January 31, 2013

DC Trawler

Crazy gun nut shoots man just for breaking into her house

12:44 PM 01/31/2013

Jim Treacher

Everybody knows that guns don’t protect people. More guns = more gun crimes. Like this one!

MAGNOLIA, Texas – A home invasion suspect was arrested at a hospital after a mother shot him during the crime at a Montgomery County home, deputies said Wednesday.

Erin, who asked to be identified only by her first name, told Local 2 she was putting her 6-year-old son to bed when she heard a loud noise coming from her bedroom on Mink Lake Drive Friday night…

Erin said she turned around and saw three masked men, pointing a gun right at her…

“Somehow the way it happened, as they were going down the hallway, I told them sometimes I keep money under the mattress, which is not true. But I needed to get to where my gun was,” she said.

The men followed her to her bedroom.

“I was pretending to move the mattress. It’s really heavy, so I was trying to move their attention to the mattress because they wouldn’t take their eyes off of me. I needed a split second for them to take their eyes off of me. I said, ‘It might be under here.’ They started talking to each other in Spanish and then a roll of duct tape came out,” said Erin…

“They all turned around and looked. I grabbed my gun, cocked it, I turned and shot him right in the stomach,” said Erin.

I think it’s pretty obvious what happened here. Some hardworking gentlemen from the Hispanic community were just trying to make a living selling duct tape door-to-door. They were going for the hard sell because times are tough, especially when you’re a minority. Then this demented hillbilly racist went nuts and just started shooting at them. And because it’s Texas — gun-wacko central! — they arrested the victim.

Are you happy now, Wayne LaPierre? Are you satisfied?

(Hat tip: William Jacobson)

January 24, 2013

Global Warming Alarmist Appeared in 1978's 'The Coming Ice Age'

By Noel Sheppard | October 13, 2009 | 10:01

A A

Stanford University's noted global warming alarmist and Al Gore advisor Stephen Schneider appeared in a 1978 television program warning Americans of a coming Ice Age.

For those that have forgotten, "In Search of..." was a televised documentary series from 1976 to 1982 that was normally narrated by Leonard Nimoy.

In the May 1978 episode "The Coming Ice Age," Nimoy presented to viewers facts about the previous Ice Age, and discussed how the bitterly cold winters of 1976 and 1977 might be a harbinger of a new one: "Climate experts believe the next one is on its way. According to recent evidence, it could come sooner than anyone had expected."

One climate expert cited was Stephen Schneider, a climatologist working for the National Center for Atmospheric Research at the time who was asked to address some of the possible solutions being discussed to stop the coming Ice Age such as using nuclear energy to loosen the polar icecaps (video embedded below the fold, relevant section at 6:04, h/t Minnesotans for Global Warming via Bob Ferguson):

DR. STEPHEN SCHNEIDER: Can we do these things? Yes. But will they make things better? I'm not sure. We can't predict with any certainty what's happening to our own climatic future. How can we come along and intervene then in that ignorance? You could melt the icecaps. What would that do to the coastal cities? The cure could be worse than the disease. Would that be better or worse than the risk of an ice age?

Imagine that. In 1978, one of today's leading global warming alarmists not only appeared in a television program warning the world of a coming Ice Age, but he also said: "We can't predict with any certainty what's happening to our own climatic future. How can we come along and intervene then in that ignorance?"

Now, thirty years later, Schneider is INDEED predicting what's happening to our climatic future by using models, and advocates government intervention to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to prevent global warming.

Yet, thirty years ago when he was concerned about a new Ice Age, he worried that the proposed cure could be worse than the disease.

Such concerns have clearly abated, as Schneider is now a member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well a close advisor to Gore.

In fact, as this video created by Phelim McAleer (the man whose microphone was recently turned off when he had the nerve to ask Gore a question) demonstrates, Schneider was actually with Gore when he acknowledged winning the Nobel Peace Prize:

Now that Schneider's appearance on "In Search of..." has been uncovered, will journalists always concerned about presenting all sides of the story report this video and its implications or bury it for fear that it might impact pending legislation to cap and tax carbon dioxide emissions?

Stay tuned.

January 23, 2013

Obama’s inaugural crowds, before and after (in 4 photos)

Posted by Aaron Blake on January 23, 2013 at 4:07 pm

Text Size
Print
Reprints

The Post’s great graphics team and photographers have put together a wonderfulcomparison of the inaugural crowds between 2009 and 2013.

Below, you can play with the photos by dragging the cursor back and forth, to get a sense for how the crowds compared.

(And make sure to check out all the graphics team’s great before-and-after photos.)

The 2009 crowd was initially estimated at 1.8 million, though that number has since been revised downward to around 1 million, as the video below demonstrates.

Initial estimates of the 2013 crowd have suggested there were around 800,000 people.

January 21, 2013

Barack Obama inauguration: a call for unity that may go unheeded by half the country

It was billed as Barack Obama's 'Martin Luther King moment', when America's first black president would outline his own dream for a more united America, but all along the length of Washington's great Mall, it was apparent that only half of the nation had showed up to listen to his call.

By Peter Foster, Washington

8:25PM GMT 21 Jan 2013

328 Comments

Overwhelmingly, the crowd of 800,000 people was filled with the faces of the young, female, urban, African-American coalition that ensured Mr Obama's re-election for a second term last November. They were Obama's people, and they were there to celebrate their victory.

After being sworn in on the bibles of his political heroes Abraham Lincoln and Dr King – without any fumbling of the oath of office as happened in 2009 – Mr Obama acknowledged the "uncertain future" faced by America and asked his "fellow Americans" to unite in facing its challenges.

And yet Mr Obama's prescription was an uncompromising and urgent statement of the liberal agenda that leaves Conservative forces – predominantly white, rural and evangelically Christian – seething with anger and alienation.

On gay marriage and gun control, on immigration and inequality, on the global issues of war and climate change, Mr Obama unapologetically reiterated his commitment to his own brand of social and economic inclusiveness.

He quoted the Declaration of Independence – a document, ironically often used by the Tea Party and Republicans – but made very different deductions from its premises than those heard from the American Right.

The message was welcomed by a group of five young black high school students who had made the journey from New Orleans, paid for by "Upward Bound", a Federal government programme aimed to encourage young people to stay in school and get to university.

As Mr Obama hailed Dr King for leading the fight for racial equality, and promised to carry on "what those pioneers" had begun, the students looked on excitedly wearing signs that read: "Dr King's Legacy: Jobs, not war".

"This is history," beamed 17-year-old Geterrian Tillman who wants to be a paediatrician, "Obama getting elected again? Twice in a row? It's crazy. It's keepin the dream alive. The sign is about the job shortages we're having right now. We need to spend money on making jobs, not war."

Far off in the distance – a spec up on the Western Steps of the US Capitol, where former president George W Bush was also absent – Mr Obama was agreeing, pointedly rejecting the interventionist outlook of his predecessor with the observation that "we, the people" do not believe that "lasting peace" requires "perpetual war".

The same crowd also appreciated Mr Obama's surprisingly frank statement of his commitment on gay marriage, as he became the first president in history to use the word 'gay' in an inaugural address.

Only one tiny portion of the crowd gathered on the Mall disagreed, and they were corralled by police behind metal barriers, apparently for their own safety, marching around with placards proclaiming that "God Hates Fags" and "Anti-Christ Obama".

Some stopped to shout abuse at the placard-holders, other just shook their heads, most just laughed.

"It's sad, doesn't God love everyone?", asked 52-year-old Elizabeth Baker, a Christian aid-worker trying to engage her fellow Christians, who fired back snatches of scripture, promising that God would separate the sheep and the goats soon enough.

Back on the stage, at the far end on Pennsylvania, the ceremonies were unfolding in a manner that bore all the hallmarks of the Obama White House, scattered with the celebrities and liberal pieties that the 'other' side so despise.

A gay Cuban-American poet, Richard Blanco, read a work entitled "One Today" that echoed the theme of togetherness and told of an American nation under "one sun" and "one moon", rooted in "one ground".

It all ended with a typically flamboyant performance of the American national anthem by the singer Beyoncé – the leader of a glamour-pack that included Katy Perry, Stevie Wonder and Kelly Clarkson – and who received a cheer equal, almost, to the president.

The world watched the first family watching: Mr Obama, Michelle Obama with her new fringe and their two daughters, Malia, 14, and Sasha, 11, whose suddenly adult poise provided the sharpest reminder of that another four years had passed.

As Beyonce's notes faded into a grey sky and the crowds waved and cheered, Mr Obama made his exit, but suddenly turned to look down the Mall, pausing wistfully for almost a minute as he took in the scene.

"I want to look out one more time," he said, afterwards, conscious of history as ever, "because I'll never see this again."

January 20, 2013

Native Australians have had (carnal) knowledge of India

Travelers from India also may have brought culture, and the dingo.

by John Timmer - Jan 20 2013, 5:30pm EST

LIFE SCIENCES

As genetic studies continue to expand in scope, one of the things they're revealing is the complexity of humanity's shared legacy. Rather than a clean expansion out of Africa, we've found that the ancestors of Europeans and Asians mated with Neanderthals, while the group that populated Australia and New Guinea later went on to mate with Denisovans—a group we didn't even know existed a decade ago.

The native population of Australia and New Guinea is also exceptional as it appears to be one of the earliest branches off the group that migrated out of Africa; initial studies suggested that it had been isolated for nearly 40,000 years, since the groups first crossed from Indonesia to an area called the Sahul, which includes Australia, New Guinea, and the areas between them that would be above sea level during the peak of ice ages. But a new study has done a more detailed analysis and found an indication that the supposedly isolated population received a genetic (and possibly cultural) infusion about 4,000 years ago. And that it came not from the nearby islands of Indonesia, but from the Indian subcontinent.

The authors were using a genome-wide scan for places where human populations are known to have single-base differences in their DNA (termed SNPs, for single-nucleotide polymorphisms). They used a panel of samples that covered area of interest, along with some from other islands lying between there and the Asian mainland. In addition, they included African, European, and mainland Asian samples.

One of the first surprises was that the people of the Sahul shared a close genetic affinity for a group called the Mamanwa, who inhabit the Philippines. That's somewhat surprising, given that the Philippines are on the opposite side of the Wallace Line, the area of deep water that separates Australia and New Guinea from mainland Asia and helped to keep their population largely isolated.

Closely linked SNPs are likely to be inherited together and only become randomized with time. The extent to which they're inherited together can thus be used as a measure of separation time. The authors performed this analysis, and came up with a figure of 36,000 years. That's notably lower than the 40,000 years of most other estimates, although the authors discuss a number of factors that can potentially distort the results. Still, it's consistent with the general idea that the ancestors of native Australians split off shortly after the departure of modern humans from Africa, and took a southern route to their eventual home, where they lived in isolation.

What wasn't consistent with that was an affinity that turned up with populations native to the Indian subcontinent. The authors tried a variety of tests, and it kept showing up, and several of the tests produced a consistent number: 11 percent of the genomes of Australia and New Guinea seems to have been derived from Indians.

This could have been the result of events that happened after European contact, so the authors did the math to estimate when the DNA entered the current population. They came up with an estimate of 141 generations, which (based on a typical human generation time) would place the arrival of the Indians at over 4,000 years ago. Clearly that predates European contact, but the authors note that a number of changes in stone tool use took place in Australia around this time; it's also the first time that the dingo appears in the fossil record.

The authors note that their sample of Australians is limited to those from the Northern Territory, so they don't know whether this influence extends throughout the continent. (The New Guinea population was limited to those who live in the highlands, as they're a distinct population.) What they can say is that a similar Indian input seems to be lacking from any of the 11 populations they sampled from islands in Southeast Asia. That suggests that, either the Indians went directly to Australia (which would have been an impressive feat) or their travels through the islands on the way were very limited.

The study highlights how higher resolution data and more extensive sampling is changing our perspective on human history. The initial human genome studies saw no indication of any interbreeding with Neanderthals; more detailed studies were just starting to hint at it when the completion of the Neanderthal genome first confirmed it. In a similar way, the initial study of a native Australian genome suggested something was a bit off with some of the DNA, but couldn't identify a source. This study finally has.

I cant wait to see what other surprises might be lurking as genomic information becomes ever more widespread.

January 18, 2013

Hypocrisy Unbound: Piers Morgan’s Former Love of Guns and Self-defense

By Randy Hall | January 18, 2013 | 17:48

A A

Piers Morgan, CNN's rabid crusader for stricter gun control laws, didn't always think firearms were such a bad thing. While living in his native England, the liberal host joked about shooting his professional rivals and said that homeowners who kill burglars should not be prosecuted.

As revealed in an article posted on Thursday by Daily Caller reporter Charles C. Johnson, the host of “Piers Morgan Tonight” also described himself as a “rabid fascist” who wants burglars to be tortured.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Well, at least he didn't want them to be shot.

Morgan’s comments came in an interview with England’s Daily Mail newspaper. They concerned his dismissal as editor of the Daily Mirror, a rival British tabloid, after he was fired for publishing fake photos supposedly showing British soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners.

Daily Mail reporter Frances Hardy said the liberal crusader “ruminate[d] merrily” about things he imagined doing to such enemies as “Top Gear” host Jeremy Clarkson, writer A.A. Gill and editor Ian Hislop.

“So the real question is, if I had a gun with just two bullets, who would I shoot?” Morgan asked during the May 2006 interview.

“In the end,” wrote Hardy, “he can’t choose between them, so he opts for a clean shot to take out Hislop and a ricocheting hit to mortally wound both Clarkson and Gill.”

Two years earlier, Morgan wrote an op-ed for the Evening Standard headlined “I can’t be liberal on burglars,” in which he said a series of home invasions and robberies made him wish for a gun.

At that time, Britain -- which had banned all guns -- had seen a rash of break-in burglaries, one of which took the life of financier John Monckton.

If Monckton had killed one of those burglars while defending himself … then he would now be facing a jail sentence for manslaughter or even murder. No part of my liberalism allows me to deem this fair.

The liberal activist continued that “when it comes to burglars, I turn into a rabid fascist. I want them erased from life, all of them. Preferably after a decent period of cattle-prodding, testicle electrode treatment, and slow gentle skewering over hot coals.”

Margan's attitude was the result of his experience after purchasing his first home in London, which he said “seemed the most exciting thing in the world.”

“Then we got burgled three times in six months, and our lives became consumed by fear and fury,” he stated.

The criminals “nick [steal] everything, and always did it in a repulsive manner -- trashing the house each time, crapping on the stairs, urinating on the beds,”Morgan explained. “It wasn’t enough that they wanted our possessions, they wanted us to feel really violated as well. And we did.”

Now we were confident, physically robust young men. But it really shook us up. Add a bit of violence to the mix, and I think we’d have gone racing back to our mummies.

Morgan added that he would have no compunction about killing a burglar who posed a threat to him or his family.

“I wouldn’t shoot anyone because, like most people in this country, I’m not licensed to carry a gun,” he said.

“But if I woke up to find a thug in my house at 2 a.m. stealing my hard-earned things and posing a clear and present threat to my well-being and perhaps that of my children, then I wouldn’t hesitate to grab the hardest thing I could find and defend myself,” he noted.

And if I killed a burglar in that situation, I would expect the law to be on my side, not the despicable little toerag defiling my life.

As NewsBusters previously reported, Morgan's attitude on firearms seemed to change dramatically once he moved to America and became the host of a low-rated weeknight television talk show.

After the mass shooting in a theater in Aurora, Colo., on July 20 and the attack on the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., on December 14, the liberal host has praised gun-control advocates and hammered supporters of gun rights as “unbelievably stupid” and “dangerous.”

Not surprisingly, Morgan has never mentioned his experiences in England during the current debate, instead focusing on demands for strict gun-control legislation.

However, as support for draconian gun control has waned over the past few weeks, Morgan has bashed critics of his anti-gun crusade and begun to discuss other topics, such as the scandal regarding athlete Lance Armstrong's admission that he used performance-enhancing drugs to win professional bicycle races.

Despite his misfire on gun control, Morgan celebrated his program's second anniversary on Thursday, when he promised “another year of fascinating guests and extraordinary stories” featuring his “unabashed candor and explosive passion.”

Just do not involve any guns in that explosive passion.

January 10, 2013

This is the reason why we can convict & deport Piers Morgan

18 USC § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

USCPrelim is a preliminary release and may be subject to further revision before it is released again as a final version.

Current through Pub. L. 112-207. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.

January 9, 2013

OBAMACARE AMENDMENT FORBIDS GUN AND AMMO REGISTRATION

194

160

Email Article

Print Article Send a Tip

by AWR HAWKINS 9 Jan 2013, 12:24 PM PDT 48POST A COMMENT

Good news -- it has become known that hidden deep within the massive 2800-page bill called Obamacare there is a Senate Amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

It seems that in their haste to cram socialized medicine down the throats of the American people, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Barack Obama overlooked Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c.

According to reports, that amendment says the government cannot collect "any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition."

CNN is calling it "a gift to the nation's powerful gun lobby."

And according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), that's exactly right. He says he added the provision in order to keep the NRA from getting involved in the legislative fight over Obamacare, which was so ubiquitous in 2010.