China Joe Admin Pushes China To Do More On ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach July 21, 2021 – 8:44 am

I’m pretty sure they are doing more on ‘climate change’, building more and more coal fired plants and not caring what the world thinks, because they provide so many products and hold so much of the world’s debt. Presupposing that anthropogenic climate change is real, of course. Which it’s not

Climate change: US pushes China to make faster carbon cuts

John Kerry climateUS climate envoy John Kerry has called on China to increase the speed and depth of its efforts to cut carbon.

Without sufficient emissions reductions by China, Mr Kerry said, the global goal of keeping temperatures under 1.5C was “essentially impossible”.

Mr Kerry said he was convinced that China could do more and the US was willing to work closely to secure a reasonable climate future.

Every major economy must now commit to meaningful reductions by 2030, he said.

Mr Kerry was speaking at Kew Gardens in London, ahead of a G20 environment ministers meeting in Italy later this week.

Cool, another long fossil fueled flight for Kerry, who could have done this by Zoom or some other video conference method.

Mr Kerry paid special attention to the efforts of China, saying the country was now “the largest driver of climate change”.

China has promised to peak emissions by 2030 – but the US diplomat said that was not good enough.

“If China sticks with its current plant and does not peak its emissions until 2030, then the entire rest of the world must go to zero by 2040 or even 2035,” he warned.

“There is simply no alternative because without sufficient reduction by China, the goal of 1.5C is essentially impossible. China’s partnership and leadership on this issue of extraordinary international consequence is essential.”

Yeah, well, good luck with that. China will only talk the talk, not walk the walk. Rather like the way Kerry talks the talk and doesn’t walk the walk. This all does make one wonder if this all has anything to do with why Biden was so weak on China

Biden’s fury at Chinese cyberattacks prompts him to … issue a statement (Seriously)

China’s in trouble now: President Joe Biden is angry — really, really angry — about its cyberattacks. So angry that the White House on Monday issued a condemnation that actually cited China by name. Oooooh!

Beijing must be quaking in its boots: If officials there don’t shape up, who knows? Biden might castigate them a second time.

Yup, a strongly worded message! That is it. When it was Russia, Biden slapped them with lots of sanctions. China? Nothing. Despite China having done a heck of a lot worse. Not too mention the repression by the Chinese govt, forced slavery and killings of Uyghurs, treatement of Tibet and Hong Kong, human rights violations, and so much more. See, Joe and Kerry want climate crisis scam agreements, which seem more important to them.

Read: China Joe Admin Pushes China To Do More On ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming, Joe Biden, Kerry | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

California Appeals Court Shoots Down Mandatory Pronoun Use

By William Teach July 21, 2021 – 8:28 am

When California passed the law, most people said it would be shot down. California lawmakers don’t take much time to consider the Constitutional ramifications of their law, hoping that liberals on the courts will back them

California Appeals Court: Mandatory Transgender Pronouns Violate First Amendment

The California Third District Court of Appeals ruled unanimously Friday that a 2017 state law requiring nursing homes to use patients’ preferred pronouns violates First Amendment free speech rights.

The law, SB 219, was authored by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco). As Breitbart News reported at the time, it provided for jail sentences of up to one year for using the “wrong” pronoun:

A new bill being considered by the California State Senate would punish people who “willfully and repeatedly” refuse “to use a transgender resident’s preferred name or pronouns” in a public health, retirement or housing institution.

The bill, SB 219, was proposed by State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco). It includes several other provisions that require a health facility, for example, to honor the gender identity of a patient, meaning that the patient must be admitted to a room that comports with his or her chosen gender; allowed to use whatever bathroom he or she wants to use; and wear whatever clothing or cosmetics he or she decides to wear. It has gone through several amendments.

And the people can be fined heavily, up to $1,000, for failure to use the right pronouns. Besides being a violation of the 1st Amendment, which you are familiar with, and California’s Article I Section 2

(a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.

Seems pretty clear, does it not?

The court held:

As we will explain, we agree that the pronoun provision is a content-based restriction on speech. The law compels long-term care facility staff to alter the message they would prefer to convey, either by hosting a message as required by the resident or by refraining from using pronouns at all. … As we discuss at greater length post, we recognize the State has a compelling interest in eliminating discrimination against residents of long-term care facilities. However, we conclude the pronoun provision is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government objective because it burdens speech more than is required to achieve the State’s compelling objective. Accordingly, the provision does not survive strict scrutiny.

…

However, “the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.” (Wooley, supra, 430 U.S. at p. 714.) For purposes of the First Amendment, there is no difference between a law compelling an employee to utter a resident’s preferred pronoun and prohibiting an employee from uttering a pronoun the resident does not prefer. … Accordingly, we disagree with the Attorney General that the restriction on speech here is content neutral simply because employees may refrain from using pronouns altogether to avoid misgendering.

The court also notes

A. First Amendment Principles
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . .” This fundamental right to free speech applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. (Gitlow v. New York (1925) 268 U.S. 652, 666.) Similarly, article I, section 2, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution provides: “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.” Article I’s free speech clause enjoys existence and force independent of the First Amendment to the federal Constitution. (Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons (2000) 24 Cal.4th 468, 489.)

The court went very, very deep into this decision, primarily along the 1st Amendment lines, even citing that speech can be limited when it involves criminal cases, such as bribery, perjury, terroristic threats, and slander. Also, “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” It really, really digs deep. It’s like the Court was interested in using as many words as possible, when the California Constitution is quite clear. Criminal punishment for calling someone “he” when they want to use “she” is protected speech. At the end, though, they did shoot down the law

Supporters of the law say they plan to appeal, according to the Washington Blade: “The Court’s decision is disconnected from the reality facing transgender people. Deliberately misgendering a transgender person isn’t just a matter of opinion …  This misguided decision cannot be allowed to stand,” Weiner said.

Pass a law that says you can only call people pronouns of their actual biological sex, with criminal penalties, and watch these same people go apoplectic about their free speech being stifled.

Read: California Appeals Court Shoots Down Mandatory Pronoun Use »

Posted in 1st Amendment, Constitution, Liberal World | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Let’s Blame Boomers For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach July 20, 2021 – 3:00 pm

Hey, if we’re going to do this, let’s blame our great great great grandparents who were living life to the fullest back in the 1840’s, taking long fossil fueled flights, since the Modern Warm Period started around 1850

Guest Opinion: Let’s blame the boomers for climate change

“It’s the boomers’ fault,” screamed the headline. We’ve done little to mitigate or avoid climate change. There have been periodic flurries of concern dating back at least to the April 3, 2006, with a Time magazine cover story. The Public Broadcasting System, PBS, recently ran a special on the topic.   (snip)

Now that COVID-19 is on the wane, the media may be latching onto climate change for a “lead that bleeds.” This could be sidelined by the insurrection, unless a large hurricane hits the U.S. Most of us will ignore that possibility.

In Elisabeth Kübler’s “Five Stages Death and Dying,” the first stage is “denial.” We’ve been doing that for over 100 years. The second stage is “anger.” Angry people look for a target to blame.

Boomers? Some of us are trying to bargain — stage three — with Mother Nature, a fool’s task because Mother doesn’t bargain. Some got to stage four and became depressed — and according to reports — a few committed suicide.

Four years ago, an article appeared in The Insider titled, “Past generations created a climate crisis for millennials and Generation Z. Today marks 30 years of inaction.” This, the silent generation gave birth to the boomers. Distracted by “The Great Depression” and World War II, it’s hard to blame them for not schooling boomers on climate change.

Well, it could be because no one cared about it, no one thought about it, anthropogenic climate change wasn’t even on the radar, except a few spurious articles Blaming Mankind for the hot conditions of the 1930’s.

Although we’re not to blame, as the saying goes, we’re accountable. In “Collapse,” the Pulitzer Prize-winning author Jared Diamond showed that humans are not mentally “wired” for disasters when the cause is separated by the effect by more than a few years.

That lets me off the hook. I do know about the climate emergency and, with three great grandchildren, I’ll do my best to hold it off as long as possible. That’s what acceptance looks like to me.

OK, so, Larry Menkes isn’t really blaming Boomers, he’s just saying they’re responsible. How dare they give their kids a great modern life! Perhaps it’s time to take everything away from Warmist Boomers. And the grandkids. Let them live like it’s 1799.

Read: Let’s Blame Boomers For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 20, 2021 – 1:00 pm

…are horrible carbon pollution clouds, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on Democrats looking to rename 1,441 places.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 32 Comments | Trackback URL

Hollywood Can Now Mandate Vaccination For TV Shows And Movies

By William Teach July 20, 2021 – 10:30 am

This sounds like a great idea. The question is, will they mandate? Also, will the people in the industry complain?

Mandatory Covid-19 Vaccinations On Productions Now An Option Under New Return-To-Work Protocols

Mandatory Covid-19 vaccinations on film and TV productions will now be allowed, on a restricted basis, under a new agreement reached tonight between Hollywood’s unions and the major companies. The new protocols, they said in a joint statement, will give producers “the option to implement mandatory vaccination policies for casts and crew in Zone A on a production-by-production basis.” Zone A, where unmasked actors work, is the most restrictive of the safe work zones on sets.

Last month, SAG-AFTRA adopted strict new guidelines for employers who may make Covid-19 vaccinations mandatory as a condition of employment.

Additional modifications to the protocols include testing frequency for certain areas in the United States and Canada where Covid-19 incidence is, and remains, very low, as well as changes to outdoor masking requirements and updated mealtime protocols.

Why restricted? These leftist Hollywood folks have been all sorts of vocal about people getting vaccinated….well, at least since Dementia Joe took office. Many were dead set against the jab when Trump announced it. But, now, since they are massive cheerleaders, it should be required for every production. Anyone whining who voted for Biden should be terminated from the production.

Elsewhere

Democratic New Mexico state lawmaker denied Communion over his pro-abortion vote

A Democratic state senator in New Mexico said that he was denied Communion at his church over his pro-abortion vote.

State Sen. Joe Cervantes tweeted about the incident Saturday morning.

Christopher Velasquez, a spokesperson for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Las Cruces, told the Catholic News Agency that the church reached out to Cervantes to inform him about its stance against abortion. The church said he didn’t respond to its attempts to contact him.

If you’re for abortion, you’re against the Catholic Church, and should be denied.

No mention from B&J about not selling in China, which is an authoritarian state which uses slave labor, violates human rights, and more. You know the rest. Sure, B&J is not sold in China, but, they are part of a company, Unilever, which does. How about the United Arab Emirates, which has a poor track record on gay and women’s rights? Same with Malaysia. Meh, it’s pretty much because of the Jew and Israel hatred. Ben and Jerry are Jews who have bought into the leftist hatred of Jews and Israel.

Read: Hollywood Can Now Mandate Vaccination For TV Shows And Movies »

Posted in Bat Soup Virus | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: NJ Residents Not Interested In Offshore Windfarms To Solve Climate Crisis (scam)

By William Teach July 20, 2021 – 8:13 am

Surprise?

They’re not blown away by NJ’s offshore wind power plans

New Jersey is moving aggressively to become the leader in the fast-growing offshore wind energy industry on the East Coast, but not everyone is blown away by those ambitious plans.

While the state’s Democratic political leadership is solidly behind a rapid build-out of wind energy projects off the coast — it has set a goal of generating 100% of its energy from clean sources by 2050 — opposition is growing among citizens groups, and even some green energy-loving environmentalists are wary of the pace and scope of the plans.

The most commonly voiced objections include the unknown effect hundreds or even thousands of wind turbines might have on the ocean, fears of higher electric bills as costs are passed on to consumers, and a sense that the entire undertaking is being rushed through with little understanding of what the consequences might be.

Adding to the unhappiness is a bill passed by the state Legislature and awaiting action by New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy that, aside from granting them a public hearing, would remove virtually all control from local communities over where and how the power lines come ashore.

Many of the opponents, particularly in flood-prone Ocean City, say they believe climate change is real and that a warming planet and rising seas are threats that must be addressed.

And while many agree that continuing to burn fossil fuels will only make things worse, some opponents wish New Jersey would proceed more slowly and deliberately, learning as it goes.

Supposedly, building these wind farms will only raise citizen’s electric bills about $3. In other words, the reality is that this will go way, way higher. And you can bet that a lot of the opposition comes from people not wanting these giant wind turbines in their “backyards.” They do not want to look at them ruining the view. They do not want them messing with the fishing. It’s a lot of the old NIMBY, with a big dose of wind turbines being popular in theory, but not so much in practice.

A residents group called Go Green and Unseen wants the turbines moved 35 miles (56 kilometers) offshore so they will be invisible from the shore.

That’s some pretty deep water out there, and a serious run of transmission cables. I suggest NJ start by putting them up all around Trenton (the state capitol). And near the homes of the governor and state lawmakers. See how they like it.

“These first proposals off the Jersey Shore are massive and total over 1.16 million acres — about the size of Grand Canyon National Park, and a law is pending to block communities’ concerns,” said Cindy Zipf, the group’s (Clean Ocean Action) executive director.

Interesting. That latter part would violate the U.S. Bill Of Rights along with the NJ Constitution regarding protesting and redress of grievance, not too mention Free Speech.

BTW

Danish company Orsted said in a statement that it is “fully committed to growing the New Jersey offshore wind industry sustainably. Our teams have held multiple open houses and are committed to meeting with stakeholders in the community to educate them on the countless economic, environmental, and community benefits of offshore wind.”

NJ couldn’t find a U.S. company to do this?

Read: Bummer: NJ Residents Not Interested In Offshore Windfarms To Solve Climate Crisis (scam) »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Energy, Global Warming | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

Senate Republicans Have No Interest In Voting To Advance Infrastructure Bill

By William Teach July 20, 2021 – 7:55 am

You know, when Senate Republicans and Democrats announced they had a deal on a bipartisan infrastructure bill, which China Joe announced and then scuttled with talk about putting all the hyper-left Dem wish list back in, I figured that it was already written

GOP: Bipartisan infrastructure deal has ‘no chance’ on Wednesday

Senate Republicans revolted on Monday against opening debate on infrastructure while a bipartisan bill is still being written, lining up in opposition to a squeeze play by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Schumer and Senate Democrats need at least 10 Republicans to agree to advance a still-unwritten deal to spend nearly $600 billion on roads, bridges and broadband during a vote expected on Wednesday. But both Republican leaders and the GOP lawmakers working on the bipartisan infrastructure package carried the same warning for Schumer.

“He’s not going to get 60, let’s put it that way,” said Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.). “The legislation is not drafted, the pay-fors are a long ways away. Patience is going to be a virtue.”

But patience has run thin among Democrats who have watched the bipartisan talks play out for more than three months now. Schumer scheduled the anticipated test vote Monday evening and his deputies and Democratic members of the cross-aisle group made clear they wanted to move forward.

“It’s Monday in the United States Senate. That’s Wednesday. That’s a long way between then and now,” said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the No. 3 Democratic leader. “We need a resolution to this. There’s a lot more work to get done.”

Um, how are they going to have any sort of vote on legislation that isn’t actually drafted? No one would bring an undrafted business plan to the board of directors to approve.

In his floor remarks Monday evening, Schumer said the legislation could be amended as early as Thursday if the bipartisan group finalizes legislative text by then. If not, Schumer said the Senate could begin voting on legislation that has passed infrastructure-focused committees with bipartisan support.

Schumer said all five Democrats negotiating the bill, including Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), supported his approach. He reiterated that Wednesday’s vote is part of a “routine process” and that “it’s a sign of good faith from both sides that negotiations will continue in earnest.”

So, vote on it Wednesday and we’ll tell you what’s in it Thursday? Does anyone trust Schumer with his routing process and good faith talk? This is a party that continuously negotiates in bad faith. In the case of infrastructure, they do this bipartisan thing, and Democrats are out there talking about either running a two track system and passing all their “human infrastructure” stuff with reconciliation or stuffing stuff back into the bipartisan bill. We know they’re attempting to sneak amnesty into the infrastructure bills, and even Lindsay Graham, who has been a “pathway to citizenship” guy, is against it.

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, another GOP negotiator, declined to say how she would vote Wednesday. But she added that if Schumer wanted the legislation to succeed, he would ensure “people have an opportunity to actually look at what they might be voting on.” Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), another negotiator, said he’d vote no “if we are still working on major provisions of the bill and we don’t have a bill in front of us.”

If you don’t have two of the squishiest Republicans on-board, might be time to move on. And if Democrats try and play games, Graham has the right idea

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in a Sunday interview said he’d be willing to mimic the actions of Texas Democrats and “leave town” to prevent Democrats in Congress from passing their $3.5 trillion reconciliation package.

“I would leave before I would let that happen,” the senator told anchor Maria Bartiromo on “Sunday Morning Futures.”

“So, to my Republican colleagues, we may learn something from our Democratic friends in Texas when it comes to avoiding a $3.5 trillion tax-and-spend package: Leave town,” he continued.

Let the GOP Senators walk out. Democrats will have no stand to complain after supporting the Texas Democrats.

Read: Senate Republicans Have No Interest In Voting To Advance Infrastructure Bill »

Posted in Democrats, GOP | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Hotcoldwetdry Could Maybe Possibly Be Supercharging Poison Ivy

By William Teach July 19, 2021 – 3:00 pm

How dare you! This is all your fault

Climate change is making poison ivy stronger and itchier
Carbon dioxide and warmer soils could be supercharging everyone’s least favorite plant.

It either is or isn’t. Could implies that they don’t know, but, then, when has the Cult of Climastrology ever needed scientific facts and proof?

Poison ivy is a fixture of the landscape in eastern North America and parts of Asia. The noxious, rash-causing weed grows in rocky outcroppings, open fields, and at the edge of forests — it generally loves to take over disturbed areas. It can grow in partial shade and doesn’t give a damn about soil moisture as long as it’s not growing in a desert. The ivy is often identified in its plant form on the ground, but it can grow into a thick and hairy vine that curls around big trees and chokes out other native flora. No one knows why the ubiquitous plant causes an allergic reaction in human beings and some apes. It doesn’t affect any other animals that way, and researchers suspect that its allergenic defense mechanism may have evolved by accident.

So they don’t even know why? Huh.

If you live in areas where there is a lot of poison ivy, you may have noticed that the plant appears to be thriving lately. The leaves are looking leafier, the vines more prolific. Your poison ivy rash may even feel more itchy. It’s not your imagination. Research shows that the main culprit behind climate change — increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — is supercharging poison ivy.

But

The effect has been known since 2006, when Duke University researchers published a six-year study that showed poison ivy grew double its normal size when it was exposed to higher levels of carbon dioxide — levels on a par with the atmospheric carbon scientists anticipate seeing around 2050. The leaves on some individual plants grew by as much as 60 percent. Researchers also found that CO2 makes urushiol, the oil in poison ivy that causes the allergic reaction in humans, stronger. Plants rely on CO2 to make the sugars they need to grow, and increased concentrations of it were helping everyone’s least favorite plant thrive. The researchers surmised that increased levels of CO2 in coming decades would lead to bigger, faster growing, and itchier poison ivy plants.

So, it’s not actually happening, they just fed it more CO2 based on their crystal ball reading of what might happen in 2050

Mohan’s research at the Harvard Forest indicates that poison ivy is poised to do well in a warming world. “So far, poison ivy benefits from CO2, and it benefits from warmer conditions, and gosh only knows what happens when we do them both,” she said. “Which is of course what the planet is doing.”

So not happening now? Huh.

The takeaway is bleak: Climate change is supercharging poison ivy, and the plant likes to cohabitate with humans. Which means an extra dose of caution is in order when you’re out in nature. Even if you think you’re not allergic to poison ivy, Mohan says it’s best to keep an eye out for its distinctive clusters of three leaflets and steer clear just in case. The Forest Service found that between 70 and 85 percent of the population is sensitive to urushiol, and people are likely to become more allergic to it every time they are exposed. Tuck your pants in and watch where you walk, Mohan said. “When you’re dealing with nature, be smart,” she said. “Because nature is always going to win.”

And Doom is coming, y’all! This is what they call science.

Read: Bummer: Hotcoldwetdry Could Maybe Possibly Be Supercharging Poison Ivy »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 19, 2021 – 1:00 pm

…is a tennis court for rich people which should be replaced with solar panels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post on the “Crucial Components in the Creation of Successful 2nd Amendment “Sanctuary” States”.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Shooting In Democrat Run City Puts Renewed Focus On Gun Violence Or Something

By William Teach July 19, 2021 – 10:30 am

Let’s be honest, we all know what happened outside the ballpark for the Washington Nationals: a bunch of low lifes/gangbangers shooting each other up. The area itself is already known to be a high crime area, a 7 out of 10, 10 being the highest. Seriously, our nation’s capitol is a 3, meaning it is safer than just 3% of U.S. cities

Shooting near Nationals Park puts renewed focus on another weekend of gun violence in US

A series of shootings over the weekend in Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, and other American cities underscored the ongoing rise in shootings and gun violence in the US this year.

The shooting near Nationals Park in DC was the most prominent of the incidents, as the audible gunshots sent fans and players scrambling for safety in the middle of a Washington Nationals baseball game.

Other shootings injured children, including a 1-year-old wounded on Saturday night in Philadelphia. They further a trend of heightened gun violence that emerged after Covid-19 lockdowns were lifted.

According to the FBI’s preliminary 2020 findings, the number of murders rose by 25% between 2019 and 2020 — the largest jump recorded in the US in a one-year period since the FBI began releasing annual figures in the 1960s. Findings from the National Commission on Covid-19 and Criminal Justice were similar, citing a 30% increase in the homicide rate between 2019 and 2020 in the 34 major cities it surveyed.

What do all these cities have to do with each other? They’re run by Democrats. The citizens overwhelmingly vote Democrat. This is where BLM/Antifa were running riot with little in the way of police response, often because command held the police back. These are places where the defund crowd was pushing hard. This is not gun violence, it’s Democrat violence. In Democrat run cities. Especially in areas where Democrats like to keep blacks down and in poverty, making them reliant on Government. And, let’s be deeply honest: most of these shootings are by either Hispanic gang members, most of which are illegal aliens, or by blacks. Call facts racist, but, 50% of the murders and shootings come from 13% of the population.

Which is why Democrats focus on the guns, rather than the people. Because the want a disarmed citizenry, at least the law abiding ones, and they’re just as racist towards blacks as pre-Civil Rights era.

At least 53 people were shot in 41 separate shootings in Chicago from Friday evening to Sunday evening, the police department’s incident reports show. Of the 53, six have died, the reports show.

Two people were injured, including a 1-year-old boy, in a shooting in West Philadelphia on Saturday night around 8 p.m., according to Philadelphia Police Department spokesperson Officer Miguel Torres.

So far this year, homicides in Philadelphia are outpacing last year’s numbers, according to police records. Philadelphia reached its 300th homicide of the year in July for the first time in over three decades, according to available online records dating back to 1989.

Additionally, the city has seen nearly 1,200 shootings this year, compared to 938 during the same time period last year, according to data through July 12.

One woman has died and six other people were wounded in a shooting in downtown Portland, Oregon, early Saturday, according to the Portland Police Bureau.

Two people were killed and four others injured in a shooting in Sacramento on Friday night, according to a news release from the Sacramento Police Department.

All Dem run cities. This has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with the people.

Read: Shooting In Democrat Run City Puts Renewed Focus On Gun Violence Or Something »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 33 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove