Woman Of The People Is Against Right To Work

By William Teach September 24, 2016 – 7:13 am

Here’s a question Donald Trump should try and work in to the debate: why is Hillary Clinton against the right to work?

(Investors) Democrats love to talk about rights. They say people have the “right to affordable health care,” the “right to a debt free college education,” the “right to choose,” and so on.

But there’s one right they apparently want to erase: The right to work.

Here’s how Hillary Clinton put it in a videoconference this week at the Laborers’ International Union of North America: “I will fight back against so-called right to work. Right to work is wrong for workers and wrong for America.”

Come again? The right to work is wrong for America?

Clinton is referring to state right-to-work laws that give employees the right to work without being forced to join a union. In states without these laws, unions can force new and existing employees to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of employment at unionized companies.

Why would she say this? Because she, like the rest of the Democratic Party, is beholden to the slowly fading away unions, rather than with people who want to work and not have joining a union and paying dues be a requirement for employment. Twenty six states have right to work laws

When Wisconsin was on the cusp of passing its right-to-work law last year, Gov. Scott Walker said that “This isn’t anti-union. It restores worker rights and brings jobs back to Wisconsin.”

He’s right about that last part. Between 2004 and 2014, overall job growth in the U.S. was 6.1%. In states without right-to-work laws, it was a paltry 3.9%. But in right-to-work states, job growth over those years was 9.1%.

In fact, the last poll done on right to work, conducted by Rasmussen in 2012, found that 74% favor right to work laws. But, Hillary is a shill of the unions, which, let’s be honest, aren’t entirely bad. They can do a damned good job in protecting workers from companies, bad policies, and horrible bosses. Which is rather weird, since we’re told that Government is super awesome, so why would we need public sector unions? Regardless, a person should have the right to join a union or not, which puts the burden on the union to provide good reasons for someone to join the union once they join a company. In other words, the union has to woo an employee. As it should be.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Woman Of The People Is Against Right To Work »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Scott’s Wife Sort Of Provides Video Of Charlotte Shooting

By William Teach September 23, 2016 – 2:34 pm

Something is missing, though

(NY Times)  A cellphone camera video made by the wife of Keith L. Scott before he was fatally shot by police here shows the moments before and after the incident, including the wife’s pleas to her husband to get out of his truck, and her pleas to the police not to shoot him.

But the video, which was given to the Times by attorneys for the family Friday, does not include a view of the shooting itself. Nor does it answer the crucial question of whether Mr. Scott had a gun, as the police have maintained.

The transcript, available at the link, provides that the officer gave commands to Mr. Scott multiple times, which were not followed. But, it is missing the key portion as the smartphone is turned away

I do have a few questions. Where is the gun as seen in the photo? Granted, it could have been kicked by one of the officers out of the way and down towards his feet. Consider the photo. It should be near his feet near the grass. Is it in shadow the whole time? According to the photo, it should be in the sun. Is it near the feet originally of the officer to the right in the white shirt? Is it in between the feet of the officer with the red shirt? There really is little that this video addresses, except him being given commands again and again.

And, if he doesn’t have a gun, why is she repeatedly yelling “don’t do it”?

I’m also going to wonder what the f*ck is wrong with society today that the wife is taking video instead of coming to his aid early on, then stiff filming as he lies there shot.

More: MSNBC and MSNBC employee Joy Reid go all sorts of gun truther, trying to say there was a gun thrown down

A couple problems with the Narrative. First, whatever was thrown by the one officer (you can see it starting at 2:11 in the Times video, click the link to open it larger at the NY Times) was also picked up by another officer. MSNBC’s bat guano insane video cuts off before that. Second, whatever was thrown was in a different place than the gun in the photo. Third, these people are nuts. Just pure wonkers.

Read: Scott’s Wife Sort Of Provides Video Of Charlotte Shooting »

Posted in NC News | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 23, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon sailboat trekking the vast-less carbon pollution raised seas of the future, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Astute Bloggers, with a post on Trump supporting Internet freedom.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Big Carbon Footprint Obama Forces Intelligence Agencies To Study ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach September 23, 2016 – 11:32 am

Seriously, none of these agencies tasked with keeping America safe have anything better to do

(The Hill)  President Obama is asking 20 federal offices to work together on a national security strategy to address climate change.

Obama signed a directive on Wednesday telling the offices to develop a “federal climate and national security working group” to “identify the U.S. national security priorities related to climate change and national security, and develop methods to share climate science and intelligence information to inform national security policies and plans,” the White House said.

He charged the group with developing a climate change action plan within 90 days, laying out steps for sharing climate data, research ideas and vulnerability assessments for parts of the United States that are threatened by climate change over the next three decades.

When the boss “asks” you to do something, you do it. It’s really about the same thing as an order.

It’d be funny as hell if they came back and said Obama should stop traveling so much and reduce his own carbon footprint.

Now, let’s consider that the world has warmed. It’s not a bad thing to consider what implications this has to our national security. Just like if the world cooled. The problem here is that, based on Obama’s beliefs, they will surely be required to consider it as a problem caused by Mankind, so all the solutions will be based on that bit of politics. Hence, the results will be politically driven, what the boss wants to see, rather than realistic.

Read: Big Carbon Footprint Obama Forces Intelligence Agencies To Study ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Barry Obama, Global Warming | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

The Numbers On Hotcoldwetdry Are Scarier Than We Thought Or Something

By William Teach September 23, 2016 – 7:22 am

The always unhinged Bill McKibben, who uses vast amounts of fossil fuels to travel the globe and attend anti-fossil fuels demonstrations is out with a new unhinged pronouncement

Recalculating the Climate Math
The numbers on global warming are even scarier than we thought.

The future of humanity depends on math. And the numbers in a new study released Thursday are the most ominous yet.

Ominous!

Those numbers spell out, in simple arithmetic, how much of the fossil fuel in the world’s existing coal mines and oil wells we can burn if we want to prevent global warming from cooking the planet. In other words, if our goal is to keep the Earth’s temperature from rising more than two degrees Celsius—the upper limit identified by the nations of the world—how much more new digging and drilling can we do?

What’s your guess?

Here’s the answer: zero.

That’s right: If we’re serious about preventing catastrophic warming, the new study shows, we can’t dig any new coal mines, drill any new fields, build any more pipelines. Not a single one. We’re done expanding the fossil fuel frontier. Our only hope is a swift, managed decline in the production of all carbon-based energy from the fields we’ve already put in production.

Bill and his palls, who, again, use fossil fuels to travel to all the protests, want to stop all fossil fuels production. The want to Keep It In the Ground, which means stopping all new production, pipelines, etc, while forcing a reduction of production of existing fossil fuels over time by governmental regulation. For instance, a managed decline of fossil fuels of 50% by 2033.

This is literally a math test, and it’s not being graded on a curve. It only has one correct answer. And if we don’t get it right, then all of us—along with our 10,000-year-old experiment in human civilization—will fail.

Meanwhile, a new paper says that the “fingerprint of global warming” doesn’t actually exist in the real world.

Four other papers link climatic changes to, get this, the sun and natural variability. The science just keeps coming out and showing that Warmists are politically driven (and hypocritical) buffoons.

Read: The Numbers On Hotcoldwetdry Are Scarier Than We Thought Or Something »

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

Irony: Democratic Women Of NC Cancel Charlotte Meeting

By William Teach September 23, 2016 – 7:06 am

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned in all the unrest in Charlotte is that it is very much a very Democratic Party run city. Let’s not forget that it was Charlotte’s passage of a bill demanding all private entities allow the gender confused to use whichever bathroom, shower, and changing room they want that caused the NC general assembly to pass HB2 in response. Like most places that have this kind of unrest, it’s run by Democrats. Which makes this rather funny

(Raleigh N&O) Many events are being canceled or postponed due to the violence in uptown Charlotte.

Among them: The Democratic Women of North Carolina is postponing its 56th Annual State Convention, to be held in Charlotte this weekend.

“The decision was made in consideration of those members who may be traveling to Charlotte from across the state,” said Concetta Caliendo, DWNC President. The future dates of the convention will be released as soon as determined.

But, but, the people in the street were always the ones who supported Democrats. Why would these Dem women forgo being there for their peeps? Anyway, for all the yammering and consternation of HB2 that caused cancellations, it is the view of violence in the streets of Charlotte, and the potential for violence, that has caused lots of cancellations, along with businesses telling their employees to work from home.

Of course, things like this might have an effect

Fortunately, Charlotte was mostly peaceful Thursday night, primarily thanks to the large contingent of Nation Guard members and State Police being present, with a midnight curfew being put in place.

Meanwhile, the family of Mr. Scott has seen the video, and wants it released. So does the NY Times Editorial Board

Elected officials who have paid any attention to the killings of civilians by the police that have roiled several cities in recent years should understand that keeping the public in the dark heightens tension and undermines trust in law enforcement. (snip)

By contrast, the Police Department in Charlotte, N.C., has responded in exactly the wrong way to a police officer’s killing on Tuesday of another black man, Keith Scott. It has opted for stonewalling. The department — which has said that Mr. Scott brandished a gun when he was shot dead — has refused to make public the video that might show how the shooting occurred. Already, the city has suffered through several nights of violent protests by citizens enraged at the death of another black man at the hands of the police. (snip)

There is no legal reason to withhold the video from the public, and in this fraught situation, the best way to allay the community’s distrust is complete transparency. Unfortunately, the city’s mayor, Jennifer Roberts, seems largely at sea and distressingly out of touch with how lack of an open governmental response led to demonstrations in places like Ferguson, Mo., Cleveland and Baltimore. She said Thursday morning that she had not even viewed the video.

That would be Democratic Party mayor of Charlotte Jennifer Roberts, who also declined state law enforcement help prior to the riots Wednesday night.

Anyway, the rationale behind not releasing the video is primarily over the protection of the investigation, and protecting the identities of any witnesses and people in the videos. Realistically, in this day and age, they could take the video and blur out the faces of any people present. It shouldn’t be that hard.

Another reason is to protect the police. Does the video provide any evidence of wrongdoing by either the police or Mr. Scott? Does it exonerate either?

Release the video.

Funny that this keeps happening in mostly Democratic Party run cities.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Irony: Democratic Women Of NC Cancel Charlotte Meeting »

Posted in NC News | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Was Openly Carrying A Gun Enough For Police To Stop Keith Scott?

By William Teach September 22, 2016 – 5:32 pm

Food for thought?

CMPD said Keith Lamont Scott had a gun. Was that reason enough to order him to drop it?

….

Gregory Wallace, a law professor at Campbell University in Raleigh, said the city’s statement raises questions as to why police ordered Scott to drop his gun.

In North Carolina, the open-carry of a handgun is legal. Concealed carry is also legal, so long as you have a permit.

He said the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2013 that someone carrying a handgun does not give the police the ability to stop and search them or someone with them. (snip)

“The mere possession of a handgun does not give the police probable cause or reasonable suspicion to briefly detain you for stop and frisk,” Wallace said. “The mere fact that you have a handgun isn’t enough – it’s legal in N.C.”

I’d recommend reading the article for the full effect, but, is this correct? Were officers wrong for taking notice of Mr. Scott for carrying a firearm and then telling him to put it down?

Here’s what is missing: Mr. Scott was holding the gun in his hand. It was not holstered, as is proper open carry. States that allow open carry, whether loaded or unloaded, dictate that you aren’t supposed to be just walking around with the gun in your hand.

Mr. Scott got in and out of his vehicle with the gun in his hand.

That is improper, and is certainly going to cause a response from law enforcement. Carrying a firearm requires responsibility. Keep the gun on your hip when out and about unless it is needed (for a rifle, keep it on a sling over your back or dangling from a strap. Not in your hands). If you’re walking around with it in your hand, law enforcement has every right to approach you and ask your intentions. If they tell you to put it down, put it down.

If you feel law enforcement is wrong, still put it down. You can worry about the legalities later. Do not give someone reason to pull their gun on you.

Which leads this from WTVD, despite the misleading headline

(Charlotte Police Chief Kerr) Putney said he has reviewed video of the shooting and what he saw does not give absolute definitive proof that Scott was pointing a gun, but Putney said it does support what has been reported that Scott was armed and did not follow repeated commands to put it down.

If Scott did not raise the weapon, then why shoot him? This is an extremely important point. If he started to raise it or point it at the officers after all the warnings, well, he received what he was asking for. But, if it was never pointed at an officer or anyone else, then there is a potential threat, not an imminent threat. Simply holding the weapon is legal excuse in this situation to fire upon the suspect. I’m getting battered in a few different places for point this out, but, I will stand by this opinion. For the sake of Charlotte, the police best resolve the question as to why Scott was shot. Simply holding the weapon is not enough.

And, a bit of an addendum, even before I post this. I talked to a former Sheriff’s deputy who said there is no law requiring an officer to wait for the gun to be raised. They have the right to shoot if the person is not following commands after a period of time, if they think the person is a danger.

Read: Was Openly Carrying A Gun Enough For Police To Stop Keith Scott? »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, NC News | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 22, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon sailing ship which will be needed to get to work in a flooded world, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on googly spazzy eyed Hillary.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Republican Punks Obama’s Climate Adviser During Hearing

By William Teach September 22, 2016 – 10:30 am

Priceless

(Daily Caller)  California Republican Rep. Tom McClintock opened a congressional hearing by reading a Washington Post article detailing the “unheard of” impacts global warming had on the Arctic ecosystem.

“The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and some place the seals are finding the water too hot,” McClintock read in a Wednesday hearing, adding that reports “all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard of temperatures in the Arctic zone.”

McClintock went on, then asked President Barack Obama’s top climate adviser Christy Goldfuss if “this the crisis you’re referring to?” — referring to a new guidance her Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) staff issued on accounting for global warming impacts of federal agency actions.

Goldfuss said she was Very Concerned about this crisis, but wasn’t familiar with the report

“Perhaps the reason is because it was November 2, 1922 that The Washington Post carried this article,” McClintock said.

It turns out McClintock was reading a Washington Post article from November 1922, not November 2015 as many listening, including Goldfuss, likely assumed.

Of course, let’s not forget that the Cult of Climastrology is now trying to say that it was Mankind’s actions starting back in the early 1800’s that started this current warm period, because, of course they do.

Read: Republican Punks Obama’s Climate Adviser During Hearing »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 26 Comments | Trackback URL

IRS To “Reach Out” To Those In Non-Compliance With Obamacare Mandate

By William Teach September 22, 2016 – 7:29 am

It’s no longer a fine or tax or fee. It’s reaching out

(Forbes) As many as 20 million Americans soon will be getting a letter from the Internal Revenue Service “suggesting” they sign up for ObamaCare insurance.

Getting a letter from the IRS can be a threatening and nerve-racking experience; it seldom is seen as a suggestion and more of a threat. But at President Obama’s direction, the IRS is “reaching out” to people who paid the tax penalty for not buying mandatory health insurance or who claimed an exemption in hopes of “attracting” more people to sign up for ObamaCare insurance. The government is particularly interested in compliance from healthy young people.

It probably won’t help Hillary if those young people receive the letters prior to them casting a vote. It won’t necessarily mean a vote for Trump, but, they are already increasingly turning to Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.

Congress is not happy. “We strongly object to any action by the Administration to improperly use sensitive taxpayer information to identify and harass individuals who have rejected the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) by choosing to pay a tax rather than be forced into a health care plan they don’t need and don’t want,” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Majority Whip Steve Scalise, and Ways & Means Chairman Kevin Brady said in a letter today to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.

They warned the IRS about the use of “protected taxpayer information” and sent Koskinen a list of sharp questions demanding more details about how the IRS plans to “reach out directly to individuals” and how the Department of Health and Human Services will be involved in encouraging “their compliance with the individual mandate.”

The question here is whether this it is even legal

Is it legal for the IRS to do this? The leaders warn the IRS that “As you are aware, the confidentiality of tax returns and return information is protected by law.” The “sole permitted use of this confidential data” is to determine whether people are eligible for ACA subsidies.

Here’s from a 2015 article

For most unpaid taxes, there are a variety of ways that the IRS can recoup their money. But the text of the ACA is very clear in stating that taxpayers who don’t pay their ACA penalty are not subject to levies, liens, or criminal prosecution.

The only way that the IRS can collect the ACA penalty is if you pay it voluntarily, or if you’re owed a refund. In the latter case, the IRS deducts the penalty from your refund. Seventy-five percent of tax filers receive a refund, and the average refund was about $2,700 in 2013.

Pretty much every article I’ve perused says the same thing: their only enforcement mechanism is to deduct the penalty from any tax return refund. Not that the IRS has seemingly cared about legalities, especially since 2009. And they have never been shy when it comes to harassing citizens.

Meanwhile, liberal and moderate Dems (not that there are many of the latter left) are feuding over adding a full public, ie government run, option, now that Ocare is collapsing in exactly the manner that was predicted.

More: Funny headline from The Hill: Dems to GOP: Help us fix ObamaCare. The article is exactly what you think, just missing a quite from a Republican noting that this whole mess is on Democrats, and Republicans have zero obligation to fix this mess. Oh, and there’s this

But many Democratic senators want to act much more ambitiously, through the legislative process. There are now 33 senators who have signed on to a resolution from Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) calling for adding a government-run insurer, or “public option,” to ObamaCare.

President Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton have also called for versions of the public option in order to increase competition.

Nothing says competition like putting our health care and health insurance in the hands of the government.

Read: IRS To “Reach Out” To Those In Non-Compliance With Obamacare Mandate »

Posted in Healthcare | 9 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove