Liberal Favorite Trevor Noah Explains Why Liberals Are Wrong On Watch Lists

Trevor Noah, who replaced Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, and immediately saw the ratings tank, is still a big favorite of far left progressives, especially those at sites like Salon, Slate, and Vox

Watch Trevor Noah explain why the terrorist list gun ban is actually pretty scary

The Daily Show’s Trevor Noah thinks that banning suspected terrorists from buying guns may not be that good of an idea, even if it sounds like it is.

In the wake of the recent Orlando massacre, Sen. Chris Murphy and other Democratic lawmakers filibustered for 15 hours in order to force a vote on a new gun bill. If passed, the bill would give the government broad authority to block the sale of guns to individuals investigated for terrorist activity up to five years before the attempted purchase. The bill is widely backed by Senate Democrats, and the terrorist list ban haspreviously garnered support from President Obama.

But perhaps it isn’t so cut and dried, Noah points out.

Last night, in a segment about the Senate filibuster, he explained why the idea is actually pretty troubling. “It sounds like something that shouldn’t be up for discussion,” he said. “But it’s not as formal as it sounds. It’s a secret list that anyone could be put on at any time.”

Therein lies a big problem. And Democrats/Liberals/Progressives should really say to themselves “could I end up on a government list with virtually no way to get off, violating my Constitutional rights? What if I find myself in a situation where, despite my loathing of guns, I find that I need one, say, because someone is violently threatening me, and now I cannot purchase one? What if it is simply that I get on a list and cannot fly? Who will protect me?”

Noah acknowledged that though the legislation might seem comforting now, we might want to think twice before consenting to such a large expansion of governmental discretionary power. His fears may be well-grounded. According to watch list guidelines published in the Intercept in 2014, adding a person’s name to the list requires neither “concrete facts” nor “irrefutable evidence.”

The ACLU has long been against things like the No Fly List, finding them a violation of our Rights, and has even filed lawsuits against them. And they do not think they should be used without serious and massive overhauls

There’s another important aspect to the government’s case at this stage. The government has emphasized that it is making predictive judgments that people like our clients — who have never been charged let alone convicted of a crime — might nevertheless pose a threat. That’s a perilous thing for it to do. As we’ve told the court based on evidence from experts, these kinds of predictions guarantee a high risk of error. If the government is going to predict that Americans pose a threat and blacklist them, that’s even more reason for the fundamental safeguards we seek.

We disagree with Speaker Ryan about many things. But he’s right that people in this country have due process rights. We want to see them respected.

And we disagree with the ACLU on many things, but they are right: using lists like the No Fly List are dangerous.

Video of Trevor Noah is available at the top link.

Read: Liberal Favorite Trevor Noah Explains Why Liberals Are Wrong On Watch Lists »

If All You See…

…is an evil fossil fueled machined delivering horrible world killing ice cream, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Cold Fury, with a post on moderate Islam explained.

Recommendations for next week’s theme?

Read: If All You See… »

Gay Pride Flag Accused Of “Creating A Hostile Work Environment”

This is an interesting state of affairs, with things reversed on liberals who complain about everything that Offends their delicate sensibilities

(Tampa Bay Times) A pride flag waving outside the Hillsborough County center was meant to be a sign of respect and remembrance for the victims of the shooting at an LGBT nightclub in Orlando.

But just a day after it was raised, Commissioner Stacy White said it may be offending Christian employees and questioned whether it should be taken down.

In an email sent to the the county human relations director Peggy Rowe on Thursday, White said he received an anonymous complaint from a county employee that the presence of the flag was “nearly unbearable” for her to pass on her way to work and created a “hostile work environment.”

Calling the rainbow flag a “divisive, politically-charged symbol,” White asked Rowe if it could become an HR problem for the county. If it does, then White said he wanted a special meeting of the county commission to consider removing it.

One has to wonder whether the complaint was serious, or simply a response to the liberal ability to whine about everything that they do not like, and use the power of government to get it removed/banned/etc. The only thing missing was the word “hate”, a favorite means of doing away with all those things Leftists do not like.

And Leftists do not like this complaint at all. At Patheos, Hemant Mehta is rather upset

This isn’t an anti-Christian symbol. This isn’t the promotion of any controversial position. This is merely showing solidarity with a group of people who were targeted in an all-out attack. But I guess showing empathy for dead people is too “hostile” for her. (snip)

It’s only divisive if you’re an asshole.

It’s only divisive if you think, as the shooter apparently did, that LGBT people aren’t worthy of love, compassion, and equality.

Interestingly, Leftists simply dismiss out of hand all similar replies when it is Leftists going all Special Snowflake. I do love the tolerance from Leftists when it is other people being offended, in terming them “assholes”. Nor does it get better in the comments. Nor are the comments any better at Raw Story, but, this one amuses me

One phone call, and an anonymous one at that. And this fine upstanding Florida lawmaker gets bent out of shape?
Hostile work environment indeed.

I call bullshit.

Sounds like an excuse to hide is own prejudice.

Perhaps a little self reflection on the way Leftists are constantly doing exactly this would be in order.

But, hey, maybe it is a real complaint. Should a flag like this be flown on government property? What if it had been a bunch of Christians murdered by an Islamist due to their Christian beliefs? Or, members of the military? Would Leftists think it is appropriate to fly a Christian or military flag?

Read: Gay Pride Flag Accused Of “Creating A Hostile Work Environment” »

Susan Collins Offers A “Compromise” On Watch List Gun Bans

With Republicans like Collins, why do we need Democrats?

(NY Times) With congressional leaders once again at a stalemate over how to respond to a mass shooting, the Senate’s most moderate Republican, Susan Collins of Maine, is developing a compromise measure that would prevent some terrorism suspects from purchasing weapons, while sidestepping partisan flash points that have doomed similar legislation in the past and threaten to do so again next week.

The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, has already scheduled votes for Monday on four proposals — two sponsored by Republicans and two by Democrats — but all four are expected to fail in a nearly identical replay of votes last December after the attack in San Bernardino, Calif. (snip)

The legislation being drafted by Ms. Collins would bar the sale of guns to terrorism suspects who appear on either the government’s no-fly list or the so-called “selectee” list, in which individuals are subjected to additional security screening before being allowed to board an airplane. Those lists are far more narrow than the federal terrorist screening database, which is the focus of a proposal sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, one of the four measures to be voted on Monday.

But while the gun restrictions proposed by Ms. Collins would target a narrower group of individuals, her measure does not require federal prosecutors to demonstrate “probable cause” of criminal terrorist activity, which is required in an alternative to the Feinstein measure sponsored by Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican.

And therein lies the problem: there is little in the way of Due Process protections for those accused. It’s that whole pesky Bill Of Rights thing, for which Democrats used to have a problem when it came to things like the no fly list(s), but which they no realize they can use to deny citizens their Constitutional rights to a firearm. Being accused of terrorism, which is used very broadly by Democrats, rather than aimed at actual terrorists, and being placed on these lists creates a situation with virtually no way to get yourself off, and is rife for abuse.

Democrats say Mr. Cornyn’s measure, which will also be voted on Monday, sets such a high burden of proof that it renders useless the underlying gun restrictions.

By “high burden of proof,”, they mean the government has to provide that evidence that you belong on a list, with the burden being on the government, than the citizen, which is the appropriate way.

Instead, Ms. Collins has proposed an appeals process that would award attorney’s fees to anyone who successfully challenged the government’s effort to prevent the sale of a firearm.

What mechanisms are there to successfully challenge? Is the burden on the citizen, or on the government? If it’s on the citizen, then that violates innocent till proven guilty, and is un-Constitutional.

What if your child was on one of these lists, and you couldn’t get them off?

You may not like Other People having guns (while refusing to give up your own), but, would you be OK with a secret list that would restrict you from, say, going on the Internet and speaking your mind, with virtually no mechanism in place to afford you the ability to get off the list and get your Constitutional Rights back? Do you think the burden should be on the Government, rather than you?

This “compromise” is essentially giving the liberal gun grabbers almost everything they want as a mechanism of abusing the power of government to deny citizens their 2nd Amendment rights.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Susan Collins Offers A “Compromise” On Watch List Gun Bans »

Vermont’s Warmist AG Sued For Withholding Records

In the rush to start fishing expeditions in violation of 1st Amendment Rights, some of the Warmist AG’s have opened themselves up, including Vermont’s

(Watchdog) Vermont’s Attorney General is being sued for withholding public records related to a multi-state investigation of groups opposed to climate change policies.

On Monday, two nonprofit legal centers filed a lawsuit to force Attorney General William Sorrell and Assistant Attorney General Scott Kline to turn over documents from private email accounts that discuss climate change “deniers.”

The complaint, filed by attorneys for the Energy and Environment Legal Institute and Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, says a request for documents was made on May 10 but not responded to by the extended deadline of May 24 — the longest extension allowable under Vermont law. (snip)

In an interview with Watchdog, Schnare said he thinks Sorrell and Kline are covering up their interactions with environmental groups interested in advancing climate change policies and silencing opponents.

“We don’t know all that we will find once we pry loose the public records the Vermont AG should release, but we believe it will further expose the collusion among the AGs and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and an assorted group of plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Here’s the thing: the public has a right to bring some sunshine on the workings of government. Government doesn’t have the right to go on fishing expeditions against the private sector. Feelings are not a Constitutional reason to demand private entities to turn over their private documents.

Read: Vermont’s Warmist AG Sued For Withholding Records »

If All You See…

…is a horrendous desert world created by evil people eating evil moo cow ice cream, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Liberty Zone, with a post on the media going apeshit.

Read: If All You See… »

Did CBS Break Gun Laws?

I had the tweet saved, saw drowningpuppies mentioned this, I’ll leave you to hit the link

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/743780509566701568

Read: Did CBS Break Gun Laws? »

Warmist John Kerry Tours Arctic Circle to See Climate Change Or Something

Nothing like taking a long fossil fueled trip to complain

(ABC News) U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday visited Norway’s extreme north, viewing areas where climate change has melted ice and opened new sea lanes.

Trailed by staff and journalists in small Zodiac-type inflatable boats, Kerry and Norway’s foreign minister motored in an Arctic research vessel from a research station in Ny-Alesund, the world’s northernmost civilian settlement, across the iceberg strewn Kongsifjorden (King’s Bay Fjord) to the Blomstrand Glacier.

The glacier has receded significantly in the past 25 years to 30 years, with summer temperatures now 8 degrees and 11 degrees higher than they were, according to Jan-Gunnar Winther, the director of the Norwegian Polar Institute, who guided Kerry and Foreign Minister Borge Brende.

“It’s stunning,” Kerry said. “This is the center of change within the center of change.”

Well, yes, considering all the fossil fueled boats motoring out to see a glacier. And then Kerry took a fossil fueled trip to Denmark, followed by Greenland. It’s rather hard to take utter hypocrites seriously in their beliefs.

Read: Warmist John Kerry Tours Arctic Circle to See Climate Change Or Something »

Good News: It’s Easier To Get A Gun Than A Puppy

It’s apparently become a big thing for media folks to attempt to purchase firearms, particularly AR-15’s and similar “assault weapons”. All to tell us how easy it is to purchase a weapon and pass an instant background check when one is not a list which would ban them from ownership. Apparently, these media folks must have some skeletons in the closet making them think they should be denied.

And, then we have CNN’s Doug Criss

It’s easier to get a gun than to get a puppy

The way our laws are written, guns are easy to get in this land of the free.

Buying from a gun store? Background checks and waiting periods might slow you down — but only a little.

Buying from a private seller? In all but a handful of states, there’s really no hoops to jump through at all.

In fact, it’s easier to get a gun than …

First, Doug notes that it is easier than getting a driver’s license, which requires lots of training and probationary periods to find out if you are worthy to drive a multi-ton vehicle capable of crushing other people around daily. Which is not a Constitutional Right.

Then a passport, which requires a few hoops, like taking a picture to send in with your application, and, thanks to government incompetence, can take up to six weeks to receive back!

And cold medicine, which is behind the counter in many cases, as it contains pseudoephedrine, used to make meth. Neither is a Constitutional Right.

And divorce? There’s often a waiting period to get a divorce. But no waiting period, or at least not a long one, to exercise your Constitutional Right to a firearm.

Finally,

Pet: In most cases, you must be 21, show ID and you may be asked to provide personal references. In some cases, the adoption agency may do a home check before handing over the pet.

Gun: No personal references. No home visits.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/wteach/pirates/picard-face-palm_zps6efb11ab.gif

Read: Good News: It’s Easier To Get A Gun Than A Puppy »

NY Times: Say, “Have Muslims Created a Harmful Atmosphere for Gays?”

The Editorial Board of the NY Times has already treated us to a smattering of Blamestorming post Orlando Muslim terror attack, blaming Republicans, Conservatives, Tea Party members, the NRA, all gun owners, anyone who opposes gay marriage and men pretending to be women showering with young girls, and, of course, Christians. They’re more than willing to paint the blame with broad brushes The one group that has escaped criticism within the opinion pages is Muslims. They have a tough time even blaming the extremist version of Islam, to be referred to as Islamists.

Some, like David Brooks, trot out the standard meme that Islamic terrorists are not actually Islamic.

The Times continues it’s craziness, running a Room For Debate article entitled Have Christians Created a Harmful Atmosphere for Gays? Will there be one which replaces Christians with Muslims? Don’t bet on it. The overview of the issue for the Times is

But is it fair to say that people share any blame for Saturday night’s attack because they oppose L.G.B.T. equality for religious reasons? And while the media is focused on the role that Muslim anti-gay rhetoric may have played in this slaughter, do conservative Christians need to accept greater civil rights for L.G.B.T people in order to create a less hurtful atmosphere in the United States?

Four people are given the chance to respond, and the first is Rod Dreher, senior editor of The American Conservative magazine, who discusses the idiocy of this outlook, before getting to

But I strongly reject the oft-heard accusations from the Left that opposition to whatever identity-politics goal it pursues can only be based in hate. It’s a crude and illiberal attempt to suppress dissent.

Whatever made the radical Muslim Omar Mateen murder 49 innocents, connecting that atrocity to Christians (and Republicans) is shameless opportunism. It renders reasoned debate impossible, and turns cultural politics into a crusade against infidels.

Then we have Julie Rogers, a “speaker, blogger and and advocate for L.G.B.T. people in the church,” who says all Christians must repent for being opposed to gay marriage, gender confused in the bathroom, and, really, all LGBT values, you know, like the sado-masochism marches in San Francisco.

It’s no surprise, then, that subtle disdain for L.G.B.T. people would eventually be expressed more overtly. In the case of the shooting at Pulse in Orlando, it was devastating. The Christians I know were grieved by the massacre and they want to know how to help. The best thing they can do is repent for the ways they’ve helped create a culture that devalues L.G.B.T. people made in the image of God, and then begin to tell a better story about us in their circles. If everyone grew up hearing that God delights in gay people and we have gifts to nourish our communities, I do not think we would be targeted for violence or discrimination.

No word related to Islam is mentioned. Nor that the killer was a registered Democrat. All Christians are blamed, but not Muslims. And, unsurprisingly, the Times refused to allow my comment at her piece noting that the Orlando killer was a Muslim and a registered Democrat, who pledge fealty to ISIS.

Jim Daly is president of Focus on the Family, simply attempts to defend Christianity, while turning the debate around, wondering “What if we were to ask whether promoting same-sex marriage by citing civil rights helps create a hateful atmosphere? The door swings both ways.” But, he rejects the premise that either creates hate. Nor does he mention Islam.

They end with an article by “David P. Gushee is the distinguished university professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University and the author of “Changing Our Mind.” which calls for full inclusion of L.G.B.T. Christians in the church.” His piece is entitled Without Full Acceptance by Christians, Gays Are Demeaned and Hurt. He writes

Traditionally, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all offered powerful condemnations of same-sex activity derived from ancient sacred texts that addressed the subject in very different contexts from our own. The modern gay rights movement is only 50 years old. It has made extraordinary progress in that period, but that’s a blink of an eye compared to the accrued weight of centuries-old religious traditions speaking in God’s name.

Of course, he goes on to blame Christians and Conservatives, failing to note the atrocities done in the name of Allah and Mohamed against gays, who have formalized this hatred even within the laws of many, many Muslim countries. We get things like “even polite half-acceptance leaves L.G.B.T. people in a demeaning second-class position”, which means “your Right to free expression needs to be stopped.” But, few Christians are calling for gays to be thrown from buildings, hung or stoned to death, whipped, nor thrown in jail, as they are in so many Islamic countries, and even polls in European nations show vast numbers of Muslims who think homosexuality should be made illegal.

Will the Times run anything on Muslims being hateful towards gays? Don’t count on it.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times: Say, “Have Muslims Created a Harmful Atmosphere for Gays?” »

Pirate's Cove