If All You See…

By William Teach October 6, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a world turned to desert because Someone Else refused to buy local, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Creeping Sharia, with a post on an Obama illegal committing an act of terrorism in Canada.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

New Blade Runner Gives ‘Climate Change’ A Starring Role

By William Teach October 6, 2017 – 10:30 am

Instead of just making a great movie to follow up with the original, one of the great all time science fiction movies, based on the story Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K Dick, they decided to give it a Message, guaranteeing lower box office draws

(Washington Examiner)  The sequel to the 1982 science-fiction classic “Blade Runner,” which opens nationwide Friday, looks to give climate change a starring role, according to official summaries and timelines released by the film’s production house.

Set 30 years in the future from the original film’s 2019 setting, “Blade Runner 2049” shows an Earth devastated by the ravages of climatic shifts in temperature and sea-level rise, which has plunged large chunks of Los Angeles into the Pacific Ocean.

The film’s website says L.A. has been forced to erect a colossal sea wall around the remaining parts of the city. By the looks of it, the wall also generates electricity through a complex hydropower conduit and wave-power system. (snip)

The film also looks at contemporary ideas of replacing cattle and sheep farming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by limiting industrial-scale animal processing. It’s an idea that has grown in popularity in Europe, where restaurants offer insect protein as a substitute to beef, lamb, and chicken.

The Examiner does say this, though

As far as the film’s politics, “Blade Runner 2049” does not appear to be trying to make a statement on climate change. Like the first film, it offers only enough explanation to drive the story. The rest is left to the viewer to interpret.

In other words, they’ll probably yammer about it in the early part of the film, and in interviews about the film, and ruin it. I’ll wait till it’s at Red Box now.

Read: New Blade Runner Gives ‘Climate Change’ A Starring Role »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Film, Global Warming | Comments Off on New Blade Runner Gives ‘Climate Change’ A Starring Role | Trackback URL

Good News: The Time For Polite Debate On Gun Banning Is Over

By William Teach October 6, 2017 – 7:45 am

When was it ever polite? The gun grabbers have been screeching about gun control, ie, banning guns from the possession of Other People, for a long time, much in the way they have been screeching about making Free Speech one sided. CNBC gives a platform to Ron Insana, their senior analyst and commentator

The time for polite debate on gun control is over

It would seem that the time for polite debate about gun control is over. Of course, that could have been said many times in the last few decades, beginning in Austin in 1966, and later in Columbine, in Newtown, in Orlando and, of course, now in Las Vegas.

The absolute horror of the Las Vegas massacre should finally make it abundantly clear, to any rational person, that the framers of the Constitution did not have the rights of Stephen Paddock in mind when crafting and drafting the Second Amendment.

Last time I checked, the 2nd Amendment didn’t give people the right to use their Right to commit mass murder. Nope, just read it again, it doesn’t.

We need a much more radical approach to the problems of guns in America.

What’s more radical than calling for gun roundups and the abolition of the 2nd Amendment?

And yet, the NRA, “gun enthusiasts” and Second Amendment conservatives fight tooth and nail for the right to own any, and all, kinds of weapons, even if one’s name is on a terror watch list or a person has a history of mental illness.

These old canards? Sheesh. Get some new material.

Among the more radical solutions that I would propose is for the Congress, the executive and judicial branches of government, in concert with the states, to clearly define what was, and is, meant by a “well-regulated militia,” and refine and re-define the Second Amendment to suit the times in which we live.

In other words, craft legislation to enact a gun grab from law abiding citizens. Isn’t it funny how Democrats always go after the law abiding citizens, rather than the criminals? It’s almost like they support criminals.

It is clear that the Founding Fathers, who lived before the invention of the Gatling gun, could not have envisioned musket-armed civilians, who could fire only one round per minute, commanding the right to hunt turkeys, or humans, with modern ferocity.

Another canard, as the Founders envisioned a document that would last the test of time, which it has. But, here we go, in the very next paragraph

Hence, a total, outright ban on semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons seems not only reasonable but also necessary.

So, the vast majority of guns, since few use revolvers and bolt action (or similar style) rifles. They want to take away the nice, light, easy to use weapons that many women use to protect themselves from the violent criminals enabled by soft on crime Democratic Party policies. I wonder if Insana even understands what a sem-automatic weapon actually is.

And, since this is CNBC, Insana wants investors to make a difference

But investors should challenge these merchants of death. They have done so with other so-called “sin stocks,” like tobacco and alcohol companies.

They have fought the actions of large corporate polluters or companies whose carbon footprints are unreasonably large.

They have brought about positive changes by being true activist investors, not angling for some financially engineered profit, but by making companies more accountable.

Good luck with that.

There also needs to be a massive cultural campaign to re-educate the gun-toting, testosterone-fueled population who believe that carrying a gun is “manly.”

Recently, the largest growing classes of people purchasing firearms, primarily for self defense, are women and those in the LGBT community. But, it’s cute how Insana wants the Government to use propaganda, like the Soviet Union and communist China (and Nazi Germany) to force change to Wrongthink, something the Founders were dead set against.

There’s only so much I can excerpt, and plenty more nutty gun grabbing in the article. It’s funny, Democrats get upset when we say that they’re trying to grab our guns, right before they tell us they want to grab our guns. (not their own guns, of course)

Read: Good News: The Time For Polite Debate On Gun Banning Is Over »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Unhinged Tools | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

California Governor Signs Sanctuary State Bill In Rebuke To Trump Or Something

By William Teach October 6, 2017 – 7:03 am

When this passed the California General Assembly, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown would sign it. Many outlets, particularly in Brokeifornia, are attempting to make the link that this is about being a rebuke towards Trump, a defiance. That would rather mean that it isn’t about supporting illegal aliens, right, just about being oppositional for the sake of being oppositional

California becomes ‘sanctuary state’ in rebuke of Trump immigration policy

Under threat of possible retaliation by the Trump administration, Gov. Jerry Brown signed landmark “sanctuary state” legislation Thursday, vastly limiting who state and local law enforcement agencies can hold, question and transfer at the request of federal immigration authorities.

Senate Bill 54, which takes effect in January, has been blasted as “unconscionable” by U.S. Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions, becoming the focus of a national debate over how far states and cities can go to prevent their officers from enforcing federal immigration laws. Supporters have hailed it as part of a broader effort by majority Democrats in the California Legislature to shield more than 2.3 million immigrants living illegally in the state.

Brown took the unusual step of writing a signing message in support of SB 54. He called the legislation a balanced measure that would allow police and sheriff’s agencies to continue targeting dangerous criminals, while protecting hardworking families without legal residency in the country.

“In enshrining these new protections, it is important to note what the bill does not do,” Brown wrote. “This bill does not prevent or prohibit Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Department of Homeland Security from doing their own work in any way.”

That last part seams to be an attempt to head off the retaliation sure to come from the Department Of Justice over a state declaring that they will refuse to enforce federal laws in full, just the ones they like, and that the state will, for the most part, refuse to cooperate with federal officials when it comes to people who are unlawfully present in the United States.

Legal experts have said federal officials may try to block the law in court to keep it from being implemented. Some doubt such challenges would be successful, pointing to the 10th Amendment and previous rulings in which courts have found the federal government can’t compel local authorities to enforce federal laws.

Suddenly, Liberals care about the 10th Amendment. If they truly believe this, then this means that states do not need to follow federal guidance and laws on things like transgenders and gay marriage, right? That they do not need to follow the Environmental Protection Act, right? Or laws on ‘climate change’, right? Or a raft of gun laws, right? Choose wisely, Liberals. Who also bleated that the Arizona law on illegal aliens violate federal law. Can’t have it both ways.

It’s not a rebuke of Trump: it’s a rebuke of duly passed federal law which Trump is enforcing, law for which the federal government was given the task of dealing with any and all immigration by the Constitution. Regardless, this being Trump, you can expect him to deploy tons of ICE agents to California to pick illegals up in all the places liberals complain about, like at court. Or, he could simply discuss this in a way that will get as many illegals as possible to stream to California, further destroying the infrastructure and tax base.

In the North State area of California, though, they are in opposition to this legislation

A handful of North State counties and cities passed declarations earlier this year saying they’d help federal immigration officials nab undocumented immigrants who ended up in jail, but now’s the time to see how that really plays out. As of Thursday, those anti-sanctuary jurisdictions are operating inside an official “sanctuary state.” (snip)

The first to introduce the idea of an anti-sanctuary resolution, Tehama County Supervisor Bob Williams, said Thursday that the new law is “little more than another piece of ‘Resist Trump’ legislation that seems to be in fashion in Sacramento these days.”

Pretty much

“Instead of federal immigration sending two officers in one car to the jail to pick up and deport the offender, they may instead send a group of officers, dressed in full gear, to the last known address of the offender, to arrest and deport every undocumented individual in that household,” he said.

AG Sessions would be up for this

“This law will cause the further release of criminals such as repeat drunk drivers, thieves, gang members and more from the jail here and jails throughout California,” Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko said in a statement Thursday. “These are criminals who are illegal undocumented persons victimizing our citizens.”

California Dems do not care. They have some resisting to do. And they’ll Blamestorm others when this policy creates more problems for citizens.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: California Governor Signs Sanctuary State Bill In Rebuke To Trump Or Something »

Posted in Illegal Immigration, Liberal World | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Surprise: NY Times Recommends Repealing The 2nd Amendment

By William Teach October 5, 2017 – 5:56 pm

Remember when we were told that the NY Times was hiring a conservative for the opinion pages? Now go back and look at the body of work for Brett Stephens. He makes other so-called Republicans, like the Washington Post’s Kathleen Parker and Jennifer Rubin look like the second coming of Reagan.

Repeal the Second Amendment

I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment.

From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder. “States with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides,” noted one exhaustive 2013 study in the American Journal of Public Health.

From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety. The F.B.I. counted a total of 268 “justifiable homicides” by private citizens involving firearms in 2015; that is, felons killed in the course of committing a felony. Yet that same year, there were 489 “unintentional firearms deaths” in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Between 77 and 141 of those killed were children.

From a national-security standpoint, the Amendment’s suggestion that a “well-regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State,” is quaint. The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington, Mass.

It’d be a whole lot safer if we banned hammers, baseball bats, and motor vehicles. Oh, and bathtubs. Can’t forget about them.

I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War. My guess: Take the guns—or at least the presumptive right to them—away. The true foundation of American exceptionalism should be our capacity for moral and constitutional renewal, not our instinct for self-destruction.

He’d say that that enshrining the 2nd as a specific Amendment was designed to make it so gun grabbers (say, does the Times still have armed security in their building?) would have a really, really tough time attempting to take firearms away from citizens. They made it the 2nd amendment for a reason.

Also, some, like National Review, are trying to say this is more of a warning to Democrats. Hogwash. The first 7-8 paragraphs say that Stephens specifically wants to do away with the 2nd.

Read: Surprise: NY Times Recommends Repealing The 2nd Amendment »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 5, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is an area flooded because Someone Else took a fossil fueled flight, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on “automatic rounds.”

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Report: Trump Admin Plans To Scrap The Clean Power Plan

By William Teach October 5, 2017 – 10:53 am

Media folks seem shocked by this development, even though Trump promised to do this multiple times

(UK Independent) The Trump administration reportedly plans to repeal the Clean Power Plan, a “game changer” of a piece of Obama era climate change legislation.

Reuters said it had seen a document “distributed to members of the agency’s Regulatory Steering Committee” about “issuing a proposal to repeal the rule” and opening up a comment period for replacement legislation.

The CPP, called a “game changer” by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2015 after it was passed into law, regulates the carbon emissions of power plants.

By game changer, they mean it could cost up to 300,000 jobs annually, reduce GDP by over $2 trillion, and cost citizens $7,000 per. All while make no change on the environment and the climate.

Anyhow, remember that 27 states sued over the plan

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals had suspended the regulation at the request of the Trump administration in April 2017 and set a 6 October deadline to get a report for the EPA about it will proceed, which could explain the timing of the intention to repeal being made public now.

In fact, the plan was temporarily blocked under the Obama administration, pending litigation. The lawsuit was put on hold till Team Trump came up with a response as to what they intend to do. Now we await what they will do.

Read: Report: Trump Admin Plans To Scrap The Clean Power Plan »

Posted in Global Warming | Comments Off on Report: Trump Admin Plans To Scrap The Clean Power Plan | Trackback URL

Illegal Aliens Want A Clean Immigration Bill Or Something

By William Teach October 5, 2017 – 8:23 am

Exactly what makes people who are unlawfully present in the United States think they have the right to demand legislation? It’s like petty thieves demanding they have a say in laws about petty theft. Of course, Democrats, and the tiny number of squishy Republicans, who have empowered illegal aliens into thinking they have a say

Advocates call for passage of ‘clean’ immigration law

Immigrant advocates and officials in Las Cruces on Wednesday demanded passage of “clean” legislation that would protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation without being tied to funds for a border wall or an influx of immigration agents along the border.

The call by New Mexico Comunidades en Acción y de Fé, Las Cruces Mayor Ken Miyagishima and Las Cruces resident Yadira Ramirez, a recipient of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, came the day before a crucial deadline for eligible participants of the DACA program to apply for permit renewals.

“New Mexico CAFé leaders and clergy are fighting for nothing less than a clean Dream Act,” Johana Bencomo, a community organizer for N.M. CAFé, said. “One that will protect millions of Dreamers and give them a pathway to citizenship all the while not criminalizing millions of other undocumented immigrants and not further militarizing our border communities by adding more Border Patrol agents, more ICE agents, funding for a needless wall and further increasing detention bed quota.”

This is the exact kind of thing that will cause people who are willing to consider some sort of legal option (I would support Rand Paul’s legislation, though there are still a few issues) to turn away. The illegals want to have their cake and eat it too. If there are no border protections, no measures to reduce illegal immigration, no penalties, all those who are open to a compromise will turn away, including more than enough elected Republicans who will vote any sort of “clean bill” down.

And then where will you be, illegals/Dreamers? Calling for legislation that gives you everything while enabling even more illegal immigration is not the answer. If legalization for Dreamers fails, this will be on you. You really shouldn’t be given any sort of legalization pathway. Do you want to destroy the change to get one? Choose wisely.

More: and here’s at least one Democrat lawmaker advocating the same

Read: Illegal Aliens Want A Clean Immigration Bill Or Something »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Statistician: Typical Gun Control Recommendations Won’t Make A Difference

By William Teach October 5, 2017 – 7:53 am

Leah Libresco drops a piece at the Washington Post, which is reprinted at a few other outlets, that sets the gun grabbers off

I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.

As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

The piece obviously, keeps going on for a bit, and is worth reading it all. She hasn’t become pro-gun, she doesn’t want one in her home, but, she can’t endorse policies drafted by “people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.” She does think there should be policies which are very specific, like for potential suicide victims.

Or, how about banning bump-stocks? I’m good with banning them. Anyway, she ends with

We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

In other words, we should not violate the Constitution Right of the law abiding. Instead, we should go after the criminals, while also seeing if there are specific things we can do for potential suicides.

This has enraged Vox’s German Lopez, who decides to do a bit of mansplaining to Leah. It’s a long, long, long boring article, attempting to say that things Democrats recommend will totally work, but, still misses the mark

But despite the article’s headline and author Leah Libresco’s data journalism credentials, the column is surprisingly thin on studies and data. In fact, it cites no specific studies on gun control whatsoever.

The opinion piece was not about slapping up tons of data from someone who spent three months researching. Interestingly, German forgets that all the policies that Democrat gun grabbers trot out fail to tell us exactly what will occur if implemented. For instance, they all want the so-called “universal background checks.” OK, if implemented, what is the expected reduction in crimes that use guns? How many lives will be saved?

Banning assault rifles: again, what is the reduction in the use of guns in crimes? The previous one did not make a difference. Why would a new one change the results?

What German does spend time on is saying that the more guns there are, the more shootings. Which studies show is wrong. Essentially, German is going for the gun grabbing/banning method. He fails to produce any evidence that all the policies that Democrats propose, such as universal background checks, would reduce crimes using guns. All he wants is gun grabbing.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Statistician: Typical Gun Control Recommendations Won’t Make A Difference »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Current Affairs | Comments Off on Statistician: Typical Gun Control Recommendations Won’t Make A Difference | Trackback URL

Good News: We Can Now Produce Electricity From Liberal Tears

By William Teach October 4, 2017 – 1:25 pm

And there are tons of liberal tears over everything. Someone says something mean? Tears. Writes something that is Wrongthink? Tears. Has an American flag? Massive abortion of Black babies? Well, more cheers from Liberals. But, now we can make energy with them. In theory (vie Watts Up With That?)

Irish scientists can now produce electricity from tears

A team of Irish scientists has discovered that applying pressure to a protein found in egg whites and tears can generate electricity. The researchers from the Bernal Institute, University of Limerick (UL), Ireland, observed that crystals of lysozyme, a model protein that is abundant in egg whites of birds as well as in the tears, saliva and milk of mammals can generate electricity when pressed. Their report is published today (October 2) in the journal, Applied Physics Letters.

The ability to generate electricity by applying pressure, known as direct piezoelectricity, is a property of materials such as quartz that can convert mechanicalenergy into electrical energy and vice versa. Such materials are used in a variety of applications ranging from resonators and vibrators in mobile phones to deep ocean sonars to ultrasound imaging. Bone, tendon and wood are long known to possess piezoelectricity.

We now need to do everything we can to hook up all the Warmists, and Leftists in general, to machines which will make them sad and weepy.

BTW, since I swiped that graphic, you can purchase them here.

Read: Good News: We Can Now Produce Electricity From Liberal Tears »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Energy, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove