Harry Reid’s Omnibus Background Check Bill

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

After reading about the gang of 16 turncoat Republicans that voted with the dems to allow Harry Reid’s gun bill to move forward, I made a call.

I telephoned my Senator, Kelly Ayotte’s office in Washington to vent my spleen. I spoke with one of her lackeys, and she explained that the senator has always been pro-second amendment. I asked the lackey if the pro-gun Sen. actually read the very lengthy bill she voted to allow to proceed? The lackey had no answer. She just kept repeating how Sen. Ayotte was pro-second amendment. I told her that her answer, to me, assumed the senator had not and that I will report it that way. The lackey was none too happy with me. Frankly, at this point, I don’t really care.

At this very moment (writing this article), I am staring at page after page after excruciating page of Senate bill S – 649.

The name of the bill is: S – 649: Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013.

How could anyone be against safe communities and schools? They might as well call it the “Don’t Shoot Grandma Act.” After all, who would vote to shoot grandma?

It doesn’t take long to question the sincerity of the bill. It starts in the very first sentence: “To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale, and for other purposes.”

See anything a little creepy about the preamble? You too, eh? I see two problems. The first is relatively minor, the second, seriously major.

First: there is no way to ensure full registration. It’s a crock, but it sounds great and isn’t that really the most important thing? It doesn’t matter whether it actually happens as long as they care enough to wish it to be so. It is tailored directly to the low information citizen.

Second: this is the scary part: “… And for other purposes”. Yikes! What does that mean? Answer: anything they want it to – after it is signed into law.

This bill, like so many others, is purposely written to go on forever. Here is the link to read it for yourself, assuming you are as masochistic as I: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s649/text.

Here’s a little interesting factoid to ponder that directly relates to this bill.

In 2007 Delaware passed a law making it a minimum class A misdemeanor to spank a child under the age of 18. Coincidentally, uncle Joe Biden’s son Beau was one of the people who pushed the law. Small world, isn’t it?

So Delaware passed a law. So what? Well, here is so what.

Bill S – 649, Section 111: … Proposed Grants, b) Use of Grants, (1) In General, (E) “supply accurate and timely court orders and records of misdemeanor crimes…”

Putting it together? Any parent in Delaware convicted of spanking their child (don’t laugh, it’s the law) will not be able to legally own a firearm and I’m sure that’s not the only example.

Not only is the bill written, at times in the vaguest terms possible, but also it continually cites other laws  – causing one to either research every cited law or throw their hands up in frustration.

This is where we are headed folks. I have now finished reading the entire bill and I’ll tell you, it would take Justice Scalia and 20 researchers several weeks to interpret. No lie! That means there is no Senator that will fully understand what they are voting for. Just like Obamacare.

Oh, and by the way, it never did reveal what the “other purposes” were.

Liberals Want To Control Your Words—And Opinions

from: Mark Steyn (my second favorite Rush fill-in host)

 

He who controls the language shapes the debate: In the same week the  Associated Press announced that it would no longer describe illegal immigrants  as “illegal immigrants,” the star columnist of The New York Times fretted that  the Supreme Court seemed to have misplaced the style book on another fashionable  minority. “I am worried,” wrote Maureen Dowd, “about how the justices can  properly debate same-sex marriage when some don’t even seem to realize that most  Americans use the word ‘gay’ now instead of ‘homosexual.'” She quoted her friend  Max Mutchnick, creator of “Will & Grace”:

“Scalia uses the word ‘homosexual’ the way George Wallace used the word  ‘Negro.’ There’s a tone to it. It’s humiliating and hurtful. I don’t think I’m  being overly sensitive, merely vigilant.”

For younger readers, George Wallace was a powerful segregationist Democrat.  Whoa, don’t be overly sensitive. There’s no “tone” to my use of the word  “Democrat”; I don’t mean to be humiliating and hurtful: it’s just what, in  pre-sensitive times, we used to call a “fact.” Likewise, I didn’t detect any  “tone” in the way Justice Scalia used the word “homosexual”. He may have thought  this was an appropriately neutral term, judiciously poised midway between “gay”  and “Godless sodomite.” Who knows? He’s supposed to be a judge, and a certain  inscrutability used to be part of what we regarded as a judicial temperament. By  comparison, back in 1986, the year Scalia joined the Supreme Court, the Chief  Justice Warren Burger declared “there is no such thing as a fundamental right to  commit homosexual sodomy”. I don’t want to be overly sensitive, but I think even  I, if I rewound the cassette often enough, might be able to detect a certain  tone to that.

Continue Reading

Climate Changers

by: the Common Constitutionalist

The following are excerpts from an article in the British publication, The Economist, written Nov. 2008. That’s just 5 years ago. I know in seems a lot longer considering our current state of affairs in this country:

The Economist “The most important year for climate change since 2001, when the Kyoto protocol (which set targets for cutting carbon-dioxide emissions) was agreed, will be 2009… The first period of the protocol runs out in 2012. The deal to replace it is supposed to be done at the United Nations’ Climate Change conference in Copenhagen…”

 “No deal means that mankind gives up on trying to save the planet.”

 

Wow, really? Is the planet in that much danger? It must be. These men of science wouldn’t overstate a problem, or create one, just to score political points and extract money from us?

It continues:

 “The rich world (especially America) needs to commit itself to legally enforceable carbon-emissions reductions… The rich world, which has been responsible for most emissions so far and recognises that it needs to pay up… The Clean Development Mechanism, which was set up under Kyoto to allow rich countries to buy carbon credits from poor countries that have cut their emission, does that already, but is probably not robust enough to do the job on the scale needed.”

 kyoto protocol

I was shocked, and I’m sure you as well, to see America singled out. I was also surprised to read that carbon credit purchasing isn’t solving the problem. Huh.

They seemed to be quite pleased at the arrival of “The One”:

 “What happens in Washington is most important. Progress on climate change is much likelier under the new administration than the old, for the new one is committed to introducing mandatory federal carbon-emissions cuts through a cap-and-trade scheme…”

 

So what’s the big deal? That was old news. Nothing has changed. The eco-weenies will never change, you say. No matter what happens they will never change their tune on climate change or man-caused global warming.

Well, not so fast. It seems that actual science may be catching up to the hysteria. I know, dare to dream, but in a March 30 article in the very same publication, the folks at The Economist seem to report honestly of the un-changing climate:

 “OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar… And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

 

This must have killed Hansen to even utter these words, for he is dishonest climate change whore, and that’s being kind.

Continuing:

 “Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise… If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.”

 Climate Graph

“The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion.”

 

No, of course not. The only deluded people have been us man-caused climate change deniers. And it’s funny that they are always surprised when nothing happens. Kind of exactly as we’ve been predicting for years.

The article continues:

 “…an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.”

 

Ruh Ro Reorge. The earth is cleaning itself?! The profound significance could be that as nothing continues to happen, it’s already getting harder to keep beating that same old world apocalypse drum.

The rest of the article is rather long and boring with explanations of new climate modelling, sprinkled with a lot of what-ifs, in an attempt to further the global warming cause.

Although we on the reasonable side of this argument can be slightly heartened by this quasi-admission, this battle is far from over. These folks will not go down without a fight. They have far too much to lose.

We may, in the long run, win this war against the climate weenies, and heh, as the world economy crumbles and we all go the way of Cyprus, no one will worry about man-made climate change.

Harvard Cheats!

It’s all about the “Fairness”. This time I agree.

 

Harvard stripped of quiz championships for cheating

Harvard University has been stripped of a string of US quiz championship titles after a cheating scandal was uncovered by organizers.

A competitor from America’s most prestigious university was found to have accessed a website that listed questions that were to be asked in the National Academic Quiz Tournament (NAQT).

For three successive years, Andy Watkins, a member of Harvard’s “A” team, viewed pages that displayed the first 40 characters of forthcoming questions, NAQT officials said.

Mr Watkins, who graduated in 2011, had basic access to the tournament database because he wrote questions for a schools quiz competition as well as competing in the national university-age contest.

Championships awarded to the Ivy League college, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 2009 and 2010, and two separate titles from 2011, were revoked and handed to the original runners-up.

Organisers said in a statement that while they had “neither direct nor statistical evidence” that Harvard had directly benefited from the security breach, “it goes against competitors’ expectations of fair play.”

The tournament sees teams of four students competing to answer questions chosen from across the “entire spectrum of a college curriculum” as well “current events, sports, and popular culture” in a set time limit. Teams that win their regional championship qualify for the national Intercollegiate Championship Tournament.

During the 2011 contest, Mr Watkins impressed observers by buzzing in to correctly answer a question on the history of Thailand, securing the defeat of the University of Minnesota in the final round.

Continue Reading