Here We Go: A Call To Ban The Second Amendment

What would one expect?

Zack Beauchamp is a Reporter/Blogger for ThinkProgress. He previously contributed to Andrew Sullivan’s The Dish at Newsweek/Daily Beast, and has also written for Foreign Policy and Tablet magazines. Zack holds B.A.s in Philosophy and Political Science from Brown University and an M.Sc in International Relations from the London School of Economics.

Say, I wonder if George Soros, the major funder of Think Progress, has security that carries guns? Anyhow, here’s the title

Ban the Second Amendment

Imagine the Second Amendment didn’t exist, and try arguing for a constitutional right to gun ownership. You will fail.

Interestingly, there is a method to do this embedded in the Constitution, whereby Amendments can be changed and even done away with. But Progressives would simply like to avoid that messy route, and simply infringe on the 2nd Amendment and just straight up ban guns.

There’s lots of moonbattery in the screed, too much to list. Zach offers three reason why people would like guns, the 2nd being “Citizens have a right to defend themselves however they’d like. Gun rights enable self-defense and, thus, save lives.” Not in ZachLand, though

The second argument in favor of untrammeled gun ownership, a right to self-defense, is equally incoherent. For starters, there’s no reason that, in a civil society, the right to defend yourself implies the right to defend yourself however you’d like. A basic part of government’s job is to limit our ability to hurt others; assuming the absolute right to self-defense constitutes, in Alan Jacobs’ evocative phrasing, “the absolute abandonment of civil society.”

So, we can throw defending yourself out the window in Liberal World. At least with a gun. And, really, even harsh language might be Bad, if certain words pass your lips. But, you might hurt someone who is trying to hurt you, so, that Cannot Be Allowed.

I bet there are lots of liberal ladies who wish they had a gun at the Occupy Wall Street camps when other liberals were raping them. A gun gives women power over people who would do them harm. So, since Liberals would like women to be disarmed, we can assume that Liberals are pro-rape.

BTW, is anyone surprised that a Progressive doesn’t understand how the Constitution works?

Read: Here We Go: A Call To Ban The Second Amendment »

If All You See…

…is snow in the tropics due to Global Weirding, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Public Secrets, with a post on grim times for gun grabbers.

Read: If All You See… »

Dr. Roy Spenser: Time to push back against the global warming Nazis

What were Nazi’s? Fascists. What are Progressives? Jonah Goldberg refers to them as “Nice Fascists”. Prick a Warmist and you’ll find a Progressive. And Dr. Roy Spencer has had enough

Yeah, somebody pushed my button.

When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it.

They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.

Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back.

I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.

The pseudo-scientific ramblings by their leaders have falsely warned of mass starvation, ecological collapse, agricultural collapse, overpopulation…all so that the masses would support their radical policies. Policies that would not voluntarily be supported by a majority of freedom-loving people.

Dr. S goes on to compare what the Nazi’s political policies were to the policies of Warmists, and there are lots of similarities. At the end he notes

NOTE: A couple people in comments have questioned my use of “Nazi”, which might be considered over the top. Considering the fact that these people are supporting policies that will kill far more people than the Nazis ever did — all in the name of what they consider to be a righteous cause — I think it is very appropriate. Again, I didn’t start the name-calling.

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.

Read: Dr. Roy Spenser: Time to push back against the global warming Nazis »

Obama Wants Others To #GetCovered

Good thing there’s nothing important going on in the world right now

Says the man who only obtained Obamacare symbolically, but doesn’t actually have to use it himself. And keeps changing the law.

Read: Obama Wants Others To #GetCovered »

Obama Tells Dems To Make Mid-terms “Sexy”

This is the world Obama lives in

(The Hill) President Obama warned that Democrats often get into trouble during the midterm elections because state-level races aren’t as “sexy” as national presidential elections during a meeting with Democratic governors and party donors Thursday night.

“We know how to win national elections,” Obama said. “But all too often it’s during these midterms where we end up getting ourselves into trouble because, I guess we don’t think it’s sexy enough.”

The people in Kiev and Venezuela were not amused. But, hey, Obama made a wishy-washy comment, so his job is done. Back to campaigning

(The Wilderness) Why is this President, elected because of a hope he promised in front of the world, so content to sit it out instead?

Is he bored? Does massive public upheaval not interest him if it does not serve his political ends? Does it remind him that everything is in fact, not awesome?

Make sure to read the entire awesome article, a pure indictment of the Social Media President.

During the meeting at a luxury hotel near the White House, Obama said that while those at the top were doing better in recent years, the middle class was still getting squeezed. He said voters understood his policy proposals, including ObamaCare and the minimum wage, were the right thing to do.

It’s apparently “sexy” to push Obamacare, which has caused millions to lose their plans and have to get new plans which are, if not more expensive via the premiums (someone else has to pay the rest), much more expensive for the deductibles, with reduced networks. Maybe turning America into Welfare Nation is sexy?

What upsets Obama is the large numbers of state governorships and/or general assemblies won by the GOP since 2010. Democrats have made national politics an art form over the past 30 years, forgetting about local politics to some degree. And he knows the Dems will most likely lose the Senate in 2014, so retaking the executive and/or general assemblies in the states would allow him to push his absurd Obamacare law forward. That’s sexy or something. Presidential Leadership in the Age Of Obama.

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

Read: Obama Tells Dems To Make Mid-terms “Sexy” »

Kay Hagan Is Bummed About Those Medicare Cuts She Voted For

She and other vulnerable Democrats finally realized that their Obamacare votes have consequences, so they wrote a letter (via NRO)

(NRSC) Hagan’s ObamaCare “enacted $200 Billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage over 10 years”

  • In 2009, Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) promised North Carolinians who depend on Medicare that she was going to “protect Medicare” and that they would “not see a drop in their Medicare coverage.”
  • But in 2010 Kay Hagan voted to slash Medicare Advantage to pay for ObamaCare. (H.R. 4872, CQ Vote #72: Motion agreed to 56-42: R 0-40; D 54-2; I 2-0, 3/24/10, Hagan Voted Yea)
  • In North Carolina 463,159 seniors depend on Medicare Advantage plans (28% of all Medicare enrollees).
  • According to America’s Health Insurance Plans, in North Carolina, seniors on Medicare Advantage plans experienced cost increases and benefit cuts of an estimated $50-60 per month as a result of this year’s 6 percent cut to the program due to ObamaCare.
  • Now, as North Carolina seniors are being crushed under the weight of ObamaCare and as her own poll numbers plummet, Kay Hagan admits in a letter to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid that she cut Medicare for seniors after promising North Carolinians that they wouldn’t “see a drop in their Medicare coverage”
  • Hagan’s letter reads: “We write to raise serious concerns about the Medicare Advantage (MA) 2015 rate notice and the impact further cuts may have on the millions of individuals enrolled in the program,” the senators write. “We are strongly committed to preserving the high quality health plan choices and benefits that our constituents receive through the MA program. Given the impact that payment policies could have on our constituents, we ask that you prioritize beneficiaries’ experience and minimize disruption in maintaining payment levels for 2015.”

“Kay Hagan promised North Carolinians that ObamaCare wouldn’t harm seniors who rely on Medicare, but that wasn’t true,” said NRSC Press Secretary Brook Hougesen. “Kay Hagan has repeatedly deceived North Carolina voters. Now even though Kay Hagan admits that she slashed Medicare Advantage to pay for ObamaCare, she is trying to blame others for her broken promises. Hagan’s reckless cuts to Medicare mean fewer benefits and health care choices for seniors.  Deceiving seniors about Medicare isn’t the first lie Kay Hagan told about ObamaCare, but it serves as the latest reminder that North Carolinians can’t trust her to keep her word.”

If only there was something Kay and the other Senate Democrats could actually do. Some power delegated to them by the Constitution. But, then, perhaps they should have been concerned with what Obamacare would do before they stampeded straight to passing the Obamination of a bill.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Kay Hagan Is Bummed About Those Medicare Cuts She Voted For »

“Climate Change” Might Mean More Turbulence In The Skies

After that airplane incident the other day which featured massive turbulence, including a baby being thrown several rows away, who bet on “Warmists will blame this on Hotcoldwetdry”?

Fasten Seat Belts: Climate Change Could Mean More Turbulence

“Could” is one of my favorite scientific words, because it could mean anything and has no measurable testing requirements.

Sudden turbulence injured crew and passengers on two flights an ocean apart this week, and the back-to-back bumpy rides are more than a coincidence — winter weather and changing climate patterns may have played a role. Technology to precisely anticipate the “clear air turbulence” likely to blame for both flights just doesn’t exist, experts say.

The first incident occurred on Monday, when United Airlines flight about to land at Billings, Montana, was rattled by sudden turbulence, which left two passengers and three flight attendants injured. The jolt also tossed a baby from its mother’s arms and into a nearby seat, where it landed unharmed. The second occurred aboard a Cathay Pacific flight out of San Francisco hit a patch of rough air above Japan, and a high-altitude “roller-coaster” ride left eight crew and passengers in hospital.

Oh, but if you thought it was the warmth created warmth from fossil fuels, alas, no

“Winter is when turbulence is the worst,” Williams said. “It’s when the jet stream is strongest … And that’s why we’re seeing the two encounters this week.”

So it is the warmth created cold from fossil fuels that could make turbulence worse.

Buckle Up, It’s Going to Be a Bumpy FutureThe bad news is that research suggests our travel is likely to get bumpier in the coming decades. Computer models have predicted that climate change and increased carbon dioxide levels will speed up the jet stream, leading to more serious episodes by 2050.

Once Warmists trot out “computer models”, especially when they “suggest”, game over. We’ve just gone into La La Land where science is conducted by unicorns who far out rainbows.

Read: “Climate Change” Might Mean More Turbulence In The Skies »

If All You See…

…is an evil carbon pollution infused can of beer, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on HHS wanting all your social media data.

Read: If All You See… »

Say, How’d That Official U.S. Winter Forecast Work Out?

Not well

This is why Warmists only like to make predictions 50-100 years out

(Business Week) Surprised by how tough this winter has been? You’re in good company: Last fall the Climate Prediction Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted that temperatures would be above normal from November through January across much of the Lower 48 states. This graphic shows just how wrong the official forecast of the U.S. government was.

The big red blotch in the top map represents parts of the country in which the Climate Prediction Center forecast above-average temperatures. The frigid-looking blue blotch in the bottom “verification” map shows areas where temperatures turned out to be below average.

I bet this will soon be blamed on “climate change”. Or Warmists will flip to “that’s not climate, that’s weather. And we know what will happen 100 years from now (insert Dean scream). The Lonely Conservative notes that Warmists want to blow up the economy when they can’t even get one season correct. Ace

I don’t really think it’s terrible that government meteorologists failed to predict how tough, cold, and snowy this Global Warmening winter would be. Predicting the future, like hitting a curveball, is hard.

But, of course: I’m a bit skeptical when they move straight from one near-term failed prediction to a long-term prediction, also failed, at least for the last 17 years, and tell me “Serious You Guys you have to trust on this, the Science is Settled.”

Warmists have removed skepticism from science. Now you must Believe, Have Faith, and Comply.

Read: Say, How’d That Official U.S. Winter Forecast Work Out? »

Hooray! Warmists Now Say “Climate Change” Will Cause More Crime

The LA Times has been on a roll as of late with their “climate change” idiocy, here and here, blaming cold and snow and ice on “climate change”. Now we get

Climate change brings more crime

A new study broadens a notion held by the earliest criminologists: Periods of higher temperatures — on an hour-by-hour or week-to-week basis — are likely to produce more crime.

The study by Matthew Ranson of Abt Associates, a research and consulting firm in Cambridge, Mass., suggests global warming will trigger more crimes including murders and rapes over the next century, with social costs estimated to run as high as $115 billion.

Between 2010 and 2099, climate change can be expected to cause an additional 22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft, the study published this week in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management says.

OK, there is some basis to this. Crime tends to occur more when it is warm than when cold. Yet, how does this play when there has been no statistically significant increase in global temperatures for 17 years? Does a 0.28F increase since 1990 really make a big difference? Would a miniscule increase of a few degrees magically increase crime?

But, does this prove anthropogenic causation? Because there have been multiple warm periods during the Holocene, at least two of them which were warmer than the current Modern Warm Period. Perhaps Warmists could tell us exactly what the perfect temperature would be? Marc Morano

“Instead of looking at temperature data or other climate metrics to prove or disprove man-made global warming claims, the global warming activists have now shifted the playing field so rape and murder statistics are now used as some sort of ‘proof’ of man-made global warming. Global warming science has truly morphed to modern witchcraft!’

Back to the LA Times

Therefore, it adds, “an immediate and permanent 4% increase in the size of the U.S. police force would be required to offset the aggregate climate-related increases in murder, manslaughter, robbery, burglary and vehicle theft likely to occur over the next century.”

And there we go: the Warmists want more police. More Big Government dominance. If they really cared about crime they might put more police in places like Detroit and other liberal cities. And change their own policies on law enforcement and the judicial system. Oh, and citizens carrying guns and standing their ground. Oh, and here’s something interesting pointed out in the comments at the LA Times article

According to the FBI’s own crime statistics, their “violent crime index” DROPPED steadily 1992 – 2011, from 757.7 to 386.3 (per 100,000 population). This is consistent with ALL the violent crime groups they list as well.  Virtually cut IN HALF!

Google this exactly including the quote marks and it comes up first:

“Crime in the United States is described by annual Uniform Crime Reports” fbi

Well, that’s strange, wouldn’t you say? Should crime have increased cause “climate change”? And crime was down in 2013, despite the (false) assertion that 2013 was one of the hottest years eveh!

Read: Hooray! Warmists Now Say “Climate Change” Will Cause More Crime »

Pirate's Cove