“Kids” To Sue European Nations Over ‘Climate Change’, Because The Paris Agreement Is Not Enough

Yes, it’s another case of kids suing over Hotcoldwetdry, and, by kids, we all know that they have been put up to this by adults with an agenda

(CNN) A group of Portuguese children whose district was ravaged by deadly forest fires this summer is to sue 47 European nations, accusing them of failing to take action on climate change.

The seven youngsters, aged eight to 18, are taking on the member states of the Council of Europe, who together produce at least 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency. (snip)

The children will ask the European Court of Human Rights to tell the nations to enforce stronger emission-cutting policies, and to stop mining fossil fuel reserves.

Lead counsel Marc Willers QC, from London’s Garden Court Chambers, says the legal action is a landmark case. If successful, it would set a historic precedent and be binding across Europe.

If only the European nations (the 47 refers to the Council Of Europe members) had done something before

(Common Dreams) The nations named in the lawsuit are responsible for about 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. While they are all signers of the Paris climate agreement and as such have committed to cut their emissions in order to prevent the global temperature from rising more than two degrees Celsius, the children argue that they’re not doing enough.

Interesting. We were told that the Paris agreement was historic and stuff, and would Solve Everything. No?

Anyhow, back to this whopper by CNN

Earlier this year, US President Donald Trump announced plans to pull out of the Paris agreement— signed by his predecessor, Barack Obama — in 2020, unless there are significant changes to it.

In response, 21 children brought a lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging inaction on climate change violated their constitutional rights.

And this is why the media is so distrusted and called biased, especially CNN: the suit was brought while Obama was still in office and against Obama and his administration. The above wasn’t even spin: it’s a bald faced lie.

Read: “Kids” To Sue European Nations Over ‘Climate Change’, Because The Paris Agreement Is Not Enough »

If All You See…

…is pavement that is cracking from carbon pollution induced heat, you might just be a Warmist

Teh blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on what moonbats are now demanding of a Christian baker.

Read: If All You See… »

It’s Come To This: Sheriff Officers Were Under Investigation For Reporting Illegals To ICE

This is an amazing thing

(Portland Mercury) Three Multnomah County deputies who shared the whereabouts of undocumented immigrants with federal agents last year did not intentionally break office policy and won’t be disciplined, the sheriff’s office says.

In an email this afternoon, the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office says a months-long investigation into the deputies’ contact with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents “revealed areas where policy direction was not clear, and members were conducting business within the parameters provided by a previous administration. The case files have been closed with a finding of not sustained.”

The MCSO began investigating deputies conduct early this year, after it became clear that Close Street deputies were helping ICE agents locate people wanted for potentially violating immigration law. As revealed in emails obtained by the Portland Tribune, deputies Keith Fisher, Larry Wenzel, and Karl Kolberg all had interactions with ICE agents that raised questions about whether they were violating Oregon laws against using public resources to enforce immigration law, to say nothing of the MCSO’s own “sanctuary” policies.

Think on that: these deputies were under fire for enforcing federal law, which takes precedence over state, local, and county law when it comes to immigration, as the Constitution gives Los Federales this power. They could have potentially been fired for daring to alert federal authorities on the whereabouts of people who are unlawfully present in the United States. Law enforcement is supposed to uphold all laws. These sanctuary jurisdiction policies demand that the people tasked with enforcing law not only ignore criminality, but can get in trouble if they don’t.

Read: It’s Come To This: Sheriff Officers Were Under Investigation For Reporting Illegals To ICE »

Say, Who Controls Athletes Opinions?

NPR’s Karen Gigsby Bates thinks she’s on to something Very Important in the National Discussion On Race

When It Comes To Race And Sports, Who Owns An Athlete’s Opinions?

The NFL’s players are 70 percent black; its fans are 83 percent white and 64 percent male, according to online sports site The Real GM.

And when it comes to the current controversy over the national anthem and players taking a knee, that statistic is playing a huge role.

It leads to the idea, says Amira Rose Davis of Penn State University, “that ‘you are good as entertainment, but once you have a voice, I don’t want to hear you. You need to shut up and play.’ “

Some players, though, clearly are not be satisfied to just play and be paid.

Obviously, this is all about playing the Race Card.

Despite what critics say was intended by owners to be a chilling cautionary tale, more and more NFL players (most of them black, with a few exceptions) have joined Kaepernick in taking a knee this year, and America is not happy.

Well, a lot of white America is not happy.

And that’s an important distinction.

See? People upset because they just want to watch football are now raaaaacists. Who thinks this kind of discussion, meant to divide rather than bring together, helps?

All this doesn’t surprise Colorado College historian Jamal Ratchford. He’s African-American and studies the nexus of sports, race and protest.

“Self-determination of black athletes has always been a challenge and infringed upon,” Ratchford says.

Let’s skip to the end of this race baiting, shall we?

Ultimately, the question may boil down to this: Who decides when, and how, players — especially black professional athletes, who are all too aware that some of their ancestors actually were owned by others — can exercise their right to self-expression?

Let’s turn that around: who owns the opinions of NPR employee Karen Gigsby Bates when she is working? Who decides when, and how, Karen Gigsby Bates can exercise her right to self-expression? That would be NPR, the company she chose to work for. We all make a choice to abide by the rules of the company we accept employment from. We are not to do things on the job that create a big problem for the company. Big companies tend to have a Code Of Conduct that lays this all out. When we are on Company Time, can we disrespect customers? If we’re doing things that annoy a huge segment of the company’s customer base, causing them to stop being customers, reducing the revenue flow, decreasing the favorability of the company, what would happen? That’s right, termination.

The players could have done things much differently instead of ticking off a large segment of their fan base. They made their protest divisive, instead of bringing people together. They’ve damaged the NFL brand, and certainly reduced the income flow. Owners have let them. And you know what will get solved? Nothing.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Say, Who Controls Athletes Opinions? »

Trump’s Environmental Policy Advisor Pick: Warmism Is “Kinda Paganism”

It warms my heart that so many are treating ‘climate change’ as political/SJW issue it is, rather than thinking it’s a scientific issue

(ABC 10) President Donald Trump’s nominee to be the White House senior adviser for environmental policy in 2016 described the belief in “global warming” as a “kind of paganism” for “secular elites.”

Trump last week nominated Kathleen Hartnett White, who previously led the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, a post that requires Senate confirmation. Hartnett White, currently a senior fellow at the conservative think tank Texas Public Policy Foundation, has long expressed skepticism about established climate science and once dismissed the idea that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, calling it “the gas of life on this planet.” (Snip)

Hartnett White appeared on “The Right Perspective,” an online conservative radio show, in September 2016 when she made the comments talking about a “dark side” to belief in global warming.

“There’s a real dark side of the kind of paganism — the secular elites’ religion now — being evidently global warming,” Hartnett White said.

 photo n7gkinm_zps6tx6m27o.gif

Of course, these elites are much like the elites in many cults, in they demand Everyone Else they must comply, but they themselves do not.

Also, it’s interesting that this article initially came from CNN, who can find this, but nothing on the background of Obama.

Read: Trump’s Environmental Policy Advisor Pick: Warmism Is “Kinda Paganism” »

If All You See…

…is a town being destroyed by carbon pollution extreme weather, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is the First Street Journal, with a post saying that we don’t want compassion from President Trump, we want good policies.

Read: If All You See… »

Surprise: California General Assembly A Hotbed of Sexual Harassment

Looks like the elected law-making branch, which mostly consists of Democrats, and is run by Democrats, and has been for a long time, has a problem practicing what they preach

Graphic allegations about California legislator show there are few protections for female lobbyists in the Capitol

As a blunt manifesto painting the state Capitol as rife with sexual harassment and misconduct ricocheted through Sacramento this week, state leaders have begun looking into an explosive allegation of a forced sexual encounter and grappling with legislative solutions to the apparently ubiquitous culture of abuse in California politics.

The story shared by one lobbyist, Pamela Lopez, of a legislator masturbating in front of her in a bar bathroom has sparked investigations by the state Senate and Assembly. Lopez refused to disclose the legislator’s identity. There are 93 male lawmakers currently serving in Sacramento.

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon has vowed to back resignation or expulsion if the perpetrator is found to be one of his members.

Lopez’s tale underscores a systemic flaw in the state’s protections for women who work in — but are not employees of — the state Capitol. Female lobbyists say they feel there are few avenues to lodge workplace complaints against legislators, staff and lobbyists with different employers. The lack of options has attracted the attention of one state senator, who said she wants to address the problem in legislation next year.

But, um,

She has steadfastly declined to name the lawmaker.

“We’re not interested in taking punitive action,” she said of herself and others speaking out publicly. “We’re interested in a comprehensive look at the masculinized ethos of California politics — how we can all collectively do better in the future.”

This is apparently the “let’s punish everyone for what one person did” approach, which kinda makes one wonder if the GA is really such a hotbed to start with. Dramatic accusations require dramatic proof. And, despite snarking on Democrats, and despite “other lobbyists saying inappropriate touching and suggestive comments are commonplace in the job”, no one is naming names, no one is actually filing complaints. At the end of the day, people, even Democrats, are innocent till proven guilty.

Even the LA Times Editorial Board jumped in

Among those who added their voices and stories are more than 140 female legislators, lobbyists and political staffers in Sacramento who signed a letter this week saying that sexual harassment is pervasive in the state capital. “Each of us has endured, or witnessed or worked with women who have experienced some form of dehumanizing behavior by men with power in our workplaces,” the letter reads. “Men have groped and touched us without our consent, made inappropriate comments about our bodies and our abilities. Insults and sexual innuendo, frequently disguised as jokes, have undermined our professional positions and capabilities. Men have made promises, or threats, about our jobs in exchange for our compliance, or our silence. They have leveraged their power and positions to treat us however they would like.”

Again, the problem here is no one is named. This is just a blanket statement that looks to scapegoat all males.

Read: Surprise: California General Assembly A Hotbed of Sexual Harassment »

ACLU Attempts To Get Law On Sheltering Illegal Aliens Declared Unconsitutional

I’ve mentioned the law, 8 Us Code 1324, many times. It’s about people actually sheltering, harboring, etc, illegal aliens. The ACLU has spun the entire thing into a free speech issue and wants it declared unconstitutional.

Under This Law, Encouraging Undocumented Immigrants to Seek Shelter Could Be a Crime

As wildfires raged across Northern California last week, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) took to Twitter to encourage those in need to seek shelter, even if they didn’t have lawful immigration status.

Senator Harris’s desire to protect all her constituents is admirable. It also may be a crime.

A section of the federal Immigration and Naturalization Act states that any person who “encourages or induces” a non-citizen to “come to, enter, or reside” in this country in violation of the law is guilty of a felony, and may be imprisoned for up to five years. For a person to be found guilty, the prosecution must show that the person knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that the non-citizen’s action was unlawful. Harris’s tweet arguably “encouraged” undocumented immigrants to “reside” in the country. That’s precisely the type of speech a zealous federal prosecutor could target for criminal sanction under this law.

The ACLU trots out examples of people speaking, such as

  • A woman who tells her undocumented housekeeper that she should not depart the U.S. or else she won’t be allowed back in. (A former U.S. Customs and Border Protection official stood trial in just such a case.)
  • A university president who publishes an op-ed arguing that DACA recipients should consider her campus to be a “sanctuary” after their deferred action expires.
  • A community organization that announces its shelters and soup kitchens are open to homeless undocumented youth in their area.

The only one that might possibly violate Section 1324, and, specifically, (1)(a)(iv) “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law;” is the second one. Here’s what the ACLU is doing about it

This law clearly oversteps the First Amendment, which does not allow the government to criminalize these kinds of speech. The Supreme Court has stated clearly: “The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it.” That’s why the ACLU yesterday submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit arguing that this law is unconstitutional.

The government can only prohibit “unprotected” speech, like incitement to violence or speech that itself constitutes a crime, like harassment. Speech “encouraging” immigration violations does not qualify. This makes the law we challenged “presumptively unconstitutional,” because it regulates the content of things we can say.

If you entice someone to commit suicide, you can be held responsible for that, as Michelle Carter found out. The ACLU is going specifically after (1)(a)(iv), as the amicus brief shows.

The ACLU filed its brief in a criminal case against Evelyn Sineneng-Smith, an immigration consultant from San Jose, California. Ms. Sineneng-Smith was convicted in 2013 for filing labor applications for clients she knew were not eligible for green cards at the time. Despite the fact that all the information Ms. Sineneng-Smith filed was accurate — including disclosure of the fact that her clients had been in the country illegally for years — she was convicted of “encouraging or inducing” her clients to remain in the U.S. She has appealed her conviction.

Except, that’s not actual free speech. She took action. Unlawful action, which was also fraud. The ACLU is playing games in their attempt to protect people who have voluntarily entered the United States in an unlawful manner. Not surprising in the least.

Read: ACLU Attempts To Get Law On Sheltering Illegal Aliens Declared Unconsitutional »

Even On Fighting Opioids, Media Goes TDS

America apparently has an opioid problem. We’ve heard about this for several years, with each pronouncement more dire. One would think that the President of the United States taking an interest would be a good thing, but, this is the leftist media, so Politico writers Brianna Ehley, Josh Dawsey, and Sarah Karlin-Smith give it the TDS spin

Trump blindsides advisers with promised opioid plan

President Donald Trump overrode his own advisers when he promised to deliver an emergency declaration next week to combat the nation’s worsening opioid crisis.

“That is a very, very big statement,” he said Monday. “It’s a very important step. … We’re going to be doing it in the next week.”

Blindsided officials are now scrambling to develop such a plan, but it is unclear when it will be announced, how or if it will be done, and whether the administration has the permanent leadership to execute it, said two administration officials.

“They are not ready for this,” a public health advocate said of an emergency declaration after talking to Health and Human Services officials enlisted in the effort.

If you’re thinking “are any of this officials named? Is anyone on the record?” Nope and nope

Trump’s off-script statement stunned top agency officials, who said there is no consensus on how to implement an emergency declaration for the drug epidemic, according to interviews with officials from the White House, a half dozen federal agencies, state health directors and lobbyists.

And not one is named.

…said one senior administration official.

Multiple sources in and out of relevant federal agencies….

A senior FDA official…

An HHS spokesman…

A White House spokesman…

Instead of saying “this is a good thing that POTUS is taking an interest and wants to do something,” Politico trots out unnamed, and, for all we know, imaginary, advisors, attempting to slam Trump. And they wonder why the trust level in the media is so low.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Even On Fighting Opioids, Media Goes TDS »

Sore Loser Symphony: LA Times Features Another Impeachment Fantasy

The Moonbats just can’t help themselves. It really is time to see legitimate psychological help, as the LA Times allows another nutter, Barbara Radnofsky to delve into her insane sore loser fantasy

The Founding Fathers provided us with a way out of troubled presidency — the direct, doable process of impeachment

Many people see chaos in the Trump administration and fear for the nation’s future. The president was duly elected, and yet this presidency has already been marked by lawsuits, an FBI investigation, policy confusion and escalating rhetoric with North Korea. Fortunately, the U.S. Constitution offers a direct, doable way to respond to such crises: impeachment.

The Founding Fathers, after all, won a revolution against a tyrannical chief executive — “Mad” King George III of England. They were fearful of a similar kind of leader taking charge in the new United States. They embedded in the Constitution an orderly process run by Congress, not the courts, to remove civil officers — the president, the vice president, federal judges, Cabinet members and others — who cause substantial harm to society. The idea, said Edmund Randolph, a leader of the Virginia delegation to the Constitutional Convention, was to circumvent “irregularly inflicted … tumults and insurrections.”

Funny, I do not remember Democrats complaining about Obama’s ruling by executive fiat.

Impeachment is an entirely political process; it isn’t a function of criminal or civil law. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, impeachable offenses are “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men or … from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may . . . be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

Of course, that’s not what the actual Constitution says about what is terms for impeachment, but, hey, let’s not let facts get in the way of some good nutbaggery. Which is too much to excerpt, because they I’d just be posting the entire article. Regardless, it is interesting that Ms. Radnofsky actually lays out a case as to why President Obama should have been impeached.

These are all just deranged fantasies from sore losers who nominated a horrible candidate, one who passed out in view of the public on 9/11, failed visit several key states, was non-personable, and had a lot of baggage.

Read: Sore Loser Symphony: LA Times Features Another Impeachment Fantasy »

Bad Behavior has blocked 3657 access attempts in the last 7 days.