Obama Appointed Judge Halts Work On Keystone XL Over Obama’s Feelings

By William Teach November 9, 2018 – 11:35 am

Once again we learn that the New Legal System has done away with the notion that elections have consequences and that things from the previous administration cannot be discarded

Judge tosses Trump’s Keystone XL approval over climate change

A federal judge ordered both the Trump administration and TransCanada to stop any work on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline on Thursday, saying President Donald Trump’s approval of the project last year violated several key environmental and administrative laws by ignoring facts about climate change.

Judge Brian Morris of the U.S. District Court for Montana ruled that the Trump administration almost completely ignored climate change in its analysis supporting the pipeline’s construction, a shift that unlawfully reversed the Obama administration’s 2015 decision rejecting the pipeline’s cross-border permit.

Morris, an Obama appointee, directed the Trump administration in his ruling to prepare a new environmental study before the pipeline can resume construction, leaving the door open to a renewed approval in the future.

“The [State] Department did not merely make a policy shift in its stance on the United States’ role on climate change. It simultaneously ignored” a critical part of the Obama administration’s stance on climate change and foreign relations, Morris concluded. Such a change would require a “reasoned explanation.”

Obama’s not president anymore. The O administration stance on Hotcoldwetdry is immaterial when it comes to law. In fact, the State Department under Mr. Obama found no environmental nor ‘climate change’ issues with Keystone XL.

“The Department instead simply discarded prior factual findings related to climate change to support its course reversal,” Morris added.

Those “findings” were political, not baked into law. So, they can be discarded. But, apparently, feelings are now considered “law.”

Judges want to be very careful with these types of reasoning’s, which we’ve also see with DACA and a few other Obama pet causes, because they can set a precedent whereby if a Democrat succeeds Trump, judges can say “you can’t reverse that, you can’t do that, because President Trump did something different, so, it’s settled.”

BTW, there are a bunch of other pipelines in construction right now: why are Warmists not worried about them?

Read: Obama Appointed Judge Halts Work On Keystone XL Over Obama’s Feelings »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Apparently, If You Don’t Live In Urban And Suburban Areas You Aren’t Part Of Real America

By William Teach November 9, 2018 – 6:53 am

According to Excitable Paul Krugman, you’re just part of Senate America

Real America Versus Senate America

Everyone is delivering post-mortems on Tuesday’s elections, so for what it’s worth, here’s mine: Despite some bitter disappointments and lost ground in the Senate, Democrats won a huge victory. They broke the Republican monopoly on federal power, and that’s a very big deal for an administration that has engaged in blatant corruption and abuse of power, in the belief that an impenetrable red wall would always protect it from accountability. They also made major gains at the state level, which will have a big impact on future elections.

But given this overall success, how do we explain those Senate losses? Many people have pointed out that this year’s Senate map was unusually bad for Democrats, consisting disproportionately of states Donald Trump won in 2016. But there was actually a deeper problem, one that will pose long-term problems, not just for Democrats, but for the legitimacy of our whole political system. For economic and demographic trends have interacted with political change to make the Senate deeply unrepresentative of American reality. (snip)

Obviously not everyone lives — or wants to live — in these growth centers of the new economy. But we are increasingly a nation of urbanites and suburbanites. Almost 60 percent of us live in metropolitan areas with more than a million people, more than 70 percent in areas with more than 500,000 residents. Conservative politicians may extol the virtues of a “real America” of rural areas and small towns, but the real real America in which we live, while it contains small towns, is mostly metropolitan.

You can see where this is going, right? The same old whines about those people in Flyover states daring to have representation equal to big states like New York. Say, why do Vermont, Delaware Rhode Island, and New Hampshire (#’s 50, 45, 44, and 41 on list of most populous states, which includes D.C.) have the same representation as Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia?

The hot take gets more hot

I find it helpful to contrast the real America, the place we actually live, with what I think of as “Senate America,” the hypothetical nation implied by a simple average across states, which is what the Senate in effect represents.

As I said, real America is mainly metropolitan; Senate America is still largely rural.

Real America is racially and culturally diverse; Senate America is still very white.

Real America includes large numbers of highly educated adults; Senate America, which underweights the dynamic metropolitan areas that attract highly educated workers, has a higher proportion of non-college people, and especially non-college whites.

None of this is meant to denigrate rural, non-college, white voters. We’re all Americans, and we all deserve an equal voice in shaping our national destiny. But as it is, some of us are more equal than others. And that poses a big problem in an era of deep partisan division.

Right, right, he doesn’t mean to denigrate those damned rubes, guys. Who you can bet understand the Constitution and the entire point of giving each state two Senators. I know you know, so, I won’t hold forth on this.

We may, then, be looking at a growing crisis of legitimacy for the U.S. political system — even if we get through the constitutional crisis that seems to be looming over the next few months.

It’s only in Liberal World that a “crisis of legitimacy” could occur, because they whine when they lose that things just are fair. Stomps foot.

You know, some of these hot takes are so scorching that you have to wonder if they are done on purpose just to get clicks. Because this is weapons grade stupidity.

Read: Apparently, If You Don’t Live In Urban And Suburban Areas You Aren’t Part Of Real America »

Posted in Democrats, Journalistic Malpractice, Unhinged Tools | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Say, Trump Has Said He Wants Tougher Gun Control, Just Like In California

By William Teach November 9, 2018 – 6:32 am

The bodies in Thousand Oaks, California weren’t even at room temperature and the NY Times Editorial Board was already calling for gun control

Trump Said He Wants Tougher Gun Laws. Can a New Congress Help Get Them?

This is what it’s come to — there are now Americans who have lived through two gun massacres. Many of the people who were able to flee a California bar where a man shot dozens of people late Wednesday night had also survived an attack last year in which a gunman in a Las Vegas hotel fired down on a music festival, killing 58 people. But at least one of the Las Vegas survivors was among the dead at the bar.

The gunman on Wednesday opened fire in a crowded country-music bar, a popular hangout for local college students. He shot a security guard first and killed at least 12 people, including a sheriff’s deputy who responded to the attack. More than 20 were believed to have been wounded. (snip)

If Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Trump are sincere about coming together to fix problems the public cares about, there seems hardly a more pressing place to start than reducing gun violence.

This would not require much of a shift for Democrats. Ms. Pelosi had already planned an early push to tighten background checks for gun purchases — a move favored by a vast majority of Americans, including most National Rifle Association members. Other popular measures previously introduced in Congress, like raising the minimum purchase age to 21 from 18 or banning bump stocks, which convert guns to automatic weapons, could be revisited as well. (snip)

For his part, Mr. Trump has been erratic on the subject of gun safety. In February, post-Parkland, he held a memorable meeting with lawmakers at which he voiced support for a “comprehensive” package that included “powerful” background checks. He called for raising the minimum age for purchasing rifles, seemed open to a Democratic plan to ban assault weapons, and slammed Republican lawmakers for being “afraid of the N.R.A.” (snip to the ending)

But Mr. Trump is the ideal president to tackle the issue. He enjoys the adoration of his party’s culturally conservative base to a degree few politicians even approach. If inclined, he could burn just a small fraction of that capital on promoting some of the common-sense gun measures desired by a majority of the electorate.

Better still, since Mr. Trump has a taste for combat and prides himself on shaking things up, what could be more disruptive than pressuring lawmakers to grow a spine and attack gun violence?

As legacies go, Mr. Trump — and Ms. Pelosi and her colleagues — could do far worse.

Pray tell, what new laws would have stopped the shooter, who apparently had mental issues following deployment to Afghanistan? He was over 21. He passed a federal backgrounds check. He did not use an  “assault rifle.” Depending on which you read, California is the most gun restrictive state in the nation. They have everything that Democrats have been calling for. The only thing they’re missing is just simply banning possession of firearms by private citizens.

They have red flag laws in California, as well. The Washington Post Editorial Board is likewise pimping gun control. What would have stopped this?

Read: NY Times: Say, Trump Has Said He Wants Tougher Gun Control, Just Like In California »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats, Donald Trump | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Threat Of ‘Climate Change’ Requires We Change The Way We Live

By William Teach November 8, 2018 – 4:01 pm

Funny how it always comes down to this, as pushed by people who refuse to do the same in their own lives

Threat of climate change requires ‘revolution in how we live’, says Bruton

If Ireland is to respond adequately to the threat of climate change it will require “a revolution in how we live”, according to the new Minister for Climate Action and Environment Richard Bruton.

In his first statement on climate change, Mr Bruton said he was determined to make Ireland a leader in climate action, and announced he is to lead in the development of an “all of Government” plan which set out what actions every department must take in response to climate change. (snip)

Being a leader meant “acting now, stretching ourselves and seizing the enterprise opportunities in a low carbon economy, including the new circular and bioeconomies. Being a follower means the final costs of adjustment are much higher and opportunities much lower or completely lost”.

He added: “It will require a revolution in how we live. Every person, every community, every business, every home and every school will have to make changes in the way we live and work and learn. Nothing less will do if we are to make the changes that are needed to create a sustainable future for everyone.” (snip)

The central ambition of “the all of Government plan” would be to make Ireland a leader in responding to climate change. He would seek to work with colleagues in government to develop new initiatives across electricity, transport, heat, as well as a range of other sectors.

To beat the same theme as I always do, elites, some in government, some not, getting government to control the way citizens live their lives. What is it you call that type of government?

Read: Surprise: Threat Of ‘Climate Change’ Requires We Change The Way We Live »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 8, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon bike which Everyone Else should be forced to use, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on the death of the red state Democrat.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

#NeverTrump Is Upset That Republicans Lost After Calling For Them To Lose

By William Teach November 8, 2018 – 10:30 am

Look, you don’t have to be a fan of Donald Trump. I get it. I’ve said before that the last thing I did on election day was decide whether I could vote for Trump or just leave the space blank. At the end of the day, Trump is mostly doing Republican/Conservative things. He’s given us two fantastic SCOTUS picks. He is fighting back against the media and Democrats in a consistent and constant manner. Perhaps, maybe a bit too much, but, as Vox Day points out in SJWs Always Lie, you have to hit them back twice as hard. We’ve been begging for Republicans to fight back, not go squish like they usually do.

But, #NeverTrump is so infused with their Trump Derangement Syndrome that they just can’t give him any credit whatsoever. And here we have the Washington Post’s “Conservative” Max Boot

So, the squishy Republicans, ie, those who so often side with Democrats, lost. But, hey, also Max Boot

That’s right, he called for voting against every single Republican, and when a bunch lose, he complains. So many #NeverTrumpers are also complaining. Here’s what we see at the used-to-be-Conservative Outside The Beltway

There were some satisfying outcomes, wherein rather unsavory characters were defeated. Scott Walker, who was leading big when I went to bed last night, lost. Republican firebrand Kris Kobach lost in deep red Kansas. Joe Manchin, perhaps the only conservative Democrat left in national politics, handily won re-election in red West Virginia.

Alas, Ted Cruz won (as expected) over Beto O’Rourke, whose popularity nationally (including in my Virginia neighborhood) didn’t translate into enough votes in deep red Texas. Brian Kemp’s voter suppression campaign in Georgia was more than enough to overcome even Oprah Winfrey’s intervention. Ron Desantis’ racist dog whistles seem to have worked; then again Andrew Gillum was likely too progressive for red-leaning Florida.

Because of Trump, Republicans are rebelling against all things Republican. Washington Post “conservative” Jennifer Rubin is thrilled that Democrats retook the House and upset that they didn’t get the Senate. S.E. Cupp has lost her mind during her association with CNN

They don’t have to help if they object, but, they are actively attempting to help Democrats win.

Read: #NeverTrump Is Upset That Republicans Lost After Calling For Them To Lose »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrat Lite | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Voters Still Voting Against Stopping “Ecological Disaster”

By William Teach November 8, 2018 – 8:39 am

I find it interesting that people who refuse to change their own lives to accord with their ‘climate change’ beliefs, and often have bigger carbon footprints than average, are always shocked that their attempts to require people to pay more in taxes, raise their cost of living, and control their lives fail

OUR CLIMATE IS HEADED FOR DISASTER, BUT VOTERS STILL SHRUG

TUESDAY’S MIDTERM ELECTIONS offered voters across the US the chance to move decisively to slow down the global ecological disaster of climate change. As the votes were tallied, however, one thing became clear: Americans remain as divided as ever on climate change.

During his tenure, President Trump has moved to roll back Obama-era emissions standards, cripple renewable energy research (in other words, not spending oodles of taxpayer money on loans which often do not get repaid), and pulled the US from global climate talks. Yesterday’s election won’t turn that around overnight, or maybe even at all. Sure, candidates who promised climate change solutions in areas hit hard by a series of supercharged hurricanes, like Florida and Texas, won key races that helped Democrats wrest control of the House. And that means the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, which has been run by Republican climate science deniers for the last eight years, will for the first time since the 1990s be headed up by someone with a STEM background. (Imagine!)

Where progressive Democrats had the biggest opportunities to fight climate change directly was further down the ballot, with a handful of state initiatives in the south and west that would have reduced residents’ reliance on fossil fuels. “There’s certainly a sense of increased responsibility to curtail greenhouse gas emissions at the state and local levels,” says Sean Hecht, co-executive director of the UCLA law school’s Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. But he stresses that it’s not some great sea change from the pre-Trump era. States have always been the ones pushing the boundaries.

Here’s a look at how some of the more consequential climate-focused ballot measures around the country fared.

Of those ballot initiatives, most of consequence failed. The only big “win” was the one in Florida which banned new offshore drilling in Florida state waters, which would only extend to 10.5 miles into the Gulf and 3.3 miles into the Atlantic. Most Gulf drilling is further offshore than that anyway, plus, really, Amendment 9 also included a provision to ban indoor vaping at workplaces. Many believe that the vaping portion enabled the amendment to pass (68%). Many others think that it was more about not wanting to see drilling rigs offshore when they go to the beach, rather than having anything to do with Hotcoldwetdry whatsoever.

And, again, we know of the failed ballot initiative for a carbon tax in Washington state. They can claim that it was all those durned rural folks who killed it, but, no. Consider

Same populace said no to the carbon tax scam while saying yes to increased gun control. Further, Democrat Maria Cantwell beat Republican Susan Hutchinson 58.6% to 41.4% (73% reporting at this time). If it was about those dangumbit rural voters, Hutchinson would have won and the gun restrictions would have failed. Instead, you can bet that Democrats voted against the carbon tax scheme. They should try and pass tax schemes in the leftist voting cities and counties, see how that goes. Most aren’t willing to pay the price for their own so-called beliefs in “ecological doom” from a tiny increase in CO2 and global temperatures.

Read: Bummer: Voters Still Voting Against Stopping “Ecological Disaster” »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 21 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Are Super Enthused To Demand Trump’s IRS Returns In Next House Session

By William Teach November 8, 2018 – 8:06 am

In attempting to force the release of Trump’s tax records to a House committee, there is a large competing interest in invasion of privacy by the government and the public’s right to know. The IRS may not release an individual’s or entities income tax returns without a valid reason, and those returns still cannot be shared beyond the requesting panel, so, what would this gain the Democrats?

Trump Says He Won’t Turn Over His Tax Returns. It’s Not Up To Him Anymore.

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he doesn’t want to let Democrats see his tax returns once they assume control of the U.S. House of Representatives next year.

But that’s actually not up to the president ― according to the law, at least.

The leaders of key congressional committees can ask the IRS for anybody’s tax returns. Republicans simply did not want to do so. Democrats said in October that they would ask the IRS for Trump’s returns if they regained control of the House, which they did on Tuesday night. (snip)

Federal law gives congressional tax committees the power to obtain anyone’s tax returns. If the taxpayer doesn’t consent in writing, the committees still have the power to obtain the returns in a secret meeting.

In response to a written request, the law says, “the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request.”

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin would review any such request with department lawyers “for legality,” according to a spokesperson.

When we are talking about that law, we need to dip down to (f) Disclosures to Committees of Congress, (3) “Any resolution described in this paragraph shall specify the purpose for which the return or return information is to be furnished and that such information cannot reasonably be obtained from any other sources.” In other words, there needs to be an actual, material reason to see the returns. It can’t be simply because they want to see them. Quora notes

The house and senate both have a subpoena power. This is expressed in the rules of each of body. Specifically in Senate Rule XXVI and House Rule XI . There are some definite restrictions in both rules. The subpoena has to be issued by majority vote of a committee, and according to Wilkinson v US it must meet three conditions to be “legally sufficient”:

  1. First, the committee investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its Chamber
  2. the investigation must pursue “a valid legislative purpose” but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress
  3. the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation

These rules apply to any subpoena. If a subpoena is made against the sitting executive, then issues of separation of powers will arise. These would likely play out by the executive asserting “executive privilege”, which is the power claimed by the President and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government to access information and personnel relating to the executive branch.

Under what rationale would a Democrat run House committee/subcommittee deem these tax returns of a private citizen (that’s what he was at the time) necessary, rather than just a fishing expedition and/or an attempt to embarrass Mr. Trump?

If those things happens, then if a subpoena goes to Trump or the IRS it’s going to immediately be responded to with an “executive privilege” claim. To overcome that, it will go to Judicial branch. It’s going to be very hard to claim the tax returns are “essential to the justice of the case” without already knowing they prove something specific. No court is going to authorize a fishing expedition.

Let’s further consider that even if a House committee gets their hands on them, per that same law cited above they can only be viewed in closed door executive session, and the information may not be shared with anyone outside of. So, the entire point in attempting to show them to all their Democratic voters would be meaningless, and any leaks would be a federal felony. Since this would be a small group viewing the tax returns, it would be pretty easy to figure out who did it.

Further, they should be careful in playing this game, because, get this: section (g) gives the “President and certain persons” the power to demand the tax returns of citizens in the same way. Do nutters like Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and others want Trump looking at their returns?

Read: Democrats Are Super Enthused To Demand Trump’s IRS Returns In Next House Session »

Posted in Democrats | 25 Comments | Trackback URL

Hot Take: Gerrymandering Doomed Democrats Taking Back The Senate

By William Teach November 7, 2018 – 5:31 pm

I may be writing this late in the afternoon, but I ran across this early this morning, and it is as scorching of a hot take as they come

The original was from the HuffPost, dropped at 12:06 am by Molly Redden and Nick Baumann

Democrats may be ecstatic that they retook the House of Representatives, but their decisive victory conceals a harsher reality: It took a landslide in the popular vote to get them here, and they are projected to lose seats in the Senate.

Those facts speak to just how far the U.S. election system is tilted in the Republicans’ favor. Through a combination of fundamental factors and partisan gerrymandering, Republicans on Tuesday retained their grip on the Senate and many state houses without a national majority.

Um, what? Do Molly and Nick even understand How This Works? Do I need to spend any time explaining to y’all how this works, including that there is no national vote for Senate seats? No, no I don’t. Perhaps if the 17 Amendment was repealed, they might have a case, but, of course, the same thing would happen in gerrymandered Democrat controlled states.

Certain factors give Republicans a natural advantage. In the Senate, the disproportionate representation of small states is part of the body’s original design. But that advantage, which benefits white voters, has become more lopsided than the framers of the Constitution likely ever imagined as the country’s population and demographics evolve. Today, 20 senators from urban states represent roughly half the country’s population, while the other, rural half elects the remaining 80.

And that’s exactly the way it’s supposed to work. But, Democrats do not like that those darned Flyover state people dare have a voice.

But, this wasn’t the only nutbaggery on the subject

Read More »

Read: Hot Take: Gerrymandering Doomed Democrats Taking Back The Senate »

Posted in Democrats, Elections, Unhinged Tools | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 7, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…are horrible burgers from evil carbon polluting cows, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jo Nova, with a post on the new top predator in the ecosphere.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove