9th Circuit: Students Have No Right To Wear A USA Flag Shirt

By William Teach February 28, 2014 – 2:29 pm

I’m a little late on this story from yesterday, but it brings up an interesting thought

(Washington Post) Today’s Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2014) upholds a California high school’s decision to forbid students from wearing American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo. (See here and here for more on this case.)

The court points out that the rights of students in public high schools are limited — under the Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comm. School Dist. (1969), student speech could be restricted if “school authorities [can reasonably] forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities” stemming from the speech. And on the facts of this case, the court concludes, there was reason to think that the wearing of the T-shirts would lead to disruption. There had been threats of racial violence aimed at students who wore such shirts the year before:

On Cinco de Mayo in 2009, a year before the events relevant to this appeal, there was an altercation on campus between a group of predominantly Caucasian students and a group of Mexican students. The groups exchanged profanities and threats. Some students hung a makeshift American flag on one of the trees on campus, and as they did, the group of Caucasian students began clapping and chanting “USA.” A group of Mexican students had been walking around with the Mexican flag, and in response to the white students’ flag-raising, one Mexican student shouted “f*** them white boys, f*** them white boys.” When Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez told the student to stop using profane language, the student said, “But Rodriguez, they are racist. They are being racist. F*** them white boys. Let’s f*** them up.” Rodriguez removed the student from the area….

At least one party to this appeal, student M.D., wore American flag clothing to school on Cinco de Mayo 2009. M.D. was approached by a male student who, in the words of the district court, “shoved a Mexican flag at him and said something in Spanish expressing anger at [M.D.’s] clothing.

Now, there’s no doubt that the students wore the USA flag shirts to be provocative.  Being provocative is Verboten and ends 1st Amendment protections, apparently. Because there might be violence because American citizen students were daring to wear those shirts as the school celebrated Cinco de Mayo, a somewhat made up holiday barely celebrated in Mexico, and mostly revolving around people in the US getting drunk (tell me I’m wrong). Violence against the students wearing the US shirts

This is a classic “heckler’s veto” — thugs threatening to attack the speaker, and government officials suppressing the speech to prevent such violence. “Heckler’s vetoes” are generally not allowed under First Amendment law; the government should generally protect the speaker and threaten to arrest the thugs, not suppress the speaker’s speech. But under Tinker‘s “forecast substantial disruption” test, such a heckler’s veto is indeed allowed.

Yeah, but, um, multiculturalism? Something?

(Allahpundit) The court’s ruling: School administrators can force you to remove your American-flag tee if the alternative is a classmate punching you in the face. That’s because, per the Supreme Court, students don’t have the same free speech rights at school that adults do on other public grounds. At school, the name of the game is order and instruction; you’re entitled to free expression to the extent you don’t interfere with those goals, but once you do, the school’s entitled to limit your expression accordingly.

In other words, a bully can get the principal’s office to silence you by promising to beat your ass if they don’t.

Now, this could set an interesting precedent: let’s say some pro-abortion group, or Code Pink, or ANSWER (not that they really protest with Obama in the WH), a “climate change” group, protests against Keystone XL, etc, are out and about. Conservatives could claim that their signs and shirts are provocative, and could cause violence, so The Government should force them to cease and desist.

Granted, these are children, and they do lose some rights when attending school in the name of learning (like the right to learn how to do correct math), but this ruling rewards the bullies. It will most likely go to the Supreme Court.

Read: 9th Circuit: Students Have No Right To Wear A USA Flag Shirt »

Posted in 1st Amendment, American Flag | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 28, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle that should only be used to take Warmists to climate change forums, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Fausta, with a post on the death of the Monroe Doctrine (thanks, Obama). Take particular note of Fausta’s posts on the strife still occurring in Venezuela, then compare to what you’re not hearing from the MSM.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Jay Carney Tells Us “the job of the Executive Office is to carry out laws passed by Congress”

By William Teach February 28, 2014 – 11:00 am

Now, if he could only take the time to tell Obama and all the hardcore Progressives he’s installed to run EO agencies the same thing

(The Blaze) Just a day after a congressional panel was warned of a “constitutional tipping point” resulting from President Barack Obama’s use of executive powers, White House press secretary Jay Carney asserted “the job of the executive branch is to carry out the laws that are passed by Congress.”

This was stated in relation to a question by Bill Press about about using executive actions/orders to stop deportations of illegals

“As the president has made clear going to your question, the job of the executive branch is to carry out the laws that are passed by Congress,” Carney said, before immediately bringing up an executive action taken by Obama in 2012. “The administration has taken a series of steps to focus our resources and make immigration enforcement more strategic, including focusing on criminals and the use of deferred action for young immigrants known as dreamers.”

Oh, so Obama does know that’s his job, he just prefers to ignore it. We’ve seen plenty of examples. Care for another? Ed Morrissey notes that HHS has waved their magic wand again

(AP) HHS said state residents who were unable to sign up because of technical problems may still get federal tax credits if they bought private insurance outside of the new online insurance exchanges.

The federal policy change is significant because until now the administration has stressed that the only place to get taxpayer-subsidized insurance under President Barack Obama’s health law is through the new online markets, called exchanges. Previously, people who bought outside the marketplace were not eligible for subsidies, although they benefit from consumer protections in the law.

This mostly bails out Democrat governors who implemented their own “exchanges”, a good chunk of which have failed, plus Democrat Senators up for tough midterm races. Does It’s. The. Law. allow subsidies to those who did not purchase insurance through a government exchange? And, if these folks are getting subsidies, why not the rest of us?

Read: Jay Carney Tells Us “the job of the Executive Office is to carry out laws passed by Congress” »

Posted in Barry Obama, Democrats | Comments Off on Jay Carney Tells Us “the job of the Executive Office is to carry out laws passed by Congress” | Trackback URL

Warming “Pause” Excuse #9: It’s All A Coincidence

By William Teach February 28, 2014 – 8:07 am

We can add it to the list, via Climate Depot

Climate Depot Analysis: ‘There have been at least nine separate explanations for the standstill in global warming’ – 1) Low Solar Activity; 2) Oceans Ate Warming; 3) Chinese Coal Use; 4) Montreal Protocol; 5) Readjusted past temps to claim ‘pause’ never existed 6) Volcanoes 7) Decline in Water Vapor 8) Pacific Trade Winds 9) ‘Coincidence’

Remember, Warmists call this “science”

(Bishop Hill) Gavin Schmidt and his colleagues are looking at the hiatus in surface temperature rises and considers why the CMIP5 ensemble all got it so wrong. In their new paper they explain that the reason for this is not – as wild-eyed readers at BH might think – that the models are wonky. In fact it’s all down to an incredible, incredible coincidence

Here we argue that a combination of factors, by coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends in the real world after about 1992. CMIP5 model simulations were based on historical estimates of external influences on the climate only to 2000 or 2005, and used scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways, or RCPs) thereafter4. Any recent improvements in these estimates or updates to the present day were not taken into account in these simulations. Specifically, the influence of volcanic eruptions, aerosols in the atmosphere and solar activity all took unexpected turns over the 2000s. The climate model simulations, effectively, were run with the assumption that conditions were broadly going to continue along established trajectories.

Apparently, if you go back and rework all the forcings, taking into account new data estimates (add half a bottle of post-hoc figures) and ‘reanalyses’ of old data (add a tablespoon of computer simulation) you can bridge the gap and explain away the pause.

As Bishop Hill notes, much of this goes to Why The Models Failed, and how Schmidt and other Disciples Of Gore go back and rework the data. It’s all a coincidence that the pause happened.

But, wait, could there be a 10th?

(BBC) New research suggests a strong link between the powerful smell of pine trees and climate change.

Scientists say they’ve found a mechanism by which these scented vapours turn into aerosols above boreal forests.

These particles promote cooling by reflecting sunlight back into space and helping clouds to form.

The research, published in the journal Nature, fills in a major gap in our understanding, researchers say.

It’s not just pine smell, but aerosols themselves, especially coming from Mankind. And, of course, the warming was mostly/solely caused by Mankind in Warmist world. It’s just nature fighting back or something. Strange that pine trees smell when it’s cold, too.

One does have to wonder: if the science is settled, why do they keep releasing papers?

Read: Warming “Pause” Excuse #9: It’s All A Coincidence »

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

Dem Senators Want Cap On 501(c)(4) Activity

By William Teach February 28, 2014 – 7:43 am

Of course they do. This will only affect Right side groups, because the IRS under Commissar Obama will not enforce those rules against left leaning group

(The Hill) A group of Democratic senators urged the Obama administration on Thursday to cap the amount of political activity that tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups can engage in at 5 to 15 percent.

The 15 senators, in public comments on a proposed regulation change that grew out of the IRS targeting controversy, said that the rules need to ensure that 501(c)(4)s can’t use their tax-exempt status to go around campaign finance rules.

“You will undoubtedly receive complaints from certain corners that these proposed rules will infringe on First Amendment speech rights,” Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and the other senators wrote to the Treasury Department and the IRS.

“Such complaints are without merit: these rules would not restrict anyone’s right to speak, or to spend money to influence elections,” the senators added. “If implemented properly, the rules will only close a loophole that has until now allowed donors to evade campaign finance law disclosure requirements.”

The GOP should counter with a requirement to limit political activity for the unions, NAACP, ACLU, oh, and heh, Organizing For Action, the 501(c)(4) group that exists specifically to push Mr. Obama’s political positions. Virtually every tweet is about Obama and his policies. The tweet using his name. The Twitter handle is BarackObama. Is that promoting social welfare, or politics?

And why are they proposing rules? Should this not be done by Congress? Is this not what the Legislative branch is for? Loopholes used to be closed by legislation. Perhaps Chuck Schumer and the other Dems realize that the 1st Amendment specifically forbids them from passing that legislation.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Thursday raised a slew of objections, arguing the administration is seeking to create a “no speech zone” through “breathtaking overreach.”

“This unworkable proposal demonstrates the obvious: the IRS has neither the expertise nor the authority to regulate First Amendment political speech, and should not be used by the administration for political ends,” said Lily Fu Claffee, the Chamber’s general counsel and chief legal officer.

“The proposed rule tramples speech that has never been regulated before, and puts the tax rules in hopeless conflict with themselves and other laws. We urge Treasury and the IRS to withdraw their fundamentally unsound proposal.”

Interestingly, most of the senators (as listed at the story) are in purely safe seats, so do not have to worry about any of the money and support from liberal 501(c)(4) groups. Not that any of them would need to worry about the IRS investigating them, not with a hardcore Progressive boss who likes to target private citizens and entities who oppose him.

In addition to calling for no more than 15 percent political activity, the Democratic senators also urged Treasury and the IRS to exempt nonpartisan voter registration efforts from the definition of candidate-related activity.

And all the far left groups will deem themselves as “non-partisan”, and most are on the left. Best comment from the story

Money in politics is no threat to democracy, compared to the ignorance of the masses.

Meanwhile, The Lonely Conservative covers Obama stating that he will veto the Stop IRS Abuse bill if it reaches him.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Dem Senators Want Cap On 501(c)(4) Activity »

Posted in Democrats, Elections | Comments Off on Dem Senators Want Cap On 501(c)(4) Activity | Trackback URL

Warmist Study Prognosticates 180K More Rapes By 2099

By William Teach February 27, 2014 – 3:57 pm

Might this be the start of Warmists, who are primarily Leftists, linking “climate change” to the war on women? Na, this isn’t the first time they’ve trotted out a fable about how “climate change” harms women, the question is, why aren’t Warmists changing their own behavior so more women don’t get raped?

(Mother Jones) Global warming isn’t just going to melt the Arctic and flood our cities—it’s also going to make Americans more likely to kill each other.

That’s the conclusion of a controversial new study that uses historic crime and temperature data to show that hotter weather leads to more murders, more rapes, more robberies, more assaults, and more property crimes.

“Looking at the past, we see a strong relationship between temperature and crime,” says study author Matthew Ranson, an economist with policy consulting firm Abt Associates. “We think that is likely to continue in the future.”

Just how much more crime can we expect? Using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s warming projections, Ranson calculated that from 2010 to 2099, climate change will “cause” an additional “22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny, and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft” in the US.

And if this occurs, we can directly blame Warmists for refusing to give up their fossil fueled lives and go “carbon neutral”.

Of course, there’s a third alternative—reining in the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing global warming in the first place.

Go for it, Warmists. Reign in your own GHG emissions. Otherwise you are perpetuating a rape culture.

Yet, rape went down during the warming times of late 70’s through 1999.

Read: Warmist Study Prognosticates 180K More Rapes By 2099 »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach February 27, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a sea rising up to swamp the evil 1%ers who won’t give up their fossil fuels usage, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on Obama the CIC and the minimum wage.

Bonus points for guessing the model, without looking at the photo URL.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Greenpeace Cofounder: Earth’s Geologic History Contradicts CO2 Climate Fears

By William Teach February 27, 2014 – 11:00 am

Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace (he left because Greenpeace took a hard turn to the left), testified to the Senate EPW panel on the 25th, and here is what he had to say (via Climate Depot)

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis)

“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.

And the models have failed 95% of the time.

Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.

There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.

Warmists will rebut this with the notion that, yeah, that happened, but this time the cause can only mostly/solely be “carbon emissions” from Mankind, and then they’ll jump in their fossil fueled vehicle to attend a “climate change” rally.

From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5oC over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57oC during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.

The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910-1940 to “human influence.” They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th century”. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910-1940?

Facts are not necessary for the disciples of Gore.

If we wish to preserve natural biodiversity, wildlife, and human well being, we should simultaneously plan for both warming and cooling, recognizing that cooling would be the most damaging of the two trends. We do not know whether the present pause in temperature will remain for some time, or whether it will go up or down at some time in the near future. What we do know with “extreme certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.

This is a man who cares deeply about the environment, not the ginned up, fake issue of “climate change”. He notes, as I have many times, that the climate could swing to cooling or warming after this pause. Also that we do not know how long the pause will last. Of course, Warmists now say that the pause is entirely within what they predicted, that snow and ice and cold are all part of a warming world, along with plenty of other excuses and Blamestorming.

He has asked that the chapter on “climate change” from his book “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making Of A Sensible Environmentalist” be added to the Senate record.

Read: Greenpeace Cofounder: Earth’s Geologic History Contradicts CO2 Climate Fears »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Without Taxpayer Subsidies, Obamacare Is Really Expensive

By William Teach February 27, 2014 – 8:24 am

In other news, water is wet

(Jacksonville Business Journal) Unless your coverage is subsidized by taxpayers, health insurance on the individual market is much more expensive under health care reform.

That’s the takeaway from a new index compiled by eHealth Inc., which tracked how much people are paying for insurance through its private online health insurance exchange. Individuals who don’t buy coverage through the federal government’s HealthCare.gov or state-run insurance exchanges aren’t eligible for premium subsidies available to many low- and middle-income Americans. (snip)

The average premium for an individual health plan selected through eHealth was $274 a month, as of Feb. 24. That’s 39 percent higher than the average premium before the ACA’s requirements went into effect.

The average family plan cost $663 per month, up 56 percent from a year ago.

Remember, that’s just the cost of premiums. This isn’t even taking into account the cost of the deductibles. But, hey, fortunately the “Affordable” Care Act is causing problems with restaurants and their menus

(Fox News) Tucked deep in the Affordable Care Act is language requiring all restaurants with at least 20 locations to list nutritional information alongside each and every item on their menu.

That edict is now creating headaches for small business owners across the country, particularly pizza chains.

Take Domino’s. There are 34 million different pizza combinations available at the chain, when all crusts and cheeses and toppings are factored in.

Now imagine walking into a Domino’s and navigating a menu board with 34 million different options on it.

That won’t raise costs or anything.

Oh, hey, look, the LA Times is pimping narrower networks

Most Americans would rather pay more for a health insurance plan that allows them to get treatment from a wide range of doctors and hospitals, a new survey finds.

But in a finding that could prove important for President Obama’s health law, working-age consumers who don’t get health benefits through an employer favor health plans with narrower provider networks that cost less.

Less costs when Someone Else is pay a good chunk of the premium. But just wait till people attempt to use the insurance and realize how much they will pay up front. But, hey, Doge memes!

Remember, these are the same people who are in charge of your health insurance and health care.

Read: Without Taxpayer Subsidies, Obamacare Is Really Expensive »

Posted in Healthcare | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Brewer Vetoes “Refusal Of Service” Bill

By William Teach February 27, 2014 – 7:54 am

You could see this coming a mile away once the liberal pundit and media finger-wagging, reality challenged fools became involved

(NY Times) Ending a day that cast a glaring national spotlight on Arizona, Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, vetoed a bill on Wednesday that would have given business owners the right to refuse service to gay men, lesbians and other people on religious grounds.

Her action came amid mounting pressure from Arizona business leaders, who said the bill would be a financial disaster for the state and would harm its reputation. Prominent members of the Republican establishment, including Mitt Romney and Gov. Rick Scott of Florida, also sided with the bill’s opponents, who argued that the measure would have allowed people to use religion as a fig leaf for prejudice.

Ms. Brewer announced her veto at a hastily called news conference after spending the day holed up in the Capitol in private meetings with opponents and supporters. “I call them like I see them, despite the cheers or the boos from the crowd,” she said. She added that the legislation “does not address a specific or present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona,” and that it was “broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences.”

Perhaps they should have actually read the massive two page legislation. It’s not Jim Crow, it’s not anti-gay…heck, it doesn’t even mention gays

(Rich Lowry) It was jarring to read the coverage of the new “anti-gay bill” passed by the Arizona Legislature and then look up the text of the instantly notorious SB 1062. The bill was roughly 998 pages shorter than much of legislation that passes in Washington, so reading it didn’t take much of a commitment. Clocking in at barely two pages, it was easy to scan for disparaging references to homosexuality, for veiled references to homosexuality, for any references to homosexuality at all.

They weren’t there. A headline from The Week declared, “There is nothing Christian about Arizona’s anti-gay bill.” It would be more accurate to say that there was nothing anti-gay about Arizona’s anti-gay bill.

See if you can find any of the LBGT words in the text of the bill.

Eleven legal experts on religious freedom statutes — who represent a variety of views on gay marriage — wrote a letter to Gov. Brewer prior to her veto explaining how the bill “has been egregiously misrepresented by many of its critics.”

Store owners are allowed to deny service to people with no shoes and shirts, who come in drunk, many have signs telling people to take their hoodies off or don’t come in, and for other reasons. But, if someone doesn’t believe in gay marriage and refuses to bake a cake, they will be vilified and sued. That’s much of what the Arizona law was about.

In addition to the federal government, 18 states have such statutes and about a dozen other states interpret their state constitutions as extending the same protections, according to the letter. The statutes, the scholars write, “say that before government can burden a person’s religious exercise, the government has to show a compelling justification.”

Ted Kennedy once championed this same type of legislation.

The question isn’t whether businesses run by people opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds should provide their services for gay weddings; it is whether they should be compelled to by government. The critics of the much-maligned Arizona bill pride themselves on their live-and-let-live open-mindedness, but they are highly moralistic in their support of gay marriage, judgmental of those who oppose it and tolerant of only one point of view on the issue — their own.

If a private entity wants to deny service, that’s their right. And the denyed can, shockingly, go elsewhere. Plenty of places bake cakes. Instead, they are sued. Government gets involved. The law would stop this. Interestingly, liberals who hate “anti-gay” laws are….denying service

(NBC4) A West Hollywood bar is refusing service to a select group of state legislators, in response to anti-gay legislation that has been proposed in eight states.

The Abbey Food & Bar has established a “Deny Entry List.” On it are headshots of each state representative that supports bills that allows for the discrimination of LGBT people. As of last Monday, anyone on this list will not be allowed to enter the establishment.

The bar has the right to do that, or, at least they should. Being California, no one can be denied

According to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, businesses cannot deny entry based on race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, medical condition, or marital status. Political persuasion is not on that list.

Perhaps, but this would be about religion, not politics. But, they should have the power to deny service. They own it. Government shouldn’t threaten them. But, the hypocrisy is, I’d like to say astounding, but, no, not with liberals. It is expected.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Brewer Vetoes “Refusal Of Service” Bill »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 8 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove