16 Indiana students hospitalized after getting shot with insulin by mistake

Government Run Healthcare, thy name is bureaucrap.
What happens is that an excess of insulin causes your body to absorb too much glucose back from your blood. It also causes the liver to release less glucose.  This is called hypoglycemia and you turn into a rag dolly. If you don’t get prompt treatment, you can easily die.
Don’t ask me how I know.

Sixteen students at an Indiana career center were hospitalized after they were accidentally injected with shots of insulin during what was meant to be a tuberculosis skin test, the school district said.

The error happened Monday at the McKenzie Center for Innovation and Technology in Indianapolis, according to a statement from the Metropolitan School District of Lawrence Township.

“Immediate action was taken to care for those students” and they were transported to area hospitals for observation, the statement read.

A spokeswoman with the school district told ABC News on Tuesday that all the students had since been released from the hospital.

Biden’s gun control plan would impose strict regulations on owners of assault-style rifles

Nothing new from the demoncraps, as this idiocy has been rolled out before, but it’s logistically impossible.
There are about 175,000 transferable machineguns on the registry and about 1,500,000 suppressors, not to mention Destructive Devices and Any Other Weapons.
Right now it takes about 8-10 months, at a minimum, for a transfer to be approved by the bureaucraps at the NFA branch of BATFE. As there are an estimated, minimum, 15,000,000 to 16,ooo,000 AR & AK style rifles (10 times) in the hands of the people, any paperwork would take 10 times as long to be completed without a drastic expansion of the NFA branch personnel and budget. Of course, with demoncraps, that’s a feature, not a bug.

Joe Biden is proposing to force owners of assault-style rifles to either sell their firearms through a voluntary buyback program or register them with the federal government under the same law that was first used to strictly control sales of machine guns in the wake of the gangland shootings of the 1920s and ’30s.

The gun control plan that Biden’s campaign unveiled on Wednesday also aims to tackle urban gun violence with an eight-year, $900 million program that would go toward efforts to combat shootings in 40 cities with the highest rates of gun violence.

It would eliminate legal protections that prevent gun manufacturers from being held liable for how their products are used.

NRA 1, San Francisco Board of Supervisors 0

Remember last month when San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors passed a resolution declaring the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization and ordered city employees to “take every reasonable step to limit” business interactions with the NRA and its supporters? The one that our David French labeled “a retaliatory public attack on constitutionally protected speech”?

In a formal memo to city officials, San Francisco mayor London Breed declared that “no [municipal] department will take steps to restrict any contractor from doing business with the NRA or to restrict City contracting opportunities for any business that has any relationship with the NRA.”

The memo declares, “resolutions making policy statements do not impose duties on City departments, change any of the City’s existing laws or policies, or control City departments’ exercise of discretion.”

“Through these actions and our public advocacy, we hope the message is now clear,” NRA CEO and executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said in a released statement. “The NRA will always fight to protect our members and the constitutional freedoms in which they believe.”

“The memo serves as a clear concession and a well-deserved win for the First and Second Amendments of the United States Constitution,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel for the NRA. “It is unfortunate that in today’s polarized times, some elected officials would rather silence opposing arguments than engage in good-faith debate. The NRA – America’s oldest civil rights organization – won’t stand for that.”

The NRA is challenging a similar law passed by the Los Angeles city council that requiring city contractors to disclose any ties they have to the gun-rights group. Back in August, a federal judge denied a request by the city to dismiss the suit.

If You Can’t Sell Your Hysteria To Adults, Try Kids
Hysterias are to the Left what oxygen is to biological life.

The entire American left — the mainstream media, the environmentalist movement and Democratic politicians in particular — are celebrating the involvement of teenagers and even younger children in protesting the world’s “inaction” with regard to global warming.

And not just the American left, of course. The left throughout the world is celebrating. A 16-year-old Swedish girl whose contempt for adults is breathtaking is an international hero. Congressional Democrats invited her to testify in Congress, and the United Nations has likewise invited her.

The mayor and city council of New York City further politicized their city’s public schools by allowing students to skip school to actively participate in a global warming protest.

The message of young climate change activists is: “You adults aren’t doing your job. As a result, we have no future.” As a sympathetic reporter — are there any non-sympathetic reporters? — for the Los Angeles Times put it, “(T)eens are still waiting for a sign that their elders get it.”

The Times’ coverage is typical. It reported: “Underneath the activism lies a simple truth: Young people are incredibly scared about climate change. They see it as a profound injustice and an existential threat to their generation and those that will follow. …

“‘They do worry, and they worry kind of a lot,’ said Maria Ojala, an environmental psychologist at Orebro University in Sweden. …

“Arielle Martinez Cohen” — an 18-year-old Los Angeles activist with the youth climate group Zero Hour — “remembers reading a report from an Australian think tank that warned the human species could face extinction by 2050 if society doesn’t get its act together.

“‘I almost imagine, like, an apocalypse-type thing happening,’ Arielle said.

“Many young people say they can’t fathom bringing kids of their own into the world. …

“‘It’s not ethical. It’s literally a burning house,’ Lana said.

“‘That’s something that’s not realistic,’ agreed her twin sister, Yena.

“And how can they even think about college or contemplate their careers when faced with so much uncertainty?

“‘It’s something I feel every single day,’ Yena said. ‘I work really hard at school and I do all these things, and I’m like, “What am I working for? Do I have a future?”‘”

It is critical to remember that hysterias — such as Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, “endemic and systemic racism in America,” the heterosexual AIDS “crisis” in America and the “rape culture” on American college campuses — are to the left what oxygen is to biological life. No oxygen, no life; no hysteria, no left.

Apparently, however, the left-wing hysteria about global warming leading to the virtual extinction of life on Earth has not moved enough adults. Many adults who do not deny that the Earth is getting warmer — such as Danish writer and environmentalist thinker Bjorn Lomborg — do deny that the threat is “existential” and do believe that the left’s solutions, such as the Green New Deal, will damage the world far more than will carbon emissions. Proof that the left is hysterical is its unwillingness to promote nuclear power — a completely clean, non-fossil fuel-based source of power. It provides France with 70 percent of its energy. Anyone who really believes life on Earth is endangered would grasp at the nuclear power lifeboat. That they do not proves what many of us have believed from the beginning: The “existential threat” scenario is another left-wing falsehood used to whip up hysteria that will lead to the left’s control of the economy and society.

And that takes us back to the children: If you can’t sell your hysteria to adults, try kids. And that is what the left has done. After all, no one is as malleable or as easily indoctrinated as children.

 

Yellowstone visitor severely burned after falling near Old Faithful

Just to point out, again:
“ETOH (alcohol) is a force multiplier. It takes poor decisions and magnifies them into tragedies of epic proportions.”

A tourist visiting Yellowstone National Park on Sunday suffered severe thermal burns after he tripped into a hot spring near Old Faithful Geyser, according to local reports.

Cade Edmond Siemers, 48, a U.S. citizen who lives in India, told rangers he was walking without a flashlight at the time of the fall, the Jackson Hole News & Guide reported. He managed to get back to his hotel room and was eventually flown to the burn center at an Idaho hospital. He was listed in critical condition.

Park rangers said they detected “evidence” of alcohol use back in the hotel room.

University Officials Held ‘Personally Liable’ For Discrimination Against Christian Student Group

Well, that’s going to cut into their vacation plans.

A federal court ruled University of Iowa officials must pay out of their own pockets for discriminating against a prominent Christian student group, calling the university’s conduct “ludicrous” and “incredibly baffling” during a hearing last week.

Judge Stephanie M. Rose of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ruled Friday that the University of Iowa and its officers violated constitutional law when they kicked InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, and other religious groups, off the campus in June 2018 for requiring leaders to uphold Christian beliefs — but giving a pass to secular student groups that also have leadership requirements.

Probe the Effort to Sink Kavanaugh.

In “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh,” Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly report that Leland Keyser —who was unable to corroborate high-school friend Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation of youthful sexual misconduct—says she felt pressured by a group of common acquaintances to vouch for it anyway. The book quotes an unnamed male member of the group suggesting in a text message: “Perhaps it makes sense to let everyone in the public know what her condition is”—a remark the reporters describe as reading “like a veiled reference” to Ms. Keyser’s “addictive tendencies.” (The authors quote her as saying she told investigators “my whole history of using.”)

A concerted effort to mislead the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Senate, especially if it involved threats to potential witnesses, could violate several federal criminal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. 1001 (lying to federal officials), 18 U.S.C. 1505 (obstruction of official proceedings) and 18 U.S.C. 1622 (subornation of perjury). Investigating and, if the evidence is sufficient, prosecuting such offenses would deter similar misconduct in the future.

with that:

The biggest Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court in nearly a decade, explained
Gun control supporters are desperate — and have already taken drastic steps — to get the Supreme Court to dismiss this case.

Last January, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, the first major Second Amendment case to be heard by the Supreme Court in nearly a decade — and also the first since Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement shifted the Court dramatically to the right.

The case centers on an unusual — and recently changed — New York City rule that limited where gun owners with a certain kind of permit were allowed to bring their guns.

Gun control advocates, including policymakers in both New York City and the New York state legislature, fear a big loss in the Supreme Court and are desperate to make the case go away. Indeed, New York City changed their gun rules after the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case, and state legislators enacted a new law forbidding the city from bringing back the old rules — all in the hopes of obviating the need for the Court to weigh in. Because the legal controversy between the city and the plaintiffs is now over, the city asked the Court to dismiss this case as moot.

The justices are scheduled to discuss whether to dismiss the case at their October 1 conference……………..

Why gun rights advocates have so much to gain
A few months before his death this summer, retired Justice John Paul Stevens offered a surprisingly candid window into the Court’s internal deliberations.

In its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. The Court split along familiar ideological lines, with Kennedy joining his fellow conservatives in the 5-4 majority.

Heller, however, was hardly a total victory for advocates of gun rights. Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion is riddled with caveats. Heller suggests that “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” all remain valid, as are bans on “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

In a November interview with the New York Times’ Adam Liptak, Stevens revealed that Kennedy asked for “some important changes” to Scalia’s original draft of the Heller opinion. At Stevens’s urging, Kennedy requested language stating that Heller “should not be taken to cast doubt” on many existing gun laws. Without Kennedy’s intervention, in other words, Heller may not have included the important language limiting the scope of the Second Amendment.

But Kennedy is gone. And his replacement, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, appears very eager to expand gun rights.

Shorter after Heller was decided, the District of Columbia’s government passed legislation banning semi-automatic “assault weapons” and requiring gun owners to register their firearms. Dick Heller, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, also led the challenge to this new gun law, and the case — Heller v. District of Columbia — was eventually heard by a panel of three Republican-appointed judges.

Two of those judges largely upheld the law in 2011 (although they called for further proceedings on the registration requirement). The third judge was Brett Kavanaugh, who claimed that “both D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller.” (This second iteration of the Heller litigation was never heard by the Supreme Court.)

And Kavanaugh’s dissent also went even further than that. The future justice did not simply argue that this specific DC law should be struck down. He also suggested that nearly a decade of Second Amendment jurisprudence should be tossed out.

Now you can see why the demoncraps decided that Kavanaugh’s nomination was a hill to die on.
And now you can see why they’re going crazy ape bonkers about impeaching Trump.
Pelosi and the rest of them know too well that they’re not going to get Trump ejected from office. What they hope to do is make the nomination for whoever is going to replace Ginsburg think twice about wanting to go through the same crap and/or also give them some sort of political cover “He’s tainted by being impeached!” if it happens before the 2020 election.

The House Judiciary Committee’s Assault Weapons Ban Fallout

If you want to see how extreme the Democrats have gotten on gun control, you just had to listen to a House Judiciary Committee hearing last week.

It is one thing for Democrats such as Beto BetaBob O’Rourke and Rep. Eric Swalwell (R-CA) to call for confiscating AR-15s and civilian versions of AK-47s. But in the committee hearing this past Wednesday, the loudest applause came when Democratic witnesses called for bans on all or at least the vast majority of guns.

“I believe that any weapon that can be used to hunt individuals should be banned,” announced Charlottesville Police Chief RaShall M. Brackney in the hearing. Brackney and other witnesses showed just how far the Democratic Party has gone on gun control in only a few years.

Brackney was given a chance by Congressman Greg Steube (R-FL) to correct the record if she might have misspoken, but she only doubled down. Steube pointed out that any firearm could be used to hunt people down, and Brackney responded by repeating the point. She only clarified that police and the military would still be able to have guns.

Ten years ago, if a Democrat witness had suggested banning all guns, one can only imagine that Democratic congressmen would be desperate to disassociate themselves from those comments. But not now. Not one, single Democrat expressed any disapproval.

Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center claimed that detachable magazines are the “most important and deadly feature” of assault weapons. But a ban on detachable magazines would result in the ban of virtually all semi-automatic guns, the most commonly-owned type of firearm in the United States.

Again, none of the Democratic politicians raised any word of caution.

Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) claimed: “Assault weapons have become the favorite of many mass shooters.” But only 13 percent of all mass public shootings since 1998 involved just a rifle. Fifty-six percent involved only a handgun. Eighty-three percent involved either just a handgun or a handgun plus some other type of firearm…………

Assault weapons were singled out in the hearing because they have such features as accuracy and stopping power. But civilians value those same features for their own self-defense, especially if the attacker is bigger and stronger than they are.

Democrats are coming out for banning most or all guns, and virtually no one in their party even challenges such ideas anymore. But these views aren’t even shocking any longer, so it’s hardly surprising that the media didn’t view them as newsworthy.

NYC seeks to curb speech about illegal aliens

New York City is seeking to use an overly broad ordinance against discriminatory harassment to restrict speech about illegal aliens, such as use of the word “illegal alien” to describe workers or tenants. That violates the First Amendment. Its Commission on Human Rights is targeting such speech in recent “immigration guidance.” The Commission states, “Even an employer’s single comment made in circumstances where that comment would signal discriminatory views about one’s immigration status or national origin may be enough to constitute harassment. The use of the terms “illegal alien” and “illegals,” with the intent to demean, humiliate, or offend a person or persons in the workplace, amounts to unlawful discrimination under the NYCHRL.”

That forbids speech based on its viewpoint, even though the First Amendment, above all else, was intended to prevent viewpoint-based restrictions on speech. And it’s not just employers whose speech about immigration the Commission seeks to restrict. The Commission states, “It is illegal for a person’s employer, coworkers, or housing provider such as landlords to use derogatory or offensive terms to intimidate, humiliate, or degrade people, including by using the term ‘illegal alien,’ where its use is intended to demean, humiliate, or offend another person.” It also cites tenants as an example of people whose speech is restricted.

The city also is trying to forbid most if not all reporting of illegal aliens to the federal government. The Commission forbids such reports if the person making the report is “motivated” by the illegal alien’s “immigration status.” But what other motive could a reporting party legitimately have? The whole reason to report an illegal alien to the federal government is precisely because of their immigration status.

Yet, the Commission bans not just the threat of reporting, but also most if not all actual reports as well. It declares: “Employer threats to call federal immigration authorities can constitute unlawful harassment under the NYCHRL when motivated, in whole or in part, by animus related to the employee’s actual or perceived immigration status….While reporting a violation of the law to the police is otherwise permitted, it is a violation of the NYCHRL when such action is taken or threats to take such action are made based solely on a discriminatory or retaliatory motive.”…………..

The Commission threatens to impose $250,000 fines in the guidance, as authorized by the City’s “human rights” ordinance. The Commission also fails to describe any real-world example or situation in which it would be legal under the ordinance to report an illegal alien to the federal government. The specter of such huge fines and no safe harbor for reporting will have a huge chilling effect on citizens, discouraging them from exercising their First Amendment right to petition federal officials to remove illegal aliens.

AOC’s Newest Plan To Make America Socialist — ‘A Just Society.’

In the midst of all the impeachment crap -and let us not mince words, it is all crap – New York Democratic Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced a package of six bills as part of what she calls “A Just Society.” This is her latest attempt to turn the United States into a socialist nation since the Green New Deal really has not gone anywhere, aside from the fantasies of eco-fundamentalist freaks rife with delusional climate anxiety. The key promises of this “Just Society” is your right to not to be fat and have perfect mental health, illegal immigrants receiving endless federal welfare and benefits, and national rent control, among other policies that would hurt American workers. In short, it basically wants to put the government in every aspect of your life and your money in efforts the United States should not be supporting.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez introduced her ambitious plans on Wednesday. Here are just six plans, none saying how the American people will pay for them. Of course, we know it will be through higher taxes.

Here are the six bills:

(1) A Just Society Recognizes & Eradicates Poverty: The Recognizing Poverty Act directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in collaboration with the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, contract with the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) to propose a new official poverty guideline. This guideline would account for costs related to geographic variation, health insurance, child care, and “new necessities” such as internet access. This would ensure the accuracy of our current poverty measure, which determines eligibility for much of the social safety net including — Medicaid, Food Stamps, Family Planning Services, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the National School Lunch Program.

(2) A Just Society Creates a Place to Prosper: The Place to Prosper Act would protect low-income tenants and rein in corporate landlords by, among other things – creating an access to counsel fund for renters facing eviction, imposing a 3 percent national cap on annual rent increases, and imposing disclosure requirements on the nation’s largest landlords.

(3) A Just Society Is Merciful: The Mercy in Re-entry Act ensures that notwithstanding any other provision of law, an individual may not be denied any Federal public benefit solely on the basis that the individual was convicted of a criminal offense (whether under Federal, State, tribal, or foreign law).

(4) A Just Society Embraces Our Immigrants: The Embrace Act ensures that notwithstanding any other provision of law (including title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996), an individual may not be denied any Federal public benefit solely on the basis of the individual’s immigration status.

(5) A Just Society Uplifts Our Workers: The Uplift Our Workers Act would direct the Department of Labor (DOL), in collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to create a “worker-friendly score” – similar to LEED certification – for federal contractors. This score would consider factors including, but not limited to, paid family leave, scheduling predictability, hourly wage, and union membership. Thereafter, DoL and OMB are to provide federal agencies with recommendations on how to evaluate – and give systemized preference to – “worker-friendly contractors as it makes contracting decisions.

(6) A Just Society Guarantees the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of All: This resolution would direct the Senate to give its advice and consent to the ratification of the U.N. Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This Covenant recognizes the right to just and favorable conditions of work, the right to form trade unions, the right to adequate food, clothing, housing, and the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

Bill number four on this list seems particularly outrageous. This massive welfare state for illegal immigrants would encourage only more border crossings from every nation in the world. We can barely afford to help our veterans and American citizens who need welfare, let alone open the floodgates to illegal aliens who could come here solely for federal public benefits.

Sparks fly at assault-weapons ban hearing on Capitol Hill, ex-cop vows she would ‘not comply’

A former police officer made a bold proclamation during a congressional hearing Wednesday regarding a proposed assault-weapons ban: she would not comply.

Dianna Muller, who served in the Tulsa Police Department for 22 years and is the founder of gun advocacy group The DC Project, was among the witnesses at the House Judiciary Committee hearing. The session on an otherwise contentious issue flew largely under the radar amid the Trump-Ukraine controversy and Democrats’ impeachment push. But reflecting the gun control divide in the country — amid a spate of deadly mass shootings that prompted renewed calls for strict laws — Muller said that such a ban would force lawful gun owners to either give up their arms or become criminals.

“Please don’t legislate the 150 million people just like me into being criminals. It has happened. You’ve already done it,” Muller said, referring to the Trump administration’s ban on bump stocks, the devices that use a semi-automatic weapon’s recoil to make it rapidly fire like an automatic. “I was a bump stock owner, and I had to make a decision: do I become a felon, or do I comply?”

Should the government pass an assault-weapons ban, Muller declared, “I will not comply.”

Muller and others at the hearing focused on the practicality of a ban, pointing out what they claimed were mainly “cosmetic” differences between weapons such as the AR-15 and standard semi-automatic hunting rifles. This issue was also raised by Heritage Foundation senior legal policy analyst Amy Swearer when Rep.Jim  Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., went down the line of witnesses asking if they believed hunting rifles should be banned if they are semi-automatic.

Swearer said no, stating that there was no difference in the mechanics or function of an “assault weapon” or a semi-automatic hunting rifle. Dayton, Ohio Mayor Nan Whaley, who recalled the recent mass shooting in her city, did not give a definitive answer to Sensenbrenner’s question, nor did Dr. Alejandro Rios Tovar, a trauma surgeon who treated victims of the attack in El Paso, Texas. Charlottesville, Va., Chief of Police RaShall Brackney indicated she was in favor of a ban on “any weapon that could be used to hunt individuals.”

( I guess we need to ban rocks & sticks then! What an idiot)

Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., countered the idea of a hunting rifle ban by referring to his assault-weapon ban bill. Cicilline said that more than 200 weapons are exempt from the bill, so there is really no issue of eliminating hunting rifles.

Swearer also testified against the idea that law-abiding citizens have no need for weapons like AR-15s, recalling how her mother, a gun novice, had difficulty accurately firing a handgun at a shooting range, but was much more effective when she used an AR-15.

“As I read the Second Amendment, it doesn’t say the right to bear arms shall not be infringed unless the gun has scary features,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said.

ATF says bump stock possession is still a felony.

 

U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- In the latest court filing, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, (ATF) has stated that they do not possess the authority to legislate the banning of bump stocks.

A bump stock is a device that allows the user to use the recoil of the firearm in conjunction with a forward pushing motion on the handguard to pull the trigger rapidly. In theory, this combination enables the user to increase the rate of fire of a firearm.

On the day after Christmas in 2018, the ATF released a final ruling on bump stocks stating that the devices are “machine guns.” All machine guns are a National Firearms Act (NFA) Item. Since the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 bans citizens from owning any machine gun produced after 1986, it made every bump stock illegal.

Owners of bump stocks could either destroy their device or turn them over to law enforcement to hold or be destroyed. States like Washington State held bump stock buybacks which paid owners $100 to turn in their bump stocks. If a bump stock owner refused to turn in their device or make it inoperable, they faced a $10,000 fine in ten years in federal prison.

In Aposhian v. Barr, et al., Firearms instructor W. Clark Aposhian of Utah sued Attorney General Bob Barr. He claimed that the ATF lacks the authority to change the definition of a machine gun. The plaintiff further asserts that only congress can make a new federal law that would ban the device.

AmmoLand reached out to our sources in the Firearms Technology Branch of the ATF. Our source, who was not authorized to talk on the matter stated that the new interpretation of machine gun did not come from their branch. He went onto point out that a person doesn’t need a bump stock to bump fire a rifle. He explained how common items like belt loops or rubber bands can be used to bump fire a gun.

Our source went onto say that the Firearms Technology Branch has reviewed bump stocks on multiple occasions since getting one from Slide Fire in 2010. Every time, they have ruled that these devices do not violate the NFA. He speculates that it was pressure from the White House that caused the definition to change, but he states that he doesn’t have direct evidence.

I reached out to several other ATF agents and lawyers about the court filing. All our contacts expressed the view that this admittance isn’t a deal. In the eyes of the ATF, anyone caught with a bump stock is still guilty of a felony, and they will fully prosecute the owner to the full extent of the law.

The ATF isn’t arguing in court that they have the legal authority to change the definition of a machine gun. The ATF is merely claiming they are using the “best interpretation” of the statute.

Sources close to the case on the plaintiff side have also told me that this admittance from the ATF doesn’t do much other than creating headlines. This court filing is not the end of the case, and in all likelihood will have little effect on the outcome since the ATF has never claimed to have the power to legislate.

AmmoLand reached out to several sources in the ATF, but none were willing to go on the record.

The Tragedy Of Greta Thunberg
Our Lady of Sorrows

Sixteen-year-old Swedish climate change activist Greta Thunberg lives in the healthiest, wealthiest, safest, and most peaceful era humans have ever known. She is one of the luckiest people to have ever lived.

In a just world, Thunberg would be at the United Nations thanking capitalist countries for bequeathing her this remarkable inheritance. Instead, she, like millions of other indoctrinated kids her age, act as if they live in a uniquely broken world on the precipice of disaster. This is a tragedy.

“You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words,” Thunberg lectured the world. And maybe she’s right. We’ve failed her by raising a generation of pagans who’ve filled the vacuum left by the absence of faith, not with rationality, but with a cultish worship of Mother Earth and the state. Although, to be fair, the Bible-thumping evangelical’s moral certitude is nothing but a rickety edifice compared to the moral conviction of a Greta Thunberg.

It’s not, of course, her fault. Adults have spent a year creating a 16-year-old because her soundbites comport with their belief system. It was “something about her raw honesty around a message of blunt-force fear [that] turned this girl from invisible to global,” says CNN in a news report about a child with a narrow, age-appropriate, grasp of the world.

It should be noted that “blunt-force fear” is indeed the correct way to describe the concerted misinformation that Thunberg has likely been subjected to since nursery school. There probably isn’t a public school in America that hasn’t plied the panic-stricken talk of environmental disaster in their auditoriums over and over again. New York City and other school systems offer millions of kids an excused absence so they could participate in political climate marches this week, as if it were a religious or patriotic holiday.

We’ve finally convinced a generation of Americans to be Malthusians. According to Scott Rasmussen’s polling, nearly 30 percent of voters now claim to believe that it’s “at least somewhat likely” that the earth will become uninhabitable and humanity will be wiped out over the next 10-15 years. Half of voters under 35 believe it is likely we are on the edge of extinction. Is there any wonder why our youngest generation has a foreboding sense of doom?

IGNORANCE ON GUNS: COMMON, BUT INEXCUSABLE

It is remarkable how little most people who are adamantly opposed to firearms know about them. In general, of course, blissful ignorance of guns is perfectly fine. But if you are a legislator, and you set out to ban something, you do have a duty to know what it is you want to make illegal.

Sheila Jackson Lee is the latest to embarrass herself. She wants to ban America’s most popular rifle, and she knows nothing about it. Not only that, she lies in support of her policy preference:

As I said, there is nothing wrong with being ignorant of a subject–unless you are a legislator, and you want to force everyone else to conform to your ignorant views.

How dare you’: Greta Thunberg tears into world leaders over inaction at U.N. climate summit

“As a friend says on Facebook, when an emotionally disturbed sixteen-year-old is the spokesperson for your movement, maybe it’s not really about science. “

In an angry and emotional speech at the United Nations climate summit on Monday, Swedish teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg tore into world leaders for failing to act.

“This is all wrong,” Thunberg said, reading from a piece of paper. “I shouldn’t be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean, yet you come to us young people for hope. How dare you.”

“People are suffering,” the 16-year-old continued through tears. “People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are at the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you.”

“How dare you continue to look away and come here saying you are doing enough,” Thunberg added. “You say you hear us and understand the urgency, but no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe.”……..

Thunberg, who has been nominated for a Nobel Prize for her work raising awareness about climate change, has become an inspirational figure for fellow teens. Last month, she sailed from Europe to the United States on a zero-emission yacht.

Comment:
“Climate crusader Greta Thunberg’s “principled” trip across the Atlantic in a carbon fibre and non recyclable plastic boat is going to require at least four crew members to fly across the Atlantic.
Greta Thunberg’s trans-Atlantic voyage on a ‘zero-carbon yacht’ has been rocked by revelations that crew will fly to New York in a gas-guzzling plane to bring the boat back to Europe.
It is claimed that this would generate more emissions than the yacht saves and threatens to leave the 16-year-old’s plans to chart an environmentally friendly route to the United States in tatters.
On Wednesday, the Swedish eco-campaigner left Plymouth on the Malizia II for a two-week journey to the United Nations headquarters where she will address a climate change meeting.
But last night, it was confirmed that two crew will have to fly to the US east coast city to man the 60ft yacht on its return.
‘We added the trip to New York City at very short notice, and as a result two people will need to fly over to the US in order to bring the boat back,’ a Team Malizia spokeswoman told the Times.
She added: ‘The world has not yet found a way to make it possible to cross an ocean without a carbon footprint.’
And a further two sailors who are currently on board the Malizia II with Greta will use air travel to get back to Europe.
In the immortal words of Homer Simpson, “DOH!'”.

When Greta goes to Guangzhou

thunberg1
That’s Greta with her aged hippy Mum & Dad all wearing antifa T-shirts.
You have to wonder if Greta’s mental defects are due to all the hash & other drugs her parents did.

The climate change activism, and in particular, its more hysterical Extinction Rebellion/School Strike “we’re all going to die” variety, are very much a Western phenomenon, despite the issue of climate change (formerly known as “global warming”) itself being of course global in nature. This is arguably because the governments and the peoples of the developing world are far more concerned about lifting themselves out of poverty and getting ahead in life than what the weather might be like in half a century from today.

Conversely, in the developed, world where the populations enjoy the highest standards of living ever achieved in history, the middle classes are comfortable enough materially and barren enough spiritually to fully enjoy that extra luxury of self-flagellation and moral angst.

At the heart of the New Catstrophism lies an inconvenient truth: the United States – or Australia – could cut their emissions to zero today (or by 2030) and it would make a negligible difference to the global temperatures.There are two reasons for that: firstly, the CO2 emissions in the United States, the European Union, Canada and Australia have actually been declining in the past 10-15 years. Secondly, the CO2 emissions throughout the developing world have been skyrocketing. And this is not just in relative terms, which disregard the massively different starting points, but in absolute terms. Consider these two graphs, prepared by Robert Rapier at Forbes:

emissions1emissions2

While China now produces more CO2 than the United States and the European Union put together, the Asia-Pacific region (which does include a few industrialised countries, like Japan, Taiwan and South Korea, but is mainly in the “developing” category, with China, India and Indonesia the most prominent examples) emits nearly twice as much CO2 as the United States and the European Union combined. And rising.

This is what you always have to keep in mind whenever you hear about the great progress being made in China (and to a lesser extent in India) in embracing the renewables. It’s a case of “yes, but…” It might be true, as far as it goes, yet still India’s coal-powered electricity generation capacity is expected to increase by over 22 per cent to 2022; China itself, for whatever else it’s doing with wind and hydro, is also building hundreds of new “old” power stations as it’s creating the largest middle class in history. And while it’s true that in emissions per capita the developing world still leads the rest of the world where all the billions live, the climate only cares about the absolute numbers.

St Joan of Arc of the Children’s Crusade against Carbon, Greta Thunberg, should be going to Beijing or Bangalore and staging her protests there instead of, or at least in addition to, Sweden or New York. She should be hounding President Xi and Prime Minister Modi about their shameful emissions. She should be leading throngs of Asian kids out of schools for her Friday student strikes. She should be castigating the industries and the consumers of the developing world for destroying the planet and killing humanity in the process. She should be doing all this if she were serious about the global nature of the problem. But I won’t be holding my breath.

Lee’s other declarations that prove she’s got nothing but crap-for-brains

Of course, her district has been so gerrymandered so as to assure her continued election as long as she desires.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas proclaimed that the Constitution is 400 years old. In other words, its writing would predate the Pilgrims. But while she may be spending her time avidly re-watching the Pocahontas in hopes of getting a glimpse of John Smith jotting down the phrase “We The People,” you can read some more of Jackson Lee’s greatest hits below:

If You Believe They Put a Man on Mars

In 1997, while on a trip to the Mars Pathfinder operations center in California, Jackson Lee asked if the Pathfinder had succeeded in taking a picture of the flag planted on Mars by Neil Armstrong in 1969. Needless to say, Jackson Lee, then a member of the House Science Committee, had confused Mars with the Moon. (Despite the alliterative names, they are very different astral bodies. Mars is a planet that orbits the Sun and has never been visited by man. In contrast, the Moon, which is a satellite of Earth and orbits our planet, has been visited six different times by astronauts).

Two Vietnams, One Gaffe

While Jackson Lee is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, she seems to be badly in need of a new atlas. In 2010, she compared the war in Afghanistan to Vietnam, an analogy that has often been invoked by Democrats. But the lesson she took from that was unique, to say the least. “Today, we have two Vietnams, side by side, North and South, exchanging and working.” Jackson Lee went on to caution: “We may not agree with all that North Vietnam is doing, but they are living in peace. I would look for a better human rights record for North Vietnam, but they are living side by side.” South Vietnam has not existed for almost 40 years since North Vietnamese forces took Saigon and reunified the former French colony in 1975.

The Tea Party Took My Baby Away

In a workshop around the 2010 convention of the NAACP in Kansas City, Jackson Lee said that the Klansmen of the past are now Tea Party members. In her somewhat incoherent statement, the Texas congresswoman said “All those who wore sheets a long time ago have now lifted them off and started wearing uh, clothing, uh, with a name, say, I am part of the tea party.” She then went criticize these Tea Partiers for being among “those who said Congresswoman Jackson-Lee’s braids were too tight in her hair.”

Michael Jackson, Global Humanitarian

After the 2009 death of Michael Jackson, Sheila Jackson Lee went to Los Angeles to speak at the memorial service of the pop star where she mourned him as “someone who will be honored forever and forever and forever and forever.” The congresswoman ended her valedictory to a man she described as “our icon” by saying “Michael Jackson, I salute you.” While speaking, she held up a copy of House Resolution 600, which she introduced to honor the best-selling musical artist. Her resolution though didn’t go anywhere in the House. After all, very few members of Congress were eager to mourn a man with a well-documented history of allegations of sexual predation on young boys.

Where Is My Seafood Meal?

Early in her tenure in Congress, back in the days when airlines still served food, Jackson Lee would demand the ability to make multiple first class reservations on Continental Airlines and then cancel them freely according to her schedule. The airline did not appreciate this. The culminating point was when Jackson Lee boarded a flight back to her Houston district and discovered the first class menu didn’t include the seafood option that she wanted. The congresswoman started screaming “Don’t you know who I am? I’m Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Where is my seafood meal? I know it was ordered!”

Sheila Jackson Lee Confuses AR-15 for 10 Moving Boxes and a Heavy Machine Gun

Introducing her new gun-control legislation on Monday, Congresscritter Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) proved conclusively that she’s just too uninformed to go anywhere near the subject. She claims to have “held an AR-15 in my hand,” which weighed as much as “10 boxes that you might be moving.” She also claimed the rifle fired a .50 caliber round, and that “these kinds of bullets need to be licensed and do not need to be on the street.”

https://twitter.com/jason_howerton/status/1176145894061879302