Bloomberg Backed Anti-Gun Group Takes On NC Gun Law They Don’t Understand

I’ve been remiss in covering the latest Freak Out by the anti-gunnites here in North Carolina, which extends to the Typical Liberal Media here in Raleigh, in Charlotte, and other news outlets. Let’s see what this is really, really about

(Breitbart) Michael Bloomberg-funded Everytown for Gun Safety is fighting the repeal of a law that requires North Carolinians to acquire a permit to purchase a handgun before they can actually purchase one. They are doing this by equating the permit to purchase with background checks and suggesting that if the permits are repealed, background checks will be repealed as well.

But repealing a state-issued permit to purchase has nothing to do with federal background checks.

In North Carolina’s present system, potential handgun purchasers have to acquire a permit to purchase from a local sheriff before they are allowed to go buy a handgun. State Reps. Jacqueline Shaffer (R-Mecklenburg) and John Faircloth (R-Guilford) believe a streamlined system—where North Carolinians don’t have to get a permit to exercise their Second Amendment rights—is a better approach, so they have put forward House Bill 562.

HB 562 would get the state government out of the way so North Carolinians can buy handguns without first asking the state for permission via the permit to purchase requirement. And HB 562 would in no way impact federal background checks, which every North Carolinian will still have to pass every time they buy a handgun from a retail outlet.

Background checks will still be required. Period. But, instead of going down to the sheriff’s office, waiting in line, then finally getting that permit (I’ve had to do this myself twice), and possibly getting denied because they said so, this streamlines the process of exercising our 2nd Amendment Right. If liberals do not like that, then they should attempt to get the 2nd changed or repealed.

Bob Owens notes something interesting

The pistol permit was introduced into North Carolina law in the Jim Crow-era South, when the NC Democrat Party and the Ku Klux Klan were one in the same.

The intent of the permitting process was brutal and simple: Klansmen didn’t want to get shot while cross-burning and lynching, and so they wanted to ensure that blacks in Jim Crow North Carolina didn’t have the legal right to own handguns. The permits had to be applied for in person so that local sheriffs could deny permits based on race.

That this same permitting scheme still applies in 2015 is a travesty of justice.

Nothing is done with said permits after they are processed. Are liberal anti-gunnites, including Bloomberg’s group, against making it easier for law abiding Blacks to obtain a firearm?

Read: Bloomberg Backed Anti-Gun Group Takes On NC Gun Law They Don’t Understand »

Climate Change Is Totally Going To Cause Less But More Powerful Hurricanes Or Something

First the Cult Of Climastrology stated categorically that the 2005 hurricane season would be the new normal, with lots and lots of storm, ranging from tropical depressions to monster hurricanes, making landfall. When that quickly failed to come to pass, they started saying that hurricanes would be fewer but stronger. Then, when the big hurricanes failed to materialize, they started blaming “climate change” for the absence of land-falling hurricanes, along with stating that they’d materialize in the future. They’ve claimed that the absence is just bad luck. They’ve claimed that the lack of Florida hurricanes is a bad thing. They’ve even been puzzled. And now?

Researchers: Hurricanes come in bunches and could get stronger

….

Another conference session will explore whether storm statistics are in for change because of a changing climate.

Kerry Emanuel, professor of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, will present research that ties climate change to fewer small or average-sized storms and an uptick in the number of the most powerful storms.

“The very high intensity events should go up in number and that’s important because a disproportionate amount of damage is done by these high category storms even though they are relatively rare,” Emanuel said.

Emanuel’s research also points to a likelihood that hurricanes are going to rain a lot more in the future — a worry because of the flooding and deaths that can result.

The beginning of the article is about concern that people, especially in Florida and place typically prone to tropical system strikes, have become blase about the whole thing, since a hurricane has not hit Florida since 2005, and what can be done to make sure people take any future hurricane seriously. This is smart policy. Anyone has been through even just a tropical storm knows the dangers. And I would be very surprised if Florida makes it through another year or two without a strike.

But, instead of just dealing with a real danger, these fools have to bring in “climate change”, rather than focusing on the reality.

Read: Climate Change Is Totally Going To Cause Less But More Powerful Hurricanes Or Something »

If All You See…

…is a wonderful railroad track for trains, which Everyone Else should be forced to ride, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on the problem with all that Antarctic ice.

Read: If All You See… »

The Winners Of Today’s “Climate Change Causes Earthquakes” Sweepstake Are…

You know how this works. Something happens that has always been considered a natural event, except in villain type movies and conspiracy theory literature, like earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, etc, and the modern day wackos blame it on human-induced “climate change”

https://twitter.com/JonGoofel/status/598094913578737664

https://twitter.com/simonson_jake/status/598099355447394306

More below the fold

Read More »

Read: The Winners Of Today’s “Climate Change Causes Earthquakes” Sweepstake Are… »

Senator Warren To Obama: Declassify The Trade Agreement

I strangely find myself in agreement with Senator Warren

(Reuters) U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren hit back at President Barack Obama in their tussle over “fast-track” authorization to negotiate a Pacific Rim trade treaty, a power she says could be used in the future to weaken Wall Street reforms.

The president, who wants expedited negotiating power to streamline the passage of trade deals through Congress, said last week that Warren’s claims were “absolutely wrong.”

Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat and prominent liberal voice, stuck to her argument in an interview published on Monday with a Washington Post blog, saying Obama should release details of the Pacific trade talks so legal experts can determine if a pact could be used to weaken U.S. bank rules.

“If the president is so confident it’s a good deal, he should declassify the text and let people see it before asking Congress to tie its hands on fixing it,” Warren said in the interview with the Plum Line blog.

One has to wonder exactly why the trade deal is classified. Why it cannot be released for public view. Why Congress critters can only view it in a secure room, cannot have any recording devices, be watched over as you read it, and cannot take any notes they make with them.

From the Plum Line interview

PLUM LINE: But don’t you get 60 days to review it after the deal is finalized, with the authority to revoke fast track?

WARREN: The president has committed only to letting the public see this deal after Congress votes to authorize fast track. At that point it will be impossible for us to amend the agreement or to block any part of it without tanking the whole TPP. The TPP is basically done. If the president is so confident it’s a good deal, he should declassify the text and let people see it before asking Congress to tie its hands on fixing it.

From the Right and also conspiracy minded folks, they are concerned that the trade deal could lead to massive gun control in terms of blocking weapons and ammunition coming into the country.

All that said, why, exactly, is this deal so heavily secret? One of the folks in the comments at the Plum Line notes “you can tell this article is propaganda, no journalist has read the text, so how does he know!?” The commenter is correct, no journalist has read the text. Nor have most in Congress read it. Nor have We The People read it. Because it is being kept super-secret. Call me a conspiracy minded fool if you must, but one has to wonder why a trade deal is being treated in this manner, why it has to be kept so secret.

Read: Senator Warren To Obama: Declassify The Trade Agreement »

Salon: Progressives Must Face Reality Of Hardcore Islam

Salon is typically a hotbed of Leftist insanity, which very much exposes the true mindset of Leftists, one that typically takes the side of those calling anyone who points out the problems in hardcore Islam an “Islamophobe”, which makes this article by Jeffrey Tyler all that more important

The left has Islam all wrong: Bill Maher, Pamela Geller and the reality progressives must face
Confusion over Islam and how to relate to it imperils free speech, without which no secular republic can survive

Whatever her views on other matters are, Pamela Geller is right about one thing: last week’s Islamist assault on the “Draw Muhammad” cartoon contest she hosted in Texas proves the jihad against freedom of expression has opened a front in the United States.  “There is,” she said, “a war on free speech and this violent attack is a harbinger of things to come.”  Apparently undaunted, Geller promises to continue with such “freedom of speech” events.  ISIS is now threatening to assassinate her.  She and her cohorts came close to becoming victims, yet some in the media on the right and the center-right have essentially blamed her for the gunmen’s attack, just as far too many, last January, surreptitiously pardoned the Kouachi brothers and, with consummate perfidy to human decency, inculpated the satirical cartoonists they slaughtered, saying “Charlie Hebdo asked for it.”

No.

Unsurprisingly, much of this is about the subhead, that Islam (I do wish Mr. Tyler would take more time to distinguish between those who are simply practitioners of Islam and the Islamists, who are violent and/or pushing hardcore Islam, things like Sharia law, which treats women despicably, kills gays, etc) creates problems for a nation that Leftists want to be almost without religion, at least in public.

What is it about Islam that simultaneously both motivates jihadis to kill and so many progressives to exculpate the religion, even when the killers leave no doubt about why they act?  The second part of the question is easier to dispense with than the first.  Progressives by nature seek common ground and believe people to be mostly rational actors – hence the desire to blame crime on social ills.  Unfamiliarity with Islam’s tenets also plays a role, plus, I believe, the frightening future we would seem to be facing as more and more Muslims immigrate to the West, and the world becomes increasingly integrated.  Best just to talk of poverty and the like, or a few “bad apples.”  But to respond to the question’s first part, we need to put aside our p.c. reading glasses and examine Islam’s basic elements from a rationalist’s perspective.  Islam as a faith would not concern progressives, except that some of its adherents choose to act as parts of its dogma ordain, which, to put it mildly, violates the social contract underpinning the lives of the rest of us.

That’s as good an excuse as I’ve seen. Why does the Left seek to defend hardcore Islam? Mr. Taylor may be correct. Or, it could simply be a knee-jerk reaction by Lefties to those on the Right highlighting the danger from hardcore Islam, which makes them incapable of allowing the distinction between the hardcores and the non-hardcores, making the Left protect them all. Of course, Lefties like to Blame The Whole when it comes to Others, such as lumping all Conservatives, all Republicans, all Christians, into one big pot when an individual or a small group does something the Left doesn’t like, so excusing the whole of Islam when there is a big problem within Islam from the hardcores.

Of course, Tyler has quite a bit of negative to say about Christianity and Judaism within the article, which he is free to do.

The meme “Islam – the religion of peace” might evoke snickering now, but it was wildly inaccurate long before 9/11 and the plague of Islamist terrorism.  For starters, the Prophet Muhammad was a triumphant warlord leading military campaigns that spread Islam throughout Arabia and initiated the creation of one of the largest empires the world has known.  His was a messianic undertaking.  He preceded his invasions by demands that populations either convert or face the sword.  Verses sanctifying violence against “infidels” abound in the Quran.  Even the favorite verse of Islam’s apologists, Surat al-Baqarah 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”), prefaces a warning that Hellfire awaits those worshipping anything besides God.  The real meaning of the word “Islam” is, in fact, surrender — to God and the inerrant, unchallengeable path He lays out for us.  Surrendering denotes war, groveling, and humiliation – not exactly the kind of behavior liberals tend to value.

I never thought I would see something like that in Salon, but, we can certainly chalk some of it up to the dislike, even hatred, many Progressives have towards organized religion. That said, Mr. Taylor has a point: it isn’t behavior that the Left should value, according to their own talking points. As for Progressives, their own dogma has them getting people to quietly surrender to the Will Of The Secular State. Hardcore Islam directly competes for the surrender.

All those who, à la Reza Aslan, maintain that Muslims today do not necessarily read the Quran literally have lost the argument before it begins.  What counts is that there are those (ISIS, say, and al-Qaida) who do, and they are taking action based on their beliefs.  To the contention, “ISIS and al-Qaida don’t represent Islam!” the proper response is, “that’s what you say.  They disagree.”  No single recognized Muslim clerical body exists to refute them.

Whoa, whoa, whoa: did he just say that those like ISIS and al Qaida are just following the text of the Koran?

Mr. Taylor goes on, discussing even more of the problem he sees within Islam as a whole, such as the poor treatment of women within the religion, even in more “moderate” Islamic countries. He also notes the continued spread of the hardcore viewpoint, that it continues to grow, turning more and more “moderates” into violent hardcores. The one thing he misses is that it is not just the violent Islamists, there are the Muslims who push a more hardcore Islamic lifestyle in a non-violent manner. Those who push for a worldwide Caliphate, who push Sharia law, and often using the trappings of Western culture, and the belief sets of Progressives, against Western society. They approve of violence, such as hanging gays, throwing them off buildings, stoning women, whipping them for being raped, etc, as well as others participating in jihad. The “calm and rational” softer version of the Islamists is used by groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR, who insinuate themselves into our culture, our government, and slowly move everything towards the harder version of Islam. Progressives need to wake up to this.

Of course, as mentioned, one of the points Mr. Taylor is making is that we can’t get to a society without religion if Progressives don’t wake up to the threat Islam makes towards that goal, because he, like so many Progressives, is just anti-religion.

And double of course, Mr. Taylor is being attacked by the oh so tolerant Progressives in the comments at Salon, as well as coming up with all sorts of ways to defend hardcore Islam, defenses we’ve seen time and time again. They seem to be the exact reason why Taylor wrote the article, but they will not learn.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Salon: Progressives Must Face Reality Of Hardcore Islam »

If All You See…

…is a wonderful field of nature that should have solar panels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on liar filing a lawsuit.

Read: If All You See… »

We’re Saved! Poetry Will Help Stop “Climate Change”!

It’s all about making sure Other People don’t use fossil fuels. And not much about climate change. But, it does expose the viewpoint of the UK Guardian quite well, namely, that they are no longer in the business of journalism

An anthology of poetry on climate change

If information was all we needed, we’d have solved climate change by now. The scientific position has been clear for decades. Researchers have been waving a big red flag that has been impossible for our politicians to miss. Even Margaret Thatcher was giving speeches about global warming in 1988. So why have we made so little progress? Why do carbon emissions continue to rise seemingly inexorably? (gotta love that they forgot to mention Thatcher’s later position)

Information, it seems, is not enough. Journalists have transmitted the warnings of scientists, but they have sometime focussed too much on the mini-controversies and the unimportant disagreements and not enough on the big picture. That has often left readers confused.

As the Guardian’s editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger explained when he introduced the paper’s Keep it in the Ground project, journalism struggles with climate change. It may be the biggest issue of our generation but we feel individually powerless or that solutions lie somewhere in the future. As Rusbridger says, journalism is a “rear view mirror”: good at telling you what has happened but not so good at explaining what’s round the next bend.

And therein lies one of the problems: journalism is now activism. It’s one thing to have opinions on the opinion pages; it’s quite another to turn news reporting into activism, opinion, and make it all about being Social Justice Warriors. And the Guardian still hasn’t divested its own holdings from fossil fuels, and still uses fossil fuels to deliver its dead tree edition.

That is where this comes in. Alan Rusbridger asked me to curate a series of 20 poems that respond to the topic of climate change. The brief was to reach parts of the Guardian readers’ hearts and minds that the reporting, investigations, videos, podcasts and the rest had failed to reach.

I was wondering if the UK Guardian’s Carol Ann Duffy had forgotten that the article was supposed to be on poetry. There’s a link at the top of the article going to her first poem. Doesn’t have a whole lot of climate changey in it.

Read: We’re Saved! Poetry Will Help Stop “Climate Change”! »

Carly Fiorina Continues To Impress While Facing The Press

An interesting article by Mediaites’ Joe Concha

Carly Fiorina May Not Win, But Facing the Press Isn’t the Issue It is for Hillary Clinton

The candidacy of Carly Fiorina is a fascinating one from a media perspective. She’s a former CEO and political candidate…with both of those pursuits ending with her being dismissed.

The easy line of questioning of Ms. Fiorina has become apparent early and often regardless of the many outlets she’s appeared on since announcing her candidacy last week, and it sounds something like this:

If you got fired as CEO of a company, what makes you think you could be president?

If and when Hillary Clinton—the likely Democratic nominee—actually sits down for a major interview in any capacity, it will be interesting if she’s faced with the same scrutiny regarding her performance in her last job as Fiorina has endured. To that end, feel free to answer these questions: What was Mrs. Clinton’s signature achievement as Secretary of State for five years? And if we’re going through the full LinkedIn page…what was her signature achievement as senator? Why was she fired by Democratic voters in 2008 in favor of another candidate who wanted to be CEO of the party…and of the country for that matter?

Good questions. Will Hillary ever face any? Fiorina has faced over 200 questions just last week, while Hillary has faced just 7 so far since she sort of announced.

Concha goes on to list big time folks who have been fired at some point in the past. A great example is Bill Belichick, who was canned as coach of the Cleveland Browns, and is now one of the best coaches in the NFL, with a team that continuously is one of the best in the NFL, and has been to the Super Bowl 6 times as Patriots head coach, winning 4.

But playing a game of gotcha around getting fired? You might want to look at the list above again and especially Steve Jobs, who was fired from Apple itself before coming back to save the company and making it into one of the greatest—if not the greatest—American success stories of all time. On Meet the Press today, Chuck Todd asked Fiorina why HP stock went up seven percent after she was asked to leave. Well, guess what? Apple stock went up after Jobs was fired as well. As for the rest of those names above from Bloomberg to Blank to Iacocca, they’ve all been fired at some point of their careers, too.

Fiorina is making herself available, and not running from her record. Where’s Hillary?

BTW, do you know what the other big question is that Fiorina is facing? “Domain-gate”

(MSNBC) Almost immediately after former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina announced she was running for president last week, her staff was dogged by questions about why they had failed to secure the Web domain carlyfiorina.org, which had been purchased by a Democratic activist who used it to post a message about how many people HP had allegedly laid off while Fiorina was the company’s chief executive.

She purchased sethmyers.org for her appearance on Late Night with Seth Myers.

“Many reporters were nearly giddy about what I’ve affectionately labeled #domaingate when it came to Republicans, but none had bothered to check hillaryclinton.net or hillaryforpresident.com. I’m now looking forward to all the stories similarly labeling this a major gaffe by the Clinton campaign,” Fiorina spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in an email.

That’s about someone purchasing HillaryClinton.net and redirecting it to CarlyForPresident.com. And then this

She may be a somewhat squishy Establishment Republican, but she’s growing on me.

Read: Carly Fiorina Continues To Impress While Facing The Press »

NY Times: Don’t Blame Obama For Not Fixing Race Relations

NY Times columnist Charles Blow is Very Upset that people, especially Rush Limbaugh, are criticizing Michelle Obama

Of Museums and Racial Relics

Recently, Rush Limbaugh lambasted the first lady, Michelle Obama, for bringing up the idea of diversity among museum visitors at the opening of the new Whitney Museum in New York.

According to Limbaugh, the first lady said: “Museums and concert halls just don’t welcome nonwhite visitors — especially children — the way they welcome white people.”

What the first lady actually said was:

“You see, there are so many kids in this country who look at places like museums and concert halls and other cultural centers and they think to themselves, well, that’s not a place for me, for someone who looks like me, for someone who comes from my neighborhood.  In fact, I guarantee you that right now, there are kids living less than a mile from here who would never in a million years dream that they would be welcome in this museum.”

Blow goes on to write

And, the first lady was right. A 2010 report by the Center for the Future of Museums (an initiative of the American Association of Museums) found that:

“African-Americans and Latinos have notably lower rates of museum attendance than white Americans. Why is that so? In part, it is the legacy of historic discrimination. A summary study of S.P.P.A. [Survey of Public Participation in the Arts] data from the 1980s on white and black attendance at arts events concluded that the measurable difference in participation could be tied to ‘subtle forms of exclusion.’ ”

Hmm, data from the 1980’s.

The report cited data that shows “historic patterns of segregation and exclusion as one reason that fewer African-American families instill museum-going habits in their young children. More recent studies have identified a distinct cultural psychology among African-Americans, rooted in historical and social experience, which has produced heightened sensitivity to stereotypes and real or perceived racism.”

So, why won’t Blacks and Latino’s go to museums in the 2010’s? Because of something that may (or may not) have happened 30+ years ago? Can anyone point to actual discrimination at museums? Does anyone think that lawsuits, protests, etc, wouldn’t occur if there was discrimination?

If it’s the content of the museums, which tend to be odes to the accomplishment of European Whites, along with things like, oh, simple natural history, then why do most of the “African-American” museums fail? Wouldn’t you think that Blacks would go to those? Almost no one visits the Underground Railroad Freedom Center. The Reginald Lewis Museum in Baltimore likewise has poor attendance. The Charles H. Wright museum in Detroit has very low attendance. This is repeated over and over again. You can’t blame Whites for racism, as Blow attempts, when Blacks won’t even go to museums dedicated to Blacks.

Here’s where it gets cute

Obama’s sin, using this line of logic, is that he failed to undo the system of oppression that he had no hand in constructing. It is that 400 years of damage was not undone in two terms. It is that he didn’t encourage silence about inequity so that its benefactors could enjoy the cumulative fruit of centuries of racial graft without current-day guilt.

Interesting. White people are blamed constantly for a “system of oppression” that they had no hand in constructing. There is not one person alive who own slaves in the United States. Well over 50% of the US population wasn’t even alive prior to the passage of the 1968 Civil Rights Act. A goodly chunk have no relatives who were even in the US when slavery was legal. Most of the others have no relatives who owned slaves. Yet, Whites are blamed for any perceived raaaaacism. Such as Blacks not going to museums and performing arts and concerts and stuff. Something that they can do if they want to.

And yet, all of America must face the reality that for as much progress as has been made, much remains to be made. America must face the fact that the electorate is an of-the-moment entity, but racial oppression is an of-the-ages monstrosity. It is a resilient relic. And it was never within Obama’s capacity to dismantle it. This structure must be demolished by its architects.

Is any White stopping any Black from going to any museum, concert, art exhibit? Of course, what Charles forgot to mention is that people feel that race relations haven’t been this bad since the 1990’s (weird how they seemingly got better in the Age Of Bush43, eh?).

If this is an issue that concerns Michelle O and Charles B, rather than whining about perceived racism in the past, they could have used the opportunity to challenge those in the Black community to go to museums, zoos, aquariums, plays, art exhibits, classical concerts, etc. Tell the parents to bring the kids. No one is going to stop them.

What is interesting is that so many in the comments at the opinion piece are simply assuming that most Blacks are too poor to afford the cost of attendance. These are Liberals, there is no doubt, based on the full flavor of the comments. If you want racism, why do liberals always assume Blacks are too poor too afford something, like driver’s licenses and the fee to attend a museum?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times: Don’t Blame Obama For Not Fixing Race Relations »

Pirate's Cove