Trump Admin Looks To Stop Criminalization Of Homosexuality Worldwide

By William Teach February 20, 2019 – 1:30 pm

Here’s the thing: while many Conservatives have an issue with the gay lifestyle, and certainly with forcing gay marriage on everyone, 99.9% of us do not want them harmed nor jailed. So there’s this

Aaaaaand

Claim – Trump’s Global War on Homophobia Is ‘Racist’, ‘Paternalistic’, ‘Colonial’

President Trump’s campaign to decriminalize homosexuality across the world is motivated by racism, a colonial sense of paternalism, and an urge to pick on ‘brown-skinned’ countries like Iran.

Or so insists a comment piece by a gay activist at the LGBTQ+ journal Out.com.

“Trump’s Plan to Decriminalize Homosexuality Is an Old Racist Tactic,” says the headline.

Below, Mathew Rodriguez claims:

Rather than actually being about helping queer people around the world, the campaign looks more like another instance of the right using queer people as a pawn to amass power and enact its own agenda.

Rodriguez is especially concerned about the plight of Iran. Sure it hangs gay men from cranes now and again. But that shouldn’t distract us from the fact when people like the Trump administration’s top-ranked gay official Richard Grennell – now the US ambassador to Germany – express concerns about Iran, it’s really just a form of repressed racism and colonialism.

Grennell’s sudden interest in Iran’s anti-gay laws is strikingly similar to Trump’s rhetoric after the 2016 Pulse massacre in Orlando, Florida. After the deadly shooting, Trump used the 49 deaths as a way to galvanize support for an anti-Muslim agenda rather than find a way to support LGBTQ+ people. In pushing for immigration restrictions and a Muslim ban, Trump argued, he was the true pro-LGBTQ+ candidate. Rather than honor those who died, Trump used the tragedy as a way to stoke fear among the American people, and Grennell is taking similar actions with Iran — trying to reach an economic goal by painting the administration’s opponent as anti-gay.

Got that? Trump and his folks are taking a stand, and now we have LGBTQwhatever attacking him and even supporting Iran.

Read: Trump Admin Looks To Stop Criminalization Of Homosexuality Worldwide »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is horrible carbon pollution fueled rain, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Theo Spark, with a post on a British town without Brits.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Snowflake College Calls Cops On Cartoon

By William Teach February 20, 2019 – 10:30 am

Someone was heavily involved in Wrongthink

From the link

Folsom Lake College notified the local police after finding a poster of a cartoon frog, stating that “hate has no home on our campus.”

An FLC faculty member found the sheet featuring Pepe the frog on their office door earlier in February. The school informed the Los Rios, California Police Department about the incident so it would “be on heightened alert for any signs that this may be part of a larger trend or pattern,” according to an email sent to the school community and obtained by Campus Reform.

(big picture of the email available at the link)

The picture of the smirking frog appeared alongside other posters pertaining to “fascist dog whistles,” Democratic Socialists of America, and a week of social justice events. (snip)

“[Pepe] has been commonly co-opted by white supremacists and others as a symbol of bigotry,” Yamamura and the co-authors said in the email. “While we do not immediately know the intentions of the person(s) who posted the picture, we are treating this incident with the highest level of seriousness and have already conducted a sweep of all Folsom Lake College campuses to look for other instances of these materials.”

Calling the cops on a scary cartoon, which was pretty much a joke meant to screw with Democrats and the media, much like with the OK sign, is totally in keeping with the 1st Amendment

“We believe that we can create an environment free of hateful language or symbols while still supporting the rights afforded to us in the First Amendment,” the co-authors of the email said. “Folsom Lake College has always been, and must continue to be, a place for collegial and mature conversation about complex issues. As a college, we are committed to providing a safe and inclusive learning and working environment, as demonstrated from our ongoing professional development workshops and trainings related to equity and inclusion.”

I’m not sure what 1st Amendment they’re looking at. Maybe Venezuela’s?

Read: Snowflake College Calls Cops On Cartoon »

Posted in Special Snowflake Syndrome | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Your Fault: ‘Climate Change’ To Fuel More Wars And Extremism Is Middle East

By William Teach February 20, 2019 – 8:15 am

See, it’s Muslim extremism that’s the problem, or the very notion that the Middle East region has been in conflict for pretty much forever, no, it’s because you drove a fossil fueled vehicle to pick the kids up and purchase evil world killing steaks

Climate change will fuel more wars and displacement in the Middle East, experts warn
‘Terrorist organisations like Isis capitalise on climate change to get new members’

The most volatile region in the world is about to be plunged into further chaos because of climate change, academics and international officials warned at a conference on Tuesday.

Food scarcity and water shortages will add to the flood of displaced people, sparking wars and providing opportunities for extremist groups, they said.

These developments will mean 7 to 10 million people in the Middle East and North Africa will be forced to leave their ancestral or temporary homes over the next decade, a UN development official predicted.

Others speaking at a panel at the annual Planetary Security Initiative in The Hague cited small and large conflicts in the region over the years, including food riots in 2008 in Jordan, and identified other future hotspots in the Levant and north Africa.

“Food and fuel insecurity can very quickly lead to unrest,” said Jamal Saghir, a professor at McGill University in Montreal.

It’s interesting that they used the word “Levant”, something ISIS often used, with their alternate name, ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This is an area that covers Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, as well as parts of Iraq and Egypt.

“It’s likely that such shocks will happen again. Such crises might trigger violent crisis and increase public support for extremist groups offering viable alternatives,” he told attendees at the conference. “Terrorist organisations like Isis also capitalise on climate change to get new members. They find impoverished farmers to take advantage of – they are offered food, salaries, and other advantages.”

See? It’s not their extremists beliefs, nope, it’s because you keep your casa at 70 during the winter, instead of 58, as well us use a washing machine instead of hand cleaning your clothes. For shame! It really is a shame that all the Islamic State members are farmers, right? If only someone had instituted a carbon tax.

The changing conditions contributed to unrest in Syria and Iraq and other nations were plunged into chaos in the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings. Isis subsequently gained traction. The troubles are far from over, with warmer temperatures leading to less water, for example along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that nourish Iraq.

Still banging the same, worn out drum on this. But, hey, you know what is missing? Proof of anthropogenic causation. Like usual.

Read: Your Fault: ‘Climate Change’ To Fuel More Wars And Extremism Is Middle East »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, ISIS, RoP | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post Super Concerned About Trump’s Presidental “Power Grab”

By William Teach February 20, 2019 – 7:54 am

They should probably be more concerned with getting sued for $250 million by Covington student Nicholas Sandmann for defamation. But, instead, they’re concerned with Trump using his powers to protect the U.S. southern border

No one in Congress should be allowed to avoid voting on this presidential power grab

SIXTEEN STATES, led by California, have filed suit in federal court to block any construction of a wall along the southern border using reprogrammed funds pursuant to President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency. Their complaint presents a persuasive case against the president’s move, to the effect that it runs contrary to the constitutional rule that the executive branch may not spend money without Congress’s permission. And, in this case, Congress has explicitly denied Mr. Trump funds to build any barrier except for 55 miles of bollard-style fencing in a specific area of Texas. Not only is there no national emergency, the complaint argues, but also the wall would not meet the definition of “military construction” in the statute Mr. Trump claims as authority for $3.6 billion of his proposed spending.

Convincing as they are in policy terms, however, the states’ arguments face an uncertain future in court. Though Mr. Trump’s emergency declaration flunks the common-sense test, it might actually pass legal muster, because the relevant law — the National Emergencies Act of 1976— includes no definition of “emergency,” and courts might be loath to second-guess this president for fear of limiting the discretion of future ones.

So, it’s probably legal and Constitutional? Huh.

As much of a long shot as this may seem, Congress must pursue a joint resolution for two reasons. First, it is the remedy for executive overreach prescribed by law. And who knows? Eight Republican senators have said they oppose the emergency declaration; a number of others, as well as GOP House members, have expressed misgivings. After a debate in which the full negative implications are made clear — including, for them, the political repercussions and the precedent set for future presidents — it’s just barely conceivable a presidential veto could be overridden.

But only barely — which brings us to the second reason Democrats should use their control of the House to initiate a joint resolution of disapproval: No one in the House or Senate should be allowed to avoid voting on this presidential power grab, and being held accountable for it by the voters. Legal scholars may disagree, legitimately, as to the proper role for judges in protecting legislative prerogatives against alleged executive usurpation. Surely, though, members of Congress should have to stand up and be counted.

Well, that’s interesting. And shows the utter bias of the Washington Post. And, really, most of the media. Does anyone remember complaints about these presidential overreaches?

  • Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals
  • Deferred Action For Parents Of Citizens
  • Obamacare initiatives like the Contraceptive Mandate
  • Refusing to defend the Congressionally passed Defense Of Marriage Act
  • “Recess” appointments while the Senate was still technically in session
  • The Waters Of The U.S. rule
  • Clean Power Plan
  • Hundreds of Executive Orders which bypassed Congress, such as one which ignored No Child Left Behind requirements
  • Being the least transparent when it comes to FOIA requests
  • Pressuring banks to no longer work with firearm dealers

The list goes on and on. Many of these, and others, were shot down in federal court. There were few complaints from those in the media, including the Washington Post Editorial Board, at the time. Many were supportive of things like DACA, DAPA, WOTUS, and Clean Power Plan. All Trump is attempting to do is secure the southern border. We’ve built sections of border fencing before. Many Democrats in Congress complaining now voted for the 2006 Secure Fence Act, such as Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, and Ron Wyden. Barack Obama and Joe Biden voted in favor of it, as well. Only 18 Democrats voted against in the Senate, though, 131 Dems voted against it in the House, with 64 voting for it.

Regardless, this is simply about protecting the U.S. borders, which is specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

Read: Washington Post Super Concerned About Trump’s Presidental “Power Grab” »

Posted in Illegal Immigration, Wonky Media | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Who’s Up For Lab Grown Meat To Save The Planet From Overheating?

By William Teach February 19, 2019 – 4:22 pm

It’s not the first time the Cult of Climastrology has pushed this (I have a few posts here and here and here, among others), and won’t be the last. You also do not see them giving up their own consumption of meat

Fund development of lab-grown meat to fight climate change, experts tell EU leaders

Experts at an influential think tank are calling on EU leaders to back the expansion of more lab-grown meat to enable Europe to help tackle climate change.

The Royal Institute of International Affairs, known as Chatham House, says new high-tech foodstuffs will be vital to the EU meeting its goals on climate change, human health and drug resistance.

Animal agriculture is a significant driver of carbon dioxide emissions, through deforestation when swathes of land are used instead to grow feed crops for livestock.

According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, livestock accounts for 14.5 per cent of global emissions.

Raising meat animals on farms is also a significant source of methane, which is about 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

The report recommends that policymakers write new regulations on labelling and product naming, and invest in research and development of lab-grown meat.

It also says EU chiefs should prioritise development of the “meat analogues” industry – lab-grown meat and plant-based food that resembles meat.

Ah, the old “let’s get government to fund it and force people to comply” shtick. Strange how this keeps coming into play, eh?

Read: Who’s Up For Lab Grown Meat To Save The Planet From Overheating? »

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

If All You See…

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

…is a horrendous airplane, which should be restricted from use for Other People, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Weasel Zippers, with a post on all the hoax “hate crimes” in the Trump era.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Say, What Would A Real Climate Plan Look Like Or Something

By William Teach February 19, 2019 – 10:41 am

I’m sure you’ve heard of the term “tell” before. It’s often used when playing poker, and one definition is “an unconscious action that is thought to betray an attempted deception.” There’s a big tell in this Mother Jones screed by Excitable Kevin Drum

What Should a Climate Change “Plan” Look Like?

David Roberts has a point here:

https://twitter.com/drvox/status/1097238178954506240

Anyone with a 3-digit IQ can do a bit of googling and come up with a set of policies to reduce carbon emissions. But a plan—now that’s a different thing. A plan has to be an actual course of action with both a goal and a chance of success. We should be able to line up your plan with all the others and extract two numbers about each one: (1) emission levels in 2050 if the plan works, and (b) consensus probability that the plan will work.

My plan would include measures that force anyone how has shown belief in anthropogenic climate change, ie, they think it is at at least 55% caused by Mankind (most think it is almost all caused by Mankind) to give up their own use of fossil fuels, except for taking public transportation. No more cars, no more minivans, no more trucks, no more airplane flights. They wouldn’t be allowed to live in a home of more than 500 square feet. They would have to be sterilized so that they do not bring any more “world killing” kids into the world. They wouldn’t be allowed to eat meat more than once a week. Their paychecks would have large garnishments to cover their carbon taxes. That’s good for a start.

Kevin has other ideas. He wants us to “think international”, “focus on getting the biggest bang for the buck”, and “lots of shared R&D”. That last one I agree with, even though I think mankind is causing less than 25% of the minor temperature increase during the Modern Warm Period, as it would lead to better and lower priced clean energy, which is never a bad thing, and could help with many other things.

Regardless, it was his other one that is the “tell”

Forget the free market. There’s no profit in addressing climate change. In fact, the profit is almost entirely on the other side. This means that any plausible plan has to include lots of government subsidies: subsidies for solar, subsidies for wind, subsidies for electric cars, subsidies for reforestation, etc. Basically, you should accept that virtually every policy you support will happen only to the extent that the government subsidizes it.

In other words, what you really have here is a takeover of the economy by the government. And how to pay for it? A massive carbon tax, though Kevin admits it wouldn’t work. And

There are plenty of other possibilities. The main thing is to be rigidly realistic at all times. If you ask too much of people, they won’t support your ideas no matter how great they are. And even if they do, they aren’t likely to respond appropriately to the scale of the problem on their own. I haven’t, after all. Neither have you. But that’s OK: climate change won’t be affected much by personal action anyway. It’s too big. Like a war, it requires action on a governmental scale. Unlike a war, however, it has no human enemy to spur citizens to accept the sacrifice it takes to win. It’s up to us to come up with an alternative.

So, it’s all about Government. There’s an old saying which Warmists should always keep in mind: Be careful what you wish for. You might actually get it.

Read: Say, What Would A Real Climate Plan Look Like Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 35 Comments | Trackback URL

Old, White Democratic Socialist Who Hates America Announces Bid To Be President

By William Teach February 19, 2019 – 7:37 am

Can Bernie Sanders regain the magic of the 2016 run, before the DNC stacked the deck to knock him out and allow Hillary her attempt at coronation? Especially when there are so many leftist nutjobs running?

‘The Bern’ returns: Bernie Sanders announces entry into crowded 2020 Democratic field

Sen. Bernie Sanders is running for president again.

The independent from Vermont made the announcement about 2020 Tuesday morning in an interview with a public radio station in his state.

“We began the political revolution in the 2016 campaign, and now it’s time to move that revolution forward,” Sanders said.

Sanders also sent a campaign email announcing his that he will once again seek the Democratic nomination, jumping into an already crowded field of nearly a dozen candidates, with many more expected to join. (snip)

In his last campaign, Sanders labeled himself a democratic socialist and focused on social and economic justice, a platform seen as too radical by many in the Democratic Party establishment.

This time around, those same ideas – such as Medicare for all, a livable minimum wage, free college tuition – have been embraced by mainstream candidates seeking the Democratic nomination.

Here’s the opening video of a guy with three homes who’s upset that Other People make lots of money

And here’s a part of his announcement email, which is similar to the above video (full text is at the first link above)

Our campaign is not only about defeating Donald Trump, the most dangerous president in modern American history. It is not only about winning the Democratic nomination and the general election.

Our campaign is about transforming our country and creating a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice.

In other words, fundamentally transforming the United States into Venezuela. Every complaint in the rest of his message should be though of with the notion of “transforming our country”.

Read: Old, White Democratic Socialist Who Hates America Announces Bid To Be President »

Posted in Democrats | 29 Comments | Trackback URL

Sixteen Open Borders States Sue Trump Over Emergency Declaration

By William Teach February 19, 2019 – 7:24 am

It would have been so easy: allocate the funds for the section of wall that Trump and immigration authorities wanted to build, especially since prior Congressional legislation authorized the construction of the wall. But, no, Democrats aren’t interested in security our borders

(Fox News) The attorneys general of California, New York, and 14 other states on Monday filed a lawsuit in the Ninth Circuit against the White House’s recent national emergency declaration over border security, claiming President Trump has “veered the country toward a constitutional crisis of his own making.”

President Trump sarcastically had predicted the lawsuit last week. He’s slammed the Ninth Circuit multiple times as “disgraceful” and politically biased.

The litigation, brought before a federal trial court in the Northern District of California, seeks an injunction to prevent Trump from shifting billions of dollars from military construction to the border without explicit congressional approval. The suit also asks a court to declare Trump’s actions illegal, arguing that Trump showed a “flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles engrained in the United States Constitution” by violating the Constitution’s Presentment and Appropriations Clauses, which govern federal spending.

The litigation additionally includes allegations that Trump is violating the National Environmental Policy Act, by planning to build a wall that could impact the environment without first completing the necessary environmental impact reports.

The attorneys general specifically argue that the border wall does not “require[] use of the armed forces,” as mandated under 10 U.S.C. section 2808, the federal law which governs construction projects during national emergencies. Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan reportedly said this week he isn’t sure there is a military necessity at the border, or how much the agency would need to spend.

Except, Congress has specifically authorized construction of a border wall numerous times, including back during the Bush administration, the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

In addition to Maine, California, and New York, the group of states also includes Delaware, Oregon, Hawaii, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Virginia, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico.

So, essentially open borders states. States which would rather patronize illegal aliens than take care of lawful U.S. residents.

Will the suit succeed? Ultimately, it will surely end up at the Supreme Court. No matter what Democrats say, Trump is not an idiot, and the Emergency order is surely based on actual statute and law, which is why the open borders states are adding things like the National Environmental Policy Act.

Read: Sixteen Open Borders States Sue Trump Over Emergency Declaration »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 7 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove