Democrat Run House Set To Vote On Firearms Bills That Mostly Won’t Make A Difference

By William Teach February 27, 2019 – 7:21 am

This doesn’t seem that bad, right?

House slated to vote on most significant gun control bill in years

The House is slated to vote Wednesday on landmark legislation to require universal background checks for gun sales, a top priority for Democrats.

It will mark the most significant gun control vote in years after the Senate failed in 2013 to pass similar bipartisan legislation to expand the federal background check system.

It’s not the only day this week the House will take up legislation to address gun violence.

House Democrats plan to follow Wednesday’s vote with another on Thursday for a bill to lengthen the review period for background checks, which is meant as a response to the 2015 shooting at a historic black church in Charleston, S.C. (snip)

The universal background checks measure would require background checks to cover sales made at gun shows and over the internet. Current law only mandates federally licensed firearms dealers to conduct background checks before making a gun sale.

The universal background checks measure, authored by Reps. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) and Pete King (R-N.Y.), is titled the Bipartisan Background Checks Act.

But it’s not expected to attract more than a handful of House GOP votes beyond the five who have co-sponsored the bill: Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Brian Mast (Fla.), Fred Upton (Mich.), Chris Smith (N.J.) and King.

The waiting periods one would mandate a 10 day waiting period, which would give Los Federales more time to perform the background check, then another 10 days if the check hasn’t been completed. This changes from the current federal three days, in which they sometimes fail to get it done, which means it is approved. As for background checks, there are a few squishy Republicans, like the above.

But House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), who was nearly killed in 2017 after a man targeting GOP lawmakers opened fire on a congressional baseball practice, is on the opposite side of the debate. He doesn’t think the legislation would have necessarily prevented recent mass shootings. The man who shot him, for example, had obtained his firearms legally.

“If you look at the bill, it wouldn’t have stopped many of these mass shootings. What it would do is make it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights,” Scalise told The Hill on Tuesday.

Which is exactly the point of these bills, and the more to come.

Thompson dismissed criticism that his legislation wouldn’t have prevented recent mass shootings, arguing that shouldn’t be a reason to reject expanding background checks.

“As far as anybody who says, ‘Well, this bill wouldn’t have solved this incident’? The only thing that will solve every one is to do away with guns,” Thompson said Tuesday.

So, it won’t actually solve the issues they’re claiming it will solve? Huh. Just look at California, which already requires these background checks, yet, has lots of shootings.

(Daily Caller) “They’re bills that [Democrats are] putting on the floor under the guise of saying that they’re going to address issues related to gun violence — neither one of these bills would have done anything to stop some of the tragedies that we have seen,” Republican Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney told a crowd, referring to the Bipartisan Background Checks Act (HR 8) and the Enhanced Background Checks Act (HR 1112).

The House is expected to vote on HR 8 and HR 1112 by Friday, which would require a background check for nearly every firearm purchase and a 10-day waiting period for firearm sales, respectively. While neither bill specifically calls for a national gun registry, GOP lawmakers argue neither could be enforced without a federal database in place. (snip)

Republican Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz further criticized Democrats for trying to impose anti-gun legislation that “fails to protect vulnerable people” while simultaneously voting against GOP-sponsored, “common sense” measures like notifying Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when an illegal immigrant fails a background check.

“This isn’t really about public safety,” Gaetz said. “It’s about blood lust that Democrats have to take away guns from law-abiding citizens.”

You really can’t do it without a registry, and the same people want to protect illegal aliens who attempt to buy a firearm through legal channels (which very few actually do). Very little of this, nor their upcoming bills, targets actual bad people, just the law abiding firearms owners.

Read: Democrat Run House Set To Vote On Firearms Bills That Mostly Won’t Make A Difference »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, What Will NJ’s $15 An Hour Hike Cost Taxpayers

By William Teach February 26, 2019 – 4:05 pm

I spend quite a bit of time on NJ.com. Even though I haven’t lived there in decades, I’m still a Giants and Devils fan, so, I end up catching a lot of other news, which is Modern Socialism in a nutshell. This article is actually rather even handed for the site, which means it unintentionally exposes just how bad this whole $15 an hour push is

N.J. is hiking the minimum wage to $15. What will it cost taxpayers?

The lifeguards and visitors guides at state parks. The entry-level employees at the county animal shelter. The interns at your local library.

They’re all about to get pay raises, and it’s going to cost taxpayers one way or another.

For years, businesses, labor advocates and lawmakers debated raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Would the benefit to workers outweigh the cost to small businesses?

But local governments largely stayed out of the fray, and the consequences for New Jersey’s finances and local governments’ budgets flew under the radar.

For the state, it means an initial increase of $3.2 million in wages for the first year, a figure that balloons to anywhere from $300 million to $600 million five years from now. New Jersey’s counties and local governments say results will vary, but it’s likely fees will rise and services cut in some jurisdictions to counteract increased payroll costs.

And taxes will skyrocket in a state that already has very high taxes, especially income and property taxes. Business taxes will go up to pay for this bit of government hooking up their employees.

The price tag increases dramatically once the minimum wage is fully phased in. Senate President Stephen Sweeney said his office projected it will range between $300 million and $600 million.

“It’s a big number because we have a lot of nonprofits that we do business with, and if we don’t increase their funding, they’re going to have to cut back services,” he said. “It’s not just direct government employees. It’s the people that are depending on us funding them.”

So the private nonprofits will be required to increase their pay due to this, as well as the coming regular $15 an hour increase for private employers. Who pays? Surprise? Surprise!

Until recently, local governments were exempt from the state’s minimum wage and responsible only for paying the federally mandated minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. And state Sen. Kristin Corrado, R-Passaic, has introduced a bill (S3492) that would restore that reprieve.

“The new minimum wage law is forcing local leaders to make impossible choices,” Corrado said in a statement. “Many of our towns currently provide extremely affordable community services, such as day care, summer camp and recreational classes for seniors. The unintended consequence of this law is that many of these programs will disappear, unless we take action to keep local government programs accessible.”

Government creates the problem then wants to “solve” the problem. There’s only so much money, and if the anti-business and big tax policies are driving people and businesses away, it can’t be paid for.

Toms River, Ocean County, estimated it would cost more than $575,000 a year to comply with a $15 an hour minimum wage and predicted higher registration fees for recreation and youth programs, beach tags and local swimming pool.

Which means fewer people able to afford all these services. And fewer will use them. Which means less revenue. For those saying, like in the article comments “I’m ok with people being able to afford the basic necessities of life. If it costs me a little more, so what?” Well, what happens next, besides the reduction in workforce employees, not allowing OT, reducing many positions to part time, is that the costs get passed on, so the cost of living rises, and then the hourly wage has much reduced buying power.

Summer jobs will be limited, because no one wants to pay a high school or college kid $15 an hour to fill the extra positions necessary for seasonal work. And the ones making $15 an hour? They’ll want more, because they’ve been on the job longer. These aren’t all unintended consequences, because everyone has stated what will happen. It’s happened in cities that have done this.

Read: Say, What Will NJ’s $15 An Hour Hike Cost Taxpayers »

Posted in Economy | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 26, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible sport that uses lots of never renewable water which causes temperatures to go up and down, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is No Frakking Consensus, with a post on Green lawyers targeting toilet paper.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

High Flying John Kerry Isn’t Happy With Trump’s Climate Panel Or Something

By William Teach February 26, 2019 – 10:48 am

John Kerry is yet another in a long line of big carbon footprint liberals who want Other People to be forced to pay taxes and fees and lose liberty and choice, but refuses to make changes in his own life. He’s also unhappy that an actual debate would occur

John Kerry: Disband your climate denial panel, Mr. President

Many have become immune or anesthetized to the daily assault on truth that is the Trump presidency, an alternative reality where North Korea has denuclearized and Russia might not have attacked our elections in 2016. It would be laughable were it not dangerous. Presidents are supposed to hold consensus together, not invent fictions to fray it.

But the administration’s most dangerous collision with facts has been its effort to paralyze U.S. efforts to join the nations of the world in confronting climate change. The White House plans to convene “experts” to “determine” whether climate change is a national security threat. We know what the outcome will be: President Trump’s council of doubters and deniers will convene to undo a 26-year-old factual consensus that climate change is a national-security threat multiplier.

As we careen toward irreversible environmental tipping points, we have no time to waste debating alternative facts only to invest years more reestablishing trust in the real ones. No panel 10 years from now can put the ice sheets back together or hold back rising tides.

Careen! Kerry attempts to make the argument that because some people Believe in man-caused climate change, some of whom are military (remember, the high ranking military members are, by necessity, political animals, and will toe the line in what their superiors want), that we shouldn’t actually debate this whole thing. Why are Warmists always afraid to debate? He calls the panel a “kangaroo court”. Why the fear of a debate, Mr. Kerry? And when are you giving up your own big carbon footprint?

And let’s not forget that Kerry fought hard against the Cape Wind Project, because the wind turbines would have messed up the view for his rich buddies.

And it doesn’t end with military impacts. While climate change didn’t lead to the rise of the terrorist group Boko Haram in Nigeria, the country’s severe drought and the government’s inability to cope with it helped create the volatility that militants exploited to seize villages, butcher teachers and kidnap hundreds of innocent girls.

He’s literally blaming everything on Other People’s use of fossil fuels.

We can spend the next two years debating whether two plus two equals five. But it would mean someday a young American in uniform will likely be put in harm’s way because truth lost out to talking heads. Debate how to address the climate national security threat, not whether it’s real. Mr. President, listen to our military leaders and disband your climate denial panel.

Once you trot out the denial stuff, you’ve abandoned reason and fled into smearing. And people who failed to take the national security threats seriously in the wake of 9/11, which Kerry mentions offhandedly, just because George W. Bush was president, people who were soft on Islamic terrorists, shouldn’t be talking about national security.

Read: High Flying John Kerry Isn’t Happy With Trump’s Climate Panel Or Something »

Posted in Global Warming, Kerry | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Illegal Alien Pulls Gun On Officer, She Blasts Him

By William Teach February 26, 2019 – 7:04 am

Open Borders advocates will tell us that illegal aliens commit less crime per capita than American citizens, forgetting that the percentage should be zero, because they shouldn’t be in the country in the first place

BODY CAM FOOTAGE SHOWS ILLEGAL SUSPECT PULLED A GUN ON FEMALE OFFICER — AND HE SHOT FIRST

Napa County Deputy Riley Jarecki shot and killed a suspect on Feb. 17. Footage taken from her body cam shows that he pulled a gun on her — and fired the first shot.

In addition, details that emerged after the shooting revealed that Javier Hernandez Morales was in the country illegally, had already been deported three times and was subject to several ICE detainers that had been ignored by local law enforcement. (snip)

Hernandez Morales was pronounced dead at the scene — but after running down his identification, authorities learned that the shooting could have been prevented. Hernandez Morales, who had several known aliases, had been arrested several times by Jarecki’s own department. He had already been deported three times and there was an arrest warrant out on him at the time of the shooting.

Immigration officials confirmed that there should have been an ICE detainer on Hernandez Morales as a result of several prior arrests — for suspected DUI and battery of a peace officer among other offenses.

Nice people you Open Borders advocates are protecting.

Read: Illegal Alien Pulls Gun On Officer, She Blasts Him »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

Study: Green New Deal Could Cost Each Household $65,000 Per Year

By William Teach February 26, 2019 – 6:50 am

No worries, AOC and company will just print new money

From the link

Bloomberg reports that Ocasio-Cortez’s far-left plan would “tally between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10-years, concludes American Action Forum, which is run by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who directed the non-partisan CBO from 2003 to 2005.”

The enormous price tag, which amounts to over $650,000 per U.S. household, covers a low-carbon electricity grid, net zero emissions transportation system, guaranteed jobs, universal health care, guaranteed green housing, and food security.

“The Green New Deal is clearly very expensive,” the group noted in its analysis. “Its further expansion of the federal government’s role in some of the most basic decisions of daily life, however, would likely have a more lasting and damaging impact than its enormous price tag.”

So, that’s $65,000 per year coming from the pocket of each household. I wonder if any reporter will ask AOC, cosponsor Ed Markey, the Dems running for president who’ve endorsed the GND, as well as others about this? From the Bloomberg link

“Any so-called ‘analysis’ of the #GreenNewDeal that includes artificially inflated numbers that rely on lazy assumptions, incl. about policies that aren’t even in the resolution is bogus,” Markey said on Twitter. “Putting a price on a resolution of principles, not policies, is just Big Oil misinformation.”

Representatives of Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Markey is basically saying we shouldn’t take the resolution seriously. That it means nothing. Because he knows it would be at least this expensive. Especially since he has to deflect. AOC will probably tweet about it soon or do some dumb thing from her kitchen.

(Free Beacon) “The American Action Forum’s analysis shows that the Green New Deal would bankrupt the nation,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

“On the upper end, every American household would have to pay $65,000 per year to foot the bill,” he said. “The total price tag would be $93 trillion over 10 years. That is roughly four times the value of all Fortune 500 companies combined. That’s no deal.”

There’s a saying when talking percentages in sales: don’t like that one, cut it in half. Still don’t like it or believe it, cut that in half (there’s more to it, but, you get the point). How about forgeting the full $65k per year and consider

Electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket under such a plan. Barrasso’s office previously calculated the Green New Deal would increase electric bills by up to $3,800 per year.

Are you OK with that, Warmists? For most citizens that’s real money. That’s money that can’t be spent on food, family, vacations, and so forth.

Read: Study: Green New Deal Could Cost Each Household $65,000 Per Year »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Economy, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Judge Deems Male Only Draft Unconstitutional

By William Teach February 25, 2019 – 6:06 pm

I’m waiting for the hardcore 3rd Wave Feminists to pitch a fit over this

Federal judge finds male-only military draft unconstitutional

More than 45 years after the military draft ended, a federal judge has ruled that a law requiring men but not women to register for it is unconstitutional.

In a ruling issued late Friday in Houston, U.S. District Judge Gray Miller denied the government’s motion to stay a lawsuit originally brought by the National Coalition for Men, a nonprofit “men’s rights” advocacy group, which is seeking an injunction ordering the Selective Service System to require women to register for the draft.

The draft, itself, ended during the final stages of the Vietnam War in 1973, but all American men ages 18 to 26 are still required to register with the Selective Service System so the military could move quickly if it ever needed to reinstate conscription.

Miller, who was appointed to the court by President George W. Bush in 2006, noted that the Supreme Court upheld excluding women from the draft in 1981 because women were excluded from combat duty. Because that prohibition was lifted in 2015, he wrote, excluding them from registering for the draft made no constitutional sense.

While I’ve certainly found some low hanging fruit whining about women having to register for Selective Service if the suit wins, NBC News just had to add this in

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit civil rights monitor, has likened the National Coalition for Men, which is based in San Diego, to male supremacist groups seeking to roll back protections for women.

In a statement Saturday, the coalition said the male-only draft “is an aspect of socially institutionalized male disposability and helps reinforce the stereotypes that support discrimination against men in other areas such as child custody, divorce, criminal sentencing, paternity fraud, education, public benefits, domestic violence services, due process rights, genital autonomy, and more.”

Obviously, men aren’t allowed to have rights in today’s diverse and equal culture. sic/

Read: Judge Deems Male Only Draft Unconstitutional »

Posted in Current Affairs | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

It’s Immoral To Have Kids In The Age Of ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach February 25, 2019 – 3:27 pm

The always unhinged New Republic thinks they’re on to something

Is It Cruel to Have Kids in the Era of Climate Change?
Some argue that bringing children into a decaying world is immoral.

Decaying, baby, decaying! From a tiny increase in the global temperature that is less than most previous warm periods

In one of his early works, the nineteenth-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche relayed an Ancient Greek legend about King Midas pursuing the satyr Silenus, a wise companion of the god Dionysus. When Midas finally captures Silenus, he asks him what “the best thing of all for men” is. “The very best thing for you is totally unreachable,” Silenus replies: “not to have been born, not to exist, to be nothing.”

27-year-old Raphael Samuel from Mumbai offered an echo of this argument to the BBC this month. Samuel plans to sue his parents for bringing him into a world of suffering without his consent. “Why should I suffer? Why must I be stuck in traffic? Why must I work? Why must I face wars? Why must I feel pain or depression? Why should I do anything when I don’t want to? Many questions. One answer,” Samuel wrote on his Facebook page: “Someone had you for their ‘pleasure.’”

Once, such thoughts might have seemed far-fetched or even self-indulgent. Today, however, similar reasoning—known as “antinatalism—seems to be spreading as potential future parents contemplate bringing children into a world climate change is likely to devastate. “Why did you have me?” Samuel asked his parents as a child. If the bleak scenarios about the planet’s future come to fruition, will parents have a satisfying answer to such questions?

I think it would be a great idea if all Warmists refused to have children. We can do away with this whole stupid thing within 20 years.

Anyhow, all sorts of Thing Important are mentioned as the article yammers on, but forgets the reality: this contemplation is nothing new for the Cult of Climastrology, which has advocated limiting births in developing nations, which are full of those black and brown people. Oh, and this idiot

Like, this youngster with all her worldly experience, like, hopefully doesn’t have kids, like, herself. But, like, she won’t like, give up her own, you know, fossil fuels, like, usage.

Read: It’s Immoral To Have Kids In The Age Of ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 25, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible plastic cup made from fossil fuels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Last Tradition, with a post on social media TDS infused nutters thinking an Oscars prop resembled Trump’s hair.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

Open Borders Advocates Pitch “Food Insecurity” As Means For Asylum

By William Teach February 25, 2019 – 10:30 am

The open borders advocates are always finding some reason to let people who show up at our border in. Strangely, they never offer to house and feed these people at their own homes

Food insecurity is a legitimate basis for seeking asylum

In debates about whether to give asylum to the thousands of migrants at the southern border of the U.S., one crucial issue has been blatantly overlooked: food insecurity.

Imagine you and your children have been chronically hungry for days, weeks or possibly months. You have no resources to purchase food. Your government does not distribute food aid. For a variety of reasons, you’re no longer able to meet your family’s nutritional needs. Meanwhile, you’re barely able to register your children’s suffering because you’ve given them every last morsel, forsaking your own needs in the process.

What would you do to stop your family from starving?

Food insecurity is a form of violence which stems from an uneven distribution of resources both across and within societies. When asylum-seekers talk about violence in their home countries, they’ve often experienced food-specific violence, such as gangs giving or withholding food as collateral or punishment, or paramilitary groups setting fire to crops. These are explicit threats to human life. (snip)

If you’re wondering why more asylum-seekers do not explicitly name these experiences of chronic food insecurity or hunger when coming into contact with immigration officials or the media, you only need to understand the power of shame in silencing certain narratives.

The ability to feed oneself and others within a household or family indexes biological, moral and social obligations. We feel shame in failing to feed those to whom are obligated. Obstructions to feeding can have significantly uneven consequences for men and women.

It’s an interesting argument, but it misses one important point: it’s not our problem. The United States should be taking care of our own first. It’s not our job to support the billions of people who have problems growing and/or obtaining food, often because the government of that country is terrible (see Venezuela for the most current issue). And this is just an excuse to let in millions and millions of people who will be immediately 100% dependent on the U.S. government, taking taxpayer money and funneling it to non-Americans.

Why don’t people like writer Megan A Carney start using their own money to provide aid? There are more than enough open borders advocates amongst the Democratic Party to do this. They can enlist their rich Hollywood friends. Seriously, they don’t really need all those millions they get paid to make movies and tv shows, right? Pony up.

One commentor makes a good point (before going a bit too far)

If you show up to my door and you’re starving, I’ll give you a meal. If you continue coming to my door everyday for 40 years telling me you’re starving, I’ll give you a a 50 ft head start before I shoot. Enough is…… enough

And another

And the photo? A guy in a tank top who looks like he works out. Another guy with cool sunglasses on his backward turned baseball cap. Another guy with a smartphone laughing and taking pictures. Maybe they don’t have food because they are paying for gym memberships, fashion, and phones. But no matter, they are starving and only America can save them.

The photo in this post is from the article. Further, the U.S. sends lots and lots of food aid to countries around the world. We send experts and expertise on how to better increase crop yields and other agricultural assistance. It’s not our job to take in everyone who claims an issue. Especially when they come here Demanding.

Read: Open Borders Advocates Pitch “Food Insecurity” As Means For Asylum »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 10 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove