Nothing hugely massive of importance, except perhaps to the couple (why not group?!!!!) All they have to do is go to another cake maker. And, in the few cases this happens, the same sex couple is has usually been referred to another baker (or florist, or whatever). Having a custom cake baked is not a right. If I go over to Kroger or Food Lion or wherever and ask them to make a custom cake that says “Happy Birthday, Adolph Hitler”, they have every right to refuse service. Or if I request “Kroger Sucks” from Kroger.

Here it comes

The only thing that will truly enshrine equal protection under the law for all Americans, including L.G.B.T.Q. people, is an amendment to the Constitution.

Call it the Dignity Amendment. The text might read: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.” It’s the brainchild of Sarah Kate Ellis, the president and chief executive of Glaad (where I served as co-chairwoman of the board of directors for four years).

The Dignity Amendment would guarantee that L.G.B.T.Q. Americans are treated like all other Americans. It would send the message that we are part of the fabric of this nation. It would guarantee that our rights as taxpayers and as participants in the civic life of the country cannot be abridged because of our private lives.

It would essentially create a privileged class, when the Constitution already demands that all people be treated equally. And, it would mean that people who are opposed to same sex marriage, the gender confused, etc, could be prosecuted for Wrongthink.

In the meantime, Masterpiece is a defeat — a qualified defeat, to be sure, and a defeat that may well be revisited. But a bigger defeat is having to have one’s rights as a citizen challenged, discussed and put forth for debate in the first place. This is not just a matter of dignity. It’s a matter of common sense. We turn to the Constitution for deliverance, and for justice.

Sigh. Justice. It’s a cake. Just a cake. Which can be obtained at plenty of other bakers. Cake.

But, this does actually show something. Liberals cannot be trusted when we are talking about gun control, because they will take any little issue and magnify it to the extreme.

Read: Hot Take: The Constitution Needs To Be Amended After Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision Or Something »

Posted in Constitution, Unhinged Tools | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

“If The Oceans Die, We Die”

By William Teach June 4, 2018 – 5:05 pm

Here’s one of the things that disturb me: you take a real environmental issue, and then quickly move on to SJW/Warmist garbage

Margaret Atwood: ‘If the ocean dies, so do we’

The celebrated author Margaret Atwood has told a conference that humanity’s future is linked to the survival of ocean ecosystems.

Commenting on ocean plastic pollution, she said: “Something has to be done… If the ocean dies; end of us.”

Ms Atwood was speaking at the Under Her Eye summit in London.

Plastic in the ocean seems like a rather important, right? It’s in the headline. In fact, you have to scroll way down in the article before you get more information about this, because the article spends a lot of time on

The conference, held at the British Library, also heard that climate change disproportionately affects women on a global scale.

In addition, their voices are “too rarely heard” in top level climate change discussions.

Aiming to tackle key environmental issues “from a female perspective”, the event hosted a range of policy makers, artists and scientists.

Eventually, we get to

Also on the agenda were solutions to climate change and environmental issues that women are uniquely equipped to tackle.

Kath Clements, from UK company Mooncup which makes re-usable menstrual cups as an alternative to disposable sanitary products, cited the environmental impact of the “1.5 billion menstrual products flushed in the UK annually”.

Other organisations, like the Women’s Environmental Network, are moving to campaign for “periods without plastic” – seeking a reduction in the use of disposable menstrual products, and more education around reusable options.

Bloody Good Period, who donate sanitary products to asylum seekers in the UK, are also looking to use more environmentally friendly items says founder Gabby Edlin.

Ms. Atwood is very much in favor of banning plastic straws and says

“Something has to be done about plastic going into the ocean and it has to be done pretty quick… That’s where 60-80% of the oxygen than we breathe comes from,” she said.

She’s right in that the majority of O2 comes from the ocean, particularly from planktons. And, we do need to do things to reduce ocean pollution as much as possible, including from plastics. You don’t have to be a Warmist or envirowacko to be an environmentalist.

Read: “If The Oceans Die, We Die” »

Posted in Environment, Global Warming | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 4, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible steak from an evil moo cow which will kill all the plants from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is American Power, with a post on a populist, anti-Establishment government takeover in Italy.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 27 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Immigration Agents Double Number Of Raids, Causing Illegal Aliens To Afraid

By William Teach June 4, 2018 – 10:57 am

See, if we were talking about US agents raiding organized crime, there would be cheering. Because they’re criminals. And we’d want crime raids to make criminals afraid

US immigration agents double number of workplace raids, spreading fear and tearing families apart

…

Since President Donald Trump took office, ICE has put a renewed premium on workplace raids, and recently announced that it had “already” doubled the number of raids between October and May over the year before – a step towards its pronounced aim at quadrupling the rate practised by the previous administration.

While the president and immigration officials praise these developments, residents in the communities impacted by these raids are largely left to pick up the pieces on their own after the raids. Helping those who have lost husbands and fathers to make ends meet without an important source of income, while rushing to maintain the social fabric in smaller communities suddenly engulfed in fear and concern as the effects of lost workers ripples through the economy.

Between 1 October of last year and 4 May, ICE says that 3,410 “worksite investigations”, or raids, were opened, which led to 594 criminal and 610 administrative arrests. That’s compared to 1,716 such inspections in the fiscal year of 2017, when 139 criminal arrests were made alongside 172 administrative arrests. The raids have targeted communities across the country, including limo companies in New York City and 7-Eleven stores in California.

ICE contends that the raids are important in order to verify the legality of workers and ensure that undocumented people with criminal records are not in the American workforce, and to ensure that employers are not unfairly gaming the system – even though, as is the case in Tennessee, claims that the employers were violating the law have led to no arrests for those in charge and the plant is still running, according to people interviewed for this story.

“ICE is responsible for upholding the laws established by the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, which requires employers to verify the identity and work eligibility of all individuals they hire,” Danielle Bennett, an ICE spokesperson, said when contacted about the raids. “These laws help protect jobs for US citizens and others who are lawfully employed, eliminate unfair competitive advantages for companies that hire an illegal workforce, and strengthen public safety and national security.”

Wait, they’re actually enforcing laws passed by a duly elected Congress and signed into law by a president? This is the price to pay for getting all those illegals amnesty back in ’86. Of course, that was a different time, when illegal immigration was much lower, and illegals were polite and contrite, asking “please” and wanting to be a part of America, whereas now they are demanding: demanding that they be given citizenship, demanding that they be given free education, medical care, jobs, places to live, money, demanding that we cater to their culture and language. And, let’s not forget how insulting and rude so many of them are. And criminals.

Meanwhile, here’s a whiny Democrat who didn’t complain when Obama was doing this

Yeah, he was pretty much just trying to Create An Incident In Order To Bloviate in favor of people who are unlawfully present in the U.S.

Read: Good News: Immigration Agents Double Number Of Raids, Causing Illegal Aliens To Afraid »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Good News: Immigration Agents Double Number Of Raids, Causing Illegal Aliens To Afraid | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove