We Have A Moral Duty To Talk About Hotcoldwetdry Post Harvey Or Something

By William Teach September 1, 2017 – 10:34 am

A super hot-take from Warmist Mark Lynas at CNN (which uses vast amounts of fossil fuels to gather and disseminate their version of the news)

Now we have a moral duty to talk about climate change

This is what climate change looks like. Entire metropolitan areas – Houston in the United States and Mumbai in India — submerged in catastrophic floods.

Record-breaking rainfall: Harvey’s 50-plus inches of torrential deluge set a new national tropical cyclone rain record for the continental United States.

They used to make Hollywood disaster movies about this sort of thing. Now it’s just the news.

If this is what ‘climate change’ looks like, it being almost 12 years between landfalls of major hurricanes, which is a time frame which is much longer than we’ve seen in the historical records, and having lower than average landfalls of hurricanes and tropical storms, well, that’s a good thing, is it not? Of course, not in Warmist World.

What caused all those hurricanes in the past?

Anyhow, all the typical Warmist talking points follow, till we get to

We all have a duty to confront denial and speak out. If we fail, the Harveys, Katrinas and Sandys of the future will be even worse than the storms we experience today. And in the future, as now, each subsequent climate disaster will just be “news.” Surely we can do better than that.

OK, fine, here’s your challenge, Mark, CNN, and Warmists: practice what you preach. Period.

But, what they really mean is that we have a moral duty or something to pass laws and regulations that install taxes and fees while putting more control of people and the private sector in government hands.

Read: We Have A Moral Duty To Talk About Hotcoldwetdry Post Harvey Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Illegal Aliens In Utah Are “Unapologetic” And “Here To Stay”

By William Teach September 1, 2017 – 7:06 am

This article from KSL in Utah exposes several of the problems with those who are unlawfully present in the United State

Roughly 200 people gathered in the Utah Capitol Thursday night, imploring the president to keep in place a federal program protecting 800,000 young immigrants from deportations.

Many at the rally said they would be deported if not for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. They urged other so-called “Dreamers” to tell people around them that their lives in the U.S. are threatened, post to social media and call their representatives in Congress.

No one is quite sure yet what Trump is going to do with DACA (though some report he will end it,) an executive amnesty program instituted without the approval of the duly elected Legislative branch, that has been referred to as unconstitutional and lawless. Many Republicans have give Trump till September 5th to make a decision, otherwise they’re taking it to court.

On Thursday, thunderous applause filled the marble rotunda as one young woman fought back tears, saying she was “undocumented, unapologetic and unafraid. I am here to stay.”

Many in the crowd held signs, including some that said “Stop tearing families apart” and “Immigrant rights are human rights.”

Unapologetic despite being present in the United States in contradiction of the law. Essentially telling Americans that they aren’t leaving, despite being lawbreakers. Those are serious problems which turn many people off from the plight of these trespassing aliens who were brought by their parents (supposedly). Instead of being demanding and unapologetic, they should be contrite and holding out their hand, begging to stay.

Then we get to “tearing families apart.” What do they mean? If the kids are deported, the parents would be, as well. Or, do they mean that the parents shouldn’t be deported? We keep hearing that the kids shouldn’t be punished because the parents broke the law. Pro-illegal forces, including the illegals themselves, are admitting the parents knowingly broke federal immigration law. As such, they should be punished for this. And the punishment is deportation. If you admit that you committed a crime, you’d be punished, would you not? Why should illegal aliens be any different? Compassion, you say? What of all the American citizen parents who are separated from their kids, and visa versa, because the former or latter has committed a crime and sent to prison? No one is making the “separated” claim.

Crimes have consequences. Do it the lawful way and there would be no problem.

Read: Illegal Aliens In Utah Are “Unapologetic” And “Here To Stay” »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post Painfully Admits That FEMA Isn’t Failing – For Now

By William Teach September 1, 2017 – 6:40 am

It must be a painful admission for the Washington Post Editorial Board that FEMA is doing a good job, since they, and so many Democrats, were hoping it would fail, because they hate Trump. No matter that it would harm Americans, the hatred runs strong

FEMA avoids disaster in Houston — so far

THE GULF of Mexico coast is just coming to grips with the devastation of Hurricane Harvey, the remnants of which continued to pelt inland areas Thursday. Tragedy on this scale cannot be fully managed, and the response is only beginning. William “Brock” Long, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, warned before the hurricane hit that rebuilding would take years. Early damage estimates foresee costs ranging around or above $100 billion. Yet, given the effort so far, Harvey may not become synonymous with government mismanagement, as Katrina did.

If you’re thinking “well, since they can’t take shots at Trump, they’ll take shots at Bush”, you’d be correct. And they do it in various ways, including subtle

The George W. Bush administration had to wait for assessments and consultations with local officials before dispatching federal resources. This time, the federal government was able to deploy officials on the ground well before Harvey hit, and coordination with state leaders was closer. Federal military officials and state National Guard forces are working together in ways not seen in 2005.

Nowhere is it mentioned that the problems started at the State and local levels, with both the New Orleans mayor and Louisiana governor, both Democrats, being both utterly clueless and working to thwart President Bush. This is not meant to slam all Governors. North Carolina governor James Hunt, Jr., did a pretty damned good job for multiple hurricanes, including Fran and Floyd, and did so with minimal input from FEMA and other federal agencies.

And, let’s not forget, in the other regions affected by Katrina, especially Mississippi, which took the direct strike of Katrina, we did not hear the same complaints. Republicans in charge vs those who were incompetent/suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

New technology has been deployed. Drones have been surveying damage. Fast Company reports that electronic flood gauges have fed information to a website through which Houstonians could monitor the state of waterways near them. Snapchat’s mapping feature has helped determine which places needed emergency attention. Facebook has served as a platform to spread information on dangerous conditions — and allowed people to report to their loved ones that they were safe. FEMA has “social listeners” who monitor electronic media and send the information they gather to responders.

It’s amazing what the private sector can do, is it not?

President Trump hired a professional emergency manager in Mr. Long. He has projected calm competence throughout the crisis, a welcome contrast to the pathetic spectacle of Bush FEMA director Michael Brown seeming unaware of the misery in New Orleans’s Superdome. Like Mr. Brown, Mr. Long and local officials have a big problem with the well-over-30,000 people displaced from their homes, many of whom are sitting in Houston’s convention and sports centers. How and how quickly these people are moved into more respectable dwellings — their own homes if habitable or motel rooms if not — will be a key measure of how well these leaders are doing their jobs. So will how they handle dicey public-health threats, such as toxic chemical spills, acrid smoke and waterborne disease.

Remember the complaints about Bush not having a FEMA director? Huh. Of course, no one thought the Superdome would turn into the hellhole it did, especially within a day of the storm.

There are more tests ahead, of course. Much of FEMA’s outrageous waste and mismanagement came well after Katrina’s floodwaters subsided. …

You can just feel that the WPEB is hoping for something to slam FEMA on, so to slam Trump, can you not?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post Painfully Admits That FEMA Isn’t Failing – For Now »

Posted in Current Affairs | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Kellyanne Conway Obliterates Chris Cuomo On ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach August 31, 2017 – 1:28 pm

I’d actually decided late yesterday to ignore most of the Harvey=Hotcoldwetdry stuff, because it is pretty much more of the same again and again. Unless there was something really juicy. Like this

(The Hill) White House counselor Kellyanne Conway in a prime-time interview Wednesday slammed CNN’s Chris Cuomo for asking about climate change as rescue operations continue for the victims of Hurricane Harvey.

“Chris we’re trying to help the people whose lives are literally underwater and you want to have a conversation about climate change,” Conway said after Cuomo asked about addressing climate change in the wake of the storm.

“I mean, that is, I’m not going to engage in that right now because I work for a president and a vice president and a country that is very focused on helping the millions of affected Texans, and, God forbid, Louisianans if it ends up.”

Here’s where it gets really fun

Cuomo then pressed Conway on finding ways to reduce the number of super storms.

“You’re going to play climatologist tonight?” Conway replied.

“Here’s the deal,” Conway continued. “You play amateur climatologist tonight and I will play professional helper to those in need, and continue in my job here, as counselor to the president, to help listen to the Cabinet members, the president, the vice president, [the Federal Emergency Management Agency], [the Department of Homeland Security] and others, General [John] Kelly, who could not be a better chief of staff equipped for a matter like Harvey since he was at DHS and is accustomed to large-scale operations as such.”

I’d say that would leave a mark, but, the Progressive media generally and Warmists specifically have no shame.

Read: Kellyanne Conway Obliterates Chris Cuomo On ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 31, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a world flooded from carbon pollution created super-hurricanes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lid, with a post noting that Facebook is A-OK with calls for mass murder of Trump supporters.

Read: If All You See… »

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

LA Times: The ACLU Should Decided Free Speech Based On Social Justice Or Something

By William Teach August 31, 2017 – 8:44 am

As you’re well aware, there’s been a long simmering debate about Free Speech, particularly on campus. It is now exploding into a much wider debate, and the LA Times gives “Laura Weinrib, a professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School, and the author of “The Taming of Free Speech: America’s Civil Liberties Compromise“, a platform to call for rolling back Free Speech by government decree

The ACLU’s free speech stance should be about social justice, not longstanding precedent

The American Civil Liberties Union has been much scrutinized since its decision to represent white supremacists in their quest to march in Charlottesville, Va. Board members have resigned and allies have declared that the ACLU, at long last, has gone too far. In the aftermath, the ACLU of California issued an equivocal statement, endorsed by the national ACLU, clarifying that the 1st Amendment “does not protect people who incite or engage in violence” but reiterating the organization’s complete support for “freedom of speech and expression.”

Commentators have rightly observed that the ACLU has defended far-right speech since its founding, despite fierce criticism. But there is a common and mistaken premise in this analysis. It assumes that the organization has always believed, as it does today, that “freedom of expression is an end in itself.” In reality, the early ACLU viewed free speech as a tool of social justice, suited to particular purposes under particular conditions.

She then goes through the history of how the ACLU defended the Nazis and fascsists here in America who marched in the 1930’s, because, get this, it supposedly made the labor movement stronger. Now, though

Almost a century later, is a dogged commitment to free speech still the best strategy for an organization that is avowedly pursuing the “advancement of civil rights and social justice”? That question once again requires evaluation of conditions on the ground.

You can see she’s building up to something. The professor is upset that 1st Amendment protections are given to corporations (perhaps we should take them away from the corporation that publishes her book, and the school that employs her?), and

Today’s 1st Amendment has plenty of eager defenders. As the ACLU reassesses its agenda, it should consider a warning issued by a disaffected board member when, on the brink of World War II, the organization assumed its current neutral posture. “Speech and the other civil liberties are meaningful only to men who dare to use them,” he insisted—and “before ‘daring’ come bread and water, come roots in the community, comes respite from fear.”

Can you see the “well, sure, everyone should have free speech, but…..” in there? These same people never seem to realize that what they consider fearful can be turned around on themselves. You know what? I want a respite from the fear caused by her book. I find it hateful and mean. It should be banned and not allowed to be published anymore. See how easy that it?

Read: LA Times: The ACLU Should Decided Free Speech Based On Social Justice Or Something »

Posted in 1st Amendment, Liberal World | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post Seems Unfamiliar With This Whole Rule Of Law Thing Regarding Illegal Aliens

By William Teach August 31, 2017 – 8:17 am

The Washington Post Editorial Board is in high dudgeon over something that hasn’t even happened yet, and may or may not happen
The D

Will the divider in chief strike again?

PRESIDENT TRUMP has outdone himself in dividing America — over banning Muslims, pardoning a racial profiler and spotting “very fine people” among the neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen in Charlottesville. Now he is reported to be on the brink of dividing families by rescinding deportation protections enjoyed by nearly 800,000 young undocumented immigrants brought to this country as children and raised here to believe in the American Dream.

Why would he be dividing families? They could all be deported together! Wouldn’t that be fun?

Is the American Dream to break the law then be rewarded for it by demanding the the U.S. give them citizenship, education, healthcare, food, money, while often refusing to assimilate?

The president once described the so-called dreamers as “incredible kids” and, saying he’d handle their predicament “with heart,” urged them to “rest easy.” It will be instructive to see if he sticks to that stance in the face of pressure from his nativist attorney general, Jeff Sessions, who has counseled Mr. Trump that he regards the program shielding dreamers from deportation as unconstitutional and indefensible in court.

Following the Constitution and rule of law is apparently now considered to be “nativist”. Kinda like how leftists, especially the Antifa folks, now consider free speech to be fascist.

Dreamers registered with the government starting in 2012 under a program, launched by President Barack Obama, that enabled many of them to attend college, get jobs and driver’s licenses, start businesses, open bank accounts, pay taxes, buy homes and cars, and live ordinary and open lives. All had lived in the United States since at least 2007; none had committed a serious crime. Each signed up for the program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, by trusting the government with their names, addresses and other information marking their emergence from the shadows.

That’s called “back door amnesty.” President Obama had no legal or Constitutional authority to provide this. It is a function of the duly elected Legislative branch. Furthermore, Obama’s unlawful rule meant that the parents would not be deported, because he didn’t want to separate the kids from the parent or parents that brought them illegally, even as Obama pointed out that the parents broke the law.

Since Mr. Trump’s inauguration, they have continued registering for two-year permits and renewing them. By doing so, they have hurt no one; to the contrary, they have contributed their energy, ambition and labor to the country and communities where they have spent most of their lives.

When does it end, though? There seems to be no end in sight, which, again, means that immigration enforcement officers are supposed to leave the lawbreaking parent/parents alone. It’s a never ending cycle that essentially rewards lawbreaking and incentivizes and rewards more illegals to come and use their children as pawns.

Are we a nation of law or a nation of men? If we continue this unlawful program, will we be allowed to deport the parent/parents? Essentially, the Washington Post, like others yammering about DACA,, admits that the parents did wrong, so, if the kids aren’t supposed to pay for the crimes of the parents, someone has to pay the price. That would be the parents. How about this: the kids be given DACA by law, and the parents self deport as punishment. And can never return.

But, let’s not forget something central: Trump hasn’t done anything at this time, so, this freak is rather premature.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post Seems Unfamiliar With This Whole Rule Of Law Thing Regarding Illegal Aliens »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Washington Post Seems Unfamiliar With This Whole Rule Of Law Thing Regarding Illegal Aliens | Trackback URL

Ann Coulter: More Credible That Harvey Is God’s Punishment For Electing A Lesbian Mayor Than ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach August 30, 2017 – 4:54 pm

Regardless of how you look at this, it’s really not helping

Ann Coulter says storm Harvey is more likely God’s punishment for Houston’s lesbian mayor than a result of climate change
Divine retribution for a lesbian mayor makes more sense than climate change, provocateur says

Seemingly striving to cause the most offence with the lowest number of words, Ann Coulter managed to demean gay people and deny climate change in fewer than 140 characters.

In response to an article linking tropical storm Harvey to climate change, Ms Coulter wrote that “God’s punishment for Houston electing a lesbian mayor” is a more “credible” explanation for the storm than climate change.

The tweet

Of course, this meme is being repeated all over, with Democrat supporting media members melting down all over the place.

We can understand her point, but, she’s not helping the show. But, then, a goodly chunk of the media are being unhinged and irresponsible, why shouldn’t a bomb thrower like Coulter get in the act?

Oh, and then we have this kind of nuttbaggery from Politico
Read More »

Read: Ann Coulter: More Credible That Harvey Is God’s Punishment For Electing A Lesbian Mayor Than ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Global Warming, Liberal World | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 30, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a serious contrast in carbon pollution created flood and drought, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Political Clown Parade, with a post on a senator who wore diapers considering a 2020 run.

BTW, hopefully, the site is more stable. There were rumors that the white supremacists website The Daily Stormer, which was kicked off its host, moved to Dreamhost, which may or may not have been linked to the denial of service attacks that were occurring all last week.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Should Young Illegals Be Punished For Their Parents’ Unlawful Entry Into The U.S.?

By William Teach August 30, 2017 – 11:00 am

Here’s an interesting take Alberto M. Carvalho at the Miami Herald

Don’t punish young immigrants for their parents’ choices

Americans remain divided about immigration, yet one belief continues to hold significant bipartisan support: Children should not be pawns in our larger political battles.

On this matter of fairness, Congress should pay attention to Florida. As politically divided as any state, Florida lawmakers found common ground to offer equal opportunities to the children of undocumented immigrants who find themselves in this country through no fault of their own.

A child who attends our high schools for at least three years and graduates here is allowed to pursue higher education at in-state tuition rates.

Why should we penalize students who succeed in our schools, follow our rules, and exemplify American values?

Well, for one, they are unlawfully present in the United States. For another, they are using the resources that should be going to American citizens. And, another, because they are Demanding!!!!! that we give them education, money, clothes, healthcare, and citizenship, while many are insulting American citizens, our nation, our flag, and some even demand the return of the American southwest to Mexico.

Regardless of political party, and regardless of how we resolve issues related to undocumented adults, we should value the achievements of youth who attain a U.S. high school education, show strong moral character, and go on to college or serve in the military.

Now, perhaps we can have a debate over allowing the children of illegals, who were brought by their parents, to have some sort of legal status, up to citizenship. They would have to pay fines, and the same fees that those who do it the lawful way pay. That would seem fair, would it not?

The problem here is exactly what is glossed over: what to do with the parents? The illegal aliens supporters admit that the parents have done wrong, that they’re at fault. In essence, criminals. And this is where the debate breaks down, because those of us who are against illegal immigration know that the minute we say “OK, let’s do something for the kids”, we’ll then have the goalposts moved to “well, if we’re going to let the kids have legal status, then the parents need to get it, too” by the pro-illegal forces. And then they’ll want the relatives to be able to come. And then to legalize all the others, because, hey, it’s not fair that the kids of illegals were given legal status, all the others who came without their kids should get amnesty, too. We know how this will work.

It would also invite more to come across the border illegally, thinking that if they bring their kids, they will all get amnesty, because no one will do anything to slam the door shut post-amnesty. We already saw this occur when illegals were given amnesty under Reagan. He though this would be a one time thing. Obviously, the problem became worse.

I actually know some who were given amnesty under Reagan, and have met others. This isn’t personal, though, it is about rule of law. Would the pro-illegal forces agree to allowing the Dreamers legal resident status, with the chance to earn citizenship, while not giving their parents legal status, along with implementing tough measures to shut down unlawful immigration? If not, there’s no purpose in even debating it.

Read: Should Young Illegals Be Punished For Their Parents’ Unlawful Entry Into The U.S.? »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 9 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove