Climategate Conspirator Confesses to Faud

So, Phil Jones of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit confesses to fraud according to Marc Sheppard in the American Thinker article entitled Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud. So when are charges to be brought? Many people who bought into this hoax can be forgiven. But people who claimed to be "climate scientists" like Phil Jones and Michael Mann need to charged with fraud, and forced to make restitution, to the degree that they can, of funds that were, in the final analysis, stolen from taxpayers. The money quote is here:

By now, Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) should require no introduction, so let’s get right to it. In a BBC Q&A and corresponding interview released Friday, the discredited Climategate conspirator revealed a number of surprising insights into his true climate beliefs, the most shocking of which was that 20th-century global warming may not have been unprecedented. As the entire anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory is predicated on correlation with rising CO2 levels, this first-such confession from an IPCC senior scientist is nothing short of earth-shattering.

The article is longish, but go read the whole thing anyway. Towards the end, Sheppard has this warning:

Both Kyoto II and the domestic cap-and-tax scams appear to be dead for the moment. But, while any such move would likely be tied up in the courts for years, EPA head Lisa Jackson’s threats to proceed with carbon regulation remain very much alive.

Coupled with Obama's vow to put much of his agenda in the form of executive decrees, I hope Congress is moving to stop this nonsense, or to lay the groundwork for impeaching him if he proceeds. Surely there must be a Democrat or two who place country over politics, or at least place their own power over Obama's agenda.

"Only Ones" Confiscating Enough*

Courtesy of David Codrea of the War on Guns comes this delicious irony from
William Griggs posting at Lew Rockwell.

It seems that that the arms collection of one Gregory Girard of Manchester-By-The-Sea, Massachusetts was confiscated after his wife complained to police that he believed that martial law was imminent. Quote:

Granted, the invocation of that cliche is part of the familiar gun-grabber liturgy, but it doesn’t apply here, since the “weaponry” referred to was never on the “street” to begin with. It consisted of several firearms legally purchased by 45-year-old Gregory D. Girard, a computer consultant whose wife — was her maiden name Morozov, perchance? — told the authorities about her husband’s supposedly alarming view that martial law is imminent.

Since it is unacceptable for people to believe that government agents will carry out paramilitary raids to confiscate firearms, a paramilitary force was sent to Girard’s home to confiscate his firearms.
Those weapons are now “safely” in the hands of the most dangerous criminal element in any society — the people who pull triggers and commit other acts of violence on behalf of the political class.

The emphasis is mine. Go read the whole thing and savor the irony.

* The title borrows David Codrea's meme "Only Ones" because I am not clever enough to have thought of it. If the title seems vaguely reminiscent of a Codrea post, well what can I say but that imitation is the highest form of flattery...(sitting here red faced.)

Throwing Snowballs is a Felony?

This is something I have been meaning to put into a post for a while now, but it's not an easy subject, or one that is easily defensible. I have been bothered for some time by the spread of what I call the "felonization of living." Ayn Rand had a belief that innocent men could not be controlled, and therefore the State would try to make as many things criminal as possible, in order to control people. It often seems to be a prophetic thought in today's world. The latest example comes by way of a post by Kurt Hoffman of Armed and Safe and seems truly outrageous-throwing snowballs. Go read the report at The Smoking Gun. If convicted, these two young men will have their rights to vote and to own or carry weapons taken away for the rest of their lives, all over throwing snowballs, an activity engaged in by youngsters from time immemorial.

Felonies used to be serious crimes, like murder and manslaughter, rape, armed robbery or theft of truly large monetary amounts. Minor crimes and misdeeds were punished by fines, or a month or two in a local jail. Of course, there were no drug crimes legal or illegal, before the early part of the twentieth century. Any firearm could be legally owned by anyone who had the funds to buy it until 1934 (excluding unfortunately, Blacks, who were subject to the "black codes" which still haunt us today.) During the course of the Twentieth Century and continuing into the Twenty-First, more and more stuff has become a crime, and "felonious" has been defined down.

Martha Stewart is a felon. Let us suppose that she has a stalker, a rabid fan who wants to know the secret of making a lace doily that sits flat. If Martha Stewart felt a need to defend her life from her rabid stalker, she would be prohibited from carrying a gun to do so. Do you think Martha Stewart is a danger to herself or others if she had a gun? How about an average person who happens to have jumped through all the hoops to have gotten a concealed handgun license. Is a licensed concealed carrier a danger to you or anyone else if he carries his weapon into a Post Office? What magic does the Post Office posses that makes him a danger there, but immediately outside renders him harmless? Similarly, one could ask about all the other prohibited places North Carolina lists such as restaurants, theatres, banks, etc.

I ask you to consider that perhaps the course we have been taking has made matters worse, not better. More people today are in prison, yet we feel less safe than ever before. The felonization of living has not worked to make us a better people, but only proved the Founders of our Republic right. David Codrea has a saying that if I may paraphrase, if a man can not be trusted with a gun, then he shouldn't be allowed to walk among us without a keeper. That is part of the answer. The other part is to stop making things illegal. If a crime is serious, then it should be punished seriously. If a "crime" is only so because someone has defined it as such, repeal it. If a crime is a minor misdeed, then lesser measures should be taken. Throwing snowballs certainly fits the one of the latter categories.

In King, NC, You Are Only as Free as the State Says You Are

John Jacob H has a good commentary on the curfew and state of emergency passed in King, NC entitled Where The Hell is King, North Carolina?. Apparently, in response to David Codrea's question "By Whose Authority?" John Jacob H answers by the Mayor's own authority. So, a Mayor of a small town has the authority to declare a state of emergency and declare that people will not be allowed to have their weapons during a time when, by official proclamation, people might need their weapons. And this because of some snow? Hmmm. This sounds like Hurricane Katrina all over again.

During Hurricane Katrina, the police went door to door confiscating peoples legally owned firearms. Homeowners were disarmed at precisely the time when they might need to defend themselves from looters and other criminals because the police were admittedly not going to be there.

Why? Why is this happening in a supposedly "free State?"

Well, it could be because of her. "Representative" Deborah Ross has bottled up nearly every pro gun bill that has come before her committee. Right now she has the Castle Doctrine bill bottled up in Committee, and won't let it out for a vote of the House. It has already passed the Senate, by an overwhelming majority. North Carolinians need this bill to defend themselves after they are forced to defend themselves. After we get Castle Doctrine, we need to work on securing our weapons in times of emergency from being stolen by "authorities" acting under color of law. Oh, by the way, we also need eliminate bans on restaurant carry, theatre carry, park carry... But none of this will happen unless and until we vote out ACLU lawyer Deborah Ross.

Update, and correction: Apparently, NC had a bill, HB 257, which could have prevented this abuse of power. It was introduced by several pro-gun legislators, including Representative Bryan Holloway of the district that includes King. However, in this case, it was denied a hearing by House Majority leader, Hugh Holliman. So, "Representative" Ross was innocent in this case. However, in the case of the Castle Doctrine, she is still the one holding the bill in committee, and refusing to let it be voted on by the entire House. And the Mayor of King, NC still deserves all the opprobrium that can be heaped on him for being a petty tyrant.

How Many Guns Are Enough?

John Longenecker asks, in his Los Angeles Gun Rights Examiner column How Many Guns are Enough? on February 4, 2010. It's a serious question. Interestingly, what he is talking about is not how many guns an individual may find enough, because the answer to that question is largely unknowable. Rather, what Longenecker is estimating is the number of people actively carrying guns at any time in a community. The answer may surprise you. Longenecker figures that if just 10% of the community were actively carrying guns when in public, that it would be possible for anyone to walk down our streets anywhere, at any time of the day.

Interesting. But go read the whole thing. We might debate the actual numbers, but I think the basic idea is sound.

Government: Robbing Us Blind

The American Thinker has a great article up today by Mark W. Hendrickson entitled Our National Blind Spot that makes the case, again, that taxing one person to subsidize another constitutes robbery. A quote:

But if this isn't robbery, then what is it? If the state's would-be victims resist being plundered, the state will retaliate by confiscating even more of their property and/or incarcerating them. The democratic process rests on force and the implied threat of force every step of the way.

We don't bat an eye anymore when someone glibly proposes "spreading the wealth." In fact, many Americans enjoy spreading the wealth, as long as it isn't their own. In a recent survey, three out of four Americans agreed that Obama and Congress should raises taxes on that minority of Americans with annual incomes above $200,000. Apparently, most Americans believe that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and their minions have more of a right to spend those dollars than the citizens who earned them.

If you think this line of thought is crazy, then let me ask you a question: What percentage of a person's honest income should he or she be allowed to keep? The only guidelines I am aware of are "all of it" (the original American way, since income taxes were unconstitutional until 1913) or nothing beyond what anybody else (except the governing elite) can keep, according to the communist principle "from each according to his ability to each according to his need."

Between those two polar extremes, any percentage one chooses would be arbitrary. In practice, the degree to which property is redistributed depends on whatever shifting political coalition has enough votes -- enough power -- at any given moment. Stripped of grandiose pretenses and specious idealism, contemporary political life has descended into a constant, contentious squabble to see who gets what at the expense of whom.

I would be all in favor of getting rid of the income tax, and instead imposing a national sales tax at the retail level on every item bought or sold. Of course, the Left points out that such a system would hit the poor (and throw in women and minorities for good measure) the hardest. But, on the other hand, everyone would have to participate, and with some skin in the game, would actively try to keep taxes to the minimum. As it stands, 49% of Americans are constantly agitating for more, more, more at the expense of the "rich," who politicians assure us, are an endless pool of funds that we can take from whenever we identify another want. Incidentally, we can not allow a national sales tax to be hidden, but must make it visible for all to see. At the same time, we must also make visible the taxes imposed on gasoline, liquor, and everything else that gets taxed. Until we do this, I suspect we will not be able to get spending under control. If we can get out in the open just what it is costing Americans for their government, more folks will question just what they are getting for their money.

Another way to look at it comes from Eternity Road's estimable Curmudgeon Emeritus take on the issue here. However, while the Curmudgeon comes at it from a different perspective, in the end it is the same: theft. In this case, the Government is stealing from one who pays taxes to fund another whose lifestyle the person paying does not approve. The end result is not only injury but insult.

Cuba, again

Last week we had an article on Che Guevara exposing what a sick, creepy, and murderous excuse for a human being he was. Today, Castro's Cuba is in the news again with this piece from the David Codrea, the National Gun Rights Examiner, entitled Cuba's Forced Amnesty Demonstrates Tyrannical Intent of Gun Control. Go read the whole thing, as it is fascinating. We seldom hear these details of a truly sordid history, but instead are treated an unending diet of the "wonders of Castro's health care plan", or "Castro's education system." One would almost believe that Cuba was an island paradise where everyone had a PhD and lived to be 100 years old. The truth is much, much uglier.

Each time the true intent behind gun control and gun registration is exposed, one would think a few more people would "get it." But, just so we are clear: the only purpose of registration is so the "authorities" have a list to go after when the pass a law banning guns.

Still, there are calls for registration, and for "sensible gun control" laws. People ask why we can't just compromise a bit, have a little give a take. Well, Codrea's article above says it all. This has been the history of gun registration everywhere it has been tried, including in New York City and California. The history of the Twentieth Century is one of us compromising our principles for the constant promise that this time it will make everyone safer, only to discover that it doesn't, and a few years later the gun grabbers were back for more. Ben Franklin was right.

So, the lesson I learned from it is to simply stand on principle. No more. Shall not be infringed means what it says. The only law I would entertain is a law to start repealing all those unconstitutional laws.