Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Obama’s Gun Control Orders

By William Teach January 20, 2016 – 4:48 pm

Something about constitutionality

(Bloomberg) U.S. President Barack Obama’s expansion of background checks for would-be gun buyers is being challenged in a lawsuit by a political activist who claims the changes violate the Constitution and the federal rule-making process. (snip)

“It is clearly arbitrary and capricious for the defendants, each and every one of them, to now suddenly adopt and implement a new and different interpretation for no other reason than the political preferences of temporary occupants of elected office,” attorney Larry Klayman said in a complaint filed at the U.S. court in West Palm Beach, Florida.

Klayman, the founder of the political watchdog group Freedom Watch, claims the background-check initiative violates the constitution’s Second Amendment, which the U.S. Supreme Court has said guarantees an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense.

We’ll see where this goes. Of course, I still wonder whether Obama has some sort of financial stake in gun companies, because his constant anti-gun drumbeat has produced a record number of background checks in 2015.

Related, South Carolina state representative Mike Pitts pitched an idea where journalists would have to register, and, SC would keep a “responsible journalists list”, and create criteria which would determine what qualifies a person as a journalist. There would be penalties for violation. This caused a meltdown among the leftist media, none more than the Washington Post’s Callum Borchers

My visceral reaction isn’t printable but can be summarized thusly: This is a naked attack on the First Amendment — you know, the one that says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.” I realize we’re talking about a state legislature here, not Congress, but we’re also talking about one of the nation’s founding principles.

That aside, this kind of law would be completely unworkable. Look, there’s plenty of media garbage out there, but everyone has a different definition of what garbage is. Does anyone want a bunch of self-interested government officials setting the standard? (snip)

Come to think of it, that’s really the great folly here. What Pitts is proposing isn’t just wrong; it simply can’t be done. There’s no stopping people from spreading the news in a digital society — certainly not with some outdated idea for a registry.

Borchers fell into Pitts’ trap, because, had Callum bothered to actually ask Pitts (which is a big failing regarding responsible journalism, as Ed Morrissey points out), he might have learned something

Pitts told The Post and Courier his bill is not a reaction to any news story featuring him and that he is “not a press hater.” Rather, it’s to stimulate discussion over how he sees Second Amendment rights being treated by the printed press and television news. He added that the bill is modeled directly after the “concealed weapons permitting law.”

“It strikes me as ironic that the first question is constitutionality from a press that has no problem demonizing firearms,” Pitts said. “With this statement I’m talking primarily about printed press and TV. The TV stations, the six o’clock news and the printed press has no qualms demonizing gun owners and gun ownership.”

Borchers’ entire screed makes a good case against gun registries, as was the point Pitts was trying to make.

Read: Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Obama’s Gun Control Orders »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Barry Obama, Journalistic Malpractice | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 20, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle making so warm that we get snowpocalypse, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Camp of The Saints, with a post saying it was a dumb move for Palin to endorse Trump.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: ‘Climate Change’ Comes In Dead Last Among Business Leader Concerns

By William Teach January 20, 2016 – 10:15 am

It would have done even worse had the survey not put climate change and environmental damage together

(UK Guardian) The high profile UN summit on climate change in Paris appears to have had little impact on the decision making and worries of global business leaders.

Despite concerns about its impact on extreme weather events, such as recent flooding in the UK, climate change failed to register near the top of the list of business threats, according to a survey of 1,400 CEOs from around the world compiled by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and published at Davos this week.

Instead, over-regulation was listed as the biggest threat to business (by 79% of CEOs), followed by geopolitical uncertainty (74%) and other key threats including cyber attacks (61%).

In contrast, climate change and environmental damage was mentioned as a threat to business growth by just 50% of CEOs.

Out of 11 issues in the survey, dead last

Vincent?

Read: Bummer: ‘Climate Change’ Comes In Dead Last Among Business Leader Concerns »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmist Links Coming Snow Storm To ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach January 20, 2016 – 8:27 am

Usually, I would use the words “Surprise” or “Shocker” at the beginning of the headline, but, at this point, is it either? This is what the Cult of Climastrology does: either directly blame anthropogenic climate change, or link it. Here’s uber-Warmist Eric Holthaus at the ever increasingly deranged Slate

This “Blizzard for the Ages” Headed for the East Coast Is Very Much the Real Deal

After a record-setting warm spell to start the winter, East Coasters could be forgiven if they started to worry that it was never going to snow again. Fear not, oh dendrite devotees, for Mother Nature has something special planned this weekend.

A few days ago, weather models began to hint at the potential of a major East Coast blizzard. As of early Tuesday morning, those models are way more insistent.

Since early Saturday, nearly every single run of every major model has shown the potential for a foot or two of snowfall on a track to hit somewhere between Northern Virginia and Boston. What’s amazing—perhaps even more so than the impressive potential snow totals—is that all the major weather models are already locked in so far in advance. Simply put: There’s definitely a big storm coming, it’s just the details that are still being worked out. (snip)

The same atmospheric forces that have contributed to the exceptionally warm winter so far will help steer tremendous amounts of moisture toward the coast. Climate change and El Niño have pushed water temperatures in the Atlantic to near record highs right now, which could offer something similar to the boost a landfalling hurricane sometimes gets when traversing the Gulf Stream—a rapidly strengthening storm, though with snow instead of rain.

They just can’t help linking ‘climate change’ to everything. They just cannot prove that it is mostly/solely anthropogenic, beyond talking points and unhinged pronouncements.

Read: Warmist Links Coming Snow Storm To ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Sarah Palin Endorses Donald Trump Or Something

By William Teach January 20, 2016 – 8:12 am

What is it about Donald Trump that has made many Conservatives lose their minds? Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and now Sarah Palin are among the many who have decided to ignore many of Trump’s very liberal leanings in favor of his celebrity. Yes, Trump does have many good conservative qualities. He’s always been tough on crime. Against Common Core and public unions. He calls climate change a hoax (though his reasoning for it is stupid). And there are many other things, for which he is Conservative/Republican now, but was very liberal not that long ago. What has seemed to hook people is his supposed toughness on securing the border, yet his disciples forget that he is also pushing mass amnesty. And, Trump speaks his mind, and refuses to back down in the face of liberal media and/or Democrat pressure, pressure which would have other Republicans huddled in a ball on the floor begging forgiveness from liberals, something we’ve seen happy many times.

So, rather than support real conservatives with real conservative records, we get a rambling, “folksy” homily, for which the transcript doesn’t even truly explain how bizarre this was

(Buzzfeed) “Thank you so much. It’s so great to be here in Iowa. We’re here just thawing out. Todd and I and a couple of our friends here from Alaska, lending our support for the next president of our great United States of America, Donald J. Trump.

“Mr. Trump, you’re right, look back there in the press box. Heads are spinning, media heads are spinning. This is going to be so much fun. (snip)

“When asked why I would jump into a primary — kind of stirring it up a little bit maybe — and choose one over some friends who are running and I’ve endorsed a couple others in their races before they decided to run for president, I was told left and right, “you are going to get so clobbered in the press. You are just going to get beat up, and chewed up, and spit out.” You know, I’m thinking, “and?” You know, like you guys haven’t tried to do that every day since that night in ‘08, when I was on stage nominated for VP, and I got to say, “yeah, I’ll go, send me, you betcha. I’ll serve.” And, like you all, I’m still standing. So those of us who’ve kind of gone through the ringer as Mr. Trump has, makes me respect you even more. That you’re here, and you’re putting your efforts, you’re putting reputations, you’re putting relationships on the line to do the right thing for this country. Because you are ready to make America great again.

Many of you know my feelings on the subject of Sarah Palin. She lost my support politically when she played the will she/won’t she game in regards to running for president last time around. She resigned as Governor of Alaska, supposedly to deal with all the legal issues for all the suits and things aimed her way from Liberals. Many Conservatives thought this would give her the chance to get ready to run for President, especially as she put together a PAC. Then she had her little bus tour, for which she also quit halfway through. She said she was going to do it her way, and did not compete in any debates. Then, after being asked again and again, and missing a self imposed deadline, all while raising lots of money for her PAC off the possibility, she said “no.” Interestingly, many others are coming to the same conclusion, such as Powerline’s John Hinderaker

Maybe not. Today Sarah Palin endorsed Trump, to the delight of the New York Times. Now they get to call Trump a conservative. I was a fan of Palin, until she succumbed to the siren song of celebrity, abandoned her post as Governor of Alaska and went Hollywood. One thing Palin and Trump have in common is that they are both stars of reality TV shows. Maybe someone needs to explain to both of them that reality television is not great preparation for dealing with reality.

Over the years, it seems as if Palin hasn’t increased her knowledge on the issues, speaking mostly in platitudes and talking points, and, as someone who has lived in North Carolina since 1985, her folksy way of speaking is grating, as is his act. Hinderaker, along with noting Trump’s liberal leanings, notes how uncomfortable Trump looks as Palin speaks.

Legal Insurrection’s Kemberlee Kay notes

And so we have a politician turned reality TV star endorsing a reality TV star turned politician. But this is what the people want, apparently. Limited government? Conservatism? Psssh. People want to be entertained!

There is no Conservative blasphemy afoot. Palin has long since forsook the Tea Party platform that propelled her into national stardom. After all, in the same year she endorsed Cruz, Palin endorsed the ultimate (by some estimations) Old Guard Republican — Senator Orin Hatch.

Then we have Charles C.W. Cook

Alas, there is no grand principle on display here. There is nothing but opportunism and ego. For a long time now, Sarah Palin has been apt to say anything and everything to keep the cameras buzzing around her hive. This rotten endorsement completes the decline. What, we might ask, has become of Palin’s beloved Tea Party? What, too, of her purported admiration for limited government, and of her ostensible hatred of heretics and fakers? The prospect of a mass movement that was earnestly committed to libertarianism was always a little too good to be true, but even I didn’t imagine it ending like this. All that talk of the Constitution and the Declaration; all that energy expended against the cronies and the rent-seekers; all those purifying voter drives — and for what? So that Sarah Palin could add a few zeroes to her bank balance and Donald Trump could go from the purchaser to the bought? Today was the day that Rick Santelli’s famous yelp finally melted into populism and avarice. Today, at about ten minutes past six, P. T. Barnum beat out Hayek for the soul of the insurgent Right. Today, the rebels became the charlatans they had set out to depose. What comes next will be anybody’s guess.

There are many references to Palin as “governor half-term”, many from people I know are Conservatives/libertarians. She also has a -39 rating among independent voters, and

Palin’s ideology lines up much better with Trump’s. When you convert Palin’s and Trump’s OnTheIssues grades to a -100 (most liberal) to 100 (most conservative) scale,1 Palin and Trump have nearly identical scores (47.4 for Palin and 47.5 for Trump). Trump has strayed from conservative orthodoxy on abortion, foreign policy, gay marriage, Social Security and a whole host of other issues. Palin is more interested in outsider credentials than conservative bona fides.

Two big takeaways. First, neither are particularly conservative. Second, she is mostly more interested in outsiders than electing conservatives. Will her endorsement help Trump? Sure, to some degree. Will it also hurt? To use her constant phrase, “you betcha”. I’m betting this drives many to actually take a look at What Donald Trump Believes, which will damage him, and drive many towards either Cruz or Rubio. Time will tell, especially once the primary voting begins.

Trump is still better than any of the hardcore leftists running for the Democratic nomination.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Sarah Palin Endorses Donald Trump Or Something »

Posted in GOP, Sarah Palin | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Hillary’s In-secure Server Held US Government’s Most Secretive Programs

By William Teach January 19, 2016 – 3:01 pm

If this was you or me, we’d already be in jail under indictment

(Fox News)  Hillary Clinton’s emails on her unsecured, homebrew server contained intelligence from the U.S. government’s most secretive and highly classified programs, according to an unclassified letter from a top inspector general to senior lawmakers.

Fox News exclusively obtained the unclassified letter, sent Jan. 14 from Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III. It laid out the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies that identified “several dozen” additional classified emails — including specific intelligence known as “special access programs” (SAP).

That indicates a level of classification beyond even “top secret,” the label previously given to two emails found on her server, and brings even more scrutiny to the presidential candidate’s handling of the government’s closely held secrets.

Hillary may well make it through the nomination process and come out ahead of Sanders and O’Malley, with nary a mention of her issues in any debates, and with the MSM willing to forgo asking her tough questions, but, what happens when she has to deal with the Republican candidate, and all the reset of the GOP, asking questions? It won’t work well with the MSM attempting to ignore the issue, particularly when, not if, it comes up during one or more debates.

That’s all assuming she isn’t indicted prior

Intelligence from a “special access program,” or SAP, is even more sensitive than that designated as “top secret” – as were two emails identified last summer in a random sample pulled from Clinton’s private server she used as secretary of state. Access to a SAP is restricted to those with a “need-to-know” because exposure of the intelligence would likely reveal the source, putting a method of intelligence collection — or a human asset — at risk. Currently, some 1,340 emails designated “classified” have been found on Clinton’s server, though the Democratic presidential candidate insists the information was not classified at the time.

Having SAP information on that server would see the rest of us serving long prison sentences, and, as the article goes on to say in a quote “There is absolutely no way that one could not recognize SAP material.”

Read: Surprise: Hillary’s In-secure Server Held US Government’s Most Secretive Programs »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 26 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 19, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Reaganite Republican, with a post wondering if Drudge and Breitbart are getting paid for good Trump coverage.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 26 Comments | Trackback URL

Psychology Is Totally Necessary In The Fight Against ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach January 19, 2016 – 10:15 am

I love how this spreading awareness missive starts out

Why Psychology Should Be A Part Of The Fight Against Climate Change

Climate change isn’t just a political, social and economic issue. It’s also a deeply psychological one — and now, behavioral scientists are using psychology to better understand the complex relationship between people and nature.

Notice what was not mentioned? Science. Glad to see that Warmists are finally admitting that the issue has nothing to do with science.

An increasing number of psychologists are arguing that in order to tackle the growing threat to our environment, we need to understand people’s emotional and cognitive responses to this new reality, which can run the gamut from denial to indifference to outrage to anger to grief.

In other words, they’re very upset that people aren’t rushing out to enable government to restrict their personal freedom, to run their lives, and to vastly artificially increase their cost of living, all after 25+ years of spreading awareness, in what has become an increasingly unhinged manner. They’re desperately searching for a manner in which to get people to give a damn, because, even Warmists generally do not care enough to make changes in their own lives to match their professed beliefs.

“Most people who acknowledge that climate change is occurring feel that the public response has been inadequate,” said Dr. Susan Clayton, a conservation psychologist at the College of Wooster in Ohio. “Psychologists have been looking at how it is that people process this information about risk and come to their understandings — so that’s useful to know in terms of thinking about how you can create messages that are more effective for people in terms of getting them on board.”

Notice the “Other People” syndrome, whereby Warmists expect Everyone Else to care. But, again, why should they when so few Warmists practice what they preach?

It’s not just because people don’t care, she argues. Rather, our emotional response to the issue, which for many people is a deep but unprocessed sense of anxiety and loss, can leave us feeling powerless and paralyzed.

Or, it could be that people think it is a minor issue, particularly when stacked up against real issues, one which most people just do not care about. You can also repeat the whole “practice what you preach” meme.

Anyhow, the rest is all gobbledygook, but, an amusing read.

Read: Psychology Is Totally Necessary In The Fight Against ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Republicans Who “Own Climate Change” Would Have Lots Of Advantages Or Something

By William Teach January 19, 2016 – 7:24 am

Warmists are always trying to get Other People to believe in anthropogenic climate change, finding new and inventive methods. Of course, actually providing rock solid scientific evidence has escaped the Cult of Climastrology, being something that is virtually impossible to do, and inference is not causality. Hence, we get things such as this

7 Advantages for Republicans if They Owned the Climate Debate

Now that a global climate deal has been struck in Paris, it’s up to each nation to live up to its commitments. Republicans leaders in Congress have vowed to fight anything to do with climate change. But there are many good reasons smart Republicans should reevaluate their resistance to both science and the global consensus, and in 2016 make climate change a political issue of their own.

Here are those 7

1. Climate change is an immigration issue.
Climate change will hit the crowded tropics worst. Droughts, floods and severe storms in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean could cause massive northward migrations on a scale dwarfing what Europe experienced last year. Accepting climate change would help Republicans end the stalemate on illegal immigration and push for a realistic and comprehensive policy that prepares us for the future of mass immigrations. (See my recent blog post, Why Trump’s Wall won’t Work.

Got that? Republicans should not only accept what is mostly a left-leaning political position on Hotcoldwetdry, but also the left-leaning position on immigration.

Here’s the other 6

  • Nuclear energy could make a comeback (there’s no need to believe in Hotcoldwetdry to push nuclear, and, heck, let’s not forget that the few Warmists who push nuclear get shut down by the rest of the CoC)
  • Better alignment with the military (the military that must take the viewpoints of the CiC.)
  • Ending the era of oil will diminish the clout of non-democratic regimes (a bit of rhetorical jujitsu. Instead, we could develop our own sources on our own property, along with dealing with countries such as Canada)
  • Oil would no longer fuel conflict in the Middle East. (no worries, the hardcore Islamists would continue with the main reason, namely, what’s written in the Koran)
  • Personal integrity (this, coming from people who demand everyone else comply with the tenants of Hotcoldwetdry, yet refuse to modify their own lives to comply)
  • Denying climate change may cost Republicans the next election (doubtful. Climate change is typically last or next to last on the list of concerns by American voters. Many may believe, but, they do not care all that much)

Then we get

Ironically, Republican presidents have a great history when it comes to the environment. Nixon created the EPA. Teddy Roosevelt started the National Park system. If Republicans owned climate change as their own issue, then they could set the debate on whether government programs and carbon taxes should lead the way, or private enterprise and tax incentives. Isn’t that a debate worth having in an election year?

‘Climate change’ is not an environmental issue, it is a political issue. And it is cute how Republicans are supposed to embrace taxation as a policy to “solve” climate change. In other words, this whole thing is about Republicans acting like Democrats.

Read: Republicans Who “Own Climate Change” Would Have Lots Of Advantages Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Cruz Hits Trump On Amnesty, Liberal Values

By William Teach January 19, 2016 – 6:58 am

It goes to show, when you tangle with a guy who is incredibly smart, and was a national debate champion while at Princeton, a guy who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1995, and a guy who’s sponsored over 97 conservative pieces of legislation in the Senate, said guy is not going to back down nor get into the hemming and hawing which other candidates have descended into. Silly Molly Ball has said the in-fighting is all part of a “portrait of a party on the verge of coming apart,” which is the type of fable that we see many times during election season. This is what’s called “robust debate”

(Fox News) Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz launched one of his toughest attacks yet against fellow contender Donald Trump in New Hampshire Monday night, accusing the billionaire real estate developer of being “nowhere to be found” during during the debate in Congress over whether to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants.

“If you didn’t stand up and fight amnesty, when the stakes were live or die, do we lose this permanently or do we win, I would suggest as voters you have reasons to doubt the credibility of the promises of a political candidate who discovers the issue after he announces for president,” the Texas senator said at a town hall meeting in Whitefield.

Let’s not forget that Trump has called for amnesty even while declaring he’d built the border wall. Trump has been pretty crystal clear in his support for amnesty.

Cruz also questioned whether Trump is a true conservative, noting donations he’s made to Democrats over the years, including $50,000 in 2010 to Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the former chief of staff to President Barack Obama. And Cruz rejected Trump’s self-comparison to Ronald Reagan, saying he was “pretty sure” Reagan never supported or made large donations to Democrats.

One can understand donations from a businessman to a candidate, attempting to curry favor in a race which was going to go Democrat 100%, but, $50k? And not that long ago.

“Donald Trump has said he thinks eminent domain is fantastic and he supports using government power to seize private people’s homes to give them to giant corporations to say hypothetically build a casino,” Cruz said. “We have an obligation to protect the rights of Americans and private property is central to the rights of Americans.”

Trump agreed with the Kelo decision “100%“. Trump has recently stated that he only supports eminent domain “when it creates jobs“. While taking private property for private use. Is that a conservative position?

(The Hill) “If he’s giving checks to Democratic politicians and he supports their views… then it starts to suggest, ‘gosh if he publicly supports their views if he finances their causes,'” Cruz told Boston radio station WRKO. “Then suddenly when he announces as a candidate for president, every single one of his views changes — listen if he has had a change of heart, I am thrilled.”

Cruz, who is competing with Trump for the GOP nomination, added that if Republican voters want a nominee who will “cozy up to Chuck Schumer — by the way he’s written checks to Chuck Schumer, I never have — then you ought to be backing him.”

Trump tried to attack Cruz on his loans from Goldman Sachs and Citibank, to which Cruz responded

“You want to assess who stands with Wall Street? Then look at the actual records of the candidates,” he added. “Donald Trump vocally and enthusiastically supported TARP, the bailout of the big banks. He vocally and enthusiastically supported Barack Obama’s stimulus plan.”

While Donald certainly has many Conservative/Republican positions, he also has many Leftist positions and squishy Establishment Republican ones, as well. And, for all Trump’s bluster about 9/11 after Cruz hit him with NYC liberal values, it seems as if Trump did not give to 9/11 charities. Nor does Trump give all that much to charities in the first place, at least not his own money.

Trump should be praised for attacking Democrats harshly, rather than tiptoeing around, as Republicans so often do. He should be praised for refusing to back down when the media and Democrats start whining, something Republicans usually do. But, is he really a Conservative? He has some good positions. He also has some bad ones. Rubio is being destroyed be Conservatives for his Gang of 8 illegal aliens legislation. Why is Trump getting a pass?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Cruz Hits Trump On Amnesty, Liberal Values »

Posted in GOP | 5 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove