Trump Orders Strike Against Syrian Base

By William Teach April 7, 2017 – 7:07 am

President Trump is putting both Russia and Syria’s leader Bashar Assad on notice

(NBC News) The United States fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria overnight in response to what it believes was a chemical weapons attack that killed more than 100 people.

At least six people were killed, Syria claimed, but the Pentagon said civilians were not targeted and the strike was aimed at a military airfield in the western province of Homs.

The action completed a policy reversal for President Donald Trump — who once warned America to stay out of the conflict — and drew anger from Damascus and its main ally, Russia.

The missiles were launched from the USS Ross and the USS Porter in the Mediterranean Sea toward Shayrat Airfield. American officials believe it was used by the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad to carry out a strike on Tuesday involving chemical weapons that resulted in the deaths of more than 100 people.

“Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children,” Trump said in remarks from Mar-a-Lago, his family compound in Palm Beach, Florida. “It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.”

For all the attacks that the U.S. has launched in Syria, this is the first time the Assad regime’s infrastructure was attacked. As Marco Rubio noted, this was no symbolic strike

Syria’s military said the U.S. attack violated “all international laws and customs” and that it made America a “partner” of ISIS “and other terrorist organizations.” It condemned the White House for acting “without knowing the truth about what occurred and without identifying those responsible” for the chemical attack.

Our intelligence was pretty darned certain who was responsible for the attack, as were other intelligence services.

The good thing here is that Trump is a maverick. Assad can’t be certain what Trump will do next, other than launch massive airstrikes for the use of chemical weapons. And that should concern Assad heavily. Perhaps Assad thought Trump would just shrug his shoulders like Mr. Obama did.

So far, most liberal opinion pages haven’t decided what to make of this. The NY Times Editorial Board hasn’t chimed in yet. They’re surely attempting to find a way to slam Trump. The Times’ Thomas Freidman is on Morning Joe as I type this, and approved of the strike. The Washington Post Editorial Board takes a rather even tone in a rather short piece, wondering what he might do next. Most other major outlets haven’t run anything yet.

But, then, there are the Democratic Base nutters. Salon’s Tatiana Baez runs a short (well, short for Salon) article, but, then the nuts go nuts in the comments

  • We have been through this movie before: a peacock-strutting neophyte, desperate for “tough-guy” street cred, blows the shit out of a puny, inconsequential “enemy”…because he can. The crack-like rush of one sortie will not be enough for Trump. Next up: North Korea.
  • Trump the draft-dodging moron is the best recruitment tool ISIS ever dreamed of. the goddam idiot is now a murderer on top of all his other disgusting titles.
  • TRAITOR TRUMP FU

Just a few. Then we jump to the Democratic Underground, which has been ramping up the crazy back to George W. Bush levels since the end of January

This supposed f***ing ‘missile strike’ STINKS to High Heaven. I’m not buying it …

I’d bet that *IF* the US actually DID what the Drumpf Administration is claiming in Syria today … then we did probably not blow up a single actual plane, or munitions dump, nor kill a single person.

In fact I’ll go a step further and say PUTIN, in cahoots w/Drumpf … probably ordered the chemical attack in the first place.

It’s all WAY TOO CONVENIENT that it all happened just in time to distract the public from:
a) Nunes stepping down from Russia Probe, due to Ethics violations, directly involving Drumpf,
b) The F***ING GOP using the Nuclear Option to force Gorsuch down our throats,
c) Bannon being removed from NSC,
d) The ex-CIA Chief coming out and saying that they’d been monitoring the Russian Connections between Drumpf’s cohorts and Russian operatives for MONTHS before the elections,
e) the FAILURE of the AHCA to get through before the Congressional Recess

What could POSSIBLY WORK BETTER for Drumpf … than the entire sequence of events that just happened?

I mean, not only does he distract from these negative stories, he gets to ‘appear’ to be ‘acting against Russian interests’. HOW PERFECT!

And people are BUYING THIS BULLSHIT?

Adam Schiff (D) whined over at Raw Story about Trump not having the authorization to do this from Congress, and attempts to claim that he was against Obama doing this. Rep Jim Himes (D) is on Morning Joe attempting to find ways to slam Trump along the same lines, until Joe got him to agree that the strikes were a good thing.

Deadspin called the release of photos showing the launch of the missiles “war propaganda.” Oh, and ANSWER, which had been pretty quiet during the Obama regime period, goes nuts

Got that? Trump’s war on Syria after one strike.

Wrapping up, Joe Scarborough makes a good point, namely that it would be a Bad Idea for Syria or Russia to mock Trump, especially with anything that notes that Trump didn’t do that much damage. Because Trump will attack back to finish the job.

Well, one more bit of nutbaggery. I’ll leave you with this conspiracy theory

https://twitter.com/CodePinkCLEVE/status/850190176823500801

It’s referring to this

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump Orders Strike Against Syrian Base »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Current Affairs, Donald Trump | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

Fancy Pants Malibu Pranked Over Sanctuary City Status

By William Teach April 6, 2017 – 4:12 pm

If you’ll remember, Malibu, California, voted to officially be a sanctuary city. Then this happened (via Twitchy)

https://twitter.com/sthornet0713/status/849989286258782210

Which caused Malibu (where single wide trailers go for a cool $1 million) officials to whine, er, denounce the punking.

On Wednesday however, city officials said the sign was nothing more than a mean prank.

“Mean.” Kate Steinle was unavailable for comment (and, yes, I know that happened in San Fran. Could have easily been Malibu.)

“This was not an official city sign,” Malibu Councilwoman Laura Rosenthal said. “It’s down, and it’s very disheartening that anyone would put up such an ugly sign.”

It might as well be an official sign. It’s factual.

The LA Times reports that the signs have since been removed by the city.

Read: Fancy Pants Malibu Pranked Over Sanctuary City Status »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

17 States Challenge Trump Over ‘Climate Change’ Policy Or Something

By William Teach April 6, 2017 – 2:12 pm

If only there was something all these Democrat run states could do, like raise taxes and fees on their citizens, force them into cities, force them out of their private fossil fueled vehicles and onto mass transit, raise taxes and fee, require citizens to pay for and install solar and wind, shut down non-“renewable” power plants, raise taxes and fees…

(UK Guardian) A coalition of 17 US states filed a legal challenge on Wednesday against efforts by Donald Trump’s administration to roll back climate change regulations, deepening a political rift over his emerging energy policies.

Led by New York state, the coalition said the administration has a legal duty to regulate emissions of the gases scientists believe cause global climate change.

“The law is clear: the EPA must limit carbon pollution from power plants,” New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman said in a statement announcing the challenge.

That would be the same Schneiderman who is using his Power to assault private companies and think tanks for Wrongthink on anthropogenic climate change, wanting them to release tons of communications and documents, while, at the same time, refusing to release his own communications and documents.

However, the law doesn’t state anything about CO2 emissions: just some court rulings and made up regulations from EPA.

The coalition includes attorneys general from California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington –- along with the District of Columbia and a number of smaller localities.

So, why don’t those states implement the measures for their individual states that Trump is getting rid of for federal policy? No one is stopping them. Trump won’t stop them. He’ll laugh when their economies tank and citizens abandon those states and move to Republican states. But, see, Warmists don’t want to implement all these things in their own lives: they want to force them on Everyone Else. And do it by increasing the size, scope, and power of the central government.

Read: 17 States Challenge Trump Over ‘Climate Change’ Policy Or Something »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | Comments Off on 17 States Challenge Trump Over ‘Climate Change’ Policy Or Something | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 6, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…are horrible meat hotdogs, causing the temperature to spike in the future, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on Obamacare collapsing.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Rep. Nydia Velázquez Attempting To Ban Federal Officers From Wearing “Police” On Uniforms

By William Teach April 6, 2017 – 8:15 am

Why? Because Democrats are more worried about people who are unlawfully present in the United States, and, in particular, the ones ICE targets, who are mostly those who have committed further crimes, than they are about those who are lawfully present

Law would bar immigration agents from having ‘police’ on uniforms

Federal immigration officers would be barred from wearing the word “police” on their uniforms under new legislation to help undocumented immigrants distinguish between the NYPD and deportation agents.

Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-Brooklyn) said she’ll introduce legislation Thursday to address growing fears immigrant communities have of federal immigration and border patrol agents.

“Not only are ICE raids an unconscionable attack on our most vulnerable communities, any attempt by immigration officers to deceivingly pose as local police ought to be prohibited,” Velázquez said in a statement.

Valazquez is federal representative, so, she is attempting to make this law for all the land. Quite frankly, Republicans should allow her to bring this to the House floor for debate and a vote, in order to put Democrats on record as supporting illegal alien criminals. Ones like these

(Washington Examiner) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested 82 illegal immigrants in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area as part of in a five-day sting that concluded March 30, according to a press release Wednesday.

The standard enforcement operation targeted criminal aliens, illegal re-entrants and immigration fugitives. Virginia topped Maryland and the District of Columbia with the highest number of arrests at 79. D.C. followed with two arrests, while only one Maryland resident was taken into custody.

About 80 percent of the arrestees have been convicted of criminal offenses in addition to illegally residing in the country, including crimes like armed robbery, larceny and drug distribution. The other 14 people were seized for ties to the MS-13 gang, outstanding deportation orders, overstaying visas, being wanted by a foreign law enforcement organization, being a verified human rights violator.

The illegals were from 26 different countries, and not just Mexico and Latin American ones. They were also from China, Iran, and Sudan, among others. Even New Zealand was represented. ICE targeted other areas of the country, such as in Texas.

Meanwhile, the 3rd edition of the Declined Detainer Outcome Report has been released, and features the usual suspects refusing immigration holds on people who have committed serious crimes. Why are Democrats defending criminals?

Read: Rep. Nydia Velázquez Attempting To Ban Federal Officers From Wearing “Police” On Uniforms »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Senate Expected To “Go Nuclear” Regarding Gorsuch Confirmation Today

By William Teach April 6, 2017 – 7:51 am

Negotiations to avert having to implement the nuclear option Harry Reid option

collapsed, so, now we’re going to get this

(The Hill) Senate Republicans are expected to trigger the “nuclear option” on Thursday, eliminating the minority party’s power to filibuster Supreme Court nominees.

The historic vote will ensure the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s pick for the high court, preserving a conservative majority that had been in doubt after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death early last year.

If all goes as expected, Gorsuch will receive a final confirmation vote Friday.

It appears as if the Senate will attempt a vote to end debate and move forward with the final vote on Gorsuch. If Democrats continue to filibuster and/or vote to continue debate, McConnell will trigger the Reid Option.

Some Republicans are suggesting that the rules be changed further in order to speed up confirmation of Trump’s nominees.

Who’s to blame? Both parties. Why? Because this is politics. It’s a dirty game. It has always been a dirty game. Democrats can say it’s because of Republicans blocking Merrick Garland. Republicans can say they were just applying the Biden Rule. Dems can say that Republicans attempted to gum up the works on Obama’s nominees. Republicans can say that Dems did the same on Bush’s nominees.

It’s politics. It hasn’t gotten more hardcore: it’s just that more people are “involved” with all the social media and 24 hour cable news stations.

Cloture has long been a part of the Senate rules. Originally, it required two-thirds. That was changed in 1975 by….Senate Democrats, who instituted a three-fifths option. Remember, none of this is required by the Constitution. The Constitution allows for the Senate to set its own rules, but, still only requires a simple majority for votes. Which, interestingly, some Liberals have argued as being against democracy because it gives smaller states (that Democrats do not control) as much power as big states (that Dems do control).

Anyhow, perhaps this does mean that Congressional Republicans are finally stiffening their spines. For so long they have been cowed into doing what the Democrats want with little fight-back. Will they continue to have spine? Time will tell.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Senate Expected To “Go Nuclear” Regarding Gorsuch Confirmation Today »

Posted in Constitution, Current Affairs | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

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
Pirate's Cove