Dhimmis In San Francisco Not Happy About Anti-Jihad Ads

By William Teach March 13, 2013 – 7:29 am

In case you missed it, the Council on Islamic-American Relations has been running ads attempting to paint “jihad” as being a positive thing. Some are fighting back by exposing the reality, and this has made some in San Fran unhappy as the campaign uses actual Islamist quotes

(CBS SF) A controversy has been re-ignited this week as ten new ads go up on San Francisco Muni buses containing quotes used by terrorists.

“Killing Jews is worship that draws us closer to Allah,” reads one of the ads, which has people debating the line between free speech and hate speech.

“The purpose of our campaign is to show the reality of Jihad, the root causes of terrorism. Using the exact quotes and text that they use,” said Pamela Geller of the American Freedom Defense Institute.

Obviously, leaders in San Fran are being extremely tolerant about AFDI’s freedom of speech

Several San Francisco city leaders, including District Attorney George Gascon, have condemned the campaign.

“San Francisco won’t tolerate Islamophobic bigotry,” said Gascon. “The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to look the other way and do nothing.”

Islamophobic bigotry designed to shut down debate? Check. Liberals really do not like the notion of using Islamist words against Islamist, much like they detest using liberal words against liberals. As the first comment on the story goes “It’s ironic that it’s being labeled “hate speech,” since they are all quotes from “Islamic Scholars””. The second part is amusing, because looking away from what the Islamists really want to accomplish and what their words mean is exactly what Gascon is proposing. In fact, one SF dhimmi plans to introduce a resolution to denounce the ads. Not the words of the Islamists, mind you, but exposing what jihad has meant.

“When someone attacks our religion it’s like they are attacking us,” said Oakland Imam Salah el Seeiadi in response to the new ads.

Because Islamists do not particularly like having their own words spit back at them.

Meanwhile, Muni, which runs the buses, plans to run their own ad campaign that will promote “peace and tolerance”. Islamists are sure to thank them.

Read: Dhimmis In San Francisco Not Happy About Anti-Jihad Ads »

Posted in Dhimmitude, Liberal World, RoP | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Applying For Obamacare Could Be As Fun As Doing Taxes

By William Teach March 13, 2013 – 7:06 am

ObamaCare gets more and more fun as each day passes (via Hot Air)

(AP) Applying for benefits under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul could be as daunting as doing your taxes.

The government’s draft application runs 15 pages for a three-person family. An outline of the online version has 21 steps, some with additional questions.

Seven months before the Oct. 1 start of enrollment season for millions of uninsured Americans, the idea that getting health insurance could be as easy as shopping online at Amazon or Travelocity is starting to look like wishful thinking.

At least three major federal agencies, including the IRS, will scrutinize your application. Checking your identity, income and citizenship is supposed to happen in real time, if you apply online.

Sounds fun and exciting! Who doesn’t like filling out lots and lots of forms? Oh, um

That’s just the first part of the process, which lets you know if you qualify for financial help. The government asks to see what you’re making because Obama’s Affordable Care Act is means-tested, with lower-income people getting the most generous help to pay premiums.

At that point, if you qualify, then you have to actually pick an insurance plan. And understand insurance jargon. Fortunately, like doing taxes, it’s not an option (unless you work for Obama and the federal government). You are required to have health insurance, as you remember. It’s apparently so intensive that Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a big time backer of Obamacare, has a recommendation

“When you combine those two processes, it is enormously time consuming and complex,” added Pollack. He’s calling for the government to simplify the form and, more important, for an army of counselors to help uninsured people navigate the new system. It’s unclear who would pay for these navigators.

If you’re talking about needing an “army of counselors” to fill out a form to see if you even qualify, the process is unbelievably difficult.

Then there’s this

Does anyone even know what all these regulations are and mean? Including the people who wrote them?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Applying For Obamacare Could Be As Fun As Doing Taxes »

Posted in Healthcare | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Socialist Worker Not A Big Fan Of Cap And Rebate AGW Scheme

By William Teach March 12, 2013 – 3:25 pm

Why, because only 3/5ths of the money goes back to the people. The article actually provides a pretty good explanation of how the Boxer/Sanders legislation would work (I’ve got it somewhere back in the archives, too), then we get

(Socialist Worker) But Boxer and Sanders undercut the “fee-and-dividend” plan in a crucial respect: Their legislation would only rebate 60 percent of revenues from the carbon fee, leaving the likelihood that consumers would part of the price increases–since energy companies wouldn’t be restricted in any way from passing on the cost.

Worse, the two Democrats make a completely unnecessary nod to “deficit hawks” by proposing that 25 percent of carbon fee revenues be used to reduce the deficit. The real solution to the deficit is taxing the rich.

That’s pretty much the solution to every fiscal problem for the Left, tax the rich. Anyhow, they don’t like that plan. They prefer James Hansen’s 100% rebate idea, but even that has limitations, in that it dares to leave actual decisions in the hands of evil corporations. Let’s jump to the end

Only when we lose respect for those willing to destroy the planet and build a radical environmental movement, with the working class at its heart, will we be able to stop fracking, stop strangling the earth with pipelines, save the planet, dump the oil companies and build a new world based on solidarity and sustainability.

Gee, ya think this is about the healing the planet or about installing far left control mechanisms and government?

Read: Socialist Worker Not A Big Fan Of Cap And Rebate AGW Scheme »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach March 12, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil energy sucking smartphone, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, who notes that there’s no Sequester for White House big money makers.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Thomas Friedman: Warmists Should Go Crazy If Obama Approves Keystone XL

By William Teach March 12, 2013 – 10:44 am

This op-ed piece came the day before the NY Times editorial board decided to say they can’t support Keystone (via The Hockey Schtick and James Taranto)

No to Keystone. Yes to Crazy.

I HOPE the president turns down the Keystone XL oil pipeline. (Who wants the U.S. to facilitate the dirtiest extraction of the dirtiest crude from tar sands in Canada’s far north?) But I don’t think he will. So I hope that Bill McKibben and his 350.org coalition go crazy. I’m talking chain-themselves-to-the-White-House-fence-stop-traffic-at-the-Capitol kind of crazy, because I think if we all make enough noise about this, we might be able to trade a lousy Keystone pipeline for some really good systemic responses to climate change.

Taranto writes

Remember when the Times and some of its columnists were crusading to silence “uncivil” language by their political adversaries and media rivals? By contrast, directly urging unlawful activity is acceptable on the pages of the Times if it furthers a leftist agenda.

Say, I wonder when Thomas will give up his own fossil fueled travel?

Read: Thomas Friedman: Warmists Should Go Crazy If Obama Approves Keystone XL »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Nanny Bloomberg Not Happy With Soda Ban Block, Vows More Nannyism

By William Teach March 12, 2013 – 7:49 am

In case you missed it, a judge has struck down Michael Bloomberg’s big sugary drink ban, partly due to Bloomberg sidestepping the city council, partly because it was “arbitrary and capricious” in what was banned and what wasn’t. Bloomberg vows to fight the ruling, because NYC has absolutely no other problems

(Newsday) New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said a judge was “clearly in error” for blocking the city’s ban on jumbo-sized sugary drinks and vowed a vigorous fight to overturn the ruling and highlight the “deadly” scourge of obesity as a public health problem that inordinately affects the poor.

“If we are serious about fighting obesity, we have to be honest about what causes it and we have to have the courage to tackle it head-on,” Bloomberg said during a City Hall news conference Monday after the State Supreme Court justice’s ruling in Manhattan.

Right, because instead of getting a big sugary 20 ounce drink (or bigger), people can’t purchase two 16 ounce instead. And could possibly end up drinking more. And who’s this “we”? That’s the problem with Progressives (fascists): they always want to tell you what to do.

“It’s not enough to talk and it’s not enough to hope,” Bloomberg said. “We have a responsibility as human beings to do something to save each other. While other people will wring their hands over the problem of sugary drinks, in New York City we’re doing something about it.”

In other words, he knows what’s best for you, so your freedom of choice should be taken away when it comes to drinks that are legal under the law everywhere but in his own mind. Perhaps Nanny B should spend more time trying to eliminate serious problems like, oh, say, gangs, rapes, drugs, and violence in NYC.

“I’ve got to defend my children and you and everyone else and do what’s right to save lives,” he said in response to a question. “Obesity kills. There’s just no question about it … It would be irresponsible not to try to do everything we can to save lives.

That way lies totalitarianism. For your own good. And Nanny B intends to spend lots of time fighting the ruling, because it’s not like he and NYC have other pressing issues, especially when they waste lots of taxpayer money on the judicial proceedings.

Read: Nanny Bloomberg Not Happy With Soda Ban Block, Vows More Nannyism »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Liberal World, Nanny State | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Green Cars Not So Green

By William Teach March 12, 2013 – 6:52 am

I, and others, have posted material showing that electric cars and hybrids are not exactly environmentally nor hotcoldwetdry friendly. Here’s  another in the Wall Street Journal (h/t Dana)

Bjorn Lomborg: Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret

Electric cars are promoted as the chic harbinger of an environmentally benign future. Ads assure us of “zero emissions,” and President Obama has promised a million on the road by 2015. With sales for 2012 coming in at about 50,000, that million-car figure is a pipe dream. Consumers remain wary of the cars’ limited range, higher price and the logistics of battery-charging. But for those who do own an electric car, at least there is the consolation that it’s truly green, right? Not really.

For proponents such as the actor and activist Leonardo DiCaprio, the main argument is that their electric cars—whether it’s a $100,000 Fisker Karma (Mr. DiCaprio’s ride) or a $28,000 Nissan Leaf—don’t contribute to global warming. And, sure, electric cars don’t emit carbon-dioxide on the road. But the energy used for their manufacture and continual battery charges certainly does—far more than most people realize.

A 2012 comprehensive life-cycle analysis in Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that almost half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery. The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.

Now, granted, the “carbon emissions” of an electric vehicle are half that of a standard gas vehicle, at least while run on battery power (wait, they have CO2 emission? That means they must be Evil like fossil fueled vehicles, and should be eliminated). The problem, as Bjorn points out, is that you have to drive it a lot on battery power to get ahead environmentally. Which also means stopping to recharge every 70 miles or so (depending on the vehicle, could be much less).

If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles. Similarly, if the energy used to recharge the electric car comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will be responsible for the emission of almost 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every one of the 50,000 miles it is driven—three ounces more than a similar gas-powered car.

One would have to drive it considerably more and stay away from any coal fired charging points in order to save a tiny bit of CO2 output over a similar size 100% fossil fueled vehicle.

So, the obvious solution is for all Warmists to abandon not only their fossil fueled vehicles, but their EVs as well, and simply buy a bicycle to get to work and around town. Lead the way, Warmists!

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Bummer: Green Cars Not So Green »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Energy, Environment, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Next Dem Assault On 2nd Amendment: Big Taxes On Ammo

By William Teach March 11, 2013 – 6:56 pm

Don’t worry, they’re just trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. No need to be alarmed

(LA Times) Efforts are underway in Congress and at least half a dozen states, including California, to raise taxes on firearms or ammunition to pay for programs targeting gun violence.

In Congress, a group of Democrats, led by Rep. Linda T. Sanchez of Lakewood, is pushing for an additional 10% tax on handgun purchases that could generate tens of millions of dollars nationwide to fund gun buybacks, firearms safety campaigns and anti-violence programs.

Legislation that would impose taxes on guns or bullets has also been introduced in Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey and Washington state. In Sacramento, a bill by Democratic Assemblyman Roger Dickinson would impose a nickel tax on every bullet sold in California to pay for screening and treating young children for mental illness.

Let’s see: I typically pay about $2.50 for a box of 50 Winchester .22LR for my Walther P22. So, that would double the cost per box.

Massachusetts state Rep. David Linsky, who has proposed a 25% tax on the sale of guns and ammunition to fund mental health programs, police training and crime victims’ programs, said that gun owners bore some responsibility for funding mental healthcare because of the effect of firearms on public health and safety.

Interesting. Law abiding gun owners bear responsibility, but apparently Hollywood, the entertainment industry, and the games industry bear no responsibility. I bet Linsky feels that Obama bears no responsibility for anything that has happened during his presidency. Want to know who does bear responsibility? Democrats, and their soft on crime policies.

In Maryland, legislation has been introduced to impose a 50% tax on most ammunition and establish a $25 annual gun registration fee.

Nope, nothing to do with infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

Erika Johnson discusses a similar article on sin taxing bullets. Also available at Hot Air, we learn that Dem. Rep Jan Schakowsky wants to consider banning all handguns. But, remember, this is all about keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Or something.

Read: Next Dem Assault On 2nd Amendment: Big Taxes On Ammo »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 11, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is a field that would be perfect for a wind turbine farm (as long as it’s far away from your house), you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Troglopundit, with a post on Neanderthal killing bunnies…wait, what?

Read: If All You See… »

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

Fish Wrap Finally Decides They Don’t Like Keystone XL Cause Of Possible Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach March 11, 2013 – 11:35 am

Now, if only the big wigs at the NY Times would reduce their own “carbon footprint” by turning the heat down to 50 degrees during the winter and up to 80 during the summer…better yet, why not simply turn the heat/AC systems off and open the windows?….along with reducing all fossil fueled Times travel, including distribution of their paper edition? Anyhow, here’s the editorial board

When to Say No

The State Department’s latest environmental assessment of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline makes no recommendation about whether President Obama should approve it. Here is ours. He should say no, and for one overriding reason: A president who has repeatedly identified climate change as one of humanity’s most pressing dangers cannot in good conscience approve a project that — even by the State Department’s most cautious calculations — can only add to the problem.

It is these long-term consequences that Mr. Obama should focus on. Mainstream scientists are virtually unanimous in stating that the one sure way to avert the worst consequences of climate change is to decarbonize the world economy by finding cleaner sources of energy while leaving more fossil fuels in the ground. Given its carbon content, tar sands oil should be among the first fossil fuels we decide to leave alone.

The same problem delivery of the NY Times’ dead tree edition augments. And the fossil fueled travel used by its reporters.

In itself, the Keystone pipeline will not push the world into a climate apocalypse. But it will continue to fuel our appetite for oil and add to the carbon load in the atmosphere. There is no need to accept it.

Climate apocalypse!!!!!!1!!! We’re dooooooomed! But not doomed enough for the Times to give up its own use of fossil fuels and lower their own “carbon footprint.” Yeah, we’re basically talking about big shot Progressives who Know Better than you little people, and you should just accept that they Know Better and that your cost of living will rise dramatically, all why they jet off to exotic vacation spots to carp about hotcoldwetdry.

Don’t forget that the other big paper, the Washington Post, supported Keystone XL.

Read: Fish Wrap Finally Decides They Don’t Like Keystone XL Cause Of Possible Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming, Wonky Media | 44 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove