If All You See…

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

…is an area turning to desert from Other People driving fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on Ancestory.com making an ad that trigger snowflakes.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Hot Take: Should A White Man Be The Face Of The Democratic Party?

By William Teach April 20, 2019 – 11:54 am

The obvious result of Identity Politics. Now, imagine how a headline asking if a black man or bisexual biracial woman should be the face of the Democratic Party would go down with the SJWs

Should a White Man Be the Face of the Democratic Party in 2020?

As Peter Johnson and Emily Neal waited for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand to arrive at Barley’s, a brick-lined sports bar in southwestern Iowa, they gamed out possible nominees in the Democratic presidential primary.

Mr. Johnson, a 27-year-old law student, said the large field was a great equalizer, and “if at the end of it we get an old white guy, someone who represents the status quo, it’ll be because they’ve proven themselves.”

Ms. Neal, a dental hygienist, made an agonized face at Mr. Johnson, her boyfriend. Wouldn’t something be lost, she asked, if the historically diverse slate of 2020 Democrats was passed over?

“Personally I’d love to see a woman,” Ms. Neal, also 27, said at the event on Thursday night. “If people are being catty and holding gender or race against a candidate, it would break my heart.”

By people, she means “Democrats”, because they’re the ones mostly voting in the primaries.

As former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. prepares to enter the 2020 race this coming week, Democrats have seen the strong diversity in their field — with candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris reflecting the multiracial and largely female base of the party — become somewhat overshadowed by white male candidates. Bernie Sanders has a wide fund-raising lead, he and Mr. Biden lead in polls, and Beto O’Rourke and Pete Buttigieg have enjoyed outsize attention from votersin early primary states, extensive media coverage and viral success with online donors.

Interviews with several dozen Democratic voters around the country show how the party, which enjoyed victories in 2018 that were powered by female and nonwhite candidates, is now grappling with two complicated questions about race, gender and politics in the Trump era.

Yeah, somehow this is Trump’s fault, like it hasn’t been going on for decades amongst Democrats

Is a white male the best face for an increasingly diverse Democratic Party in 2020? And what’s the bigger gamble: to nominate a white man and risk disappointing some of the party’s base, or nominate a minority candidate or a woman who might struggle to carry predominantly white swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that both Barack Obama and Mr. Trump won?

So, wait, are the NY Times’ Astead W. Herndon and Matt Flegenheimer saying that the white male candidate is best? You can bet the NY Times is getting a lot of hate email and tweets on that from the Usual Nutters. Anyway, this is all about the standard Democrat race mongering which sees people as being in certain groups, rather than being individuals. And this goes on and on, basically describing the Democrats as less about beliefs and more about how people fit in certain boxes, ending with

For Hannah Reid, 22, who is a graduating senior at the University of Tampa and heard Mr. Buttigieg at an event recently, her decision making on a Democratic candidate will go beyond identity.

“I am a woman of color, but that’s not all that I am,” said Ms. Reid, who is black. Referring to Mr. Buttigieg, she said: “He’s in the L.G.B.T. community, which is something we’ve never seen before. It’s got to be about more than just who you are; it’s got to be about what you think and what you say, what your ideas are.”

If true, she’s in the Democratic minority, but, since Democrats rarely run on ideas, it will be about identity politics.

Read: Hot Take: Should A White Man Be The Face Of The Democratic Party? »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmist Rantings: Ignoring ‘Climate Change’ Is Almost Criminal Negligence Or Something

By William Teach April 20, 2019 – 7:20 am

It’s not the first time members of the Cult of Climastrology have wanted to criminalize Wrongthink regarding anthropogenic climate change, nor will it be the last. There are lots and lots of examples where Warmists have called for Skeptics to be locked up and/or killed, and, hey, remember how Bernie Sanders went Brownshirt and called for “climate deniers to be brought to justice”, language reminiscent of Bush saying this about the Islamic jihadis involved in 9/11? Now we have digital Greenshirt Tim Winton wanting to almost criminalize those who refuse to pass Hotcoldwetdry legislation

Our leaders are ignoring global warming to the point of criminal negligence. It’s unforgivable

…

The problem – and it’s an existential threat both profound and perverse – is that those who lead us and have power over our shared destiny are ignoring global warming to the point of criminal negligence. Worse than that, their policies, language, patronal obligations and acts of bad faith are poisoning us, training citizens to accept the prospect of inexorable loss, unstoppable chaos, certain doom. Business as usual is robbing people of hope, white-anting the promise of change. That’s not just delinquent, it’s unforgivable.

Over the last 15 years in Australia our national governments have failed to respond effectively to the challenge of climate change, and for most of that time we actually gave ourselves the luxury of calling it a challenge. Now it’s more of a crisis. And it’s not as if our leaders are incapable of producing a timely response to a crisis. After all, in 2009 the government took bold steps to avoid an economic depression. And in the matter of refugees arriving by boat, governments still spend billions on emergency-level funding and infrastructure to meet what they view as a crisis of national security. But in the case of climate change there’s no equivalent sense of immediacy, no sense of priority commensurate with the dangers it poses to our future ability to feed ourselves, defend our largely coastal settlements, insure our homes, maintain national security and keep our children safe from harm.

The message implicit in our governments’ refusal to act is that we should all just suck it up – as in “climate change is bullshit, and even if it’s not there’s nothing you can do about it”. Once internalised, this narrative is profoundly dangerous, not only for individuals, but for the entire community. It’s a licence for nihilism, a ticket to hell in a handbasket. And the cohort responsible for this mixture of denial and fatalism is far removed from the daily experience of the ordinary citizen, especially the youngest and poorest of us. They have become a threat to our shared future and we must hold them to account, immediately and without reservation.

An interesting hot-take, in that it attempts to not only paint them as criminal, but that elected and appointed government leaders should be authoritarians, rather than respond to what citizens want. Remember, again, after the implementation of ‘climate change’ policies in Queensland, Australia, the party that passed them and was in charge lost so badly during the 2012 elections that they no longer had enough members to be considered an officially recognized political party. When given a chance, most citizens vote against ‘climate change’ policies, especially carbon tax schemes.

Hey, how about we consider prosecuting Warmists for neglect, since they mostly refuse to practice what they preach? Oh, and, hey, does this apply to people like AOC and Ed Markey, who refuse to push an vote on their Green New Deal in the House, and even whined when the Senate voted on it? How about all the Democrats, including Markey himself, who voted “present” during the Senate vote? Isn’t that all “criminal negligence”?

It’s time to make sharp demands of our representatives, time to remove those who refuse to act in our common interest, time to elect people with courage, ingenuity and discipline, people who’ll sacrifice pride, privilege and even perks for the sake of something sacred. Because there’s something bigger at stake here than culture wars and the mediocrity of so-called common-sense. It’s the soil under our feet, the water we drink, the air we breathe.

Life. It’s worth the fight. But, by God, after decades of appeasement, defeatism and denialism, it’s going to take a fight. Time’s short. So, let’s give our grief and fury some shape and purpose and reclaim our future together. Enough cowardice. Enough bullshit. Time for action.

Sure think, Buttercup. It’s too bad that ‘climate change’ tends to come in last or next to last on lists of things people care about, and that most do not want to spend even $10 a month on ‘climate change’ policies.

What this really is about is attempting to criminalize those who dare to not follow the authoritarian policies of the Cult of Climastrology, because they are Very Unhappy that their snake oil isn’t being bought.

Read: Warmist Rantings: Ignoring ‘Climate Change’ Is Almost Criminal Negligence Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 52 Comments | Trackback URL

Top Dems Refuse To View Less Redacted Version Of Mueller Report

By William Teach April 20, 2019 – 6:46 am

If the law actually allowed it, Attorney General Barr should give them the full unredacted version, but make it so the resulting leaks could be easily traced, then file charges. This is just more of Democrats being sore losers

Democrats Decline to View Less Redacted Mueller Report

Top Democrats responded to a proposal from Attorney General (AG) William Barr to view a less redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report that confirmed President Donald Trump did not collude with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential election.

In the wake of the Mueller report’s release, Pelosi and Schumer said that Mueller needs to testify before Congress. House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nalder (D-NY) said that Mueller should testify before his committee because they “clearly cannot believe” what Barr tells us about the Mueller report.

This included Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler, Adam Schiff, Feinstein, and Mark Warner

Rather than accept Barr’s proposal to view the Mueller report, they insisted that they have access to redacted material and “access to grand jury material.”

However, Barr redacted four categories of material, including material presented to a federal grand jury, sources or methods gathered by intelligence agencies that would damage national security, material that would impair ongoing court cases or ongoing DOJ investigations, and material that would impact the privacy or ongoing reputations of innocent third parties.

Federal law mandates that grand jury testimony remain confidential, meaning that the DOJ would likely be barred from revealing this information to Pelosi and the other Democrats.

The above six Democrats know this. You know if they didn’t beforehand they’ve had it explained to them, just like it has been surely explained to the rest of the Democrats. So, at this point, they’re just grandstanding for the news and their unhinged base, since the part about the law disallowing viewing the redactions is often left out of news reports or way, way down in articles.

Speaking of Excitable Jerry Nadler

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) on Friday issued a subpoena to compel the Department of Justice to turn over special counsel Robert Mueller’s full report.

His order comes one day after Attorney General William Barr publicly released a redacted version of the Mueller report.

“I have issued a subpoena to the Department of Justice for the full version of the Mueller report and the underlying evidence. The Department is required to comply with that subpoena by May 1,” Nadler said in a statement.

He has to know that he cannot view it by law, right? Right? He can’t be this stupid, right? Or does he think the bullying by him and other Top Democrats will get the DOJ to violate the law? Sure, maybe with Holder or Lynch under Obama, but not now. This could even be considered unlawful intimidation, since Nadler and other Democrats are promising retaliation if the DOJ doesn’t comply.

Read: Top Dems Refuse To View Less Redacted Version Of Mueller Report »

Posted in Democrats | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

So, How Do Those Polled Feel About The Mueller Report?

By William Teach April 19, 2019 – 6:12 pm

It’s time to MoveOn, folks. Drop the impeachment talk (via Twitchy)

Actually, again, we don’t want Dems to move on, because it will hurt them badly during the 2020 elections, and, because they’re Sore Losers

Democrats set sights on Trump’s finances as post-Mueller probes take shape

No need for anything beyond the CNN headline.

Read: So, How Do Those Polled Feel About The Mueller Report? »

Posted in Current Affairs, Unhinged Tools | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 19, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible carbon pollution in the sky, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on anthropogenic climate change as a cult.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

NC Gov Roy Cooper Vetoes “Born Alive” Bill

By William Teach April 19, 2019 – 11:14 am

One would think this would be easy: if a baby is born alive, including during an abortion, attempts would have to be made to save the child. But, the abortion on demand sect is so deranged that they cannot even approve of something so simple. Here’s NC blogger Sister Toldjah on the subject

Democrat Governor Roy Cooper Sides With The Abortion Lobby, Vetoes NC ‘Born Alive’ Bill

As predicted, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) today has vetoedNC’s proposed Born Alive bill:

Gov. Roy Cooper on Thursday vetoed legislation that would have required doctors to provide the same care to an infant that survives an abortion as they give any other newborn.

“Laws already protect newborn babies, and this bill is an unnecessary interference between doctors and their patients,” Cooper said in his veto statement. “This needless legislation would criminalize doctors and other health care providers for a practice that simply does not exist.”

Except, as she notes

She also questions the timing

As I noted last week, Cooper is beholden to the abortion lobby and the extreme left in this state, so it wasn’t shocking that he vetoed the bill. But there is the question of the timing of Cooper’s veto. The bill passed two days ago, and he performed his veto just this morning. Alexandra DeSanctis speculates as to why.

Cooper literally vetoed it while the Mueller report was being released. Perhaps he didn’t want this to actually be news? How insane do you have to be to veto a bill that protects a baby born alive, requiring medical care for it? I typically avoid discussing abortion beyond a policy position, not getting into the morality of it, but, this is sick. Abortionistas keep telling us they aren’t for abortion, that they want it safe and rare, yet, they are against every single restriction on abortion, including late term abortions, medical standards and inspections for abortion facilities, and saving those born alive.

Read: NC Gov Roy Cooper Vetoes “Born Alive” Bill »

Posted in Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Ben & Jerry’s Pompous Ice Cream Comes Out In Support Of Green New Deal

By William Teach April 19, 2019 – 7:16 am

Well, for Everyone Else

From the link

Today the world is facing an unprecedented crisis. If we don’t do something about it, life on earth as we know it will never be the same. But time is running out. We have to act now.

Yes, we have to rescue capitalism.

It’s being held hostage by fossil-fuel industry CEOs and their lobbyists and all their out-of-date ideas—and without our help it (along with the rest of us) will be swallowed up by climate change’s rising seas. Luckily, there’s a proposal out there that just might save capitalism: the Green New Deal. (Bonus: it could also save the planet.)

Um, life always changes. Our lives are much different than our parent’s lives. Think what lives were like in the 1920’s. 1820’s. But, it’s cute that a company which relies on, heck, requires, fossil fuels to move their product in refrigerated trucks around the country is mad at fossil fuels companies.

The screed goes on to wax poetic about the GND, and even says it will save capitalism by….wait, turning it into socialism?

A little more on that last point: as long as corporations make their own rules, capitalism will never ensure justice or economic security for workers, frontline communities, communities of color, or any of the most vulnerable of our neighbors and fellow citizens. The Green New Deal gets it right: we are all in this together.

Is B&J’s not making their own rules in getting milk from methane producing cows and shipping ice cream on fossil fueled trucks? What about the refrigerants used to make and ship the pompous ice cream? Are they using ones that are not considered greenhouse gases? What they’re saying here is that Government should make the rules, which is not capitalism. Those same rules could turn B&J’s into a local ice cream company with no ability to ship nationwide. Oh, and will they whine about their parent company, Unilever, which owns lots and lots of brands, including Lipton, Dove, Breyers (mostly fake ice cream), Hellman’s, and Axe (those are just on the first page), and ships these all over the world, which means lots of fossil fuels?

Admittedly, the scope of change required for us to avoid the worst effects of climate change is unprecedented. But unprecedented does not mean impossible.

It requires a radical transformation of how we see ourselves and how we see our economy.

We’ve risen to the occasion before. Roosevelt’s New Deal worked and set the stage for one of the most miraculous periods of productivity and prosperity the world has ever seen. If we pull together now and get behind the Green New Deal’s big, bold, ambitious, and inclusive vision, we can not only save capitalism from itself, we can save the world—and ourselves.

So, we have to be forced to change ourselves and our economy? Huh. As for getting behind the GND, even co-author Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not demanding a vote on it in the House, and became quite mad when the Senate voted on it.

Anyhow, it seems like capitalism is great for Ben & Jerry’s, they just don’t want it for Everyone Else. I can’t even give up eating B&J’s, because I prefer Blue Bell.

Read: Ben & Jerry’s Pompous Ice Cream Comes Out In Support Of Green New Deal »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Goal Posts: It’s Not The Collusion, It’s The Corruption Or Something

By William Teach April 19, 2019 – 7:00 am

Hot takes abound post-Mueller report release. Democrats are not taking it well at all. If they were smart, they’d just move on. The only people who are believing that Something Bad Happened are the hardcore Democratic Party base. Much like with Fitzmas, Muellermas was a big dud. That hasn’t stopped Democrats, and their pet media, from quadrupling down. Most of the Washington Post is taken up with claiming the report is damning. They NY Times is not quite as bad. Their main story doesn’t show Trump doing anything wrong, it just says he’s mean and lies and gets people to lie for him (we’re still waiting for the NY Times to condemn Obama for Operation Fast and Furious, slow-walking and holding back requested material from Congress, lying about Ocare, etc, oh, and Hillary’s actual criminal violations for her illegal server and email program).

The Editorial Board is, of course, having a moonbat fit. And a few other Orange Man Bad pieces. These are offset by one noting that Barr was right on everything, and that there should be a reckoning to the media and its government allies. Then we have Excitable David Brooks

It’s Not the Collusion, It’s the Corruption

The Mueller report is like a legal version of a thriller movie in which three malevolent forces are attacking a city all at once. Everybody’s wondering if the three attackers are working together. The report concludes that they weren’t, but that doesn’t make the situation any less scary or the threat any less real.

The first force is Donald Trump, who represents a threat to the American systems of governance. Centuries ago our founders created a system of laws and not men. In our system of government there are procedures in place, based on certain values — impartiality, respect for institutions, the idea that a public office is a public trust, not a private bauble.

When Trump appears in the Mueller report, he is often running roughshod over these systems and violating these values. He asks his lawyer to hamper an investigation. He asks his F.B.I. director to take the heat off his allies. He tries to get the relevant investigators fired. I don’t know if his actions meet the legal standard of obstruction of justice, but they certainly meet the common-sense standard of interference with justice. (snip)

The Mueller report indicates that Trump was not colluding with Russia. But it also shows that working relationships were beginning to be built, through networkers like Paul Manafort, Donald Trump Jr. and Roger Stone. More important, it shows that many of the Trumpists, the Russians and the WikiLeaks crowd all understood that they were somehow adjacent actors in the same project.

I would say that’s the report’s central importance. We are being threatened in a very distinct way. The infrastructure of the society is under threat — the procedures that shape government, the credibility of information, the privacy rules that make deliberation possible. And though the Chinese government does not play a big role here, it represents a similar sort of threat — to our intellectual infrastructure, the intellectual property rights that organize innovation.

So….no collusion. There’s not doubt that Russia is a bad player and had programs working against the U.S. Nations do this. But, they got caught. As for Julian Assange and Wikileaks, remember when the Left loved them for releasing national security material multiple times, and defend Bradley Manning for giving Assange damning material? None of this means Trump and his team did what they were accused of, ie, collusion, nor did Mueller find any American engaged in collusion with Russia (remember when Dems loved the notion of Russia?)

Trump doesn’t seem to have any notion of loyalty to an office. All power in his eye is personal power, and the government is there to serve his Sun God self. He’ll continue to trample the proper systems of government.

First, where were the complaints when Obama was taking actual actions on his own, not just talking about it? Neither the Times nor Post could find it in them to mildly chide Obama for blowing off working with Congress and simply writing his own rules. For the most part, what Trump has done is words. Not actions. And does anyone think Obama wasn’t exactly the same way as the above excerpt? That’s not to condemn him, you have to have a big notion of power to want to be POTUS, unless you’re George Washington.

But, see, this is what Democrats are doing: not just shifting the goal posts, but tearing them down and creating brand new ones. But, we should welcome this, because it will mean more Democrat over-reach, especially through their buddies in the media who report badly, and four more years of Trump.

Read: Goal Posts: It’s Not The Collusion, It’s The Corruption Or Something »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Current Affairs, Democrats, Journalistic Malpractice | 50 Comments | Trackback URL

Who Are The Leaders Of Extinction Rebellion?

By William Teach April 18, 2019 – 2:56 pm

Let’s start out by noting that the Extinction Rebellion members who held up a train in London have been charged with obstructing trains or carriages on the railway by an unlawful act, contrary to section 36 of the Malicious Damage Act 1861, and were denied bail. Huh. Wonder why. Also, four chained themselves to Jeremy Corbyn’s home, and glue themselves to each other. A few even protested in front of the RNC’s headquarters in D.C., and pretty much the only ones to cover this were the hyper-left site Democracy Now.

And we have

The Extinction Rebellion leaders: Jet-setter Robin Boardman, a Buddhist teacher and a yoga instructor

A leading Extinction Rebellion activist who said that “air travel should only be used in emergencies” lives a jet-set lifestyle, taking skiing holidays, visiting global landmarks and enjoying walks along palm-tree lined paths.

Robin Boardman-Pattinson walked out of a television interview after being branded “incompetent, middle-class and self indulgent” by Sky’s Adam Boulton, but The Telegraph can reveal that climate change is not the only cause which he fights for.

He’s also campaigned against the expansion of Heathrow airport, supported Muslim women wearing Hijabs and Niqabs and asked for retail space in Bristol turned into a slave trade museum.

Worryingly, he also shared a post which calls the allegations of anti-semitism in the Labour party “a massive smear campaign against Jeremy Corbyn by the Netanyahuite supporters in the party and wider media/society.”

But while Mr Boardman-Pattinson rallies against climate change, he has taken at least three skiing holidays in recent years, and has posed for photographs in front of the leaning tower of Pisa. He was unavailable for comment.

So, not only is he a climahypocrite, but an anti-Semite to boot.

(UK Express) Climate activist Rupert Read made the faux-pas after describing the atmosphere of the Extinction Rebellion protest on Waterloo Bridge. He told LBC radio: “The atmosphere there is fantastic and loads of ordinary passers-by, loads of citizens supporting us. I then took a taxi to get to the meeting I’ve just been in now.

“And the driver was hugely supportive.”

Struggling not to giggle, LBC host Iain Dale said: “I hope it was an electric taxi, because otherwise why didn’t you use the tube?”

After a horrifyingly awkward pause, Mr Read blurted: “Well, because I was in a terrible rush.

“And I’m a human being like anybody else.”

Mr Dale shot back: “Well, don’t you think that’s slightly hypocritical?”

Shockingly, his guest retorted: “No, I don’t Iain.”

Chuckling, a vindicated Mr Dale replied “I think everybody listening to this interview will.”

It’s always “do as I say, not as I do” with this crowd.

Read: Who Are The Leaders Of Extinction Rebellion? »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 12 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove