Amish Man With No Photo ID Suing Over Denial Of Gun Permit

By William Teach October 28, 2015 – 7:56 am

Well, now, this is an interesting case, and brings up a different issue

(Daily Caller) An Amish man filed a federal suit in Pennsylvania last week because he was not allowed to purchase a gun without proper photo identification, according to The Washington Post.

In the Amish tradition, practicing members cannot have their photo taken. According to the suit, Andrew Hertzler, the plaintiff, “has a sincerely held religious belief that prevents him from knowingly and willingly having his photography taken and stored.”

The case, as The Post points out, highlights the tension between the Second Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, which was established to avoid cases such as this. Hertzler, in order to enjoy his Second Amendment rights, would have to violate his faith.

“The exercise of one Constitutional right cannot be contingent upon the violation or waiver of another,” the suit reads.

Mr. Hertzler again attempted to purchase a firearm over the summer, using a government issued non-photo ID, and was again told “no”, because a photo ID was required. So, her reached out to Senator Pat Toomey, who checked with BATF

Toomey heard back from the ATF and sent Hertzler the following response: “As the enclosed response [from the ATF] states, Federal firearm laws require photo identification when purchasing a firearm.There are no exceptions to this federal requirement.”

There are a couple things at play here. First, the 2nd Amendment says the Right shall not be infringed. I personally do not have any problem in requiring a photo ID for purchase of any gun, be it a handgun or a long rifle. For 99.9%, there is no infringement. Or is there? More on that in a moment.

The First Amendment says that Congress shall pass no law that restricts the free exercise of religion. Does requiring a photo ID to make a purchase when taking a photo is against a person’s religion a violation of the 1st?

Obviously, in a rational and sane world, an accommodation would be made for Mr. Hertzler (and other Amish), since they know who he is, and he has a government issued ID. Certainly some government official or someone else with a photo ID could vouch for him.

But, let’s think about this: in order to exercise a Constitutional Right, one must, no exceptions, have a proper government issued photo ID. Liberals pitch a hissy fit over photo ID requirements to vote. Why no complaints about the requirement for gun purchases?

Liberals say requiring photo ID disenfranchises certain people from being able to vote. By certain people, they mean Blacks, because Liberals apparently think Blacks are too lazy, poor, and stupid to be able to obtain a government issued identification card, even though most states, especially those who require photo ID to vote, offer them free or at very low cost for many low/no income citizens. Does not requiring photo ID for a legal gun purchase disenfranchise these same people from exercising their Constitutional right?

You can’t have it both ways, Democrats. Pick one. Photo ID or no ID?

BTW, states that require voter ID do, in fact, have accommodations, typically in allowing a provision vote be cast.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Amish Man With No Photo ID Suing Over Denial Of Gun Permit »

Posted in 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, Constitution | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

NCSU Snowflakes Upset Over Party

By William Teach October 27, 2015 – 6:57 pm

OK, I’ll admit, the party theme was in poor taste, no doubt about it. Who would have thought that college kids would engage in stuff that others might have said “um, maybe we shouldn’t do this”?

Theme party causes controversy at NC State

A controversial party, held on the heels of “Diversity Week,” is causing a stir among students at North Carolina State University.

The party, held off campus Thursday night, involved a theme – CMT v. BET. Party goers were urged to attend dressed to parody country music culture and black culture.

Obviously, this has dragged the Perpetually Aggrieved/Offended out in force

Officials say there will now be new roundtable discussions on diversity, in additional to new panels, programs and town halls on campus.

Yay, roundtables! Here’s where it gets a bit amusing

“We have a whole university of folks who don’t entertain these conversations, that don’t participate in diversity week, so this challenges us to really think about how we can engage those students that are not interested in diversity programming,” said Roshunda Breeden, diversity coordinator for the Poole College of Management.

So, a whole bunch of college students couldn’t give a you-know-what about being part of the Perpetually Aggrieved/Offended crowd. Good for them. But, hey, really, someone was Aggrieved/Offended, and, rather than ignoring the issue and giving power to the offenders, or a hearty F You, they need to drag everyone in to their world.

University officials said there is no evidence that Thursday’s party was hosted by a campus organization, but the investigation is ongoing.

Investigation? Into a moronic, slightly offensive party? That wasn’t held on campus? Thought Police in action. It’s no wonder we can’t deal with big issues when we have people who conflate minor issues to be on par with the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Read: NCSU Snowflakes Upset Over Party »

Posted in Good Move Slick | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 27, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a possible fizzy drink that releases evil carbon pollution into the atmosphere, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jo Nova, with a post on the global warming crusade.

And, since I forgot to press “schedule” for Monday, here’s a doubleshot. Patterico’s Pontifications has a post with MSNBC equating the phrase “hard work” with slavery.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Team Obama Very Concerned Over Homicide Spike In Democratic Run Cities

By William Teach October 27, 2015 – 10:17 am

There’s apparently no explanation for this kind of thing!

(AP) This year has brought an unusually grim and steady drumbeat of violence throughout the country.

A 5-year-old girl killed this month in Cleveland in a drive-by shooting. Seven people slain in Chicago over the July 4th weekend. A young female journalist in Washington, D.C., fatally struck by an errant bullet in May while waiting to change buses.

Violent crime has often been a local government concern and a problem that had been on the decline. But rising homicide totals in most of America’s large cities have sounded alarms within the Obama administration, with federal officials drawing urgent attention to the problem before Congress, at conferences and in speeches.

The Justice Department this month organized a brainstorming summit with mayors and police chiefs. And FBI Director James Comey, testifying last week, said the “very disturbing” homicide spike has law enforcement scrambling to figure out why it’s happening now, and why in so many cities that seemingly have little in common otherwise.

Nothing in common, folks!

“It’s happening all over the country, and it’s happening all in the last 10 months,” Comey told the House Judiciary Committee. “And so a lot of us in law enforcement are talking and trying to understand what is happening in this country. What explains the map? What explains the calendar? “

Yeah, what possible explanation could there be?

Washington, D.C., which in 2012 recorded just 88 homicides, already has 128 this year. Chicago police counted 385 killings as of Oct. 18, up from 323 on the same date last year. Police in Cleveland say they had 101 slayings as of Friday, an increase from the 87 they reported at the same time last year.

There’s no single explanation for the problem, and it’s not clear whether this year’s numbers are an aberration or the start of a worrisome trend. Some blame easier access to drugs and guns and have suggested that residents, including gangs, suddenly seem more willing to resolve petty disputes with deadly violence.

See? No single explanation. Well, in that, it’s correct. There are really two major explanations. First, virtually every single city that is seeing an uptick in crime is run lock, stock, and barrel by members of the Democratic Party. Add Baltimore, Newark, Camden, St. Louis, even San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle to the mix.

A goodly chunk of the cities seeing a spike in homicides also have draconian laws restricting legal gun ownership, but, that’s more of an aside rather than an explanation, because the second point, which will have Liberals crying raaaaacism, is that these cities have large populations of Blacks, and the majority of the shootings are by Blacks against other Blacks. The vast majority of shootings and homicides in the aforementioned cities were what is known as Black In Origin, meaning a Black shot another Black.

It is not racism to point this out. In order to solve a problem one must know what the problem is. A goodly chunk of these shootings and homicides occur in the slums and ghettos that have been created by Democratic Party policies in their Democratic Party cities. They keep the poor Blacks poor, and expect them to vote for more Democratic Party policies which redistribute more “aid” back to these same squalid neighborhoods, neighborhoods which no Democratic big-wig of any race would ever enter without massive numbers of security personnel. Democratic Party policies are bad for Blacks, there’s no debate about that.

Read: Team Obama Very Concerned Over Homicide Spike In Democratic Run Cities »

Posted in Current Affairs | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

House Panel To Investigate Adjustments To Climate Data

By William Teach October 27, 2015 – 8:25 am

The disagreement on climate change, natch global warming, is not over it happening, but causation. Warmists maintain that it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind, especially from fossil fuels, and they believe in this so much that they will take fossil fueled vehicles to protests and climate change conferences. Skeptics believe that it is mostly/solely caused by natural processes, but do understand that a slight part is caused by mankind. Things like agriculture and landfills (mostly methane), a tiny tiny bit from CO2, the Urban Heat Island effect and land use, oh, and we cannot forget about the constant adjustment to the temperature records

Congressional skeptic on global warming demands records from U.S. climate scientists

The head of a congressional committee on science has issued subpoenas to the Obama administration over a recent scientific study refuting claims that global warming had “paused” or slowed over the last decade.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology and a prominent congressional skeptic on climate change, issued the subpoenas two weeks ago demanding e-mails and records from U.S. scientists who participated in the study, which undercut a popular argument used by critics who reject the scientific consensus that man-made pollution is behind the planet’s recent warming.

Smith’s document request to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ordered the agency to turn over scientific data as well as internal “communications between or among employees” involved in the study, according to a letter Friday by the House committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Tex.). Johnson accused Smith of “furthering a fishing expedition” by looking for ways to discredit NOAA’s study, which was published in June in the peer-reviewed journal Science.

Of course, this has made Warmist Democrats upset, which brings up the question “what do they have to hide?” Why would they want to keep this information secret?

Smith, responding to Johnson’s letter, said the subpoena was not “harassment” but “appropriate constitutional oversight.”

“This scandal-ridden administration’s lack of openness is the real problem,” Smith said in a statement released by his office. “Congress cannot do its job when agencies openly defy Congress and refuse to turn over information. When an agency decides to alter the way it has analyzed historical temperature data for the past few decades, it’s crucial to understand on what basis those decisions were made.”

The Cult of Climastrology doesn’t want their methods, data, or decisions understood, because that would expose their shoddy anti-science methods. What other science would adjust the quality data to a guess instead of adjusting the guess to the high quality data? This is referring to the NOAA study cited in the article, which has numerous problems.

In regards to the NOAA study, this is offered in closing by the Washington Post

“Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming, is 0.113°C [per decade], which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014 (0.116°C [per decade]),” they continued.

First off, half the period of 1950-1999 was a period of cooling/pause, which led to the many wondering if a new ice age was coming. Second, just barely over one-tenth of a degree C per decade is minuscule, and certainly within the boundary of natural causation, as happened during previous Holocene warm periods. Third, if we are to take the study at face value, this would destroy the apocalyptic prognostication from the Cult of Climastrology about a 2C rise by the end of the 21st Century.

Again, if everything is on the up and up, NOAA and the scientists involved should have no problem giving Congress their records and such, right? And, warming doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation. It just proves warming. Unless that warming is manufactured in the records.

Read: House Panel To Investigate Adjustments To Climate Data »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 21 Comments | Trackback URL

Poll: Mass Shootings Reflect Mental Health Issues, Not Inadequate Gun Laws

By William Teach October 27, 2015 – 7:58 am

Yet another poll which shows that the gun-grabbers are outside the mainstream American position

(Washington Post) As Democrats look to make gun violence a core issue in the 2016 presidential campaign, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds wide agreement that gun violence is a problem but bitter and stark division on whether new gun laws should trump the constitutional right to gun ownership.

The survey finds that 46 percent say new laws to reduce gun violence should be a bigger priority, while 47 percent say it’s more important to protect the right to own firearms. This marks a shift away from gun laws since April 2013, when Democrats’ push for increased background checks fell short in the aftermath of the massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.; back then, a 52 percent majority said new laws should be a priority.

Surely, more and more Americans are seeing that new gun laws will primarily affect law abiding citizens, rather than the criminals who use them for criminal actions. All they need to do is look towards Democratic Party run cities like Baltimore, D.C., and Chicago, which have draconian gun ownership laws, yet still have quite a bit of gun-play and murders in their streets.

But while many have called for stricter gun laws in their wake, the Post-ABC poll finds far more point to problems treating people with mental health issues. By a more than 2-to-1 margin, more people say mass shootings reflect problems identifying and treating people with mental health problems rather than inadequate gun control laws (63 percent to 23 percent).

There are wide partisan divisions on this issue; 82 percent of Republicans say shootings reflect a failure to identify and treat people with mental health problems, compared with 65 percent of independents and 46 percent of Democrats.

The majority of Democrats see the problem as an inanimate object rather than people who use them improperly. It’s also amusing that Democrats would like to remove all private ownership of guns, exempting themselves, of course, and say we should trust Government. In the next breath, they complain about police shooting people and the evil military. Go figure.

The poll, as usual, oversamples Democrats, with a party ID of 30/24/39 (D/R/I), and we still get those figures.

BTW, the poll has a wide range of issues, and it shows that people want the next president, regardless of party, to support and build the Keystone XL pipeline 55 to 34.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Poll: Mass Shootings Reflect Mental Health Issues, Not Inadequate Gun Laws »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Change “cannot be a partisan issue” Or Something

By William Teach October 26, 2015 – 10:35 am

So says US Rep Carlos Curbelo  (Fla), one of the few squishy Republicans who’ve decided to believe in Hotcoldwetdry, and conflate real environmental issues with it

(Miami Herald) Now more than ever, it is crucial that we acknowledge the reality that is the Earth’s changing climate. Without question, this is one of the major challenges of our time and directly threatens the communities of South Florida. If left unaddressed, the consequences of a changing climate have the potential to adversely affect not only our families and neighbors, but the entire country.

To view climate change through partisan lenses only detracts from efforts to discover practical solutions. This debate should not devolve into a petty competition between Republicans and Democrats.

First, climate change is real. Anyone who disagrees is a fool. But, the debate isn’t on changes in climate, but on causation.

Second, Curbelo is making this a partisan issue. He’s specifically telling Republicans they must get on board the AGW bandwagon. He’s allowing no dissent.

Instead, it should consist of a constructive dialogue focusing on the implementation of policies that encourage the growth and development of clean alternative energy sources that will complement traditional ones.

On that, I’ll agree. Warmists, though, do not want said dialogue: they want to kill all fossil fuels energy, mostly want to kill nuclear, are typically against hydrothermal (dams), and are often at odds with each other when it comes to actually building and/or turning on alternative energy plants. Curbelo is specifically taking the Warmist position

If we want to diminish the impact that greenhouse gases will continually have on our planet over the next century, the effort to constrain carbon emissions must be expanded.

I guess he’s looking into a crystal ball. Has he given up his own use of fossil fuels and made his life carbon neutral?

To efficiently and effectively address this issue, we need an approach that is market-based as opposed to one driven by an increase in top-down government regulation. Enacting policies that encourage the private sector to invest, not only in general infrastructure projects, but long-term visionary technologies, will lead to economic prosperity and environmental sustainability. Tax incentives for developing energy sources like solar, wind and hydropower are just one way of encouraging America’s innovators to develop advanced solutions. And this energy transition cannot exclude low-income Americans.

Got that? Market based solutions driven by Government “incentives”. Otherwise know as government force interfering with the free market. He can pretty the language up all he wants, he’s pushing the same Progressive (nice fascist) policies the Left leaning Warmists push. Because it’s “for your own good”.

Read: Climate Change “cannot be a partisan issue” Or Something »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Scientists Apparently Now Brainwashing Themselves With Fear

By William Teach October 26, 2015 – 7:47 am

When you think in apocalyptic doom on a constant basis, when it’s your job to make predictions of doom, when your Leftist politics demand that you trot out stories of doom, this might effect your mental well-being

It’s the End of the World — How Do You Feel?

Terry Root often goes to sleep at night wondering how she’ll be able to get up the next morning and do it all over again. Then the sun comes up and she forces herself out of bed. She might go for a run to release the pent-up anxiety. Sometimes she cries. Or she’ll commiserate with colleagues, sharing in and validating each other’s angst. What keeps Terry up at night aren’t the usual ailments; it’s not a tyrant boss or broken heart.

The diagnosis: global warming.

A senior fellow at Stanford’s Woods Institute for the Environment, Root has spent the past two decades unraveling the thread between climate change and the eventual mass extinctions of countless species of plants, animals — and, yes, humans. “That’s a tough, tough thing to cope with,” Root says in a weary, jagged voice. There’s more. When the gray-haired bird watcher shares her End of Days findings, she’s often met with personal attacks; naysayers hurl their disagreement and disdain, complete with name-calling and threats from politicians. But the absolute worst part of her job? We’re not listening. “It’s harder than hell to carry that,” says Root.

Armageddon aside for a moment, that an acclaimed scientist will say h-e-l-l to a reporter and use words like cope is a sign of changing times. Not only are we living on a warming planet but a progressively emotive one. It started with parents coddling their kids (no more advice to “just suck it up”), then it was emojis (punctuation isn’t enough) and now it’s climatologists tweeting “we’re f’d” and field researchers speaking up about climate depression — or even pretraumatic stress disorder.

In other words, climate scientists have made themselves mental messes. All over a meager 1.4F increase in global temperatures since 1850, warming that is less than during previous Holocene warm periods. Of course, you couple that, which they think is apocalyptic, with their prognostications of a 3.6F increase by 2100 (despite their computer models failing 95% of the time), and they are almost breaking down mentally.

But emotions are less predictable than facts and figures. Root remembers giving a talk once at the University of Utah. Afterward a few students came up to ask questions; one young man had tears in his eyes. “Is it really this bad?” he pleaded. Root told him it’s worse. He went on to become an activist and was sent to prison for one of his illegal protests. Root has always felt responsible.

Fortunately, ‘climate scientists’ are spreading their self-induced misery for others to share, all based on junk science.

Read: Climate Scientists Apparently Now Brainwashing Themselves With Fear »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Poll: Donald Trump Seen As Most Electable

By William Teach October 26, 2015 – 7:02 am

What this poll really shows is that Republicans are sick of the GOP Establishment

(AP) Republican voters view Donald Trump as their strongest general election candidate, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that highlights the sharp contrast between the party’s voters and its top professionals regarding the billionaire businessman’s ultimate political strength.

Seven in 10 Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters say Trump could win in November 2016 if he is nominated, and that’s the most who say so of any candidate. By comparison, 6 in 10 say the same for retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who, like Trump, has tapped into the powerful wave of antiestablishment anger defining the early phases of the 2016 contest.

“It’s the lifelong establishment politicians on both sides that rub me the wrong way,” said registered Republican Joe Selig, a 60-year-old carpenter from Vallejo, California. “I think Trump is more electable. He’s strong. We need strength these days.”

Republican voters are sick and tired of the GOP establishment, which makes lots of promises, then fails to keep them. They’re more than willing to concede the high ground to Democrats on a constant basis. Their plans have been failures. There’s nothing wrong with working across party lines (something Democrats have been refusing to do), but there is something wrong with giving Democrats Rolls Royce’s and getting Pinto’s for the GOP.

Of course, it is one thing to win the primary; it’s another to win the general

Experienced political strategists note that winning a general election and winning the Republican nomination are often very different tasks. The GOP’s most conservative voters — a group that is older and whiter than the nation as a whole — wield extraordinary influence in picking the nominee. Independents, moderate voters and minorities are far more important in general elections that draw many more people to the polls.

While Trump and Carson are popular in primary election polls, both have used divisive rhetoric in recent months that alienated some minorities. Trump called Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals during his announcement speech; while Carson said he would not support a Muslim presidential candidate.

“Republicans think (Democrat) Hillary (Rodham Clinton) is weaker than she is. They are wrong,” said GOP operative Katie Packer, who was deputy campaign manager for 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney. “They think we don’t need to win more women or more Hispanics to win. They’re wrong.”

How’d that work out for Romney?  Anyhow, the comments by Trump and Carson are being distorted and are incomplete. We know it, and the media knows it, and the media knows that most voters won’t bother to learn the truth. GOP voters are tired of the squishy candidates who won’t go on the offensive. Neither McCain nor Romney really took it to Obama. Carson and Trump would. So would Carly Fiorina. Would Cruz, Rubio, or Jeb!? And there is quite a bit in Hillary’s background to attack. So, Democrats shouldn’t think it will be a cakewalk.

Is The Donald the best candidate for the GOP? Not in my opinion. I like some of his policy positions, hate others. I just don’t trust him. I’d trust Hillary less.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Poll: Donald Trump Seen As Most Electable »

Posted in GOP | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Warmists Link Aghanistan Earthquake To Climate Change

By William Teach October 26, 2015 – 12:00 am

You didn’t actually think they would not, did you?

https://twitter.com/ABLE_AG/status/658628081171623937

Read the accompanying story link

Read More »

Read: Surprise: Warmists Link Aghanistan Earthquake To Climate Change »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | Comments Off on Surprise: Warmists Link Aghanistan Earthquake To Climate Change | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove