Person With Zero Evidence Accuses Trump Of Sexual Assault, Refuses To File Charges

By William Teach June 22, 2019 – 7:10 am

I think she got her timeline wrong: she was supposed to wait till  the Democratic primaries are over, perhaps till September 2020, in order to hurt Trump at the ballot box

Columnist accuses Trump of sexual assault more than two decades ago, an allegation he denies

E. Jean Carroll, a New York-based writer and longtime women’s advice columnist, accused President Trump of sexually assaulting her more than two decades ago in a dressing room of an upscale Manhattan department store, an episode detailed in a book excerpt published Friday in New York magazine.

In an interview with The Washington Post on Friday afternoon, Carroll reiterated the allegations, saying that during a chance encounter with the then-real estate developer at Bergdorf Goodman in late 1995 or early 1996, Trump attacked her in a dressing room. She said he knocked her head against a wall, pulled down her tights and briefly penetrated her before she pushed him off and ran out.

She said she hoped that telling her story “will empower women to come forward and not feel bad. . . . I blamed myself and I was silent and I felt guilty. I beat up myself terrible.”

Carroll, now 75, said she told two close friends about the episode at the time. One of them told The Post on Friday that Carroll described the incident to her shortly after it occurred and that she had unsuccessfully urged Carroll to go to the police.

Trump vigorously denied the accusation, calling it “fake news.” He questioned why there was no video footage of the incident or witnesses in the store.

“I’ve never met this person in my life,” the president said in a statement. “She is trying to sell a new book — that should indicate her motivation. It should be sold in the fiction section.”

So, why wait till now? I make no bones about saying Trump is a sleazy guy with fungible morals (which makes him perfect for politics), but serious allegations require serious proof. Not just to show up because

Carroll, a registered Democrat, said she voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. She donated $1,000 this cycle to Emily’s List, which supports female candidates who back abortion rights, and $500 to President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012, according to campaign finance records. On Twitter, she has posted several sharp remarks about Trump and retweets of satirical and critical articles about him.

It’s actually shocking that the Washington Post would publish that paragraph. Carroll can say “it’s not political”, but, it’s political.

Carroll said she didn’t come forward in 2016 because other women did, adding that she “didn’t have the guts.” But now, inspired by the #MeToo movement that began in late 2017, she said, “It’s time. It’s time.”

Sure, Jan, sure.

In other words, this is all about attempting to harm Trump with spurious allegations that cannot be proven or disproven. She supposedly still has the dresscoat from that day, but refuses to have it tested for DNA. Just another garbage false allegation

Read: Person With Zero Evidence Accuses Trump Of Sexual Assault, Refuses To File Charges »

Posted in Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 44 Comments | Trackback URL

Sydney City Council Seeks Hotcoldwetdry Resolution Or Something

By William Teach June 21, 2019 – 3:06 pm

Perhaps the good Warmists on the council should consider that all the ‘climate change’ legislation and supporters just lost big time (again) during the recent Australia elections

‘Emergency’: Sydney council seeks climate declaration

City of Sydney councillors will vote next week on a plan to declare climate change as posing a “serious risk” to residents, and that it should be treated as a national emergency.

Lord mayor Clover Moore will ask the council to demand the Morrison government responds by re-introducing a price on carbon and to establish a “Just Transition Authority” to assist employees to exit fossil fuel industries.

“Successive federal governments have shamefully presided over a climate disaster, and now we are at a critical juncture – we face a climate emergency,” Cr Moore said in a statement.

Assuming the vote succeeds, the City of Sydney will become one of more than 600 jurisdictions in 13 countries to have declared a climate emergency, according to the International Climate Emergency Forum.

And this will do what, exactly? The city is dependent on fossil fuels. They obtain large portions of their revenue from fossil fueled travel, be it from tourism from within Australia or from without. They have all the ports for international shipping. What is the plan?

The motion calls on the federal government to respond urgently to the climate emergency by reintroducing a carbon price and establishing a “Just Transition Authority” whose role would be to ensure that Australians working in fossil fuel industries can find suitable alternative employment.

When will the city, and these elected councillors, give up their own use of fossil fuels? Anyhow, that’s pretty much it, other than the declaration calling on the federal government to Do Something. Again, remind them that the Cult of Climastrology just lost badly at the ballot box last month.

Read: Sydney City Council Seeks Hotcoldwetdry Resolution Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | Comments Off on Sydney City Council Seeks Hotcoldwetdry Resolution Or Something | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 21, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled flying machine causing evil clouds, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on mandatory acceptance of the gender confused.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Is This Something? Senators Were Briefed On UFO Activity By Pentagon

By William Teach June 21, 2019 – 10:16 am

I know some disagree with me, but, I’ve always maintained a position that the majority of UFO sightings and such are made up in one fashion or another. But, can we say that 100% are not real? Some will say yes. Some, of course, will go in totally the opposite way, claiming that most are real. There’s tons of good evidence that something is out there. So what to make of this?

Senators get classified briefing on UFO sightings

Three more U.S. senators received a classified Pentagon briefing on Wednesday about a series of reported encounters by the Navy with unidentified aircraft, according to congressional and government officials — part of a growing number of requests from members of key oversight committees.

One of them was Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, whose office confirmed the briefing to POLITICO.

“If naval pilots are running into unexplained interference in the air, that’s a safety concern Senator Warner believes we need to get to the bottom of,” his spokesperson, Rachel Cohen, said in a statement.

The interest in “unidentified aerial phenomenon” has grown since revelations in late 2017 that the Pentagon had set up a program to study the issue at the request of then-Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Officials interviewed multiple current and former sailors and aviators who claim to have encountered highly advanced aircraft that appeared to defy the laws of aerodynamics when they intruded on protected military airspace — some of which were captured on video and made public.

The Navy has played a prominent role in light of the testimony of F/A-18 pilots and other personnel operating with the USS Nimitzaircraft carrier battle group off California in 2004 and the USS Theodore Roosevelt in the Atlantic in 2015 and 2016.

The growing congressional interest is credited for playing a major role in the service’s recent decision to update the procedures for pilots and other personnel to report such unexplained sightings, which POLITICO first reported in April.

Seriously, if the Navy doesn’t always know what the objects are, could it be real?

Read: Is This Something? Senators Were Briefed On UFO Activity By Pentagon »

Posted in Like, Gnarly, Dude | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Passage On New York’s Green New Deal Is A Victory For Grassroots Or Something

By William Teach June 21, 2019 – 7:12 am

I’m looking forward to them rethinking the idea of this being a victory in a few years

‘Huge victory’ for grassroots climate campaigners as NY lawmakers reach deal on sweeping climate legislation

Grassroots climate campaigners in New York applauded on Monday after state lawmakers reached a deal on sweeping climate legislation, paving the way for the passage of what could be some of the country’s most ambitious environmental reforms.

The legislature reached an agreement just before midnight Sunday on the Climate and Communities Protection Act (CCPA), one of several climate bills state lawmakers have pushed in recent months since progressives gained momentum in their push for a federal Green New Deal.

https://twitter.com/NaomiAKlein/status/1140653324460535808

I’ve include the tweet by Klein, since she is a massive anti-capitalist, having pushed the position that capitalism needs to go goodbye in order to save us from Hotcoldwetdry (despite making all sorts of money using capitalism to sell her books and give speeches).

New York’s CCPA calls for zero fossil fuel emissions from utilities by 2040. By 2050, 85 percent of all energy in the state will be from renewable sources under the legislation, with the remaining 15 percent being off-set or captured.

“By and large, this is a very big victory,” Arielle Swernoff of New York Renews, a coalition that pushed to pass the bill, told the Huffington Post. The group counts more than 100 groups in its membership, including national groups like 350.org and Friends of the Earth as well as local organizations like Saratoga Unites and Syracuse United Neighbors. (snip)

“By passing the CCPA with all its equity provisions intact, New York State can both address the climate crisis and build a more equitable economy,” Assemblywoman Latrice Walker wrote at City Limits. (snip)

“What a massive win for the climate justice movement and the frontline communities that have fought so hard for this!” wrote Daniel Aldana Cohen, a professor at University of Pennsylvania. “If flipping a bunch of New York State senate seats and building fighting coalitions could achieve all this in a couple years — just imagine what millions of organized people in the streets and a federal Green New Deal could do.”

The NY general assembly did pass their version of the Green New Deal, and it is heading to the governor’s desk. Once signed, it will be fantastic watching all these Warmists complain about their taxes skyrocketing, along with their energy costs, fuel costs, food costs, and most other things that make up their cost of living.

Further, you can expect the same people to flip a lid over the requirement for off-shore wind turbines. Think the uber-rich Warmists will want to see them off the coast of the Hamptons? NY only has so much coastline to build them. Can’t do it in the Hudson river or other rivers. Pretty much limited to off Long Island.

It will limit consumer choice, redistribute money, raise taxes, limit energy production causing brown-outs and blackouts. So, it will be fun watching the NY Warmists complain. What most do next is leave NY for other pastures, just like they’ve been doing over the already high cost of living and draconian government.

Read: Passage On New York’s Green New Deal Is A Victory For Grassroots Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | Comments Off on Passage On New York’s Green New Deal Is A Victory For Grassroots Or Something | Trackback URL

NY Times Excited To Get Congress Involved For Any Military Action Against Iran

By William Teach June 21, 2019 – 6:56 am

While much of this is really just a measured, non-insane Trump Derangement Syndrome, the NY Times Editorial Board does have a point

Attacking Iran Is Congress’s Call

From the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor in 1898 to the U.S.S. Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964, maritime incidents, shrouded in the fog of uncertainty, have lured the United States into wars on foreign shoals. Which is why cooler heads must prevail — and Congress must be consulted — as American and Iranian forces inch closer to open conflict in and around the Strait of Hormuz.

The downing of an unmanned American surveillance aircraft on Thursday by an Iranian surface-to-air missile is another worrying click of the ratchet between the Trump administration, which unilaterally abandoned the 2015 nuclear accord for a campaign of “maximum pressure,” and an Iranian government suffering from tighter economic sanctions. Thursday night brought news that President Trump had approved a retaliatory strike, then abruptly called it off.

The United States has blamed Iran for recent attacks on shipping and pipelines in the Persian Gulf; Iran says it was not responsible. The United States has responded to the tensions by building up forces in the region.

See, Iran is the one bombing ships, shooting down drones, blowing off it’s nuclear materials deal (even though Trump pulled out, all the other countries are still in it), but, the U.S., meaning Trump, of course, has been mean by building up forces and stuff.

With opposing military forces in such proximity, with accusations and munitions flying and with the White House facing a trust deficit, the danger of open conflict increases by the day. Which is why, if Mr. Trump and the Warhawk Caucus — led by the national security adviser, John Bolton; the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo; and Senator Tom Cotton — want a wider military conflict with Iran, they first need to persuade Congress and receive its approval.

Actually, I think this is a great idea. Let’s put members of Congress on the record. Most Republicans will have no problem taking the side of the United States. Democrats, on the other hand, will tie themselves in knots attempting to rationalize their defense of Iran over the U.S. (meaning the U.S. with Trump as president). And there will be those few who simply take Iran’s side.

As the old saying goes “the NYTEB should be careful what they wish for; they might get it.” Much like any debate on Israel, the Democrats will show their true colors when it comes to Iran. They did this when Obama was giving away the house, and lots of money, to Iran with his worthless nuclear deal. Now they’ll show it on an Iran debate.

Of course she has to play the Iraq card, and the “claims” thing is mean to show that her Islamic radical buddies in Iran are innocent. That was retweeted by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, among other elected Democrats

See? Trump is rattling his saber. I guess we shot down our own drone in her feeble mind.

Read: NY Times Excited To Get Congress Involved For Any Military Action Against Iran »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, Donald Trump | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrat Gun Grabbers Upset That Dem Presidential Gun Grabbers Not Gun Grabby Enough

By William Teach June 20, 2019 – 1:48 pm

It just goes to show that “comprehensive gun control”, or as they are terming it lately, “gun safety laws”, aren’t actually about safety, they’re about disarming law abiding citizens while doing virtually nothing about criminals who use firearms in the act of committing a crime

The 2020 Democrats Still Fall Miserably Short on Guns

Gun control is often touted as an integral part of the Democratic Party’s platform. It’s become common and accepted for members of the party to support “common sense” gun reform like universal background checks and, to a somewhat lesser extent, further restrictions on assault weapons.

But based on a recent survey of the 2020 Democrats by the New York Times, the vast majority of the party’s candidates (Biden didn’t respond) are still serving up bland political dreck that pays lip service to the epidemic of gun violence while refusing to engage with one of its largest causes. The question the Timesposed was simple: “In an ideal world, would anyone own handguns?” The easy, just, and scientifically supported answer to this question is no. But of 21 candidates, only Julián Castro and John Hickenlooper got close to offering it.

Here’s Sen. Bernie Sanders, for example:

I think if used in a sportsman-type way—yeah, I think that would be acceptable. But having said that, right now, we’re looking at an epidemic of gun violence in this country. Some 40,000 people, many of them suicides, 40,000 deaths took place last year from guns, clearly we need to deal with the epidemic of gun violence. I very strongly believe that we have to go forward into what we call common sense gun safety legislation—that is extended background checks, that means doing away with the gun show loophole, basically making sure that people who should not own guns do not own guns.

I’m choosing this answer not to pick on Bernie—although he’s always been solidly centrist on guns—but because it’s a pretty good representation of the general Democratic Party line is. His answer was also similar to many others in the Times’ interview series, which went something like: Handguns are fine, we just need background checks etc. to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

You really should read that whole NY Times survey. It is disturbing as hell (and begs the question, when will these Democrats give up their own armed security?). And here we go

The problem is handguns are not fine. A good answer to the Times’ question includes some nuance, sure: The realities of policing violent crime mean that some law enforcement officers and others will still have a use for handguns. But in the hands of the general public, pistols are by far and away the most deadly factor in the gun violence epidemic plaguing the country…

In other words, only The Government should have handguns.

Hilariously, the article is less than impressed with Rep Eric Swalwell, who’s whole campaign is predicated on gun grabbing (and Trump Derangement Syndrome, of course). And ends thusly

The solutions that “common sense” gun reform centrists love to spout are absolutely vital: universal background checks and closing of gun show and private sale loopholes would go a long way to curtailing the proliferation and spread of guns once they’re purchased, as would buybacks and more stringent restrictions on semi-automatic rifles. Those rules are easy, and at least in the case of background checks, have overwhelming public support. But they will not stop the mass death, and it’s a consistent disappointment that the vast majority of Democrats running for president are comfortable with an answer to gun-violence that is, at best, half cocked.

Let’s put it in plain language: they want to ban all law abiding citizens from having a handgun.

Read: Democrat Gun Grabbers Upset That Dem Presidential Gun Grabbers Not Gun Grabby Enough »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 20, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a place that can put out lots of talking points video about ‘climate change’, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jihad Watch, with a post on what happens when a woman doesn’t “voluntarily” wear her hijab.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

The Green New Deal Has To Be Massively Bigger But Not Like The New Deal Or Something

By William Teach June 20, 2019 – 11:17 am

See, the beneficial socialism of the New Deal (which some say helped lengthen the Great Depression) is just not enough, and created conditions that were Bad for ‘climate change’

The Green New Deal Can’t Be Anything Like the New Deal

The decade from 1929 to 1939 was hell. The Great Depression ravaged the country, leaving 15 million Americans jobless—a 25 percent unemployment rate. Industrial production fell by half. Bank panics led thousands of them to fail, wiping out their customers’ savings. When we look back on that period, we see soup lines stretching for blocks and desperate migrant families. What we don’t see are the tens of thousands of people who took their own lives, as suicides hit an all-time high.

In response, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed the most ambitious economic recovery plan the country has ever seen. Within six years, the New Deal’s sixty programs touched every corner of society, employing 11 million Americans and aiding six million farmers. A crisis of unimaginable magnitude was solved, and capitalism was saved.

Democrats including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hope to replicate the New Deal’s success with a plan to address a different catastrophe: global warming. The Green New Deal, like its namesake, promises a massive economic transformation that would touch every corner of society. But that is where the comparisons should end. The climate crisis is much bigger than the Great Depression, for the very fate of humanity is at stake. Worse, the crisis is being accelerated by the very thing that the New Deal helped save: fossil fuel capitalism. Thus, rather than emulating its predecessor, the Green New Deal must undo many of its accomplishments instead.

FDR’s New Deal created lots of carbon pollution!

America’s industrial economy, like a century ago, is powered almost entirely by fossil fuels. Carbon energy circulates through the veins of our transportation networks, buildings, data infrastructure, and globe-spanning supply chains. It puts food on our tables. One reason for this? The New Deal. FDR’s programs not only made industrial capitalism financially and socially stable; they sent it into overdrive by leaving monopolistic corporations intact, building the foundation of the interstate highway system, expanding car-dependent suburban housing, incentivizing consumption, expanding air travel, accelerating mechanized extraction, and ramping up resource-intensive manufacturing.

To say that a viable Green New Deal must dismantle and replace all this is not an ideological stance. It’s a material fact….

So, do away with fossil fuels which make the world run, get rid of highway systems, force everyone into big cities from the suburbs, limit by law consumption of good, restrict air travel (to the elites), and just basically take us back to the 1800’s or earlier.

Read: The Green New Deal Has To Be Massively Bigger But Not Like The New Deal Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

‘Climate Change’ Is Choking The Atlantic Ocean To Death Or Something

By William Teach June 20, 2019 – 7:10 am

There was a brief time when high ranking/influential members of the Cult of Climastrology said that the apocalyptic yammering needed to cool down. That the scare-mongering had to calm down. That the amplifier needed to be turned down from 11 to about a 4, because, otherwise, it would be hard to take political action. Warmists listened for about 3 seconds

It’s great that they’re going to take a long fossil fueled trip to study this

A scientist leading a health check of the Earth’s second largest ocean has warned the Atlantic could run out of breath.

Over the course of four years, an international team of researchers from countries which border the Atlantic ocean will investigate how climate change as well as industries such as fishing, mining, and oil and gas extraction affect the expanse of water. They will also look for refuges where animals appear able to survive, BBC News reported.

Countries including South America, Iceland and Scotland will be involved in the €10 million ($11 million) project. The team plan to look at all lifeforms in the ocean, from humpback whales to plankton and corals, Professor Murray Roberts, of the University of Edinburgh School of GeoSciences who is leading the iAtlantic project, told BBC News.

Researchers will explore 12 ecosystems, including: a coral reef near the Western Isles chain of islands on the west coast of Scotland, the North Atlantic region of the Sargasso Sea, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge off Iceland, the waters stretching from Angola to the Congo Lobe, and the Vitória-Trindade Seamount Chain off the coast of Brazil.

The ocean is losing oxygen which wildlife need to survive, explained Roberts.

He asked in an interview with BBC News: “What will happen to these animals in the future as the Atlantic changes? As it gets warmer, as it gets more acidic and also—in some areas—as it runs out of breath.”

“Because the Atlantic, like many ocean basins in the world, is being deoxygenated —it’s losing the oxygen that is vital to life.” Over 90 percent of global warming caused by climate change over the past five decades has happened in the ocean.

The oceans ate their computer modeled warming. But, hey, I have to wonder, how did the oceans and all the life in them survive previously during warm periods? Because there were many, many periods when the ocean temperatures were much warmer. And the sea heights were much higher (that’s how you create coral atolls and some islands). This study will look at many things, such as plastic pollution, but, you know in four years they will scare-monger about ‘climate change’, taking the focus off the real dangers.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Is Choking The Atlantic Ocean To Death Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove