IPCC chairman resigns amid sex scandal, describes climate change as his religion
Religion and science do not mix. You would think this would be obvious to the Left, which often claims "scientific" support for their policies. The truth, however, is that for the left, their policies are not scientific at all but religious in nature. That is why no amount of evidence to the contrary will stop a liberal yelling about global warming climate change.
At this point, the White House is just running out the clock; they are hoping that they can delay any actual discoveries of damaging evidence linking the White House to the IRS scandal until Obama is out of office and a new President has arrived. Unfortunately, it's been an effective strategy so far. There is important circumstantial evidence that the White House has used its power -- perhaps unwisely granted, but legal -- to access taxpayer records for political purposes. But even those requests have legal channels that must be followed:
If, in fact, there was nothing embarrassing to find in the White House correspondence with the IRS -- as suggested by the lack of any requested records in the reports -- then why not release them and say so? The refusal to cooperate with Congress, at all, on this matter suggests that the White House has something to hide.
Congratulations are in order for Emily Miller, who has received her approved application for a license to carry a concealed firearm in DC. It took a long time and a lot of public pressure from the courts and the public to get to this point. Emily has done a stellar job reporting on the process and drawing much needed attention to how horrible it was. It's still not great; the process is may-issue and the police require documented "special dangers" and a 90-day delay, plus excessive permit costs and 18 hours of training. But we probably wouldn't have gotten even this far without Emily or someone like her directing the sunlight to scatter the cockroaches.
As we have found, the popular and common-sense policies supported by Senator Obama are often strongly opposed by President Obama. Particularly when those policies involve government transparency and accountability. Gosh, I wonder what might have happened to change his opinion?
This is why the Democrats push for illegal immigration so hard. It's about votes. Not American votes, but illegal foreign votes. And the Republicans aren't very enthusiastic about fighting it either.
The combination is deadly to a country that once had free and fair elections. As for why he did it, well, I suspect we can add Rick Scott to the list of politicians being blackmailed by Barack Obama's NSA surveillance program.
Nothing the government wants to do with the internet is likely to make it better. Instead, the government will issue rules: rules for what you can't do, rules for what you must ask permission to do, rules for what you must do.
To date, the internet has been successful mainly because the only real rules are the informal social rules that organically develop within communities. It's impossible to punch someone in the face over the internet, and the internet version of violent crime, cracking into someone else's server, is still illegal; as are financial crimes such as fraud. Everything else is basically free speech. Government control is both unnecessary and counterproductive.
FedEx refusing to ship Defense Distributed's CNC mill
This could be the result of pressure ala Operation Chokepoint, or a simple misunderstanding of the regulations related to shipping firearms. For all practical purposes, the Ghost Gunner is a legal product, nothing more than a packaged manufacturing tool. There should be no problems shipping it; it's certainly not a firearm itself.
I'm beginning to wonder if Obama's plan for his last two years in office is to implement gun control by stealth and regulation.
Security problems at healthcare.gov even worse than expected
Given the sensitivity of the medical and financial information dealt with on the website, any data-sharing agreements beyond those strictly necessary for the site to function are questionable. It might be understandable to share visitor data with a single site to provide anonymous visitor metrics as many websites do; but this goes well beyond that data, and there can be no legitimate purposes for sharing private data with so many different companies.
I can tell you this: it has nothing to do with improving the user's experience. One metrics agreement would be more than sufficient for that.
When we have to go to the British press to get American news...
The rest of the story, after reporting on the audience reaction ("a chorus of laughs") was a detailed list of Obama scandals, with video, including:
1) Executive Amnesty 2) IRS targeting 3) Benghazi 4) Fast and Furious 5) NSA surveillance 6) Failing to shut down Guatanimo Bay as promised 7) Deserter-for-5-terrorists-plus-cash prisoner swap 8) Statue of Liberty flyby 9) Solyndra, "green energy" loans as campaign payoffs 10) VA health care failures, and coverups of the health care failures 11) Gruber's "American people are stupid" videos 12) "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan" 13) Botched rollout of Obamacare website (and the back end is still broken) 14) Lerner's destruction of emails relevant to IRS targeting 15) Koskinen's coverup of Lerner's destruction of targeting emails 16) Assertion of executive privilege for emails to Holder's wife 17) Star Trek tax videos 18) Spying on the press 19) Prosecuting the press 20) EPA officials hiding emails 21) Geithner's tax errors ... and his appointment as treasury secretary 22) Recess appointments, overturned by the Supreme Court 9-0
Yeah. No major scandals that the press covered properly.
It seems to me that a warrant for DNA analysis should be necessary before it is collected. The same for fingerprints, though I know that isn't current policy. The warrant requirement means that police cannot simply conduct a DNA/fingerprint dragnet through a whole neighborhood or a victim's friends and associates at random. They should need to develop a case for a specific individual first.
Once you are convicted, however, you go into the database so future criminal activity can be detected more easily.
It means that the administration is determined to make immigration a fait accompli, gambling that possession of a work permit or a green card is 9/10ths of the law and that courts won't undertake to decide which to take away once granted. By the time Obama leaves office, the courts will be faced with millions of people holding work permits, green cards, and other documents officially issued by the government in contravention of the law.
How can a court, an employer, a police officer possibly be expected to determine whether such a document is legitimate or not?
The result -- the intended result -- will be chaos and amnesty.
Stay requested in Mance v Holder, the interstate handgun sales ban case
This sort of temporary stay is granted routinely when requested in a case like this. Certainly the BATFE is likely to take more than that time to update regulations and issue guidance to FFLs if they choose not to appeal, and frankly, I expect that they will decide to appeal and a stay will be granted pending the final resolution of that appeal.
What all that means is that, if this stay is granted, it doesn't mean much. A right delayed may be a right denied, but there's nearly half a century of status quo here. Large apple carts tip over slowly.
New York legislators proposes complete ban on machetes
Note that it's already illegal to actually carry a machete, along with any other knife longer than 4 inches. Before long they will be banning kitchen knives and insisting on rounded tips to prevent stabbings.
You can't fix criminals by banning their tools. They will just use different tools.
Does government licensing of professions improve quality?
A friend of mine regularly argues for government necessity based upon such things as food safety; claiming that the private sector combined with the court system could not, or would not, regulate itself to the point that eating out at a local restaurant would be safe.
The obvious counterarguments are:
1) Existing examples of private food preparation licensing (eg, kosher food can be certified through a number of organizations); 2) The obvious logical point that restaurants which poison their customers will rapidly go out of business as customers do not return due to sickness, death, aversion conditioning, or reputation damage; 3) Government regulatory agencies would not actually make the food any safer.
On point three, a recent study on opticians concluded that government licensing doesn't make those services any safer, though it does make them more expensive.
Granted, this is somewhat thin gruel, since it's basically drawing large conclusions from the small, individual conclusions of the national insurance market. Still, the logical train is sound.
Another Gun Control Act provision unConstitutional
Another victory for Alan Gura, this case is an as-applied challenge to the felon-in-possession rules. The plaintiff is an individual who was convicted of a misdemeanor for unlicensed carry of a handgun in Maryland; because that particular crime in that particular state carries a possible penalty of between 30 days (minimum) and 3 years (maximum), federal law counts it as a felony and bars firearms possession by those convicted of it.
But, crucially, the plaintiff in this case demonstrated that he was not a dangerous criminal, and barring him from firearms ownership for life violates the 2nd Amendment.
The decision comes on the heels of another Gura victory, striking down the prohibition on out-of-state handgun sales in the same 1968 Act.
People said the earlier decision was a big deal. This one is far, far bigger. Fundamentally, it says the state cannot simply bar people convicted of crimes from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights; it can probably still do so for serious and recent crimes, but those who are neither violent nor habitual criminals now have recourse through the courts if they wish to possess the tools of self-defense.
It's also worth noting that the crime which barred the plaintiff from possessing firearms was itself a victimless, non-violent licensing issue in a state which makes licenses for carrying a concealed firearm difficult to obtain.
The anti-rights folks will probably attack this decision as allowing criminals to possess firearms. It's more appropriate to say that this ruling blocks states from criminalizing the public exercise of your 2nd Amendment rights in order to deny those rights, both public and private, to you forever.