Men Wear Pearls To Gun Grabbing Hearing, Gun Grabbers Freak

By William Teach March 8, 2019 – 6:38 pm

It’s pretty bad when CNN has to set the record straight

Why were these men wearing pearls at a gun control hearing?

A decision by a group of male Republican New Hampshire lawmakers to wear pearls during a hearing on gun control legislation sparked accusations that they were being sexist and insensitive to the mothers of those killed in shootings.

State conservatives, however, say the lawmakers were supporting women’s rights to arm themselves for defense.

The controversy began Tuesday afternoon during debate over a bill that would restrict access to firearms from people deemed to pose an “immediate risk to themselves or others.”

Photos posted on social media show several male Republicans wearing pearls during the hearing.

And here’s Excitable Shannon

The lawmakers also were condemned on Twitter by Democratic US Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kamala Harris of California, who said the New Hampshire lawmakers were mocking the mothers.

But

But the president of the Women’s Defense League, a New Hampshire gun rights group that focuses on “training and educating women” on practical self-defense skills, disputed the accusation, saying the pearls were worn in support of their group.

“These men are supporting women and supporting women who support actual women’s rights. They are the farthest thing from sexist and there was a women lawmaker wearing them, too. That was conveniently left out,” Kimberly Morin, the president of the Women’s Defense League, told CNN Wednesday.

These are the people that Democrats want to disarm, law abiding women who want a firearm for protection.

Read: Men Wear Pearls To Gun Grabbing Hearing, Gun Grabbers Freak »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Barking Moonbats, Democrats | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 8, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon train crossing the country instead of evil fossil fueled airplanes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Victory Girls Blog, with a post on Rashida Tlaib’s nutty impeachment push.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Say, What Would The Green New Deal Mean For Your Hamburger?

By William Teach March 8, 2019 – 10:27 am

Remember, the original release of the Green New Deal included

We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.

And then AOC and staff walked this back after the release, claiming it wasn’t the real document meant to be released (it was, and that link has links to the initial document), and the liberal media provided cover.

But, was it real? Consider this piece by the very left leaning UK Guardian, which is not shy about showing its biases, especially on ‘climate change’

What the Green New Deal will mean for your hamburger

Amid the various critiques of the proposed Green New Deal, few capture the alarmism of the American right quite like Sebastian Gorka’s now viral claim that the deal’s proponents “want to take away your hamburgers … this is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved”.

While it is debatable whether Stalin would have rejoiced in a vegan United States, it is true that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal for a low-carbon economy would require a major reduction in livestock production. But there doesn’t need not be an either/or choice between the Green New Deal and meat consumption: the solution to the Green New Deal’s hamburger problem lies in Silicon Valley’s “clean meat” startups.

Cellular agriculture technology can already produce meat that is virtually identical in genetics and flavor to industrially produced meat, and it can do so without harming any animals. Last week, the UK thinktank Chatham House released a report urging EU policymakers to promote rapid regulation of and investment in this new technology. The United States needs to do the same. Government investment in scaling up alternative proteins should form a backbone of the Green New Deal’s commitment to job creation, industrial innovation and food security.

Every year over 9 billion land animals are slaughtered in the United States. Beyond being a nightmare for animals, industrial agriculture contributes 14% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Cows make up 41% of that, and the United States is home to just under 100 million of them. Reducing our carbon footprint must entail abandoning industrial agriculture, but changing people’s minds about eating meat is difficult, and getting them to actually eat less meat in even harder.

What is “cellular agriculture technology”?

A far more promising avenue for ensuring an abundance of hamburgers is the emergent cellular agriculture industry. The plant-based meat and milk alternatives sector has seen tremendous growth in recent years, and the market for meat-alternatives such as the Impossible Burger is on track to grow to $5bn a year by 2020. But these products are mere alternatives. Cellular agriculture, meanwhile, uses animal stem cells to grow meat in a lab setting that is genetically analogous to meat from slaughtered animals. The Bay Area startup Memphis Meats has already produced meatballs indistinguishable from the real thing. Compared with conventional meat, clean meat generates 96% less GHG emissions, and uses 99% less land and up to 96% less water.

Ewwwww!

But, what do they do with all the cows? They don’t say.

Read: Say, What Would The Green New Deal Mean For Your Hamburger? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Global Warming | Comments Off on Say, What Would The Green New Deal Mean For Your Hamburger? | Trackback URL

Worldwide Student ‘Climate Change’ Protest Is Coming To The U.S. Or Something

By William Teach March 8, 2019 – 6:50 am

No more riding in fossil fueled vehicles to school, practice, friends house, or vacations for the kiddies. No showers longer than 2 minutes. No more gaming systems nor tablets nor smartphones, because of the energy use, including what’s called vampire energy. No more energy drinks or sodas, due to CO2 content. No more streaming shows. I could continue with more, but, let’s move into the story

Worldwide student strike is coming to the U.S. on March 15, as global climate protests cross the rising oceans

Tens of thousands of students from around the world will join together this month by skipping school to demand action be taken by politicians on global warming.

The global strike, dubbed School Strike 4 Climate, will take place on March 15.

“We are striking because our world leaders have yet to acknowledge, prioritize, or properly address our climate crisis,” a description of the movement read on its web site. “We are striking because if the social order is disrupted by our refusal to attend school, then the system is forced to face the climate crisis and enact change.”

The movement is inspired by Swedish teen activist Greta Thunberg who has been on strike outside of the Swedish parliament building every Friday since September, and supports The Green New Deal, according to a report by Sierra.

“We are striking for the Green New Deal, for a fair and just transition to a 100% renewable economy, and for ending the creation of additional fossil fuel infrastructure,” the School Strike 4 Climate web site states. (snip)

Now, children in at least two dozen countries and 30 U.S. states have planned to skip school to demand that nations commit to cutting fossil-fuel emissions in half in the next 10 years to avoid global warming, the Washington Post reported.

How are the tykes expecting to get to the protests? Think they’ll walk or bike? Or, want mom/dad/the school to drive them there? I’d have a good laugh checking the one in Raleigh out on Friday the 15th, but, you know, work. List of all here.

Further, did anyone notice that, despite the headline, the “article” fails to mention how much the seas are rising? If they did, it would be rather inconvenient. The average sea rise over the last 8,000 years (a time frame used after the Great Meltwater Pulse ended post-ice age) is 6-8 inches per century. During Holocene cool periods the rise is much lower, which means during warm periods it has to be much higher. That’s how we get averages. Some think a warm period should see 16-22 inches per century.

Do you know how much there was in the 20th Century? I’ve mentioned it many times. 8 inches. Average. Nor is it accelerating.

According to Tides and Currents, run by NOAA, Atlantic City, NJ (the above article is from NJ.com) is seeing 4.09 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.15 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1911 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 1.34 feet in 100 years. That’s also includes land changes, and is normal. The gauges at Sandy Hook and Cape May are similar.

Across the waters at The Battery (NYC) we see 2.85 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.09 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1856 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 0.94 feet in 100 years. Land changes are stripped from the data due to the location.

This is inconvenient data for climahysterics. As is most. Notice that real world data is rarely ever included in scaremongering articles.

Read: Worldwide Student ‘Climate Change’ Protest Is Coming To The U.S. Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 22 Comments | Trackback URL

Not Open Borders Or Something: Pelosi Wants All New Immigrants To Be Able To Vote

By William Teach March 8, 2019 – 6:46 am

People often wonder why Democrats are so in favor of open borders and illegal immigration, as well as taking in massive numbers of refugees from 3rd world shitholes developing nation. They give us all sorts of feelings based squishy reasons, but, really, it does come down to one thing, and Pelosi just let it out of the bag

Watch–Nancy Pelosi: New Immigrants Must Not Have Their Votes Suppressed

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said the United States must not suppress the vote of newly arrived legal immigrants — including those foreign nationals who arrive en masse at the U.S.-Mexico border.

During a press conference in Austin, Texas this week, Pelosi admitted that the goal for the country’s mass illegal and legal immigration system is to ensure the more than 1.5 million new arrivals who come to the U.S. every year are on the voter rolls.

Pelosi added that it is immigrants, not American citizens, who make the nation “more American.”

When we talk about newcomers, we have to recognize the constant reinvigoration of America that they are, that we all have been – our families. And that, unless you’re blessed to be Native American – which is a blessing in itself that we respect – but that constant reinvigoration of hope, determination, optimism, courage, to make the future better for the next generation, those are American traits. [Emphasis added]

And these newcomers make America more American. And we want them, when they come here, to be fully part of our system. And that means not suppressing the vote of our newcomers to America. [Emphasis added]

The “newcomers” who should be fully able to participate in voting, Pelosi said, include the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens and border crossers who arrive at the southern border every year.

“We, in California, see people coming from a different direction, but the same welcome. You see them coming, many from the south, southern border, but should be the same welcome,” Pelosi said.

It’s all about the vote with Democrats. There are no high minded ideals about helping people from distressed areas. They’d help Detroit and other American cities and citizens if they cared. Democrats just want votes.

Democrats would win major victories politically from increased legal immigration levels, research finds. The latest analysis by The Atlantic senior editor Ronald Brownstein revealed that nearly 90 percent of House congressional districts with a foreign-born population above the national average were won by Democrats.

This means that every congressional district with a foreign-born population exceeding roughly 14 percent had a 90 percent chance of being controlled by Democrats and only a ten percent chance of electing a Republican.

And that’s why they want them. Votes. Nothing else. Democrats do not care about legal immigrants nor illegal aliens. They just want the votes. Consider their talking points about how they want to only deport the bad illegals, not the ones with no or just minor civil/criminal convictions. They refuse to hold illegals with charges/convictions for things like rape, sexual assault (including against children), trafficking, drug dealing, arson, assault, attempted murder, gun charges, and murder, among others, for ICE to come pick up.

Democrats could care less how this harms legal U.S. citizens.

Read: Not Open Borders Or Something: Pelosi Wants All New Immigrants To Be Able To Vote »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Doing All They Can To Own Being Anti-Semites

By William Teach March 7, 2019 – 4:20 pm

Again, criticism of Israel doesn’t make someone a Jew hater. But, when that’s all you have, when you can’t even condemn radical Islam, and cannot denounce Jew hatred, what you’re left with is hatred of Jews. When you have to defend the indefensible, well, here we go

Dem Whip: Omar’s Experience More Powerful Than Holocaust Survivors

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) claimed the media was treating Rep. Ilhan Omar(D-MN) badly for making several anti semitic comments. Clyburn defended Omar in an interview with The Hill this week. In fact, Clyburn said that Omar’s experience as a refugee was more empirical to the experiences of holocaust survivors.

“I’m serious about that. There are people who tell me, ‘Well, my parents are Holocaust survivors.’ ‘My parents did this.’ It’s more personal with her,” Clyburn told The Hill. “I’ve talked to her, and I can tell you she is living through a lot of pain.”

Heck, if even newly converted Leftist nutjob S.E. Cupp can see it

As Seth Mandel notes, this is like telling Holocaust survivors to “check their privilege.”

The Dems are apparently “tweeking” their condemnation of pretty much everything to now include Latinos specifically, to go with a resolution “released earlier today mentioned several groups including African Americans, Native Americans, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, immigrants.”

They seriously can’t just condemn anti-Semitism without going full on identity politics. If the GOP is not ready to run ads in 2020 highlighting the Democrats as the party of Jew hatred, then they deserve to lose. You can bet one thing: Team Trump will be ready on this.

Read: Democrats Doing All They Can To Own Being Anti-Semites »

Posted in Democrats, Dems in Charge: Now What? | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 7, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is wonderful rail line which should replace all roads, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Watcher Of Weasels, with a post on #Jexodus (Jews leaving the anti-Semitic Democratic Party).

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats With Anti-Semitism Problem To Condemn “All Hate” As Deflection

By William Teach March 7, 2019 – 10:30 am

I wonder if it will include all the hate towards Christianity, as well as the constant assaults by Democrat voters on Republicans?

Report: Democrats to Condemn ‘All Hate,’ Not Anti-Semitism Specifically, in Resolution

According to a report, House Democrats will not condemn anti-Semitism specifically following the controversy over Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), but will instead condemn “all hate” in general.

Last month, Ilhan Omar created fresh controversy by making an anti-Semitic comment implying that pro-Israel Americans had an “allegiance to a foreign country.”

Omar suggested earlier in February that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was bribing politicians into supporting Israel and as a result was widely criticized as anti-Semitic.

However, Democrats reportedly do not see the need to pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism specifically.

The Daily Beast reports:

House Democrats spent Wednesday scrambling to put to bed a debate about anti-Semitism that no one wants after advancing a symbolic resolution condemning it that pleased no one.

The resolution, as it was initially conceived in the hours after Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) made a second round of anti-Israel comments last week, would condemn anti-Semitism—a second public rebuke of the freshman lawmaker who has been in office less than 60 days.

But by midweek, faced with a backlash inside the Democratic Caucus, leaders appeared to change course, asking the House Foreign Affairs Committee to draft a resolution that rebuked “all hate.”

Unsurprisingly, a whole host of Democrats are attempting to now defenddefend Jew/Israel hater Omar from criticism, from Bernie Sanders to Liz Warren to Dem activists and opinion writers.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) wrote in a statement obtained by HuffPost that continued attention directed at Omar, one of the first two Muslim women to serve in Congress, puts her at risk of possible violence.

“We all have a responsibility to speak out against anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, racism, and all forms of hatred and bigotry,” Harris said in a statement.

But, they aren’t speaking out against anti-Semitism specifically from one of their members. It’s been specifically rampant among young Democrats, especially on college campuses, and, be honest, it is rampant throughout Muslim communities such as Omar’s. The hatred of Israel in the Democratic Party has morphed into hatred of Jews.

Read: Democrats With Anti-Semitism Problem To Condemn “All Hate” As Deflection »

Posted in Democrats, Israel | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Democrats Vote Against Provision In Green New Deal

By William Teach March 7, 2019 – 7:35 am

It’s strange that so many Democrats who say they support the Green New Deal do not actually want to vote in support of the GND. It’s almost like the GND was just meant to say “look, we’re doing something” by releasing it but knowing that it would be a complete disaster

DEMOCRATS, INCLUDING OCASIO-CORTEZ, VOTE AGAINST GREEN NEW DEAL AMENDMENT

Democrats on the House Committee on Financial Services voted unanimously against an amendment introduced by a GOP lawmaker to spark debate about a key demand of the Green New Deal.

Wisconsin Republican Rep. Sean Duffy, the committee’s ranking Republican, introduced the amendment to the committee Democrats’ budget resolution, though he said in a hearing Wednesday he did not plan on voting for it.

Duffy’s intention, instead, was to use the amendment to debate a key demand of the Green New Deal, which was introduced by New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in February. That bill, which is backed by some Democratic 2020 presidential candidates, included a call to retrofit every building to maximize energy efficiency.

Duffy’s amendment would have changed the wording of one line of a financial services committee budget and views resolution to be in line with the Green New Deal’s call for “maximum energy efficiency” and “zero-emissions.”

The amendment said the budget should furnish funds “to provide all people with affordable, safe, and adequate housing that has been newly built or retroactively upgraded to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, using only clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”

This was basically a way for Duffy to make Democrats put up or shut up. He argued with Excitable Maxine Waters, a GND co-sponsor, chairperson of the committee, including

“[W]e are dealing with a very real homeless crisis in this country, and this amendment is not taking it serious,” Waters responded before asking her Democratic colleagues to vote “no” on Duffy’s amendment.

“Is the gentle-lady chairwoman saying that the Green New Deal is not serious?” Duffy shot back. Waters said “you are not serious” before reclaiming her time.

Of course she is. None of the Democrats really want to debate it, nor do they actually want to pass it or any part of it, especially with a presidential election next year.

Say, wouldn’t this make them all “climate delayers”, including AOC, according to AOC?

Read: Bummer: Democrats Vote Against Provision In Green New Deal »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

New York Looks To Pass Another Gun Control Law, Requiring Firearms To Be Locked Up If Someone Under 16 Is Present

By William Teach March 7, 2019 – 7:20 am

Once again, it’s all about making things more difficult for law abiding citizens to use a firearm for defense, under the guise of “protecting the kids”

Even stricter gun control could be coming to New York

New York gun owners could soon be required to lock up their guns whenever someone younger than 16 is home.

A bill passed the New York legislature on March 4th. It makes it a misdemeanor to not put your firearms in a gun safe or put a physical lock on it.

Gun control advocates believe this will curb serious at-home accidents involving children.

“Why would you leave a gun accessible to a child under a mattress or under your pillow or in a drawer when your not home,” Paul McQuillen, the Upstate coordinator of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, said.

The number of gun owners that do that is very small. The law itself requires that all firearms need to be locked up when not on the gun owners person.

However, second amendment advocates think this isn’t an effective bill.

“This is a feel good piece of legislation with no real mechanism of enforcement,” Steve Felano, a gun rights advocate, said.

Enforcing this bill would require police to have reasonable cause to believe gun owners aren’t properly securing their weapons when children are home.

Plus, some say this could make it harder to protect oneself during an emergency.

“You won’t be able to get your firearm out in time from storage should someone break into your home,” Felano said.

Once again, it’s all about inconveniencing law abiding citizens, while refusing to crack down on those who possess firearms, and use them, in an illegal manner.

Read: New York Looks To Pass Another Gun Control Law, Requiring Firearms To Be Locked Up If Someone Under 16 Is Present »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove