Germany Deals With Lots Of Sexual Assault Attacks By “Migrants” Over New Years

By William Teach January 7, 2016 – 7:25 am

Don’t ask Leftists to be outraged over all the attacks by migrants from Islamic nations: even though they make a massive deal out of protecting women from rape and sexual assault (especially on college campuses that are run by Liberals), yammer about women’s rights, and so forth, all those things are lower on the rung of Liberal Concerns than multiculturalism, which means protecting the people streaming out of Islamic countries into 1st World nations

(Breitbart) German capital city Berlin has joined the sad parade of cities touched by migrant sex violence on New Year’s Eve, with hundreds of assaults now reported to police in Cologne and other cities.

Although on a smaller scale to the unrestrained and un-policed sex attacks in Cologne, the Berliner Morgenpost has now reported on assaults taking place on the street “in front of the Brandenburg gate”.

The revelation may prove difficult for the German media, which until now has stressed in most reports on the new year’s rapes that Berlin was not caught up in the scandal.

The paper reports four separate incidents around the cite, including a tourist being sexually assaulted by a group of “three to five men”, and two women being “sexually harassed” by men from Pakistan and Iraq.

Another woman came forward to police on Tuesday following national press coverage of the migrant rape scandal to report being “touched” at a music event by “several immoral men”.

There have been 53 complaints of attacks Germany, 39 of them for sexual harassment (the article doesn’t make it clear whether this was just Berlin, or Germany as a whole). This follows on the heels of many more sexual assaults throughout Europe. Norway decided that it was a good idea to hold classes for these migrants on How Not To Rape. The UK Telegraph reports

Some of those involved in a series of sexual assaults against women in the German city of Cologne on New Year’s Eve claimed to be Syrian refugees, according to a leaked police report.

The outbreak of violence was also far more serious than previously thought, and at one point senior police officers feared “there could have been fatalities”. (snip)

Ministers have said there is no evidence asylum seekers were involved in the violence.

But the leaked police report, published in Bild newspaper and Spiegel, a news magazine, claims that one of those involved told officers: “I am Syrian. You have to treat me kindly. Mrs Merkel invited me.”

Another tore up his residence permit before the eyes of police, and told them: “You can’t do anything to me, I can get a new one tomorrow.”

More than 150 women have filed criminal complaints, three-quarters of them for sexual assault. Two cases of rape have been reported.

That seems to be just in Cologne.

Three Syrians have been arrested for gang-rape of two teenage girls in southern Germany. These are the types of people Mr. Obama and Democrats want to let into the United States. People who have no respect for the laws of 1st World nations, including the U.S. None of this should really be new to anyone. The migrant camps were, and are, hotbeds of criminality and sexual assault. Migrants from the Middle East and Northern Africa have long caused problems in Europe. All those riots in France from “youths”? Young Islamic men, rioting, torching cars. But, the diversity and multiculturalism push by Leftists has made it “Islamophobic” if one dares discuss and/or report these incidents. Why do Leftists hate women?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Germany Deals With Lots Of Sexual Assault Attacks By “Migrants” Over New Years »

Posted in RoP | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

What Say To Artificial Trees To Solve Hotcoldwetdry?

By William Teach January 6, 2016 – 4:37 pm

Yup. As Steven Milloy notes, this is the latest in CO2 insanity. I’d just call it bat guano insane

(Washington Post) In the fight against climate change, trees are an ally. They suck in carbon dioxide, reducing the harmful greenhouses gases in our air. But there’s a problem — we’re asking them to work overtime.

Trees can’t absorb enough of the carbon dioxide humanity is throwing at them, unless we turn every inch of available land into a dense forest, according to Christophe Jospe, the chief strategist at Arizona State’s Center for Negative Carbon Emissions.

But what if trees — or machines modeled after them — had superpowers? Artificial trees with otherworldly abilities are a great hope against climate change, as environmental experts say it’s not realistic to expect humanity to release significantly less carbon into the atmosphere. Our best bet may be to capture the excess carbon and store it or convert it into something useful such as fuel.

So, these resourceful folks came up with the idea to create artificial trees. Sadly, no one is ponying up research money for these yet

Capturing and storing carbon isn’t yet the type of expense that local governments and organizations can slide into their budgets. The cost of the technology is dropping, but not to a point where it’s affordable to install “forests” of these systems. Poliquin estimates an upfront cost of $350,000 for an artificial tree, but she expects prices to come down considerably. She hopes to develop a prototype of such a tree in one or two years.

Strangely, these things never really seem to come down in price, except where government is providing direct subsidies.

Read: What Say To Artificial Trees To Solve Hotcoldwetdry? »

Posted in Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 6, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a world being turned to desert from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Cold Fury, with a post on digging ditches.

Is everyone getting their post-holidays exercise?

Read: If All You See… »

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

Good Grief: Trump Chimes In On Cruz Birtherism

By William Teach January 6, 2016 – 10:17 am

There’s a reason it’s called the Silly Season

(Washington Post) Donald Trump said in an interview that rival Ted Cruz’s Canadian birthplace was a “very precarious” issue that could make the senator from Texas vulnerable if he became the Republican presidential nominee.

“Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?’ That’d be a big problem,” Trump said when asked about the topic. “It’d be a very precarious one for Republicans because he’d be running and the courts may take a long time to make a decision. You don’t want to be running and have that kind of thing over your head.”

Trump added: “I’d hate to see something like that get in his way. But a lot of people are talking about it and I know that even some states are looking at it very strongly, the fact that he was born in Canada and he has had a double passport.”

To be perfectly clear, the facepalm is for Trump. And for those who will bring up Trump being an Obama Birther, let’s not forget that it was started by Team Hillary supporters.

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz has released a video that has horrified the Credentialed Media

Wisely, this frames the debate in economic and legal terms. He’s said it before: what if illegals were coming across the border and taking the jobs of non-low wage citizens? Think there would be an outcry? What if they were taking the jobs of politicians?

Read: Good Grief: Trump Chimes In On Cruz Birtherism »

Posted in GOP | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, Can Hollywood Save Us From “Climate Catastrophe”?

By William Teach January 6, 2016 – 8:16 am

In other words, are we set for more preachy movies about Hotcoldwetdry?

Can Hollywood save us from climate catastrophe?

By taking on the link between football and brain injuries, the recently released movie“Concussion” reminds us of the potential for Hollywood to shape attitudes and beliefs about controversial topics through entertainment.

The film has put America’s most popular sport under a microscope and sparked a dialogue about children participating in contact sports and the role of the National Football League in preventing injuries to its players.

Would this be the movie that bombed? And made even less money this past weekend. And isn’t even being mentioned at major sports sites like Fox Sports, CBS Sports, Sports Illustrated, and ESPN, among others. While an important issue, no one is talking about it. So, I’m not sure if this is the best example.

Certainly, there is the potential for a similar movie to be made about climate change — one that builds on “An Inconvenient Truth” and speaks to a new generation.

Let’s hope so, because it’s amusing when Hollywood makes a preachy movie and it tanks. People do not want preachy at the movies: they want to be entertained.

Some from the scientific community argue that interjecting Hollywood into the climate debate may be a bad thing, as it could further blur the lines between fact and fiction, especially with a public that remains skeptical of science.

But, with a public that holds views on climate change that largely align with political affiliation, Hollywood might offer a rare opportunity to cut across these lines with a message that is both entertaining and eye-opening. Indeed, there is already evidence that movies such as “The Day After Tomorrow” can change consumer attitudes and beliefs about climate change.

Funny part is, The Day After Tomorrow is more about a coming ice age than “global warming”.

As scientists learn more about the potential impacts of climate change, more stories are emerging that easily could be spun to read like nightmarish sci-fi movies. Here are a few examples:

  • Ancient bacteria brought back to life as glacier ice melts cause pandemic
  • Global food stocks collapse from widespread drought, ocean acidification that dissolves shellfish and the spread of neurotoxins in fish, unraveling social order and leading to war, or worse, nuclear confrontation
  • Rising temperatures shut down photosynthesis by phytoplankton, the source of most breathable oxygen on earth, suffocating all life

They would bomb. And bomb badly. The old 50’s monster movies did well because there was concern, legitimate, real concern, over a real issue: nuclear weapons. They were new, and scary, and movie makers used them to great effect to create monsters, such as Godzilla and giant tarantulas, to entertain without preaching.

Hey, I have a great idea: perhaps the Cult of Climastrology could produce rock solid evidence, based on the Scientific Model, that proves that mankind’s release of CO2 is mostly/solely responsible for climatic changes.

Read: Say, Can Hollywood Save Us From “Climate Catastrophe”? »

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

Semi-Retired President Gets Weepy Over Mostly-Ineffectual Gun Rules

By William Teach January 6, 2016 – 7:51 am

I noted yesterday that Obama’s new “gun control” regime would pretty much have a statistically insignificant effect on “gun violence”. Ed Morrissey called them a “restatement of existing law”, and that they “aren’t exercises in executive power; they’re admissions of incompetent governance.” Allahpundit notes they are empty gestures, and points to Charles W. Cooke, who writes

1) In order to make his actions appear meaningful, Obama is going to have to pretend that they represent serious change. If he does that, though, he’ll permit his opponents to say, “look, we just did big gun control by executive order, we have other things to do, and we’re not doing it again.” That matters. The Left makes great hay out of the “we never do anything” line, and its more effective advocates use our present inertia to justify the need for experimentation. Insofar as there is any, Obama has slowed the momentum for further gun-control. This is not how you win the argument.

For the most part, that’s all these actions are: appearances. And, we get this

President Barack Obama grew emotional Tuesday as he made a passionate call for a national “sense of urgency” to limit gun violence.

He was introduced by Mark Barden, whose son Daniel was killed in the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. Obama circled back to that shooting in the final moments of his speech.

“Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad,” Obama said, pausing to wipe away tears.

He added: “And by the way, it happens on the streets of Chicago every day,” referring to his hometown where he began his political career.

Yes, it does happen on the streets of Chicago every day (he should talk to his buddy Rahm Emanuel). And in Baltimore. Detroit. Newark. And many other mostly Democratic Party run cities. And these empty gestures will have zero effect on these events. Does anyone think that criminals will say “oh, goodness, I have to have a background check for online purchases, where I’m not purchasing guns anyhow?” They don’t care about laws regarding murder, attempted murder, theft, assault, dealing drugs, etc.

And all those Democratic cities have draconian gun control. California is a liberal gun grabbers wet dream.

But, really, this is what Obama gets weepy about? What about other things

Does anyone remember Obama getting weepy when he made his brief statement, from the golf course, over the beheading of James Foley, then went right back to the golf course?

How about when Baltimore was breaking records for murder in 2015? He didn’t get weepy over San Bernardino, when Islamists killed Americans. Nor Fort Hood. Sarah Palin wonders

America is forced to weep over Obama’s release of violent criminals into our communities – like the 121 illegal aliens who committed murders after they were released from custody by the Obama administration instead of being deported. And that doesn’t take into account the others we don’t know about.

The whole world weeps waiting for American leadership in these troubled times as Islamic savages commit genocide against the Christians of the Middle East and terrorize innocent people in cities across the globe.

Heck, how about some weeping for the record number of people who have dropped out of the work force in despair

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Semi-Retired President Gets Weepy Over Mostly-Ineffectual Gun Rules »

Posted in Barry Obama | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Special Snowflake Warmist Isn’t Impressed With Old Gray Hair Warmists

By William Teach January 5, 2016 – 2:39 pm

Thankfully, we now have the opinion of Clara Nevins, a “high school activist, dancer, and writer” (strange, she doesn’t want to be a STEM major?), who isn’t impressed with all those old fogey Warmists when she took a long fossil fueled trip to the Paris Hotcoldwetdry conference

A Millennial’s Take on Climate Activism

….

Paris was abuzz. At the Chamber of Commerce, 200 adults in business suits, wearied by two hours of oil companies’ execu-speak, slammed coffee at the 11 am break. There I was, a 5-foot-3 15 year old in a ponytail in a room full of blue suits and gray hair. I felt so out of place.

The next speakers were equally ancient-looking oil industry CEOs again throwing around terms like API, KBD, and NGL. I tried my best to follow but I could not comprehend all the acronyms, and I certainly couldn’t imagine seeing my friends in the audience trying to understand.

The next day I hoped I might feel more at home at the Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network conference. My mom and I arrived at a tired conference hall filled to the brim with women my mom’s age. One woman was standing up, swaying to the bongos played by two indigenous women while another woman tried to get everyone’s attention.

“Ladies, before we start the day off, I want to welcome the oceans and the rivers into this room,” the woman at the podium began. At that moment, I felt like I was in the 70s Coke commercial, “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing.” This way of rallying felt so antiquated. Again, I felt so out of place.

Rather ageist, wouldn’t you say? Even sneering. And she totally wasn’t inspired, and wants to find a way to get all the other Special Snowflakes involved. Heck, they might as well, because, thanks to the economic and other policies from the people and political parties they support, the jobs market stinks.

When older people with flowy hair or business suits speak about climate change, it doesn’t have an urgency that seems like ours when in fact, this issue is more ours than any single cause.

So, obviously, she has Big Ideas to solve this who issue of a minor 0.8C increase in global temperatures over 166 years, right? A plan to stop the prognosticated doom of a 1.2C rise by 2100?

I realized I shouldn’t dismiss or have disdain for the people who created the movement and have led us to this point, but now, we must take it from here, make it our own, and transition it with language and stakes that will have meaning for my millennial peers. So my fellow millennials, rise up, show up and make noise to send a message. Buy conscientiously and sustainably and forcefully encourage your parents and friends to do the same. This issue needs fresh and innovative ideas so use your vote, use your wallet and use your force because the power is in our hands.

She may not have gray hair and be her mom’s age or ancient-looking or antiquated. She’s not banging on bongos, acting like the hippies who started all this, but, her ideas are exactly the same. Spreading awareness and a token change in consumerism. Just with more energy!

Read: Special Snowflake Warmist Isn’t Impressed With Old Gray Hair Warmists »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

The Deal In Oregon: My Take

By William Teach January 5, 2016 – 10:30 am

Jeffrey asked yesterday why I wasn’t writing about the “standoff” in Oregon. Well, let’s see. First off, I really do not care all that much. These are some foolish people trying to make a point, yet the people they are supposedly making a point over want them to stop. There’s no doubt that there are some harsh, and seemingly inconsistent, penalties being placed on the Hammonds. There’s no doubt that it should disturb everyone how much land out west the federal government owns. There’s no doubt that federal agencies like BLM have always ruled with a heavy hand. The feds are constantly adding new rules and regulations and penalties, taking more land, causing problems for the folks who live out west.

But, these “militia” who took over the building could have done it better. Leave the guns at home. That’s not to say that they can’t have them, or that there’s anything wrong with them, but the optics of having them guaranteed that the focus of the leftist media would be on the guns, rather than on the complaints.

That said, are they engaged in the 1st Amendment right to “protest peaceably”? They took over an unused building in the middle of nowhere. No one is making threats. No one is trashing the place. Or damaging it. IMO, the best thing would be to simply ignore them. No big police presence. No standoffs. Leave them along and they’ll go away. the White House wisely calls this a “local matter”.

My only real interest in this is the double standard as pushed by the liberal media and Leftists. Consider how the media and leftists portrayed protests in Wisconsin. Did they highlight the millions in damage to the State house? Or the filth? The feces? No, it was pretty much fawning coverage and support, all while these protesters interrupted state business.

How about in Ferguson? The most folks on the left could do was give a little “tsk, tsk” as the “protesters” became violent, looting stores, burning buildings, firing guns, fighting, assaulting police officers. Made threats. We saw something similar in Baltimore and other places.

How about the entire Occupy movement? The main demonstration in NYC featured the need for safe spaces within the park to protect women from being raped. There were murders, stabbings, and assaults. Fighting. People defecating on police cars and people’s doorsteps. Damaging property. In other areas, Occupiers were charged with violence, including intention to blow up a bridge. Were they called out on this by the same people who are calling the militia in Oregon “terrorists”? Saying they should be shot and killed? Blown up? Of course not.

Look at the USA Today Editorial Board

Nevada rancher Ammon Bundy proclaimed Monday to a crowd of TV cameras and reporters that he and a small group of armed followers had taken over a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon to “restore and defend the Constitution.”

The trouble with Bundy’s patriotic sounding claim is that the Constitution stands for the rule of law — which Bundy and his crew are breaking. They have no right to take over the federally owned Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The protesters, some armed, show their blatant disregard not just for the nation’s laws but also for the danger they have created.

Interestingly, the Founders rather did the same thing. Took up arms against the Government. And used them. These guys aren’t using them.

But, it’s instructive how suddenly we’re supposed to Follow The Law when it’s a protest that doesn’t follow the Leftist Narrative. Perhaps a Leftist could explain this double standard?

Read: The Deal In Oregon: My Take »

Posted in Current Affairs | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Climate Change Killed Off The Real King Kong!

By William Teach January 5, 2016 – 7:20 am

Seriously, how could our ancestors do this? Driving fossil fueled vehicles and refusing to buy local and using air conditioning. Bad humans! This is an AFP article being pimped by ultra-leftist Raw Story in order to push The Narrative about how evil climate change is

Climate change starved the Earth’s ‘real King Kong’ into extinction: researchers

The largest ape to roam Earth died out 100,000 years ago because it failed to tuck into savannah grass after climate change hit its preferred diet of forest fruit, scientists suggest.

Gigantopithecus — the closest Nature ever came to producing a real King Kong — weighed five times as much as an adult man and probably stood three meters (nine feet) tall, according to sketchy estimates.

In its heyday a million years ago, it inhabited semi-tropical forests in southern China and mainland Southeast Asia. (snip)

These narrow preferences (of food) did not pose a problem for Gigantopithecus until Earth was struck by a massive ice age during the Pleistocene Epoch, which stretched from about 2.6 million to 12,000 years ago.

That’s right, it died out long ago. What would be an interesting bit of science on things that happened in history is being used to promote an agenda regarding climate change today. It was global cooling, an actual ice age, that seemingly helped kill off the giant apes. The article, with its prolific use of the phrase climate change, is supposed to make people think of the current climatic changes (without mentioning that the current warm period isn’t even as warm as previous warm periods) and worry about DOOM.

Now, if only today’s Warmism would die out. Of course, it will be around for quite some time, regardless of what real science says, and regardless of what actual events show, because this is about pushing a hardcore Leftist political agenda.

Read: Bummer: Climate Change Killed Off The Real King Kong! »

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

Obama Releases His Bland EO On Guns, Which Won’t Change A Thing

By William Teach January 5, 2016 – 6:59 am

As I wrote yesterday, this is box checking by Obama, some red meat thrown to his gun grabby base. It really ends up being very little adoo over nothing, a 1 ounce bit of steak when Progressives expected a 16oz T-bone

(White House) Gun violence has taken a heartbreaking toll on too many communities across the country. Over the past decade in America, more than 100,000 people have been killed as a result of gun violence—and millions more have been the victim of assaults, robberies, and other crimes involving a gun. Many of these crimes were committed by people who never should have been able to purchase a gun in the first place. Over the same period, hundreds of thousands of other people in our communities committed suicide with a gun and nearly half a million people suffered other gun injuries. Hundreds of law enforcement officers have been shot to death protecting their communities. And too many children are killed or injured by firearms every year, often by accident. The vast majority of Americans—including the vast majority of gun owners—believe we must take sensible steps to address these horrible tragedies.

The President and Vice President are committed to using every tool at the Administration’s disposal to reduce gun violence. Some of the gaps in our country’s gun laws can only be fixed through legislation, which is why the President continues to call on Congress to pass the kind of commonsense gun safety reforms supported by a majority of the American people. And while Congress has repeatedly failed to take action and pass laws that would expand background checks and reduce gun violence, today, building on the significant steps that have already been taken over the past several years, the Administration is announcing a series of commonsense executive actions designed to:

Feel free to read through it. At best, it might stop a few bad guys/gals from purchasing a firearm. There is an expansion of requiring background checks at gun shows and the Internet by gun sellers. Does it cover individuals selling a few guns yearly? We don’t quite know.

(Mother Jones) But as my colleague Mark Follman wrote Monday, that clarification won’t be enough: “Expanding background checks through a broader interpretation of current federal law still won’t close the so-called gun show loophole; hundreds of thousands of firearms will continue to be bought and sold with minimal regulation, both online and in person. Only an act of Congress could change that comprehensively.”

Huh. Anyhow, he wants 200 new ATF agents to “enforce gun laws.” You know, the same folks who ran rifles obtained through straw-purchases and ran them to Mexico, then lost track of them, leading to hundreds of deaths and injuries.

He includes a bit about increasing mental health reporting. This may violate patient confidentiality.

And, he wants research on smart gun technology. Personally, I don’t have a problem with this. If someone could come up with a reliable method that would allow a weapon to be fired when it needed to be fired, without a lot of fuss, but secured when it should be secured, they’d make a lot of money. The current crop of “smart guns” are not particularly reliable, and are of low caliber.

Promote the use and acquisition of new technology. The Presidential Memorandum also directs the departments to review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety. In connection with these efforts, the departments will consult with other agencies that acquire firearms and take appropriate steps to consider whether including such technology in specifications for acquisition of firearms would be consistent with operational needs.

Congress should pass a bill requiring all presidential protection to only carry one the few available smart guns. If it’s the guns that are dangerous, well, we want to protect the POTUS and his family correctly, don’t we?

Personally, I really do not have much in the way of pushback on this. It really will have little effect overall, and it won’t affect people who want to purchase a gun legally.

What it won’t do is have any affect on the people who want to use firearms for nefarious purposes. It won’t change the dynamic of turning Democratic Party run cities like, say, Chicago, into safe areas. It does nothing to get guns out of the hands of bad guys, except one or two a year.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama Releases His Bland EO On Guns, Which Won’t Change A Thing »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Barry Obama | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove