Could The Border Wall Be Going Green?

By William Teach April 5, 2017 – 3:20 pm

I’m no fan of a long, long border wall. In certain areas, sure. I prefer other methods, part of which are way more border patrol agents. But, hey, if we’re going to have one, why not do this?

(CNS News)  Gen. Jack Kelly, the secretary of homeland security, told Congress on Wednesday there’s “no way” he can estimate how much President Trump’s long-promised border wall will cost.

“I mean, I don’t know what it will be made of; I don’t know how high it will be; I don’t know if it’s going to have solar panels on the side, what one side’s going to look like and how it’s going to be painted — I have no idea. So I can’t give you any type of an estimate.

Now, Gen. Kelly might have been responding to a question from a Congresscritter, I’m not finding anything more concrete. Plenty of articles mentioning the quote, but, not what might have precipitated it. But, would it be a bad idea to have solar panels on the wall? Why not use it for energy production, part of which could be used for cameras, lights, etc?

It’d be hilarious if enviroweenies were protesting the emplacement of solar panels, wouldn’t it?

Jazz Shaw points at that some contractors are making bids that would include solar panels. And aesthetically pleasing art. And decking.

General Kelly also stated

“The barriers work. Technology also works. But all of it doesn’t work at all unless you have men and women who are willing to patrol the border, develop relationships which they do with their Mexican counterparts directly across the border.”

He seems to be a fan more of manpower than walls/fences along the entire border.

Read: Could The Border Wall Be Going Green? »

Posted in Current Affairs, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 5, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a fence needed to keep out all the wild animals driven from their homes due to carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Maggie’s Farm, with a post on Wednesday Morning Links.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

ESPN Decides To Double Down On Social Justice Warrioring

By William Teach April 5, 2017 – 10:30 am

Because, as Kemberlee Kay at Legal Insurrection notes, “Because what viewers want is MORE politics in their sports…” And

Oh, so you just want to watch sports? Listen to people talk about sports? Hear stats about sports? You’d like to escape from the daily grind with sports? Uh uh uh

(ESPN) Stiegman said no single issue or incident led to the change, but Craig Bengtson, ESPN’s vice president and managing editor of newsgathering and reporting, said the nation’s tense political climate did play a role.

“We have the convergence of a politically charged environment and all these new technologies coming together at once,” he said. “Based on that, we wanted the policy to reflect the reality of the world today. There are people talking about politics in ways we have not seen before, and we’re not immune from that.”

And the changes?

The two most notable changes from the Political Advocacy policy are the delineation of guidelines between news and commentary, and allowing for increased political discussion on ESPN platforms, as warranted and connected to sports. This isn’t a surprising development, it’s just new.

“We wanted to err on the side of transparency and trust with our reporting,” Stiegman said, “but also give our columnists and commentators the freedom to discuss topics relevant to those sports fans who visit our platforms, even if the issues are political or social in nature.”

I turn into ESPN for, get this, sports. Or, at least, I used to. Now, the only time I watch ESPN is football games, when they broadcast the Dodgers, and some football programming on Sunday. Oh, and when it is on at the gym and I’m on the treadmill or stationary bike. Otherwise, there is little interest. They don’t show that much in relation to the NHL, Baseball Tonight has become lame, and I can see all the scores and replays either on the ‘net or on another sports channel. And lots of people are doing the same. As Kemberlee notes, ESPN is hemorrhaging more customers than people with Ebola hemorrhage blood.

I’m not interested in the the loud mouths, and, by loud mouths, I mean people TALKING REALLY, REALLY LOUD. Or speaking in Ebonics. Or by being Jim Rome clones (if I want to hear that, I’ll listen to Rome). Or the politics. If I want lefty politics, MSNBC is there. I have Spectrum News, Fox, MSNBC, Headline News, CNN, Bloomberg, CNBC, BBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, and plenty of others on the TV for news. I have the MLB channel, NFL Network, NHL channel, NBC Sports, CBS Sports, Fox Sports, Golf, and plenty of others for sports. I don’t need ESPN. I have no way of not paying for it, unless I ditch cable altogether.

And, let me be clear: if a sports channel was taking the Conservative side in discussing politics in sports, I wouldn’t watch them, either.

Can’t we just watch sports?

Read: ESPN Decides To Double Down On Social Justice Warrioring »

Posted in Sports, Unhinged Tools | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Is Climate Science Pseudo-science?

By William Teach April 5, 2017 – 7:55 am

An interesting post by co2 is life (via Climate Depot)

Climate “Science” is Pseudo-Science; A Point-by-Point Proof

The graphic says all that is needed, however, the article goes into further detail

Point 1) Climate Science started with the conclusion that man-made CO2 causes warming, and then set about to find anecdotal evidence to support that claim. Evidence of this is that none of the computer models can demonstrate that relationship, nor do any properly run experiments. Additionally, conflicting data like the N Pole losing ice and the S Pole gaining ice is simply glossed over, and the focus is directed towards the observation that favors the conclusion. Lastly, only the “adjusted” data sets show warming. If adjustments are made for the heat island effect and solar radiation, there is no notable warming. Long-term, consistent, continual thermometer data show no warming either.

Head over to read them all. If you can continue to state that climate science from Warmists is science, well, you’re too wrapped up in your narrow, cult-like, political views. And you still can’t prove that mankind’s release of CO2 is the cause of this warm period, which is a very mild warm period, compared to other Holocene warm periods.

Let’s consider the 2nd and last bullet points on the list, hostile towards criticism and dogmatic and unyielding. Remember when I told you that science teachers were being sent a book on skeptical climate science?

(Washington Times) Three ranking House Democrats on Monday urged teachers to throw away copies of a book written by climate scientists challenging the catastrophic global-warming view, saying the nation’s schools are “inappropriate” forums for such a discussion.

The Democratic blast at “climate deniers” came in response to a campaign by the conservative Heartland Institute to distribute free DVDs and copies of the 2015 book, “Why Climate Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” to about 200,000 K-12 science teachers.

Science should be open. Scientists should be willing to consider alternative viewpoints. It doesn’t mean they have to adopt them, but, if they’re afraid they might conflict with their current beliefs, so they shouldn’t even be considered, then those scientific beliefs are not science, they are politics and psuedo-religious.

Read: Is Climate Science Pseudo-science? »

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

California Senate Approves Bill Making State An Illegal Alien Sanctuary

By William Teach April 5, 2017 – 7:39 am

In the latest ICE Declined Detainer Outcome Report, we see illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes such as domestic violence, assault, burglary, cruelty towards a child, and drug possession. On the previous one, we see arson, DUI, cruelty towards wife, forgery, along with similar crimes on the first.

(CNN) In defiance of President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, the California Senate passed a bill to limit state and local police cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Senate Bill 54, which unofficially has been called a “sanctuary state” bill, bars state and local law enforcement agencies from using their resources, including money, facility, property, equipment or personnel, to help with immigration enforcement. They would be prohibited from asking about immigration status, giving federal immigration authorities access to interview a person in custody or assisting them in immigration enforcement.

The bill passed the Senate in a 27-12 vote along party lines with Democrats in support and Republicans in opposition.

SB 54 heads to the California State Assembly, where Democrats hold a super majority. If it passes there, the bill would go to Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown.

Its author, Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León hailed SB 54’s passage on Monday as “a rejection of President Trump’s false and cynical portrayal of undocumented residents as a lawless community.”

All those crimes mentioned at the beginning of this post? They are all committed by people who are unlawfully present in the United States who were released back into society by California municipalities/counties rather than holding them briefly for ICE to take them into custody. What happened to illegal alien supporters stating that they don’t want the bad ones here?

Well, California wants to double down on the policies that release convicted illegal alien criminals back into society to commit more crimes, because of their deranged anti-Trump beliefs, and, lets face it, because liberals mostly support illegal alien criminals. Refusing to give federal authorities access to illegals? Remember when we were told that States have to listen to the feds during the SB1070 debate, the Arizona illegal alien law?

What Mr. Trump should do if this law makes it to Jerry Brown’s desk and he signs it, he should say “fine. We’ll allow you to deal with it. And we won’t send out federal authorities to help you out with anything. You’re on your own. And, since ICE won’t bother with California, all illegals should go there to be protected.” It’d be fun watching California collapse as illegals stream into the state more than they already are.

The bill even states that the feds wouldn’t be notified prior to an illegal being released from incarceration for committing a crime. So, apparently, the whole talking point about not wanting the bad ones is a lie.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: California Senate Approves Bill Making State An Illegal Alien Sanctuary »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

EPA Head Scott Pruitt Could Be In Trouble For Wrongthink

By William Teach April 4, 2017 – 2:34 pm

Some get upset when I refer to anthropogenic climate change believers as being part of a cult. Part of being a member of a cult is refusing to allow any divergent viewpoints, while sticking with a narrow, rigid dogma that they’ll use to persecute non-believers

EPA head Scott Pruitt may have broken integrity rules by denying global warming

Well, this is a new one.

Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is under investigation by his own agency for misstating the basic scientific consensus on human-caused global warming.

Turns out that providing misguiding scientific information to the public isn’t a cool thing to do, after all — even in the Trump administration.

Why?

But Pruitt may have crossed a legal line when, during an interview on March 9 with CNBC’s “Squawk Box” morning show, he denied the reality of human-caused climate change, contradicting findings published on his own agency’s website.

“I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” Pruitt said, when asked if he thinks carbon dioxide emissions are the main “control knob” on the planet’s climate.

Wrongthink! How dare anyone disagree with the scientific political consensus?

The policy also states that policy makers “… Shall not knowingly misrepresent, exaggerate, or downplay areas of scientific uncertainty associated with policy decisions.”

Of course, what Pruitt did is the opposite: he acknowledged there’s a scientific uncertainty. And committed Wrongthink. Which, in Warmist World, is an offense requiring jail time.

Really, if the Cult of Climastrology was so certain of it’s conclusions, they wouldn’t be afraid to debate, nor to attempt to persecute people with differing views.

Read: EPA Head Scott Pruitt Could Be In Trouble For Wrongthink »

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

Sanctuary City Santa Cruz Attempts To Shield “Call Girl Killer”

By William Teach April 4, 2017 – 1:00 pm

Remember when Democrats told us that they only wanted to protect the “good immigrants”, not those convicted of crimes?

From the article

Alix Tichelman, the woman who made international headlines as the “harbor hooker” and “call girl killer,” was taken away by Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents after she was released from a Santa Cruz jail last week, sources told KSBW.

ICE had requested that deputies place Tichelman on an immigration hold, but they refused, because doing so went against the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office policies with handling inmates who are illegal immigrants.

ICE agents were still able to find Tichelman as soon as she was freed and took her into federal custody, sources told KSBW’s Phil Gomez.

Tichelman was born in Canada.

ICE decided to show up early and take custody of Tichelman, who served two years in prison after she pleaded guilty in May of 2015 to felony involuntary manslaughter and administering drugs for the death of millionaire Google executive Forrest Timothy Hayes.

This is the type of person, who was a serious drug user, prostitute, and convicted of a felony which involved another person’s death, that Democrats are attempting to protect.

Read: Sanctuary City Santa Cruz Attempts To Shield “Call Girl Killer” »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 4, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…red high heels, which are a symptom of the patriarchy and women are hurt from climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jammie Wearing Fools, with a post on CNN rushing to Susan Rice’s defense.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Surprise: Warmist’s March On Washington Turns Into A Hotbed Of Racial Whining

By William Teach April 4, 2017 – 8:22 am

How bad is it? This bad

From the Heat Street article

The March for Science is having a tough time deciding whether the march should focus on “diversity and inclusion” or health and climate policy.

They were supposed to have gotten their internal issues under control, but this week a new fight broke out over whether Bill Nye the Science Guy, the former children’s television host who considers himself the leader of the “pro-science movement” should lead the protest. The problem? Nye is a “white male.”

Nye, who is not, in fact, a scientist, except on television (he’s an engineer by trade), was slated to be the March’s chair, and an announcement was made last week. But organizers quickly panicked that having Nye at the forefront of the event meant they might be substantiating the idea that scientists are only old white men.

Again, Nye actually isn’t a scientist, but whatever.

“I love Bill Nye,” said Stephani Page, a member of the March’s board, who was critical of what she considered the March’s lack of diversity. “But I do feel comfortable saying to you what I said to the steering committee: He is a white male, and in that way he does represent the status quo of science, of what it is to be a scientist.”

Nye suddenly found out what happens when one is a target of the Social Justice Warrior crowd

For his part, Nye just seemed sort of confused about the whole thing, telling BuzzFeed, “I was born a dorky white guy who became an engineer. I’m playing the hand I was dealt. We can’t—this march can’t solve every problem all at once.”

The march is supposed to be about science, and, specifically, climate science. It was meant to be a protest against Donald Trump’s disbelief in anthropogenic climate change/global warming, and how he has appointed lots of skeptics to positions. Instead, if you cruise their Twitter feed, you’ll see a big focus on

  • diversity
  • the gender confused (trans people)
  • gender overall
  • race
  • women in STEM (which forgets that lots of women CHOOSE to not take science, technology, engineering, and math degrees. In fact, leftist/feminist doctrine steers them into non-STEM degrees)
  • racial politics

and so much more Social Justice Warrioring, going all the way back to a tweet they deleted

Like most Leftist marches, this one has become muddled with all their Social Warrior beliefs. The signs (so many of which will be astroturfed) at the march on April 22nd are sure to be amusing.

Read: Surprise: Warmist’s March On Washington Turns Into A Hotbed Of Racial Whining »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Washington Post: Senate Democrats Are About To Make A Mistake On Gorsuch

By William Teach April 4, 2017 – 7:54 am

Despite some attempts to pin some blame on Senate Republicans for the stalemate in the Senate over the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, the Washington Post Editorial Board ends up pinning this on Democrats

The Senate is on the brink of an historic mistake

THE STANDOFF over Judge Neil Gorsuch’s Supreme Court nomination is the latest episode in a years-long cycle of political retribution that has diminished the Senate and harmed the country. It nevertheless represents a depressing new low. Senator after senator acknowledges that the body is about to make a historic mistake, setting precedent and changing procedures in a way that will, over time, erode the quality of both the Senate and the judiciary. But few seem interested in defusing the dispute.

Democrats are preparing to filibuster a well-qualified judge, marking the first time a partisan filibuster has been mounted against a high court nominee. In response, Republicans are preparing to change the rules and eliminate the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees, ending the minority party’s ability to demand meaningful consultation on presidential appointments to any major office (since Democrats, when they were in the majority, had already abolished the filibuster for other nominations). The Senate’s 52 Republicans cannot overcome a filibuster of Mr. Gorsuch without the help of eight Democrats. But they can permanently change Senate rules by simple majority vote.

Obviously, the Democrats are using the excuse of Republicans blocking Obama’s pick, Merrick Garland. The Washington Post EB mentions this, but, forgets to mention the Biden Rule, which is about there being different standards for judicial nominees during election years.

Anger about the majority leader’s cynical power play may be clouding Democrats’ judgment, even about their own tactical interests. They have tried to paint Mr. Gorsuch as unacceptably radical, despite the fact that former Obama administration officials, the American Bar Association and many others have deemed him well-qualified to serve. Moreover, postponing the discussion over abolishing the filibuster until Mr. Trump’s next nomination, if any, would put Democrats in a stronger position and at least might pressure the president to select a more reasonable nominee next time than he otherwise might.

In other words, Democrats should be less obstructive, and stop acting like pouty children. I’m listening to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse whine about needing a court that calls balls and strikes, yet, he, like so many Democrats, voted for Obama’s far left activist Supreme Court judges. And Lindsay Graham makes a good point

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that in the case of a Democratic filibuster to Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination he was “going to vote to change the rules because I’m not going to be a part of a Senate where Democrats get their judges and a Republican can never get theirs, that’s not what it’s all about.”

Obama appointed activists Sonia Sotomayer and Elana Kagan. In both cases, Republicans allowed the final vote for their confirmation, despite knowing that Obama was looking for activist judges, per his own words during the 2008 campaign season. Republicans usually give in. Partly because that’s what the elected ones do. And it’s part of Senate tradition.

And we shouldn’t forget about Harry Reid invoking the nuclear option for lower court judges. There were few complaints from liberals and the Washington Post about that. The same WPEB is now trying to tell Republicans that what comes around goes around. True.

Likewise, what Democrats did can turn around and bite them in delicate parts.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post: Senate Democrats Are About To Make A Mistake On Gorsuch »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove