New Mexico Democrats Push Gun Control Laws That Won’t Stop Criminals

New Mexico has already passed lots and lots of gun laws. Not quite at the level of the People’s Republik Of California. Everytown rates them #16 for U.S. states. Giffords gives them a C+, and has recommendations for New Mexico. Which the Democrats seem to be following

NM Gov. Grisham pushes gun control, public safety as Legislature reconvenes

New Mexico’s governor presented a broad suite of legislative proposals on gun control and enhanced penalties for violent crime Friday, vowing to forge new pathways through the complex landscape of constitutional law in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to expand gun rights.

The announcements by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a second-term Democrat, puts public safety at the forefront of a 30-day legislative session that starts Tuesday. The fast-paced session is limited to budget negotiations — and initiatives chosen by the governor.

“The constitutionality questions are beginning to be very complicated in the arena of gun violence,” Lujan Grisham said. “We are going to continue this effort, following what is going on around the country. … There will be others who will follow in our footsteps, creating their own public safety corridors, which in effect also make New Mexicans safer.”

So, they are going to make it harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the criminality the Democrats create with their terrible, soft on crime laws and policies.

Germane proposals will include a ban on guns at public parks and playgrounds with felony penalties for violations — expanding a hallmark of the governor’s ongoing declaration of a public health emergency related to gun violence and drug abuse.

Democratic legislators are seeking a 14-day waiting period for background checks on gun purchases and a minimum age set to 21 on purchases of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns.

A proposal from Democratic state Rep. Andrea Romero of Santa Fe would place new limitations on assault-style weapons to reducing a shooter’s ability to fire off dozens of rounds a second and attach new magazines to keep firing.

A list of more than 20 public-safety bills, sponsored mostly by Democratic legislators, extend beyond gun safety to a panhandling ban and expanded criminal provisions related to retail theft as local stores have resorted to padlocking clothes. The proposals also include felony penalties for teachers and coaches who ignore hazing incidents in the wake of alleged locker-room assaults involving New Mexico State basketball players.

Yeah, they had to include some measures to deal with their previous idiocy on going easy on criminals. Because criminals will follow these laws and the gun laws. Have fun with the lawsuits if passed! Republicans should offer amendments, since they cannot necessary stop the anti-2nd Amendment bills, that strip those who protect the governor of “assault rifles”, large capacity magazines, and where they can carry weapons in public.

Interestingly, these same people freak about a 72 hour waiting period for abortions, which are not constitutional rights

Read: New Mexico Democrats Push Gun Control Laws That Won’t Stop Criminals »

‘Climate Change’ Drove Extinction Of Real King Kong Or Something

I’m pretty sure this is your fault

What killed the ‘real King Kong’? Scientists say they now know the answer to an ancient mystery

It did not fall off the Empire State Building.

Instead, a giant ape sometimes dubbed the “real King Kong” was driven to extinction by climate change that put its favorite fruits out of reach during the dry season, according to new research published Wednesday in the journal Nature.

Standing 10 feet tall and weighing up to 650 pounds, Gigantopithecus blacki roamed the forested plains of southern China’s Guangxi region hundreds of thousands of years ago, chowing down on fruits and flowers.

But the apes’ strict diet may have led to the species’ demise, researchers found.

The herbivore ape made a “fatal mistake of being reluctant in changing its food preference to find new, more nutritious food,” Yingqi Zhang, the study’s lead researcher, told NBC News on Thursday.

But researchers were able to use one of the latest techniques, called “luminescence dating,” which enabled them to date the soil around the fossils in 22 caves in southern China.

That helped them conclude that the giant apes died out sometime between 295,000 years ago and 215,000 years ago.

Must have been pretty hot with all those fossil fueled vehicles, right? What they, and all the other articles, fail to note is that period was mostly a cool period with many segments of ice age, but, then a massive high spike around 230K years ago, then falling temperatures. Depending on the reconstruction. Because some just show a very cold period between the numbers mentioned above. The object here is to do a bit of scaremongering, make people link this with anthropogenic climate change.

Westaway said the research could also open a possible window into the future for how humans can adapt to adverse climate events and ensure the survival of the species.

“It really puts a precedent on trying to understand how primates respond to environmental stresses and what makes certain primates vulnerable and what makes other ones resilient,” she said.

See? I’d be worried if the greenhouse gases were going to cause an ice age.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Drove Extinction Of Real King Kong Or Something »

If All You See…

…is snow caused by Other People refusing to give up eating meat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The RedSquirrel Report, with a post on predictions for 2024.

Read: If All You See… »

WWIII Watch: Iranian Backed Houthis Vow Response After US Strikes

So, of course, this happened yesterday

U.S. and UK Launch Retaliatory Strikes Against Iran-Backed Houthis, Answering Months of Attacks on Global Trade

The ability of Iran proxy Houthi terrorists to threaten merchant shipping “has taken a blow”, the MOD said after a major strike against 60 targets in Yemen by the U.S. and UK by warships, aircraft, and a submarine.

The United States and the United Kingdom made good on days of warnings that continued attacks on global trade in the Red Sea would incur “consequences” overnight into Friday morning with what had been described as a “massive retaliatory strike” on Houthi targets in Yemen.

Iran-backed Shiite Houthi militias have been striking at civilian merchant ships carrying the world’s trade including cargo containers, cars, and oil through the strategically crucial Red Sea in solidarity with Hamas’s attack on Israel since November. According to the United States, they have launched 27 separate attacks, some of which have hit targets.

United States Central Command (CENTCOM) said the strikes targeted “radar systems, air defense systems, and storage and launch sites for one-way attack unmanned aerial systems, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles”. The Associated Press, citing anonymous defence sources, said 60 targets at 16 sites were attacked in the strike.

And now

Houthis Vow to Respond After U.S. Leads Strikes in Yemen

Iranian-backed Houthi forces and their allies on Friday condemned American-led military strikes in Yemen and vowed to respond, as the Middle East went on alert for retaliatory attacks that could expand the conflict in the region. (snip)

A spokesman for the Houthis, referring to the American-led strikes, told Al Jazeera: “It’s not possible for us not to respond to these operations.”

Iran called the U.S.-led strikes a violation of Yemen’s sovereignty and of international laws, according to state media. Hamas, the armed Palestinian group that controls Gaza, denounced what it called “act of terrorism” and said the United States and Britain would be responsible for “repercussions on the security of the region.”

Oh, good, the terrorist group and terrorist nation are yammering about violations of sovereignty and international law. But, you know, if they didn’t want wake up calls via the U.S. military they shouldn’t have gotten frisky, just like Hamas could have avoided retaliation from Israel.

On the bright side, Biden’s schedule shows him being in D.C Friday night.

Meanwhile, a lot of Biden Comrades are complaining the strikes violate the War Powers Act, including the typical Jew haters and Islamic extremist supporters like Cori Bush and Rashida Tlaib.

Read: WWIII Watch: Iranian Backed Houthis Vow Response After US Strikes »

Shame: Hertz To Dump Huge Segment Of Their EV Vehicles

Look, if you want to get an EV, feel free. Once again, I’ll say I’m not against one. One would work for me 90% of the time, since I’m mostly puttering around town. But, it should be my choice. I’d rather get a hybrid (I’m hoping Honda brings the HRV hybrids to the US when my lease is up in April 2025). Anyhow, can you guess why Hertz is dumping them?

High cost of fixing. Weren’t we told that maintenance is lower for EVs? From the article

Popular car rental service Hertz announced it will get rid of 20,000 electric vehicles from its fleet because of the high cost of fixing them.

The company decided to sell after discovering the vehicles were more expensive to repair after a collision than gas-powered cars.

“Expenses related to collision and damage, primarily associated with EVs, remained high in the quarter, thereby supporting the company’s decision to initiate the material reduction in the EV fleet,” Hertz said in a statement.

The stock market recoiled at the news of the sale, with Hertz shares falling 5% Thursday morning.

Hertz still offers dozens of EV options, from Teslas to BMW’s i3. Even after the sale, the company should have thousands of EVs available. Last year, the company bought around 160,000 EVs for use from Tesla and Sweden’s Polestar.

EV vehicles are typically much more expensive than gas-powered cars to maintain, especially after a crash, with estimates showing a $1,000 difference.

They may have bought them, but, they never entered the fleet, which analysts show to be around 60K, with quite a few articles showing that dumping 20K is a third of their EV fleet

(CNN) Hertz, which has made a big push into electric vehicles in recent years, has decided it’s time to cut back. The company will sell off a third of its electric fleet, totaling roughly 20,000 vehicles, and use the money they bring to purchase more gasoline powered vehicles.

Electric vehicles have been hurting Hertz’s financials, executives have said, because, despite costing less to maintain, they have higher damage-repair costs and, also, higher depreciation.

The falling prices of EVs is also causing major issues for Hertz’s resale segment

“The MSRP declines in EVs over the course of 2023, driven primarily by Tesla, have driven the fair market value of our EVs lower as compared to last year, such that a salvage creates a larger loss and, therefore, greater burden,” Scherr said.

Simply put, people are generally willing to pay a certain amount less for a used car than for a new one. As the price of new car goes down, that also pushes down what people are willing to pay to buy a used one.

Hertz expects to take a loss of about $245 million due to depreciation on the EVs, an average of about $12,250, per vehicle the company said in an SEC filing.

Yeah, $245 million isn’t chump change. And, are people wanting to rent EVs? Perhaps the small segment who already has one, but, if they’re just handing you the keys it’s not that easy. It can be hard enough for people to drive a different car than what they have with all the technology. It took me a while to figure out a Tesla, and jumping into other manufacturer vehicles and demonstrating them I can only know so much.

Read: Shame: Hertz To Dump Huge Segment Of Their EV Vehicles »

North Carolina Divests From Unilever, Parent Company Of Jew Hating Ben & Jerry’s

If Unilever wants to let one of their companies run wild with Israel and Jew hatred while also supporting a State Department designated terrorist group, there are consequences

North Carolina latest to scoop retirement funds from Ben & Jerry’s over ice cream brand’s Israel boycott

North Carolina closed out last year by becoming the most recent state to divest its public employee pension from the corporate parent of Ben & Jerry’s over the ice cream company’s boycott of Israel.

North Carolina is a swing state in politics. Other states to pull retirement funds over Ben & Jerry’s boycott of Israel span the traditional political boundaries and include ArizonaFloridaIllinoisNew JerseyNew York and Texas.

“We are where we are. We don’t pick which laws to apply and who to apply them to,” North Carolina State Treasurer Dale Folwell, a Republican, told FOX Business in an interview this week. “I wish I never heard of this subject and wish we didn’t have to do what we had to do.”

Folwell announced last month that the North Carolina Retirement Systems — which provides retirement benefits for more than 1 million members, including teachers, firefighters, police officers and government employees — is withdrawing $40 million from Ben & Jerry’s and affiliates. This includes its parent company, Unilever PLC, a U.K.-based company. (snip)

In the face of the BDS movement — short for boycott, divest and sanction — the North Carolina legislature passed a law in 2017 that prohibits “the North Carolina Retirement Systems or the Department of State Treasurer from investing in any company engaged in a boycott of Israel.”

Ben & Jerry’s is welcome to their free speech, North Carolina will not stop it, but, that doesn’t mean NC or the other states have to keep their money in a the company or their parent when they are taking the side of a terrorist organization and all the supporters in Gaza, people so dangerous and extremist that no Arab nation will take them in.

Read: North Carolina Divests From Unilever, Parent Company Of Jew Hating Ben & Jerry’s »

Bummer: “efforts to tackle climate change face a democracy challenge”

Time Magazine wonders if democracy is good for Doing Something about ‘climate change’. The very fact that they are asking this tells you all you need to know, even as Warmist Justin Worland soft-peddles that what we really need is authoritarianism, which is humorous considering Democrats keep yammering about our Democracy Being At Stake

It’s the World’s Biggest Election Year. Is Democracy Good for Climate Change?

This year is the biggest election year on record. Voters in more than 60 countries—including four of the five most populated—will go to the polls in 2024.

And in all of them, climate change is unavoidably on the ballot. Last year was the hottest year on record; this year is expected to be even hotter. The actions that countries take in the coming years will determine the trajectory of future emissions. Yet, despite this reality, climate change remains largely on the electoral campaign backburner.

These two facts side by side—the urgent need to address climate change and the widespread apathy toward the issue in a critical election year—point to an important reality: efforts to tackle climate change face a democracy challenge.

The critical timing of this election year, when nations must rapidly accelerate climate action to keep any hope of meeting the Paris Agreement’s goals alive, offers a lens into the knotty challenges of building democratic support for climate policy. Democracies move on public sentiment, and the best time to galvanize public support is around elections. This year, climate change remains a relatively low priority for the average voter in most places across the globe, seemingly less pressing than immediate economic concerns.

See, and that’s a Big Problem for the Cult of Climastrology, namely, that citizens may say they care about doing something about climate doom, but, in practice, it’s a low-hanging issue, and they do not want all those things like higher taxes and restrictions on their own lives.

For many politicians, the easy solution is to kick the can down the road until after their next election. But doing so also poses a threat to democracy. The challenges created by climate change—unchecked migration, economic stagnation, and the loss of homeland, to name a few—are precisely the kind of developments that have historically fomented authoritarian sentiments.

Letting tons of 3rd world people with 3rd world attitudes into the U.S. unfettered is because of a slight increase in the global temperature since 1850? Yes, this is a cult. Poor economic conditions? This is a cult.

Both elections speak to the core of climate change’s democracy challenge. Climate change, as urgent as the scientific reality may be, feels less urgent to voters than their economic challenges. And elected officials respond to that to win elections.

How dare they listen to the citizens!

In Europe, where voters will elect members to the European Parliament in June, climate change is running up against a different sort of democracy problem. For decades, the E.U. has taken a leading role combating climate change, in large part because the public supported it. The bloc implemented a carbon pricing mechanism in 2005, for example, and more recently created a Green Deal program designed to bring down Europe’s emissions in line with the Paris Agreement. But fear has grown that some citizens feel recent measures have gone too far. Last year, German industry created an uproar over the bloc’s aggressive electric vehicle regulations, and Dutch farmers launched a revolt over policies that target high-emitting fertilizer. The high cost of energy, primarily due to ripples from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, have created political tensions across the continent. Many in Brussels fear that those concerns have contributed to the recent spike in right-wing populism that has long been simmering on the continent. In the Netherlands, most obviously, voters last fall dumped the longtime prime minister in favor of a far-right candidate.

Stupid peasants!

Climate change’s democracy challenge has come up time and again in my reporting over the years. No one has the silver bullet to fix it, but there is a common thread among those who think about it: something needs to be change so that the policy timeline in democracies can match the urgency of the climate crisis.

In other words, the peasants need to listen to their Elites, and just do as their told.

Read: Bummer: “efforts to tackle climate change face a democracy challenge” »

If All You See…

…is an evil gun used for ‘climate change’ caused wars, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Right Scoop, with a post on the president of an LGBTQ org arrested for committing sex crimes with children.

Read: If All You See… »

SCNY Parents Outraged After Kids Put On Remote Learning So Illegals Could Be Housed In School

You heard about Sanctuary City New York deciding to house a lot of illegal aliens in a school ahead of the winter storm early in the week, meaning the kids had to be on remote learning, right? And Now

Outraged parents, pols worry decision to boot NYC students from school for nearly 2,000 migrants will set troubling precedent

Parents and pols are outraged that students were booted from a Brooklyn school to make room for nearly 2,000 migrants during Tuesday’s storm — and warned it could become part of the city’s playbook as officials stumble to keep pace with the runaway migrant crisis.

“We never know what’s going to happen with the weather,” state Assemblyman Michael Novakhov (R-Brooklyn) said outside James Madison High School.

“They can be moved here again depending on the weather conditions,” Novakhov said. “If the weather is bad again are migrants supposed to be moved to this school again? Because schools are not the place for migrants — as simple as that.”

The backlash stems from a last-minute decision by Mayor Eric Adams to bus hundreds of migrant families from a controversial tent shelter at Floyd Bennett Field to the school 5 miles away — with asylum seekers forced to nap on a gym floor before being rustled back to the shelter just hours later.

There are a lot of people complaining, and rightfully so

“The writing was on the wall the minute the city started being inundated with migrants,” said one mother who only gave her name as Maria. “It’s disgusting. It should not be put on us taxpayers.”

Her teen daughter, a student at the school, added, “I do believe they are putting the life of people who are here illegally and not documented over my life. I am a 15-year-old girl at the school who wants to get her education and better her life, and she can’t come to school today because the day was interrupted by people who aren’t supposed to be here.”

Here’s the question: how many of the parents complaining voted Democrat? How many of them believed in unfettered illegal immigration until it hit their own lives and city, till their kids were displaced from their school? Will this happen again for the storm Friday?

But, hey, most support the right to shelter

A recent poll found that 79% of New Yorkers still back the city’s “Right-to-Shelter” mandate that guarantees housing to anyone in the Big Apple — showing board support for the idea, despite the ongoing migrant crisis that has strained the city’s resources.

The poll, first reported by Gothamist, found that 29% of people who answered the poll “somewhat support” the right-to-shelter-law, while another half said they “strongly support” the mandate. The survey was conducted by HarrisX, and used responses from around 1,000 adults.

Well, don’t get mad when your kids are displaced for illegal aliens. Don’t complain when they are put in your neighborhood.

Read: SCNY Parents Outraged After Kids Put On Remote Learning So Illegals Could Be Housed In School »

State Court In Delaware Nixes Lawsuit Against Big Oil

The fossil fuels companies should refuse to sell to the State of Delaware. It still boggles my mind that the lawyers never offer an arguement of “if fossil fuels are so bad, why is the state/company/city/group/county/individual using them?”

State court delivers major setback to Delaware in climate change lawsuit against Big Oil

A top state court in Delaware partially dismissed a lawsuit the state’s government filed against several of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies over their greenhouse gas emissions and impact on global warming.

Judge Mary Johnston, of the Delaware Superior Court, ruled that the state’s claims seeking damages from Big Oil defendants for alleged injuries stemming from out-of-state or global greenhouse gas emissions and interstate pollution are preempted by the federal Clean Air Act and are, therefore, beyond the limits of state statute. While other claims can be pursued, the ruling Tuesday significantly diminishes the case’s weight.

“We are pleased with the Delaware Superior Court’s decision holding that the ‘claims in this case seeking damages for injuries resulting from out-of-state or global greenhouse emissions and interstate pollution, are pre-empted by the’ Clean Air Act and ‘beyond the limits of Delaware common law,'” Theodore Boutrous, Jr., a lawyer for Chevron, one of the defendants, said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

“The global challenge of climate change requires a coordinated international policy response, not a series of baseless state and local lawsuits,” he added.

Companies like Chevron aren’t really helping their case when they recommend federal and international actions. They should say “if you don’t like them do not use them.”

In addition to the court’s findings that out-of-state emissions were beyond its scope, it further dismissed the state’s claims that oil industry defendants — which include Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, the American Petroleum Institute and dozens of other energy companies — have misrepresented the dangers of their fossil fuel products, including through tactics such as “greenwashing.”

And you know the people who are filing the suits are using plenty of fossil fuels themselves.

Read: State Court In Delaware Nixes Lawsuit Against Big Oil »

Pirate's Cove