Surprise! 40% Of Democrats Own Guns

By William Teach December 15, 2012 – 12:00 pm

If Democrats really want to go down this road, perhaps they should practice what they preach. In 2011, Gallup did a survey of self-reported gun ownership in the U.S. What did they find?

Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period

Republicans (including independents who lean Republican) are more likely than Democrats (including Democratic leaners) to say they have a gun in their household: 55% to 40%. While sizable, this partisan gap is narrower than that seen in recent years, as Democrats’ self-reported gun ownership spiked to 40% this year.

Of those 40% of Democrats who report a gun in the house, 28% say it is their own gun.

So, I reiterate: if Democrats want gun control, they need to give up their own guns. They need to disarm themselves….what’s that? You Dems say you often have guns for home protection, particularly in cities in which your own policies have made you less safe? And you’re a law abiding citizen? Not a threat to go batshit insane? Nope, sorry, doesn’t matter. Give them up.

Read: Surprise! 40% Of Democrats Own Guns »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Really Excited Over New Global Warming Poll

By William Teach December 15, 2012 – 9:14 am

Notice that I did not term global warming as “hotcoldwetdry” as usual. There’s a reason for that, which I’ll get to after the story, reported breathlessly at the Washington Post (a Warmist emailed me about this story yesterday, wondering why I hadn’t commented on it. That was due to seeing it soon before heading to work, and an inability to see the study itself at the time)

AP-GfK Poll: Belief in global warming rises with thermometers, even among science doubters

Hooray, we’ve already jumped to politics, and that’s just the headline, in referring to those who do not buy into the notion that the current warm period is causing mostly or solely by Mankind as “science doubters”.

A growing majority of Americans think global warming is occurring, that it will become a serious problem and that the U.S. government should do something about it, a new Associated Press-GfK poll finds.

Even most people who say they don’t trust scientists on the environment say temperatures are rising.

I guess us Climate Realists are losing this, eh?

The poll found 4 out of every 5 Americans said climate change will be a serious problem for the United States if nothing is done about it. That’s up from 73 percent when the same question was asked in 2009.

No, 4 out of 5 did not say hotcoldwetdry, ie, “climate change”, was a serious problem. The completely unscientific phrase “climate change wasn’t mentioned in the poll. What we do get in the poll was exactly what I expected to see

If you ask me that question, my answer is “probably been happening.” In fact, warming has been happening. It started in the mid-1800’s as the natural pattern of a cool period ended and the Earth moved into a warm period (which will be followed by a cool period, etc), just as has been happening since the end of the last glacial period 20,000 years ago.

What is missing from the poll is any assignment of causation. They question asked is about warming, but not what the cause is. None of the questions ask about cause. And that is what this debate is about, not warmth, not temperature rise, but causation. Most Climate Realists understand that the earth has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age, but know that most of the rise has been natural, with some global anthropogenic causes, mostly from agriculture and landfills. Throw in land use, such as the Urban Heat Island Effect, and the perceived rise is much lower. Perhaps 10-15% of warming comes from those last two, with the rest being natural.

But, yes, 80% of respondents are freaking out over the warmth, saying we’re dooooooooomed! 49% say it’s “very serious”, 31% say “somewhat serious” Let’s give Warmists some props for a 20+ year campaign of getting people to freak over a whopping 1.4 degree Fahrenheit rise since 1850. If that figure was constantly published, people would be much less likely to believe that we’re doomed.

Of course, Warmists still won’t practice what they preach.

Read: Warmists Really Excited Over New Global Warming Poll »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Carolyn McCarthy Tells Obama “Gloves Will Come Off” If He Fails To Act On Gun Control

By William Teach December 15, 2012 – 8:28 am

Barely minutes had passed after the tragic mass murder occurred in a Connecticut school before Democrats around the country immediately jumped to proclaiming that gun control is needed now. Other than banning all “assault weapons” they’re a little short on details. What should be banned and/or controlled? Which guns? From which people? And here’s a sitting member of the House

(Politico) In the wake of the deadly Connecticut school shooting, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy said she has warned the White House “the gloves are off” if President Obama fails to act on the issue.

McCarthy (D-N.Y.), the foremost gun control advocate in Congress, said she spoke with White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew before Election Day and told him she will exert pressure on the White House to push for gun control legislation.

“I said, ‘Jack, I know the president is going through an election and I’m telling you after the election I’m coming out full force,’” McCarthy told POLITICO Friday. “I was just giving the White House a heads up that the gloves are off on my side and I was going to do everything I possibly could. … If that meant embarrassing everybody, that’s what I would do.”

Embarrassing the White House, McCarthy said, meant building a large-scale public campaign to ban assault weapons. She pledged to continue to work with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others to build support for her cause.

So far, McCarthy has introduced a few pieces of legislation (HR 308, 591, 1781, and 6241) on gun control, none of which would keep weapons out of the hands of wackjobs intent on getting their 15 minutes of fame by committing mass murder before suicide. In fact, we have laws right now against murder. Most follow them. People intent on breaking them really don’t care if assault weapons are banned (will Senator John Kerry, rumored to be the next Secretary of State, give up his own assault rifle?), nor about large capacity magazines being banned, nor about closing the gun show loophole. They’ll use a shotgun. Pistols with mags which hold 10 or less bullets. Make bombs. Use a knife. Manufacture a gun.

Her own statement following this tragedy is pathetic

“Our hearts go out to the victims and families from this horrific tragedy, especially during the holidays when kids should be thinking about presents and having fun with their families and friends, not America’s deadly problem with gun violence.

“There are a lot of unanswered questions right now, but one thing is clear – there’s too much gun violence in our country.  These shootings are becoming all too common, and it’s too easy for dangerous people to get the weapons that help them perform mass executions like today’s.

“Leaders in Washington from both parties, and groups like the NRA, all say that now is not the time to talk about how gun safety laws can save lives in America.  I agree, now is not the time to talk about gun laws – the time for that conversation was long before all those kids in Connecticut died today.

“We owe it to our children to work harder to reduce gun violence.  The Second Amendment is the law of the land but it was never intended to allow murderers to take the lives of innocent kids.  It’s our moral obligation as policymakers and as parents to do more to save lives.

“I hope the President’s words about taking ‘meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this regardless of the politics’ stay true as we continue down this road again.”

She took approximate 2 seconds to express that Someone Else is saddened before politicizing this tragedy. She could not even say that she herself was saddened.

The White House petition website has already seen an influx of petitions calling for some sort of nebulous gun laws, as well as a “national dialogue”, including one that has over 67K signatures. I’ll tell you what

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Carolyn McCarthy Tells Obama “Gloves Will Come Off” If He Fails To Act On Gun Control »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Hamas Linked CAIR Tries To Reposition “Jihad” Through PR Campaign

By William Teach December 14, 2012 – 2:46 pm

Because apparently jihad is all sorts of soft and fuzzy bunny

(Daily Caller) An Islamic-advocacy group linked to terrorism is launching a public-relations campaign to argue that jihad doesn’t mean Islamic holy war, but instead a “concerted effort … with the purpose of getting to a better place.”

However, the campaign, which is being launched Dec. 14 by an affiliate of the Council on American Islamic Relations, isn’t a formal religious declaration by United States or Arab Islamic authorities and clashes with orthodox judgments dating back 1,400 years to the beginning of Islam.

“It is [public] education about what we believe,” said Ahmed Rehab, who serves as the founder of the project, head of CAIR’s Chicago affiliate and CAIR’s strategic communications chief.

The article goes on to describe how jihad has been used by some Islamists. You know, in all those violent ways that are specified in the Koran. Things like killing the un-believer.

In contrast, Rehab’s “MyJihad” public-relations campaign portrays jihad as “a concerted and noble effort against injustice, hate, misunderstanding, war, violence, poverty, hunger, abuse or whatever challenge big or small we face in daily life, with the purpose of getting to a better place,” according to the campaign’s website, MyJihad.org.

Does “getting to a better place” usually involve blowing people to kingdom come? Beheading them? Supporting groups which intentionally target civilians?

Robert Spencer covers this article, as well as explaining jihad.

Read: Hamas Linked CAIR Tries To Reposition “Jihad” Through PR Campaign »

Posted in RoP, War On Terrorism | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 14, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fridge heating up the planet, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on how the liberal media de-legitimizes dissent.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Here We Go: Warmists Pushing “Micro-Housing” Again

By William Teach December 14, 2012 – 11:55 am

I dare them to move in themselves

(Grist) At the bus stop one day, Molly noticed a building of “aPodments” — a trademarked brand of microhousing that has sprung up in Seattle over the last year like mushrooms after a rainstorm. (One local blog counts at least 15 projects constructed or in the works in just one neighborhood.) She called to inquire on a Friday and moved in on Monday. She has a three-month lease and pays $595 per month (utilities and internet included) for a furnished, dorm-sized room with a private bathroom, refrigerator, and access to a full-sized common kitchen.

Microhousing — a catch-all term for ultra-compact apartments that sometimes share common spaces — offers a way to reconcile rising urban housing prices with a financially struggling generation’s preference for city living. It’s proliferating in cities where the tension between those contradictory trends is most acute: Seattle, San Francisco, New York, Vancouver. San Francisco updated its city code to allow developers to build smaller individual units (a minimum of 150 square feet), and New York is reviewing design proposals for a pilot microhousing project of apartments around 275 to 300 square feet. Seattle’s approach has been a bit messier.

Good grief. Altogether, I pay around $800 a month for mortgage and utilities for a 1,200 square foot townhouse with a view of the Neuse River here in Raleigh. I even have my own kitchen! These crazies pay approaching that for a tiny dwelling. Of course, this is what Warmists want for Other People, to live tiny lives. It’s also easier to control and monitor people if you get them all living in the cities.

Read: Here We Go: Warmists Pushing “Micro-Housing” Again »

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

Right To Work Laws Empower Employees

By William Teach December 14, 2012 – 7:32 am

In Liberal World, having the choice to abort a baby is a good thing. Having the choice to pay union dues? That’s tantamount to heresy and the End Of Life As We Know It. James Sherk explains that liberals should take a deep breath

(US News And World Report) Right-to-work laws benefit both nonunion and union workers as well as the unemployed. Without right-to-work, unions negotiate contracts requiring employers to fire workers who don’t pay union dues. Employees must pay the union $500 to $1,000 a year or lose their job.

Workers have the right to unionize if they choose. But if workers don’t support a union, the law shouldn’t force them to pay dues.

Right-to-work puts employees in the driver’s seat: They pay only if they see value from the union’s services. This accountability prevents unions from presuming workers’ support. In the long run, right-to-work makes them more effective representatives.

And if they see no value in the union, they shouldn’t be forced to pay dues. The stated purpose of unions is to protect workers and represent them. But, unions, especially public sector unions, seem to spend most of their time strong arming companies and especially the government, wringing massive, unfordable concessions, and lobbying for more Democrats to be elected in order to get even more concessions out of government, all while spending tons of union dues on supporting Democrats. This is an incestuous relationship, which would be termed a conflict of interest out in the private sector. And the taxpayers are the ones on the hook.

Do unions serve a purpose? Yes, when they are dealing with their proper mission, which is protecting the workers. As someone who previously worked for a big, big company in which a union was present, said union was mostly helpful. It didn’t necessarily protect the worker from the company, but from crummy bosses. I could mention a few times where bargained employees were able to use the union to protect themselves, as they were not comfortable going to HR, as they knew damned well that they would be subject to very subtle retaliation. In fact, one of the cases revolved around a worker at another store using the union after first going to HR, because there was subtle retaliation from a higher ranking company official. Hell, as a non-bargained employee (management) I would have liked the same protection at times. I even called the union rep one time to ask them to have a talk with an employee who was getting close to termination for attendance issues but was tuning me out. Didn’t listen to the rep, either.

Unions have a place when they are realistic. Unfortunately, they also go way, way too far. Especially with public sector negotiations. However

Unions respond by arguing that right-to-work allows nonunion employees to “freeload.” They argue the law shouldn’t force them to represent employees who don’t pay dues. It’s a powerful argument, but rests on a false premise.

The National Labor Relations Act permits—but doesn’t mandate—unions to represent every worker at a company. If unions do so, the law requires them to represent nonunion employees fairly. However, as Justice William Brennan wrote a half-century ago, “‘Members only’ contracts have long been recognized” by the Supreme Court. Unions voluntarily represent nonunion workers. That hardly justifies forcing them to pay dues.

First off, they make the choice to represent only bargained employees. As management level, I couldn’t have gone to them (bummer). But, they can choose to not represent those who do not pay dues. And, in my opinion, if someone chooses to not pay dues, then the union should not represent them. Perhaps they could come up with a “pay for play” scheme for those who do not pay dues. Either way, no pay, no representation. Perhaps this would also give employees the power to negotiate for their own pay, and receive raises according to their own work, rather than a pay scale. There were numerous times when I was giving the same pay raise to a person rated as a 1 as a worker rated a 5 (on a scale of 0-5). Prior to the union, the former would have gotten a 1% raise, the latter a 5% raise.

Either way, the big issue is the public sector workers, which put the US taxpayer on the hook for unsustainable and out of control pay and benefits.

Read: Right To Work Laws Empower Employees »

Posted in Current Affairs | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Steve King Calls Benghazi 10 Times Bigger Than Watergate

By William Teach December 14, 2012 – 7:02 am

Now that Susan Rice has dropped out in the race to be the next Secretary of State (she whines about making the right call), perhaps we can finally get to the inquiry regarding the real issues surrounding Benghazi

(Washington Times) Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican, said Wednesday that the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is 10 times bigger than the Watergate and Iran-Contra scandals put together.

“I believe that it’s a lot bigger than Watergate, and if you link Watergate and Iran-Contra together and multiply it times maybe 10 or so, you’re going to get in the zone where Benghazi is,” Mr. King said. “I don’t think the public has any idea, and I tell you, I don’t either, of the chronology of the events — what took place, and who was where doing what and why. And all the way down through — we still haven’t seen an autopsy report on the ambassador yet. Simple questions that you would ask in the first 24 hours have not been asked yet.”

He, and others, are calling for a massive Watergate style committee investigation. And it would be about time. The question is, what will they investigate? So far, the Republicans involved, such as John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and Kelly Ayote, have been investigating the 3rd most important issue, namely, what’s up with the stupid talking points that came out post-attack. The issues of why security was so lax at the consulate, even though they knew the area was increasing dangerous and those in Libya were screaming for more security, and what was actually done during the attack, leaving Americans to die, are much more important.

Some have suggested that the talking points were cover for the Obama administration since they might have been running guns, or something else. Bad, yes. Leaving Americans to die on the ground while drones circled overhead and broadcasting the attack in real time? Much, much worse. That’s what needs investigation.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is heading to Capital Hill

Amid ongoing questions about the September violence in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton heads to Capitol Hill next week to testify on the matter, appearing before both House and Senate committees to answer questions about the sequence of events that led up to the attacks, and how the State Department hopes to prevent similar incidents in the future.

“We ask our diplomats and development personnel to operate in some of the most dangerous places on the planet,” said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where she’ll appear next Thursday morning. “We owe it to them, and we owe it to the memory of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his three fellow Americans who lost their lives in Benghazi to get past the politics and focus on the substance of what happened and what it tells us about diplomatic security going forward.”

Who wants to place a bet that the Senate FRC whitewashes what happens and shuts down Republicans who ask tough questions? I’m hoping that the GOP asks important questions on what was going on before and during the attack, not on the talking points about it being a spontaneous film review with heavy weapons and RPGs.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Steve King Calls Benghazi 10 Times Bigger Than Watergate »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

PBO faces task of running dozens of health exchanges

By William Teach December 13, 2012 – 6:16 pm

I’m shocked that most states aren’t interested in developing and administering ObamaCare exchanges

Fourteen U.S. states and the District of Columbia so far have told the federal govern­ ment they plan to operate healthcare ex­ changes under President Barack Obama’s reform law, leaving Washington with the daunting task of creating online market­ places for at least two-thirds of the coun­ try.

On the eve of a federal deadline for states to say whether they will run their own exchanges, a top U.S. healthcare policy official told lawmakers that the exchanges will start enrolling eligible families starting on Oct. 1, 2013.

So, they’re just going overwhelm the Central Planning Office.

  http://tinyurl.com/aja7o5z shared via www.newshog.co

Read: PBO faces task of running dozens of health exchanges »

Posted in Healthcare | Comments Off on PBO faces task of running dozens of health exchanges | Trackback URL

Schoolkids Won’t Know What Angeles National Forest Looks Like

By William Teach December 13, 2012 – 5:46 pm

Won’t someone think of the kids?

Roads in the Angeles National Forest will close at 10 p.m. Wednesday because of expected snow and ice from a storm making its way to Southern California from the Gulf of Alaska.

It’s so terrible!

Read: Schoolkids Won’t Know What Angeles National Forest Looks Like »

Posted in Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove