With Trump Win, States Push More 2nd Amendment Rights

In reality, this is nothing new. As state governments across the country saw more and more Republicans assuming control, much like we saw the devastation in the federal Congress of the Democratic party during the Obama years, they looked to enable citizens to uphold their 2nd Amendment rights

(The Hill) President Donald Trump’s election has encouraged gun rights advocates to mount a new legislative push in states across the country.

Legislators in more than a dozen states have introduced bills to allow residents to carry guns in the open, roll back licensing requirements for concealed weapons and limit the number of facilities where guns are prohibited. Measures in several states would allow those with licenses to carry firearms in schools, airports and churches.

Those backing more expansive gun rights largely embrace Trump’s claims — many of which are disputed by federal and local law enforcement statistics — that crime is on the rise and cities are plagued by a wave of what the president called in his inaugural address “American carnage.”

Some of these ideas are good, some not so good. I see nothing wrong, theoretically, with requiring a license to purchase a firearm, nor a requirement for training to carry concealed. If one wants to carry on campus, training would be great. It breaks down when you realize that Democrats will eventually recover and win some elections, and then put a big monkey wrench in the works, causing problems for people attempting to obtain licenses and training and carrying.

Of course, in those few Democrat run states left, they’re looking for even more restrictions on 2nd Amendment Rights, which almost solely affect law abiding citizens, not the criminals who may use a firearm. Remember, though, Democrats say they’re for gun rights all the time!

The future of the war over gun rights may lie in a third bill introduced by Lucas, the Indiana Republican. That bill would grant a tax credit to Hoosiers who complete gun safety courses, or who buy security devices like a gun safe.

Lucas said he wants to encourage people to take gun safety courses, though “never in my lifetime” would he advocate a government mandate that they do.

“Money talks, and instead of paying people to [take gun safety classes], let them keep their own money and direct it towards firearm safety training courses,” Lucas said.

An interesting proposal. One can see the good and bad in it. The good, that people obtain training in the proper use, the bad that Democrats would now have all the information on law abiding gun owners they need to become problems. I am all for training. You do it to drive a car, you do it for you job, you do it if you’re into martial arts, etc. Sure, none are Constitutional Rights, but, wouldn’t you think a bit of training would be a good thing on a firearm, if only to make sure you know how to use it and what the laws are?

Meanwhile, we get a little bit of apoplectic fake news

The House on Thursday struck down an Obama-era regulation that could block some recipients of disability benefits from buying guns.

The House voted 235-180 to roll back a rule that required the Social Security Administration to report people who receive disability benefits and have a mental health condition to the FBI’s background check system. The database is used to determine eligibility for buying a firearm.

Critics said the rule stripped Second Amendment rights from people who are not dangerously mentally ill, such as those who have eating disorders or mental disorders that prevent them from managing their own finances.

The National Rifle Association opposed the rule. While the group says it supports keeping guns away from the mentally ill, it said the determination about who is mentally ill should be left to the courts.

That rule was in place for a few weeks, and was never passed, or even submitted, to the duly elected legislative branch. This has obviously sent many liberals off the deep end. The best being Hullabaloo, with the catchy headline Making the country safe for white supremacy. You stay classy. Oh, and remember, as you guys were fond of saying during the Obama years, you lost.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: With Trump Win, States Push More 2nd Amendment Rights »

With No Other Problems Pending, Sweden Looks To Bring In Climate Law

Wait, I thought Sweden was a hotbed of uber-Progressive leftists who would have been thrilled to voluntarily implement carbon neutral measures within their own lives? No?

Sweden set to bring in climate law by 2018

Sweden is set to have a climate law in effect by 1 January 2018 under plans announced by the prime minister on Thursday.

Stefan Lofven told media government was introducing legislation to put into action a cross-party agreement for the country to go carbon neutral by 2045.

Influenced by the UK’s Climate Change Act, but with a more ambitious trajectory, it will set out a series of carbon budgets to phase down greenhouse gas emissions.

“This is the most important reform of our generation politicians will do for Sweden’s young people, our children and grandchildren,” said Lofven. “Sweden will be one of the world’s first fossil-free developed countries.”

On one hand, Sweden is wise by getting so much of its power already from nuclear and hydropower, and plans to use more. On the other, they plan on lots of draconian big government policies and restrictions, but, then, the Swedes should be loving this, right?

But, really, considering how many problems Sweden is having from the large influx of Muslims, who have brought their 3rd world 14th century ideas with them, you know, things like raping women is fine, gays should be whipped and hung, women must cover up, Shariah law, all the crime, etc, Sweden might want to consider this real problem over the ginned up and fake issue of anthropogenic climate change.

Read: With No Other Problems Pending, Sweden Looks To Bring In Climate Law »

If All You See…

…is a carbon pollution caused extreme rain storm, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is American Power, with a post on America’s new opposition.

Read: If All You See… »

Is Trump Moving To Focus Counter-Terrorism Solely On Islamists?

As San Fransisco looks to do away with cooperating with the FBI on counter terrorism programs, ones which were fine during the Obama years (oh, and let’s not forget the rioting, arson, and violence because someone wanted to speak), the Trump administration is supposedly going a different direction, per Reuters

Exclusive: Trump to focus counter-extremism program solely on Islam – sources

The Trump administration wants to revamp and rename a U.S. government program designed to counter all violent ideologies so that it focuses solely on Islamist extremism, five people briefed on the matter told Reuters.

The program, “Countering Violent Extremism,” or CVE, would be changed to “Countering Islamic Extremism” or “Countering Radical Islamic Extremism,” the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.

Such a change would reflect Trump’s election campaign rhetoric and criticism of former President Barack Obama for being weak in the fight against Islamic State and for refusing to use the phrase “radical Islam” in describing it. Islamic State has claimed responsibility for attacks on civilians in several countries.

I actually disagree with this a little. The focus shouldn’t be solely on radical Islam, because there are other domestic threats from non-Islamist groups and individuals, including both left and right leaning groups. But, mostly leftists. That said, we have federal and state governmental units that handle the non-Islamist groups, so, perhaps there needs to be a strong focus on radical Islam. As more and more are radicalized via the Internet, in mosques and Islamic schools, their friends, etc, those some people can easily jump into violent attacks.

It’s also long past due to name the danger. The Trump administration should go to great pains to note that there is a difference between Muslims and Islamists, much as most anti-jihad bloggers have done. Try and separate the two, making sure people understand that the extremists are the issue.

Read: Is Trump Moving To Focus Counter-Terrorism Solely On Islamists? »

Michael “Robust Debate” Mann Calls For Rebellion

Michael Mann, who has previously called for robust debate, as long as the debate is one sided (he will block you in a heartbeat on Twitter), is pretty upset about climate denial not being dead

The era of climate change denial is over. Rejection of the unequivocal scientific evidence that carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are warming the planet and changing our climate is no longer socially acceptable. Only the most fringe of politicians now disputes the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and human-caused, and they are largely ignored.

So why dignify the notion of climate change denial by writing about it?

If it’s over, then why are there so many who refuse to buy into anthropogenic climate change, and why are there so few Warmists who actually practice what they preach?

Such was the criticism I received from many well-meaning fellow climate scientists last fall after I published my latest book, “The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy,” co-authored with Washington Post editorial cartoonist Tom Toles.

Oh, right, he has a book to pimp.

We scientists are, in general, a reticent lot who would much rather spend our time in the lab, out in the field, teaching and doing research. It is only the most unusual of circumstances that gets us marching in the streets. Trump’s assault on science is just such a circumstance. And we are seeing a rebellion continue to mount.

A rebellion!

What are they really rebelling against? Seeing their flow of taxpayer money shut off, which would mean they’d have to go work in the private sector where people expect results.

Read: Michael “Robust Debate” Mann Calls For Rebellion »

Disgraceful: NY Times Attempts To Blame Trump For Yemen Raid Deaths

During the Obama regime’s eight years, there have been numerous occasions where US military personnel lost their lives, and foreign civilians were killed. There were more military deaths in Afghanistan under Obama than under Bush, after Obama did his surge. For the most part, the major news media outlets were silent on this all. There was no condemnation. No blaming. The closest they came to it was when Anwar al-Awlaki was whacked by drone strike, and the minor chiding was due to him being an American citizen. Did any caterwaul that a follow up strike killed his 16 year old son? Did you even know that occurred? It wasn’t broadcast breathlessly like had Bush been president.

For the most part, Conservatives understand that military and civilian causalities will occur during operations, and most will have approved of Obama’s attacks on extremist Islamists and the Islamist groups. Liberals were mostly silent. They certainly weren’t going to Blame Obama. Suddenly, though, a Republican is in the White House, so we get this disgraceful, utterly partisan shlock

Raid in Yemen: Risky From the Start and Costly in the End

Just five days after taking office, over dinner with his newly installed secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, President Trump was presented with the first of what will be many life-or-death decisions: whether to approve a commando raid that risked the lives of American Special Operations forces and foreign civilians alike.

President Barack Obama’s national security aides had reviewed the plans for a risky attack on a small, heavily guarded brick home of a senior Qaeda collaborator in a mountainous village in a remote part of central Yemen. But Mr. Obama did not act because the Pentagon wanted to launch the attack on a moonless night and the next one would come after his term had ended.

So, an Obama planned raid. That’s not to assign blame, just to note that it started at that point, as the NY Times attempts to assign blame to Trump

As it turned out, almost everything that could go wrong did. And on Wednesday, Mr. Trump flew to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to be present as the body of the American commando killed in the raid was returned home, the first military death on the new commander in chief’s watch.

The death of Chief Petty Officer William Owens came after a chain of mishaps and misjudgments that plunged the elite commandos into a ferocious 50-minute firefight that also left three others wounded and a $75 million aircraft deliberately destroyed. There are allegations — which the Pentagon acknowledged on Wednesday night are most likely correct — that the mission also killed several civilians, including some children. The dead include, by the account of Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen, the 8-year-old daughter of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born Qaeda leader who was killed in a targeted drone strike in 2011.

Suddenly, civilian deaths are important again

But the mission’s casualties raise doubts about the months of detailed planning that went into the operation during the Obama administration and whether the right questions were raised before its approval. Typically, the president’s advisers lay out the risks, but Pentagon officials declined to characterize any discussions with Mr. Trump.

In other words, the NY Times is wondering if Trump approved the operation too soon and without asking questions.

We further read about the operation being “jinxed from the start”, that the mission had been compromised, that surprise was lost. That an Osprey called in for support was damaged, and the $75 million aircraft had to be destroyed (suddenly, money matters in Liberal Land). Yemeni government officials are “seething”, Yemeni human rights groups (an oxymoron) are mad, and suddenly, photos of the strike were being obtained and published by the news media after 8 years of minimizing Obama attacks.

You can feel the tone, and that’s “Let’s Blame Trump.” And the news media wonders why it has lost credibility when it comes out with partisan trash like this.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Disgraceful: NY Times Attempts To Blame Trump For Yemen Raid Deaths »

San Francisco Sues To Be Allowed To Continue Breaking Federal Law

Remember when Democrats, including then President Obama, made a huge stink about Arizona’s illegal immigration law, SB1070, saying that states must follow federal law to the tee, not even allowing the laws to (supposedly) be stronger? Well, what of when cities refuse to follow federal law? California itself is considering becoming a sanctuary state (Trump should tell all illegals to head to California, and let the state deal with the resulting fallout), but, here’s what San Francisco is doing

(SF Chronicle)  San Francisco’s widespread resistance to President Donald Trump broadened from protests in the streets to inside a courthouse Tuesday.

Staying true to San Francisco’s vow to counter the president at every step of the way, City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed a lawsuit Tuesday to strike down Trump’s executive order to strip sanctuary cities of federal funding if they do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

The federal lawsuit, the first filed by a U.S. city over Trump’s sanctuary city executive order, comes as The City braces for potential funding cuts as it relies on $1.2 billion annually in federal funding for a range of services.

“The president’s executive order is not only unconstitutional, it is un-American,” Herrera said during a Tuesday morning news conference where he was joined by Mayor Ed Lee.

Can you guess what’s missing? Anything that states exactly why Trump’s order is unconstitutional. As far as un-American, San Francisco is one of the last cities to complain, coming right after Berkeley. The flag burnings, the military hatred, oh, and isn’t part of being American to follow the law?

Herrera has asked the court to halt the implementation of the executive order, invalidate the federal law section 1373 itself and affirm that San Francisco’s sanctuary laws comply with federal law.

Quick, illegals, go to San Francisco.

Seriously, isn’t it great that elected officials put the lives and welfare of those who are unlawfully present in this country over those of legal citizens and residents?

Read: San Francisco Sues To Be Allowed To Continue Breaking Federal Law »

If All You See…

…is heat created snow from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The H2, with a post on when bunnies attack.

Read: If All You See… »

Warmists Very Upset That Judge Says ‘Climate Change’ Is A Matter Of Debate

And, by upset, I mean apoplectic

(UK Guardian) A Washington state judge has sparked outrage for remarks questioning the existence of climate change and the role of humans in global warming.

During the high-profile trial of Ken Ward, a climate activist facing 30 years in prison for shutting down an oil pipeline, Judge Michael E Rickert said: “I don’t know what everybody’s beliefs are on [climate change], but I know that there’s tremendous controversy over the fact whether it even exists. And even if people believe that it does or it doesn’t, the extent of what we’re doing to ourselves and our climate and our planet, there’s great controversy over that.”

The Skagit County judge made the comments on 24 January while addressing Ward’s request to present a “necessity defense” in court, meaning he would argue that the grave threat of climate change justified civil disobedience.

Well, really, when aren’t they upset and carrying on like a 5 year told he/she can’t have a cookie?

Rickert’s controversial statements, along with his decision to block Ward from arguing that his pipeline protest was necessary to prevent harm to the planet, angered environmentalists who insist that American courts have an obligation to recognize the science and consensus among researchers about man-made climate change.

“I thought it was shocking and deeply worrisome for my case,” said Ward, 60, of Corbett, Oregon, who temporarily shut off the safety valve of the TransMountain pipeline in Skagit County. “We are in the late stages of global collapse, and to have someone who is presumably as knowledgeable and aware as a judge should be blithely dismissing the biggest problem facing the world is chilling.”

Global collapse!

Ward admits he intentionally broke the law. Eric Worrall notes, in regards to the “necessity defense”

Even if climate change is as serious a threat as Ken Ward believes, his actions likely endangered lives, rather than preventing imminent loss of life. A close family relative used to work in an oil refinery, my understanding is abruptly closing the emergency shutdown valve on an oil pipeline can cause the pipe to rupture, which can lead to life threatening fires and other serious consequences.

BTW, didn’t Ward and his compatriots take fossil fueled vehicles to their little law breaking and creating a danger to other people demonstration?

Read: Warmists Very Upset That Judge Says ‘Climate Change’ Is A Matter Of Debate »

Suddenly, The NY Times Has A Big Problem With Using A Pen And A Phone

Barack Obama long ruled with his pen and phone, though, really, he rarely picked up the phone to talk to anyone in the duly elected Legislative Branch, even the people in his own party. It was a long streak of executive orders, rule making, and regulations. He rarely attempted to work with Congress. Did the Media Industrial Complex, especially the NY Times, call him out on this? Of course not. But, now, they’re super upset, and we end up with this

The subhead for the article is even more fun

On the edge!!!!! Bypassing federal agency and congressional input! OK, in fairness, Obama didn’t always bypass federal agencies: he had like minded individuals working there who would help push his agenda.

So this is where we are, just under two weeks into the presidency of a man who has never had to report to a boss or a board, who likes to imagine he gives all the orders, who fires or sues those who complain:

Wait, what? Never had to report? Now they have a problem with this? Really? BTW, where were the complaints on the last when Obama got rid of General Stanley McChrystal?

An acting attorney general, Sally Yates, fired and accused of betrayal because she told her Justice Department subordinates not to defend President Trump’s order closing the nation’s borders to more than 200 million legitimate foreign travelers, because it targets Muslims.

Trump’s running the Executive Office like a corporation, and, if you defy the leadership, you’ll be on the street. Even many Republicans seems shocked that Trump is putting his stamp on the Executive Office in this manner this much. But, when is the best time to do it? From the get-go.

And all across the government, in the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration and even the Interior Department, a universe of federal employees rattled by directives on regulations and hiring, shaken by rumors of cuts in basic science involving energy, health and climate change, and wondering where the next edict will come from.

Well, they can always go work in the private sector.

Mr. Trump’s supporters thrill to see him pumping out executive orders and memorandums aimed at turning his campaign pledges into action — building a wall, killing trade deals, gutting Obamacare and barring Muslim refugees. Yet in doing so he has not only flouted traditional policy-making machinery but, in some cases, opened the way for legal challenges.

So, wait, they’re upset that Donald Trump is doing what he promised? Are they more upset over that or that Trump is, again, shifting the Way Things Work to resemble, as much as possible, a private sector corporation? If Trump could enforce this type of mentality on the Executive Branch and the federal agencies, it would last long beyond his time in office.

And, we can expect the NY Times and the rest of the Credentialed Media to have snit fits over Trump using his pen and phone.

Read: Suddenly, The NY Times Has A Big Problem With Using A Pen And A Phone »

Pirate's Cove