Judge Deals Blow To Warmists On Trial For Blocking Oil Train

By William Teach January 15, 2016 – 7:46 am

Thursday I mentioned a bunch of fools who are on trial for blocking an oil train in Washington, charged with multiple felonies and misdemeanors, who planned on using ‘climate change’ as a defense. Later in the day, the judge in the case dealt that idiocy a serious blow

(Quartz) A jury in Washington state is hearing the final arguments today (Jan. 14) in a huge case for the environmental movement. Five activists have been charged with criminal trespassing for blocking a train full of crude oil.

The judge initially allowed the so-called “Delta Five” to use a so-called “necessity defense,” which argued that their criminal actions were justified by the threat of climate change. It is the first such case in the United States, and environmentalists were hoping for a precedent-setting breakthrough.

However, in a last-minute decision, the judge instructed the jury not to take the “necessity defense” argument into consideration, seriously undermining their prospects.

Too bad, so sad. It would have been interesting to see which way the jury jumped during deliberation.

https://twitter.com/dechristopher/status/687754242220658688

Who are these people?

The “Delta Five” group includes a middle school teacher, a coffee shop owner, and a professional activist. They constructed a massive, 18-foot tripod in front of a parked oil train in Everrett, Washington in September 2014 to block oil trains passing through the state. They were arrested and charged with criminal trespassing and obstructing a train.

What the heck is a “professional activist”? First World Problem.

The train was carrying Bakken shale oil from Montana and North Dakota—a highly explosive substance, which killed 47 people in an explosion after a train derailed in Quebec in 2013. Washington state officials are considering six new oil transport facilities to make the region a bigger player in fossil fuel transport.

Instead of claiming “climate change’, they should have done it for the danger these trains pose to explode. They might have found some sympathy from non-climate change believing people, and the judge may have allowed it at the end. The law is the law, though, and if one is going to break it to “protest”, one must be ready for the consequences, which could include a few years in jail.

The protest was specifically designed to set a precedent for civil disobedience cases related to the environmental movement, according to activist Tim DeChristopher. In an interview with the Guardian, he compared the legal tactic to the similar efforts by the civil rights and women’s suffrage movements.

Read: Judge Deals Blow To Warmists On Trial For Blocking Oil Train »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Learns That Tangling With Ted Cruz Is A Dangerous Decision

By William Teach January 15, 2016 – 6:56 am

People may think of Ted Cruz as just some Texas hick, an ultra-Conservative firebrand with no brain, but they forget he’s a national college debate champion while at Princeton. Check out his resume. And he’s more than able to take on Donald Trump’s bluster

(Bloomberg) During a lengthy and heated back-and-forth at Thursday’s Republican presidential debate in North Charleston, South Carolina, Donald Trump admitted that he’s bringing up U.S. Senator Ted Cruz’s Canadian birthplace “because now he’s doing a little bit better” in the polls, and insisted that Cruz receive a judgment from the courts because it would be bad for Republicans to have the issue hanging over their presidential nominee.

The Texas senator chuckled when asked to respond to Trump’s taunts that he may be ineligible to be president of the U.S. Then he swatted them away deftly. Trump, on the other end of the exchange, faced many boos from the crowd.

“I’m glad we’re focusing on the important topics this evening,” said Cruz, who was born in Canada to an American mother and has been a U.S. citizen since birth. He noted that Trump said last year he’s a natural born citizen.

“I don’t care. I think I’m gonna win fair and square. I don’t have to win this way,” Trump said.

Donald was sounding a bit petulant. The bigger one was the New York Values spat

“Everyone understands that the values in New York City are socially liberal … focused around money and the media,” Cruz charged. And in a nod to Trump’s home in midtown Manhattan, Cruz said: “I can frame it another way: Not a lot of conservatives come out of Manhattan. I’m just saying.”

Just as Cruz was ready to dismiss concerns about his Canadian birth, Trump was ready to defend New York.

The real-estate mogul said he found that kind of talk “insulting.” And he seemed to show his softer side while reflecting on how New Yorkers came together after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. “Everybody in the world watched, and everyone in the world loved New York and loved New Yorkers,” he said. “That was a very insulting statement that Ted made.”

If you’re going to tangle with Ted Cruz, be prepared for a rational, reasonable response. In this case, he made Donald whine about it being an “insulting statement”.

Meanwhile, there were discussions on other topics, rather than the back and forth squabbling. Hillary loomed large

The former secretary of state was mentioned often by all of the candidates, and the attacks were often in the form of one-liners.

“She’s under investigation with the FBI right now,” Bush said, adding that the country should avoid a situation with a president who “might be going back and forth between the White House and the courthouse.”

Rubio was much more serious when he said Clinton is “disqualified from being president of the United States” because she “mishandled” intelligence, a reference to her use of a personal email account and server rather than a government account while at the State Department. He also accused her of telling “lies” to the families of victims in the attack on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi.

During the rest of the debate, there were some other topics, such as shutting down Muslims coming in to the country, Chinese trade, immigration, and trade overall. A lot, though, was silly squabbles. It makes for interesting TV, but, are we really learning anything?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump Learns That Tangling With Ted Cruz Is A Dangerous Decision »

Posted in GOP | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Shockingly, Only 28% Trust Los Federales To Enforce Gun Laws Fairly

By William Teach January 14, 2016 – 4:52 pm

Yet another bad poll for anti-2nd Amendment nuts, and the 28% thing is not even the worst part

(Rasmussen) Supporters of additional gun control generally consider the National Rifle Association their biggest problem, but voter distrust of the federal government remains a big hurdle for them to clear.

Just 28% of American Adults trust the federal government to fairly enforce gun control laws. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% don’t trust the government when it comes to administering these laws. Thirteen percent (13%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

I wonder what would possibly give citizens the idea that the federal government is less than trustworthy? The fact that no one was punished for Operation Fast and Furious, and that Team Obama stonewalled for years, and we still do not know all the details, might be one clue.

But just one-in-three Americans (32%) now think stricter gun control laws will decrease violent crime, down eight points from 40% in the 2013 survey. Fifteen percent (15%) say tougher anti-gun laws will increase violent crime, while 47% say they will have no impact.

Huh. So, the majority think more gun laws on law abiding citizens won’t actually reduce violent crimes. Which are already illegal.

Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans and 59% of those not affiliated with either major party do not trust the federal government to fairly administer gun control laws. Democrats, however, are evenly divided on the question. Most Republicans (57%) and unaffiliateds (52%) say stricter gun laws will have no effect on violent crime, but 52% of Democrats think they will reduce such crime.

So, even the best Democrats can do with the question “Do you trust the government to fairly enforce gun control laws?” is 50%. This spreading awareness and angry man campaign by Obama and the Dems doesn’t seem to be working out too well. Which makes an article like this by Rebecca Leber at the New Republic even funnier

Gun Control Can Swing the 2016 Election

Gun violence was always going to play a bigger role in 2016 than it has in any election in recent memory simply because of its sheer, in-your-face relevance: The nation can’t seem to go a week without a horrific shooting. But now that President Obama has taken action to bolster background checks and come out swinging against the National Rifle Association, joined by the leading Democratic presidential contenders, gun control has the potential to be the deciding issue of 2016. And it’s Democrats, for a change, who stand to benefit.

Yet, virtually every single poll goes against the gun grabby policies of Democrats. I suggest they make this a big theme, see how far it takes them. If they were willing to offer real common sense solutions, it would work well. But, since most do not trust the government, and most understand that if you give Democrats and inch they’ll take way more than the proverbial mile, it won’t help them except with their own hardcore base.

Read: Shockingly, Only 28% Trust Los Federales To Enforce Gun Laws Fairly »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Liberal World | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 14, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…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… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Idiots To Use Climate Change Defense In Criminal Trial

By William Teach January 14, 2016 – 10:05 am

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 »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Rep. Jason Chaffetz: This Obama Guys Loves His Executive Abuse And Overreach

By William Teach January 14, 2016 – 8:42 am

Representative Jason Chaffetz (R) pens an opinion piece for CNN, but forgets one extremely salient point among all the other points

After listening to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address, I came away with this question: What does a president do when he thinks he is right and the people he governs are wrong?

He issues executive orders and actions instead of working with the people’s elected representatives.

He imposes burdensome and expensive regulations to bypass the lawmaking process.

He conceals information from the public through a culture that encourages an unlawful presumption of secrecy.

He misuses government to target the First Amendment rights of Americans with viewpoints other than his own.

He limits access to information for federal inspectors general, the agency watchdogs charged with combating waste, fraud, and abuse and rooting out corruption in government.

This is the playbook of the Obama administration. It is unilateral, overreaching and unconstitutional. Left unchecked, it is behavior that undermines, and will ultimately erode, the foundation of our democracy and our freedom.

He’s not wrong in the least.

The President’s boldness appears to be growing with each swipe of the pen. In this instance, he seems to believe that he alone can rewrite longstanding medical privacy laws that protect all Americans’ health records. But he can’t. It requires legislation — a power not assigned to the president.

I wonder why that boldness is growing?

One of the more egregious acts by the President to expand his jurisdiction was the Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to redefine the “Waters of the United States” through an opaque rulemaking process. The rule, currently under a court injunction, was a blatant effort by the President to assert his will over the private property rights of countless Americans.

If only there was some body that could do something about this. He ends with

The Constitution of the United States begins with “We the People,” not “I the President.” We elect presidents, not kings, in the United States. It would behoove us all to remind Mr. Obama of those facts, because every new power seized by government is an individual freedom lost. As such, this pattern of executive abuse and overreach cannot continue.

The state of our union depends on it.

So, let me ask a little question: what the heck are Republicans doing about it? They’ve controlled the House since the start of the 2011 session, and the Senate since 2013. They hold the power of the purse. They’ve barely used it. They finally just voted to overturn the EPA’s “waters of the US” rule. Once passed in the Senate, Obama is sure to veto it, at which point the GOP will fight back. Oh, who am I kidding, they’ll fold like a house of cards under a ceiling fan.

For all the fancy talk, the GOP doesn’t stand strong now that they’re in control of the Legislative Branch. They’ve pretty much refused to use their Constitutional powers, and by not fighting back hard, they have enabled Obama to push his agenda even further.

Read: Rep. Jason Chaffetz: This Obama Guys Loves His Executive Abuse And Overreach »

Posted in Barry Obama, GOP | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Ann Coulter Goes Full On Birther Against Cruz

By William Teach January 14, 2016 – 8:08 am

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.”

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.”

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.

Read: Ann Coulter Goes Full On Birther Against Cruz »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Ordering Starbucks Implies Killing Black Men By Cops Or Something

By William Teach January 13, 2016 – 6:01 pm

Some people have entirely too much time on their hands

(Daily Caller)  Oregon State University will host a workshop next week that will explain to students how ordering a coffee at Starbucks involves “implicit biases that contribute to injustice” and connects to the “recent killings of black men” by white cops.

The Jan. 19 workshop entitled “Making the Unknown Known: Exploring Implicit Bias in Everyday Life” is part of a nine-day Martin Luther King celebration at the school, reports Campus Reform.

“What do the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Fair Housing Act in late June, recent killings of black men by White [sic] police officers, and a person ordering coffee at Starbucks have in common? Answer: Implicit bias, which refers to attitudes or stereotypes that influence our perceptions, judgements [sic], and behaviors in an unconscious manner. In this workshop, participants will gain knowledge about the concept of implicit bias, discover how it shows up in their lives, and learn ways to uncover and challenge the implicit biases that contribute to injustice.”

BTW, for all you solar lovers, they have another workshop: “Some OSU solar panels were manufactured by prison laborers who were paid $0.93 an hour. Powered by Prison Orange participants will discuss the complexities of making decisions that are social just, economically fair, and environmentally friendly when two or more of these areas are in conflict.”

Hilariously, Oregon State has a student body that is 67.8% White, and just 1.3% Black. Their faculty composition is even worse, at 81.4% and .9%, respectively.

Read: Ordering Starbucks Implies Killing Black Men By Cops Or Something »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 13, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…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… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Good Grief: Biden Thanks Iran For Helping Our Boats “In Distress”

By William Teach January 13, 2016 – 10:47 am

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.”

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.”

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

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” »

Posted in Democrats, Joe Biden, Kerry, Unhinged Tools | 20 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove