Hot Take: “Is The Gun Grabbing Movement Too White?”

There might actually be a point to this, especially as we see so many white, upper middle class and white, rich celebs and politicians push for gun control

Never Again: Is gun control movement too white?

Is the new movement against gun violence that is sweeping America too white and too rich?

It’s a question hotly debated on social media as hundreds of thousands rallied on Saturday in support of the #NeverAgain campaign that emerged after 17 people were killed in a gun attack at a high school in Parkland, Florida, last month.

Protesters are being accused of hypocrisy, as some ask why they didn’t turn out for the Black Lives Matter movement, which was set up in 2013 to end police violence against black people and highlight the impact of gun violence in ethnic minority communities.

In 2016 more than 52% of murder victims (73% killed by guns) in America were black, even though black people make up 13% of the population.

What author Georgina Rannard (who is herself pretty pasty white) forgets to mention is that almost 100% of those Blacks murdered were murdered by Blacks, in the cases where we have info on the murderer.

Debate on Twitter focused on a photograph of white protesters holding up their palms, which read: “Don’t shoot.” The slogan and gesture became a rallying cry in 2014 after 18-year-old Michael Brown, who was reported to be raising his arms, was fatally shot by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri.

Accusations that the weekend marches had appropriated the slogan were shared more than 3,000 times.

I’m having a hard time figuring out whether Georgina is pro-too white or anti-too white. Maybe she’s just reporting? In this day and age of an activist press, that would be something, eh?

Race was also the subject of signs posted online with the Black Lives Matter hashtag.

They’ll be happy when a good guy with a gun who happens to be white saves their butts one day in their violent neighborhoods.

Some critics suggested that Never Again has attracted so much attention because of the race and economic background of its founders, who are students at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Parkland.

“The Never Again movement has been spearheaded by white teens – that’s why it’s garnered so much attention,” tweeted @gideonsvid.

“Families of black victims called for an end to violence, but that did not receive widespread media coverage. Black victims, whether victims of neighbourhood violence or otherwise, have not received the support that white victims have received,” said one Instagram user, referring to a picture of a man holding a sign reading: “Black students matter.”

So the leftwing media is racist? Huh. Perhaps it could be other factors, such as whites being much larger in terms of population. Maybe it’s because there hasn’t been looting, arson, rioting, property damage, and violence associated with this #NeverAgain movement, just littering and lots of yelling, unlike what we saw with #BlackLivesMatter.

Read: Hot Take: “Is The Gun Grabbing Movement Too White?” »

Bummer: E.P.A. Plans To Roll Back Obama ‘Climate Change’ Scam Rules For Autos

Do I even have to write it? If Warmists really, really cared, they’d give up their own use of fossil fuels. And the NY Times would stop using fossil fuels to gather and distribute the news (though it seems a lot of the news gathering they do is simply reading hard left websites, rather than getting out there and asking questions and investigating)

E.P.A. Set to Roll Back Rules Forcing Cars to Be Cleaner

The Trump administration is expected to launch an effort in coming days to weaken greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards for automobiles, handing a victory to car manufacturers and giving them ammunition to potentially roll back industry standards worldwide.

The move — which undercuts one of President Barack Obama’s signature efforts to fight climate change — would also propel the Trump administration toward a courtroom clash with California, which has vowed to stick with the stricter rules even if Washington rolls back federal standards. That fight could end up creating one set of rules for cars sold in California and the 12 states that follow its lead, and weaker rules for the rest of the states, in effect splitting the nation into two markets.

Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is expected to frame the initiative as eliminating a regulatory burden on automakers that will result in more affordable trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles for buyers, according to people familiar with the plan.

An E.P.A. spokeswoman confirmed that Mr. Pruitt had sent a draft of the 16-page plan to the White House for approval.

The particulars of the plan are still being worked out. Those specifics, which are expected this year, could substantially roll back the Obama-era standards, according to two people familiar with the deliberations.

Pruitt is expected to make an announcement on Tuesday, and this rule change would, of course, make automakers happy

Major automakers would welcome the change. They are prepared to participate in making new rules that meet “our customers’ needs for affordable, safe, clean and fuel-efficient transportation,” said Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufactures, which represents many of the world’s largest automakers.

Really, it’s consumers who would benefit. Consumers are the ones paying for Obama’s Hotcoldwetdry beliefs, all while he traveled around in a large gas guzzling limo, surrounded by lots of large gas guzzling SUVs. The automakers simply pass on the higher costs. Of course, in California and a few other states, they prefer to artificially increase consumer costs for their Warmist beliefs

In California, state lawyers said they were expecting a fight. The state has a special waiver under the 1970 Clean Air Act empowering it to enforce stronger air pollution standards than those set by the federal government, a holdover from California’s history of setting its own air pollution regulations before the federal rules came into force. “We’re prepared to do everything we need to defend the process,” said Xavier Becerra, the attorney general of California, in an interview.

This simply increases costs for California consumers, and, get this, it also makes the vehicles worth less on the market when an attempted trade in or private market sale occurs.

However, don’t expect much to change. Automakers aren’t going to roll back their improvements to fuel economy. What you might possibly see are more high powered vehicles on the road. This will end up being much ado over nothing.

Read: Bummer: E.P.A. Plans To Roll Back Obama ‘Climate Change’ Scam Rules For Autos »

Climate Consensus: Most Against Obama’s Clean Power Plan

Though, let’s be honest, it was predictable that people in Wyoming would not back it

Climate change rule opponents in majority at Wyoming hearing

Opponents of climate-change regulations that face repeal under President Donald Trump’s administration outnumbered supporters at a hearing in Wyoming’s coal country.

Tuesday’s hearing in Gillette was the last of four held from West Virginia to San Francisco. About 40 percent of the nation’s coal comes from large mines near Gillette.

The Casper Star-Tribune reports over 200 people attended the hearing on the proposed regulations from President Barack Obama’s administration. The rules would seek to reduce greenhouse gas produced by coal-fired power plants.

What they were debating specifically is the Clean Power Plan, as the Casper Star-Tribune notes, and the above, which comes from the AP, doesn’t. It may play well in places like San Francisco (which uses vast amounts of a different fossil fuel), but not in the Heartland, where even Democrats stand against it (at least in voice)

Democrat Mary Throne, also vying to replace Gov. Matt Mead later this year, said the Clean Power Plan was a faulty approach to addressing emissions.

“Coal is not the enemy,” she said, calling for a replacement.

I’ve said before and I’ll say again, I’m no big fan of coal, because it is dirty, and I’m not referring to “carbon pollution.” But, until we can replace it with affordable, reliable energy sources it needs to stick around.

Read: Climate Consensus: Most Against Obama’s Clean Power Plan »

If All You See…

…is horrible heat snow from Other People not riding bikes to work, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on a woman arrested for making lewd comments. To the Easter Bunny.

Read: If All You See… »

Christ’s Crown Of Thorns Tree Might Fight ‘Climate Change’ (scam) Or Something

I’ve actually tried to avoid the nutty Warmist notion of linking their Cult to special events this week, as you just knew they would do this with Easter, as they do year after year. Alas, while cruising the news on ‘climate change’, I ran across a hot take of hot takes

Christ’s ‘crown of thorns’ tree may help in climate change fight -researchers

As the sun beats down on the barren slopes around Jerusalem, a tree of the kind believed to have provided the crown of thorns in Biblical accounts of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion stands unaffected, its fruits ample and foliage green.

While pilgrims prepare to converge on the city at Easter to commemorate the events of Christian tradition, Israeli scientists researching climate change are at work in the surrounding hills studying the Ziziphus Spina-Christi, commonly known as Christ’s Thorn Jujube.

They believe it is a “pioneer species” in the fight against desertification because its hardiness makes it resilient to rising temperatures and aridity. It can draw water from deep underground, and it retains the ability to photosynthesise even when exposed to high temperatures and solar radiation. (snip)

Various plants have been proposed as the source of the crown of thorns the New Testament says was placed on Christ’s head in the lead-up to the crucifixion, and no-one knows for certain. But the consensus among Christian scholars tends towards Ziziphus Spina-Christi.

Just as that crown is associated with suffering and death followed by resurrection, the researchers hope the tree, which provides sustenance to bees and insects, can help support life in areas threatened by deadly heat.

Even uploaded a new facepalm for this occasion.

Read: Christ’s Crown Of Thorns Tree Might Fight ‘Climate Change’ (scam) Or Something »

LA City Councilman Wants To City To Boycott Companies With NRA Ties

I wonder if City Councilman Mitch O’Farrell has ever heard of the federal Bill Of Rights and the California Constitution?

(LA Times) A Los Angeles lawmaker wants the city to cut ties with companies that are linked to the National Rifle Assn., saying that its opposition to “common sense gun safety laws” is at odds with the city.

City Councilman Mitch O’Farrell introduced a proposal Wednesday asking city staffers to provide a list of all businesses and groups that have a “formal relationship” with the NRA and lay out options for boycotting them.

“It’s important that we send a message as a city with an annual budget approaching $9 billion,” O’Farrell said, invoking mass shootings in Newtown, Conn.; Orlando, Fla.; Las Vegas; and Parkland, Fla.; as well as gun violence that happens regularly across the country.

“It’s time to speak with one voice and call attention to the assault weapon epidemic,” the councilman said.

Let’s use the Washington Post’s word from earlier: insidious. Let’s use another: un-Constitutional. This would be a blatant violation of the Freedom Of Speech clauses in both the federal and California Constitutions. It’s against people engaged in their free speech and involvement in a private organization that petitions the government for redress of grievance, as well as protesting peaceably. And, while not specifically mentioned, you also have freedom of association

Legally, the freedom of association is considered to be a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. In the Supreme Court case of N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama(1958), a unanimous Court ruled that the NAACP did not have to reveal to the Alabama attorney general the names and addresses of the NAACP members in the state because it would violate the NAACP members’ freedom of association. Writing for the Court, Justice John Marshall Harlan II said in the decision that…

Just the very notion of the city creating a List of Undesirable Associations should give people the chills. And what is a “formal” relationship? An owner that is a member of the NRA? A few employees who are members?

O’Farrell said he also had asked the City Council to hold off on approving an agreement between FedEx and the Harbor Department to operate a warehouse and office space. FedEx has faced pressure from gun control advocates to stop providing discounted shipping for members of the NRA.

“We have a choice — and they have a choice,” O’Farrell said, arguing that FedEx could follow the path of other companies such as Delta Air Lines that have ended such discounts or other ties. “They could join in this sensible movement to discourage the proliferation of guns.”

This is the kind of abusive government that the 2nd was put in for: because sooner or later the government comes and tries to take the guns. Liberals like O’Farrell should remember how dangerous it is to set a precedent, because this could be turned around some day to go after Leftist groups.

Read: LA City Councilman Wants To City To Boycott Companies With NRA Ties »

TDS: Trump’s Military Gender Confused Ban Is Insidious Or Something

I really don’t care that much about the article, which is about as loopy as it gets. I’m just getting a kick out of the headline. Someone must have had “insidious” as their word of the day

Trump’s transgender troop ban is as insidious as ever

PRESIDENT TRUMP announced a ban on transgender people in the military with a series of tweets last year that surprised many, including senior military leaders. There had been no study, no analysis, no consultation. That arbitrariness was one reason four federal judges have temporarily blocked the policy from going into effect. So when the latest iteration of the ban was rolled out last week, the White House made a point of stressing that it was accompanied by a 44-page Defense Department report and had the backing of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.

That, though, doesn’t make the process any less questionable. It also doesn’t make discrimination against transgender people any more acceptable. So let’s hope the courts see through this charade and strike down policies that would unjustly bar transgender people from the military.

The military has plenty of blocks on people with mental illness, and Believing that you’re the opposite sex certainly qualifies. Sure, they may be nice people. Hey, they might even make great members of the military. The gender confused are also much more likely to be depressed and suicidal, which could be a threat to not just themselves, but the people around them.

Nor should they be allowed to join the military just so that they can get the military to pay for their insane gender reassignment surgery and all the medical treatment leading up to it. The military is not here to be a therapy organization.

The ban unveiled Friday by the White House, which won’t go into immediate effect because of the pending court challenges, is slightly more nuanced than the total ban the president staked out in his July tweets. But the effect is no less insidious, in that it would prevent most transgender people from serving in the military and likely would lead to mistreatment and dismissal of some active-duty members.

Anyone with a history of gender dysphoria (the experience of incongruity between birth gender and gender identity) would be disqualified save for limited and undefined circumstances. Also disqualified would be transgender people who have undergone gender transition. Eligible for enlistment and retention are transgender people who agree to serve in their birth gender. As Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights observed, “It means you can’t be transgender.”

You mean men have to be men and women have to be women? Such a “harmful but enticing” thought, eh?

Hey, here’s something that’s insidious: Leftists promoting the mental illness of being gender confused, saying that’s it’s OK.

Read: TDS: Trump’s Military Gender Confused Ban Is Insidious Or Something »

NY Times Offers “Revised” 2nd Amendment

Hot take

On one hand, this could actually expand the types of guns private citizens could own, because this doesn’t actually provide a delineation. I want to hunt with an automatic M16. The verbiage gives me that ability. And, he, I might think that recreation is defending my home. Oh, and I would need the gun at home to make sure I keep it clean. But, of course

https://twitter.com/StarDogCh4mpion/status/978976992572919808

It was about self defense against all enemies foreign and domestic. It was about protecting yourself, your family, your friends, and your property against tyrannical and/or abusive government. Sure, you will most likely lose. That’s not the point. You are given the chance to defend yourself. And, perhaps your comrades come to your aid. Perhaps a free press, tasked with holding government accountable, would come to your aid.

And, who would decide “responsible”? That’s the part that kills this whole mess. Perhaps we could rewrite the 1st to no longer include freedom of the press unless they use quill pens and the same type of printing presses and delivery methods (foot and horses) available at the time the Bill of Rights was passed.

Oh, and I wonder if the NY Times has given up its own armed security.

Read: NY Times Offers “Revised” 2nd Amendment »

Poll: Groupthink About Non-Science Consensus Among Warmists Grows

Yet, strangely, the majority aren’t making big changes in their own lives to accord with their Beliefs, such as giving up meat, fossil fuels, living in tiny homes, etc

(Washington Post) Fewer Republicans say they believe that there is a scientific consensus on climate change or that the effects of global warming have already begun, according to a new Gallup poll, which showed a widening partisan gap near record levels.

The moves comes after a year in which President Trump, who has called global warming a “hoax,” withdrew from the 2015 Paris climate accord and removed climate change from a list of top national security threats.

As Republicans moved in one direction, Democrats have moved in the other. An increasing number of Democrats believe that the effects of global warming have already begun and that warming will pose a “serious threat” in their lifetimes. As in earlier surveys, an overwhelming portion of Democrats are worried about climate change and link it to human activities.

Overall, 45 percent of those surveyed said global warming would pose a serious threat in their lifetimes, the highest overall percentage recorded since Gallup first asked the question in 1997. Despite partisan divisions, majorities of Americans as a whole continue to believe by wide margins that most scientists think global warming is taking place, that it is caused by human activities and that its effects have begun.

But as it did last year, the Gallup poll painted sharp differences between the two parties. Nine out of 10 Democrats worry about global warming and believe it is caused by human activities. Only a third of Republicans do. Seven in 10 Republicans think the seriousness of global warming is “generally exaggerated,” while only 1 in 25 Democrats do.

The only thing missing is actual science that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the majority or all of the minor warming during the current warm period is being caused by the actions of Mankind. You’d think Warmists would want this kind of fact to be out there, but, they are very much against making all the data and methods and sources transparent. But, they want to keep everything secret.

But, anyhow, I’ll ask yet again: if Warmists are so Concerned about man-caused climate change, why do they have such huge carbon footprints? Why are they not making big changes in their own lives?

Read: Poll: Groupthink About Non-Science Consensus Among Warmists Grows »

If All You See…

…are white roofs designed to reduce the carbon pollution temperature, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is JoNova, with a post on how to destroy the grid with a million new electric vehicles.

Read: If All You See… »

Pirate's Cove