Bank Manager Fired For Bringing Gun To Work Files Suit

By William Teach February 24, 2014 – 2:50 pm

This was trending yesterday on Memeorandum, and is an interesting bit of food for thought

(Tampa Bay Tribune) Ivette Ros grew up in a house where her father kept guns. For her, it was a natural step to get a concealed weapons permit and then to carry a 9 mm handgun.

The 37-year-old Tampa resident is a single mother of three children and said she carries the gun for safety.

“It’s just something about having it versus not having it,” she said. “I feel naked when I don’t have my gun.”

Her employer didn’t feel the same way. Carrying the gun got her fired, she said.

Ros has filed a lawsuit in circuit court against Wells Fargo Bank, which she said fired her last year from her job as manager at the bank’s Oldsmar branch. Her lawsuit says the firing violated her constitutional right to carry arms and asks for monetary damages and attorney fees.

She usually leaves it in her car, but sometimes has it concealed on her or in her purse. She has a legal concealed carry permit. Someone at work saw it and complained. Wells Fargo’s rules are very clear that there are to be no weapons on property.

My take is that she has no case. Wells Fargo, as a private business, has every right to set the terms of employment and to restrict weapons on property. Surely Ms. Ros was informed of the weapons policy when she started working there, and as the manager, should have been well aware of the policy, as she would have needed to enforce it.

The 2nd Amendment is about restrictions on the Government, not private businesses on private property. She could have asked the company for a waiver. She could have simply left it in her vehicle at all times. She chose to bring it into the bank, apparently many times, in violation of the rules of the company. This is her personal responsibility, her actions, and she is the one to pay for it.

Flastertein disagrees. He says the concealed weapons permit gave Ros the right to carry her gun into work.

“She’s a good person who elected to defend herself as she is constitutionally permitted,” Flasterstein said. “The second amendment is not a privilege. It’s a freakin’ right.”

Flastertein is her lawyer. He’s correct that it is a Right. One that, again, restricts Government, not a private company. Most companies restrict freedom of speech when it comes to discussing the company. Most now have social media policies. These are the terms of working for that company. Don’t like it? Work somewhere else. Go start you own business.

Call me cynical, but I’m betting she and her lawyer are looking for a settlement.

Read: Bank Manager Fired For Bringing Gun To Work Files Suit »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 24, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful climate friendly bike 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 noting that sometimes you just have to call and asshole and asshole.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Warmists Continue Pushing Volcanoes As Explanation For Pause

By William Teach February 24, 2014 – 11:04 am

Let’s not forget

Climate Depot Analysis: ‘There have been at least seven separate explanations for the standstill in global warming’ – 1) Low Solar Activity; 2) Oceans Ate Warming; 3) Chinese Coal Use; 4) Montreal Protocol; 5) Readjusted past temps to claim ‘pause’ never existed 6) Volcanoes 7) Decline in Water Vapor 8) Pacific Trade Winds

Here’s a number 6

Volcanic eruptions ‘contributed to global warming pause’, scientists claim

The impact of volcanic eruptions on global warming could provide a new explanation for the so-called “pause” used by sceptics to deny climate change is happening, scientists have said.

Not exactly new. But like all good excuses (the dog ate my warming, er, homework) it will be trotted out again and again

According to a study in the US, models for predicting the rate at which temperatures around the world would rise from 1998 onwards did not take into consideration the measurable impact volcanoes can have.

Uh huh. This sounds like some excuse-making as to why 95% of the models have failed.

Experts from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California said this phenomenon was not taken into account when predictions were made – offering an explanation for why the world seemed to stop heating up.

“We show that climate model simulations without the effects of early 21st century volcanic eruptions overestimate the tropospheric warming observed since 1998,” wrote Dr Benjamin Santer in the journal Nature Geoscience.

Strange that natural earth forces can be responsible for the pause and even cooling, but cannot be responsible for the warming that has occurred since 1850/1920/1980 (depends on the Warmist argument).

British climate expert Professor Piers Forster, from the University of Leeds, said: “Volcanoes give us only a temporary respite from the relentless warming pressure of continued increases in CO2.”

See? This is a religion, an about as far from science as one can be. There were more than enough volcanoes popping off during the warming periods in the early 20th Century, including the higher levels in the 20’s-30’s, with a VEI of at least 4 (Volcanic Explosivity Index). What about Mount St. Helen’s in 1980, El Chichon in 1982, and Pinatubo and Mount Hudson in 1991. There were few VEI 4’s during the early part of the 21st Century, yet the climate has been virtually flatlined. Some data shows slight reductions. There were more than enough from 1850 to the end of the 19th Century, including Krakatoa, and we had lots of warming. But, what about post 1991? The later part of the 1990’s saw few volcanic eruption of a 4 or higher. The biggest was Soufriere Hills, which had a VEI of 3.

So, it’s strange that volcanoes are being blamed for the pause which started in 1998.

Read: Warmists Continue Pushing Volcanoes As Explanation For Pause »

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

SCOTUS To Hear Arguments On EPA “Climate Change” Power Grab

By William Teach February 24, 2014 – 8:05 am

This could be a big, and game changing, case, one which could place limits on the ever-expansive role of not just the EPA, but other federal agencies and the Chief Executive

(CNS News) The Obama administration is squaring off at the Supreme Court with industry groups and Republican-led states over a small but important program aimed at limiting power-plant and factory emissions of gases blamed for global warming.

The justices are hearing arguments Monday in a challenge to a regulation that forces companies that want to expand industrial facilities or build new ones that would increase overall pollution to evaluate ways to reduce the carbon they release. Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas.

There have been other cases, mostly at the lower court levels, but a few at the Supreme Court level, which have given the EPA the power to continue to extend its own power without legislative direction. Ie, legislation. The 2007 SCOTUS ruling gave the EPA the power without legislation to make rules for automobile greenhouse gas emissions. Under Obama, the EPA has continued to grab power and extend it to power plants.

In the meantime, the only way EPA can compel companies to address global warming pollution is through a permitting program that requires them to analyze the best available technologies to reduce carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas.

The utility industry, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 13 states led by Texas are asking the court to rule that the EPA overstepped its authority by trying to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the permitting program.

The EPA’s actions “represent one of the boldest seizures of legislative authority by an executive agency in history,” Peter Keisler, representing the American Chemistry Council among two dozen manufacturing and industry groups that want the court to throw out the rule, said in court papers.

What the suit is going after are the permits themselves, which are costly and burdensome. Say, guess who ends up being the recipient of the extra costs? That’s right, the American consumer, who is already suffering under the rising costs thanks to the Obama administration and the never-ending “feels like a recession”.

Perhaps the EPA should regulate President Obama, who has the largest carbon footprint in the world.

Read: SCOTUS To Hear Arguments On EPA “Climate Change” Power Grab »

Posted in Barry Obama, Energy, Global Warming | Comments Off on SCOTUS To Hear Arguments On EPA “Climate Change” Power Grab | Trackback URL

Harvard Progressive Suggests Replacing Academic Freedom With Academic Justice

By William Teach February 24, 2014 – 7:46 am

Lest one think this is just a one off, a single thinker in the wind, a lone wolf, this is the way the hardcore leftists think not just around the country, but around the world, especially those who think of themselves as the intellectual elite

(Daily Caller) If this Harvard University student got her way, free speech on campus would be abolished and professors with dissenting views fired, because radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy and the First Amendment is a barrier preventing modern colleges from fulfilling their proper role as indoctrination camps.

Her name is Sandra Korn. She is a senior at Harvard and columnist for the Harvard Crimson.

In a recent column, Korn unambiguously insisted that the university should stop guaranteeing professors and students the right to hold controversial views and pursue research that challenges liberalism.

Here is part of her screed

…Student and faculty obsession with the doctrine of “academic freedom” often seems to bump against something I think much more important: academic justice.

Leftists love throwing around the word “justice”, which is a stand in for “do what we say, think like we think, write what say. You are not allowed to think, say, write, or live in any other way.” This always involves restricting freedom. If anyone gets out of line, they need to be vilified, silenced, fired from their jobs, and have their lives destroyed.

Yet the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?

This is the same reasoning that has Warmists attempting to shut down anyone who fails to follow the dogma of the Cult Of Gore. And, of course, this all means hating Israel

In this case, discourse about “academic freedom” obscures what should fundamentally be a political argument. Those defending the academic boycott should use a more rigorous standard. The ASA, like three other academic associations, decided to boycott out of a sense of social justice, responding to a call by Palestinian civil society organizations for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions until Israel ends its occupation of Palestine. People on the right opposed to boycotts can play the “freedom” game, calling for economic freedom to buy any product or academic freedom to associate with any institution. Only those who care about justice can take the moral upper hand.

Boycotting Israel and supporting Palestinians is all the rage amongst Leftists. The fact that they are supporting people who refuse to recognize Israel and want to wipe the nation of the face of the Earth, fire mortars, rockets, and bullets into Israel,along with sending suicide bombers to Israel, seems to be immaterial to these Israel hating Leftists.

The end result she advocates is censorship, no diversity of thought, a loss of freedom. This is what Progressivism (nice fascism) is about.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Harvard Progressive Suggests Replacing Academic Freedom With Academic Justice »

Posted in Liberal World | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Advocates Murder Of “Climate Change Deniers”

By William Teach February 23, 2014 – 3:04 pm

Remember, the NY Times and other media outlets freaked out over Sarah Palin’s “bullseyes” (via Watts Up With That?)

Blown up

As I wrote the other day “Let’s not forget, Warmists have called for “deniers” to be jailed (and here. Here. Lots more where they came from) and executed (also the first jail link. And here. And more). These are intollerant, anti-science fascists, against freedom of thought and belief that doesn’t jibe with their own beliefs. Yet, interestingly, they themselves will not live the life of their beliefs.”

Anthony Watts writes

Admittedly, this is a lame attempt at humor/satire, something we are all well familiar with applying here at WUWT. But, imagine if the tables were turned, and the cartoon depicted global warming alarmists such as Mike Mann or James Hansen in the same role? Our friends would have a collective cow. Yet, somehow, somebody at the New York Times thinks it is acceptable to suggest “dispatching” a whole class of people that hold a different viewpoint from them.

In Warmist world, this is the height of humor.

Read: NY Times Advocates Murder Of “Climate Change Deniers” »

Posted in Global Warming, Journalistic Malpractice | 36 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 23, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is melting snow because someone took a 3 minute shower, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Powerline, with a post on the IRS scandals.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach February 23, 2014 – 9:44 am

Patriotic Pinup Bill Randall

Happy Sunday! I will not be setting any red lines today in the Once And Future Nation Of America. This pinup is by Bill Randall, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Jo Nova has some interesting information on Greenland ice cores
  2. American Power features homofascist leftists
  3. Black&Right notes Obamacare is affecting real people
  4. Cold Fury discusses the revolution
  5. Fausta is still doing great work in covering Venezuela
  6. Fire Andrea Mitchell notes why Dems love abortion
  7. Five Feet Of Fury has 5 reasons not to trust the media
  8. The Right Pundit covers the NFL’s potential “N-word” rule
  9. Jammie Wearing Fools has another Obamacare success story
  10. Jihad Watch has the real war on women
  11. Michelle Malkin notes why parents are paranoid about Common Core
  12. Moonbattery notes a Google crackdown on WND for covering the news
  13. Outside The Beltway discusses 6 Californias
  14. Pam Geller wins an award along with Obama
  15. And last, but not least, Political Clown Parade notes that Obama lied about Keystone XL again

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Whoops: Public Sector Restricting Work Hours, Health Insurance, Due To Obamacare

By William Teach February 23, 2014 – 8:00 am

Perhaps they’re just trying to free people so they can be poets and play the bongos and commune with nature? Here’s that ultra-Conservative newspaper the NY Times to tell us all about it

Cities, counties, public schools and community colleges around the country have limited or reduced the work hours of part-time employees to avoid having to provide them with health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, state and local officials say.

Unlike the federal government, those entities named actually have to come in on budget. Well, supposedly, considering the number of cities filing for bankruptcy in the country. They can’t easily just take money from taxpayers.

The cuts to public sector employment, which has failed to rebound since the recession, could serve as a powerful political weapon for Republican critics of the health care law, who claim that it is creating a drain on the economy.

So, paragraph two and the Times is already concerned that Democrats could be in trouble.

Even after the administration said this month that it would ease coverage requirements for larger employers, public employers generally said they were keeping the restrictions on work hours because their obligation to provide health insurance, starting in 2015, would be based on hours worked by employees this year. Among those whose hours have been restricted in recent months are police dispatchers, prison guards, substitute teachers, bus drivers, athletic coaches, school custodians, cafeteria workers and part-time professors.

This will give them time to be comedians, writers, and camera people! They can pursue their happiness! They just will have neither the money to do it nor the money to purchase health insurance to avoid the Government fee/tax/fine.

It is not entirely clear how private employers will respond, but as some government officials point out, businesses at least have the option of passing along some of the additional costs to consumers.

Much of that has to do with the public sector unions.

The Obama administration says “there is absolutely no evidence” of any job loss related to the Affordable Care Act. And the Congressional Budget Office says “there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased” as a result of the law.

Strangely, the NY Times random act of journalism provides actual evidence with real world cuts throughout the article.

William J. Lipkin, an adjunct professor of American history and political science at Union County College in Cranford, N.J., said: “The Affordable Care Act, rather than making health care affordable for adjunct faculty members, is making it more unaffordable. Colleges are not giving us access to health care, and our hours are being cut, which means our income is being cut. We are losing on both ends.”

Hmph: a 100% Democrat piece of legislation is negatively affecting the very people (teachers, public sector workers) who tend to vote Democrat. People who supported Obamacare. Whose unions back Democrats 100%. Ironic.

There is entirely too much to excerpt from the article, much of it direct measures and stories of how Obamacare, the “Affordable” Care Act, is affecting workers in the public sector. I suppose now these folks do not have to worry about “job-lock” due to health insurance, eh?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Whoops: Public Sector Restricting Work Hours, Health Insurance, Due To Obamacare »

Posted in Democrats, Healthcare | Comments Off on Whoops: Public Sector Restricting Work Hours, Health Insurance, Due To Obamacare | Trackback URL

NJ Looks To Limit Magazines To 10 Bullets

By William Teach February 22, 2014 – 3:07 pm

Here’s a test for Chris Christie if the legislation makes it to his desk vis a vis running for President as a Republican

(NJ.com) Democratic lawmakers in both house of the legislature have struck a deal that would allow passage of a measure restricting gun owners to a 10-round magazine, down from the current limit of 15, two sources with knowledge of the deal said today.

Fewer rounds in a magazine means more reload time, gun control advocates say, and more time for people involved in a mass shooting to stop the shooter or run away.  The drop, they say, means only an inconvenience for gun owners, while it could save lives.

Of course, since the areas these nuts tend to shoot up are gun free zones, having to take an extra 2-3 seconds here and there to reload shouldn’t bother them.

“The Governor should take to heart the tragic experience of the Sandy Hook families as well as their heartfelt commitment to safety from gun violence for all Americans and sign the ten round maximum capacity bill when it reaches his desk. It’s about public safety,” said Bryan Miller, executive director of Heeding God’s Call, a faith-based organization focused on preventing gun violence. “Opponents of this remarkably moderate and reasonable public safety measure make clear their extremism, for no one needs more than ten rounds for hunting, sport shooting or self defense.”

If no one needs more than 10 rounds for self defense, why do most police officers carry handguns which hold more than 10 rounds? Glock is the most popular, and most of the models for law enforcement hold 15 rounds or more.

It remains to be seen if the Gov. Chris Christie will sign both bills.  Advocates say they have received no indication from the governor if he supports the measures.

If he signs it, he might as well not bother running. Furthermore, if Democrats in the GA pass this, they should make sure that all the security at the buildings they inhabit carry no more than 10 bullets per magazine. That would be only fair.

Read: NJ Looks To Limit Magazines To 10 Bullets »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, GOP | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove