House Democrats Plan Action On Gun Control In Next Session

By William Teach November 12, 2018 – 6:53 am

Any legislation they pass has almost zero chance of passing the Republican controlled Senate, especially since you know Pelosi and company will overreach

Democrats promise congressional action on gun control

Newly ascendant Democrats are promising congressional action on gun control amid a rash of mass shootings, including a late-night assault at a California bar that killed 12 people.

Measures including expanded background checks and a ban on assault-style weapons are likely to reach the House floor when Democrats retake control after eight years of Republican rule.

“The American people deserve real action to end the daily epidemic of gun violence that is stealing the lives of our children on campuses, in places of worship and on our streets,” said Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader who is running for a second stint as House speaker.

Pelosi vowed to push for a range of actions to stem gun violence, including restrictions on high-capacity magazines and a measure allowing temporary removal of guns from people deemed an imminent risk to themselves or others.

The measures could win approval in the Democratic-controlled House next year but will face opposition from the Republican-controlled Senate and the White House, where President Donald Trump has promised to “protect the Second Amendment.”

All these measures are in place in so many of the states that have seen mass shootings, and some have even more, like California, where we just saw the Thousand Oaks shooting. A federal “red flag” law would most likely be killed in the judicial system, as Los Federales have zero authority to empower federal agents and federal courts to seize firearms unless federal laws have been broken. The draconian gun laws in California, NJ, Chicago, and other Democratic Party run areas haven’t stopped shootings. Twelve people were shot and one killed in Chicago on Sunday alone.

If they were smart, they would play small ball. Start with background checks. Expand them to cover the tiny amount of sales that do not include a federal background check. They could craft a “red flag” law that protects people’s 2nd Amendment and other Constitutional Rights when accused while also removing firearms from those who are a federal danger. This could be a model for the states who do not have them.

Passing a whole raft of gun control legislation that the Dems love and are in Democrat states and cities only means that law abiding citizens have their rights restricted. Criminals won’t care. We see that they don’t care.

But, you know they will over-reach and push their whole gun grabbing agenda.

Read: House Democrats Plan Action On Gun Control In Next Session »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Are Suddenly Coming Out In Favor Of Nuclear Power

By William Teach November 11, 2018 – 4:24 pm

Yes, yes, there have always been a few members of the Cult of Climastrology who support nuclear power, but, the CoC is so chock full of extreme-enviros who were unhinged over nuclear power that most have said “nyet” to it as a way to reduce mankind’s carbon footprint. That might be changing, as we see in this Boston Globe editorial

To fight climate change, environmentalists say yes to nuclear power

Analogies to Richard Nixon going to China tend to be overused.

But here’s one that’s the real deal: On Thursday, the venerable Cambridge-based Union of Concerned Scientists issued a report on nuclear power endorsing measures to keep financially struggling nuclear power plants alive to combat climate change.

They aren’t the first environmentalists to reach the same conclusion, but it’s a convincing report — and, symbolically, a really big deal. The group’s name is practically synonymous with skepticism toward nuclear energy, and it played a leading role in the fights against nuclear reactors in New England in the 1980s.

In the report, the group outlined a hard truth about the future. With climate change accelerating, as a new UN report underscored, the time to be fussy about how to reduce emissions has passed.

“These sobering realities dictate that we keep an open mind about all of the tools in the emissions reduction toolbox — even ones that are not our personal favorites,” wrote Ken Kimmell, the group’s president. “And that includes existing nuclear power plants in the United States, which currently supply about 20 percent of our total electricity needs and more than half of our low-carbon electricity supply.”

Perhaps they’ve finally figured out that wind and solar aren’t even close to being ready for prime time, especially when other groups of enviros file suit to block construction of solar and wind projects, as well as transmission lines when they are. They’ve work to not only block hydro-electric projects, but want existing dams torn down.

Nuclear has it’s own dangers, but, especially since the same enviros block all attempts to create a repository for the spent fuel, but, it’s a lot better than coal. The advancements in plants allow more power and more use of the fuel, leaving less mess and much safer plants. Combine this with natural gas and you will have more stable power and, since they are so concerned, few carbon dioxide emissions. And, they won’t get pushback from skeptics. It’s good to see them coming back to reality.

Read: Warmists Are Suddenly Coming Out In Favor Of Nuclear Power »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 11, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible carbon pollution created heat snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 357 Magnum, with a post on someone invading the wrong house.

It’s beanie week!

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach November 11, 2018 – 8:56 am

Happy Sunday! Another gorgeous day in America. The sun is shining, the geese are honking, and the NY Giants are getting closer to the #1 pick in the draft. This pinup is by Henning Ludvigsen, with a wee bit of help (it’s from an ad for Burton Snowboards, using his other art).

What’s happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Free North Carolina notes a full recount coming in Florida
  2. Datechguy’s Blog covers Trump refusing to yield
  3. Chicks On The Right discusses Dem lawyers fighting to keep non-citizen votes in Florida
  4. Blazing Cat Fur features the first culture war
  5. Always On Watch has some post-election perspective
  6. The Deplorable Climate Science Blog notes some things Republicans forgot to do the other day
  7. Not A Lot Of People Know That discusses government subsidized cars never having been charged
  8. Jo Nova covers the rising electricity costs in Australia
  9. American Elephants wonders if the media are enemies or just failing to do their job
  10. Wizbang criticizes the NRA where they should be criticized
  11. Watcher Of Weasels notes a mob attack you never heard about in Minnesota
  12. Victory Girls Blog covers Dan Crenshaw getting the last laugh on SNL
  13. This Ain’t Hell… discusses the Democrats gun grabbing plans
  14. The Right Scoop covers the new uber-creepy Planned Parenhood ad campaign
  15. And last, but not least, The Political Hat notes what could happen with gene splicing in Japan

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

NY Times Suggests Electing Multiple Members Per Congressional District For “Fairness”

By William Teach November 11, 2018 – 7:47 am

The NY Times editorial board, featuring confirmed racist Sarah Jeong, is on a roll. First, they’re super-enthused to increase the size of the House of Representatives, which hasn’t seen an increase since 1911. They believe that this will totally help with democracy, as 158 seats would be added. On the surface, this seem like a good idea, as it would increase representation for citizens. Seriously, the average district covers 700,000 citizens on average. Yes, this is a big problem. The NYTEB also says this would make districts more competitive

…One main takeaway: it would create a more competitive landscape, with 25 percent of seats qualifying as toss-ups, compared to just 10 percent today. Many states that elect only Republicans today would elect a Democrat or at least become more competitive, and vice versa.

On the surface, this seems like a good idea. Better representation (forgetting that most reps don’t even bother being reps for their district, but for the national party. Hey, maybe that would change?) But, what is the real point behind this?

Third, the size of the House determines the shape of the Electoral College, because a state’s electoral votes are equal to its congressional delegation. This is one of the many reasons the college is an unfair and antiquated mechanism: States that are already underrepresented in Congress have a weaker voice in choosing the president, again violating the principle that each citizen should have an equal vote.

In other words, they want to manufacture a way to make sure that heavily Democrat leaning areas, which tend to be concentrated, can beat out Republican leaning areas, which tend to be more spread out, for presidential elections.

Then we get to part two of their, electing multiple representatives per district

Last Tuesday, Dan Donovan, the Republican congressman from Staten Island, lost his seat to his Democratic opponent, Max Rose. With his defeat, there won’t be a single Republican lawmaker in the nation’s capital speaking for anyone in New York City come January. More than half a million registered Republicans live in the five boroughs, but as far as Congress is concerned, they might as well be invisible.

If that doesn’t spark your outrage, consider the plight of the hundreds of thousands of Arkansas Democrats who can’t elect a representative to Congress, even though they account for more than a third of the state’s voters. (snip)

And yet across America, even sizeable communities of minority-party supporters regularly find themselves locked out of power for a simple reason: Single-member congressional districts. Each of the House’s 435 districts is represented by one person, chosen in a winner-take-all election. It may sound wonky, but in our hyperpolarized, geographically clustered and gerrymandered age, single-member districts have become a threat to the health of America’s representative democracy.

So, how does this work?

Take a look at Massachusetts, which has nine congressional districts. A little more than one-third of the state’s voters vote Republican, so in a perfectly representative system, three of those seats would be held by Republicans. But Massachusetts hasn’t sent a Republican to Congress since 1994, and because Republicans don’t make up a majority in any single district. That’s where multimember districts come in.

According to FairVote, a group that advocates for electoral reforms, the optimal number of members in a district is five, but three works, too. So Massachusetts could divide its nine seats into three districts of three members each. (The district lines would need be redrawn, of course, to comply with the one-person-one-vote requirement, and federal laws like the Voting Rights Act.)

By itself, these new districts wouldn’t solve the problem. Democratic voters would still dominate in every district and prevent any Republicans from being elected. The solution is to elect members through ranked-choice voting, a process in which voters rank listed candidates in order of preference. This sounds complicated in theory, but it works smoothly in practice — ranked-choice voting is already used in cities around the country, and in all statewide races in Maine, without trouble. In multimember districts, each party is allowed to run as many candidates as there are seats, so in the Massachusetts example, voters would get a ballot that included three Democrats, three Republicans, plus a few other candidates from any third parties that were able to field them. Voters would then vote for three candidates, in order of preference.

It might work, but, consider that in California, or Massachusetts, you could make it even harder for Republicans to get elected. And other areas could make it harder for Democrats to get elected.

One more tweak is necessary: Because a successful multimember district is one that fairly represents the different viewpoints in that district, you need to mathematically mandate vote thresholds that will guarantee winners. In a three-member district, each candidate would need to win more than 25 percent to be elected. In a five-member district, the number is more than 17 percent.

Applying this to Massachusetts, and assuming that residents vote in line with past voting, Republicans would be assured of winning one seat in each district, for a total of three of nine congressional seats — roughly the proportion of Republican voters in the state.

On the surface, the whole editorial makes sense (and is worth the read). More representation for each party. Heck, as long as I’ve lived in Raleigh, going back to 1994, I have never had a Republican winning, or, really, even being competitive, in my district.

But, this is the NY Times: what’s their game? You know there’s a game. It’s rare when they run an editorial and their isn’t a left leaning game. Perhaps they are truly serious, and think this would be better for citizens of both parties, and even potentially of third parties. Color me skeptical. They use lots of flowing phrases like “you increase the opportunities for voters to be represented more in line with their numbers in society.” But, there has to be a way in which they’re thinking that this is a way to get more Democrats elected. Haven’t figured out their angle, but, it is there.

Read: NY Times Suggests Electing Multiple Members Per Congressional District For “Fairness” »

Posted in Politics | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Fiction Will Help Us Confront The Incipient Death Of The Planet Or Something

By William Teach November 10, 2018 – 3:35 pm

I know what could solve this: a tax on people who believe in anthropogenic climate change, starting with media outlets like the New Yorker

How Climate-Change Fiction, or “Cli-Fi,” Forces Us to Confront the Incipient Death of the Planet

As part of its ongoing “Original Stories” series, Amazon has assembled a collection of climate-change fiction, or cli-fi, bringing a literary biodiversity to bear on the defining crisis of the era. This online compilation of seven short stories, called “Warmer”—containing work from a Pulitzer Prize winner (Jane Smiley) and two National Book Award finalists (Lauren Groff and Jess Walter), among others—offers ways of thinking about something we desperately do not want to think about: the incipient death of the planet.

There is something counterintuitive about cli-fi, about the fictional representation of scientifically substantiated predictions that too many people discount as fictions. The genre, elsewhere exemplified by Margaret Atwood’s MaddAddam Trilogy and Nathaniel Rich’s “Odds Against Tomorrow,” brings disaster forcefully to life. But it is a shadowy mirror. Literature has always been a humanist endeavor: it intrinsically and helplessly affirms the value of the species; its intimations of meaning energize and comfort. But what if there is scant succor to be had, and our true natures are not noble but necrotic, pestilential? We have un-earthed ourselves. Yet we claim the right to gaze at our irresponsibility and greed through fiction’s tonic filter. The stories in “Warmer,” which possess the urgency of a last resort and the sorrow of an elegy, inhabit this contradiction. They both confront and gently transfigure the incomprehensible realities of climate change.

These people. Just silly. And almost none of them will make changes in their own lives to stop the incipient death of the planet from a tiny increase in CO2 that they say has caused a tiny increase in the average global temperature.

Read: Climate Fiction Will Help Us Confront The Incipient Death Of The Planet Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 10, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is a world constantly flooding from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Geller Report, with a post on Brazil planning to move their embassy to Jerusalem.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Trump Signs Order Limiting Asylum Claims At Mexican Border

By William Teach November 10, 2018 – 10:30 am

This will make the pro-illegal alien crowd rather upset

President Donald Trump on Friday effectively suspended the granting of asylum to migrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally, seeking fresh ways to block thousands of Central Americans traveling in caravans from entering the United States.

The order, which goes into effect on Saturday, means that migrants will have to present themselves at U.S. ports of entry to qualify for asylum. U.S. immigrant advocates rushed to court to try to block the policy.

“I just signed the proclamation on asylum – very important,” Trump told reporters on Friday before leaving for Paris. “People can come in but they have to come in through the points of entry.” (snip)

The order will be in effect for 90 days or until the United States reaches an agreement with Mexico allowing it to turn back asylum-seekers who had traveled through Mexico, whichever comes first.

Hilariously, the same people who had zero problem with Obama’s illegal and un-Constitutional DACA have a problem with this

Three civil rights groups sued on Friday in San Francisco federal court, seeking an injunction against Trump’s order.

The lawsuit said the order violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows anyone present in the United States to seek asylum regardless of where they entered the country.

“President Trump’s new asylum ban is illegal. Neither the president nor his cabinet secretaries can override the clear commands of U.S. law, but that’s exactly what they’re trying to do,” Omar Jadwat of the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement.

The lawsuit was brought by ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Center for Constitutional Rights.

In fact, federal states that anyone not crossing properly at a designated port of entry is considered an illegal alien, for which the penalty for the first offense is a small fine and deportation. These illegal aliens are taking advantage of asylum laws to claim it when they do not really qualify. They are then released until their court date and most never appear. It’s beyond time to put an end to this.

Read: Trump Signs Order Limiting Asylum Claims At Mexican Border »

Posted in Donald Trump, Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Trump Signs Order Limiting Asylum Claims At Mexican Border | Trackback URL

NY Times: California Wildfires Mostly Not Due To ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach November 10, 2018 – 7:45 am

California is a state long known for wildfires. But, why? The NY Times’ Kendra Pierre-louis gives it a whirl in explaining the four key ingredients

Why Does California Have So Many Wildfires?

A pregnant woman went into labor while being evacuated. Videos showed dozens of harrowing drives through fiery landscapes. Pleas appeared on social media seeking the whereabouts of loved ones. Survivors of a mass shooting were forced to flee approaching flames.

This has been California since the Camp Fire broke out early Thursday morning, burning 80 acres per minute and devastating the northern town of Paradise. Later in the day, the Woolsey Fire broke out to the south in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, prompting the evacuation of all of Malibu.

What is it about California that makes wildfires so catastrophic? There are four key ingredients.

Of course, she has to go with climate change

The first is California’s climate.

“Fire, in some ways, is a very simple thing,” said Park Williams, a bioclimatologist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “As long as stuff is dry enough and there’s a spark, then that stuff will burn.”

California, like much of the West, gets most of its moisture in the fall and winter. Its vegetation then spends much of the summer slowly drying out because of a lack of rainfall and warmer temperatures. That vegetation then serves as kindling for fires.

But while California’s climate has always been fire prone, the link between climate change and bigger fires is inextricable. “Behind the scenes of all of this, you’ve got temperatures that are about two to three degrees Fahrenheit warmer now than they would’ve been without global warming,” Dr. Williams said. That dries out vegetation even more, making it more likely to burn.

She makes no determination whether this is mostly/solely anthropogenic or mostly/solely natural. And it sure seems that she’s over-estimated the actual temperature change in California by at least half a degree F. Regardless, the world warms and cools. This is what has happened during the time since the end of the last glacial period. No need to make it all about witchcraft.

California is a state that is historically dry. A slightly warmer world might make it easier to start a fire, but, someone has to actually start it

People
Even if the conditions are right for a wildfire, you still need something or someone to ignite it. Sometimes the trigger is nature, like a lightning strike, but more often than not humans are responsible.

“Many of these large fires that you’re seeing in Southern California and impacting the areas where people are living are human-caused,” said Nina S. Oakley, an assistant research professor of atmospheric science at the Desert Research Institute.

Deadly fires in and around Sonoma County last year were started by downed power lines. This year’s Carr Fire, the state’s sixth-largest on record, started when a truck blew out its tire and its rim scraped the pavement, sending out sparks.

That’s right, it has to start somehow, and it’s usually a person or something like a downed power line or something that causes it. ‘Climate change’ isn’t making it happen.

Fire suppression
It’s counterintuitive, but the United States’ history of suppressing wildfires has actually made present-day wildfires worse.

“For the last century we fought fire, and we did pretty well at it across all of the Western United States,” Dr. Williams said. “And every time we fought a fire successfully, that means that a bunch of stuff that would have burned didn’t burn. And so over the last hundred years we’ve had an accumulation of plants in a lot of areas.

Forgotten in this are the enviro laws that stop the clearing of brush that is basically like leaving large drums of lighter fluid sitting around. Remember the scene in the first Saw movie where the guy was covered in a flammable coating and had to carry a candle around to see the codes for the safe? Yeah, that’s large swaths of California.

The Santa Ana winds
Each fall, strong gusts known as the Santa Ana winds bring dry air from the Great Basin area of the West into Southern California, said Fengpeng Sun, an assistant professor in the department of geosciences at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

Dr. Sun is a co-author of a 2015 study that suggests that California has two distinct fire seasons. One, which runs from June through September and is driven by a combination of warmer and drier weather, is the Western fire season that most people think of. Those wildfires tend to be more inland, in higher-elevation forests.

But Dr. Sun and his co-authors also identified a second fire season that runs from October through April and is driven by the Santa Ana winds. Those fires tend to spread three times faster and burn closer to urban areas, and they were responsible for 80 percent of the economic losses over two decades beginning in 1990.

So, dry state with lots of winds. What does a hand-dryer do? And now you’re putting lots and lots of homes and other buildings in areas that are prone to being rather dry, where a tiny spark can start a massive conflagration. There’s really not much reason to assign ‘climate change’ more than a minor cause rating. But, they are out there running lots of stories and sending lots of tweets blaming it all on ‘climate change.’ Because that’s what members of a cult do.

Read: NY Times: California Wildfires Mostly Not Due To ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Current Affairs, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: California Has A Gun Control Law That Wasn’t Used That Could Have Stopped Thousand Oaks Shooting

By William Teach November 10, 2018 – 7:24 am

In the wake of the Thousand Oaks shooting, the gun grabbers were out there calling for more gun control. California is, of course, one of the most restrictive states for private ownership of firearms. They literally have everything that Democrats have been calling for, and more. Yet, even the hyper-left Huffington Post noticed something

California Has A Law That Might’ve Prevented The Thousand Oaks Shooting. It Wasn’t Used.

Few might have been able to predict that Ian David Long would walk into a bar in Thousand Oaks, California, late Wednesday night, and open fire on patrons, killing 12 and wounding dozens more before turning the gun on himself.

But it would be inaccurate to say there weren’t warning signs. In fact, Long appears to have had the very sort of red flags in his past that might have been used to keep him away from firearms under a 2014 California law. Authorities haven’t released the full details of Long’s prior involvement with law enforcement, so we don’t yet know why the law wasn’t used. It’s only clear that it wasn’t.

(many paragraphs on Long’s history of conflict and mental health issues, which is relevant towards this)

While Long was determined not to qualify for a 5150, there was another option to get guns away from him. Because 5150s are used only in the most extreme cases, California passed another law in 2014, following a deadly shooting spree in Isla Vista, intended to temporarily remove guns from people who pose a danger to themselves or others. California is now one of more than a dozen states with these so-called “red flag” laws on the books. (snip)

Just weeks before the Isla Vista shooter went on his rampage, his family called police to check in on him. After finding him “courteous and polite,” officers decided it wouldn’t be appropriate to issue a 5150 hold, even though he’d posted videos online expressing a desire to commit violence against women. Advocates of the red flag law fought successfully for the creation of another tool to get guns away from potentially dangerous people, even if their behavior might not technically be the result of a mental health crisis.

Under California’s red flag law, family members, roommates and law enforcement officers can petition the court to remove firearms from individuals who have displayed violent behavior. A judge will then hold a hearing to review evidence and decide whether to order the gun owner to surrender their firearms and stay away from all guns. Those restraining orders can last up to a year, and can be extended further based on additional evidence.

When you add everything up, this was exactly the reason red flag laws were passed. Many who 2nd Amendment supporters worry about over-reach with the passage of the laws, but, this is what they’re for. Exactly this. Someone who is having issues, especially mental ones, and threatening violence.

Authorities haven’t said why such a restraining order wasn’t obtained. But Wilcox suggested a few possibilities. Deputies with the sheriff’s office may not have understood how this process works, or perhaps weren’t aware of the law, which has only been in effect since 2016. Alternatively, they might have known about it but determined that petitioning for a restraining order wouldn’t have been appropriate given what they knew about Long. It’s even possible that officers did file a petition for a gun violence restraining order, only to have it rejected by a judge. (snip)

“What we are seeing in the state is there is a large problem of agencies not being well-informed or well-trained on this law,” said Allison Anderman, managing attorney of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

None of that says anything good about passing lots of laws that may or may not be enforced. But, hey, let’s pass even more laws. What are they? What else can be passed in California? Will they next restrict the caliber to, say, .22LR only? Or just do away with guns with magazines? Revolvers only? Or just ban firearms altogether?

Read: Surprise: California Has A Gun Control Law That Wasn’t Used That Could Have Stopped Thousand Oaks Shooting »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Current Affairs, Democrats | Comments Off on Surprise: California Has A Gun Control Law That Wasn’t Used That Could Have Stopped Thousand Oaks Shooting | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove