Man Surrounded By Lots Of Armed Security Says Gun Are Our Shared Responsibility

By William Teach January 8, 2016 – 6:56 am

Obviously, after Obama’s little town hall thing on CNN, where Obama told a rape survivor that owning a gun could lead to a tragic accident….say, doesn’t that mean that Obama is in a lot of danger from all the guns surrounding him?…, there will be lots of opinion pieces from the Compliant Media. The NY Times gets the prize, as they publish one written with the byline Barack Obama

Barack Obama: Guns Are Our Shared Responsibility

THE epidemic of gun violence in our country is a crisis. Gun deaths and injuries constitute one of the greatest threats to public health and to the safety of the American people. Every year, more than 30,000 Americans have their lives cut short by guns. Suicides. Domestic violence. Gang shootouts. Accidents. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost brothers and sisters, or buried their own children. We’re the only advanced nation on earth that sees this kind of mass violence with this frequency.

He forgets that 20,000 are suicides, and a goodly chunk of the rest are from people who posses guns illegally, mostly in Democratic Party run areas, some with massive gun restrictions, like Chicago, Baltimore, and California. And gun free zones. Let’s not forget about those

A national crisis like this demands a national response. Reducing gun violence will be hard. It’s clear that common-sense gun reform won’t happen during this Congress. It won’t happen during my presidency. Still, there are steps we can take now to save lives. And all of us — at every level of government, in the private sector and as citizens — have to do our part.

I did. I bought a gun back in 2008, after the election. Anyhow, if “our part” means new gun restrictions on law abiding citizens, well, perhaps he can explain how that’s worked in Chicago? Perhaps he can explain why “gun violence” is so prevalent within Black communities as administered by the Democratic Party?

As Americans, we hold consumer goods to high standards to keep our families and communities safe. Cars have to meet safety and emissions requirements. Food has to be clean and safe. We will not end the cycle of gun violence until we demand that the gun industry take simple actions to make its products safer as well. If a child can’t open a bottle of aspirin, we should also make sure she can’t pull the trigger of a gun.

What’s that joke, based on reality, about kids being able to open what adults can’t? The only thing I can figure is that he wants “smart guns”. They make a few. If guns are so dangerous, the US Secret Service should be armed only with smart guns.

Yet today, the gun industry is almost entirely unaccountable. Thanks to the gun lobby’s decades of efforts, Congress has blocked our consumer products safety experts from being able to require that firearms have even the most basic safety measures. They’ve made it harder for the government’s public health experts to conduct research on gun violence. They’ve guaranteed that manufacturers enjoy virtual immunity from lawsuits, which means that they can sell lethal products and rarely face consequences. As parents, we wouldn’t put up with this if we were talking about faulty car seats. Why should we tolerate it for products — guns — that kill so many children each year?

A nice little strawman. A gun that fires is not faulty, unless it is going off with the safety or a trigger lock engaged. We don’t sue a car manufacturer if someone is killed by a drunk driver. We don’t sue makers of hammers and other “blunt weapons” when they kill someone. Or knife manufacturers. They aren’t faulty. The car seat referenced is.

All of us need to demand leaders brave enough to stand up to the gun lobby’s lies. All of us need to stand up and protect our fellow citizens. All of us need to demand that governors, mayors and our representatives in Congress do their part.

The majority of us approve of the “gun lobby”. Obama must, since he is surrounded by armed security. The citizens are the gun lobby. No one should be surprised in the least that Obama goes down Divisive Road in pitting citizen against citizen while Blamestorming the “gun lobby”. For a guy who was supposedly going to bring the country together, he sure loves to divide us.

Those moments represent American democracy, and the American people, at our best. Meeting this crisis of gun violence will require the same relentless focus, over many years, at every level. If we can meet this moment with that same audacity, we will achieve the change we seek. And we will leave a stronger, safer country to our children.

You know where it’s really safe? Where Obama has his home in Hyde Park, a section of Chicago, where crime is really, really low, and the University of Chicago Police Department patrols. They carry guns, there are lots of them, and they make sure undesirable elements stay out.

When will Obama hold a townhall on the threat from Islamist violence?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Man Surrounded By Lots Of Armed Security Says Gun Are Our Shared Responsibility »

Posted in Barry Obama | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Suddenly, A Warm US Means Doom From ‘Climate Change’ Per Bored Grandma

By William Teach January 7, 2016 – 4:18 pm

When the US was experiencing massive cold waves, and cooler than average years, we were told that the US was only 2% of the world, and it was meaningless. Now…

I’m not sure what Hillary is worried about. The kind of prison she’ll be sent to typically have plenty of air conditioning. Let’s flip to that NOAA press release

The 2015 annual average U.S. temperature was 54.4°F, 2.4°F above the 20th century average, the second warmest year on record. Only 2012 was warmer for the U.S. with an average temperature of 55.3°F.

Interesting. Just a few years ago, the NOAA data showed 1998 as 55.08. Now it shows 54.23, almost a full degree less. Even the baseline is now changed. Back in 2013 it was 52.06. Now it is 52.02. How does the baseline change? How do the temperatures change?

Read: Suddenly, A Warm US Means Doom From ‘Climate Change’ Per Bored Grandma »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 7, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is carbon pollution hanging in the sky, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Doug Ross @ Journal, with a post on tears for fears.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Bummer: Only 27% Say Climate Change Is Mostly Caused By Humanity

By William Teach January 7, 2016 – 10:15 am

For over 25 years, the Cult Of Climastrology has been spreading awareness, hyping doom and gloom, and the years have seen their prognostications become more and more unhinged. They have the news media, the Democratic Party, and the entertainment industry behind them. After all that, this is the best they can do

(NCSE) According (PDF) to the latest Monmouth University Poll, “a large majority of Americans acknowledge climate change is happening, although they are divided on whether human activity is mostly responsible for it.” Monmouth University Urban Coast Institute Director Tony MacDonald commented, “The data exposes the extent to which this has become a partisan political issue in the U.S. rather than a scientific issue,” yet added, “The polling shows that Americans believe we are all very much in this together.”

Asked “Do you think that the world’s climate is undergoing a change that is causing more extreme weather patterns and the rise of sea levels, or is this not happening,” 70% of respondents said yes, 22% said no, and 8% volunteered that they didn’t know. Yes answers were more prevalent among Democrats (85%) than Independents (74%) and Republicans (49%), those 18-34 (76%) than those 35-53 (70%) and those 55 or older (63%), and college graduates (77%) than those with only some college (73%) and those with a high school education or less (63%).

Personally, I’d have to answer “no” because of the extreme weather qualifier. Climate change has always happened, and the world is currently within a lower level warm period. Yes, the seas are rising. Not as much as one would expect during a typical Holocene warm period, but, they are rising. Here’s where it gets dicey for Warmists

Asked “Is climate change caused more by human activity, more by natural changes in the environment, or by both equally,” 27% of respondents said more by human activity, 8% said more by natural changes in the environment, 34% said both equally, 1% volunteered that they didn’t know, 22% already said that climate change is not happening and 8% already said that they were unsure whether climate climate change is happening. The same patterns of responses differing by political affiliation, age, and education were present.

27%. That’s it. All those years, all that money spent on studies and propaganda. Having control over most of the data. Changing the data. TV shows. Movies. News stories. Politicians making dire pronouncements. Governments and institutions smacking us in the face with the issue. Yearly meetings around the world. And, yet, 27%. That’s it. It’s no wonder that solving climate change typically comes in last or next to last on lists of issues that people are concerned about.

Read: Bummer: Only 27% Say Climate Change Is Mostly Caused By Humanity »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post: We Should Regulate Ammunition

By William Teach January 7, 2016 – 7:48 am

The Washington Post prints an op-ed by Ann Brown, who was the “chairman of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission from 1994 to 2002.” Hey, isn’t referring to her as “Chairman” sexist? Anyhow, she thinks she has the common sense solution

America should regulate bullets

When I chaired the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, I was grateful that we had authority to regulate lead in household paint. Banning the use of lead-based paint in homes has prevented brain damage in countless children over the years.

So why wouldn’t Congress allow us authority over another dangerous consumer product often made with lead?

Specifically, why not bullets?

On Tuesday, President Obama unveiled a package of executive actions that he hopes will reduce gun deaths in the United States. I urge him to put one more proposal on the table: regulating ammunition. The idea is workable, and Americans could support it.

This idea isn’t new. In 1974, the CPSC’s first chairman made clear his belief that the agency could probably regulate ammunition, and a court agreed — whereupon a frightened Congress passed laws making it impossible even to try. Now is the time for the president to begin pushing to correct that mistake.

Perhaps she missed that it would require Congress to pass a new law. Anyhow, Ms. Brown positions ammunition control in a way that seems oh-so-reasonable, noting that 80% of citizens agreed with regulating ammunition in a 2013 Fox News poll. She ends the op-ed with “It’s time to start exploring sensible ways to stop gun violence and save lives by regulating ammunition.” How would she do this? Note this paragraph

Do I say this swayed by all the horrific mass shootings we have seen in the past few years? Only in part. These are the tragic, visible tip of an iceberg. While mass shootings attract headlines and our grief, bigger problems with guns often go unnoticed: the hundreds killed annually in intimate-partner violence; those killed by kids too young to know what pulling a trigger can do; the 21,000 Americans who commit suicide with a firearm each year.

This very much sounds like she means to create a ban on ammunition purchases, despite later “common sense” restrictions. And this all means an increase in federal government authority, in her mind. She notes that the Consumer Product Safety Commission worked with manufacturers and “It didn’t ban cribs, walkers, toasters — or paint. It worked out ways to address what made them dangerous — and saved children in the process.” How do you do that with ammunition? Bueller? Bueller?

The same flexible approach can work with ammunition. When someone who may be dangerous is prevented from buying ammunition, any gun he has hidden becomes like a car without gas: a useless hunk of metal.

Who decides they’re dangerous? What are the standards? She wants to ban on-line purchases, mandate background checks, license ammo purchases. While these seem common sense…hey, I have no problem with a background check or a license for myself: I know I’m not dangerous, no criminal issues, I rarely even carry the weapon outside the house…who decides the standards? Might there be mission creep? Once that genie is out of the box, how big and intrusive does it get?

Read: Washington Post: We Should Regulate Ammunition »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Liberal World | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Germany Deals With Lots Of Sexual Assault Attacks By “Migrants” Over New Years

By William Teach January 7, 2016 – 7:25 am

Don’t ask Leftists to be outraged over all the attacks by migrants from Islamic nations: even though they make a massive deal out of protecting women from rape and sexual assault (especially on college campuses that are run by Liberals), yammer about women’s rights, and so forth, all those things are lower on the rung of Liberal Concerns than multiculturalism, which means protecting the people streaming out of Islamic countries into 1st World nations

(Breitbart) German capital city Berlin has joined the sad parade of cities touched by migrant sex violence on New Year’s Eve, with hundreds of assaults now reported to police in Cologne and other cities.

Although on a smaller scale to the unrestrained and un-policed sex attacks in Cologne, the Berliner Morgenpost has now reported on assaults taking place on the street “in front of the Brandenburg gate”.

The revelation may prove difficult for the German media, which until now has stressed in most reports on the new year’s rapes that Berlin was not caught up in the scandal.

The paper reports four separate incidents around the cite, including a tourist being sexually assaulted by a group of “three to five men”, and two women being “sexually harassed” by men from Pakistan and Iraq.

Another woman came forward to police on Tuesday following national press coverage of the migrant rape scandal to report being “touched” at a music event by “several immoral men”.

There have been 53 complaints of attacks Germany, 39 of them for sexual harassment (the article doesn’t make it clear whether this was just Berlin, or Germany as a whole). This follows on the heels of many more sexual assaults throughout Europe. Norway decided that it was a good idea to hold classes for these migrants on How Not To Rape. The UK Telegraph reports

Some of those involved in a series of sexual assaults against women in the German city of Cologne on New Year’s Eve claimed to be Syrian refugees, according to a leaked police report.

The outbreak of violence was also far more serious than previously thought, and at one point senior police officers feared “there could have been fatalities”. (snip)

Ministers have said there is no evidence asylum seekers were involved in the violence.

But the leaked police report, published in Bild newspaper and Spiegel, a news magazine, claims that one of those involved told officers: “I am Syrian. You have to treat me kindly. Mrs Merkel invited me.”

Another tore up his residence permit before the eyes of police, and told them: “You can’t do anything to me, I can get a new one tomorrow.”

More than 150 women have filed criminal complaints, three-quarters of them for sexual assault. Two cases of rape have been reported.

That seems to be just in Cologne.

Three Syrians have been arrested for gang-rape of two teenage girls in southern Germany. These are the types of people Mr. Obama and Democrats want to let into the United States. People who have no respect for the laws of 1st World nations, including the U.S. None of this should really be new to anyone. The migrant camps were, and are, hotbeds of criminality and sexual assault. Migrants from the Middle East and Northern Africa have long caused problems in Europe. All those riots in France from “youths”? Young Islamic men, rioting, torching cars. But, the diversity and multiculturalism push by Leftists has made it “Islamophobic” if one dares discuss and/or report these incidents. Why do Leftists hate women?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Germany Deals With Lots Of Sexual Assault Attacks By “Migrants” Over New Years »

Posted in RoP | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

What Say To Artificial Trees To Solve Hotcoldwetdry?

By William Teach January 6, 2016 – 4:37 pm

Yup. As Steven Milloy notes, this is the latest in CO2 insanity. I’d just call it bat guano insane

(Washington Post) In the fight against climate change, trees are an ally. They suck in carbon dioxide, reducing the harmful greenhouses gases in our air. But there’s a problem — we’re asking them to work overtime.

Trees can’t absorb enough of the carbon dioxide humanity is throwing at them, unless we turn every inch of available land into a dense forest, according to Christophe Jospe, the chief strategist at Arizona State’s Center for Negative Carbon Emissions.

But what if trees — or machines modeled after them — had superpowers? Artificial trees with otherworldly abilities are a great hope against climate change, as environmental experts say it’s not realistic to expect humanity to release significantly less carbon into the atmosphere. Our best bet may be to capture the excess carbon and store it or convert it into something useful such as fuel.

So, these resourceful folks came up with the idea to create artificial trees. Sadly, no one is ponying up research money for these yet

Capturing and storing carbon isn’t yet the type of expense that local governments and organizations can slide into their budgets. The cost of the technology is dropping, but not to a point where it’s affordable to install “forests” of these systems. Poliquin estimates an upfront cost of $350,000 for an artificial tree, but she expects prices to come down considerably. She hopes to develop a prototype of such a tree in one or two years.

Strangely, these things never really seem to come down in price, except where government is providing direct subsidies.

Read: What Say To Artificial Trees To Solve Hotcoldwetdry? »

Posted in Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 6, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a world being turned to desert from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Cold Fury, with a post on digging ditches.

Is everyone getting their post-holidays exercise?

Read: If All You See… »

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

Good Grief: Trump Chimes In On Cruz Birtherism

By William Teach January 6, 2016 – 10:17 am

There’s a reason it’s called the Silly Season

(Washington Post) Donald Trump said in an interview that rival Ted Cruz’s Canadian birthplace was a “very precarious” issue that could make the senator from Texas vulnerable if he became the Republican presidential nominee.

“Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?’ That’d be a big problem,” Trump said when asked about the topic. “It’d be a very precarious one for Republicans because he’d be running and the courts may take a long time to make a decision. You don’t want to be running and have that kind of thing over your head.”

Trump added: “I’d hate to see something like that get in his way. But a lot of people are talking about it and I know that even some states are looking at it very strongly, the fact that he was born in Canada and he has had a double passport.”

To be perfectly clear, the facepalm is for Trump. And for those who will bring up Trump being an Obama Birther, let’s not forget that it was started by Team Hillary supporters.

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz has released a video that has horrified the Credentialed Media

Wisely, this frames the debate in economic and legal terms. He’s said it before: what if illegals were coming across the border and taking the jobs of non-low wage citizens? Think there would be an outcry? What if they were taking the jobs of politicians?

Read: Good Grief: Trump Chimes In On Cruz Birtherism »

Posted in GOP | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, Can Hollywood Save Us From “Climate Catastrophe”?

By William Teach January 6, 2016 – 8:16 am

In other words, are we set for more preachy movies about Hotcoldwetdry?

Can Hollywood save us from climate catastrophe?

By taking on the link between football and brain injuries, the recently released movie“Concussion” reminds us of the potential for Hollywood to shape attitudes and beliefs about controversial topics through entertainment.

The film has put America’s most popular sport under a microscope and sparked a dialogue about children participating in contact sports and the role of the National Football League in preventing injuries to its players.

Would this be the movie that bombed? And made even less money this past weekend. And isn’t even being mentioned at major sports sites like Fox Sports, CBS Sports, Sports Illustrated, and ESPN, among others. While an important issue, no one is talking about it. So, I’m not sure if this is the best example.

Certainly, there is the potential for a similar movie to be made about climate change — one that builds on “An Inconvenient Truth” and speaks to a new generation.

Let’s hope so, because it’s amusing when Hollywood makes a preachy movie and it tanks. People do not want preachy at the movies: they want to be entertained.

Some from the scientific community argue that interjecting Hollywood into the climate debate may be a bad thing, as it could further blur the lines between fact and fiction, especially with a public that remains skeptical of science.

But, with a public that holds views on climate change that largely align with political affiliation, Hollywood might offer a rare opportunity to cut across these lines with a message that is both entertaining and eye-opening. Indeed, there is already evidence that movies such as “The Day After Tomorrow” can change consumer attitudes and beliefs about climate change.

Funny part is, The Day After Tomorrow is more about a coming ice age than “global warming”.

As scientists learn more about the potential impacts of climate change, more stories are emerging that easily could be spun to read like nightmarish sci-fi movies. Here are a few examples:

  • Ancient bacteria brought back to life as glacier ice melts cause pandemic
  • Global food stocks collapse from widespread drought, ocean acidification that dissolves shellfish and the spread of neurotoxins in fish, unraveling social order and leading to war, or worse, nuclear confrontation
  • Rising temperatures shut down photosynthesis by phytoplankton, the source of most breathable oxygen on earth, suffocating all life

They would bomb. And bomb badly. The old 50’s monster movies did well because there was concern, legitimate, real concern, over a real issue: nuclear weapons. They were new, and scary, and movie makers used them to great effect to create monsters, such as Godzilla and giant tarantulas, to entertain without preaching.

Hey, I have a great idea: perhaps the Cult of Climastrology could produce rock solid evidence, based on the Scientific Model, that proves that mankind’s release of CO2 is mostly/solely responsible for climatic changes.

Read: Say, Can Hollywood Save Us From “Climate Catastrophe”? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove