If All You See…

By William Teach June 10, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible carbon pollution infused beer in a field that would be great for solar panels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Jawa Report, with a post on jihad for vagina.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

You Too Can Now Wear A ‘Climate Change’ T-Shirt!

By William Teach June 10, 2017 – 11:07 am

This is now a thing

Colour-changing T-shirt alerts wearers to the effects of climate change

Design studios The Unseen and The Lost Explorer have come together to create a T-shirt that changes colour when it comes into contact with polluted water.

The Unseen Explorer T-shirt, named after both the studios, was launched on World Environment Day on 5 June – less than a week after US President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris climate agreement.

Designed to represent the effect that climate change has on ocean acidification, the T-shirt is coated in a natural cabbage dye that reacts to pollution in water – and changes colour depending on the pH levels. The designers hope it will help to spread awareness about climate change.

If you’re thinking “are they saying that the pH levels are pollution?”, well, yes, that is exactly what they are saying. Because that is all the t-shirt does: change color depending on the pH levels.

“[The project] is about using colour, clothing or material to give a language to something that’s deeper and bigger that most of us wouldn’t even understand when we look at facts and figures.”

It’s not easy to understand because the facts from the Cult of Climastrology are fungible. You never know what they will change from the past to prop up their beliefs.

“PH is an innate property of water, one that defines the limits within which life can and can’t thrive,” said the duo. “The T-shirt starts its life purple to indicate the purest form of neutral water.”

“When the T-shirt comes into contact with non-neutral water, the pH level of that water is then revealed through the colour of the garment, forming colour shifts through the pH scale from alkaline green to acidic red.”

The plain dye it yourself version is just $75! What a bargain! It doesn’t actually do anything, you have to go through a process to make it ‘carbon pollution’ color changing yourself.

Read: You Too Can Now Wear A ‘Climate Change’ T-Shirt! »

Posted in Global Warming | 30 Comments | Trackback URL

Part Of Texas’ Sanctuary Jurisdiction Law May Be Unconstitutional Or Something

By William Teach June 10, 2017 – 7:45 am

Yeah, there’s a big “or something” in this article, in what is missing from the debate

Federal Judge Calls a Critical Part of Texas’ “Sanctuary Cities” Crackdown Unconstitutional

The same San Antonio federal court judge who will soon decide whether Texas can enforce its new law banning so-called “sanctuary cities” just explained in a separate ruling why a major portion of the law appears to be unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Orlando Garcia ruled on Monday that the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure when jailers detained an undocumented immigrant for more than two months in 2016 after a misdemeanor charge against him was dismissed. Lawyers for the man had challenged the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office’s longstanding practice of granting so-called immigration “detainers,” routine requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for local jails to hold people suspected of federal immigration violations, even if their local charges have been dismissed or otherwise resolved. Lawyers across the country have argued that such requests are often flawed, haphazard and fall well below the legal standard of a warrant or judge’s order.

This week, Judge Garcia concluded that the case of Julio Trujillo, who court records show was arrested and charged with the misdemeanor assault of his girlfriend in January 2016, is an example of how the detainer system can lead to warrantless, unconstitutional detention. Trujillo’s lawyers say he spent a total of 76 days in Bexar County lockup after his charge was dismissed because of a detainer request ICE had lodged with the county. In his Monday ruling, which was first reported by the Express-News, Garcia said the county had wrongly assumed that ICE detainers, which are usually over alleged civil immigration violations and not criminal matters, constitute probable cause. He wrote that the “routine detention of such individuals made it inevitable that it (the county) would engage in warrantless detention of individuals who were not suspected of any criminal offense.”

Lawyers challenging the state’s new immigration law, Senate Bill 4, say the ruling should prove useful as cities and counties across the state sue to block the law from going into effect on September 1. Under SB 4, local officials who don’t comply with all ICE detainers risk being booted out of office or even criminally charged.

The thrust of the article, and what supporters of illegal aliens are claiming (such as this Huffington Post article based on the above), is that the state forcing jurisdictions to comply with ICE detainers is now unconstitutional, based on this ruling.

What’s missing is that, while Bexar County was in the wrong and did violate the rights of the illegal alien in question, that in no way invalidates SB4 on requiring compliance with ICE detainers. Bexar was wrong to hold Trujillo that long. And, it was not actually in compliance with ICE detainer policy. Said policy requires a 48 hour hold. After that, if ICE has not picked up the illegal in question, well, that’s the fault of ICE, and the jurisdiction can, and should, release the illegal.

One could argue “hey, the illegal was being released from jail for rape/murder/violence!!!!” Yes. But, the burden is on ICE to do their job within the confines of the time period. If they’re placing the detainer, the onus is on them to do it in the allotted time. That’s the way it works, and should work. That Bexar County chose to hold the illegal in question for 76 days has nothing to do with SB4: it just shows that the County made a big, big mistake.

BTW, as both articles attempt to make the case that Trujillo was a model citizen who was charged with a misdemeanor that was dismissed, they let something slip through

Other than the misdemeanor charge that landed him in jail and was ultimately dismissed, records show no other criminal history. Court documents do, however, indicate that he was deported in late 2001 (it’s unclear when he re-entered the country).

Entering the country is a criminal act with a civil penalty. Entering the country after being deported is a criminal act with a criminal penalty. That makes Trujillo a, get this, criminal.

Read: Part Of Texas’ Sanctuary Jurisdiction Law May Be Unconstitutional Or Something »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump: Sure, I’ll Testify Under Oath

By William Teach June 10, 2017 – 7:18 am

Of course, in response to a direct question, what else is he supposed to say?

(CNN) A defiant President Donald Trump said Friday he was willing to testify under oath about his conversations with James Comey, further fueling the swirling controversy ignited by the fired FBI director’s bombshell testimony before the Senate on Thursday.

“One hundred percent,” Trump said when asked about his willingness to deliver sworn testimony.

The CNN article, like The Hill article, is a little short on providing the entire exchange, but, the “bombshell testimony” link is hilarious. The biggest thing we learned what that Obama AG Loretta Lynch possibly obstructed justice. For most people, it was a big nothingburger. Vox actually does everyone a service in providing the transcript between Jonathan Karl and Mr. Trump (though, you can watch and listen to the video from both CNN and The Hill)

Then Karl asked the big question — whether Trump would be willing to give his version of events under oath. Trump seemed to say that he “100 percent” would, but then rambled a bit in a confusing way and apparently suggesting he interpreted “under oath” as referring to the alleged exchange between him and Comey about loyalty.

KARL: So he said those things under oath, would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of those events?

TRUMP: 100 percent. I didn’t say “under oath,” I hardly know the man, I’m not gonna say “I want you to pledge allegiance,” who would do that, who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? I mean think of it, I hardly know the man, it doesn’t make sense. No I didn’t say that and I didn’t say the other.

Trump also said he’d be willing to say the same to Special Council Robert Mueller.

Let’s note one thing: Trump needs to shift a lot from blustering NYC businessman mode into more refined politician mode. Ease up on the attacks, learn to deflect and delay. Sometimes it’s great, sometimes it gets in the way if him getting things done.

Let’s also note that if this was a Democrat president with a Democrat Congress, there would be no investigations at all. Democrats refused to investigate the things Obama and his team were doing, and obstructed all investigations when the GOP took over the House and then the Senate. Democrats, and the media, were fine with obstruction by team Obama when it came to matters such as the Fast and Furious gunrunning scheme, along with the investigation into what happened in Benghazi. Republicans need to grow a spine and tell Democrats, and the media, to go pound sand, and get on with their agenda.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump: Sure, I’ll Testify Under Oath »

Posted in Donald Trump, GOP | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Fossil Fuels Might Be The New Slavery And Jim Crow Or Something

By William Teach June 9, 2017 – 5:16 pm

Over here we have Al Gore saying that God wants us to fight global warming. Since he’s the exact type of person Warmists tell us to ignore…namely, he isn’t a climate scientist, his degrees are in divinity…, let’s ignore him and

Global warming is not about smokestacks, it’s about ourselves

Are fossil fuels the new slavery, the new Jim Crow?

If you believe the dire predictions of world leaders and many top scientists, it’s hard not to conclude that the burning coal, oil and gas might even be worse. It is not just immoral; it poses an existential threat to life as we know it.

While you may be angry that President Donald Trump pulled us out of the Paris climate accord, you are probably horrified that the agreement is a symbolic gesture that will only slow the rise in greenhouse gas emissions. The inconvenient truth is that the best we could do collectively is not nearly enough to thwart what many see as a looming catastrophe.

What are people who know and care to do?

Our history offers some guidance. Slavery and Jim Crow were not just brutal practices – they were all-encompassing systems that implicated every non-black citizen. Even if one recognized them as evil, it was almost impossible to avoid complicity. That was the price society exacted of all born into it. (snip)

Fossil fuels shape our world just as surely as Jim Crow and other forms of systemic racism once defined America. Almost all we do, our ease and comfort, depends on them. They are both the immovable object and the irresistible force.

Read: Fossil Fuels Might Be The New Slavery And Jim Crow Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 9, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a sea that has crept in to the mountains due to Other People using fossil fuels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post noting that the moonbats now consider marble to be raaaaacist.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Developing Nations: Give Us That Sweet, Sweet Climate Cash Or We’ll “Pollute”

By William Teach June 9, 2017 – 10:32 am

As Investors Business Daily notes, the Paris Climate Agreement was considered a sham and a fraud by many hyper-Warmists until Trump pulled the U.S. out of Obama’s signature. It is mostly non-binding when it comes to “carbon pollution” goals, because, what it mostly does is require redistribution of money from 1st world nations to 3rd world shitholes developing nations

‘Climate change’ or cash?: Pay up or they’ll pollute

The climate surrounding President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the pollution-curbing Paris agreement has taken a decidedly chilly turn: Developing nations reportedly are holding their pollution-reduction goals hostage unless they’re paid.

Under the expansive cover of “climate change,” India, South Sudan, Niger, Egypt, Cuba and other nations say they’ll simply keep on polluting unless they receive payments as stipulated under the Paris agreement, The Washington Times reports. Apparently these and other countries “rented their signature for the promise of Paris-related wealth transfers,” says Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

How much is owed? One estimate puts the total requested by developing countries at $420 billion. But many other countries eligible for cash payments to reduce emissions haven’t yet submitted any estimates — which some analysts say could push the total cost into the trillions.

As this editorial from the Tribune Review goes on to note, who will monitor where the money goes? The U.N.? Remember what a bang-up job they did with the Oil For Food program?

For more than a few of its 193 participating countries, the Paris accord isn’t so much about the climate. It’s about the cash, which now is threatened by America’s exit.

It is about the cash. None of these nations really care about so-called carbon pollution. For instance, Kiribati, which is constantly whining about ‘climate change’, but is building airports and depends on fossil fueled travel for tourism. They all just want the money from 1st World nations.

Read: Developing Nations: Give Us That Sweet, Sweet Climate Cash Or We’ll “Pollute” »

Posted in Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Good News: Illegal Aliens With Old Deportation Orders Are Being Detained

By William Teach June 9, 2017 – 7:16 am

Of course, this is terrifying people who are unlawfully present in the United States

Immigrants with old deportation orders arrested at check-ins across US

For years, immigrants facing deportation have been allowed to stay in the U.S. provided they show up for regular check-ins with federal deportation agents and stay out of trouble. After a brief meeting, they’re usually told to return months later to check in again.

Now, in cases spanning from Michigan to California, some of these immigrants are being told their time here is up.

Immigrants who already have deportation orders and were allowed to stay in the country under the prior administration have become a target under President Donald Trump’s new immigration policies, with some getting arrested on the spot during check-ins with officers. Such arrests have dismayed family members and sent chills through immigrant communities.

In other instances, immigrants have been fitted with ankle-monitoring bracelets. Others have been released much like they were during President Barack Obama’s administration in what immigration attorneys say appears to be a random series of decisions based more on detention space than public safety.

“Everywhere, people going in to report are just absolutely terrified,” said Stacy Tolchin, a Los Angeles immigration attorney.

They should be terrified. Better yet, they should simply leave. They were ordered deported, and Obama and his administration allowed these people who are unlawfully present to remain in the country. Are there some we can show compassion to? Sure. Most, though, need to go.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it is tracking nearly 970,000 immigrants with deportation orders. The majority — 82 percent — have no criminal record, the agency said. ICE declined to say how many must regularly report to authorities or are tracked by ankle monitors, and it is unclear how many are being arrested.

Wait, 970,000? With deportation orders that were not acted upon? It matters zero percent whether most have no criminal record: they are here in violation of federal law. That number shows that the government is not doing its job. You can bet if you didn’t pay a couple hundred in taxes the feds will come after you. Don’t pay your speeding ticket? You’ll have a bench warrant out in your name, and the police will come pick you up, possibly at your place of work. Be an illegal alien? Get to stick around sucking up the money and services designated for lawfully present people and lawful citizens.

Read: Good News: Illegal Aliens With Old Deportation Orders Are Being Detained »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Even Chris Matthews Thinks The Liberal Collusion Meme Is Done

By William Teach June 9, 2017 – 7:01 am

There is obviously quite a lot of wishful think, miss-reactions, people ignoring what James Comey said, moving the goalposts quite a bit, and just plain moonbattery regarding Comey’s testimony from people who are simply unable to come to grips with Donald Trump as president, much like 4 year olds will throw tantrums over just about anything. But, looks like Chris Matthews is kinda done (video at the link)

(Washington Examiner) Liberal MSNBC host Chris Matthews said Thursday the accusation that President Trump directly colluded with Russia to interfere in the U.S. election “came apart” following former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony in front of Congress.

In his written and spoken testimony on Thursday, Comey said that he never felt that Trump had tried to impede the FBI’s investigation into Russia, even that the president had encouraged it and he suggested that former national security adviser Mike Flynn wasn’t at the heart of the investigation.

“The assumption of the critics of the president, of his pursuers, you might say, is that somewhere along the line in the last year is the president had something to do with colluding with the Russians … to affect the election in some way,” Matthews said on MSNBC, following the testimony.

“And yet what came apart this morning was that theory,” Matthews said, listing two reasons why. First, he said Comey revealed that “Flynn wasn’t central to the Russian investigation,” and secondly, he said that kills the idea that Flynn might have been in a position to testify against Trump.

“And if that’s not the case, where’s the there-there?” Matthews said.

No worries, Chris, your folks will continue to manufacture outrage and conspiracy theories, because that’s all they have. And they have been, if you take a perusal of media articles and opinion pieces. But, as Alan Dershowitz points out, there’s “no there there.” No laws have been broken. No collusion, no obstruction of justice. Greg Jarrett states that Comey’s testimony exonerates Trump on the obstruction point.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Even Chris Matthews Thinks The Liberal Collusion Meme Is Done »

Posted in Liberal World | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Decries Lack Of U.S. Leadership On Hotcoldwetdry Or Something

By William Teach June 8, 2017 – 3:22 pm

He did this after having taken a fossil fueled flight to Montreal

(Hamilton Spectator) Former U.S. president Barack Obama has again decried what he calls the lack of American leadership on climate change.

In a speech to the Montreal Board of Trade on Tuesday, Obama did not mention U.S. President Donald Trump by name but clearly targeted his successor’s decision to pull the United States out of the Paris climate change agreement.

“In Paris, we came together around the most ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change,” Obama said. “An agreement that even with the temporary absence of American leadership will still give our children a fighting chance.”

How cute. This is a guy whose foreign policy can best be described as “leading from behind.” And who was thrilled to saddle Americans with policies that wouldn’t cause himself any issues.

Read: Obama Decries Lack Of U.S. Leadership On Hotcoldwetdry Or Something »

Posted in Barry Obama, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove