…is snow that only occurs during hot summers, you might just be a Warmists
The blog of the day is small dead animals, with a post on Obama’s 10pm call.
Read: If All You See… »
…is snow that only occurs during hot summers, you might just be a Warmists
The blog of the day is small dead animals, with a post on Obama’s 10pm call.
Read: If All You See… »
Nice to know that some in law enforcement will not bow to the pressure and will support the 2nd Amendment Rights of law abiding citizens
(Fox News) Colorado sheriffs upset with gun restrictions adopted in the aftermath of last year’s mass shootings filed a federal lawsuit Friday, challenging the regulations as unconstitutional.
The lawsuit involves sheriffs from 54 of Colorado’s 64 counties, most representing rural, gun-friendly areas of the state.
The sheriffs say the new state laws violate Second Amendment protections that guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. Opponents are criticizing the lawsuit as political maneuvering.
The filing targets Colorado laws that limit the size of ammunition magazines and expand background checks. The regulations passed the Legislature this spring and are set to take effect July 1.
Most of the gun laws pushed by Democrats (who are against other citizens owning guns, yet typically won’t give up their own guns) would have little to no effect on nutbags who want to kill, like the Aurora shooter James Holmes. Heck, ban “large capacity magazines”? Make them. One can easily manufacture them.
A disarmed nation is a docile nation, at least for the law abiding citizens.
The law enforcement community is divided on the issue. In contrast to the sheriffs, the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, which includes urban departments, supports the laws. The chiefs said the measures were “common-sense approaches” to protect the public “while not taking guns from law-abiding citizens in any way.”
When you read or hear people talking in that manner, you know that the idea is to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. “Common sense” seems to be a way to work around the Constitution.
Read: Colorado Sheriffs File Federal Lawsuit Over Gun Laws »
…is a flooded world because someone refused to limit themselves to 2 sheets of toilet paper, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Nice Deb, with a scandalpalooza post with lots of videos.
Read: If All You See… »
I first caught this over at Grist
An international team of scientists analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2011 dealing with climate change and global warming. That’s right — we’re talking about 20 years of papers, many published long before Superstorm Sandy, last year’s epic Greenland melt, or Australia’s “angry summer.â€
About two-thirds of the authors of those studies refrained from stating in their abstracts whether human activity was responsible for climate change. But in those papers where a position on the claim was staked out, 97.1 percent endorsed the consensus position that humans are, indeed, cooking the planet.
Hence, because 97.1% where they did stake a claim state that Mankind is responsible, we have a new meme of 97 out of 100 climate scientists blaming Man. I’d love to know just how we’re cooking the planet when the global temps have gone up just 0.28 degrees Fahrenheit since 1990, the year prior to the start of looking at climate papers.
Jo Nova provides some takeaways from this New Climate Denier paper, produced by Warmist John Cook
Ms. Nova provides a total of 12 clues that should make people sit up and take notice as to the fallacy of Cook’s 97% consensus paper. Make sure to read them all.
Unsurprisingly, the UK Guardian pushed the meme of almost unanimous concensus, but, as Steve Milloy points out, 8,000 papers did not take a position.
Anthony Watts likewise chimes in, pointing out that just 32.6% of the papers took a position. And let’s consider that the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) craze had started just a few years prior to the start of the study sample, a time when scientists were very interested to see if Mankind had its fingerprints on the big warming that occurred starting in the late 70’s (right after they were worried about a coming ice age). With the fall of Communism, many of these scientists were coming in with an agenda to push Progressive Big Government, which was easily pushed with barely any way for people to get real information from a media that felt the same way. With the true rise of the Internet people were able to start seeing the real data and reality in the 2000’s. And let’s not forget that taking a position is not always the same as science.
Don’t expect any media outlets which push this new 97% meme to really let people know the true math, namely that it is 97% of just 32.6%.
Brandon Shollenberger digs deeper
Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.
Read the whole post as to why.
Oh, and here’s the totally independent from Obama Organizing For Obama Action
Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Read more: OFA.BO/gJsdFp
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) May 16, 2013
Will they tell Obama to stop taking so many fossil fueled trips?
Fortunately, the IRS will be the enforcement agency for Obamacare, wanting tons and tons of your personal and private information, and the person in charge of the IRS department which targeted the TEA Party is running the IRS health care office, so, hey, what else could go wrong?
(Washington Examiner) When President Obama was selling his health care legislation to Congress, he declared that “the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years.†But with the law’s major provisions set to kick in next year, a new analysis by the Congressional Budget Office projects that the law will cost double that, or $1.8 trillion.
What accounts for the dramatic difference? It’s true that at the time of passage, the CBO said the gross cost of the law’s provisions to expand insurance coverage would be $940 billion over a decade. But as many critics of the health care law pointed out at the time, this number was deceptive because it estimated spending from 2010 through 2019 even though the program’s major spending provisions weren’t scheduled to go into effect until 2014. Effectively, the original estimate measured the cost of six years of Obamacare instead of 10.
And everyone knew that Team Obama was playing games with numbers as they submitted Obamacare to the CBO, and that this was based on static conditions that really didn’t account for the future conditions, nor what the fallout of implementation would be, such as people losing their employer based insurance
Now, as implementation approaches, CBO has released projections for the 2014 to 2023 budget window — the first actual decade of Obamacare — and the gross cost projection is $1.8 trillion.
CBO now expects the Medicaid expansion to cover an additional 13 million people by 2023 (up 1 million from its February estimate) and the new government-run insurance exchanges to cover 24 million (1 million fewer than previously projected).
So, for one thing, Ocare is losing 1 million who would have paid into the exchanges while adding 1 million non-paying patients into Medicaid.
Phillip Klein goes on to write that the CBO estimates that 7 million will lose their employer based health insurance. And these are all estimates. Once the reality of ObamaCare kicks in the price tag will surely go much, much higher.