As Dems Have Their Anti-Due Process Sit In, NY Times Reminds Them That The ACLU Doesn’t Agree

By William Teach June 23, 2016 – 7:55 am

You’ve seen this, right? The Democrats having a sit in over wanting to pass anti-gun bills that use all sorts of lists that violate Constitutional Due Process. It’s just one big tantrum. By people in expensive suits who are protected by all sorts of people carrying firearms. But, they don’t seem to understand Due Process very well.

Even Gawker thinks Democrats are fighting for a bad, stupid bill. So does the NY Times

After Orlando, Questions Over Effectiveness of Terrorism Watch Lists

The shooting rampage at a nightclub in Orlando, Fla., has focused new attention on the vast but murky terror watch lists that the government has used with mixed results to identify potential security threats.

At the time of the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, there were just 16 names on the government’s so-called no-fly list. Today, that number stands at about 81,000, officials said, and the largest of the watch lists has 1.5 million names on it, all but a small fraction of them foreigners. (snip)

The recent proposals to stop people on the watch lists from being able to buy guns have faced resistance from an unlikely group of opponents, including the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union.

“We’re as appalled as anyone else about the attack in Orlando,” said Hina Shamsi, the director of the A.C.L.U.’s National Security Project. “But it’s our position that there is no bar on Congress in the reasonable regulation of guns. They could do something without an overly broad, unreliable watch list solution.”

The A.C.L.U., representing Muslim-Americans and others who said they had wrongly been put on the no-fly list, won a ruling in federal court in Oregon two years ago that found the list was unconstitutional because of the high risk of errors and the difficulty of being taken off it. That lawsuit is continuing.

So, there you have it, the ACLU thinks the lists are un-Constitutional, mostly because they violate Due Process. Also, to be fair, because they love representing Islamists, but, mostly the Due Process notion. Then there’s this

Under guidelines for the biggest of the terror lists, known as TIDE, or Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, those placed on the list are “known or appropriately suspected” of being involved in terrorist activity. Of the 1.5 million names on the TIDE list, residents of the United States account for only about 15,000.

Which means that the majority of those on that list are ineligible to purchase firearms except in certain situations. How about we fully restrict foreigners from purchasing a firearm without the approval of a judge? This would be for something like hunting, so, yes, we can restrict them to certain rifles, or because they are being threatened? But, most are not permanent residents. They are temporary. Hence, cannot purchase. Period.

Then, if you want to use these lists, if you are US Citizen, you are given all Due Process capabilities, and the Government must prove your danger from purchasing a weapon. If they can’t, they need to leave you alone. And, should have to pay your legal fees if you need a lawyer. Senator Cornyn’s measure, which would require that the government prove probable cause to a judge, just like with a search warrant, would be the best option, rather than the Democrats proposals, which shred due process in favor of mere suspicion, and create enormous difficulties for citizens to get off the lists.

Perhaps Democrats can tell us why they are for not only removing 2nd Amendment Rights, but Due Process to boot?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: As Dems Have Their Anti-Due Process Sit In, NY Times Reminds Them That The ACLU Doesn’t Agree »

Posted in Constitution, Democrats | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

Letter Offers Best Argument For Brexit Leave

By William Teach June 22, 2016 – 7:35 pm

The UK Telegraph published quite a few letters, most of which were in favor of Leave, as in, leaving the European Union. This one should have been the lead

SIR – It grieves me that politicians and academic colleagues among the Remainers prefer the arguments of financial gain to the principles of freedom, independence and self-government that so many of our countrymen have cherished for centuries, fought and died for.

These fundamental principles and rights, which are the foundation stones of democracy, cannot be bought or sold.

Keeping them should be the first, overriding reason for all who desire to leave the EU. Failure to leave will mean years of dictatorial rule by unelected bureaucrats and a complete loss of our national self-esteem, pride and history, which are condensed into the word sovereignty.

Sir Norman Browse
Alderney, Channel Islands

We’ll see what happens once the voting starts in less than 16 hours. This very much is about the principles espoused by Sir Browse versus the Big Government fascistic nature of the Progressive big wigs in the EU.

Read: Letter Offers Best Argument For Brexit Leave »

Posted in Europe | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 22, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil water sucking golf course, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Patterico’s Pontifications, with a post on the Trump assassination attempt not being news to the news.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Cult Of Climastrology Threatens Everyone Else With Lawsuits

By William Teach June 22, 2016 – 12:11 pm

This is a rather timely article. Guitarcarver noted yesterday

It should be remembered that the lead attorney for the tobacco case has said the case was never about injury, it was about getting a settlement. It was about money, and had nothing to do with consumer protection or truth.

A redistribution of Other People’s money (especially to themselves) is certainly a big part of the ‘climate change’ push, being a subset of the greater Progressive cult. And it certainly helps with the political power and control they want

Scale of climate damages ‘could dwarf tobacco lawsuits’
As ExxonMobil case divides US top lawyers, campaigners advise governments to take on fossil fuel interests or face court themselves

Governments will face rising demands for climate compensation unless they crack down on coal, oil and gas companies operating within their authority

That was the conclusion of a report by Australia-based NGO the Climate Justice Programme on Tuesday.

Victims of global warming such as citizens from small island states will increasingly look for redress in the courts, it warned. The scale of damages could dwarf previous mass actions like those against tobacco and asbestos companies.

“Although there is this group of fossil fuel corporations who have been the primary actors in climate change, governments have colluded to allow them to continue to be so embedded in the economy,” Australian lawyer and report co-author Keely Boom told Climate Home.

What’s the old saying, follow the money? And where, exactly, will this money end up? With the people who are supposedly harmed by ‘climate change’, or with the groups and lawyers who are sue happy? Warmists have set a standard where nothing can disprove their pet theory, because everything is blamed on their pet theory.

Strangely, so many of these Warmists refuse to give up their own use of fossil fuels.

Read: Cult Of Climastrology Threatens Everyone Else With Lawsuits »

Posted in Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Is Attacking Freedom Of Religion Or Something

By William Teach June 22, 2016 – 8:09 am

The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson is in a Special Snowflake kind of snit-fit: he thinks Trump is an attack on freedom of religion, as the headline reads for the stringer version of his Washington Post article. At the WP we get

Trump’s special version of Jim Crow — for Muslims

Donald Trump apparently wants to institute something akin to Jim Crow discrimination against Muslims, including those who are citizens of the United States. Is this what the Republican Party wants as well?

What’s your opinion about legalized religious bigotry, House Speaker Paul Ryan (Wis.)? How about you, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.)? Do Republican quislings agree with the man they have endorsed for president? They should never again speak of the hallowed traditions of the Party of Lincoln, because those ideals are being spit upon by the presumptive nominee. The GOP is now the Party of Trump.

On Sunday, “Face the Nation” host John Dickerson reminded Trump that last year he had raised the idea of “profiling” for Muslims and asked him to elaborate. Trump’s response: “Well, I think profiling is something that we’re going to have to start thinking about as a country. Other countries do it,” he said, naming Israel, and “we have to start using common sense.”

Eugene goes through his tortured logic, doing all he can to protect Islam, and even the Islamic extremists, before ending with

The Republican Party is about to nominate for president a man who manifestly does not believe in freedom of religion. Shame on the GOP officials who meekly fall in line.

Well, now, that’s interesting. Which party has worked to shut down any and all public displays of the religion? Well, the Christian religion, because they seemingly have no problem with displays if Islam in places such as schools. Which Party sues to remove crosses and such from public locations. Which Party despised Tim Tebow for being religious? Which Party refuses to allow Christian organizations to choose whether they want to allow contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients in their health insurance plans? Which Party works to eliminate saying “Merry Christmas” and all religious trappings of Christmas in public? The list goes on and on.

Democrats are the last people who should ever mention someone else not believing in freedom of religion.

Read: Trump Is Attacking Freedom Of Religion Or Something »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

What’s The LGBT Case For Owning A Gun?

By William Teach June 22, 2016 – 7:12 am

Since the terrorist attack at Pulse nighclub in Orlando, many in the LGBT community are starting to realize that carrying a firearm for protection is a Good Idea, and joining the community of those who own firearms. Many are sick and tired of their Democratic Party brethren attempting to disarm people who need protection. Shockingly, the NY Times allows Nicki Stallard to make the LGBT Case For Guns

I’LL never forget the first piece of safety advice I got when I began my transition from the male body in which I was born to the female body I now occupy: Carry a whistle. If I was attacked, I was supposed to blow it in hopes it would alert some do-gooder to dash into a dark alley to break up a brutal hate crime.

The idea was not only preposterous, it was also insulting. The implication was that I, being transgender, wouldn’t be able to save myself. But I didn’t need a whistle; I had a gun.

Since the attack in Orlando, Fla., many L.G.B.T. groups have been calling loudly for laws restricting gun ownership. But if anyone should be concerned about protecting the individual right to bear arms, it’s L.G.B.T. people. We need to stop preaching nonviolence and voting for politicians who don’t protect us.

To be clear, Stallard is the spokesperson for the Pink Pistols, a group of LGBT gun enthusiasts, and he/she makes the case crystal clear for, really, not just any in that community to own, and carry, a gun, but everyone else.

I’m not the only one who thinks the L.G.B.T. movement is making a mistake by lining up behind gun control measures. In the days since Orlando, Facebook membership in my pro-gun L.G.B.T. group, Pink Pistols, has quadrupled, from around 1,500 to more than 6,500, and new chapters are starting across the country. Gun stores are reporting a spike in sales to L.G.B.T. buyers, and gun trainers are reaching out, offering free training or discounts.

Stallard goes on to briefly relate a story about a Tony G. Palmer, who once flashed a gun at some people who were seriously threatening him because he was gay, and they retreated. Sometimes, just showing a gun will deescalate the potential for assault. I had a buddy flash his concealed carry weapon in a liquor store to a guy who looked like he was about to rob it. Ended it right there. And there are numerous stories of people using their weapons to stop Bad People. This ain’t Hell… features them all the time.

This is a call to L.G.B.T. people to take their own defense seriously, and to question the left-leaning institutions that tell them guns are bad, and should be left to the professionals. Become a professional. You’re allowed. That’s what the Second Amendment is for. We can fight back when our lives depend on it.

This is good advice for everyone. But, Democrats don’t want this to happen, they want to disarm some of their favorite groups, women and LGBT. Unsurprisingly, many of those leaving comments at the article are unhappy with the notion

I want Wayne LaPierre to demonstrate his hypothesis, “a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun.” I want to give him a holstered hand gun and sit him down in a room. Then let someone with an automatic weapon burst through the door with no warning and see if he can successfully defend himself. This would have to be with live bullets to make it a true test. I am guessing Mr. LaPierre would soil his pants in the three seconds before getting shot by the assailant.

Once again, we have an unhinged Leftist, unable to understand that it is illegal to purchase an automatic weapon.

Sad when people cave in to fear tactics and think that the only way to be safe is to carry a gun. The NRA wins again.

The most dangerous places are those with massive gun control, which also happen to be places run by Democrats.

Here I am again, the kid from Wyoming saying you don’t need a gun to protect yourself. Try a small container of pepper spray found in the auto store. A knee in the groin works too or how about kneecapping the assailant? BE imagitive and will to carry through. Most killers assume the victim is going to be docile; don’t let them get the first blow nor warn them. Just strike like Thunderball!

Might as well have a rape whistle. Liberals love a disarmed population, and think some beatdowns, rapes, and murders are worth the cost.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: What’s The LGBT Case For Owning A Gun? »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 21, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible sexist magazine, and we all know that climate change causes more sexism, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post wondering if Trump even wants to win.

BTW,  just to reiterate, all IAYS posts are open to whatever you want to discuss or mention.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Blake Lively Blames Hotcoldwetdry For Shark Attack. In Movie

By William Teach June 21, 2016 – 10:25 am

Say, I wonder what the carbon footprint was for making the movie?

(Newsbusters) Appearing on the Today show, Monday, to promote her new shark movie, actress Blake Lively implied that the reason her character is in peril is global warming. Talking to Savannah Guthrie about The Shallows, she asserted, “Because of global warming, sharks are pushed closer to shore. And she’s attacked and you think of a shark attack being in the deep ocean, but it’s almost scarier when shore is right there.”

Lively seems to use the global warming talking point in every interview promoting the film. In the June Marie Claire, she repeated, “Because of climate change and global warming, what was once in the deep is now in the shallows.”

photo worf-startrek-facepalm_zps01f51f46.gif

Let me point out, the premise of the movie is that Lively’s character is surfing alone on a secluded beach. Both things are Bad Ideas, as every surfer knows (yes, I still surf). Second, there are many areas where great whites come in close to shore. See seals on the beach? Think hard before going in. Really, let’s just go back to the above facepalm.

Read: Blake Lively Blames Hotcoldwetdry For Shark Attack. In Movie »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

CNN Poll Has Hillary Leading On Several Key Metrics

By William Teach June 21, 2016 – 7:22 am

This is the time when we will start being inundated with polls, and something to very much consider is that national head to head polls are not a true metric of who will win the general election. It is the State polls where the rubber meets the road. Again, it’s that pesky Electoral College thing. That said, there are a few concerning things for Trump and his supporters, and even for those who are not Trump supporters, but would prefer that Hillary and the Democrats lose

(CNN) Democrat Hillary Clinton tops Republican Donald Trump by a 47% to 42% margin in the race for the presidency, according to a CNN/ORC Poll released Tuesday, and just 22% of registered voters say their minds could change between now and November.

Clinton continues to lead Trump when Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party are included in the list of options. Nationwide in that match-up, Clinton holds 42%, Trump 38%, Johnson 9% and Stein 7%.

As CNN notes, neither Johnson nor Stein (who?) will qualify for every ballot, but could play a big part in swing states. That could mean Bad Things for Trump.

One other thing to consider about this poll is it that it consists of registered voters, not likely voters.

More Clinton backers say they have made up their minds (37% of all registered voters are solid Clinton voters) than Trump voters (33% of voters are firmly Trump). Among those voters who say they are not settled on a candidate in the two-way race, more than one-third choose Johnson (23%) or Stein (12%) when asked the four-way match up.

Clinton voters care not a whit that she is a horrible person who left four Americans to die in Benghazi and then lied about it to the American people and the families of those killed. Nor do they care that she is under criminal investigation by the FBI for violation of multiple federal laws, including the Espionage Act.

Here’s where it gets really interesting, though

Clinton holds an edge over Trump on handling several issues, including foreign policy, immigration, trade with other countries, nominating justices to the Supreme Court, and issues relating to the rights of women and of gays and lesbians. She’s also seen as better able to handle the responsibilities of commander-in-chief and to exercise good judgment in a crisis.

Yeah, that’s right, immigration. Trump has made immigration a hallmark of his campaign, it’s what excited people to become Trumpers…well, building a wall, anyhow…and she beats him 50-45%. She slaughters him on foreign policy 57-36%. And 50-45% on foreign trade.

That said, Trump does beat Hillary on terrorism, the economy, and gun rights. He also beats her on being a strong and decisive leader 47-43%/ Also, “honest and trustworthy” is a 45-37% winner.

But, temperament to be POTUS? Handle the responsibility? Shares your values? Exercises good judgment in a crisis? All Hillary wins. These are not good indicators for a November win.

Even with Trump’s edge on those key issues a majority say they ultimately expect Clinton to prevail in November: 55% say they think she will win the presidency, 38% think Trump will.

Things can change over time, for good or bad. The poll does highlight that of the Republicans polled 51% want Trump as their candidate, 48% want someone else.

Overall, 66% think Hillary did something wrong with her email.

The sampling is interesting, though. 30% Democrat, 23% Republican, and 47% who say they are Independents. And the sampling error is a whopping +/- 8.5 (or less).

Read: CNN Poll Has Hillary Leading On Several Key Metrics »

Posted in Elections | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Oops: Democrat States Have 42% More Mass Shootings

By William Teach June 21, 2016 – 6:50 am

And what are Democrat Party run states? They’re the ones with the most gun restrictions

(Daily Caller) Blue states have 42 percent more mass shootings than red states after adjusting for population, according to data published by Vox, a progressive media outlet, and examined by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Vox published its data after the Orlando terror attack last Sunday, and it suggests that blue states, which tend to have extremely strict gun laws, are ironically much more likely to have mass shootings than red states with less strict gun laws.

TheDCNF’s analysis found that 543 of the mass shootings listed by Vox occurred in blue states while only 330 occurred in red states. If adjusted to account for differences in the size of population, blue states have .381 mass shootings per 100,000 people, while red states have a mere .267.

This all means that mass shootings are “42 percent more likely to occur in a blue state after accounting for population differences.”

The deep blue areas of Washington, D.C. and Maryland led the nation with 2.38 and .998 mass shootings per 100,000 people. Illinois, Delaware, Michigan Rhode Island, and California were relatively close behind and had more mass shootings than the blue state average, according to Vox’s data.

All of them have massive gun restrictions. In fact, California is a gun grabber’s wet dream of gun restrictions, featuring almost the entire wish-list of gun grabbers. Oh, and it wants to implement even more restrictions on law abiding citizens. The only thing missing is banning all personally owned firearms. Except for certain people, such as celebrities and politicians, maybe some union heads. Liberals love their exclusions.

Of course, Liberals will have their excuses

The typical liberal explanation for this is that mass shooters go to red states to buy guns, which they use in blue states. Even progressive Politifact finds these claims “misleading for a varied number of reasons.” This also ignores the fact that there are already roughly 360 million firearms in America, or more guns than people.

It also avoids the pesky notion that, even if the shooters were going to red states to buy guns, the people in Blue states seem pretty pumped up to shoot a lot of people.

Oh, and the numbers of mass shootings by Vox are hyper-inflated, since they consider a mass shooting to be when 4 or more are shot. Law enforcement, including the FBI, considers it to be when 4 or more are killed, not including the (usually) Democrat State resident.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Oops: Democrat States Have 42% More Mass Shootings »

Posted in Liberal World | 10 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove