If All You See…

By William Teach May 10, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is an area flooding from too much drought, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on the dumbest thing seen all day. And it’s beyond insane.

Read: If All You See… »

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

HB2 Hurt North Carolina So Much It Generated Record Visitor Revenue For 2016

By William Teach May 10, 2017 – 10:15 am

Huh. This is weird. The media constantly beat the gong that HB2, the so-called Bathroom Bill, would really hurt North Carolina economically. You had Progressive states implementing “travel bans” on the government dime (yet refusing to say what the bathroom policies were in government buildings in their states). But, hey, what’s this!

(WRAL) North Carolina Secretary of Commerce Anthony M. Copeland announced Monday that North Carolina tourism generated record visitor spending in 2016 with a total of $22.9 billion, a 4.3 percent increase from 2015.

“Nearly 50 million people from across the United States visited North Carolina destinations last year,” Copeland said. “The money they spent supported 218,340 jobs and more than 45,000 businesses.”

Tourism industry-supported employment topped 218,000 jobs to set another record for the state.

These are facts, not opinions. It’s quite apparent that most people really aren’t concerned with the gender confused being told that government cannot force private businesses to accommodate them, and that government cannot force women and girls to have their privacy invaded in their bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms by confused biological males.

Read: HB2 Hurt North Carolina So Much It Generated Record Visitor Revenue For 2016 »

Posted in NC News | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

The Next Climate Threshold Could Maybe Possibly Come In 15 Years Or Something

By William Teach May 10, 2017 – 8:18 am

The next failed tipping point is just on the horizon! Everybody panic!

Earth could break through a major climate threshold in the next 15 years, study says

Global temperatures could exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius above their preindustrial levels within the next 15 years, according to a new scientific study, crossing the first threshold under the Paris climate agreement and placing the world at a potentially dangerous level of climate change.

The report comes as climate agreement participants are watching the United States — where the Trump administration is debating whether to withdraw from the Paris accord — and as scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are working on a special report about the 1.5-degree goal (equivalent to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) and the consequences of overshooting it.

According to the vast majority of computer models, that threshold should have been crossed years ago. I wonder what went wrong?

That IPCC’s upcoming special report and the increasing urgency about minimizing global warming were one impetus for the study, according to co-author Benjamin Henley, a research fellow at the University of Melbourne in Australia. “We are working on a number of scientific avenues to help inform that report,” he told The Washington Post.

In other words, this was a political, not scientific, document. It’s meant for policy makers, the same ones who continuously use lots and lots of fossil fuels running around the world to their conferences while demanding that Everyone Else be stopped by Government from using fossil fuels. Oh, and recommending lots of fees and taxes along with more Governmental control of people’s lives. That’s what this is all about.

Meanwhile, President Trump will hold off on his decision regarding the Paris Climate Agreement till after the G7. This is getting tiresome, and makes me wonder if he’ll ever keep his promise to cancel America’s involvement in it.

Read: The Next Climate Threshold Could Maybe Possibly Come In 15 Years Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

NY Times: Trump’s Firing Of James Comey Was All About Russia Russia Russia

By William Teach May 10, 2017 – 8:05 am

By now you certainly know about President Trump firing FBI Director James Comey. Here’s the pink slip

https://twitter.com/spettypi/status/862061268714348544

You can see a more detailed rationale here, via Hot Air.

Of course, this has sent all the Democrats and media figures who wanted Comey fired last year to go Full Moonbat. Politico is wondering if this is a Constitutional crisis, a question not asked when President Bill Clinton fired his FBI director. And a crisis of American rule of law. And we’re getting stories about this being like Watergate and Nixonian. And all Russia Russia Russia. Here’s the freakout from the Editorial Board of the NY Times

Donald Trump’s Firing of James Comey

The American people — not to mention the credibility of the world’s oldest democracy — require a thorough, impartial investigation into the extent of Russia’s meddling with the 2016 presidential election on behalf of Donald Trump and, crucially, whether high-ranking members of Mr. Trump’s campaign colluded in that effort.

By firing the F.B.I. director, James Comey, late Tuesday afternoon, President Trump has cast grave doubt on the viability of any further investigation into what could be one of the biggest political scandals in the country’s history.

So far, when asked, no federally elected Democrat, whether in the House or Senate, can answer that they have any evidence that links the Trump campaign to Russia. They have their talking points when in front of their constituents, but, when actually on the record, they say “nope, none.”

The media, from the NY Times to Washington Post to the Big 3 networks to all the smaller outlets to overseas outlets have spent lots and lots of time on this whole Russia thing, and, you can bet, lots of time attempting to investigate and find the smoking gun. After all these months, there is no evidence. Innuendo from partisans, but no evidence.

Did Russia attempt to influence the election? Well, sure. Just like they attempted with France. Just like Obama just attempted with France. Just like Team Obama attempted with Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries. Just like Team Obama tried with Brexit. Just like the sitting U.S. president attempted to get Hillary elected. The U.S., for right or wrong, has meddled in plenty of countries and elections, just like Russia did. Had Hillary won, there would have been lots of talking points about Russia getting her elected. It was a win win for Putin and Russia, causing more turmoil between the Left and Right.

The explanation for this shocking move — that Mr. Comey’s bungling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server violated longstanding Justice Department policy and profoundly damaged public trust in the agency — is impossible to take at face value. Certainly Mr. Comey deserves all the criticism heaped upon him for his repeatedmissteps in that case, but just as certainly, that’s not the reason Mr. Trump fired him. (snip)

Mr. Comey was fired because he was leading an active investigation that could bring down a president. Though compromised by his own poor judgment, Mr. Comey’s agency has been pursuing ties between the Russian government and Mr. Trump and his associates, with potentially ruinous consequences for the administration.

Obviously, the NY Times EB have a psychic on staff now. If Comey had any information, Trump would have been worried that firing him would allow Comey to speak out, would he not? Comey would become a whistleblower. Mr. Trump has no concerns, because there is no evidence, no matter how much the partisan media folks at the NY Times want there to be. Does anyone not think that the big shots at the Times aren’t spending lots of time and money on attempting to find evidence? You know they were pushing hard before the election, and now, 7 months later, they still have exactly nothing.

Time to move on, Democrats. This rabbit hole is empty.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times: Trump’s Firing Of James Comey Was All About Russia Russia Russia »

Posted in Donald Trump, Journalistic Malpractice, Unhinged Tools | 57 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 9, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a wall needed to protect cities from rising seas,  you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Political Clown Parade, with a post on Trump being the love pirate.

BTW, I’m still cleaning out the IAYS folder. Amazing how it builds up with unused photos for weekly themes.

Did someone say clowns?

Read More »

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

ACLU Has Hissy Fit Over Texas Sanctuary Jurisdiction Bill

By William Teach May 9, 2017 – 12:47 pm

Apoplexy Level 10 (via Twitchy)

Talk about fear-mongering, but, hey, this actually helps keep the illegals out. Oh, and they should probably read the bill. Oh, and they should probably stand up for the rights of legal citizens and those authorized to be lawfully in the U.S. over those who are unlawfully present.

Read: ACLU Has Hissy Fit Over Texas Sanctuary Jurisdiction Bill »

Posted in Bad ACLU, Illegal Immigration | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Gore: Watching The News Is Like A Walk Through The Book Of Revelations Or Something

By William Teach May 9, 2017 – 10:30 am

It’s good hearing about the doooooooom from anthropogenic climate from a guy with multiple non-carbon friendly homes and travels around the world on fossil fueled private jets

(Hollywood Reporter) The former vice president spoke before an advance screening of his latest documentary, ‘An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.’

“Every night on the news is like a nature hike through the Book of Revelation,” Al Gore said Saturday night when asked his opinion of how the news media reports on climate change. “And I’ll wait for the newscasters to connect the dots,” he continued, adding that they rarely do.

Gore spoke about the state of the news media and its effect on the conversation surrounding global climate change at a Q&A before an advance screening of his his latest documentary, An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, held at the Greek Theatre in Los Angeles.

In other words, “let me scare the snot out of people in order to make some money off my movie. Now I’m going to go back to my giant carbon footprint lifestyle made possible by scaring idiots like you.”

Read: Gore: Watching The News Is Like A Walk Through The Book Of Revelations Or Something »

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

NY Times Seems Rather Shocked That Legal Immigrants Are Against Illegal Immigration

By William Teach May 9, 2017 – 7:13 am

It’s funny how this works. People spend lots of time and money, and have to follow every law, no matter how small, in order to earn the right to become an actual U.S. citizen, and they aren’t really fond of those who blow off American law by either coming here unlawfully or overstaying their visas, and then demanding that they be made citizens

Sanctuary Bills in Maryland Faced a Surprise Foe: Legal Immigrants

When lawmakers in Howard County, Md., a stretch of suburbia between Washington and Baltimore, declared their intention to make the county a sanctuary for people living in the country illegally, J. D. Ma thought back to how hard he had worked studying English as a boy in Shanghai.

Stanley Salazar, a native of El Salvador, worried that the violent crime already plaguing Maryland’s suburbs attributed to immigrant gangs would eventually touch his own daughters.

Hongling Zhou, who had been a student in Beijing during the Tiananmen Square uprising, feared an influx of undocumented immigrants, and their children, would cripple the public schools.

At first blush, making Howard County a sanctuary for undocumented immigrants had seemed a natural move: The county has twice as many Democrats as Republicans and a highly educated population, full of scientists and engineers. One in five residents was born abroad.

But the bill met stout opposition from an unlikely source: some of those very same foreign-born residents.

It’s only a surprise in Liberal World, where they feel that immigrants who did it the right way, the legal way, would be supportive of those who did it the wrong way, the unlawful way.

In passionate testimony before county legislators, and in tense debates with liberal neighbors born in the United States, legal immigrants argued that offering sanctuary to people who came to the country illegally devalued their own past struggles to gain citizenship.

Some even felt it threatened their hard-won hold on the American dream.

It is a long process to become a U.S. citizen. It involves filling out applications and having many documents and photos. Have your biometrics taken (which get submitted to the FBI for checking). Learn English, and take an English and civics test. Take a naturalization interview. And, finally, take the oath of citizenship. This process can be stopped anywhere along the way for numerous reasons, like missing deadlines and, get this, breaking laws. So, yeah, simply giving illegals lawful status, even citizenship, devalues those who did it the lawful way.

Their objections stunned Democratic supporters of sanctuary here and helped bring about the bill’s demise in March. A similar proposal for the state collapsed this month in the Maryland Senate, where Democrats also hold a two-to-one advantage. Some of the same immigrants spoke out against it.

Stunned! If you spent a lot of time and hard work to get to a certain position in a company, earning it, and the company brought in someone who had no experience, hadn’t done the same time or hard work anywhere else, and gave them the same salary and title and responsibilities, would you be a happy camper?

The rest of the article are the stories from four people who followed the process and became citizens, none of whom are happy about how Democrats think about illegal aliens. They see being here in America and being a citizen as an earned privilege. They blow up the Democratic Party talking points on illegal aliens, such as the whole separating families argument. How this article made it into print at the NY Times is shocking.

Read: NY Times Seems Rather Shocked That Legal Immigrants Are Against Illegal Immigration »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

ACLU: Why, Yes, The Travel Ban Would Be Constitutional If A President Hillary Enacted It

By William Teach May 9, 2017 – 6:47 am

Surprise?

(NTKNetwork) ACLU Lawyer Omar Jadwat, arguing against President Trump’s travel ban before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday, admitted that the same exact travel ban “could be” constitutional if it were enacted by Hillary Clinton.

Jadwat argued that Trump’s campaign animus motivated the order, making it illegitimate. This claim was challenged by the Fourth Circuit’s Judge Paul Niemeyer.

“If a different candidate had won the election and then issued this order, I gather you wouldn’t have any problem with that?” Niemeyer asked.

Jadwat dodged on directly answering the question at first, but Niemeyer persisted, asking the question again.

Jadwat again tried to avoid the question, asking for clarification on the hypothetical, but Niemeyer once again demanded an answer.

“We have a candidate who won the presidency, some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency and then chose to issue this particular order, with whatever counsel he took,” Niemeyer said. “Do I understand that just in that circumstance, the executive order should be honored?”

“Yes, your honor, I think in that case, it could be constitutional,” Jadwat admitted.

So, essentially, this is all about Trump Derangement Syndrome, as well as Liberals, Democrats, and groups like the ACLU being against whatever a Republican president does simply because that person is a Republican. (there’s audio of the exchange at the link).

(Powerline) The Democrats who attacked President Trump’s travel order in front of carefully-selected Democratic judges made the extraordinary claim that the President’s statements on the stump, as a candidate, were somehow relevant to whether the order was constitutional. This claim implies that an order may be unconstitutional if issued by one president, while the exact same order would be perfectly fine if issued by another. This is an absurd result.

It may be absurd, but it is what the Democrats believe. ACLU lawyer Omar Jadwat, arguing today before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, told the court that President Trump’s travel order “could be constitutional” if it had been written by Hillary Clinton.

Also in the audio, Jadwat is asked if the order was valid, and answered no, because “the order was unprecedented”, to which a flabergasted justice answered “So the first order on anything is invalid?”

Unless it was President Hillary giving the order. Then it would have been cool with the ACLU and liberals.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: ACLU: Why, Yes, The Travel Ban Would Be Constitutional If A President Hillary Enacted It »

Posted in Bad ACLU, Donald Trump | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See Goes Dark

By William Teach May 8, 2017 – 10:09 pm

Had to take this one just a little bit evil.

Read: If All You See Goes Dark »

Posted in Like, Gnarly, Dude | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove