Interesting: The Only Way To Solve Hotcoldwetdry Is To Solve Inequality

By William Teach May 25, 2017 – 7:09 pm

Remember, this is all about science, and we totally need to take the politics out (before discussing the politics)

If you want to solve climate change, you need to solve income inequality

We often talk about how climate change exacerbates social and economic inequality, but rarely do we consider the opposite: that inequality itself can be a driver of climate change.

“What’s missing from the conversation is what our inequality crisis is doing to our planet,” said Susan Holmberg, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and author of a new report that shows how unequal societies inflict more environmental damage than more economically even societies. “One key topic that is still overlooked is how environmental degradation and climate change are themselves the toxic byproducts of our inequality problem,” Holmberg said.

Some of the points actually make sense and are common sense, once you take the Cult of Climastrology out of it

Her analysis calls for a greater understanding of the link between climate change and inequality. Many people who live in low-income communities, for example, cannot afford to retrofit their homes to make them more energy efficient, meaning they use more power than necessary, generating more pollution.

CO2 is not pollution, but, regardless, I have a solution: anyone who is rich (meaning they get a paycheck) and believes in anthropogenic climate change/global warming should have at least 40% of their earnings taken by government to redistribute to those who are less fortunate, but, especially people like Al Gore, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Arianna Huffington, John Podesta (who started the Center for American Progress, which created Think Progress), etc and so on.

Read: Interesting: The Only Way To Solve Hotcoldwetdry Is To Solve Inequality »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 25, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is the flag of a horrible carbon pollution offender, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on the regulation of the sale of books.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Bummer: Cracking Down On Illegals Creates A “Chilling Effect”

By William Teach May 25, 2017 – 10:30 am

So, I wonder: when Los Federales initiate creackdowns on other crimes, say, child pornography, why is it that no one bats an eye or complains that this creates a chilling effect where child pornographers won’t report crimes?

New Immigration Crackdowns Creating ‘Chilling Effect’ On Crime Reporting

Jason Cisneroz, a community service officer in Houston, is troubled. His job in the nation’s fourth largest city is to forge good relations between the police and Hispanic immigrants, a population typically wary of blue uniforms.

“A couple of days ago there was a witness to a burglary of a motor vehicle,” he said. “She saw the suspects run to a certain place and with items they stole from a car, but she was afraid to come to police, she was in fear they would ask for her papers.”

So, he knows that she is most likely unlawfully present in the United States, and he did nothing? Huh.

Police officials have been warning about the unintended consequences of Trump’s immigration dragnet. They caution it will further isolate immigrants who are in the country illegally and are victims of crimes like sexual assault. In Houston and in other U.S. cities, police and immigrant advocates say: it’s already happening.

Unauthorized immigrants living in Texas have a double whammy. Under President Trump, federal agents have stepped up the arrests of immigrants, even those without a criminal record. And a brand new state law further tightens up immigration enforcement in Texas.

What I’d like to see is a study that shows the number of illegal aliens who actually report crimes to law enforcement. Almost every time I read a story like this, I make a quick search, and, so far, I haven’t seen anything that has data on the subject. Till this

“People are afraid to talk to the police, and how does that help us as police do our job?” Robles asked.

Their boss, Chief Art Acevedo, citing Houston Police Department data, says Hispanics reporting sexual assault have dropped nearly 43 percent in the first three months of this year, compared to last year. And the number of Hispanic-reported robberies and aggravated assaults are each down 12 percent.

There are two problems: one is that these are just Hispanics, no mention of immigration status. Second, these are just reports, there is no acknowledgement of whether crime has actually dropped or whether the crimes actually took place and weren’t reported.

A new survey of hundreds of victim’s advocates and legal service providers in 48 states finds that immigrants are afraid to call police, afraid to press charges and afraid to testify at trial because ICE is making arrests at courthouses.

Moreover, this trend is not new. A study published in 2013 by the University of Illinois at Chicago asked Hispanics in major cities their perceptions of police. At the time, the Obama administration was pushing a program to get local officers to work with federal immigration agents. Around 45 percent of Latinos surveyed said they were unlikely to report a crime to police, fearing deportation.

Again, the surveys are about Hispanics as a whole, not just illegals. But, here’s an interesting tidbit from, that last link

70 percent of undocumented immigrants reported they are less likely to contact law enforcement authorities if they were victims of a crime.

So, really, those who are unlawfully present were mostly unwilling to report crimes in the first place, even under Obama, so, this whole “OMG, Trump’s causing a chilling effect” is ludicrous. People who live outside the law tend not to want to have dealings with law enforcement in the first place, and, can you guess what the best solution is? They leave. Go home. Go back to your country of origin.

The funniest part is that all this “fear” seems to be occuring in Democratic Party run cities, many of whom are considered sanctuary jurisdictions. Oh, and that NPR didn’t really read the links they provided, and probably do not expect the Leftists who frequent NPR to peruse the material, either.

Read: Bummer: Cracking Down On Illegals Creates A “Chilling Effect” »

Posted in Illegal Immigration, Wonky Media | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Chelsea Clinton: ‘Climate Change’ And Child Marriage Linked Or Something

By William Teach May 25, 2017 – 7:20 am

There are several reasons I call it the Cult of Climastrology. One of the main ones is that, no matter the subject, the Believers will somehow drag ‘climate change’ into the conversation. Such is with dilettante’ Chelsea Clinton

Chelsea Clinton: ‘Climate Change’ Connects To ‘Child Marriage’

Climate change” and “child marriage” are “interconnected” issues, said Chelsea Clinton on Monday. Participating in a left-wing discussion panel framed as a meeting for “social justice,” she was introduced as an “activist, thought leader, and change agent.”

Using “climate change” as a euphemism for the narrative of anthropogenic global warming, Clinton framed the burning of fossil fuels as exacerbating other perceived social and political issues (emphasis added):

“[We] carry multiple concerns in both our head and our heart. Just listening to the concerns around education and climate change, women’s health, child marriage, access to technology, all of those are of course interconnected. We have to focus on each of them in their interconnectedness.”(there’s video at the link)

Say, which religion is totally OK with child marriage? Oh, sorry, not supposed to mention that, it is Islamophobia, and probably linked to ‘climate change’, as well. Really, a minor 1.5F increase in global temperatures in 160 years is connected? That’s why these people are part of a cult.

But, you know what? She might be correct. If the Warmists would stop blocking the use of inexpensive, proven, reliable energy sources in 3rd world shitholes developing nations, then those people would see the standards of living go up like in the 1st world, leading to better education, better women’s health, less regressive child marriage, and better access to technology.

The event was hosted by CARE, a left-wing 501(c)(3) public charity that agitates for international wealth redistribution under the guise of “foreign aid,” “international development,” and “humanitarianism.”

Prevalent themes of the event included “feminism” (framing females as oppressed relative to and by men across the entirety of human history), “social justice” (religious groups such as Muslims were framed as “marginalized” in America and the broader West; income and wealth inequality between varying groups), and positioning socialism as a remedy for poverty.

Despite the event’s stated concern in addressing “global poverty,” not a word was spoken on the value of property rights, free markets, the rule of law, free speech and expression, or representative government.

Because Leftists only want those things for themselves. Not Everyone Else.

Read: Chelsea Clinton: ‘Climate Change’ And Child Marriage Linked Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Special Snowflake Syndrome | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

OMG: Top Russian Aides Discussed How To Influence Trump Aides!!!!!!!!

By William Teach May 25, 2017 – 7:00 am

This is super serious, you guys! Top officials of countries have never discusses attempting to influence people in foreign nations!

Top Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer

American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers, according to three current and former American officials familiar with the intelligence.

The conversations focused on Paul Manafort, the Trump campaign chairman at the time, and Michael T. Flynn, a retired general who was advising Mr. Trump, the officials said. Both men had indirect ties to Russian officials, who appeared confident that each could be used to help shape Mr. Trump’s opinions on Russia.

Some Russians boasted about how well they knew Mr. Flynn. Others discussed leveraging their ties to Viktor F. Yanukovych, the deposed president of Ukraine living in exile in Russia, who at one time had worked closely with Mr. Manafort.

The intelligence was among the clues — which also included information about direct communications between Mr. Trump’s advisers and Russian officials — that American officials received last year as they began investigating Russian attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of Mr. Trump’s associates were assisting Moscow in the effort. Details of the conversations, some of which have not been previously reported, add to an increasing understanding of the alarm inside the American government last year about the Russian disruption campaign.

But, um, see, there’s a problem

(Daily Caller) The New York Times dropped another “bombshell” report on Russian influence on the 2016 election Wednesday, and once again what is presented as salacious news in the headline and lead is revealed to be anything but midway through the report.

“Months before the election, U.S. spies learned that top Russians had discussed ways to use Donald Trump’s advisers to influence him,” reads the headline blasted by TheNYT in a breaking news email. The story is clearly meant to further the “Trump colluded with Russia” narrative the media has pushed for months, although it’s as yet totally unsubstantiated.

TheNYT lead builds an atmosphere of wrongdoing around Trump and his campaign aides using important sounding buzzwords and phrases. “Spies” and “revealing” information and big-time Russian officials who “exert influence.” It’s quite official sounding and obviously intended to sow suspicion.

But the (few) readers who make it to the fifth paragraph and are paying attention will realize there’s not actually much meat to the report. That paragraph hedges on the information collected by the spies, and notes the reporter has no real clue whether Russian officials actually made any attempt to influence the Trump aides in question. Oh yeah and the Trump campaign as well as both aides have consistently denied the longstanding accusations of collusion with Russia.

It’s the 3 paragraph and/or 30 seconds rule of the Internet: people tend not to make it past those two metrics.

“The information collected last summer was considered credible enough for intelligence agencies to pass to the F.B.I., which during that period opened a counterintelligence investigation that is ongoing,” the paragraph reads. “It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn. Both have denied any collusion with the Russian government on the campaign to disrupt the election.”

What this report really boils down to is the “revelation” that senior Russian officials are interested in influencing important U.S. actors, and that American spies are mostly sure they had a conversation about it. Maybe newsworthy, but hardly a bombshell.

This is a constant among all the breathless news reports from the leftist media, with doomy headlines, salacious first couple of paragraphs, then a big letdown later in the article. There’s nothing that shows illegality among Trump associates, and the Russians were looking for influence because Putin wanted payback against Hillary and Obama. After all these months and months of accusations and there’s still no proof of illegality.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: OMG: Top Russian Aides Discussed How To Influence Trump Aides!!!!!!!! »

Posted in Journalistic Malpractice | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 24, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a world made violent by too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Fire Andrea Mitchell, with a post on ABC being concerned about a backlash in the wake of Manchester.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Local Meteorologist Wants Skeptics To Put Up Or Shut Up Or Something

By William Teach May 24, 2017 – 10:30 am

There was a time when local Raleigh weatherman for WRAL Greg Fishel simply did the weather, and, he’s damned good at it. If you want to know Raleigh and North Carolina weather, no one is better. When I want to know the local weather, if there’s something big going on, WRAL is the first place to go. Sorry, WNCN and WTVD. But, he’s become an uber-Warmist (who takes long fossil fueled trips to Alaska), and now has a challenge

‘Put up or shut up’: WRAL’s Greg Fishel goes off on climate change deniers

Popular local weatherman Greg Fishel had strong words for climate change deniers on his Facebook page on Sunday.

Fishel, chief meteorologist at WRAL, went off on people who question the science behind climate change, telling them to “put up or shut up.” The post had earned more than 3,500 reactions by Monday afternoon.

“You know everybody reaches their breaking point and quite frankly I have reached mine with the folks who post all over the internet about the scientific fallacies of man induced climate change,” Fishel wrote. “All of them are guest bloggers or essayists. None of this stuff has ever been published in a peer reviewed atmospheric science or climate journal. But we live in an age today where higher education and research are no longer respected. Heck, think of all the money my parents wasted on my education when I could have waited for the age of twitter and Facebook and declared myself as an expert in the field of my choice.”

First, let’s note that Mr. Fishel (who I’ve met in the past, nice guy) did not use the term “deniers”: that’s on the Raleigh N&O. I’m betting my comment at the screed which uses the terms Warmists, Alarmist, and Cult of Climastrology gets deleted rather quickly.

Regardless, I’ve challenged Greg in the past to put up or shut up, in terms of going carbon neutral in his own life. Giving up his own use of fossil fuels. He can go buy a Nissan Leaf, Tesla, or other straight plug-in vehicle. Get a Chevy Volt and pledge to never put gas in the reserve tank. Not take fossil fueled plane trips.Pay for offsets for his weather broadcasts while reducing the energy used.

Perhaps he’d like to take my yearly challenge, since he is attempting to shift the debate to the “hey, we’re experts, you aren’t, so shut up.” Of course, this means we aren’t supposed to listen to Obama, Gore, Dicaprio, and all the others yapping about the issue.

Read: Local Meteorologist Wants Skeptics To Put Up Or Shut Up Or Something »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 23 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Budget Requests $4.5 Billion To Deal With Illegal Immigration

By William Teach May 24, 2017 – 8:04 am

This is the budget that Democrats are having conniptions fits over, because it mostly requests big, big cuts. One thing they do not understand, as most of them have spent seemingly their whole lives in the un-reality of elected politics, is that the budget request is a starting point of a negotiation, much like when someone goes into a car dealer and trots out a massive lowball number while the dealer goes with sticker. There’s a compromise point there. And when it comes to illegal immigration, we get

(Mother Jones) While he’s still waiting for Mexico to agree to pay for his “big, beautiful” border wall, President Donald Trump is asking for $1.6 billion for, as Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney put it, the barrier’s “bricks and mortar.” An unnamed source told CNN that the money requested in the newly released 2018 budget proposal would cover just a few dozen miles of wall.

The proposed wall spending represents a significant portion of the more than $4.5 billion the White House is requesting for immigration enforcement and a border protection package whose wish list ranges from communications equipment and surveillance technology to aircraft and weapons. It also includes $1.5 billion to expand its efforts to detain and deport undocumented immigrants, as well as $300 million to recruit, hire, and train 1,500 new immigration agents, a step toward Trump’s call to add 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and 5,000 Customs and Border Protection agents. (According to CBP estimates, it would likely take as long as a decade to pull off hiring as many people as Trump wants, and it would have to ease the hiring standards to do so.)

Under Trump’s budget, the Department of Justice would get $7.2 million to hire 70 new prosecutors “to support an increase in immigration law enforcement” and focus on serious crimes committed by immigrants, as well as immigration-related offenses such as reentry after deportation. To help clear the years-long backlog in the immigration courts—there are currently 542,000 pending cases before 301 judges—the DOJ would also receive $75 million to hire 75 new immigration judges and support staff.

This is the type of information that sends supporters of people who are unlawfully present into apoplexy, bur, for the rest of us who are tired of illegal aliens

The budget, as we see at Politico, also goes after sanctuary cities, by requesting that Homeland Security funding is denied to those cities that ignore detainers.

One thing he’s missing in the budget request is on illegal overstayes

(Washington Times) The nexus of illegal immigration into the U.S. has shifted away from the southwest border and into the country’s air and sea ports, where more than 54 million visitors checked in last year — and nearly 630,000 of them didn’t go home, according to new numbers released Monday.

Known as visa overstays, the visitors present a different challenge than the border crossers, and one that Homeland Security officials are still trying to figure out how to handle.

Quite a few of these were overstays by students, and most were long term overstays. It might be worthwhile for immigration enforcement to initiate a crackdown, putting those illegals on notice.

Read: Trump Budget Requests $4.5 Billion To Deal With Illegal Immigration »

Posted in Donald Trump, Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

In Wake Of Manchester Bombing, NY Times Calls For Respecting Hardcore Islamists

By William Teach May 24, 2017 – 7:42 am

This is a dance we’ve seen time and time again. A person who practices extremist Islam, referred to as an Islamist, attacks in the name of their religion, and the Leftist apologists immediately go into a mode of “let’s not be mean to Muslims or talk about the root causes and we all need to be respectful and diverse”, even though the Islamists offer no respect and are happy to kill those who aren’t Islamists, including other Muslims. The NY Times Editorial Board gives it a whirl

When Terrorists Target Children

Every victim of terrorism is innocent, and every one is to be mourned. But the bombing in Manchester, England, on Monday night that killed teenage or even younger fans of the pop star Ariana Grande, many accompanied by their parents and some clutching the pink balloons Ms. Grande had sent sweetly raining down at the end of her concert, is particularly wrenching. (snip)

The Islamic State wants nothing more than to watch Western democracies embrace its mad version of a holy war pitting Muslims against Christians, the newly arrived against others. This has been the goal of other attacks in Europe. With cold calculation, extremists have ripped apart the lives of people simply out enjoying themselves — whether at a concert or sitting around cafe tables in Paris in November 2015, or gathering for Bastille Day fireworks in Nice last year, or shopping at a Christmas market in Berlin in December.

Everything is a lead-up to

Maximum vigilance is needed, and Britain raised its threat level from severe to critical. Public spaces must be made as safe as possible, even as people recognize that more attacks will very likely occur, despite our best defenses. In Britain, as in the rest of Europe and in the United States, it is critical that immigrants, especially Muslims, are not stigmatized. As Richard Barrett, former director of global counterterrorism operations at MI6, Britain’s foreign intelligence agency, said, “engaging the community and letting the community inform us” is one way “to understand why people do this” and to prevent future attacks.

Understanding is critical. The quickest way for open societies to lose the freedoms they enjoy and the Islamic State seeks to destroy would be to whip up divisive ethnic, racist and religious hatreds. But there will be those who try. The Daily Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson tweeted on Tuesday: “We need a State of Emergency as France has. We need internment of thousands of terror suspects now to protect our children.” Then there was the unbelievably vile tweet by Katie Hopkins, a British commentator: “We need a final solution.” She later changed “final” to “true” in a new tweet after her original was widely condemned.

Got that? It’s more important to be diverse and nice and stuff to people who are good with hanging gays, repressing women, stoning adulterers, and so much more, and who essentially use our own laws, social mores, and founding documents against Western nations to slowly take over. Seriously, that tweet caused more concern amongst the Progressive forces (it’s being investigated by the police, if you can believe it) than the Islamist suicide attack that killed 22 and injured scores, most of them children.

(Gatestone Institute) The 615-page survey found that more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts. Moreover, only one in three British Muslims (34%) would contact the police if they believed that somebody close to them had become involved with jihadists.

In addition, 23% of British Muslims said Islamic Sharia law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations.

On social issues, 52% of the Muslims surveyed said they believe homosexuality should be illegal, compared to 22% of non-Muslim Britons. Nearly half believe it is unacceptable for a gay or lesbian to teach their children. At the same time, almost a third (31%) of British Muslims think polygamy should be legalized. Among 18-to-24-year-olds, 35% think it is acceptable to have more than one wife.

That’s part of a 2016 poll. There’s a large and ever-growing population of Muslims which is being radicalized. Should we tolerate that? Is it OK with the NYTEB that gays are stigmatized by Islamists? Should we prioritize being nice to Islamists over protecting gays and women?

Interestingly, the NY Times, including the Editorial Board and all the opinion writers, had no problem fomenting division with the rise of #BlackLivesMatter. They had no problem whipping up division bey demonizing white people, police, those from “flyover country”, and anyone who was a Trump supporter. They still do this. Yet, at the same time, they seek to protect the hardcore Islamists.

Look at the text in red: engagement and such doesn’t work when only 34% would bother informing authorities if someone becomes a jihadi. Perhaps it’s time to stigmatize a bit, so that Muslims can put their foot down on the ever growing extremists issue within their religion. Or, let’s be honest, they can go back to where they came from and practice their 8th Century religion there.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: In Wake Of Manchester Bombing, NY Times Calls For Respecting Hardcore Islamists »

Posted in Liberal World, SM Friday | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

BBC Leftist: Brits Are Going To Have To Get Use To Islamic Terror Attacks

By William Teach May 23, 2017 – 3:14 pm

Hey, remember when they said that Brits had to get used to attacks from the I.R.A?

(Daily Caller)  According to BBC Anchor Katty Kay, Europeans have to get used to terror attacks like the Manchester bombing.

Kay told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Tuesday that Europeans have no choice but to get used to terrorists murdering their families because “we are never going to be able to totally wipe this out.”

“Europe is getting used to attacks like this, Mika. They have to, because we are never going to be able to totally wipe this out,” Kay said.

“As ISIS gets squeezed in Syria and Iraq, we’re going to see more of these kinds of attacks taking place in Europe and Europe is starting to get used to that.”

Look, you may never be able to stamp out radical Islam and the Islamists who practice it and practice it, but you can certainly reduce the danger and chance of attacks by stop letting the Islamists in to the U.K, and stamping out the Islamists who are already in the U.K.

Stop coddling this regressive, violent, gay and women hating, murderous, etc religious ideology. We don’t have to tolerate it. Sure, more are killed by drunk drivers. Do we tolerate that, or put our foot down? As one commenter noted

If only Churchill had had her wisdom, a great many German lives would have been spared. All of England would have been overrun, but that’s her point isn’t it? Peace is always one quick surrender away.

Meanwhile, the Daily Caller notes the difference between Obama commenting on the Pulse Nightclub terrorist attack and Trump on the Manchester attack.

Read: BBC Leftist: Brits Are Going To Have To Get Use To Islamic Terror Attacks »

Posted in Liberal World, RoP | 6 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove