…is an evil dog sucking up Earth’s resources and causing massive temperature spikes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jammie Wearing Fools, with a post on the IRS still possibly targeting Conservatives.
Read: If All You See… »
…is an evil dog sucking up Earth’s resources and causing massive temperature spikes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jammie Wearing Fools, with a post on the IRS still possibly targeting Conservatives.
Read: If All You See… »
It’ll probably be as effective as the fool who used the Joe Biden “fire a shotgun” defense
(Mother Jones) In September 2014, five climate activists with Rising Tide Seattle managed to halt the passage of a crude oil train at the BNSF Delta rail yard in Everett, Wash. After eight hours blocking the tracks, the five were arrested and charged with criminal trespass and blocking a train. Today, they go on trial.
In court, the activists—known as the Delta 5—will argue their act of civil disobedience was necessary. A spokesperson for Rising Tide said the activists “will be the first ever to argue that their actions were justified because of the threat of climate change, using the ‘necessity defense.’ The outcome of [the] trial could set national precedent for climate related civil disobedience and is being carefully watched.” The defendants will call on a rail safety expert and a climate scientist to argue that their actions were justified.
It will be very interesting to see how this turns out. They’re arguing that all the CO2 from the oil the trains carry is a future threat, and virtually every time that ‘climate change’ has been argued in court it has lost, because the Warmists failed to prove the existence of anthropogenic climate change to the satisfaction of law and science. Eric Worrall notes
Activists should recognise that there is time for them to change climate policy by legal means, through political campaigns, to try to persuade voters to support the climate cause at the ballot box. Committing crimes won’t persuade people, except for the handful who already think climate change is a major threat. The fact voters aren’t listening is not a justification for breaking the law. If activists want people to listen, they could start by presenting a compelling case for action – something they have so far failed to provide.
The problem is, Warmists cannot persuade people with actual science, and their goals of far left authoritarian policies further fail to convince people to Do Something, especially when that something is a something that the members of the Cult of Climastrology refuse to do in their own lives.
Read: Idiots To Use Climate Change Defense In Criminal Trial »
What happened to Ann Coulter? She used to be a rock solid Conservative. Her books and columns used to be bedrocks of Conservative thought. Then, something happened. She started supporting super squishy Republicans, starting with her love of Chris Christie. She’s now become an uber-Trumpbot. She had a little hissy fit towards SC Gov. Nikki Haley regarding Haley’s shots towards Trump, Tweeting “Trump should deport Nikki Haley.†Ace thinks this is a silly joke, that it was not serious, and, I agree, it was silly, but, it shows Coulter’s mindset, especially in terms of the way she’s been acting the past 4-5 years. Consider that her dream ticket would be Trump/Romney. Now, she’s arguing that Ted Cruz is not “natural born”
(Daily Caller) Forgetting how corrupt constitutional analysis had become, I briefly believed lawyers who assured me that Cruz was a “natural born citizen,†eligible to run for president, and “corrected†myself in a single tweet three years ago. That tweet’s made quite a stir!
But the Constitution is the Constitution, and Cruz is not a “natural born citizen.†(Never let the kids at Kinko’s do your legal research.)
I said so long before Trump declared for president, back when Cruz was still my guy — as lovingly captured on tape last April by the Obama birthers.
She even goes back to court case to PROVE THIS
The phrase “natural born†is a legal term of art that goes back to Calvin’s Case, in the British Court of Common Pleas, reported in 1608 by Lord Coke. The question before the court was whether Calvin — a Scot — could own land in England, a right permitted only to English subjects.
Goodness!
A child born to American parents outside of U.S. territory may be a citizen the moment he is born — but only by “naturalization,†i.e., by laws passed by Congress. If Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you’re not “natural born.â€
Because Cruz’s citizenship comes from the law, not the Constitution, as late as 1934, he would not have had “any conceivable claim to United States citizenship. For more than a century and a half, no statute was of assistance. Maternal citizenship afforded no benefit†— as the Supreme Court put it in Rogers v. Bellei (1971).
Isn’t it fantastic that she’s doing the work of Democrats? She says there’s no conceivable argument being offered by anyone that Cruz is truly natural born, then follows with this
The best argument for Cruz being a natural born citizen is that in 1790, the first Congress passed a law that provided: “The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.â€
So, law says he is. Thanks, Ann. Of course, she tries to shoot that one down, and ends with
Take it like a man, Ted — and maybe President Trump will make you attorney general.
With friends like this, who needs enemies?
Crossed at Right Wing News.
…are plants dying off and growing out of control from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Blazing Cat Fur, with a post on what Germany planned to do before the NYE rapefest.
Humpday!
Read: If All You See… »
There’s spin, and then there’s Spin (via Ed Morrissey)
(CBS News) After Iran released 10 U.S. Navy sailors from custody early Wednesday morning, some media outlets reported that the U.S. had issued an apology to Tehran in order to secure the sailors’ freedom. But Vice President Joe Biden told CBS News that there was “no apology†given.
“When you have a problem with the boat, (do) you apologize the boat had a problem? No,†Biden said in an interview with “CBS This Morning†on Wednesday. “And there was no looking for any apology. This was just standard nautical practice.â€
The vice president explained that the “the Iranians picked up both boats — as we have picked up Iranian boats that needed to be rescued.†Iranian officials then “realized they were there in distress and said they would release them, and released them — like ordinary nations would do.â€
Can anyone explain how it just so happened that two US Navy boats both happened to be in distress at the exact same time? While together? There’s Spin, and then there’s flat out Unicorn Land. John Kerry delves into Unicorn Land, as well
NEW: Secretary John Kerry thanks Iranians for US Navy sailors’ departure from Iran. https://t.co/eI2NDI70cE pic.twitter.com/MXz3tkXhaP
— ABC News (@ABC) January 13, 2016
These people really do think you’re stupid. Thanking the Iranians? This delves into the same buffoonery as blaming a previously unknown video for the attack in Benghazi. Does this look like US Navy members being rescued?
https://twitter.com/NoahCRothman/status/687290811898269697
I repeat, what were they in distress from? Calm seas, no storms. Did both boats just happen to break down at the same time? Maybe they were being stalked by a Megalodon. Or mermaids. All share the same reality.
And Iran isn’t yammering about the boats being in distress, and are demanding an apology
Gen. Ali Fadavi also told state TV Wednesday that the American boats showed “unprofessional acts” for 40 minutes before being picked up by Iranian forces.
“Certainly U.S. presence in Persian Gulf and their passage has never been innocent and we do not deem their passage as innocent,” Fadavi said, adding that Iran Foreign Minister Javad Zarif “had a firm stance (during a telephone conversation with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry) on their presence in our territorial waters and said they should not have come and should apologize.”
Will US media have the fortitude to demand answers from this administration? Made myself laugh.
Read: Good Grief: Biden Thanks Iran For Helping Our Boats “In Distress” »
People, meaning Warmists, scoff when I note that ‘climate change” is almost solely about far left politics, and not science. Yet, virtually everything surrounding this “issue” relates to Leftist policies, and most of the Believers are Leftists. People such as those at the New Internationalist Blog, who are very much a smattering of Progressives, Marxists, and Socialists (the Soviet Union/China types, who are really authoritarians, versus the textbook definition). These are people who want “social ownership” of the energy sector, meaning, 100% government control. Quite frankly, there are so many wacky Leftist phrases in this article and the excerpts that almost the whole thing would need to be placed in bold
Stop Aviation, Stop Co2lonialism
….
Though the particular effects of projects such as the tar sands pipelines may only have been a threat in recent years, the drivers behind these projects have much deeper roots. The reason that the negative impacts of climate chaos are distributed in the way they are is linked to three intersecting processes: capitalism, colonialism and patriarchy. Not only are these systems are premised on massive inequality that take hierarchy, be it based on wealth, race or gender, as a necessary condition to function, but they have an insidious way of trying to convince us that this oppression is the natural order of things and that ‘there is no alternative’.
Capitalism, with its need for never ending economic growth, requires ever increasing amounts of natural resources and energy, which always leads to increasing pollution and waste. That is why the only time in recent history CO2 emissions have decreased globally is during the financial crisis. Capitalism relies on exploitation. Exploitation of labour and of nature. Colonialism was a key driver of the shift to capitalism, with much of industrialization being made possible due to slavery. Similarly, as Siliva Federici shows, the evolution of patriarchy was key in in the expansion of capitalism and colonialism. This happened in various ways: from relegating women to the domestic sphere, which allowed for men’s labour to be exploited in industry; to taking away women’s power over their reproduction, meaning birth rates could be controlled for the good of state and capital; to the horrific violence that occurred to hundreds of thousands of women through the burning of ‘witches’. All of this oppression reinforced the power of the state and capital, and the techniques for doing so – for example torture and burning of witches – were often put on trial in one setting e.g. the colonies and then brought back to Europe – and vice versa.
Anyone get the idea that these people hate capitalism? Interestingly, capitalism allowed these folks to create a blog, using software and a platform (web hosting) created by capitalism, all while they use capitalism to advertise their wares, such as the New Internationalist web-shop. Are they giving the merchandise away free, or at least selling the products to consumers, er, comrades, at prices the comrades can afford individually?
It’s in this context that the climate justice movement, including the fight against aviation expansion, needs to stand in solidarity with those most affected by climate change. And with the big NGOs clearly needing to decolonize themselves, with organizations like AVAAZ forcefully attempting to silence the Wretched of the Earth bloc at the most recent climate march in London, it’s down to the grassroots to show real solidarity.
The links between aviation and continued co2lonialism couldn’t be clearer. Not only is aviation the fastest growing source of CO2 in Brittan, which means more and more extraction, but the gulf between those who do and don’t fly couldn’t be wider. Globally, a mere 5 per cent of the population has ever taken a flight. So those arguing for expansion are doing so for the benefit of a tiny elite. Even within the Brittan, 70 per cent of flights are taken by just 15 per cent of the population. Aviation is a clear example of the North-South divide. Communities in the global South suffer twice: first from extraction and then from the effects of climate change, whilst the global North primarily uses aviation as a form of leisure or to expand processes of capital accumulation.
And, if you fly, you are one of the Big Shots with Privilege, and should stop it right now. Or, better, yet, be forced by Government to stop it right now. That’s what they really want, along with a destruction of capitalism. Even though they practice it themselves.
For all you Warmists, you’ve been warned. If you fly, you’re part of the problem. Stop flying now.
BTW, what the heck is “Brittan?” It wasn’t a typo. It’s written that way 5 times.
Read: Cult of Climastrology: Aviation Is “a continued pattern of privilege for the very few” »
A doomy prognostication for a sunny Monday from the Cult of Climastrology
Climate change means more fear, less fun for global middle class: UBS
The erosion of wealth among the world’s middle class due to climate change is a threat to economic and social stability which could spur its 1 billion members to push for action on global warming, Swiss bank UBS Group AG said.
In a study of middle-class consumption in 215 cities around the world, UBS analysts found spending priorities were noticeably different in cities most at risk from climate change such as Los Angeles, Tokyo and Shanghai.
In those top-risk cities, the middle class spent between 0.6 and 0.8 percent more on housing compared to the national average, and less on luxuries, entertainment and durable goods.
The report said middle-class households are already changing their lifestyles in the cities most exposed to hotter temperatures, rising sea levels and extreme weather such as storms and floods.
“More fear, less fun is how we might sum it up,” said the study https://www.ubs.com/microsites/climatechange/en/home.html.
In places with high risks of climate-related shocks, people spend more on the upkeep of their properties. And homes may decrease in value if certain places become less appealing to live, eating into wealth, the report said.
Huh. Imagine that. People spending money on the upkeep of their homes. That never happened before, right? Could it also be that costs are higher in these leftist areas, what with their higher taxation, policies that increase costs, and, hey, could part of it be “climate change” policies that increase costs, and force homeowners to spend more for upkeep, repair, and replacement?
Read: Bummer: Hotcoldwetdry Means More Fear, Less Fun For Middle Class »