Federal Judge Nullifies Gay Marriage Law Which 60% Voted For

This should make liberals happy

(WRAL) Nearly two years after North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment recognizing marriage only as a union between a man and a woman, a federal court judge in Asheville on Friday overturned the ban, allowing gay and lesbian couples across the state to marry immediately.

U.S. District Court Judge Max Cogburn’s ruling came five days after the nation’s top court declined to hear any appeal of a July decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond striking down Virginia’s ban. That court has jurisdiction over North Carolina.

Two points: first, Liberals are really, really like Direct Democracy. Except when they lose at the ballot box, then they sue to usurp the will of the People.

Second, when can bigamists and polygamists get married? Equality, right? If you support gay marriage, but not bigamy and polygamy, why not? Explain, you bigot.

Read: Federal Judge Nullifies Gay Marriage Law Which 60% Voted For »

If All You See…

…are wonderful trees overlooking a place where giant wind turbines should be erected, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Maggie’s Notebook, with a post noting that sometimes the Nobel committee gets it right.

Read: If All You See… »

Sigh: Evengelicals Want Rick Scott To Address “Climate Change” As A Pro-Life Issue

Leftism continues to invade organized religion

(HuffPo) A group of evangelical Christians is taking to the airwaves in Florida to urge Republican Gov. Rick Scott to take action on climate change, arguing that it, too, is a “pro-life” issue.

“I’m pro-life, and I’m pro-family,” says one female voice featured in the ad, sponsored by the Evangelical Environmental Network. “And I do believe we should do all we can to protect our environment. It was given to us by God.”

“Climate change is real. It endangers the health of our children, worsens poverty throughout the world, and threatens our economy,” says a male voiceover. “Call Governor Rick Scott and tell him as pro-life Christians we believe care for God’s creation is one of the greatest moral challenges of our time. Tell Governor Scott now is the time to act to curb climate change.”

Well, true, remember this?

Darned Hotcoldwetdry! Killing off iguanas!

Read: Sigh: Evengelicals Want Rick Scott To Address “Climate Change” As A Pro-Life Issue »

Five Ideas To Help Fix U.S. Representative Democracy

Recently, Salon ran an article about fixing the Constitution. Of course, many of the ideas were meant to make the Constitution more Progressive (nice fascism), but there were a few good ideas that could help all Americans. As I noted, “The Constitution does guarantee (freedom, fairness, and equality). The politicians, the bureaucrats, and people don’t.”

The article recommended several ideas, such as 100% financing of elections by Government, to keep money out of politics. Three years terms for Representatives, with term limits capped at 12 years. Election day being three days, which would include the weekends. And a few others.

Now, a friend asked me what I would do to fix our political system. And I thought “is it really the system that is broken, or the people?” I’ll often write that the immigration system is not broken: it is the people running it that are broken. There are substantive problems within the way the political system works that can be fixed by dealing with the people involved. Here’s what I would do

1. Term limits for the House Of Representatives and Senate

As time goes on, elected Representatives respond less and less to constituents, and more and more to other interests, including simply keeping their party in power. Benjamin Franklin once wrote “In free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors . . . . For the former to return among the latter does not degrade, but promote them.” People seeking elected office so often look at serving in the House as a career, when they should serve some time then leave. They become divorced from The People over time. We cannot just “vote the bums out”, because that rarely works. Power corrupts. I recommend a limit of eight years. (a good article here)

For the Senate, I recommend two terms as the limit.

2. No post serving perks

Serving as an elected official is not a job: it is a responsibility and duty, and should come with no post-serving perks. No medical insurance for life, no retirement accounts, nothing. Zip. Nada. The only exception would be Secret Service protection for ex-presidents for as long as necessary.

3. Repeal the 17th Amendment

You’ll notice I made no mention above as to Senators losing focus on their Constituents. They certainly have the same problems as Representatives. However, the original intent of the Constitution was for Representatives to represent their Districts, and Senators to represent their State government. That was lost with the passage of the 17th Amendment, which took election of Senators out of the hands of State legislations and put it in the hands of citizens. Some might wonder why this is bad.

States now have no true representation to the federal government. When it was the General Assemblies electing Senators, it meant that those Senators were beholden to the their state, and its government. It meant that citizens needed to pay more attention to the doings of their state elected officials. It meant Senators did what was best for their state, not for their party, and not for the Federal government. The Founders acknowledged the correct idea that State governments were better equipped to deal with the needs of Citizens than the federal government. It was integral to the notion of federalism, to being a Constitutional Republic. Elected State officials live within our communities. They are not full timers. They have jobs. They have to live under the laws they pass. The minute the 17th was enacted, the massive expansion of the federal government started, shifting power away from states, where it belongs, to a far off government that is barely responsive. (read more here)

4. Restrict Money To “Local”

Liberals often complain about money in politics, despite doing exactly what they complain about. But, they are right: money is a problem in politics. It buys access. It buys “back-scratching”. It is essentially legalized bribery. There are many ideas to fix this. Liberals want to restrict “corporations” and “dark money” groups (while ignoring unions, their own groups, etc). They want to stop Big Moneyed individuals (while allowing their own). I’ve pushed the notion that restrictions should be on elected officials, not people. But, what if we made it “local only”?

What that means is that Representatives could only accept money from people, companies, and groups that are within their own Districts. No money can come from outside. It has long bothered me that candidates can take money from people, companies, and groups (PCG) which are not in their districts, and often not even within their own states. This also goes for campaigning, but it would be un-Constitutional to stop that. Representatives become beholden to PCGs that have nothing to do with their Districts. Why should money from some PCG in another state, or even district, effect the race in my district?

This would also apply to Governors and General Assemblies.

This is very much about “you mind your business, I’ll mind mine”.

5. Recall Elections

The rules to this would have to be very strict, to avoid frivolous recalls, but, there needs to be a way to recall federally elected officials who are Not Doing Their Jobs in representing their Districts. Likewise, General Assemblies could recall Senators who fail to represent their States. Again, there would need to be strict rules, so as to avoid frivolous recalls due to control changing hands.

This would put elected officials on notice that they best damned well represent their Districts/States above all else.

Government is supposed to be “by the People, for the People”. It has moved away from that. It’s time to take it back.

Read: Five Ideas To Help Fix U.S. Representative Democracy »

Do Muslims Need To Defend Their Faith From Extremists?

The NY Times is running a Room For Debate on how Muslims should respond to the threat of Muslim extremism entitled Do Muslims Need to Defend Their Faith Against Extremists? Many of the answers are interesting, no more than that of Linda Sarsour, executive director of the Arab American Association of New York and the national advocacy director of the National Network for Arab American Communities.

Muslims Do Not Need to Justify Themselves in Face of Extremism

I am a New Yorker, born and raised in Brooklyn. I am a civil rights activist. I am a mother. I also happen to be Muslim, a faith that represents a quarter of the world’s population. My faith unequivocally condemns groups like ISIS, and while I stand with every other American and 1.7 billion other Muslims in that condemnation, we must stop misrepresenting the problem with my faith.

I am horrified by these attacks, but not because I am Muslim. I am horrified because I am human. By constantly apologizing and denouncing these attacks, Muslims reinforce the misguided public perception that they are connected to ISIS through the same basic ideology, when in fact they have nothing in common at all.

We do not expect Buddhists to apologize as Buddhist extremists massacre Muslims in Burma or for their human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. I also don’t ask Christians to apologize for the genocide that Bosnian Muslims faced less than two decades ago at the hands of Christian Serbs, or for the Lord’s Resistance Army and Christian militias who have killed tens of thousands of civilians and ethnically cleansed Muslims throughout Uganda, the Congo and Central African Republic. Nor do I ask every white American to apologize for hate crimes committed by self-proclaimed White Christian supremacist groups like the Klu Klux Klan. All of us instead recognize that religious fanatics perpetuate violent acts for their own deranged reasons.

Why is an apology only expected of Muslims?

Well, now, those are very interesting comparisons. The problem is that this relies on a false premise, that Muslims who aren’t extremists need to provide an apology. Alas, no one is asking for an apology. What has been asked of the non-extremist Muslims is for them to repudiate the Muslims who practice an extremist form if Islam and stand up against the extremists, much like White Christians stood up against the KKK and repudiated them. How Buddhists stood up against those in Burma and Sri Lanka, saying “not in my Name”. Because, whether Muslims (and idiot Liberals with their diversity and multiculturalism) like it or not, extremism grows in the name of their religion, based on the writings within their holy book, the Koran, with passages such as

Quran (9:14)“Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people.” Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even “healing” the hearts of Muslims.

One would think that so-called Moderate Muslims would be upset, since the extremists, who are known as “Islamists”, tend to kill more Muslims than people of other religions. And, let’s be clear: the extremists are not just those who practice violence in the name of Allah and Mohammed. They are those who push peacefully for Sharia law, for more hardcore Islam, who take advantage of the laws of nations to force their viewpoints and laws on citizens (such as the woman who is upset she wasn’t allowed to swim in a Muslim dress. The rules apparently shouldn’t apply to her). They do not use violence, but infiltration, lawsuits and threats of lawsuits, and our own rules of law and society against us.

So, no, Ms. Sarsour doesn’t have to apologize: if she had respect for her religion, she would, though, stand up against the hijacking of her religion. And it’s interesting that Ms. Sarsour would talk about “apologizing”. She herself has often downplayed Muslim extremist attacks. She claimed the underwear bomber was a CIA plant. She easily trots out the Islamophobe card to deflect from the doings of Islamists. She blows off “honor killings”, a practice of Islamists. She’s wondered if Osama Bin Laden ever did anything to deserve death. She was upset over Saddam Hussein’s death. And she attacks anyone concerned with the continued rise and threat from radical Islam, typically using ad hominum, personal, and non sequitur methods.

This is not to say she is an extremist. But, it is very interesting that her group receives quite a bit of funding from Qatar, a massive funder of radical Islam. She defends Islamic terrorism suspects. She has many anti-Israel statements. And likes to make hate crimes against Muslims up out of thin air.

There are many things done in the name of religion. There have been times when Christianity performed large scale terrible acts. This is discussed within the essay by Jonathan Wright, who notes

Every major religion has endured its share of violence and extremism. Christianity, for example, was intolerant of other faiths through most of its history and pursued dissent within its own ranks with indefatigable zeal. Wars were fought, heretics were burned and rival religions were pummeled in the name of the Christian God.

But such sorry episodes do not sum up Christianity any more than contemporary extremism within Islam encapsulates an ancient and beautiful faith. We deploy caricatures at our peril.

Christianity has mostly moved away from those sad episodes. Will Islam? One big difference is that the Koran pushes the extremism within its passages. The Bible has moved on to peace and love in the name of Jesus Christ.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Do Muslims Need To Defend Their Faith From Extremists? »

Say, What Do Hotcoldwetdry And Sweaters Have In Common?

In this case, the Huffington Post’s Katherine Boeher doesn’t use the un-scientific phrase “climate change”, but the old and bust “global warming”

What Do Global Warming And Sweaters Have In Common? This Climate Scientist Explains.

Climate scientist Adam Levy got sick of hearing all the usual arguments against the existence of climate change, so he decided to fight back with a clever and easy to understand YouTube channel.

His latest video explains global warming using a sweater analogy. “We’ve known for over a hundred years that the carbon dioxide that exists naturally in the earth’s atmosphere helps trap heat to keep the world warm, just like a sweater in winter.” By adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, Levy explains, we’re adding more hot clothes.

“When a sweater’s making you hot, you can just take it off,” Levy says. “Unfortunately for us, carbon dioxide doesn’t work like that. Once it’s in the atmosphere, it sticks around for hundreds of years, so if you want to stop the world getting warmer, we need to stop too much carbon dioxide getting in to the atmosphere in the first place.”

Of course, a big difference is that wearing a sweater can increase your feeling of warmth by many degrees. The Earth’s global temperature has only gone up a miniscule 1.4F since 1850. And, despite the bleating by Warmists, there really has been no statistically significant warming over the last 18+ years, in complete contradiction to the majority of their computer models.

Interestingly, making the video and having people watch it uses quite a bit of energy which creates CO2, meaning that Levy, Google, and the Huffington Post are Part Of The Problem, according to their Warmist religious tenants.

Speaking of computer models, The Hockey Schtick points to a comment by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. at Dr. Judith Curry’s site

This is a remarkable statement

“the warming of the upper ocean predicted by these models did not agree with observations; particularly in the southern hemisphere.They inferred from this that upper ocean warming rates in the southern hemisphere have been underestimated – that it was the previous observations that were inaccurate and that the models were correct.” 

When observations and models disagree, to accept the model is an inversion of the scientific process! This is a systemic problem with these studies.

That’s right, Warmists actually think that computer models are more important that real world observational data.

Read: Say, What Do Hotcoldwetdry And Sweaters Have In Common? »

If All You See…

…is a super awesome tree sucking carbon pollution from the air, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Don Surber, with a post on the life expectancy ranking under Ocare.

Read: If All You See… »

As World Deals With Ebola And ISIS, John Kerry To Focus On More Important Stuff

Can you guess what’s more important? I’m sure you can, since I blog about climate change multiple times a day

Secretary of State John Kerry to talk global warming in Boston

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry plans to discuss the “global threat of climate change and the importance of investing in a clean energy future” at a wind turbine testing facility in Charlestown on Thursday morning.

The former U.S. senator from Massachusetts will be joined by United Kingdom Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond and Gov. Deval Patrick, and Boston Mayor Marty Walsh has been invited.

That’s interesting, since John Kerry worked hard to block the Cape Wind Project for years.

The meeting is scheduled for 915am today. Perhaps Kerry could jump in his fossil fueled airplane afterwards and head to Mexico to help Sgt Andrew Tahmooressi, an American citizen stuck in the Mexican legal system.

Read: As World Deals With Ebola And ISIS, John Kerry To Focus On More Important Stuff »

10 Easy Ways You Warmists Can Practice What You Preach

I’m impressed by this article at the UK Independent. It’s rare that Warmist actually recommend Warmists get off their duffs and do something within their own lives

  1. Make meat a treat (go without meat a few days a week. Actually, you should give it all up, because it’s evil for climate change)
  2. Drive with smooth style (drive slower and use less AC. Actually, you should just stop driving altogether)
  3. Don’t over-boil the kettle (only use the water you need, a decent real environmental idea, subsumed under the banner of Hotcoldwetdry)
  4. Turn off appliances at night (a smart idea for everyone, again, subsumed under the banner of HCWD)
  5. Adjust your computer power (see previous)
  6. Walk more (stop using fossil fuels)
  7. Eat seasonably and locally (reduce your “carbon footprint”. Seriously, this is England. Do you actually want to eat local foods?)
  8. Take short, sharp showers (another good environmental idea ruined by Warmists)
  9. Receive less junk mail (apparently, one can request to be left off mailer lists in the UK, and by doing so, you’re saving Gaia from a fever!)
  10. Encourage others to do the same (boom, I love that. Warmists walking the talk and telling other Warmists to do the same.)

There are lots of other things Warmists can do. But, they mostly won’t. Because this is really about pushing hardcore Leftist policies, not science.

Read: 10 Easy Ways You Warmists Can Practice What You Preach »

EPA “Loses” Text Messages Sought In Records Request

That’s right, another issue of transparency regarding Team Obama, this time at the EPA

(Fox News) The EPA is being accused of pulling “an IRS” for reportedly planning to inform the National Archives it has lost text messages being sought in an open-records request.

The Washington Times reported Wednesday that lawyers from the Department of Justice informed a federal court of the EPA’s plans to tell the National Archives it cannot produce the text messages because they have been deleted.

The open-records request in question came from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is seeking text messages from the devices of EPA administrator Gina McCarthy.

Christopher Horner, a senior fellow for the institute, told FoxNews.com in a statement it is clear the EPA has not learned from the IRS’ mistakes. The tax agency came under fire earlier this year after it announced it could not locate an untold number of emails sought in congressional probes into the agency’s targeting of conservative groups.

“Here we see EPA agreeing to the court to ‘do an IRS’, which is to say: notify the National Archivist of the loss of every one of Gina McCarthy’s thousands of text messages we have discovered she destroyed, just as the IRS finally agreed to notify (the National Archives) about the emails lost from (former IRS official) Lois Lerner’s destroyed hard drive,” he said. “The IRS’s insincere efforts at following through on Federal Records Act obligations drew the court’s ire – the same court now hearing the EPA case. Taxpayers should rightly expect EPA to have learned the proper lesson from the IRS’s experience and hope for better.”

On one hand, the EPA is saying “no biggie” because the texts are personal messages. On the other, they’re informing the National Archivist that official messages have been lost (now that they’ve been caught). Over to that Washington Times article

Unlike other agencies surveyed by The Times, the EPA says it has had a policy since 2005 instructing employees to save any text messages that would qualify for preservation, and it has no evidence that employees are failing to do that.

The EPA also says that even if text messages were being destroyed in violation with its guidance, that’s not against the law because they believe text messages are “transitory records … which may be deleted when no longer needed,” Ms. Purchia said.

Go that? It’s against EPA policy to delete the messages, but, hey, no biggie if they are. Try this with your own company and see what happens. The metadata shows that many messages were, in fact, sent to phone numbers owned by the EPA.

I think we can agree that not all the messages were EPA business. The judge in the case acknowledged that. But, McCarthy has a history of playing fast and loose with the rules of record retention, and she surely deleted messages that were government business.

Read: EPA “Loses” Text Messages Sought In Records Request »

Pirate's Cove