Question For Y’all On Commenting

By William Teach June 8, 2018 – 11:58 am

So, playing with texting capabilities, and I can make it so you can login with WordPress, Google, Twitter, or Facebook (or not login if you don’t want to) to comment, and the comments will appear without having to refresh or seeing the page reload, much like with Disqus (something I’m considering, as well).

However, the Monalisa emoticons you see below the commenting form would be gone. Cannot get them to work. Also, comment quick tags, things like bold, blockquote, italic, etc, would not show as buttons. You could manually use scripts.

If you want to see how it works, go here to my development site. I’ve turn on ability to comment temporarily.

Would you prefer with the emoticons and quicktags, or ability to use other logins? I can’t implement a plugin for logins, because that requires allowing new registrations to be on, and there are tons of spammers who take advantage of this. I had it open for a brief time yesterday and got three spammers.

Read: Question For Y’all On Commenting »

Posted in Web/Tech | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Are Being Advised To Avoid Discussing Single Payer

By William Teach June 8, 2018 – 10:15 am

Don’t want the citizens to know that Democrats stand for government 100% controlling your health care, eh?

The 2 words you can’t say in a Democratic ad

Democratic voters want single payer health care. But don’t expect to hear Democratic candidates talk about it — at least not in those words.

To avoid divisive intraparty fights that drive candidates left — only to be attacked by Republicans for favoring socialized medicine — the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee warned aspirants last year about the political liabilities of endorsing “single payer,” according to sources familiar with the advice. An influential progressive group even urged candidates to discard the often-misunderstood phrase and embrace “Medicare for all” to draw strong connections with the popular seniors’ health program.

In other words, the DCCC wants candidates to lie.

Some Democrats argue that instead of focusing on the potentially divisive idea of single payer, the party should defend the Affordable Care Act against “sabotage” from Trump and congressional Republicans, who combined to repeal the individual mandate and scrap a key subsidy program that helps cover low-income people. That message is more compelling this year, argues Brad Woodhouse, campaign director of pro-Obamacare group Protect Our Care.

“We’re out of power right now, we can’t make any of that happen,” he said of single payer health care. The vast majority “of what you do when you’re out of power is prosecute the case against what they’ve done — otherwise there is no reason to make a change.”

They lost that power specifically because of Obamacare.

Early last year, the DCCC shared verbal guidance with candidates and political consultants about the liabilities of supporting single payer, including polls that showed support for the idea declined once voters heard that it would likely come with significant tax increases and the potential loss of private health coverage many Americans have today, according to sources who saw the guidance.

Yeah, it seems great right up to the point where people realize that government is going to be taking lots of their hard earned money to pay for it, and that they will have lost lots of control on their own medical decisions.

Oh, don’t forget that elected Republicans are complete weenies for not getting rid of Ocare like they promised. Trotting out plans that are Ocare Lite did not help.

Read: Democrats Are Being Advised To Avoid Discussing Single Payer »

Posted in Democrats | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Expensive Efforts To Mobilize Youths On ‘Climate Change’ (scam) Hasn’t Worked

By William Teach June 8, 2018 – 8:35 am

What happens when you spend millions and millions of dollars on spreading awareness in an attempt to get mushy young minds to buy into your cult’s beliefs?

(Daily Caller) New research suggests Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer’s multi-million dollar effort to mobilize young voters around the issue of global warming hasn’t been very successful.

“Based upon this analysis of recent global warming public opinion data, little has changed generationally in the intervening years,” Johns Hopkins University researcher Shruti Kuppa wrote in her analysis of polling on global warming beliefs done seven years apart.

Kuppa compared polling from 2017 to polling of millennials and other generational groups’ attitudes on global warming conducted in 2010. Researchers with Yale University and George Mason University conducted both polls.

Steyer founded his political group, NextGen Climate Action, in 2013 with the goal of mobilizing the youth vote behind candidates backing global warming policies, including a $25-million effort to get millennials to back pro-climate policy Democrats in the 2016 election.

How’d it all work out?

Not much has changed in the last seven years despite Steyer, and other like-minded groups, spending millions of dollars trying to mobilize young voters around global warming.

“Overall, Millennials demonstrate similar or less engagement on global warming than older generations,” Kuppa wrote. “Millennials are less likely to discuss global warming with their friends and family than the older generations.”

They’re probably more worried about making sure they take the perfect selfie and other vapid things.

A recent study found liberal foundations spent nearly $567 million on global warming-related funding between 2011 to 2015, including $92.4 million for “climate change-related communication, media, and public mobilization.”

Another $46.6 million was spent on “renewable energy-related communication, media, and public mobilization efforts,” the study found.

Polling in recent years suggests that while Americans worry about global warming in the abstract, few rank it among the top priorities elected officials should address — even among Democrats.

Only 6 percent of likely voters think Democrats should focus on fighting global warming if they take back Congress in 2019, according to a March poll by Civis Analytics, which is made up of former Obama campaign staffers.

It really comes down to the notion that many people want to Do Something, but, they do not want it to impact themselves negatively, and most do not bother to do something themselves. I would bet that Millennials are hammered with so many different things that they are Supposed To Care About that the climate change scam is just one more thing that they know a few talking points phrases, but, do not really have any sort of true belief. Seriously, how many things are being pushed by the Social Justice Warriors that Millennials are supposed to care about? There’s always something that they are meant to be Outraged over.

Anyhow, good job, Tom Steyer and other leading climahypocrite leaders: you’ve pissed away a lot of money to find that Millennials “demonstrate similar or less engagement on global warming than older generations” and “are less likely to discuss global warming.”

Read: Bummer: Expensive Efforts To Mobilize Youths On ‘Climate Change’ (scam) Hasn’t Worked »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post: Trump Admin Won’t Defend Obamacare In Court And This Breaks Precedent Or Something

By William Teach June 8, 2018 – 8:06 am

It’s like the Washington Post forgets about the period between 1/20/2009 and 1/19/2017

Trump administration won’t defend ACA in case brought by GOP states

The Trump administration said Thursday night that it will not defend the Affordable Care Act against the latest legal challenge to its constitutionality — a dramatic break from the executive branch’s tradition of arguing to uphold existing statutes and a land mine for health insurance changes the ACA brought about.

In a brief filed in a Texas federal court and an accompanying letter to the House and Senate leaders of both parties, the Justice Department agrees in large part with the 20 Republican-led states that brought the suit. They contend that the ACA provision requiring most Americans to carry health insurance soon will no longer be constitutional and that, as a result, consumer insurance protections under the law will not be valid, either.

The three-page letter from Attorney General Jeff Sessions begins by saying that Justice adopted its position “with the approval of the President of the United States.” The letter acknowledges that the decision not to defend an existing law deviates from history but contends that it is not unprecedented.

Washington Post writer Amy Goldstein should first look up the definition of “unprecedented”. Then use Google or Yahoo or something. There were many laws that the Obama administration refused to defend, the biggest of which was the Defense Of Marriage Act

Obama Drops Pretense, Administration Will Not Defend DOMA

Today, President Barack Obama concluded, and Attorney General Eric Holder announced, that the administration will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  DOMA defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purposes of federal law, and clarifies that no state has to recognize a homosexual marriage from another state.  The President’s announcement is refreshing in its honesty, at least insofar as it drops the farce that the administration has been offering anything even remotely approaching a vigorous (and professional) defense of the federal statute.

On this count, even supporters of gay marriage have acknowledged that the Justice Department’s non-defense of DOMA to date has bordered on creating collusive litigation, and concluded that the “DOJ’s faint-hearted advocacy is no way to run a legal system.”  So, notwithstanding the President’s desire to undermine DOMA, his non-enforcement may actually bolster its prospect in the courts: by getting out of the way, the Justice Department will make way for competent and vigorous legal defense of the statute.

Team Obama refused to defend a few other laws, but DOMA was the biggest. And, in other cases, they simply refused to enforce laws they did not like.

And this, ladies and gentleman, is why the Credentialed Media has lost trust and is considered utterly biased in favor against Republicans.

Oh, and there’s this

https://twitter.com/_Drew_McCoy_/status/1004887299992088576

Read: Washington Post: Trump Admin Won’t Defend Obamacare In Court And This Breaks Precedent Or Something »

Posted in Donald Trump, Journalistic Malpractice | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

NJ Is Totally Not Coming For Our Guns

By William Teach June 7, 2018 – 6:01 pm

What happens when a state which is already one of the most restrictive when it comes to 2nd Amendment Rights decides it wants to Do Something?

Big N.J. gun bills about to clear final hurdle, and Phil Murphy wants to make them law

Gov. Phil Murphy will soon get his chance to sign tougher gun restriction rules into law, some of which were rebuffed by his predecessor for eight years, former Gov. Chris Christie.

That’s because the state Senate will vote Thursday on a half-dozen proposals at the Statehouse in Trenton, including measures that would reduce magazine capacity, armor-piercing bullets, make it tougher to obtain a permit to carry a handgun, expand background checks on private gun sales, and keep firearms out of the hands of people deemed a threat to themselves and others.

This article was from the AM. According to the AP, all six passed out of the Senate which is protected by armed personnel and going to Murphy’s desk in a building surrounded by armed security. Here’s what they do

The bills on the docket Monday include:

* A1217, which would create restraining orders in the state allowing family members and others to ask a judge to have a person’s guns seized and ban them from buying weapons for up to a year.

* A1181, which would mandate law enforcement in the state to seize a person’s guns if a mental health professional determines they pose a threat to themselves or others.

* A2758, which would strictly define that state residents need to show a “justifiable need” to obtain a permit to carry a handgun — meaning they must show they face a specific threat to their own safety.

* A2757, which would require all private gun sales in the state to go through a licensed dealer who can perform an additional background check at the point of sale.

* A2759, which would create an outright ban in the state on possessing armor-piercing bullets.

* A2761, which would ban magazines in the state that hold more than 10 rounds, with some exceptions.

Armor-piercing bullets are already illegal. I personally do not have a problem with private gun sales requiring a background check. As far as the first two, so called “red flag” laws, they are really, really broad, and provide no penalties for people pulling stunts which take away a person’s rights, both at the federal and state level.

The justifiable need bill, A2758, will surely end up in federal court, and perhaps the Supreme Court, quickly, and one of the previous cases they’ll use is District of Columbia v Heller, in which the Court ruled against the government establishing a justifiable need.

The ban on magazines with more than 10 rounds is exactly that: a ban. There is no grandfathering. If you have one, get it out of the state, turn it in, destroy it, whatever, otherwise there will be criminal penalties. Who does this affect? Law abiding citizens. Those in possession of firearms illegally won’t care. And if you have a rifle with a fixed magazine capacity of more than 10 you need to turn it in, make it inoperable, or get it out of the state.

Why does it always seem that the gun grabbers are trying to turn law abiding citizens into criminals, while giving a free pass to actual criminals?

Read: NJ Is Totally Not Coming For Our Guns »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Liberal World | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 7, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible evil meat causing temperatures to spike, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on yet another hate hoax exposed.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Los Federales Plan Mass Prosecutions Of Illegal Border Crossers

By William Teach June 7, 2018 – 10:21 am

Catch, prosecute, deport

(LA Times) U.S. border authorities, in a significant escalation of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy, are planning to introduce a fast-track prosecution program to criminally charge more people who cross the border into California illegally, according to attorneys in San Diego.

Under the program, called Operation Streamline, migrants will be moved through the criminal justice system in group hearings, with cases handled in a matter of hours, from arraignment to sentencing.

Mass prosecutions of up to 100 migrants per day occur in federal districts in Arizona and Texas but would mark a major shift for California’s southern district, based in San Diego, which hasn’t seen expedited judicial proceedings since the border was overrun with illegal immigration decades ago.

Most people who cross illegally into California are not criminally prosecuted, but the numbers would increase substantially under Streamline.

The plans have yet to be finalized, but prosecutors told the committee that they want to charge anywhere from 35 to 100 people per day, including first-time crossers, according to Jeremy Warren, a longtime criminal defense attorney who attended a meeting of the committee Wednesday.

“They want anybody arrested crossing the border to be prosecuted with illegal entry,” Warren said, adding that discussions are still underway on how the court will accommodate the additional cases. Prosecutors want the program to start in one month, he said.

It would probably be easier to simply escort them back across the border, but, there are too many pro-illegal alien folks who will pitch fits over doing that, so, you get the illegals on record, find them guilty, then kick them out (they can actually be charged a small fine under federal law.)

Defense attorneys have long criticized Streamline, saying it sacrifices constitutional due-process protections for speed. With several court appearances combined in one, attorneys have limited time to confer with clients that can be complex, they say.

What’s there to talk about? “Did you come to the U.S. lawfully?” “No.” “OK, bye!”

Essentially, this is all about deterrence, trying to make sure that those who are thinking of coming to the U.S. illegally will reconsider and not jump the border.

Read: Los Federales Plan Mass Prosecutions Of Illegal Border Crossers »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Los Federales Plan Mass Prosecutions Of Illegal Border Crossers | Trackback URL

What Say To A Carbon Fee With More Color And Less White Supremacy

By William Teach June 7, 2018 – 8:59 am

I hadn’t been aware that carbon fees were part of white supremacy. Does this mean people who push them hard, like Al Gore, Barack Obama, and Jerry Brown are part of white supremacy?

New Carbon Fee Initiative Drafted with More Color and Less White Supremacy

It is very, very easy to fall down the minutia rabbit hole when it comes to climate policy—specifically because the writing of these policies has been characterized by white male power brokering between strong and potentially problematic personalities. This “business as usual” approach to public decision making (where the right men get around the right table and fix the right problems) just doesn’t work for climate policy. Why? Because of the moral and economic quandaries that underlie how we address a planetary-scale problem at a regional level. Climate change is inseparable from decision making on human rights, because of the basic moral math that the poorest and most vulnerable communities have the greatest to lose and yet are the least culpable for contributing to the problem. I’m going to say it like it is: When climate policy is written by white men in a closed room, that is white supremacy.

This is why you should be paying attention to Initiative 1631, which is currently in the signature gathering stage and potentially on its way to voters in the fall. I-1631 comes on the heels of the failure of carbon tax Initiative 732 in 2016, when 58 percent of voters rejected the initiative.

Why did I-732 fail? Well, that depends on who you ask. But, I think a clear component of the failure is the way that the initiative spilt the social justice and environmental communities down the center. Social justice and equity organizations called out both the lack of diverse voices in the initiative writing process and the lack of equity in how the generated revenue would be spent. The coalition that has written I-1631 is a cat of a different persuasion.

Equity and justice organizations, such as Front and Centered (Communities of Color for Climate Justice) and Puget Sound Sage, are coalition members. Funds are committed to line items such as addressing the “energy burden” of low income households, environmental justice issues, and displaced fossil fuel workers.

Remember, though, that this is all about Science, you guys. It has nothing whatsoever to do with hardcore Leftist politics.

Oh, and this is occurring in the State of Washington, which is 75.7% white, 8.2% Asian, and just 3.7% black.

Read: What Say To A Carbon Fee With More Color And Less White Supremacy »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Oregon Group Looks To Pass Gun Ban On November Ballot

By William Teach June 7, 2018 – 8:44 am

Remember, they don’t want to ban guns or take away your rights, they just want to make it harder for criminals to get guns

Group approves wording for proposed gun control measure in Oregon

The group working to ban some semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines in Oregon is taking another step forward.

The Lift Every Voice campaign, backed by faith groups, said Wednesday it approves of how the Secretary of State would word measure 43 on the November ballot.

The group, which includes volunteers from across the state, must collect 120,000 signatures by the deadline next month.

Along with the ban, ballot measure 43 would make existing owners of those guns register with the state and pass a criminal background check–or face criminal prosecution.

Well, that’s weird. It looks like this is aimed at law abiding citizens, most of whom already had a background check to purchase the rifles

Critics of Measure 43 argue gun owners already go through background checks, and say the measure wouldn’t target criminals using the banned weapons.

Many also see the proposed ballot measure as taking away the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

Funny how the majority of the gun grabbers measures target the law abiding, rather than criminals.

A legal challenge to the ballot measure has already been filed with the Oregon Supreme court regarding the wording of the title, because the actual intention of the bill is much, much broader than the title states. Have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds? You must register it with the state and get a background check again. I wonder who’s going to have to pay for that?

Read: Oregon Group Looks To Pass Gun Ban On November Ballot »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Current Affairs, Liberal World | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

New Hot Take: It Wasn’t Russian Collusion, It Was Israeli Collusion

By William Teach June 6, 2018 – 5:25 pm

Any time that Leftists start yammering on about Israel, it’s hard not to think that this has something to do with the Progressive (Marxist, Socialist, whatever) hatred of Israel and Jews. Because we’ve witnessed their hatred time and time again. Does this have something to do with that? Who knows. What we do know is that Leftists love them some conspiracy theories, and if they involve slamming Israel, all the better (Via Twitchy)

Schindler writes

Indeed, some counterintelligence pros in Washington have a rather different take on the Mueller inquiry than most Americans do. While Moscow’s secret role in subverting our election in 2016 is plain to see and is now denied only by the willfully obtuse or congenitally dishonest, detecting a direct Kremlin hand on the Trump campaign is trickier. Trump’s links to Moscow are visible but remain somewhat obscure.

His ties to Israel, however, are much plainer to see. Based on the available evidence to date, Team Trump’s 2016 links to shadowy Israelis appear just as troubling as those to dodgy Russians—indeed, in some cases they are the very same people. As a veteran counterspy in our Intelligence Community whom I’ve known for years recently asked me with a wry smile, “What if the real secret of the Trump campaign isn’t that it’s a Kremlin operation, rather an Israeli operation masquerading as a Russian one?”

And what if some people are just batshit crazy? Because he’s put himself in the realm of Excitable Louise Mensch

https://twitter.com/SethAMandel/status/894319260541104128

Even if true, let’s not forget A) nations interfere with other nations, including elections, all the time, and B) Obama and his people interfered with Israeli elections (and Russia’s) multiple times. And the left leaning media said nothing bad.

Read: New Hot Take: It Wasn’t Russian Collusion, It Was Israeli Collusion »

Posted in Israel, Unhinged Tools | 13 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove