San Antonio Paper: We Should Totally Continue Letting Potential Terrorists In

By William Teach November 4, 2017 – 10:32 am

The editorial board of the San Antonio Express-News is stoked to slam Trump for wanting to limit low educated people who bring little value to the country along with being threats for terrorism, because of values or something

Don’t jettison values after terrorist attack

The deadly attack in which an alleged ISIS supporter rented a truck and plowed into pedestrians and bicyclists in New York City is many things, including, most definitely, a terrorist act.

Alleged in the sense that the perp admitted to doing it in the name of Allah, Mohammed, and ISIS.

But what it isn’t is cause — as the president suggested — for the nation to dismantle its diversity visa lottery program, in which people from countries with low immigration rates to the U.S. are admitted. Nor is it vindication for the president’s ban on immigrants from majority-Muslim countries. Nor is it even proof that the president’s call for “extreme vetting” has any more saliency.

Here’s why. As a Department of Homeland Security analysis — leaked this year — determined: “We assess that most foreign-born, U.S.-based violent extremists likely radicalized several years after their entry to the United States, limiting the ability of screening and vetting officials to prevent their entry because of national security concerns.”

Actually, what you get out if that is that since we don’t know if they’ll be radicalized by the ones that are already here, we should put an end to allowing those who might be radicalized from entering. Furthermore, we should kick the ones who are radicallizing out.

As always, our reaction should be the opposite — grief, yes, but also vigilance, examination to see if there is something authorities might have done to prevent such events, acting on such knowledge and living lives as normally as possible. But definitely not jettisoning core American values.

What could authorities do? Start by keeping them out and kicking out the radicalized. As far as values, many times America has stopped immigration in order to allow them to assimilate. Also, so many of these current immigrants have values that are antithetical to America.

There’s lots more that could be fisked, but, I can only excerpt so much.

Read: San Antonio Paper: We Should Totally Continue Letting Potential Terrorists In »

Posted in War On Terrorism, Wonky Media | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Admin Allows Release Of Report Blaming Mankind For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach November 4, 2017 – 7:37 am

Tons of media outlets think they Have Something, in that Team Trump would allow this Hotcoldwetdry report to be release. Here’s the Washington Post

Trump administration releases report finding ‘no convincing alternative explanation’ for climate change

And the NY Times

U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials

You can go round and round and find similar headlines all over the Leftist media. Here’s what the report supposedly finds

(1) Global annually averaged surface air temperature has increased by about 1.8°F (1.0°C) over the last 115 years (1901–2016). (which is about .3 to .4F above every other measurement, which is more like 1.4 to 1.5F since 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age)

(2) Based on extensive evidence…it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century [emphasis in report]. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence. (there’s never any other explanation in Warmist World, except when they blame Nature for masking the effects, you know)

(3) Global average sea level has risen by about 7–8 inches since 1900, with almost half (about 3 inches) of that rise occurring since 1993. Human-caused climate change has made a substantial contribution to this rise since 1900, contributing to a rate of rise that is greater than during any preceding century in at least 2,800 years. (how many times have I noted that 7-8 inches is exactly average for the last 7,000-8000 years, since warm periods would have high sea rise and cool periods low to negative?)

(4) Relative to the year 2000, global mean sea level is very likely to rise by 0.3–0.6 feet (9–18 cm) by 2030, 0.5–1.2 feet (15–38 cm) by 2050, and 1.0–4.3 feet (30–130 cm) by 2100. (simply looking into a crystal ball)

(4) Annual average temperature over the contiguous United States has increased by 1.8°F (1.0°C) for the period 1901–2016; over the next few decades (2021–2050), annual average temperatures are expected to rise by about 2.5°F for the United States, relative to the recent past (average from 1976–2005)…. (more crystal ball gazing)

(5) The frequency of cold waves has decreased since the early 1900s, and the frequency of heat waves has increased since the mid-1960s (the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s remains the peak period for extreme heat in the United States). (doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation)

Realistically, this is all what one would expect from members of the Cult of Climastrology, putting out a doomy document right before the next UN IPCC occurs, because of course they’ll want to get their taxpayer funded fossil fueled trips to Bonn, Germany.

But, um, what of some other information in the Warmist screed?

(Daily Caller) The NCA is the work of scientists, but the report’s media messengers are embellishing some of the report’s key findings with respect to current U.S. weather trends.

The New York Times, for example, reported “that every part of the country has been touched by warming, from droughts in the Southeast to flooding in the Midwest to a worrying rise in air and ground temperatures in Alaska, and conditions will continue to worsen.”

But that is not correct, according to University of Colorado professor Roger Pielke, Jr., an expert on extreme weather trends and natural disaster costs.

Pielke, Jr, knocks it down, and notes many other things that are buried in the report but not showing in the media on extreme weather, like

https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/926523050702520320

https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/926523989454864384

The report was also unable to attribute drought, flooding, and precipitation trends, whether up or down, to anthropogenic causation.

They try and try, but, they cannot scientifically prove that mankind is mostly/solely responsible, hence weasel words like “likely”. It was better for Team Trump to allow the report to be released. Otherwise, they would have been accused of Censorship and stuff. This report does nothing to persuade Skeptics, and really doesn’t move the needle for the Warmists. Same old same old. It is cute how the media goes with “contradicting Trump” meme.

Read: Trump Admin Allows Release Of Report Blaming Mankind For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Hot Take: Bergdahl Shouldn’t Have Been Given Dishonorable Discharge, Because It Stops Him From Healing

By William Teach November 4, 2017 – 7:10 am

People, including President Trump (some on Twitter noted he should have kept his mouth shut and not Tweeted till after the decision, and they’re right), were outraged when Bowie Bergdahl got off with no jail time. But, hey, this is the NY Times, so, of course they’re going to go the opposite way in defending a deserter who not only put the lives of fellow soldiers in harms way, but saw many hurt and killed in searching for him. Here we have Rob Cuthbert, a retired Army vet who formerly managed the military discharge upgrade clinic at the Veteran Advocacy Project of the Urban Justice Center

An Injustice in the Bergdahl Sentence

In the view of many people, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl got off easy. His sentence for desertion and misbehavior before the enemy in Afghanistan in 2009, which was handed down Friday, included a dishonorable discharge and no jail time. Sergeant Bergdahl faced the possibility of life in a military prison, so his chief defense lawyer expressed “tremendous relief” at the sentence. But a dishonorable discharge is also a type of life sentence, a perpetual exile from the resources and communities that veterans, especially prisoners of war, need to heal and to reconcile with society.

Then perhaps he shouldn’t have deserted. Cuthbert admits Bergdahl walked away, even going with the silly “he was going to report people to another base commander” meme

After almost five years in Taliban captivity, I was doubtful that the Army would give Sergeant Bergdahl a life sentence; even the prosecutors capped their request at 14 years. He was guilty of crimes that led to the grave injury of other service members, but after years of working with veterans with less-than-honorable discharges, I thought about how Sergeant Bergdahl, a disabled prisoner of war, would lead the rest of his civilian life. If he was given a dishonorable discharge at 31 years old, how could he mend his wounds, attempt to pay his moral and civic debts, and contribute to the nation?

That’s his problem: he intentionally committed crimes, knowing full well what the penalties for them are. He’s lucky he wasn’t put in front of a a firing squad for desertion in the face of the enemy. But, hey, he was treated poorly by the Taliban, per Berhdahl’s word. What’s the word of a deserter?

Sergeant Bergdahl will soon receive his dishonorable discharge. He will be a civilian with significant physical disabilities, post-traumatic stress disorder and a very high risk of suicide. Of the six types of discharge, dishonorable is the most punishing. When he is discharged, Sergeant Bergdahl will be denied almost all reintegration benefits — including comprehensive medical — and he will also not be recognized as a veteran by the federal government. He will come back wounded to family and friends who love him, without the expert medical care of a country that must balance its responsibility to punish him and to heal him.

His problem. Actions have consequences. But, hey, the hot take gets hotter

The trajectory of Sergeant Bergdahl’s career speaks to tragic and avoidable flaws in the military mental health care system. Sergeant Bergdahl suffers from schizotypal personality disorder, and it was only after a mental health-related discharge from the Coast Guard that the Army enlisted him on a medical waiver. If his illness had been treated before his crimes, he could have been eligible for an honorable discharge with benefits. The available military record shows that when Sergeant Bergdahl left his place of duty, he was an exemplary, idealistic young soldier who lived with mental illness, not a traitor.

Got that? Cuthbert is blaming the Army. And goes on and on, thinking that, if military superiors won’t provide clemency, a bipartisan selection of members of Congress should appeal to the Army authorities for clemency. Right. Pretty much the only ones who would support a deserter would be Democrats.

Sergeant Bergdahl’s permanently injured, would-be rescuers are selfless and brave. But we must remember that — regardless of Sergeant Bergdahl’s tragic and unnecessary circumstances of capture — it was the enemies of America who tortured him and tried to kill those who sought to rescue him.

Sergeant Bergdahl’s misguided crimes can’t be forgotten, but his punishment must have limits. In light of his courage in captivity, we must be able to balance two compatible martial values: honor and mercy.

He had no honor, and he received mercy by not being stuck in jail for a decade or more. Or being shot. You know, though, that there will be some movement by leftists to ask for clemency for Bergdahl. These are the same people who supported cop killer Mumia, after all.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Hot Take: Bergdahl Shouldn’t Have Been Given Dishonorable Discharge, Because It Stops Him From Healing »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 30 Comments | Trackback URL

‘Climate Change’ Is Like A Slowly Boiling Frog Or Something

By William Teach November 3, 2017 – 5:03 pm

If you consider “boiling” to be a minuscule 1.4F increase in global temperatures, much of which has been artificially manipulated, over 160+ years

Climate change is the slowly boiling frog in the pot of the Earth

Imagine you just bumped into a friend you hadn’t seen in ages. Had they gained a little weight or gone gray? While you probably spotted some differences in their appearance, compare this to your workmate’s new haircut you didn’t notice last week, or how you didn’t realize how deep the lines under your partner’s eyes had become.

Differences tend to stand out more when there’s been a longer time lapse in between your last rendezvous. But when you hang out with a friend more frequently, your brain simply doesn’t notice the small changes that gradually happen with time.

Now imagine that your friend is climate change.

Since you hang out with them all the time, you don’t really notice when they’ve been getting a little warmer each year, or that their sea level is creeping up around their ankles. Because these changes are more gradual, your brain just doesn’t bother registering all the little bits. But those small shifts add up over time, and the resulting dramatic change often goes unnoticed. That is, until something big happens.

This goes into something called change blindness, where we do not notice tiny changes that occur over time. Because we’re all blind to the tiny, tiny increases in global temperature and the utterly average sea rise that means we are FRICKING DOOMED

It’s like that old adage about dropping a frog into a pot of boiling water. If you drop them in while it’s already hot, they’ll jump out as a survival instinct. But if you place them in room-temperature water and then heat it up nice and slow, the frog won’t notice the slow change, and it’ll be lulled it into a warm, sleepy death.

Now, just for fun, let’s replace that slowly heating frog water with the giant bodies of water we call oceans.

Blah blah blah. Can you guess what’s missing? Proof of anthropogenic causation, which states using the Scientific Method that Mankind is mostly/solely causing the changes.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Is Like A Slowly Boiling Frog Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | Comments Off on ‘Climate Change’ Is Like A Slowly Boiling Frog Or Something | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 3, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil plastic water bottle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Hayride, with a post on a military vet snubbing the Saints over their kneeling.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Warmists Sues, Saying Academic Critiques Are Defamation Or Something

By William Teach November 3, 2017 – 10:30 am

As Robert Tracinski points out, this is not how science works. It’s almost like Warmists do not want their studies and such reviewed for accuracy because they have ulterior motives

(The Federalist) If we have such an overwhelming scientific “consensus” about the supposed threat of catastrophic man-made global warming—and about the political and economic solutions to it—then why do advocates have to sue scientists to prevent them from questioning it? That’s the question raised by a $10 million lawsuit lawsuit filed by Stanford engineering professor Mark Z. Jacobson accusing other scientists of defamation for critiquing his scientific work in favor of “renewal energy.”

That’s not how science works. That’s not how any of this is supposed to work.

Jacobson made a name for himself and became something of a media celebrity for publishing a study in 2015 that claimed the United States could provide 100 percent of its energy needs from wind, solar, and hydroelectric power by 2050—and at a lower cost than with fossil fuels. (snip)

Earlier this year, a group of 21 experts led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Christopher Clack definitively debunked Jacobson’s claims in a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The paper’s abstract sums up the case: “In this paper, we evaluate that study and find significant shortcomings in the analysis. In particular, we point out that this work used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions. Policy makers should treat with caution any visions of a rapid, reliable, and low-cost transition to entire energy systems that relies almost exclusively on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power.”

Jacobson intentionally excluded nuclear energy in his study, which is one of the reason he got pushback. So, yeah, he’s gone on to sue for defamation, as they asserted he made a modeling error.

Tacinski goes on to note that, for one thing, this is not defamation, and the point of the suit is to harass scientific rivals with frivolous lawsuits, in much the same way Michael “Robust Debate” Mann has sued those who took on his “hockey stick” silliness. This is all meant to discourage scientists and others from criticizing sloppy and/or complete mule fritters papers in the future, as, people might not want to spend the time and money defending against frivolous suits.

Read: Warmists Sues, Saying Academic Critiques Are Defamation Or Something »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Tax Plan Might Get Rid Of Electric Vehicle Tax Break

By William Teach November 3, 2017 – 7:49 am

What is interesting in this is that so many outlets were reporting that the tax break might go away with the GOP tax plan. While they were all guessing, since they didn’t wait for the plan to be released (some were still guessing after it was released), few published anything that said “yeah, it’s going away.” The USA Today is part of the latter

(USA Today) The House Republican tax plan would ax the tax credit for electric-vehicle buyers, dealing a blow to the ambitions of Tesla and other battery-car makers as they try to give the nascent technology mainstream appeal.

The tax overhaul proposed Thursday would eliminate the tax credit of up to $7,500 that’s currently offered to buyers of vehicles such as the Tesla Model 3, Chevrolet Bolt and Nissan Leaf.

The tax credit is viewed as crucial to propelling technology that’s currently more expensive than comparable internal combustion engine cars.

Proponents of eliminating the incentive say the government shouldn’t pick one technology over another, or should cut most tax credits to simplify the overall code and lower rates.

I thought Liberals hated tax breaks and “loopholes”. No? Realistically, there should be no tax break. People who buy gas vehicles that get great gas mileage do not get them. People who buy minivans to haul around their children do not get them. Why should EVs get them? Especially since many, like the Teslas, are really for people of wealth. Your average middle class person is not going to be purchasing a vehicle costing over $100,000.

And they do not always equate to a savings of $7500. They will often be much less. Furthermore, if you lease the vehicle, which many do, the money goes to the manufacturer, not the consumer. Also, the credit is based on the battery pack capacity. For instance, if you buy a Toyota Prius EV, it only qualifies for a $4,502 federal tax credit.

As for the rest of the plan? Well, there are some winners and losers. Businesses, both large and small, are winners, which is generally a good thing, because people work for them, and tend to win. The reduction of the corporate tax rate is a the biggest aspect of the bill. It will supposedly allow citizens to file their taxes on a postcard (really, just one page). And other things. Obviously, Democrats are trotting out their same old talking points, because they have nothing else, and have no actual ideas they’re willing to put forth. But, really, this bill is small ball. It will supposedly save the average family a bit over $1100 a year. Hey, we can all use a bit more of the money we earned to stay in our pockets, right? But, it’s small ball. Sure, small ball works. Get ’em on, get ’em over, get ’em in (didn’t work well for my Dodgers in game 7, since their 2-5 hitters weren’t). This bill doesn’t really swing for the bleachers.

Read: Trump Tax Plan Might Get Rid Of Electric Vehicle Tax Break »

Posted in Global Warming, Taxation | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Trump’s Illegal Alien Crackdown Threatens Obamacare

By William Teach November 3, 2017 – 6:59 am

Let’s go back in time, shall we? Representative Joe Wilson was excoriated in 2009 for yelling “you lie!” about Obama’s statement that illegal aliens will not receive Obamacare. Politifact went through some serious gymnastics to claim that Joe’s statement was false. Of course, we’ve seen over the years that Joe was correct, and that many states, such as California, have attempted to give illegals Obamacare. Then this from Bloomberg

How Trump’s Immigration Crackdown Threatens Obamacare

As Obamacare open enrollment begins, health-care providers in immigrant communities worry that the Trump administration’s hard line on immigration will spook some immigrants and their U.S.-born relatives away from seeking health insurance.

In Baltimore, families with mixed immigration status “are telling us that they have a newfound hesitance to provide any information to the government” since Trump was elected, said Sarah Polk, a pediatrician at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center.

President Donald Trump has cut outreach to promote health-insurance enrollment under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. He’s also made curbing immigration and deporting undocumented residents a centerpiece of his presidency.

Polk says most of her patients are kids born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, including many who came to the U.S. fleeing violence in Mexico and Central America. One patient’s father was arrested after leaving his child’s school. Another man was detained outside the Walgreens pharmacy on Eastern Avenue, where many of her patients fill prescriptions.

About a quarter of all the children in the U.S.—or about 18 million, most of them U.S.-born—have at least one immigrant parent, according to Census data analyzed by the Migration Policy Institute.

And while those children may be eligible for coverage, fear of deportation could discourage their parents from seeking it. In the past, research has linked declines in enrollment in Medicaid, the state-federal health program for the poor, to stricter immigration enforcement. Adults who might be eligible for Medicaid or ACA coverage could also be discouraged from applying out of fear that it could draw attention to undocumented relatives.

You notice several things. First, we see that many people are sheltering illegal aliens, in violation of federal law. Second, through all the literary gymnastics, illegals are applying for Obamacare and Medicaid. We can also read between the lines and realize that many of these “kids” are Dreamers, meaning that, regardless of what Obama tried, they are unlawfully present in the United States, and therefore have no lawful status to apply for Ocare, and certainly not any cost sharing.

Let’s not forget that Obamacare provided not provision for verifying the citizenship of anyone applying for Ocare. This means both legal and illegal aliens would be able to get Ocare plans, and, does anyone really think that they will pay the full price with Liberals essentially in charge of the bureaucracy?

Polk, the Baltimore pediatrician, said parents seem committed to maintaining access to care for their children. But in immigrant communities, federal enforcement has taken a toll on people’s health. She’s seen a rise in mental health symptoms among kids, including acts of self-harm such as cutting—a sign of anxiety and depression. “There’s just a very high level of fear.”

Committing criminal activity often leads to mental issues. This could be solved by them ending their criminality by leaving the United States.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Bummer: Trump’s Illegal Alien Crackdown Threatens Obamacare »

Posted in Healthcare, Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Bummer: Trump’s Illegal Alien Crackdown Threatens Obamacare | Trackback URL

Surprise: Senate Democrats Throw Around Lies On Republican Tax Plan

By William Teach November 2, 2017 – 3:45 pm

And the lie itself is very interesting. The Washington Post’s fact checker, Glenn Kessler, knocks it down. He starts out by noting the tweets of several Senate Dems, such as Excitable Kamala Harris, Robert Casey, and Jeff Merkley, where they tell us that families making $86000 and under will see a tax increase of $794, like

The Harris and Casey ones look to have been deleted, but, plenty of others are pushing this meme

We traced the talking point to a document put out by the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, essentially the communications arm of Senate Democrats. That document laid out a series of statistics, tailored for each individual state, that purported to show how damaging the evolving Republican tax plan would be for middle-class Americans.

That document had this line on each state page: “The average tax increase on families nationwide earning up to $86,100 would be $794, a significant burden for middle-class families.”

Now, Kessler goes into more detail on this, and ends up giving it 4 Pinocchios. And, let’s remember, this was before the plan was released (I’m not touching anything on the plan till I have a chance to actually see it, but, from early reports, it’s a cockup of all sorts of different things, many of which do not make sense).

What is more interesting is that Democrats are pitching a fit over what they used to consider to be chump change. Remember, peoples’ health insurance costs going up hundreds or thousands of dollars is considered chump change. Saving millions, even billions, by doing away with idiot programs is not worth it, because that’s chump change. Oh, and my bigger point and focus is on all the ‘climate change’ initiatives, such as carbon taxes/fees. Reports say that people will pay anywhere from $300 to $3000 more a year due to the policies of the Cult of Climastrology.

We’re told constantly that a couple hundred here, a couple hundred there is just chump change. Even though these same Warmists refuse to change their own lives voluntarily to accords with their talking points.

So, $794 is HUGE!!!!! But, thousands more, while limiting freedom, liberty, the ability to easily travel, and so forth is a big nothingburger in Warmist World.

Read: Surprise: Senate Democrats Throw Around Lies On Republican Tax Plan »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 2, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible pig causing massive sea rise, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Maggie’s Farm, with a post on physical fitness.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove