Washington Post: Republicans Are Running Mean Ads Against Democrats Or Something

By William Teach October 19, 2018 – 6:53 am

This is completely shocking. No one ever runs criticism of the opposing political party. Not ever!

GOP war room blasts endless stream of criticism at Democrats, with Warren its latest target

The Republican Party’s research director, Mike Reed, found out about Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s DNA test before he got out of bed Monday. From his bedroom, the GOP attack machine started whirring.

At the White House, President Trump and his aides initially downplayed the news. Adviser Kellyanne Conway told reporters “that doesn’t interest me” and Trump said “Who cares?” when asked about the new evidence that the Massachusetts Democrat had Native American heritage.

But the Republican story began to change at 9:46 a.m., when Reed blasted out his first email to thousands of reporters and allies, laying out new talking points for his side — that Warren’s test result showed a “minuscule” percentage of native heritage in her DNA and would not end the political problems that had beset her since opponents suggested she had advanced her career by claiming such ancestry. (snip)

And it was another trophy for a team of about 60 GOP researchers, bookers and attack dogs who spend their time churning out the ammunition that conservative media and Trump supporters use daily to pummel the president’s foes.

The relentless stream of carefully curated — and sometimes misleading — political hits has been throwing Democrats off message for months while steadily stoking the daily fires of conservative outrage that power Trump’s political movement.

OMG, this is horrible! Now do the Democrat war room.

See, the problem here is that Democrats are not used to Republicans fighting back hard in essentially the same manner as Democrats. Though no one has run a commercial where granny is literally being thrown off a cliff.

“Democrats don’t have the benefit of the conservative media echo chamber emanating out from Fox News, so it will always look a bit different on our side,” he added. (that’s Josh Schwerin of the ultra-leftist Priorities USA)

Right, right, they don’t have NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN (in every airport), NY Times, LA Times, Time, USA Today, Newsweek, etc and so on. Oh, and the Washington Post.

Democratic consultants expect the public attacks on Trump over social media to increase dramatically after the midterm. “Come November 7, it will fall on the shoulders of the Democratic Party to run interference for its field of potential nominees,” Brad Woodhouse, who was the communications director for the party in the 2012 cycle, said in an email. “Daily, relentless and no holds barred.”

Huh. So…..Dems do it too, and it’s no big deal?

That point was underscored when the Boston Globe, which broke news of the DNA test, corrected its own story to report that Warren’s test suggested that as little as 1/1024 of her genome might come from Native American heritage.

“We went from shrugged shoulders to raised eyebrows,” Kelly Conway said. “What our rapid response has been able to do is break through the noise.”

And it’s about damned time that Republicans are fighting back in a sustained manner.

Read: Washington Post: Republicans Are Running Mean Ads Against Democrats Or Something »

Posted in Democrats, Politics | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

Nancy Pelosi Promises Collateral Damage To Those Who Don’t Agree With Democrats

By William Teach October 18, 2018 – 6:58 pm

This does not sound threatening in the least, does it? Dare I say this is the type of thing you read about in 3rd world nations when the opposition takes control? Or, to use the Libs favorite, something that would emanate from Nazis?

(Breitbart)  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told a gathering at the 92nd Street Y in New York on Sunday that there may have to be “collateral damage” to those Americans who do not agree with the Democratic Party agenda.

Pelosi was being interviewed onstage by Paul Krugman, the left-wing New York Timescolumnist and Nobel economic laureate who predicted, the day Donald Trump won the presidency, that Trump would trigger “a global recession, with no end in sight.”

In a long, rambling monologue, during which she stumbled on her words and appeared to lose her train of thought, Pelosi said:

We have to have total clarity about what we do, when it comes to everything — a woman’s right to choose, gay marriage … whether it’s about immigration, whether it’s about gun safety, whether it’s about climate … I think that we owe the American people to be there for them, for their financial security, respecting the dignity and worth of every person in our country, and if there’s some collateral damage for some others who do not share our view, well, so be it, but it shouldn’t be our original purpose.

What does she mean? Breitbart’s Joel Pollack doesn’t want to go down the hole beyond noting that Dems have vowed to go after those who are not believers in man caused climate change, but, really, we see what they’re doing now. The violence, assaults, harassment, doxing, and so forth. They have zero tolerance for anyone who doesn’t share their viewpoints, and have hardened their position for quite some time, but especially since Trump won. When Democrats say things like this, don’t discount it as hyperbole. They usually mean it, especially when it is an off-the-cuff remark.

Read: Nancy Pelosi Promises Collateral Damage To Those Who Don’t Agree With Democrats »

Posted in Democrats | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 18, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…are leaves dying from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on what Dems are doing now that the Blue Wave is collapsing.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Trump’s Hotcoldwetdry Denial Is A War On Our Health Or Something

By William Teach October 18, 2018 – 10:30 am

We’re totally doomed or something

Said headline has also changed for this long, long, long screed by David Wallace-Wells

Trump’s Climate Denial Isn’t Just a War on Our Coastlines. It’s a War on Our Brains.

The list of crimes Donald Trump has committed against the planet, in just two years, is already so impeachably long that his slippery-fish climate denial registers as hardly more than a footnote. “I have a natural instinct for science,” the president bragged to the Associated Press Tuesday, a week after the U.N.’s IPCC raised the alarm on global warming that is much faster, and more horrifying, than it had acknowledged before. “And I will say that you have scientists on both sides of the picture,” said Trump. On Sunday, Lesley Stahl pressed the president on his contention that there were scientists saying that extreme weather had been worse in the past: “Who says that? ‘They say’?” Trump responded, defensively, “People say. People say.”

It was an especially grotesque demonstration of bad faith, given that just weeks ago, his administration had announced that, as a matter of climate policy, it was now assuming a worst-case global warming scenario — four degrees Celsius this century, an assumption suggesting that any effort to regulate American emissions would be effectively pointless. In the blink of an eye, the Republican Party seemed to pass directly from insisting that global warming isn’t happening to taking for granted a climate hellscape so inevitable that there’s nothing we can, or should, do about it.

It’s so umpeachably long that those offenses weren’t included. But, lots of doomy prognostications were included

This is very bad. The term “small-particulate” suggests a trivial form of pollution, but while the particles are small, the effects are actually enormous. About 9 million people die each year, globally, from small-particulate pollution — that is one out of every six deaths everywhere on the planet. This year, scientists estimated that the death toll from particulate pollution in a world two degrees warmer would be 150 million higher than at 1.5 degrees. In the U.S., the numbers are smaller, but not that much smaller: a 2013 study found 200,000 preventable deaths each year, in the U.S., from air pollution. And “lesser” effects are pervasive, too, and horrifying: small-particulate pollution causes dramatic drops in cognition, significant increases in the prevalence of mental illness, and is “strongly correlated” with dementia.

Well, yes, it does cause artificial dementia, well, let’s just call it insanity, in the membership of the Cult of Climastrology. We witness this daily. Of course, in this case, what they’re trying to do is link actual pollutants with trace amounts of carbon dioxide, a trace gas necessary for life on Earth. Wallace-Wells goes down the rabbit hole in mentioning that brain functions went up in China as they attempted to reduce pollution, which is certainly true. But, it was actually real pollutants that are “small particulate”. The same has occurred when lead particulates are reduced. But that isn’t CO2, and the doomsaying has been out of control for a long, long time.

If CO2 is so bad, then why

Read: Trump’s Hotcoldwetdry Denial Is A War On Our Health Or Something »

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

Bummer: Democrats Hope For ‘Climate Change’ Agenda Greatly Reduced

By William Teach October 18, 2018 – 8:00 am

How can we really even know what it is, when they rarely even mention ‘climate change’ while campaigning for the midterms? It’s about the least important issue for voters. And for those who care, the minute you explain it will cost them money and raise their cost of living they’re like “yeah, never mind”

Dems damp down hopes for climate change agenda

Democrats are unlikely to pursue major climate change legislation if they win the House majority, despite a growing body of evidence suggesting time is running out to address the issue.

This represents a shift in strategy from when House Democrats last controlled the chamber. In 2009, they passed cap-and-trade legislation, which subsequently died in the Democratic-controlled Senate. The game plan for next year, House Democrats say, is more incremental steps and hearings.

With President Trump in the White House and Republicans favored to keep the Senate next year, climate legislation would face stiff headwinds, and pushing it could spark backlash from the right — both now and after the Nov. 6 midterm elections.

Considering those “constraints,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Democrats should “focus on the practical and the opportunistic” to make short-term progress while fighting for bolder measures — “the aspirational goals” — over the longer term.

Their aspirational goals are to implement a tax/fee scheme which enriches government coffers while instituting methods giving government more control over citizen’s lives.

The office of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a fierce environmentalist who ushered the cap-and-trade bill through the lower chamber almost a decade ago, declined to comment about the Democrats’ future climate plans. Pelosi has been touring the country stumping for Democratic candidates, with a focus on economic and health-care issues. (snip)

Not all Democrats share that view. Faced with more data on a warming planet — and the role of human activity in exacerbating the trend — some lawmakers want the party to use its would-be majority to push a bold, sweeping package to hike the cost of carbon emissions. (snip)

“I do think we need to go big,” said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). “I’m all for incrementalism in policy. We do lots and lots of it, and it’s a good way to move forward. But this situation is so serious that we can’t do it in little steps.” (snip)

Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), a co-chairman of the bipartisan, 90-member Climate Solutions Caucus, rejected the notion that pricing-up carbon is beyond reach, even in the current political environment. He’s pushing for a bipartisan carbon-fee bill that, if passed by the House, would then put pressure on Trump and Senate Republicans to act.

See, most Democrats are like Pelosi: they aren’t campaigning on anthropogenic climate change, and they barely, if ever, mention it in their speeches to their leftist peeps. But, they still want to push these Big Government solutions. Which is why, even though ‘climate change’ is typically one of the lowest polling cares for voters, you cannot ignore it. It’s a stealth issue that isn’t about science, but Big Government control.

Read: Bummer: Democrats Hope For ‘Climate Change’ Agenda Greatly Reduced »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Hot Take: Elizabeth Warren’s DNA Test Doesn’t Matter Because She Identifies As Native American

By William Teach October 18, 2018 – 7:48 am

There have been plenty of hot takes in attempting to defend Elizabeth Warren and her claims of Native American ancestry, but this is 2018, so you get things like this from Alondra Nelson, president of the Social Science Research Council and a professor of sociology at Columbia

Elizabeth Warren and the Folly of Genetic Ancestry Tests

This week, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts announced that geneticists had analyzed her DNA and proved her longstanding claim that she has Native American ancestry. Senator Warren had caved in to months of ridicule by President Trump, who mocked her using a racist term and ultimately refused to believe her “useless” DNA test.

The question is not whether her DNA analysis is accurate. It’s whether it can tell us anything meaningful about identity. The truth is that sets of DNA markers cannot tell us who we really are because genetic data is technical and identity is social. The science in question is a form of chromosome mapping similar to that used in the billion-dollar genetic ancestry testing industry in the United States. That testing draws on incomplete data about human genetic diversity.

In this case, the “reference set” included samples drawn from 37 people “from across the Americas with Native American ancestry.” Nevertheless, this genetic analysis did locate five chromosome segments that strongly suggest indigenous ancestry. In his report, the geneticist Carlos Bustamante of Stanford University cautioned that it did not “provide complete coverage of all Native American groups.” This is a limitation of the technology, but it also has political implications.

Indigenous communities have long engaged in a “politics of refusal,” according to a Mohawk anthropologist, Audra Simpson. They have opted out of research and commercial endeavors that seek to assemble genetic samples of their communities. And they refuse to support practices that reduce Native American ancestry, culture and history to mere segments of DNA. Tribal sovereignty and indigenous authority determine membership and indigenous understandings of community.

Senator Warren’s genetic-ancestry results suggest she has a Native American ancestor, most likely more than six generations back. But a few segments of a person’s genome that indicate she may have indigenous ancestry does not make her Native American. To be Native American is to be a member of a tribal community and recognized by that community as such. DNA cannot vouchsafe tribal identity or any other community affiliation.

Well, in that case, Warren’s claims are fraudulent, as no Native America groups are providing membership to Fauxahontas.

When we’re faced with difficult issues about the past that bear on the present, it is tempting to take these tests as proof of identity. But these genetic tests cannot confirm social dynamics. Identity is socially, politically and legally determined, even if shaped by genetics. Yet, genetic ancestry testing does not offer insights about these dynamics. So we can’t look to DNA to settle debates about identity.

In all fairness, if Prof. Nelson is attempting to defend Senator Warren, she’s not doing a very good job. But this is less about actually defending Warren than it is about propping up the notion of Identity. This is how we get nutters believing they are the opposite biological sex, and saying they are black when they clearly aren’t. How you get a “trans man” identifying as a dog.

Read: Hot Take: Elizabeth Warren’s DNA Test Doesn’t Matter Because She Identifies As Native American »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats | 46 Comments | Trackback URL

Russia Russia Russia: Mueller Plans To Release Initial Findings After Midterms

By William Teach October 17, 2018 – 3:58 pm

If there was anything to actually see, you can bet it would come out prior to the midterms. And if we see zero leaks, you know that it is all a big nothingburger, one which has been hanging round for two years (via Twitchy)

(Bloomberg) Special Counsel Robert Mueller is expected to issue findings on core aspects of his Russia probe soon after the November midterm elections as he faces intensifying pressure to produce more indictments or shut down his investigation, according to two U.S. officials.

Specifically, Mueller is close to rendering judgment on two of the most explosive aspects of his inquiry: whether there were clear incidents of collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, and whether the president took any actions that constitute obstruction of justice, according to one of the officials, who asked not to be identified speaking about the investigation. (snip)

With three weeks to go before the midterm elections, it’s unlikely Mueller will take any overt action that could be turned into a campaign issue. Justice Department guidelines say prosecutors should avoid any major steps close to an election that could be seen as influencing the outcome.

That suggests the days and weeks immediately after the Nov. 6 election may be the most pivotal time since Mueller took over the Russia investigation almost a year and a half ago. So far, Mueller has secured more than two dozen indictments or guilty pleas.

And most of those indictments have zero do with RRR. Many are of old “crimes” and process crimes. And, really, all based on manufactured evidence, such as the dossier, and Democrat caterwauling. If this wasn’t political, the investigation would have been shut down over lack of any evidence. And, regardless of DOJ guidelines

https://twitter.com/jbcousins92/status/1052537300415115265

Read: Russia Russia Russia: Mueller Plans To Release Initial Findings After Midterms »

Posted in Liberal World | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 17, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is vegetation dying from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post noting what hasn’t happened in Texas since campus carry was passed.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Biological Woman Not Pleased That Gender Confused Won Women’s World Cycling Championship

By William Teach October 17, 2018 – 10:30 am

Where are all the 3rd Wave Feminists who should be complaining about a biological male taking something else away from women?

(Daily Caller) A woman who lost a world-championship cycling race to a biological male who identified as a transgender woman criticized the result as unfair.

Jennifer Wagner said it was “definitely NOT fair” that she was forced to compete against Rachel McKinnon, the male cyclist, in the women’s event.

McKinnon, representing Canada, won the women’s sprint 35-39 age bracket at the 2018 UCI Masters Track Cycling World Championships in Los Angeles on Sunday.

Wagner, a Houston-area doctor, took third place behind McKinnon and Dutch cyclist Carolien van Herrikhuyzen.

“I was the 3rd place rider. It’s definitely NOT fair,” Wagner wrote on Twitter Monday in response to a comment about the race.

Looks like two women and a man on the podium. In fairness, the 2nd place winner (who should have been first)

Van Herrikhuyzen, said McKinnon won an “honest race.”

“No one is a transgender to steal anyone’s medal. We had an honest race under [Union Cycliste Internationale] rules. If you compete you accept the rules, otherwise, don’t compete,” van Herrikhuyzen wrote in response to a Twitter commenter.

Well, the rules are stupid in allowing a fake woman to compete against real women.

McKinnon, a professor at the College of Charleston, accused Wagner of “transphobia” for her opposition to racing against men.

I have no problem stating my “phobia” against people with mental illness. How about you?

Read: Biological Woman Not Pleased That Gender Confused Won Women’s World Cycling Championship »

Posted in Beyond Moonbat | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

LA Times Loves The Notion Of A Carbon Tax On Other Companies

By William Teach October 17, 2018 – 8:46 am

Democrats, and some squishy Progressive Republicans, keep trying to make a carbon tax happen. Funny that they never include themselves in the plan

A carbon tax is a good idea — so long as it doesn’t come with industry handouts

Exxon Mobil made a bit of a splash Tuesday when it announced a $1-million, two-year donation to the Republican-led Americans for Carbon Dividends, an organization pushing for a national tax to help curtail emissions of atmosphere-warming carbon. A carbon tax is aimed at making the burning of fossil fuels — which releases carbon — more expensive, and thus directing consumer behavior away from carbon-spewing energy and driving investment toward carbon-free alternatives. It’s a sound approach, one this page endorsed more than a decade ago, and better than the related cap-and-trade plans, which California has used since 2012.

But the plan that Exxon Mobil is throwing its money at — pocket change, really, for a corporation that made nearly $20 billion last year — is less than it seems. Called the Baker-Schultz plan after two of its authors, former Republican secretaries of State James A. Baker III and George P. Schultz, the plan calls for gradually increasing the per-ton carbon tax to reduce the risk of market shock, and for returning the proceeds to consumers on a per-capita basis through the Social Security Administration. Everyone gets the same amount of cash, but those who use less carbon-emitting energy will pay less tax — giving them a powerful incentive to conserve. So far, all good. And a set rate helps companies better anticipate their costs; businesses like stability and predictability.

But there’s always a but, it seems. The Baker-Schultz plan also includes a waiver that would let oil companies and other emitters off the hook for past acts contributing to global warming, preempting the many lawsuitsfiled against them. And it would undo the Clean Power Plan and other federal regulations covering carbon dioxide emissions. That makes this sound less like a smart plan to reduce carbon than a toxic quid pro quo — “OK, we’ll go for a carbon tax if these lawsuits go away and we get sharper deregulation.” Another plan, pushed by the Citizens Climate Lobby and other groups, would similarly escalate the per-ton tax over time and return the proceeds in a per-capita dividend, without the corporate giveaways. That’s a better option.

Both plans stink, because you’re taxing something that hasn’t been proved scientifically to be causing an actual problem. Unless you consider sociology and political science “science.” Further, that last plan would see the government to refund 4/5ths of the money to the consumer to cover the cost of living increase, with an acknowledgement that the money refunded still wouldn’t cover the cost of living increases to citizens.

Whatever approach might ultimately gain traction, it will be a useless gesture unless the tax is sufficiently high to compel changes in producer and consumer behavior. How much is too little? How much is too much? We’re not going to pretend we know — there are experts who can make that calculation. But this is an area in which compromise isn’t much of an option. As the recent Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change warned, without near-immediate and drastic action to curtail the rise of carbon and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mankind faces a dire environmental future. Rising seas, more severe weather patterns — a lesson just reinforced by Hurricane Michael — deep agricultural impacts and worse droughts and flooding.

Funny how this debate always seems to come down to elitists wanting government to force people to comply with beliefs. About increasing the power of government over citizens, private entities, and economies.

But, if the LA Times editorial board is upset about the use of fossil fuels – as they put it in paragraph one “A carbon tax is aimed at making the burning of fossil fuels — which releases carbon — more expensive, and thus directing consumer behavior away from carbon-spewing energy” – then the carbon tax should apply to news gathering organizations, especially newspaper. They use vast amounts of fossil fuels to go out and gather the news, anywhere from local to around the world. They use vast amounts of energy to broadcast the news, often from fossil fueled sources. And newspapers, like the LA Times, are the worst, as they kill lots of carbon pollution sucking trees to produce their newspapers for distribution, and use vast amounts of fossil fuels to distribute said papers. So, let’s include the news industry in the list of which companies get taxed.

I bet the news organizations will flip a lid if they were included. Because Warmists always Someone Else to pay the price for their beliefs. Never themselves.

Read: LA Times Loves The Notion Of A Carbon Tax On Other Companies »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | Comments Off on LA Times Loves The Notion Of A Carbon Tax On Other Companies | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove