Lucy Explains Liberal Choices

By William Teach March 30, 2013 – 2:12 pm

Via Steven Goddard from Suyts Space.

Read: Lucy Explains Liberal Choices »

Posted in Liberal World | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 30, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is an ocean that will rise up so we need to give lots of money to unions that vote D to build walls, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on Medicare/Medicaid maybe covering sex changes.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

“Voice Of Sense” Rep. Mike Thompson (D) Won’t Give Up His Guns, But Has No Problem Taking Yours

By William Teach March 30, 2013 – 11:15 am

The LA Times calls Thompson (D-Ca) the “Voice of sense in gun debate”

As the national firearms debate reaches a crescendo, a California congressman is proving that you can be both a gun lover and a gun controller.

Rep. Mike Thompson of St. Helena, a moderate “blue dog” Democrat who represents the rugged North Coast and the premier Napa-Sonoma wine country, puts the lie to the National Rifle Assn. demagoguery that this is a firefight between pro-gun and anti-gun forces.

So, he’s already gone barking moonbat. So much for being the “voice of sense”.

“As a hunter and gun owner, I will not give up my guns and I will not ask other law-abiding Americans to give up theirs,” says Thompson, 62, a former state legislator and eight-term congressman. “But as a father and grandfather, I also know we have a responsibility to keep our kids, communities and country safe from gun violence.”

And boom, there you have, the typical liberal position: they won’t make changes in their own lives, yet have no problem slapping restrictions on Someone Else.

“My philosophy is it’s not gun control, but gun violence prevention,” he asserts. “We ought to have reasonable laws that protect the 2nd Amendment and keep our communities safe, and I think we can do both.”

What does he want? Common sense legislation we can all agree on? Not by a long shot. He’s behind Diane Feinstein’s scary looking weapon ban because they “give a bad name to gun owners.” Really?

Thompson also wants a federal ban on magazines which hold more than 10 rounds. He’s calling them “assault magazines”. This is a guy from a state that wants to restrict gun ownership for 10 years for anyone who has been convicted of two DUIs within 5 years, because one has something to do with the other, and surely highlights that Democrats aren’t interested in going after criminals who use guns, but (mostly) law abiding citizens (you know what I mean).

Read: “Voice Of Sense” Rep. Mike Thompson (D) Won’t Give Up His Guns, But Has No Problem Taking Yours »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Hot March In 2012, Cold March In 2013, Obviously Both Are “Climate Change”

By William Teach March 30, 2013 – 8:50 am

Because everything proves their cultish beliefs

(Climate Central) March is finally on its way out, but not before leaving its mark in the unusually cold and snowy weather that affected much of the U.S., Europe, and parts of Asia. The chilly weather has come courtesy of a stuck weather pattern that has repeatedly directed blasts of cold Arctic air southward, while leaving Greenland and northeastern Canada much warmer than average for this time of year.

Think of the Arctic as the Northern Hemisphere’s refrigerator. The blocked weather pattern — which some scientists think may be tied to the rapid warming of the Arctic and the subsequent loss of sea ice cover — has opened the refrigerator door, causing cold air to spill out of the freezer that is the Far North and help develop winter storms in the northern mid-latitudes. One such storm occupied much of the Northern Atlantic on Thursday, stretching from just south of Greenland all the way east to Ireland and Spain.

The cold weather this month has been in stark contrast to last March, when an unprecedentedly long-lasting and intense early spring heat wave sent temperatures soaring into the 80s all the way to the U.S. border with Canada.

Ice Age Now calls the current Warmist talking point about global warming causing massive cold and snow a load of crap. Real Science notes a 35:1 ratio of cold to hot records. Anyhow, first the climate astrologers were telling us that the jet stream was staying northwards because of “climate change”. Now they tell us that it has come further south than normal because of “climate change”. I suppose the warmth has also seen Alaska’s climate go down 2.4 degrees F over the past 10 years.

In the UK they are concerned about people freezing to death, I guess because of all the warmth, if we use the Warmist prognostication.

I can also guarantee, using my super duper computer models (no, you aren’t allowed to see the raw data or methodology), that the minute it starts getting warm the climate astrologers will tell us that the “melting Arctic” is causing it to get warm. All because you drove an SUV and refused to turn your lights out for 1 hour this year.

Read: Hot March In 2012, Cold March In 2013, Obviously Both Are “Climate Change” »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

North Korea Declares State Of War; How Serious Are They?

By William Teach March 30, 2013 – 8:17 am

Should we be concerned by North Korea’s provocation?

(Reuters) North Korea said on Saturday it was entering a “state of war” with South Korea, its latest bout of angry rhetoric directed at Seoul and Washington, but the South brushed off the statement as little more than tough talk.

The North also threatened to shut down an industrial zone it operates jointly with the South near the heavily armed border between the two sides if Seoul continued to say the complex was being kept running for money.

The two Koreas have been technically in a state of war for six decades under a truce that ended their 1950-53 conflict. Despite its threats, few people see any indication Pyongyang will risk a near-certain defeat by re-starting full-scale war.

Bluster or cause for concern?

The South Korean government brushed off the North’s latest statement on entering a state of war, saying there was nothing fresh in it to cause greater alarm. South Koreans went about with daily lives as they have done through March under the North’s constant threat of attack.

South Korea doesn’t seem particularly concerned.

(Fox News) Analysts say a full-scale conflict is extremely unlikely and North Korea’s threats are instead aimed at drawing Washington into talks that could result in aid and boosting leader Kim Jong Un’s image at home. But the harsh rhetoric from North Korea and rising animosity from the rivals that have followed U.N. sanctions over Pyongyang’s Feb. 12 nuclear test have raised worries of a misjudgment leading to a clash.

And that is one of the best breakdowns of the situation: N. Korea wants stuff. This is their pattern year after year after year, no matter which leader who likes to look at things is in charge. Become provocative, use bluster and threats, and the US and the UN come running back to the table to give them things. Like that nuclear reactor President Clinton gave them. I will say that Obama has been treating them correctly: primarily ignoring North Korea and its hissy fits. In child psychology one learns that the best way to handle child hissy fits is to ignore them. Walk away. Of course, children do not have missiles, chemical and biological weapons, and nuclear material.

Still, for whatever reason (could be that Obama understands the situation, or could be that this is part of his typical pattern of laziness), Obama seems to not take their typical bluster seriously, and that has made the NK hissy fit bigger and bigger. Here’s the problem

Officials are concerned that with the rising threats, Kim is backing his regime into a corner where it may be compelled to act in order to save face. And in the near-term, the regime has plenty of ways to do that.

There is concern for NK giving weapons to Iran, Syria, jihadis, and the possibility of “accidental war”, where one small incident quickly escalates. North Korea would be obliterated, but, Seoul, with a population of over 10 million, is in easy range of the border between the countries, and reachable by vast amounts of missiles.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: North Korea Declares State Of War; How Serious Are They? »

Posted in Current Affairs | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Warmists Wonder What The Price Of Carbon Is

By William Teach March 29, 2013 – 3:16 pm

It might be helpful if they stayed in the realm of science, because it’s not carbon they want to regulate, but Carbon Dioxide, not the same

(Climate Progress) This video produced by the Climate Reality Project featuring Reggie Watts demonstrates the argument that because carbon pollution costs us money, the world should put a price on carbon.

Here it is

The Climate Reality Project is pretty much Al Gore’s project, and I love the way they picture CO2 as a some sort of smoke, instead of a trace gas necessary for life.

It’s important to remind viewers that it should be the polluters paying for what their products cost all of us — that they should not simply pass on the costs to everyone else.

Of course. Because Warmists are always willing for Other People to be nailed, but not themselves. That should tell you quite a bit about their belief sets.

Read: Warmists Wonder What The Price Of Carbon Is »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 29, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…are evil dogs causing the planet to boil, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Public Secrets, with a post on the socialist argument against gun control.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmist Admits “Climate Change” Not About Climate

By William Teach March 29, 2013 – 11:47 am

For quite some time now, those of us on the Climate Realist side have pointed out, among others, that the “climate change” movement seems to be focused mostly on pushing far left progressive doctrine. Here’s another Warmist, Cameron Fenton, a Canadian who’s the “National Director, Canadian Youth Climate Coalition”, who lets the cat out of the bag in a post that discusses getting schools to divest themselves from fossil fuels companies

 (HuffPo)  But that’s not the only reason we’re seeing the rise of one of the largest and fastest growing student-led environmental movements in decades.

At a recent convergence in Swathmore, Pensylvania student leaders declared,“Divestment is a tactic, justice is the goal.” In other words, while the main tactic of this movement appears to be an economic one, the goals of this movement go far deeper.

The far left has taken on the mantra of justice, and regardless of whatever pretty words they use, it is about instituting Progressivism (you can also call it Marxism, Socialism, etc), what Jonah Goldberg termed “Nice Fascism”.

Extreme weather, desertification, drought, deforestation, species loss, and the countless more climate disruptions these emissions are driving mean hunger, lack of water access, displacement and worsening impacts on people around the world. Typically, these are the people least responsible for historical climate emissions.

Typically, these are the people who could best reap the rewards from cheap, affordable power, which these 1st World youths are hell bent on denying the 3rd world people. It’s easy for these students to whine and agitate when they can walk over to the wall and flip a switch, to open the door to the fridge, to take a shower in hot water, to jump in the fossil fueled vehicle and head down to the coffee shop for a cupajoe and a croissant.

Divestment is just one tactic in the climate fight. But just like during the student-led campaign to divest from companies complicit in South African Apartheid, others have followed. Already two cities in the United States are reviewing divestment, Seattle and San Francisco, along with a number of public funds and faith institutions.

It’s a far, far road to get from apartheid to “climate justice”, which is a first world problem propagated by students who can spread awareness after a good meal with their high tech devices. Yet, few of them practice what they preach. If they want a carbon neutral life, they should go live somewhere with no power and back-breaking work. But, again, their point is to push fascism, not make the world safe from hotcoldwetdry.

Read: Warmist Admits “Climate Change” Not About Climate »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Collapsing Science, Global Warming, Liberal World | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama To Continue His Finger Wagging Tour On Gun Control In Denver

By William Teach March 29, 2013 – 8:55 am

Did you catch (NMP) Obama’s finger wagging speech yesterday? Here’s Allahpundit

Textbook O. First, almost obligatorily, the speech is built on the assumption that his opponents are callous to the point of malignancy. Read the transcript and you’ll see that he’s all but given up arguing policy on this; it’s a straight-up, 13-minute-long guilt trip, essentially the same point Jim Carrey made the other day but with less colorful language. If you disagree with him, it’s because you’ve “forgotten those kids.” Second, leave it to O to try to revive momentum for gun control with yet another speech after he spent weeks trying and failing to build durable momentum for it by, er, making speeches. All I could think of while watching was “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” which he repeated several thousand times during 2009 and which, as you know, helped make ObamaCare the fantastically popular program it is today.

I had actually picked up the remote to change the channel after a few minutes of the same old same old when Fox switched away. Interestingly, O is still surrounded by people tasked with protecting him who carry scary looking guns with big magazines, something he would prefer that the citizens not have. Anyhow

President Obama will continue his push for gun-control measures during a visit next Wednesday to Denver, where the White House hopes to spotlight new state gun laws.

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper signed legislation last week banning high-capacity magazines and requiring background checks for all gun purchases, effectively closing the so-called gun-show loophole.

During the visit, Obama will “continue to ask the American people to join him in calling on Congress to pass common-sense measures to reduce gun violence,” deputy press secretary Josh Earnest said.

(PINO) Obama mentioned the discredited and false 40% have no background checks meme. I’m sure he’ll try it again as he wags his finger and says “do it for the children”, yet, nothing that he proposes or was passed in Colorado will actually deter criminals. One of his big points in between the guilt trip (surrounded by human shields) is to push legislation that makes it more difficult for people with mental issues to be denied a gun permit. Yet, these people have violated no law. Obama would deny them a handgun permit (which is what is being discussed, unless O and company want to push for background checks on all gun purchases) without due process, as well as violate their privacy.

Perhaps O should task his own employees to enforce existing law, and ask people like mayors involved in Mayors Against Gun Violence to prosecute the law.

BTW, for the people of Denver who think O really cares about them? Yeah, not so much, he surely picked Denver as a way to get the taxpayer to pick up most of the tab for his fundraising trip to California.

Read: Obama To Continue His Finger Wagging Tour On Gun Control In Denver »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Barry Obama | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Rush: Republicans Lost Marriage Debate Once We Modified The Language

By William Teach March 29, 2013 – 8:22 am

An interesting theory, based on a note a friend sent to him

(Rush) The language game, the left really excels at changing the language to benefit them politically, and they do it in such a way that a lot of people on our side have no idea what’s happened until it’s too late and the issue is already lost, which this issue is.  This issue is lost.  I don’t care what the Supreme Court does, this is now inevitable — and it’s inevitable because we lost the language on this.  I mentioned the other day that I’ve heard people talk about “opposite-sex marriage,” or you might have had heard people say “traditional marriage.”

You might have heard people say “hetero-marriage.”  I maintain to you that we lost the issue when we started allowing the word “marriage” to be bastardized and redefined by simply adding words to it, because marriage is one thing, and it was not established on the basis of discrimination. It wasn’t established on the basis of denying people anything.  “Marriage” is not a tradition that a bunch of people concocted to be mean to other people with.  But we allowed the left to have people believe that it was structured that way.

Rush certainly doesn’t mean this is the only reason the fight is lost (I heard this myself live); there are others, but he does have a point that Democrats love to play games with language (Affordable Care Act, undocumented immigrants).

….The thing is, discrimination has never been a part of marriage.

It evolved as the best way to unite men and women in raising a family and in cohabitating a life.  It’s not perfect.  The divorce rate’s what it is.  But it evolved with a purpose.  It was not a creation of a bunch of elitists wanting to deny people a good time.  It was not created as something to deny people “benefits,” but it became that once we started bastardizing the definition.  But discrimination is not an issue, and it never was.  No one sensible is against giving homosexuals the rights of contract or inheritance or hospital visits.

There’s nobody that wants to deny them that.  The issue has always been denying them a status that they can’t have, by definition.  By definition — solely, by definition — same-sex people cannot be married.  So instead of maintaining that and holding fast to that, we allowed the argument to be made that the definition needed to change, on the basis that we’re dealing with something discriminatory, bigoted, and all of these mystical things that it’s not and never has been.

As I mentioned the other day, there is official government discrimination against those who practice plural marriages embedded in the civil and criminal law. Will these same people who fight for “same sex marriage” fight for those people? Will Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama fight for them so that they are no longer discriminated against?

Of course, once the Democrats switched their position on same sex marriage (yes, they used to be the biggest opponents, and some still aren’t particularly happy with it), it was over. Liberals control most of the news and entertainment industry. They made sure to normalize the situation (something we use in sales intentionally to make a not great situation seem no big deal) and expose the issue in a positive light. They feature it on the news all the time.

Marriage is not a Constitutional right, it is a religious ceremony, and should be left in the hands of the Church. Take all issues of marriage out of the tax code. And….well, too late for those who are against gay marriage.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Read: Rush: Republicans Lost Marriage Debate Once We Modified The Language »

Posted in Conservativism | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove