…is an ocean that will rise up from evil carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on 5 takeaways from the Benghazi report.
Ending British week two days early, heading into American babes week with July 4th coming up.
Read: If All You See… »
Leftists/Democrats have despised the US military ever since the Vietnam war, and have worked hard to diminish it, along with other hated entities, like the Christian religion and the US intelligence services. Fortunately, there were enough Republicans, along with a few Blue Dog Democrats, to stand in the way. So, instead of destroying the military from the outside, they’ve worked overtime to infiltrate the military and change it from the inside, much as they’ve done with so many other systems: Hollywood, education, the news media, etc.
We now have gays in the military, which will cause many to say “nope, no thanks” in joining and retention. They OK’d women for combat roles, but, they didn’t get the reduction of standards which was their intent. At least yet. They just approved the gender confused. And they’ve been pushing Hotcoldwetdry from the top. It’s all meant to utterly change the US military into a left wing dominated entity. The fact that this reduces defensive capabilities is actually a point
(Daily Caller) Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse recently told people gathered in New York City that global warming “denial†hurts U.S. soldiers in the field and that the “main problem†with the military is its reluctance to join the climate crusade.
“The problem has been that the uniformed military has been reluctant to put its voice into – or its image into this fight,†Whitehouse said, according to a YouTube video posted Thursday.
Here’s the full quote, via Climate Depot, which also features the video
“The problem has been that the uniformed military has been reluctant to put its voice into– or its image into this fight. So, you’ve got the civilians, you’ve got the Quadrennial Defense Reviews, you’ve got the intelligence estimates, you’ve got the statements from our head of CINCPAC back when Admiral Locklear that this was the threat in the Pacific more than any other likely to disrupt things in a way that would disturb American interests. But, it’s hard to put a panel of people in uniform in front of the Environmental and Public Works Committee and say, you know, I’m a general, I’m an Admiral, I’m the head of the Marine Corps, we’re telling you–. What the Navy has done that’s been really interesting, Ray Maybus said he’s starting to actually evaluate his– you know, the military lives by evaluation– they’re starting to evaluate their base commanders on how well they communicate the risk of climate change about the base. So, if you’re the base commander of Norfolk, or of Naval Station Newport, or of– what is it, Cherry Creek Marine Air Station in North Carolina– you are suddenly have on your checklist of what you’re evaluated on how well you’ve communicated what the risk of climate change is. And, for those bases, for Navy bases particularly, it’s a really real risk. They’re on the sea. Sea level rise is going to swamp what they do. It’s really practical. So, when people hear it from as trusted a source as a uniformed military officer it will make a big difference, and they have not been very forward about it from the uniform side of the military. DOD has been good. Mabus has been the best.â€
Instead of being evaluated on how ready the commanders have their subordinates to fight against actual enemies, they’ll have to waste time worrying about tiny changes in climate. And, yes, weather can have, and has had, a big effect on military campaigns. They should worry about weather. But, this will be about how evil mankind is putting out evil carbon pollution, a wholly political creation, and, much like Special Snowflakes worry about stupid stuff that has no bearing on the Real World, military commanders and their troops will have to do the same.
When this is being pushed by the elected officials and their political appointees, the commanders have to pay attention and take action, no matter how stupid.
Loathe him or love him, this is another reason to make sure Trump gets elected over Hillary, to put an end to the destruction of our military.
By the way, Sheldon, it’s Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point. The least he could do when mentioning a military base is get the name right.
Read: Senator Whitehouse: Military Should Fight ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »
Jeffrey Kahn, a law professor at Southern Methodist University, a guy who knows a bit about the government’s secret lists, having written a book titled “Mrs. Shipley’s Ghost: The Right to Travel and Terrorist Watchlistsâ€, writes in the NY Times about Democrats wanting to use secret lists, and finds them to be a big problem with civil liberties which wouldn’t actually do anything
A ‘No Buy’ List for Guns Is a Bad Idea
….
Very few people on the terrorist watch list, which is estimated to include at least 800,000 identities, are buying guns. According to a report in March from the Government Accountability Office, out of the 23.1 million background checks conducted last year in accordance with federal gun laws, only 244 involved people on the watch list. That’s 0.001 percent of checked sales.As for the no-fly list: According to an estimate provided by the director of the Terrorist Screening Center in 2014, about 9 out of 10 identities on that list are neither United States citizens nor lawful residents. Thus, they are already largely unable, or not permitted, to buy guns here.
Since the no-fly list is created from the larger watch list, presumably an even lower percentage of people on it are seeking guns. (The Collins bill would also cover people on the so-called selectee list, who are subject to additional airport screening, but the effect on gun sales would seem to be similarly small.)
What Mr. Kahn is missing is the possibility that American citizens will be thrown onto one of the lists, people who are not terrorists, but might have Wrongthink. How do some folks end up on a list? How did Senator Ted Kennedy get on it, as cited so often? Actually, he wasn’t. It was someone named T. Kennedy on the “Selectee” list, so, Ted continued to be stopped. See how easy it is to cause problems for an American citizen? Think how easy it would be for some bureacrat or political appointee to put someone on a list, even in a subtle manner, and cause you problems. Perhaps you aren’t interested in buying a gun. What if you want to fly? You can join the ranks of children, toddlers, nuns, and Ted Kennedy in having problems.
Of course, you might think that eliminating even just one gun sale to a suspected terrorist is worth the effort. But that assumes these lists should be trusted in the first place. And they shouldn’t be.
The threats that the terrorist watch list and no-fly list pose to civil liberties — indeed, to the very idea of citizenship — are enormous. Watch lists are designed to circumvent the protections of due process and the separation of powers. They subvert a principle of our free society: Our rights aren’t held on loan until a government official labels us suspect, at which point they are easily stripped away; our rights are ours unless and until a court concludes that we have violated the law.
These lists provide little to no due process. They require barely any proof. For liberals who are A-OK with them, remember how you caterwauled about Los Federales listening to international calls without a specific warrant. These calls were mostly between non-US citizens, and had a blanket warrant. You were appalled. Appalled! Yet, you’re fine with using these lists with little to no civil liberties protections to deny people their Constitutional rights? Even the ACLU has a problem with these lists.
Don’t expect a no-gun list to be the stopping point. We already have a no-fly list, and there is also a no-maritime list (because the destruction of a cruise liner at sea is no less terrifying than terrorism in the skies). A suicide bomber in a sports stadium could spawn a “no Super Bowl†list. A “no X†list will always tempt lawmakers. But rights lose their value when they can be emptied of meaning by an easily affixed terrorist label.
Think lawmakers wouldn’t create new lists? Think they wouldn’t use them for political gain or revenge? Or just because they can? Then you aren’t paying attention to politics. Mr. Kahn ends with this quote
“Experience should teach us,†Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in 1928, “to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent.â€
Here’s another one from the ever wise (and made up) character of Jean Luc Picard: “With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.” Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom and warning. The first time any man’s freedom is trodden on, we’re all damaged.”
Or, how about the one at the top of this blog, from uber-Leftist Noam Chomsky: “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” It’s not just about expression: it’s about civil rights overall. If you’re cool with denying Constitutional Rights to That Guy, to Someone Else, well, don’t be shocked or upset when all of a sudden you are caught in that same net.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: NY Times: A Gun “No Buy” List Is A Bad Idea, And Would Also Have Little Effect »
Democrats have been agitating for a gun control bill that uses all those government lists, but, they seem very unhappy that Citizens will get Due Process
House Dems may get gun vote, but on a bill they oppose
House Democrats, responding to reports that Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., will schedule a vote next week on gun legislation, are already dismissing the gesture.
Ryan told Republicans on a conference call Thursday that he planned to bring legislation to the floor that would prevent individuals on the no-fly list from buying guns, according to multiple news reports. The speaker did not specify which measure he planned to proceed with, but Democrats believe it will be similar to a proposal they voted down in the Senate last week, saying it was unworkable.
That provision, sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and supported by the National Rifle Association, would have allowed the attorney general to stop gun sales to people on watch lists but only after proving probable cause before a judge within three days, a timeframe and standard of proof that Democrats say is unrealistic.
“House Democrats will keep up our efforts to push for the majority to allow a vote on gun violence legislation, but bringing up a bill authored by the NRA just isn’t going to cut it,†said Drew Hammill, spokesman for Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
Democrats are showing their cards in that they’re getting what they want, the ability to use those lists. They just do not want, to repeat, Due Process, which means they cannot arbitrarily throw citizens on those lists and deny them their Rights. The bill is not written by the NRA, but, they do approve of it. Furthermore, one has to consider that the ACLU is against the bills Democrats have been pushing, since they deny Due Process.
For the life of me, I can’t understand why Democrats get upset when they’re accused of hating the Constitution.
Read: House Dems Have A Sad That GOP Will Bring Up A Gun Control Bill That Protects Due Process »
…is an ocean that will rise up hundreds of feet unless we instituted lots of taxes, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Liberty Zone, with a post on Special Snowflakes finding their stuff doesn’t fly in the real world.
And a doubleshot below the fold, so I can link up Nocturnal Lives, who discusses the same article, ripping apart the Special Snowflake. (and added to the feedreader)
No British flag, but, Liz Hurley says “British!!!!!!”, does she not?
Read: If All You See… »
One of the things that all the Democrat attorney generals who’ve decided to go after Exxon forgot is that there is this thing called “The Constitution”. Oh, and the law. Standards of conduct. And that Exxon is a really, really big company which keeps really smart lawyers on the payroll, ones who certainly graduated from some of the best law schools in the world. And can pay to hire more, if needed. And they can all argue those Constitution and law thingies
(Washington Examiner) A group of Democratic attorneys general have suffered another blow in their bid to find oil-giant Exxon Mobil guilty of fraud in a highly-politicized climate change investigation.
A court document issued Wednesday evening says Claude Walker, attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands, has agreed to withdraw his subpoena demanding documents and emails from the oil company related to its discussion of the risks posed by climate change. (snip)
On Wednesday, Exxon agreed to stand down its legal action given Walker’s agreement to withdraw his subpoena.
This is the second time Walker was forced to withdraw a subpoena in the climate fight. Walker had gone after the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute a few months ago for its ties to the oil company. The think tank responded with threats of sanctions and Walker withdrew.
CEI is not backing down, and is seeking sanctions against Walker. Exxon just wants to get along, which would usually be a smart move for a business. In this case, they should have sought sanctions, as well, which would dissuade other AGs from playing these games.
Of course, ExxonMobile has also sued Massachusetts AG Maura Healy earlier in June, so, that could actually have forced Walker’s hand in backing down.
Read: Exxon Forces Democrat AG To Back Down On Climate Witchhunt »
It’s funny how so many Warmist efforts seem to not only fail, but be worse than thought
Paris climate summit put planet on course for ‘catastrophic’ warming despite being seen as success, study finds
While countries agreed to try to limit global warming to a rise of 1.5C, the actions they actually promised could see temperatures go up by twice that amountThe pledges made by countries at the historic Paris agreement on climate change would lead to “completely catastrophic†global warming, scientists have warned.
In a major analysis of 10 different studies into the effect of what world leaders promised to do, researchers calculated that the planet was still on course for a temperature increase of 2.6C to 3.1C by the end of this century.
Their finding was in sharp contrast to the landmark declaration in Paris in November last year that action would be taken to keep the rise to “well below†2C and try to restrict it to 1.5C.
So, even with all the massive governmental controls that need to be implemented over the entire private sector ti institute the Paris climate accord, with all the new taxes and fees, with all the restrictions on freedom and liberty, it still really fails to do much of anything when it comes to the massive rise of global temperatures that Warmists prognosticate will happen with their shoddy “science”.
Of course, what the study is pushing is for much, much more governmental power, as the authors are hardcore members of the Cult of Climastrology. But, they aren’t wrong that the Paris climate accord will do little to nothing, all while damaging economies, causing hardship for lower and middle class citizens, increase government power, and restricting freedom. All for a possible reduction of just 0.05C by 2100, if fully implemented. Nature will probably do more than that.
Read: Study: Paris Climate Accord Will Cause “Catastrophic Warming” »
Democrats are desperate to enact “common sense solutions” to deal with gun violence. Their ideas, of course, are ultimately about denying the majority of citizens their Right to bear arms, and, if they have to violate a few other Constitutional Rights along the way, such as Due Process, so be it. Yet, there are a few ways in which to reduce gun violence, ones that do not infringe on the Rights of citizens, which they utterly ignore
(Judicial Watch) One of the guns used in the November 13, 2015 Paris terrorist attacks came from Phoenix, Arizona where the Obama administration allowed criminals to buy thousands of weapons illegally in a deadly and futile “gun-walking†operation known as “Fast and Furious.â€
Well, there’s one way: the administration shouldn’t be running guns which end up being used in all sorts of shootings. Funny how the same Democratic gun grabbers aren’t particularly concerned over the shootings involving F&F guns, which have killed and wounded hundreds of Mexicans, including children, at least two US Federal officers, and now people in Paris.
What else to do?
(CNBC) But here’s the funny thing, in a tragically laughable way of course: we already know how to reduce gun violence and gun crimes because we’ve already done it many times before. That’s right, we actually solved the issue of rising gun violence in America in the mid-1990’s and again in the early 2000’s by doing something really radical. We enforced the law.
Now Republicans often get off too easy with their base voters by talking the talk about enforcing existing gun laws and leaving it at that. While it’s technically true that there are already enough gun laws on the books to put the hammer down on gun violence, most Republicans know all too well that law enforcement all over the country needs a lot more funding and other tools to enforce those laws better. And that became clear during both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations when new funding programs to cut down on gun violence were instituted and they worked.
Uh oh, this is leading somewhere uncomfortable for Democrats. Not just the whole “enforce the existing laws” notion, but
I’ll start with the Clinton years and remind everyone that it wasn’t the Brady Bill or the Assault Weapons ban that made the real difference. It was the increased funding to police departments from his 1994 crime bill that showed real progress. I was on the White House lawn that day in October, 1994 when President Clinton was joined by an army of police chiefs and mayors to announce the $200 million being released to put 100,000 more cops on the streets. It’s not clear just how close the Clinton Administration came to reaching that 100,000 number, but the message the funding sent had almost as much of an effect as however many new cops actually hit the streets.
Yes, that’s right, funding the police and putting more on the streets in the areas with the highest violence. President Bush boosted funding for prosecuting those who illegally used guns and the FBI to go after gun runners. Now the current administration runs guns. Violent crime dropped heavily under the Bill Clinton administration, and under the George W. Bush administration. Under the Obama admin, which wants all sorts of new laws and has demonized law enforcement, it has spiked.
That leaves us with a unique double “put your money where your mouth is moment” when it comes to guns in America. The Democrats, if they really want to slow gun violence in this country, need to put their money where their mouths are and support renewed efforts to enforce existing gun laws like Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush did in the recent past. Republicans, if they really want to prove they believe enforcing the existing gun laws is all we need to do, need to put their money where their mouths are and get proactive about offering money funding for that enforcement up front.
Democrats now despise the police, especially in light of their support for the #BlackLivesMatter crew. They’d rather that gun violence, including the high levels in Black communities, remain high instead of pushing law enforcement as a solution, so as not to lose the votes of the Black community. Plus, reducing casual gun play means fewer shootings and “mass atrocities”, which would make their march towards gun grabbing, Rights denial, and more federal power harder.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Have you heard about this one, where the police were called to a Collingswood, NJ school to chastise a 3rd grade?
On June 16, police were called to an unlikely scene: an end-of-the-year class party at the William P. Tatem Elementary School in Collingswood.
A third grader had made a comment about the brownies being served to the class. After another student exclaimed that the remark was “racist,” the school called the Collingswood Police Department, according to the mother of the boy who made the comment.
The police officer spoke to the student, who is 9, said the boy’s mother, Stacy dos Santos, and local authorities.
The comment, as you can imagine, was about brownies, not skin color, and the child is now traumatized. That was bad. Very bad. Inexcusable. Despicable to actually call the police. Here’s where it gets, dare I say, unConstitutional and threat to liberty
The increased police involvement follows a May 25 meeting among the Collingswood Police Department, school officials, and representatives from the Camden County Prosecutor’s Office, where school officials and police both said they were told to report to police any incidents that could be considered criminal, including what Police Chief Kevin Carey called anything “as minor as a simple name-calling incident that the school would typically handle internally.”
This puts the police in a tough position, having to speak to young children for being the little jerks that kids are, especially since kids really do not have the mouth filters that adults have (or should have). Called because of name calling? Whoever instituted this policy should be fired.
…is a sea that will rise up and swamp all the land, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Virtual Mirage, with a post on just trying to help out the DOJ.
Read: If All You See… »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
