Obama’s Itching For A Fight On Illegal Immigrants

For all his rhetoric regarding coming together, the man is constantly looking for a fight, and will create one if necessary. He flew across the country to Las Vegas and then back to make yet another campaign speech Tuesday

(NY Times) Speaking at a high school here in a state that has seen rapid growth in its Hispanic population, the president praised a bipartisan group of senators who proposed their own sweeping immigration overhaul a day earlier, saying their plan was very much in line with his own proposals.

Mr. Obama warned, however, that “the closer we get, the more emotional this debate is going to become.” He said that if Congress did not move forward “in a timely fashion” on its own legislation, he would send up a specific measure — something the White House has put off for now — and demand a vote.

The president’s speech immediately exposed potential fault lines in the coming debate. He said, for example, that there must be a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants “from the outset,” a statement that would seem at odds with the assertion by some senators that citizenship must be tied to tighter border security.

Obama gives lip service to border security in his own outline, but wants no part of actually and truly securing the border before a blanket amnesty occurs (which doesn’t make all those who have come to this country legally, have done everything required of them, and are still waiting, particularly happy). This will end up the same way everything else ends up: there will be some conflict, some infighting, but things are still slowly getting done, then Obama will jump in, create massive strife, start casting blame and insulting people, and will create hard feelings.

He even attempted to do his typical strife during the speech, as The Other McCain points out

“Most of ‘us’ used to be ‘them,'” Obama said. “Unless you were one of the first Americans — a Native American — you came from someplace else,” he added, listing off waves of immigrants. “All of those folks — before they were ‘us,’ they were ‘them.'”

That quote appeared at Buzzfeed, which notes

Obama’s proposal, laid out in a fact sheet distributed by the White House, differs in two ways from the congressional one: it treats same-sex couples the same way as straight couples, and doesn’t include a “trigger mechanism” to make reform contingent on stricter border security efforts. Both are potential deal-breakers with congressional Republicans, though neither earned a direct mention from Obama in his remarks.

“Unless there’s real enforcement triggers, we’re not going to have a bill that moves on,” Republican Sen. Marco Rubio said Tuesday in an interview with radio host Rush Limbaugh.

“Any solution should be a bipartisan one, and we hope the President is careful not to drag the debate to the left and ultimately disrupt the difficult work that is ahead in the House and Senate,” warned Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Speaker of the House John Boehner.

Without real enforcement measures, the legislation may barely pass the Senate, if it even makes it to the floor, but will fail big time in the House. Of course, when this progresses beyond the “framework” phase and moves towards actually crafting legislation, we can, and should, expect Obama to jump in and cause problems. It’s just the way this divisive community agitator operates.

Read: Obama’s Itching For A Fight On Illegal Immigrants »

Strict Gun Laws In Chicago Can’t Stop Gun Violence Says….NY Times? Now With Climate Astrology!

A random act of journalism from the Paper Of Record

(NY Times) Not a single gun shop can be found in this city because they are outlawed. Handguns were banned in Chicago for decades, too, until 2010, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that was going too far, leading city leaders to settle for restrictions some describe as the closest they could get legally to a ban without a ban. Despite a continuing legal fight, Illinois remains the only state in the nation with no provision to let private citizens carry guns in public.

And yet Chicago, a city with no civilian gun ranges and bans on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, finds itself laboring to stem a flood of gun violence that contributed to more than 500 homicides last year and at least 40 killings already in 2013, including a fatal shooting of a 15-year-old girl on Tuesday.

The Times’ writer, Monica Davey, attempts to paint a picture that so much of the problem stems from people purchasing guns legally outside of the city limits, which, yes, is true, because, um, there are no gun shops in Chicago. What she fails to point out is that law abiding citizens who live in Chicago are mostly not the ones purchasing, they are just the ones left without a means to defend themselves from the criminal elements in Chicago. And the criminals, quite a few whom are gang members, know this.

Chicago is awash in gangs, such as the Vice Lords, Latin Kings, La Raza Nation, and Gangster Disciples. CBS had reported that gang violence is so bad that police attend funerals in an attempt to stop revenge killings.

Lately, the police say they are discovering far more guns on the streets of Chicago than in the nation’s two more populous cities, Los Angeles and New York. They seized 7,400 guns here in crimes or unpermitted uses last year (compared with 3,285 in New York City), and have confiscated 574 guns just since Jan. 1 — 124 of them last week alone.

Most of them are being taken from criminals, many of them arrested for committing a crime.

Yet, Chicago wants to make it even more burdensome on the law abiding citizens who simply want a way to protect themselves from the lawlessness and violence rampant upon Chicago’s streets, a condition created by the same Democrats who want to disarm the law abiding citizens.

In the weeks since the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., Toni Preckwinkle, the Cook County Board president, has introduced a countywide provision requiring gun owners beyond the city limits to report lost or stolen guns, though a first offense would result simply in a $1,000 fine. In the city, Mayor Rahm Emanuel has pressed for increased penalties for those who violate the city’s gun ordinance by failing to report their guns missing or possessing an assault weapon.

Perhaps the politicians in Cook County, along with Emanuel, should look towards going after the actual criminals themselves. But being tough on criminals doesn’t seem to be in the DNA of Democrats.

More: I’d usually drop this in a new post, but, since I did a crosspost, I’ll add this here:

(Daily Caller) On Wednesday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” the Center for American Progress’ Christie Hefner said that Chicago’s sky-high murder rate could be blamed — at least in part — on climate change.

“Yes, last year we hit a record number of murders from guns [in Chicago],” Hefner, the former chairwoman and chief executive officer of Playboy Enterprises, said. “And this year we are already outpacing last year’s numbers. Now, there are contributing factors that are not under anybody’s control and may seem odd, but it is factually true. One of them is actually the weather. There is a dramatic increase in gun violence when it is warmer. And we are having this climate change effect that is driving that.”

She tried to walk it back a bit, but, we all know that these climate astrologists thing hotcoldwetdry is to blame for everything, and, face it, dear reader, you are to blame for failing to go carbon neutral, or at least purchase lots of carbon credits to enrich people like Al Gore.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Strict Gun Laws In Chicago Can’t Stop Gun Violence Says….NY Times? Now With Climate Astrology! »

Station Which Names Winter Storms Says Cold And Global Warming Go Hand In Hand

That’s right, in case you missed it, the Weather Channel has been naming winter storms, which everyone else has decided is idiotic and won’t participate. And, as typical for them, are engaging in more pseudo science cult behavior

Cold Snaps, Global Warming Go Hand-in-Hand

Frigid temperatures like these are sometimes used to refute the idea that the planet as a whole is getting warmer with each passing year. That’s just not so, say NASA scientists, who point out that even on a warming planet, bitterly cold temperatures and harsh winter weather will still be possible and even commonplace.

That’s not what the climate astrologers used to tell us.

One of the reasons they can coexist is a phenomenon known as Arctic Oscillation, a phrase used to describe the interaction of the jet stream and Arctic air during the winter. It can cause unseasonably cold air masses to sweep over what are normally temperate latitudes, NASA reports, making for unusually cold and severe winter weather across many parts of the U.S.

Um, if the natural process of the Arctic Oscillation is making things cold, why can’t natural processes also cause warmth? Oh, right, right, Lefties need a way to advance their Progressive/fascist policies.

Read: Station Which Names Winter Storms Says Cold And Global Warming Go Hand In Hand »

Hotcoldwetdry Could Make Flu Season Worse

Scary stuff

(India.com) Scientists led by Sherry Towers, research professor in the Mathematical, Computational and Modelling Sciences Centre at Arizona State University, studied waves of flu and climate patterns in the US from the 1997-1998 season to the present. The team’s analysis indicates a pattern for both A and B strains: warm winters are usually followed by heavy flu seasons, the journal Public Library Of Science Currents: Influenza reports.

Know what they use as evidence?

‘It appears that fewer people contract influenza during warm winters, and this causes a major portion of the population to remain vulnerable into the next season, causing an early and strong emergence,’ said Towers, according to an Arizona statement. ‘And when a flu season begins exceptionally early, much of the population has not had a chance to get vaccinated, potentially making that flu season even worse,’ Towers said.

So, warmer winters should be good for smaller flu seasons. But, Warmists have an agenda, so no matter what happens, “climate change” is to blame.

Read: Hotcoldwetdry Could Make Flu Season Worse »

If All You See…

…is a flooded drought world, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on liberal logic.

Read: If All You See… »

Why Do Dems Want Women To Be Unable To Protect Themselves?

It’s an interesting dichotomy: Democrats create a society of criminal activity through their soft on crime policies, then they want to disarm citizens who need to protect themselves from criminals created by Democrat policies

(WWLP) Ware Guns owner Mike Weisser told 22News, he’s seen an uptick in the number of women who are taking the necessary classes to legally carry a firearm.

Weisser says the reasons for women buying handguns are also much different than men. “I’ve noticed a lot more women in the classes than I used to see, they’re not coming in as hobbyist the way that many of the males do. ”

They seem to be much more concerned about personal protection.

Don’t worry ladies, the good news as you are disarmed is that Obama is expanding free health care!

Read: Why Do Dems Want Women To Be Unable To Protect Themselves? »

Draft IPCC Report Shows 20 Years Of Overestimated Globull Warming

At one point, Warmists might have been actually interested in real science, but, that quickly switched to pushing junk science in order to move forward their Marxist ideas of people control

(Fox News) A preliminary draft of a report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was leaked to the public this month, and climate skeptics say it contains fresh evidence of 20 years of overstated global warming.

The report — which is not scheduled for publication until 2014 — was leaked by someone involved in the IPCC’s review process, and is available for download online. Bloggers combing through the report discovered a chart comparing the four temperature models the group has published since 1990. Each has overstated the rise in temperature that Earth actually experienced.

“Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted,” Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.

The IPCC graph shows that the midpoints of the various models predicted that the world would warm by between about 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit and 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit between 1990 and 2012. Actual warming was much less than that: 0.28 F, according the data the IPCC cites.

Wow, .28F. Scary stuff. We’re doomed. Everybody panic. It’s no wonder Warmists fail to act like it’s a crisis with data like that.

Of course, the draft report tries to shift the blame for the failure of all their garbage in garbage out computer models on other processes, mostly natural ones. Weird how they never seem to consider that the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age is mostly or solely natural.

And, it is a draft report, so we can expect the UN IPCC to change things up and most likely remove any data that shows that they’ve been wrong all along, and add in all sorts of dire predictions which require vast amounts of money to shift hands (with a good chunk ending up in the hands of the UN) and loss of freedoms.

Read: Draft IPCC Report Shows 20 Years Of Overestimated Globull Warming »

Surprise: Democrats Have No Intention Of Securing The Border Before Amnesty

While Soros funded Think Progress is saying that the border is more secure than ever (at least on paper, what with all those pesky illegals sneaking across, plus drug runners, plus the Obama admin running guns the other way), other Democrats are saying “yeah, don’t worry about that border securing commission”, and

(Washington Post) That’s a legitimate worry, according to Frank Sharry, the executive director of America’s Voice, a group advocating for immigration reform. But he tells me that on a conference call yesterday, Democratic Senators reassured immigration advocates that this commission won’t be constructed in a way that will hold up the process for too long.

As Sharry put it, Democrats realize that they can’t “allow the commission to have a real veto” over setting in motion the path to citizenship. He noted that Dems see the commission as “something that gives the Republicans a talking point” to claim they are prioritizing tough enforcement, giving themselves cover to back a process that “won’t stop people from getting citizenship.” However, Sharry added: “The details of this are going to matter hugely, and we’ll have to fight like hell on the individual provisions.”

Interesting. Didn’t I write yesterday that this commission would essentially rubber stamp that the border was secure, that way all these illegals, many who will immediately qualify for social safety net programs and bring little in the way of skills and education, will immediately be put on this so-called pathway to citizenship? Yes, I did. And then there’s this from Mickey Kaus regarding the 5 page release from the Gang of 8

If you read closely, you learn that illegal immigrants will actually be legalized immediately–given “probationary legal status,” allowing them to “live and work legally in thee United States” (according to Politico). The only thing that’s delayed, pending “stricter border enforcement,” is the opening of a “path to citizenship.” As if, once legalized, the 11 million are going to be unlegalized if  enforcement measures are implemented with less than 100% efficacy.

So, this whole thing is like going to see a magician. They’re saying look over here, secure border, while they actually go and legalize people who came to this country illegally. The question remains, will Republicans go along with this, or will they fight?

Meanwhile, Rep Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) says it “would be madness not to include LBGT issues in the shamnesty bill.”

Also, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is begging Obama not to release his own plan, because that will throw a wrench in the works. Allahpundit wonders why Obama would release one when there’s a deal on the table. Probably because he doesn’t care if it passes, and, really, at this point, Obama seems to want to pick fights out of habit, and create a great kerfuffle when the deal dies, which it surely will once Obama gets involved. He could care less about his fellow Democrats and their prospects. That’s his M.O. And PBO plans on releasing his own sticky note version of a plan today.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Surprise: Democrats Have No Intention Of Securing The Border Before Amnesty »

Carolyn McCarthy: Women Shouldn’t Use Scary Looking Rifles

Jon Lilyea says she’s being sexist (via Andy at Ace’s)

(The Blaze) PIERS MORGAN: I have an interview coming up with two young women who wrote a piece in which they said they wanted the rights of the AR-15 weapon at home because they feared they would be attacked and they wanted a gun that would guarantee they would murder or would kill their attacker. How do you respond to that particular argument, which is they believe under their second amendment right they should be allowed an AR-15?

CAROLYN MCCARTHY: I will tell you, if you talk to professionals, hunters and certainly sportsmen, they’ll tell you that’s not the gun to use. A rifle is more accurate. It’s certainly easier for a woman to be able to do that.

Um, wait, what? Is she saying that assault rifles are less accurate than the non-scary looking versions? And easier? And not really a rifle rifle? Actually, many “assault rifles” are a whole lot easier to use for women, since they are often lighter than many standard rifles, and it is easier to hold while reloading. Plus, with collapsible stocks they are easily customized for the size of the user. That’s are some of the reasons hunters like them. And people who like shooting. And people who want to protect their homes.

Let’s not forget that McCarthy is a proponent of women serving in combat roles. As Jon writes

I’d like to hear her explanation of the mechanics of her contention. So, since she opposes scary-looking rifles, does she think that the military should be teaching women to fight with bolt-action or lever action rifles in their new roles as combat soldiers? Or maybe she’s just unaware of what women are capable of – or doesn’t really care when she’s making idiot political statements.

Personally, I prefer my handguns for home defense, and, if I lived in a bigger place, probably a shotgun. With a pistol grip and no stock. Others prefer a scary looking rifle, because the first thing you want to do is scare the crap out of an intruder so you don’t have to fire. But, if you do, you want control and power.

Read: Carolyn McCarthy: Women Shouldn’t Use Scary Looking Rifles »

If All You See…

…is an ocean that will rise up and cover all the land, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Watts Up With That?, with a post on waste heat.

Read: If All You See… »

Pirate's Cove