Connect with us

Democrats

So-called Red Flag laws: An unconstitutional solution to a non-existent problem

Published

on

So-called Red Flag laws An unconstitutional solution to a non-existent problem

As with most Leftist affronts to Liberty, unconstitutional gun confiscation SWATing or so-called ‘Red Flag’ laws are based on a lie. The usual contention is that these laws that eviscerate basic constitutional protections of due process are desperately needed because there are no other means to deal with people who are alleged to be a danger to themselves or others. Our previous article on the subject dealt with this outright falsehood. There are laws and procedures for involuntary civil commitments already on the books to handle these extreme situations. In the case of Florida and the Parkland mass murder, the “The Baker Act” was already in place, but the authorities failed to take action in time. Other states such as Colorado already have procedures in place for Mental Health Holds.

The existence of these laws have been ignored in the effort to ‘enhance’ the government’s ability to confiscate guns. Its just another case of the Left exploiting a tragedy to ‘Rahm’ through new laws to deprive the people of their means of self-defense.

Laws built on lies

Most articles on what is supposedly the urgent need for gun confiscation SWATing or ‘Red Flag’ laws will make vague allusions there are no other ways of handling these situations to the point of asserting that the government has never had the authority to deal with these situations.

State governments clearly have these abilities, but the existing laws protect the Constitutional rights of the accused without having the primary purpose of confiscating guns – an intolerable situation for the authoritarian Left that sees 120 million gun owners as a threat simply because they are gun owners.

Why violate one human right when several can be attacked at once?

Leftists seem to be in some perverse competition to see which one of them can conjure up new laws to attack Liberty in as many ways as possible. For them, it’s a more efficient form of tyranny with one law doing the work of several. What better way to suppress Liberty than to confiscate guns because of someone exercising their right of free speech while destroying due process protections?

The dangerous implications to the 1st Amendment

These laws will have devastating consequences for the natural right of free speech. It will only take one concerned person in the group of people who can initiate these actions to decide an innocent gun owner is guilty of ‘thoughtcrime’ to have their property confiscated. The odds are that the Left will also expand who can initiate these gun confiscation SWATings and streamline the process.

This will only serve to further stigmatize gun owners and suppress their right of free speech. Talk too much about the human right of self-defense and the law-abiding could experience a knock on the door at 5:00 AM with property confiscation conducted at gunpoint. One would then have a protracted legal battle on their hands to prove they are innocent after being treated as guilty with all manner of legal costs and red tape just to have their property returned.

The 2nd Amendment – the primary target

In their ongoing efforts to rid the nation of Liberty, the Left has decided that it should be illegal to defend oneself. Thus they have expended copious amounts of digital ink in demanding the death of the 2nd amendment and the confiscation of guns. They are perfectly willing to do this one innocent gun owner at a time if they have to. Never mind that the common sense human right of self-defense is the bedrock of the Bill or Rights. They have no use for the limitations of their power afforded by the Constitution, much less the Liberty conserving provisions of the Bill of Rights.

But wait, there’s more – The 4th and 5th amendments also on the chopping block

These laws turn the presumption of innocence on its head, forcing the victim of one of these gun confiscation raids to have to prove they aren’t guilty of thoughtcrime before they can get their property returned. Not to mention the ‘ex parte’ nature of these proceedings depriving innocent of the critical right of due process and the right to face one’s accuser before these confiscations take place. Lastly, there is the takings clause applicable to the private property being taken for public use since not many innocent gun owners will have the means for a protracted legal battle with the government, resulting in the loss of private property.

Why the focus on firearms?-

The existing laws for Involuntary Civil Commitment are not only superior in protecting everyone’s civil rights. They also serve to keep people from harm by other means. The unconstitutional practice of gun confiscation SWATing only addresses the issue of guns, leaving the supposed danger to society free to use alternative methods to cause harm.

If safety is the point of the so-called ‘Red Flag’ or ‘ERPO’ laws, then why aren’t their proponents concerned about this issue? If someone has their guns taken away suddenly by unconstitutional means, what’s to stop them from using explosives – flour, etc.- from carrying out their deadly deeds? Suppose an alleged ‘danger to society’ no longer has their guns, but still has a motorized vehicle or the ability to make edged weaponry. What about that circumstance?

Well, if it were really the case in that these people are concerned about other people’s welfare to the point of having them committed, they would have to follow the rule of law and afford the target their right of due process, etc. They wouldn’t be able to take someone’s means of self-defense just on the word of some other aggrieved party. It wouldn’t serve their desire for gun confiscation and gun confiscation alone, so it has no usefulness for them.

Things aren’t going according to plan for the Liberty Grabber Left

The progression for the Left has always been one of control, registration and then confiscation. They used to think that it was just a matter of time before Intergalactic Background Checks would be put in place, then registration would be required – both of which would do nothing to keep people safe or ‘cut down on the carnage’. It was all supposed to happen as it did in the UK and Australia. Intergalactic Background Checks, registration, then confiscation.

But that isn’t happening, despite the baseless polling to the contrary, everyone isn’t clamoring to have the government control their private property. Most of the Pro-Liberty see the danger in this control, with it leading to registration, followed by confiscation. Most on both sides have already admitted that Intergalactic Background Checks don’t work, that the dirty little secret being that these have no other purpose than as a stepping stones to confiscation.

The Takeaway

As others have indicated, Leftists aren’t anti-gun, they are anti-Liberty. They love to see them in the hands of the ‘politically correct’, but cannot deal with them in the hands of the right people.

Leftists desperately want to deprive the Pro-Liberty Right of their guns. These firearms represent a vitally important and final check on unlimited governmental power. It’s the primary bulwark against them attaining government power to attain their wondrous utopia they desire. They are so desperate to remove it that they will confiscate them one innocent person at a time, without a care for its effects on safety or Liberty.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Gene Ralno

    January 18, 2019 at 9:45 pm

    Fact is, red flag laws are intended to remove firearms from the hands of deranged persons but aren’t crafted to succeed. No state thus far has crafted a law that ensures the disarmed person is deranged. Seems they empower mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, uncles, cousins, friends, neighbors, judges, police officers, boyfriends, girlfriends and everyone except those actually qualified to judge mental competence. Bills in other states would allow classmates to partner with judges to the ones they don’t like.

    Until two independently chosen psychiatrists, one from each side of the dispute, analyze and formally issue an opinion, these confiscations are devoid of due process. Besides, judges and police officers don’t wish to be saddled with the responsibility and potential litigation because they know they’re not qualified. It’ll never end with these radical leftists. Perhaps under the choke-point strategy, mortgagees, auto lien holders and insurers will be empowered to confiscate. Think about those notions when you vote and carefully consider the consequences of not voting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Conspiracy Theory

Did the ‘party of science’ prank themselves with the greatest practical joke ever, the ‘Green New Deal’?

Published

on

By

Did the ‘party of science’ prank themselves with the greatest practical joke ever the ‘Green New Deal’

There is one big problem with trying to ‘net-zero’ greenhouse gases, it can never happen.

Sometimes it is hard to shake the thought that a higher power played a practical joke on the Authoritarian Socialist-Left with history’s greatest prank. Those familiar with the subject know that the highest manifestation of this ‘art form’ is when the target plays it on themselves and from a source that no one expects. The coincidences leave one gobsmacked as to how it all could be mere happenstance.

The Left’s inherent arrogance has led them to believe they can never be wrong. Even if the result is that they ‘rule the population’ in the end. The problem for them is that they can’t exactly cast themselves as the ‘the party of science’ when they forget about the most abundant greenhouse gas.

Full disclosure, we had been very reluctant to critique the purveyor of this plan knowing that her ‘proclivities’ would be her downfall, knowing it would pay a handsome dividend. We knew that everyone’s favourite socialist would eventually go off the deep end, bringing the rest of the Socialist-Left along with her. Little did we know that it would happen so quickly.

Losing the plot on promises.

While the abject fraud of socialism will have it’s disciples make all manner of promises that will never come to fruition. At least some have a little bit of grounding in reality, neglecting the fact that they will quickly run out of other people’s money. However, in the ‘Green New Deal’ we substantially have an historic first, a completely impossible goal. Consider this passage in their napkin pencil sketch of the outline of a plan to rebuild our entire economy from the ground up:

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

(1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal—

(A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;

[Our Emphasis]

Trying to get to ‘net-zero’ is a fool’s errand because it’s impossible to get to that point with the most important greenhouse gas: Water Vapour.

Never mind that other parts of the scheme are beyond feasibility. Or that the rest of the world will just take up the slack after we self-immolate [After buying the appropriate carbon credits of course]. No, they ignored the most important greenhouse gas and thus rendered their entire plan scientifically absurd.

The problem for them and the indication that this was the greatest prank of all time is that water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas. Now perhaps they overlooked this scientific fact because the powers that be in the Global Cooling, Global warming, Climate Change, Global Cooling cabal also tend to ignore this ‘inconvenient truth’ to coin a phrase.

Just in case there are any Leftists reading this, we will spell it out for those of the ‘Party of science’: We can never net-zero water vapour since that would entail getting rid of all the water on the planet. Perhaps they don’t realise that Approximately 71 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by this ubiquitous substance, sometimes referred to as dihydrogen monoxide.

But its impossible elimination would certainly help in providing high-speed rail service to Hawaii.

We can add to this by pointing out that the climate boffins prefer to use terms such as ‘scientific uncertainty’ when referring to poorly understood effects of the ‘positive feedback loop’ of Water vapour. From the National Climatic Data Center on Greenhouse Gases:

As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to ‘hold’ more water when it’s warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a ‘positive feedback loop’. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop.

As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth’s surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops.

[Our Emphasis]

In other words, they don’t want to admit how water vapour can act as a means for the planet to keep Global Cooling, Global warming, Climate Change, Global Cooling in check. They don’t know for certain about this crucial aspect of the issue. But those of the climate cult do know that if we don’t hand over control of our entire lives to them, entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by the year 2000, as in this report from the Associated Press:

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked June 30, 1989

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control. We all might have been too busy dealing with Y2K and the millennium, but entire nations being swept off the face of the earth most assuredly wouldn’t of escaped notice of everyone.

Of course the alarmism never stops with criticism of predictions of world-wide disasters being ‘too rosy’ as in this report from the New York times Nov. 18, 2007: Alarming UN report on climate change too rosy, many say:

VALENCIA, Spain — The blunt and alarming final report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released here by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, may well underplay the problem of climate change, many experts and even the report’s authors admit.

The IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, an engineer and economist from India, acknowledged the new trajectory. “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late,” Pachauri said. “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

Okay, they were over blown about having to do something that ‘in the next two to three years’, but it’s a certainty that in 2009 Barack Obama had only had four years to save the world from The Guardian:

President ‘has four years to save Earth’
Sun 18 Jan 2009 00.01 GMT

Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama’s first administration.

Lest anyone think that since the world ended a few years ago that it would have stopped the predictions of doom, other lists have been since published here and here.

The problem for the Global Cooling cult is that they keep on predicting disaster in a few years and they keep on coming up short. But, we’re not supposed to notice the decades of alarmism, we’re not supposed to rhetorical sleight of hand of the change from Global Cooling in the 1970’s to Global warming when that didn’t happen to Climate Change when that also didn’t happen as well. We’re not supposed to notice the extraordinary claims that demand extraordinary evidence. Most certainly we’re not supposed to notice that these claims that demand immediate action requires that we all give up our Liberty to the very people making the demands.

The takeaway.

Perhaps this epic practical joke on the Socialist-Left will serve as a prime indicator to the rational majority to reject the Green New Deal and the rest of their ancient collectivist ideas. That finally enough people will recognise their socialist snake oil for what it truly is, a fraud of the highest order. It certainly has wrought enough destruction, leaving behind a body count in the millions to make that case.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Dear proponents of limited government: It’s time to start speaking up now

Published

on

Dear proponents of limited government Its time to start speaking up now

For nearly a year, I’ve given the Republican Party a pass for the most part. I left the party in 2016 and after pursuing a third party for over a year, life pulled me back from the fray. When things calmed down (thank you, Lord!), I made a conscious decision to be lighter in my condemnation of the GOP as a whole for two very important reason.

First, there were signs of life in the party. They were faint, but it seemed at times to be possible for the party to do some good things like eliminating bureaucracy, cutting taxes, promoting a business-friendly atmosphere, and making proper foreign policy moves. They were far from good, let alone ideal, but I thought if we could keep pressing them towards smart moves on the border, gun owners’ rights, Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, and other areas in which they’ve failed so far, perhaps their decent work on taxes and regulations could be translated into other areas.

Second, the Democrats started to terrify me. Seriously, I’ve been contemplating moving the family to a remote area of Montana and going off the grid before the Democrats got their hands on enough power to do the damage they’ve been promising to do for the last year or so. I wasn’t one who thought Bill Clinton was a radical or Barack Obama was the antichrist. I always thought Clinton was a run-of-the-mill Democrat who could do some damage but not much, while Obama was an ambitious progressive who was nevertheless too smart to think he could make socialism a thing. Since the 2016 election, we’ve seen the Democratic Party go from progressives with bad ideas to far-left radicals who think the only way to go is to destroy America in a glorious explosion of their new Communist Manifesto, also known as the Green New Deal.

This site is 100% crowdfunded by readers like YOU. Please consider donating and keeping the right side of news going strong.

Now that the GOP has demonstrated a toxic mixture of incompetence and false adherence to limiting government with their latest omnibus debacle, it’s time to return to my old stance of refusing to accept the binary choice. When choosing between bad and worse, it’s only a valid choice if the less-terrible option won’t kill you as well. The binary choice between hanging and drowning isn’t really a binary choice, and neither is the choice between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

There are three things that must be done going forward.

  1. Conservatives, Federalists, and Classical Liberals must find a way to united against the two party system. Whether that’s the formation of a new party (which I failed to do once already), a grassroots effort similar to the Tea Party (which worked for a short time before finding irrelevance), or some other method of unification against the putrid system that has engulfed nearly all of Washington DC, we have to find an outlet.
  2. NOQ Report will become a hub for bringing these thoughts together. This is something that I’ve found success with when I ran The New Americana. Now, it’s time to collect the voices of reason once again.
  3. Prayer. Lots of prayer.

I’ve reached out to some of my conservative and federalist friends. Over the next few weeks, we’ll see what can be done to make DC listen. In the meantime, be discerning and prepare to abandon the tribal mindset that has plagued this nation for too long.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Veronique de Rugy: Green New Deal would be hundreds of TRILLIONS of dollars in federal commitment

Published

on

Veronique de Rugy Green New Deal would be hundreds of TRILLIONS of dollars in federal commitment

If there’s a word that’s not necessarily negative one could use to describe the Green New Deal, it would be “ambitious.” The deal has so much wrapped into it that it’s hard to tell which components are designed to save the environment and which ones are intended to destroy the economy.

Estimates put costs for the “green side” of the resolution at somewhere between $12-$20 trillion. Then, there’s the Medicare-for-All component that is estimated at $32 trillion over a decade.

And that’s just the start.

This isn’t just a “green” deal. It’s a hodgepodge of policy proposals that include massively growing the welfare state, inserting government even more into the job markets, and a universal basic income that they refuse to actually call a universal basic income. The much-maligned FAQ that was posted and quickly removed from the website of sponsor Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) mentioned paying people who were unable or even “unwilling” to work.

“Even in the best case scenario where you substitute a UBI for all the other forms of welfare, it’s insane,” said Veronique de Rugy, Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, on ReasonTV.

But here’s the problem. The Green New Deal doesn’t substitute a universal basic income for other welfare programs. In the Green New Deal, the programs recommended are supposed to be additions, not substitutions.

“It’s a really hard system to support even in its ideal form,” de Rugy continued. “Then there’s this Green New Deal version which doesn’t even seem to entertain this notion of actually substituting for all the rest, so it’s on top of what we have now.”

This site is 100% crowdfunded by readers like YOU. Please consider donating and keeping the right side of news going strong.

The real question we need to ask is whether or not the Democratic Party is actually going to support this. In its current form, the Green New Deal is a fantasy, and perhaps that’s what the more-sane Democrats are shooting for by supporting it. By giving it their attention now, they can work their way down to more reasonable proposals for everything from environmental protection to job creation programs to different versions of socialism.

In other words, they may be using the hyper-leftism of the Green New Deal as a gateway to get to the palatable leftism of what’s quickly becoming mainstream socialism.

The Green New Deal shouldn’t scare conservatives because it can’t happen. What should concern us is the end result negotiated down from this starting point. Given the GOP’s negotiating track record lately, we don’t know what we’re going to get when the Green New Deal is trimmed down to reality.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report