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

LA Times: These Antifa Folks Are Thugs, Not Activists

By William Teach August 30, 2017 – 7:36 am

The editorial board of the LA Times has apparently had enough, particularly because so many journalists and news photographers have been assaulted. And, though they do not mention that all these Antifa, Black Bloc, etc folks are Democratic Party voters, they seem a bit concerned that they will make the Democratic Party look bad, eventually

Editorial: Violent demonstrators in Berkeley are thugs, not activists

There can be no justification for the violence perpetrated on Sunday by a group of leftist protesters who attacked supporters of President Trump and others Sunday during an otherwise peaceful “rally against hate” in Berkeley.

Whether they are described as “black bloc” or anarchists — the nomenclature isn’t important — the masked, black-clad protesters are criminals, not the vanguard of a righteous resistance to fascism. They also are traitors to the thousands of peaceful demonstrators who gathered in Berkeley’s Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Park to counter a “No to Marxism in America” rally — a non-event that drew a relatively small contingent of right-wingers after its organizer, fearing violence, had urged supporters to stay home. (snip)

This is thuggery, not activism. And it has become too familiar a phenomenon in Berkeley, belying its reputation as a citadel of free speech. In February, for example, 150 black-clad agitators caused $100,000 worth of damage when they smashed through the city protesting a planned UC Berkeley speech by right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. The speech was canceled.

It has become all too familiar across the country. But, good job for the LATEB to stand up against it. They probably understand, also, that LA is a prime place for more nuts to show up and cause problems.

An entirely different issue is whether it is ever acceptable to commit violence against someone who is peacefully expressing a point of view, however repugnant. The answer to that question is no. There is no “hate speech” exception to the 1st Amendment, and no “anti-fascist” dispensation from laws against assault and battery. (Notably, it’s not clear whether those who were set upon Sunday were attacked for their views or for simply showing up.)

Ooooooh, Leftists are going to be upset that the LATEB just blew away the “hate speech is not constitutionally protected” meme.

Yet some would rationalize or explain away violence of the kind engaged in by the masked protesters in Berkeley. According to this view — summed up in the glib slogan “Punch a Nazi!” — right-wing extremism is such a threat to the body politic that preemptive violence isn’t just permissible but necessary. That’s a seductive but sinister notion that, if acted on, empowers the very groups the protesters oppose. The punches they’re throwing are injuring their own side.

Unfortunately, they didn’t go far enough, in that these violent lefties and their supporters/protectors have labeled anyone not on their side as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and Klan members. Also, fascists, which is interesting in that the “anti-fascists” are the ones trying to shut down Free Speech and create massive, giant, domineering government.

Read: LA Times: These Antifa Folks Are Thugs, Not Activists »

Posted in Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post Attempts To Blame Trump For Harvey, Hits Obama Instead

By William Teach August 30, 2017 – 7:21 am

The Editorial Board of the Washington Post has finally joined in on the “ZOMG, Harvey was made worse by Hotcoldwetdry!” bandwagon. They try and punch Trump and his administration in the face, but, who was president the past eight years?

Houston is paying the price for public officials’ ignorance

PRESIDENT TRUMP assured the nation over the weekend that he is “closely monitoring” the disaster in Texas. “We have an all out effort going, and going well!” he tweeted.

No, the president and his administration do not. Since they entered office, they have tried to enhance the risk of the sort of devastation on display in Texas. Anyone watching Houston who fails to worry about how humans are intensifying natural risks, including storm surges, deluges and flooding, is ignoring the warning signs right in front of them.

We should very much worry about news outlets which use vast amounts of fossil fuels, trees, and energy. Regardless, no matter what Trump has or has not done, he’s only been in officer since the end of January. Obama was there for eight years. Plus time as a Senator. How is this Trump’s fault in any manner? Oh, right, #Resist and #TrumpDerangementSyndrome.

Scientists are habitually cautious about attributing a single weather event to the long-term increase in global temperature that human beings have begun, and they cannot say with reasonable certainty that climate change caused Hurricane Harvey. In fact, they are still sorting out exactly how global warming affects hurricane formation. It seems likely that an increase in North Atlantic hurricanes is linked to climate change, but scientists cannot confidently rule out some other factor.

So, scientists don’t know? They do not want to provide links when they do not have “reasonable certainty”? No worries!

What they can say — and have, emphatically, since this hurricane slammed into Houston — is that “Harvey was almost certainly more intense than it would have been in the absence of human-caused warming,” as climate scientist Michael E. Mann wrote in the Guardian. The surge of water this storm churned up out of the Gulf of Mexico was half a foot higher than it would have been without the rising sea level, he reckoned. This storm surge not only endangered coastal-zone communities such as Galveston, but local experts report it also blocked water drainage from inland areas that heavy rains have inundated.

In fact, the storm surge was lower than expected for this storm. Thankfully. Sea sea rise has little to do with storm surge, especially since there has been less than a foot over the past 100 years, which is less than normal for a Holocene warm period. We then get more of the typical whines about the Gulf being warmer than normal, more water vapor, but, they forgot to offer scientific proof of anthropogenic causation.

Houston is an example of what happens when public officials ignore experts and refuse to take natural risks seriously. As the country’s fourth-largest city expanded, replacing prairie with impermeable surfaces such as pavement and concrete, the land was rendered less and less capable of absorbing floodwater. Without proper adaptive measures, this made an already flood-prone place more vulnerable. A ProPublica and Texas Tribune investigation found last year that those who have overseen Houston’s flooding issues discounted scientists’ warnings as “anti-development.” In the coming months and years, the city may pay a high price for such shortsightedness.

So, the problem is actually poor planning when it comes to things like roads in what is already a flood plain, in an area that is historically hurricane active? Well, what was Obama doing the past 8 years?

Those officials had the fate of only one city in their hands. Mr. Trump has the fate of the whole world.

The fate! #TrumpDerangementSyndrome. Do you know what would be fun? If Trump slapped a fee on the production of newspapers from trees.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post Attempts To Blame Trump For Harvey, Hits Obama Instead »

Posted in Global Warming, Wonky Media | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

CNN: It’s Too Soon For Trump To Go To Texas

By William Teach August 29, 2017 – 4:02 pm

Former Obama flack Jen Psaki jumps into the “Trump’s damned if he does damned if he doesn’t debate” as she questions the timing

It’s too soon for Trump to go to Texas

Every helicopter supporting a Trump visit to Texas in response to Hurricane Harvey is a helicopter not picking survivors off rooftops.

As President Donald Trump faces the first crisis of his presidency (one that is not self-inflicted) he fortunately has a chief of staff, John Kelly, who knows how to deal with emergency response, and a well-respected FEMA director in Brock Long leading an agency that has rebuilt itself since 2005’s Hurricane Katrina.

There will be many decisions ahead about resources and funding at the federal level that will have an actual impact on the recovery of Houston and the other affected communities. These will be far more important than the movements of Air Force One, but the President’s decision to travel to Texas just days after the first wave of the storm hit is, at best, surprising.

Quite frankly, there is so much stupid with this, I could spend the next hour fisking it. Just not worth the time. Suffice to say, had Trump waited till the search and rescue phase was over, as she claims was the Obama doctrine (yeah, could spend lots of time on that one), Trump would be blamed for waiting too long.

Read: CNN: It’s Too Soon For Trump To Go To Texas »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 6 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove