If All You See…

By William Teach November 6, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…are trees that were cut down to build a giant McMansion, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Hockey Schtick, with a post on the “lukewarmer” position.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Illegal Aliens Trot Out Their “Bill Of Rights”

By William Teach November 6, 2015 – 10:23 am

Instead of being humble and telling us how much they want to be part of this great nation, they make more demands. The article is also available over at the Washington Times, except there are zero links

(WND) The pro-amnesty “United We Stay” nonprofit has created a “Bill of Rights for Undocumented Americans” demanding the country read and agree to its list of 10 demands, which are all based on the presumptive claim of all – even illegals – are human and therefore entitled to citizenship.

The group’s Marcelino Jose writes: “Since Congress refuses to act, it’s time we take matters into our own hands. Our Undocumented Americans’ Bill of Rights is a good start. Instead of making impregnable border security the beginning and end of all immigration discussions, let’s find a real roadmap forward.”

What do they want?

Among the group’s list of 10 demands:

The first: “Acknowledgment that we are already here, that we are human beings with a right to be, that our mere presence cannot be deemed illegal or our existence alien.”

Another: “Affirmation that we are to be treated with dignity and respect, not just because of who we are, but who you are – historic beneficiaries of immigrant struggles for the freedom to be.”

And another: “Recognition of our right to be presented with a path to citizenship/residency as the first priority of future immigration policy combined with interim deferment of all law-abiding Undocumented Americans against detention and deportation.

And a fourth: “Guarantee of wage equality with a legal right to petition for wage theft or workplace mistreatment without jeopardizing our immigration status.”

And another: “Assurance of humanitarian treatment, including medical care.”

It boils down to “gimmee!!!!!!!”

From the Washington Times article

The list of rights begins with a protest against the terms “illegal” and “alien.” Immigrant-rights advocates say both terms are dehumanizing, and have offered “undocumented workers” or, in the case of United We Stand, “Undocumented Americans,” as their preferred term.

Well, if they do not want to be called a “dehumanizing term, they should go back to their home country and apply for citizenship like so many other people do. It’s really simple. The very fact is if they weren’t so obnoxious and demanding, if they would respect America and Americans, if they would learn to speak English, if they’d stop wanting everything given to them on a silver platter, things might be different.

Read: Illegal Aliens Trot Out Their “Bill Of Rights” »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 35 Comments | Trackback URL

New Jersey Democrats Look To Force Gun Shops To Carry Smart Guns

By William Teach November 6, 2015 – 7:09 am

Nothing says “free market” like government forcing privately owned businesses to sell a specific product

(NJ.com) More than a dozen years after passing a “smart gun” law that is now blamed for stopping them from being sold across the country, state Senate Democrats on Thursday said they want to revamp the law and force gun dealers in New Jersey to carry the high-tech weapons.

State Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) said she is introducing a bill Thursday to roll back the state’s 13-year old smart gun law that she said Second Amendment advocates have blocked from taking effect.

That law required New Jersey firearms dealers to sell only smart guns — which can only be fired by their owners — three years after they are available on the market.

But the 2002 law, aimed at preventing accidental shootings by children, had the unintended consequence of holding up its proliferation.

Smart guns would be a great alternative for some gun owners, if they actually worked correctly and did not have so many associated problems

The new bill would replace the mandate that only smart guns be sold with a requirement that dealers carry at least one smart gun in their inventory.

The state law boosted investment in developing smart gun technology, but the guns still are not available anywhere in the country.

“What gun owner wouldn’t want a gun that only they could shoot? A gun that if it somehow got into the hand of a child would be rendered inoperable?” Weinberg said.

Well, gun owners who have one for protection might not want it

Alexander Roubian, president of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, called Weinberg’s repeal and replace effort “another desperate attempt to replace failed policy with more failed policy.”

The gun are expensive, unreliable and the demand that Weinberg is convinced of doesn’t exist, he said. The bill itself, he added, invades the free market and Second Amendment.

“No one in their right mind would want to spend over $2,000 on a pistol that also has a massive failure rate,” he said. “When you’re in a self-defense situation and you pull the trigger and the firearm goes click instead of bang… who’s going to be liable for that?

Some research shows a failure rate of as high as 20%. Most seem to see a failure rate of 1 in 10. The idea of a smart gun is worthwhile, but they aren’t even close to being ready for market. There are just too many problems. What if the batteries die? What if the computer chip controller needs to be rebooted? What if the required watch doesn’t communicate correctly or you have to re-enter the PIN number? What if the fingerprint doesn’t work or work in a timely manner? Let me tell you, as someone who uses a KeyTrack system with a fingerprint reader on a daily basis, the thing is glitchy, and doesn’t like when your finger is moist or cold. For those who use fingerprint unlock on their smartphone, how often do you have to reswipe?

(Endgadget) While the idea of a gun that can’t be turned on its owner seems like an obvious win for everyone involved, there are a number of problems with the concept. Chief among those worries: the safety mechanism will fail when it’s needed most. If you’re relying on a weapon for defense, the last thing you want is another point of failure. Electronics aren’t perfect. Sometimes cameras can’t autofocus. Cable boxes freeze up when browsing the channel guide. The equivalent, seemingly small glitch in a smart gun could be the difference between life and death.

How often do you restart your smartphone, tablet, and computer?

…Many of these systems claim they can read a fingerprint or other biometric and properly unlock the firearm 99.9 percent of the time — but when it comes to matters of life and death, even 0.1 percent chance of failure is considered too high. And then there’s always the worry that these weapons could be hacked or jammed remotely. Which is terrifying.

New Jersey’s initial law impeded the implementation of smart gun technology, as no one wanted to sell them. Could this latest attempt be a bait and switch? Well, first, the bill would have to pass the General Assembly then be signed into law by Governor Christie. If he vetoes it, you can bet they’ll try again when NJ next has a Democrat governor.

Would you want a balky, unreliable “smart” fire extinguisher? Anyhow, Republicans should add a rider to the bill requiring all government security to be required to carry only these types of guns, especially the security for the General Assembly. And tell the Democrats who vote for it to prove that they only have a smart gun, if they are a gun owner. See how the Dems like that.

Read: New Jersey Democrats Look To Force Gun Shops To Carry Smart Guns »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Having Nothing Important To Do, NY State To Investigate Exxon Mobile Over ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach November 6, 2015 – 6:46 am

Perhaps they should worry about the crime problem in the seat of state government, Albany, which is the eighth most dangerous city in NY State, #14 when property crimes are thrown in to the mix. Perhaps they should worry about the lackluster economic conditions, unemployment rate, cost of living, and high taxation. Or all the illegal aliens present in the state. Na, ‘climate change’!

(NY Times) The New York attorney general has begun an investigation of Exxon Mobil to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how such risks might hurt the oil business.

According to people with knowledge of the investigation, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a subpoena Wednesday evening to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents.

The investigation focuses on whether statements the company made to investors about climate risks as recently as this year were consistent with the company’s own long-running scientific research.

Well, this is a cute little way to attack a fossil fuels company, and NY is determining whether they want to go after other fossil fuels companies at the same time. This is using the power of the Government to go after a company over position papers, mostly published in the 1970’s, that the company disagreed with, over a science that is anything but settled.

The history at Exxon Mobil appears to differ, in that the company published extensive research over decades that largely lined up with mainstream climatology. Thus, any potential fraud prosecution might depend on exactly how big a role company executives can be shown to have played in directing campaigns of climate denial, usually by libertarian-leaning political groups.

In other words, investigating over Free Speech and opinion. Liberals have never been shy about looking to prosecute people over opinions and speech they do not like.

“This could open up years of litigation and settlements in the same way that tobacco litigation did, also spearheaded by attorneys general,” said Brandon L. Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. “In some ways, the theory is similar — that the public was misled about something dangerous to health. Whether the same smoking guns will emerge, we don’t know yet.”

Except, ‘climate change’, even if mostly/solely Manmade, isn’t dangerous to health. It’s just a condition that the Earth has always gone through, and humanity adapts.

Any civil and/or criminal suit could be interesting, because Exxon Mobile could point out that government scientists were super concerned with global cooling in the 1970’s. They could point highlight the way in which 95% of the models have diverged from the actual temperature trend. They could highlight the apocalyptic doomsaying of Warmists. They could highlight how their research has shown discrepancies. And, they have very good lawyers on staff.

Most likely, this will end up in a shakedown attempt, because the Cult of Climastrology has lost in court almost every time, because the science is anything but settled.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Having Nothing Important To Do, NY State To Investigate Exxon Mobile Over ‘Climate Change’ »

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

Virginia Feminists So Strong And Empowered They Need Feds To Investigate People Being Mean

By William Teach November 5, 2015 – 5:58 pm

The modern leftist feminist movement in a nutshell

(College Fix) The anonymous social-media app Yik Yak may be facing its biggest threat yet, owing to boorish posts against feminists at the University of Mary Washington (UMW).

The Virginia university is under fire as well for not seeking to identify the posters of crude but nonthreatening content on the app.

Dozens of feminist and civil rights groups asked the federal government to penalize universities that do not monitor, identify and punish students who post offensive content on apps like Yik Yak.

Yet shooting the messenger won’t do anything to solve the longstanding problems of harassment on campus, and punishing students for speech is probably unconstitutional, according to academics at other colleges.

Led by the Feminist Majority Foundation, which publishes Ms. magazine, the groups’ Oct. 20 letter to the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) said UMW is violating regulations against discrimination by sex, race, color and national origin.

This isn’t about threatening speech, it’s about speech that Special Snowflake Feminists do not like. Things that Offend them and trigger them and make them want to go into a safe space to play with dollies and coloring books. This is what strong, empowered leftist feminism looks like. It used to be that they stood up and fought back. Now they want The Government to penalize anyone who doesn’t toe the line, using the vast power of the government to intimidate.

Read: Virginia Feminists So Strong And Empowered They Need Feds To Investigate People Being Mean »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | Comments Off on Virginia Feminists So Strong And Empowered They Need Feds To Investigate People Being Mean | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 5, 2015 – 1:00 pm

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

The blog of the day is Victory Girls Blog, with a post on a bomb most likely blowing up the Russian plane.

And a double shot for Dana, who wanted Carole Bouquet from For Your Eyes Only.

I couldn’t find anything really skimpy for her from the movie. She has plenty more, and, apparently nude, from other movies.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Whiny Losers Want NFL To Move 2017 Super Bowl From Houston

By William Teach November 5, 2015 – 11:58 am

Progressives say they love Direct Democracy. Right up to the point that they lose the vote. Sadly, all those who said they would move to Canada if Bush won in 2004 didn’t. When they lost the gay marriage fight in California, North Carolina, and so many other states they sued. And in Houston…

(Breitbart) Losers in the Houston “bathroom ordinance” election are saying they are going to boycott Houston’s economy and are asking the NFL to move the Super Bowl. Houston has been named as the site of the 2017 Super Bowl.

Whiners and those trolling them on Twitter with #BoycottHouston, were prolific on the day after the defeat of the bathroom ordinance.

A Change.org petition was initiated to call upon the NFL to boycott.

Sites like RAWSTORY, also criticized the methods used by opponents of the ordinance and reported that sites such as Outsports were asking the NFL to move the 2017 Super Bowl.

Trans military veteran Brynn Tannehill wrote in SB*Nation Outsports, “The NFL claims to respect the human dignity of all their fans. Even this fan of the Cowboys who has watched since Roger Staubach handed the reins to Danny White.” Tannehill continued, “The only way to remain ethically consistent, and show that respect, is to move the 2017 Super Bowl to a location where people like me are not put in mortal danger every time we need to use the bathroom.”

As humorous as the unhinged tweets from Progressives are, it’ll never happen. As squishy as the NFL has been when it comes to these kinds of issues (while often ignoring the actual criminal conduct of many players), and as Democrat leaning as so many players profess to be (in words only, not action), there are a few things the NFL knows: right leaning people support and watch football more than left leaning folks. The owners tend to support Republicans over Democrats. The NFL is about making money. If they moved the Super Bowl, they know the backlash would be tremendous, and a big hit monetarily.

What would be really amusing would be for the Redskins to make it to the 2017 SB. It won’t happen, because the Redskins will still stink next season. But, it’s fun to contemplate.

Read: Whiny Losers Want NFL To Move 2017 Super Bowl From Houston »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Sports | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: 200 Million Americans To Suffer Due To ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach November 5, 2015 – 8:23 am

Remember back to September 17, when I mentioned another scary fable from the Cult of Climastrology, which stated that ‘climate change’ would cause severe psychological problems? Well, Gizmodo decided to dig a bit deeper into this report, and the post is filed under “End Of Days”. Really

200 Million Americans Will Suffer ‘Psychological Distress’ From Climate Change

…..

“The Psychological Effects of Global Warming on the United States,” examines the hitherto undiscussed effects of increasingly prevalent extreme weather, sea level rise, drought and other impacts of climate change on mental health. How will we cope with a changing world?

“The incidences of mental and social disorders will rise steeply. These will include depressive and anxiety disorders, post traumatic stress disorders, substance abuse, suicides, and widespread outbreaks of violence. Children, the poor, the elderly, and those with existing mental health disorders are especially vulnerable and will be hardest hit.”

Well, yeah, the poor will be hit the worst, because they always seem to suffer when government attempts to help them out. Anyhow, Gizmodo writer Wes Siler finds the 5 major findings. Let’s look at the first 2

1. 200 million Americans will suffer “serious psychological distress” as a direct result of climate change events.

“Natural disasters and extreme weather events will strike many places that are densely populated: 50 percent of Americans live in coastal regions exposed to storms and sea level rise, 70 percent of Americans live in cities prone to heat waves; major inland cities lie along rivers that will swell to record heights, and the fastest growing part of the nation is the increasingly arid West”

2. It’s not there yet, but climate change will become a “top-of-mind” concern soon.

“People may, indeed, suffer from anxiety about climate change but not know it. They will have a vague unease about what is happening around them, the changes they see in nature, the weather events and the fact that records are being broken month after month. But they won’t be sufficiently aware of the source. This anxiety will increase as reports of the gravity of our condition become more clear and stark.”

Here’s the thing: this report is not new. It was actually published in 2012, something I missed in my previous post in September. I’ll admit, I thought Soros funded Climate Progress was pimping something new. But, hey, when it comes to Progressivism, and believers in anthropogenic climate change are primarily Progressives (nice fascists), any idea is worth repeating again and again.

And since it’s from 2012, let’s consider finding #1: has “extreme weather” actually increased? No, it hasn’t. Heat waves were worse in the 1930’s, when CO2 was at a safe level below 350ppm.

On to number 2, it’s interesting to note that in virtually every single poll over the past few years, concern about ‘climate change’ typically ranks last or next to last. People are not becoming more “top-of-the-mind” concerned about ‘climate change’. They have concerns about real issues, rather than what the weather might do.

Of course, it is cute that they say people will suffer from anxiety about climate change and not even know it! They’ve been pushing this scareathon for 25+ years, and people are tuning out.

Read: Bummer: 200 Million Americans To Suffer Due To ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Harry Reid/Democrats Blocks Kate’s Law Again

By William Teach November 5, 2015 – 7:49 am

The Democrats previously blocked Kate’s Law in late October, and were given a chance to support it again, and said no. First, a little bit about Kate’s Law

What’s wrong with imposing a mandatory minimum jail sentence of five years for illegal immigrants who are convicted of re-entering the United States after being convicted of an aggravated felony or have three strikes for trying to enter the country illegally?

Nothing. It’s what should be done to stop the senseless crimes perpetrated by the worst element of illegal aliens entering this country.

But Senate Democrats no longer can see the forest from the trees on immigration. It’s either the whole enchilada — amnesty for all, even the criminals — or nothing.

Two weeks ago, Massachusetts U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey joined with 45 Democrats to block the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act. The measure needed 60 votes to proceed to the floor for debate, but garnered only 54 votes.

Kate is, of course, Kate Steinle, the American citizen who was murdered by Francisco Sanchez, a 5 time deported illegal with 7 felony convictions. Democrats would prefer to take his side over hers.

(Breitbart) Senate Democratic Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) blocked legislation Wednesday increasing the penalty for illegal immigrants who return to the U.S. after a deportation, also known as Kate’s Law.

Reid’s obstruction of Kate’s Law — named in honor of Kathryn Steinle — occurred Wednesday afternoon when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) asked for unanimous consent to proceed to Kate’s law. Reid objected, saying the legislation represents an “attack on the immigrant community.”

“All we’ve seen from Republican leaders and their caucus is bills that attack immigrants and tear families apart. So I object.” the Democratic leader said.

Ted Cruz responded

“It is sad that the Democratic leader chooses to stand with violent criminal illegal aliens instead of the American citizens. But even sadder is that he impugns legal immigrants,” Cruz, who is running for president, said.

“When the Democratic leader suggests that incarcerating aggravated felons, murderers and rapists who illegally reenter this country is somehow a sleight to immigrants — Well, Mr. President, I am a son of an immigrant who came from Cuba. There is no one in this chamber who will fight harder for legal immigrants than I will,” Cruz said.

“For the Democratic leader to cynically suggest that somehow immigrants should be lumped into the same bucket with murderers and rapists demonstrates the cynicism of the modern Democratic party, demonstrates just how out of touch the modern Democratic Party is,” he continued.

Out of touch, he says

(Rasmussen) Fifty-six percent (56%) of Likely U.S. Voters favor a five-year mandatory prison sentence for illegal immigrants convicted of major felonies who return to America after being deported. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 27% oppose such legislation, while 18% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Usually, I would say “just deport them” rather than paying to incarcerate them, but, these illegals have shown that they will keep coming back. How about making it a 100% federal crime, and building a jail up in the wilds of Alaska? Let them enjoy the beauty of the frozen north for a few years prior to sending them back?

But, obviously, Democrats would prefer to put illegals with felony convictions, who’ve crossed the border illegally again and again after being deported, over the safety of American citizens.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Harry Reid/Democrats Blocks Kate’s Law Again »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Study Finds Solar Power Causes ‘Climate Change’, Too

By William Teach November 4, 2015 – 5:26 pm

Well, this is a sucker punch to the groin

(Washington Post) Large solar arrays could have some surprising side effects, according to a new study, including causing changes in the local climate.

On a global scale, these changes will be minor compared to what would happen if humans continue to burn fossil fuel for energy instead, but are still worth watching, scientists say.

Figuring out how renewable energy sources will affect their local landscapes is an increasingly relevant challenge for scientists, as more and more nations are vowing to slash their carbon outputs and switch to alternatives, such as solar and wind energy. Previous studies have shown that both solar arrays and wind farms have the potential to cause regional changes in temperature and precipitation by altering the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth or disrupting local airflow patterns.

With this in mind, Aixue Hu, a climate change research scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, conducted a study, published Monday in Nature Climate Change, that attempted to predict the climatic effects of solar arrays.

What this is about is land use and its effects on the local climate, something we’ve known about for a long time. Mankind has made many, many changes to the land, which changes the way the weather acts locally. Cut down a forest? The glaciers on Mt. Kilimanjaro melt away. Replant the trees? They regrow. Replace woodlands with homes and shopping centers? The wind patterns change. Which can change precipitation.  The amount of solar radiation changes within the area. It can also make an area warmer than it would normally be, the Urban Heat Island Effect.

Rather than excerpting long paragraphs, I’d recommend reading the rest of the article. In some of the simulations, the panels produced cooling, mostly in non-urban environments. In others, warming, typically in urban environments. The article ends thusly

In the meantime, this study reinforces the idea that a transition to renewable energy is imperative to protecting Earth’s climate future. While the transition won’t be without its own effects, the authors note that the alternative — a world in which fossil fuel burning is allowed to continue unabated — would be far worse.

Of course the study ends that way. If they don’t throw the Danger From Hotcoldwetdry in as a primary study objective, no one would care. Look, moving towards a non-fossil fueled economy would be a good thing, IMO. Let’s do it in a responsible manner, with sources that aren’t going to cause the very problems that fossil fuels supposedly cause, in terms of AGW, and do cause, in terms of real environmental damage.

Read: Study Finds Solar Power Causes ‘Climate Change’, Too »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove