…are palm trees which will soon grow in far northern areas due to carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Jo Nova, with a post on a duty of care to keep electricity cheap and teach kids real science.
Read: If All You See… »
Democrats decided to take some sound ideas and ramp them up to Partisan Category 4
House Approves Police Reform Bill Named After George Floyd
House lawmakers on Wednesday passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, a police reform bill that would ban chokeholds and eliminate qualified immunity for law enforcement. The 220-212 vote came nine months after Floyd, a 46-year-old Black man, was killed by Minneapolis police officers last spring.
The wide-ranging legislation would also ban no-knock warrants, mandate data collection on police encounters, prohibit racial and religious profiling and redirect funding to community-based policing programs.
“Never again should an unarmed individual be murdered or brutalized by someone who is supposed to serve and protect them,” said Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., in a statement. “Never again should the world be subject to witnessing what we saw happen to George Floyd in the streets in Minnesota.”
Banning chokeholds is nice, but, sometimes police need to use them to grab hold of a perp. It’s easy to ban them, but, in practice, when an officer is attempting to grab hold of a violent criminal, it is the easiest way to grab them. It’s knowing when to let go. But, it’s doing away with qualified immunity that is the worst part of this, and will lead to huge numbers of police officers quitting the force, especially in Democratic Party run areas where crime is rampant, and would see fewer people wanting to be police officers, making the rest of us who aren’t criminals less safe.
No knock warrants are a big problem, but shouldn’t be banned: they should be reformed to make sure there are more safeguards and a stronger approval method. Profiling? We all profile constantly, and police use profiles to understand potential crimes. “Community based policing programs”? Left wing idiocy which will make the rest of us less safe.
In debate on the House floor Wednesday evening before the vote, Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota said Minneapolis is still traumatized by Floyd’s death. “Time and time again we have witnessed the people who are sworn to protect our communities abuse their power,” she said.
Traumatized? She didn’t know George Floyd. Or his family. She’s just grandstanding. Perhaps she should ask the business owners who saw their businesses trashed by the rioters. And those who were assaulted. The families of those who couldn’t get their loved one to a hospital because Ilhan’s peeps were blocking the streets, or a fire truck couldn’t make it through the blocked roads.
(KYOUTV) Iowa Congresswomen Ashley Hinson and Mariannette Miller-Meeks both issued statements on their opposition to The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives by a narrow vote of 220-212 on Wednesday night.
In Hinson’s statement, she wrote that “Law enforcement officers in Iowa and across this country put their lives on the line every day to keep our communities safe. It’s reprehensible that House Democrats would bring forward legislation to defund police departments while relying on law enforcement to protect our Capitol from imminent threats...In a chamber safeguarded by Capitol Police.
In her statement, Miller-Meeks wrote that “We need serious bipartisan police reform that holds bad officers accountable†but that “The Justice in Policing Act would eliminate qualified immunity, which would make recruitment and retention difficult,†adding that “In effect, this is a backdoor way to defund the police.â€
And this bill would interfere with States Rights on how to run their police departments. This is, as usual, a highly partisan bill. The GOP attempted to pass Senator Tim Scott’s JUSTICE Act, which was well thought out and didn’t destroy the police, but, Democrats blocked it with the filibuster (you know, that thing Democrats say they hate). Dems already knew the George Floyd bill was 100% partisan, but, still voted and passed it again. And, again, the only way it makes it through the Senate is with nuking the filibuster.
Read: #Unity: House Passes Partisan Police “Reform” Act Named After George Floyd »
Hey, remember when we were being told that everything the U.S. did under China Joe would take ‘climate change’ into account? Well, not so fast
U.S. Wants to Insulate Climate Talks From Tensions With China
In the lead-up to the 2015 Paris climate agreement, then-President Obama flew to Beijing and won a major concession from President Xi Jinping—that China would peak its carbon emissions around 2030. It paved the way for the historic accord.
As President Biden seeks to aim higher before a global climate conference in the U.K. this November, he may find that getting on the same page with China will be harder. U.S.-China relations on climate matter not only because the two countries account for just less than half of the world’s emissions, but also because what they do sends a signal to the rest of the world.
Biden administration officials—climate envoy John Kerry and Secretary of State Antony Blinken among them—have signaled they want to shield climate diplomacy from the more turbulent aspects of the bilateral relationship. But experts and government officials worry that tensions on everything including Taiwan and Hong Kong could undermine those discussions. “We’re in a difficult place, and yet we have this inescapable reality that we can’t address the global challenge of climate change without coordination between the U.S. and China,†says Kelly Sims Gallagher, who oversaw Chinese climate diplomacy in the Obama White House.
Climate diplomacy doesn’t exist in a vacuum. China has already expressed caution about cooperation with the Biden administration as long as the state of relations between the two countries remains strained. And Kerry has pushed back against accusations that he will urge the administration to go soft on China because of his climate goals. “Obviously we have serious differences with China, on some very, very important issues,†Kerry said during a White House briefing in late January. Issues such as intellectual property theft and the South China Sea “will never be traded for anything that has to do with climate. That’s not going to happen. But climate is a critical standalone issue that we have to deal on.†In a speech on March 2, Kerry again said, “We can deal with this as a compartmentalized issue,†and that the climate crisis can’t “fall victim to … other concerns and contests†between the nations.
It’s so darned important that they will sideline it on other things. Of course, Joe is in China’s pocket, so, his admin will tread lightly on things like the massive human rights abuses by China, just like happened under Obama with Joe as VP and Hillary Clinton as Secretary Of State. Heck, China is probably happy to talking about the climate crisis scam, because they know they are only going to pay lip-service to Doing Something. The historic Paris agreement? Most signatory nations don’t even have plans/compliant plans much less actually doing something. China will be nowhere close to doing anything come 2030.
David Waskow, director of the international climate initiative at the World Resources Institute (WRI), a global environmental nonprofit group, says Xie has “been around a long time, and has a good relationship with Kerry,†though “we should not expect the relationship on climate between the U.S. and China to easily snap back to what it was like in 2015. But climate may be the one area where the two countries can work well together.â€
Will the China Joe admin attempt to spend most of it’s time yammering with China on climate, rather than on important issues, essentially kowtowing to China, just like we said would happen? China doesn’t actually need to implement climate crisis (scam) policies to control its citizens, it’s already 100% authoritarian.
Read: China Joe Admin To Separate Climate Scam Talks From Other China Issues »
Democrats gave this bill a whirl last year, when it passed on strictly party lines, and then was never brought up in the Senate, because it is a Category 5 partisan bill. The Institute for Free Speech obliterated it when it was first introduced in early 2019, because it is great for certain politicians, bad for groups, citizens, and free speech. This was one of the things I was warning about if people decided to vote for Biden because Trump has mean tweets
House passes voting rights and elections reform bill
The House passed a sweeping election reform and voting rights bill along party lines on Wednesday in a 220-210 vote.
The For The People Act, better known as H.R. 1 — has been a top priority for Democrats, who argue restoring voters’ faith in the electoral process is more important than ever after former President Trump repeatedly asserted unfounded claims the election was stolen. The Biden administration has strongly advocated for its passage.
“In the wake of an unprecedented assault on our democracy, a never before seen effort to ignore, undermine, and undo the will of the people, and a newly aggressive attack on voting rights taking place right now all across the country, this landmark legislation is urgently needed to protect the right to vote and the integrity of our elections, and to repair and strengthen American democracy,†the White House said in a statement of administrative policy.
The measure would require states to offer mail-in ballots, a minimum of 15 days of early voting and calls for online and same-day voter registration. The legislation also calls for the creation of independent commissions to draw congressional districts in an effort to put an end to partisan gerrymandering. It would also provide additional resources to stave off foreign threats on elections, enable automatic voter registration, and would make Election Day a national holiday for federal workers.
Supporters of the bill said it’s a necessary step to restore faith in the electoral system and tackle dark money in politics, arguing it expands voting rights, increases transparency in elections and creates new ethics rules to tamp down on corruption.
Under the legislation, the Citizens United Supreme Court case, which dissolved certain limits on corporate and union political spending, would be overturned and coordination between super PACs and candidates would be prohibited.
That’s rather the way most articles from the Credentialed Media go, lauding the bill in flowing terms. But, there’s a reason why it was passed twice strictly on party lines
Republicans have blasted the measure as a power grab by Democrats, arguing that the provision allowing for voters to designate a person to return their ballot equates to ballot harvesting and opens the door for election fraud. They have also slammed language allowing felons to vote.
“Second: H.R. 1 would legalize voting for convicted felons all over the country even if they were convicted of election fraud. Does that make sense to you? Not only is this dangerous, it’s unconstitutional,†House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said in a floor speech on Tuesday.
“Third: H.R. 1 would weaken the security of our elections and make it harder to protect against voter fraud. Here’s how: It would automatically register voters from DMV and other government databases. Voting is a right, not a mandate,” McCarthy said. “In most cases, this legislation would actually prevent officials from removing ineligible voters from the rolls and would make it much more difficult to verify the accuracy of voter information. So future voters might be underage or dead or illegal immigrants or registered two or three times. Democrats just don’t care.â€
It’s actually much worse than that, as John Fund points out
HR 1 would cement all of the worst changes in election law made in blue states in 2020 and nationalize them. Federal control of elections would be the norm. States would be relegated to colonial outposts that carry out Washington DC’s mandates. ‘Democracies die when one party seizes control of the elections process, eliminates the safeguards that have protected the integrity of the ballot, places restrictions on free speech, and seizes the earnings of individual citizens to promote candidates they may abhor,’ says Rep. Tom McClintock, a California Republican. ‘Democracies die by suicide, and we are now face to face with such an instrument.’
Does HR 1 justify such apocalyptic rhetoric? Sadly, yes. Hans von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission, says that while the Constitution does allow Congress to override the power of states to decide ‘the time, manner and place’ of federal elections nothing on the massive scale of HR 1 has ever been attempted.
He consulted other former members and assembled a short summary of the worst provisions of HR 1:
- Degrade the accuracy of registration lists by requiring states to automatically register all individuals on state and federal databases. This would include many ineligible voters, including aliens
- It would require states to allow 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to register. Combined with a ban on voter ID, this would allow underage individuals to vote
- Prevent election officials from checking the eligibility and qualifications of voters and removing ineligible voters
- Ban state-voter ID laws by forcing states to allow individuals to vote without an ID and merely signing a statement in which they claim they are who they say they are
- Create vague and broad language that could be used to criminally charge someone who questions the eligibility of a voter
- Force disclosure of names of Americans who donate to nonprofit organizations — thus subjecting them to political harassment
- Declare statehood for Washington DC to be ‘constitutional’ despite evidence it is not
- And finally, HR 1 would effectively ban nonprofits from contacting a member of Congress or their staff about pending legislation — a direct assault on the right of Americans to petition their government
That’s a shortened list of a shortened list. This is all about entrenching Democrats in office, and, notice that there are at least two First Amendment violations. Dare note that someone is ineligible to vote in a situation? You could be held criminally liable. Years ago I made the NC GOP and NC election board aware that I had received in the mail a letter that gave a women residency for voting rights at my address. This person was a Charlotte, NC resident, completely different part of the state. This was an attempt to be able to vote twice. I would be held criminally liable for doing that now. Then you take away the Right of people to petition their government.
This is, really, one of the most partisan bills ever passed in the House. What happened to Joe Biden calling for unity and bipartisanship? Nothing the Democrats are doing is anything but hugely partisan. Can it pass the Senate? The only way is to nuke the filibuster, something Joe Manchin said he would never vote to do. And, if they manage to suspend the filibuster for this vote, they might not get the 50 votes they need to allow Kamala to make it 51. And, if they somehow make it pass, the lawsuits will be amazing, and it is something the Supreme Court would need to take up forth with, since this deals directly with Bill Of Rights matters. If there’s no severability, it would be killed in whole.
Seriously, are Democrats asking for a civil war? Because this is the type of legislation that leads that way.
Quick More: I’d forgotten about one other issue among so many, and this is a big one that would, well, should, kill it in any lawsuits if passed, as pointed out by Betsy McCaughey
The authors of the Constitution worried that Congress would try to seize control of presidential selection using dirty tricks like those in HR 1. That’s why they acted to “to take the business as far as possible out of their hands,” according to Charles Pinckney, a framer from South Carolina.
Congress, said Pinckney, “had no right to meddle” in it. The framers provided in Article II, Sec. 1 that only state legislatures would have the power to determine how the president is chosen. No national rules.
And since every other national election is for president, this would be unconstitutional. And, it would take a constitutional amendment to make D.C. a state.
Read: #Unity: House Passes HR1, The “For The Democrat Party Power Act” »
Interestingly, every single one of the climate Fascists took a fossil fueled trip to the capitol to introduce this bill that controls your life and costs you money
House Energy and Commerce leaders unveil sweeping climate change legislation
Senior House Energy and Commerce Democrats unveiled a template of their plan to combat climate change this Congress that would take a sector-by-sector approach to eliminate carbon dioxide and reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
Their 981-page bill — an expanded version of last year’s CLEAN Future Act — calls for a federal clean energy standard that sets an interim goal of 80 percent clean electricity by 2030 and 100 percent by 2035. The bill represents a push from Democrats for aggressive action on climate change that’s in line with the goals laid out by President Joe Biden and as part of his Build Back Better agenda.
“I really believe that the time for slow, marginal change has gone,” Chair Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said Tuesday. “You can’t just watch from the sidelines as the climate crisis wreaks havoc on Americans’ health and home. The cost of inaction is staggering — it already is.”
Pallone, Environment Chair Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) and Energy Chair Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) unveiled the bill at a virtual press conference. They plan to take up the legislation through regular order.
Pallone also acknowledged that the bill did not call for imposing a price on carbon emissions, since that type of measure lacked political support.
“We don’t have a carbon tax … I think it’s time to try something new,” he said. “The votes are just not there for a price on carbon.â€
Clean energy standard: Arguably the most consequential title is a clean energy standard, which would create a credit trading system for utilities to meet clean energy goals. Utilities would get at least partial credit if their carbon intensity is lower than 0.82 tons of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of power — including emissions calculated from producing and transporting the energy to the utility — through 2030 but that threshold would drop to 0.4 by 2035.
This appears to be a carbon credits/trading scheme. These have led to much higher energy prices for consumers and private entities, which leads to a higher price of living
New provisions: Overall, the legislation would authorize $565 billion in spending over ten years as the U.S. pursues deep decarbonization efforts. It includes a host of new provisions in areas like environmental justice, energy transition, waste reduction and transportation.
Of course it has to do the justice thing. Silly.
The bill would create a national green bank, seeded with $100 billion, to leverage public money for investments in new technologies needed to hit emissions reductions goals. The legislation also includes a requirement that 40 percent of funds go toward environmental justice communities that have suffered persistent pollution — a priority for the Biden administration.
In other words, a taxpayer funded (and you don’t have a choice) slush fund for Progressive (nice Fascist) priorities, often simply for patronizing certain groups for their votes.
The Democratic bill also would direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to require disclosure from public companies about their climate-related risks. And it seeks to aid communities affected by the transition to cleaner energy through a host of new programs, including one providing federal grants to communities suffering significant losses of revenue as fossil fuel production drops.
Giving the federal government even more control over private entities.
The press release from the House climate cultists is here, with links to a “fact sheet” and the full bill at the bottom (it will take a while to go through it). Here are some bulletin points of what it touches on
So, basically everything and everyone Must Comply. As written by people who refuse to practice what they preach.
Read: House Climate Cultists Introduce Massive Legislation »
…are horrible carbon pollution Bad Weather clouds, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Patterico’s Pontifications, with a post on Neera Tanden being cancelled.
Read: If All You See… »
And the media and Democrats are losing their minds
Texas becomes biggest US state to lift COVID-19 mask mandate
Texas is lifting its mask mandate, Gov. Greg Abbott said Tuesday, making it the largest state to no longer require one of the most effective ways to slow the spread of the coronavirus.
The announcement in Texas, where the virus has killed more than 43,000 people, rattled doctors and big city leaders who said they are now bracing for another deadly resurgence. One hospital executive in Houston said he told his staff they would need more personnel and ventilators.
Federal health officials this week urgently warned states to not let their guard down, warning that the pandemic is far from over.
Abbott, a Republican, has faced sustained criticism from his party in America’s biggest red state over the statewide mask mandate — which was imposed eight months ago — as well as business occupancy limits that Texas will also scuttle next week. The mask order was only ever lightly enforced, even during the worst outbreaks of the pandemic.
This has made many go crazy, such as CNN’s Chris Cillizza
As coronavirus case across the country are dropping, cases in Texas actually increased by 5% over the last two weeks, according to statistics from Johns Hopkins University. Which makes this a very odd time for Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott to do what he did on Tuesday.
“Too many Texans have been sidelined from employment opportunities,” Abbott said. “Too many small business owners have struggled to pay their bills. This must end. It is now time to open Texas 100%.”
What Abbott meant by 100% is this: He is dropping the state’s mask mandate and allowing all businesses to open at 100% capacity beginning March 10. He justified those moves by noting that 5.7 million Covid-19 vaccine shots have been given in the state and that Texans have “mastered the daily habits to avoid getting Covid.”
Abbott’s move seems entirely motivated by politics rather than public health. Doctors and public health experts continue to warn that letting down our guard — and our masks — at this point is a major mistake. While vaccinations are on the rise, we remain a long way from herd immunity. (Less than 7% of Texans are fully vaccinated.) And the precipitous drop in cases over the last month or so has quite clearly plateaued even as the number of tests has declined — two indicators that suggest we are not out of the woods just yet.
Does Chris live in Texas? No? Perhaps he should let Texas do what Texas wants to do and mind his own business. And where were his complaints when it was politics driving so many of the unhinged mask and other mandates throughout the nation?
(Texas Tribune) Mayors and county judges in some of Texas’ largest urban areas criticized Gov. Greg Abbott over his decision to lift the statewide face mask mandate next week, saying it contradicts health officials’ advice as infections continue to spread throughout the state, which averaged over 200 reported deaths a day over the last week.
Fort Worth Mayor Betsy Price, a fellow Republican, called Abbott’s order “premature†and asked him to allow more people to get the vaccine.
Most everyone else mentioned are Democrats, but, it begs the question: if masks work, then why is COVID spreading so much? Masks were supposed to stop this, right? Right?
But, stores and businesses are allowed to have their own mandates, and many will. Masks will also be required at airports with federal guidance and on metros.
But, why the focus on Texas? No one made a big deal about North Dakota, Montana, and Iowa lifting their mandates in the last few weeks. Nor Michigan, Mississippi, and Louisiana lifting theirs this week, just like Texas. There are many states which have no statewide mandates. Some have very limited, like with Nebraska, which only requires them “for both clients and staff at barbershops, salons and other personal-care businesses.” Lincoln and Omaha have stricter mandates, being more densely populated cities.
Why? Because Leftists love to hate Texas, because the state is typically a big success. What will the nuts do when the removal of the mask mandate doesn’t see doom?
Read: Texas Lifts Mask Mandate, Allows Businesses To 100% Reopen »
This begs the question: will the LA Times give up their own use of fossil fueled vehicles to gather and disseminate the news? Will the members of the editorial board declare they have each given up their own fossil fueled vehicles? Perhaps the paper can mandate that employees do not own fossil fueled vehicles? It would be fun to see how the whole of greater LA County runs without fossil fuel vehicles
Editorial: To save the planet from climate change, gas guzzlers have to die
The numbers paint a daunting picture. In 2019, consumers worldwide bought 64 million new personal cars and 27 million new commercial motor vehicles, a paltry 2.1 million of which were electric-powered. Climate scientists tell us that we have less than a decade to make meaningful reductions in carbon emissions — including those from internal combustion engines — if we have any hope of staving off the worst effects of global warming.
Yet manufacturers are still making, and consumers are still buying, overwhelming numbers of vehicles that will, on average, continue to spew carbon into the atmosphere for a dozen years after they first leave the lot. That means new cars bought this year will still be on the road well into the 2030s — long after the point when we should have slashed emissions.
Like we said, a daunting picture.
Manufacturers are still making because consumers are still buying. Consider that the local Honda dealers has 152 regular Accords and 38 Accord Hybrids in stock at the moment (I know they are we low on EXL inventory, with a lot on order). An EXL regular Accord is $32,440. The comparable hybrid is $33,885. The difference in costs is not that much with hybrids these days, but, people still prefer the horsepower of a regular. It’s those who drive a lot or really want the fuel economy (30 city/38 highway vs 48/48). The difference between a Civic and an Insight (really, almost the same car) and a CRV and CRV Hybrid are similar monetarily. It’s simply a choice. And way more will choose the non-hybrid. The thing is, all these hybrids, including Prius’ and plugins, still run primarily on gas, with an electric motor assist. So, they would have to go. Most people have zero interest in a straight plugin. The rollout of the Honda Clarity was such a disaster than they only sell them on the west coast, not even the NE states that had been selling them.
The only straight plugin really selling well is the Tesla, and not many can afford a vehicle in the upper $30k’s.
What will it take to throttle back the gas burners and expand exponentially the number of vehicles that run on electric batteries, hydrogen fuel cells or other non-fossil energy sources? Political will, strong government thumbs on the scale to favor zero-emission vehicles over gas burners (an all-out ban on their production and sale is likely too radical for the world, but it would certainly help), and increased spending on developing and producing clean energy sources, battery technologies and charging capabilities.
In other words, it will take Government flexing their authoritarian muscle. That’s not democracy, as the Dems like to put it, nor is that what takes place in a Constitutional Republic. But, hey, it’s easy for elites who make lots of money to demand these changes which will utterly hose the middle and lower classes.
Still, ending reliance on fossil fuel to power engines will be crucial, and among the most challenging tasks given how deeply insinuated such vehicles have become in global commerce and transit systems, from the personal vehicles we use to fetch groceries to the vessels that move products around the world to the airplanes that take a few hours to shuttle people to places that used to take days or weeks to reach by train or ship.
So, by gas guzzlers the LATEB seems to be also including planes and sea going vessels. I suppose this would include pleasure craft such as SeaDoos and small ski boats. This would hit Leonardo DiCarpio hard, as no more big pleasure yachts. Would this ground high flying Warmists like John Travolta and Harrison Ford? What would be the hit on California, which imports and exports huge amounts of goods via their ports on fossil fueled ships. How many would be out of a job? Warmists just think this stuff can happen without major economic disruption and pain. Because they’re nuts and cultists.
Read: LA Times ClimaEditorial Board Calls For Banning All Fossil Fueled Vehicles »
Trackback URL
Surprisingly, this is not as bad as you’d expect from Democrats, which should make people think “what’s the catch?” even if there is no catch
Democratic Senator Chris Murphy introduces universal background check law
Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut is reintroducing legislation Tuesday that would require universal background checks on the sale or transfer of all firearms. Universal background checks are largely supported by Americans but have not gained traction in Congress.
Murphy’s bill, the Background Check Expansion Act, would extend a background check requirement to unlicensed and private firearm sellers before selling a firearm. Current federal law doesn’t require unlicensed sellers to do background checks before transferring firearms.
Polling from gun reform advocacy groups Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords finds 93% of Americans support a background check requirement for all gun sales. In 2019, the House passed a comprehensive background check bill, but it died in the Republican-controlled Senate. Democratic Congressman Mike Thompson of California will introduce the House version of the Senate bill on Tuesday. (snip)
Democrats hoping to pass gun safety laws have a champion in the White House, and President Joe Biden last month called on Congress to pass gun control legislation, including background checks. However, the legislation still requires 10 Republican senators to vote with Democrats to advance the bill, a significant obstacle to passage.
Senator Richard Blumenthal, who is cosponsoring the legislation, is hopeful that this time may be different.
“My conversation with Republicans indicated they get it,” he told reporters Tuesday. “The American people are responding to a political movement that has resulted from Parkland, Sandy Hook, Las Vegas — the shorthand of tragedies that have caused this political movement to be a force that has met this moment of reckoning.”
This legislation was killed in the Senate last November because Murphy asked for unanimous consent and Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith objected, wanting more time to consider and debate. As far as it goes, it is very simple (link to the legislation here), requiring a background check on all firearm transfers, with exceptions being “transfers between law enforcement officers, temporarily loaning firearms for hunting and sporting events, providing firearms as gifts to immediate family members, transferring a firearm as part of an inheritance, or temporarily transferring a firearm for immediate self-defense.” There doesn’t seem to be any tricks in it. There are no requirements to register a firearm with Los Federales or any government agency, or create a public registry, or tell government where you keep your guns, like Sheila Jackson Lee’s bill.
“The overwhelming majority of Americans support ensuring background checks on all gun sales. And for good reason; the loopholes in the current system make it too easy for guns to end up in the hands of those prohibited by law from buying them. It is far past time that Congress answers the call to better protect our communities from senseless gun violence by passing the Background Check Expansion Act,â€Â said Durbin.
Raise your hand if you think criminals will request background checks when giving their criminal friends a firearm. Or when they are stealing one. Raise your hand if you think this will make any difference in criminals shooting each other in places like Chicago. Raise your hand if you think this will make a difference in shootings, because many of the mass shootings were committed by people who passed a background check.
So, if it passes and fails to make a dent in criminals shooting each other, what will the Democrats demand next? It might be worth passing, because then the GOP and 2nd Amendment supporters can say “hey, we just passed a backgrounds check, we need to give it 5-10 years to see if it makes a difference before pushing something more extreme” when Dems try pushing something like Jackson Lee’s bill.
You do have to wonder about poison pills, because the Senate version has exactly zero Republicans as cosponsors. The House version has 2 Republicans, so, of course the media will call this “bipartisan.”
Read: Democrats Reintroduce Universal Background Checks Bills In House And Senate »
The Cult seems to take the stance that since they cannot convince people to practice what the Cult preaches, despite 30+ years of spreading awareness, which means legislative bodies, even believer ones, can only get a little bit passed, they will try and get the courts to impose the will of the Cult, failing to see that the taxes and loss of freedom, liberty and choice will effect themselves
‘A duty of care’: Australian teenagers take their climate crisis plea to court
Eight teenagers and an octogenarian nun head to an Australian court on Tuesday to launch what they hope will prove to be a landmark case – one that establishes the federal government’s duty of care in protecting future generations from a worsening climate crisis.
If successful, the people behind the class action believe it may set a precedent that stops the government approving new fossil fuel projects.
As with any novel legal argument, its chances of success are unclear, but the case is not happening in isolation.
It is one of a number of climate-related litigation cases expected before Australian courts and tribunals in the months ahead as lawyers and activists aim to use the law to force change they say is not coming quickly enough from Canberra or, in many cases, state governments.
Their arguments apparently aren’t good enough to sway Other People to Comply. They should have started with practicing what they preach.
The lead applicant of the case in the federal court in Melbourne this week is Anj Sharma, a 16-year-old student. Her involvement evolved from her role helping organise a Greta Thunberg-inspired school strike for climate in September 2019, when about 100,000 marched in the Victorian capital.
The case is a response to a proposal by Whitehaven Coal to extend its Vickery coalmine in northern New South Wales. The expansion of the mine could lead to an extra 100m tonnes of CO2 – about 20% of Australia’s annual climate footprint – being released into the atmosphere as the extracted coal is shipped overseas and burned to make steel and generate electricity.
The teenagers and their legal team argue the federal environment minister, Sussan Ley, would be breaching a common law duty of care to protect younger people against future harm if she used her powers under national environment laws to allow the mine extension to go ahead.
It’s always something with these people. Let’s see them power their smartphones with solar. Let’s see them sweat and freeze in school. Let’s see them have to walk or bike to school and everywhere else. Let’s see what happens when they can’t stream their shows and videos, cannot upload and watch their silly selfie videos.
Anj says all eight have “very personal stories about climate changeâ€, including the changing impact of the monsoon season on family members in India and witnessing firsthand the impact of fracking for coal-seam gas.
“Stories”. Whatever. You’re children.
Read: Young Aussie Climate Cultists Take Their Case To Court »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.