Syria Strike Fails To Follow Progressive Playbook, Leading To Unhinged Op-Eds

By William Teach April 12, 2017 – 6:36 am

While the attached headline for this Washington Post opinion piece by uber-leftist Katrina Vanden Huevel is technically linked to the piece, it might have been better to call it “Trump Did Something Good, And That’s Not Something Progressives Should Agree With!!!!!”

Syria strike follows Washington’s failed foreign-policy playbook

“There’s a playbook in Washington that presidents are supposed to follow,” then-President Obama said last year, defending his decision not to unilaterally strike Syria in 2013. “It’s a playbook that comes out of the foreign-policy establishment. And the playbook prescribes responses to different events, and these responses tend to be militarized responses. Where America is directly threatened, the playbook works. But the playbook can also be a trap that can lead to bad decisions.”

Obviously, Katrina cannot place blame at Obama’s feet for 6 years of inaction, dithering, leading from behind, and general fecklessness. Nope. Trump

Last week, by impulsively ordering a military strike against a Syrian air base, President Trump both followed the playbook and fell into the trap. To be clear, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s apparent use of chemical weapons against civilians in the town of Khan Sheikhoun is a heinous crime. Almost six years of civil war in Syria have led to nearly half a million dead and millions more displaced, a humanitarian crisis worsened by the Trump administration’s cruel and senseless attempts to ban Syrian refugees. The human suffering has been horrific to watch. Yet despite the fervor of the bipartisan foreign policy establishment, which fetishizes the purported “credibility” that accompanies the use of force, it remains folly to think that Trump’s military action will help end the carnage.

A heinous crime, but, since Trump responded, and because he said something and attempted to do something to limit the people coming from a war torn area replete with ISIS members and Islamic extremists, it’s all his fault. Seriously, who was president the past 6 years? That’s what worsened the humanitarian crisis.

It is a testament to the absurdity of the presidential “playbook” that perhaps the most irresponsible act of Trump’s madhouse presidency has also been one of the most widely applauded. Suddenly, much of the same media and political establishment that has routinely portrayed Trump as an unstable and inept authoritarian are ecstatic that he decided to drop bombs in the Middle East. Airing footage of the assault, MSNBC anchor Brian Williams admired the “beautiful pictures of fearsome armaments.” Five major newspapers collectively published 18 pieces that endorsed the strikes or argued they were insufficient, according to media watchdog Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting.

Irresponsible. Obviously, it would have been better had Trump stated that Assad not cross the next red line, or used a strongly worded letter or a hashtag with a sad face.

But there is little evidence that the strike accomplished anything beyond a temporary popularity boost for a flailing president. If Trump’s goal was to punish Assad for using chemical weapons, the punishment was effectively nothing more than a timeout, as Syrian warplanes resumed use of the targeted air base less than 24 hours after it was hit. And if Trump has a coherent strategy for what happens next, he has failed to communicate it to the American people or the international community.

Maybe it’s better to not broadcast war-plans to dictators and wackjobs at the United Nations. Because Obama’s method of telling everyone his plans, then backing off those plans, hasn’t worked out so well. But, hey, Trump!

Katrina whines some more, using the same talking points as other Leftists who just can’t acknowledge that Trump do something good, ending with

Despite the clamoring of the bipartisan foreign policy establishment, the unfortunate reality is that their “playbook” does not contain a path to victory in Syria. Rather than agitating for more U.S. military intervention in a war that cannot be won, we should be calling on our government to lead a diplomatic effort to end the war once and for all. And for those who recognize that Trump cannot bomb his way to peace, it is time to revive and mobilize an antiwar movement to keep the United States from getting entangled in another Middle East war with no clear strategy and no end in sight.

Perhaps Katrina could illuminate us on how to go about ending the war diplomatically? What could the parties be offered? How to get to that peace? What are her plans? Bueller? You have the Assad regime, the regular folks of Syria, the rebels, and then the Islamic extremists, particularly ISIS. What does peace look like between the four?

And why didn’t Katrina’s god, Barack H. Obama, lead a diplomatic effort to end the war once and for all? He was the guy In Charge for the last 6 years, was he not?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Syria Strike Fails To Follow Progressive Playbook, Leading To Unhinged Op-Eds »

Posted in Donald Trump, Unhinged Tools | Comments Off on Syria Strike Fails To Follow Progressive Playbook, Leading To Unhinged Op-Eds | Trackback URL

NC Democrats Have Typical Meltdowns Over Proposed Sanctuary City Crackdown Legislation

By William Teach April 11, 2017 – 3:01 pm

Apparently, Democrats are not big fans of The Law. Let’s start out with a quote from deep in the article

(WRAL) “We’re sitting here debating whether to obey the law or not. That just amazes me. In a judiciary committee of this state, does that make any sense that we would be debating that?” asked a clearly frustrated Sen. Harry Brown, R-Onslow.

One would think, but, Democrats do not care about the law, at least when it impedes acquiring new voters who are dependent on the Government.

A proposal to crack down on local governments over immigration led to raised tempers and voices Tuesday in the Senate Judiciary Committee before being approved on a party-line vote.

Senate Bill 145 would withhold state funding from cities or counties that adopt a so-called “sanctuary” policy or ordinance regarding undocumented immigrants in any respect. It would open up an anonymous complaint process for any citizen with a “good faith” belief that a local government is not following immigration laws. The Attorney General’s Office would then be required to follow up and investigate within 45 days.17

Any local government with a sanctuary policy could be sued by anyone who was injured by the actions of an undocumented immigrant.

Obviously, this would make sanctuary cities, which are 100% run by Democrats, a bit antsy. The bill further restricts any University Of North Carolina school from limiting any federal immigration enforcement, and would disallow law enforcement from recognizing banned forms of identification. This is all about government, but, of course, Democrats are throwing monkey wrenches in the works by bringing up private entities, like churches (where was their concern when Charlotte was trying to force private entities, like churches, allow the gender confused in bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms of the opposite biological sex?)

Sen. Paul Lowe, D-Forsyth, said his church provides food and other humanitarian assistance to the community.

“The folks that need help and that are coming for help, we know they’re illegal,” Lowe said. “We know they’re here because they have nowhere else to go and they’re just trying to get some basic help. You don’t advertise it, but you just know.”

So, if you know they’re illegal, then you are breaking The Law. Intentionally. However, the law wouldn’t apply to private entities, hence, the quote from the beginning of the post, which was in response to this Democrat idiocy. Some Dems were worried about cities losing funding that they need.

Easy solution? Don’t be sanctuary cities. Do not harbor illegal aliens. Follow the law.

Read: NC Democrats Have Typical Meltdowns Over Proposed Sanctuary City Crackdown Legislation »

Posted in Illegal Immigration, NC News | 56 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 11, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a lake frozen over due to climate change when it should be warm, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is This ain’t Hell, but you can see it from here, with a post on LGBT groups having a hissy fit over the Army Secretary nominee.

BTW, I never mentioned that it is fishing week.

Read: If All You See… »

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

James Hansen: Government Has To Make People Care About Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach April 11, 2017 – 10:30 am

James Hansen, who takes lots and lots of fossil fueled trips, really loves the thought of a carbon tax that will hurt the middle and lower classes. And he’s legendary!

Legendary Climate Scientist Likes a GOP Proposal on Global Warming

Pres. Donald Trump issued a major executive order last week that, if successful, could undercut the nation’s fight against global warming. In particular, the order kicks off an attempt to dismantle the Clean Power Plan, which regulates carbon emissions from the power sector. While Trump’s move represents a big blow to U.S. climate efforts, the renowned scientist James Hansen sees a different—and, he argues, better—way forward on global warming. “The problem is the Clean Power Plan is really not that effective,” says Hansen, former director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and adjunct professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, who brought climate change to the U.S. public’s attention in his famed 1988 congressional testimony. “It’s a tragedy that [the Obama administration] continued to pursue a regulatory approach.”

I’m getting the feeling Hansen doesn’t care for the CPP. Anyhow, Hansen goes on to say how much he loves the notion of a carbon tax, which he won’t call a tax, but a fee, one which would see refunds back to the citizens. Which would barely happen, but, would also make people more dependent on Government. He likes that silly plan some silly Republicans came up with a few months back. And this would totally stimulate the economy!!!!!! Because we’ve seen how well this works in other countries.

Here’s where it gets fun, as Hansen responds to a question (first paragraph)

You’ve been focusing your energy on helping people understand the urgency of global warming. Are you hopeful that the public will demand major action from the government soon?

Climate change is not going to register on the public’s list of priorities, so we need the help of an intelligent government system. Even though the fossil fuel industry money has been able to distort the climate science in Congress, the judicial branch can come into play. That’s why I’m a plaintiff along with 21 young people in a lawsuit against the federal government [suing it for having taken—and continuing to take—actions that support fossil fuel production and create greenhouse gas emissions].* We now have a really bulletproof case, which I think will win even with a conservative Supreme Court.

In other words, you stupid people are being stupid, so, Government must force you to care.

It’s going to be a combination of using the judiciary branch of the government and then using the democratic process to shape the policy that’s accepted. Between those two, I’m optimistic we could get on a path that would then influence the world.

And using the courts to force you to care. Because, obviously, their 25+ years of spreading awareness and scaremongering hasn’t worked out so well. But, then, this isn’t about saving Gaia or the environment or anything, it’s about applying Progressive political power, which includes more government and control over people and private entities.

Read: James Hansen: Government Has To Make People Care About Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

“Experts” Warn Border Wall Will Harm 800 Species

By William Teach April 11, 2017 – 7:20 am

Today’s fear-mongering is provided by an interesting source, which surely has a stake in making sure that Mexican citizens are allowed to enter the United States unlawfully whenever they want

Experts warn 800 species, many endangered, affected by border wall

A study by Mexico’s top university has revealed that at least 800 species of wildlife will be adversely affected by President Trump’s planned 2,000-mile border wall with Mexico.

Huh.

Research published by ecologists from the Mexican National Autonomous University has shown that an impassable physical barrier placed into ecosystems inhabited by jaguars, black bears and bighorn sheep will so disrupt patterns of migration as to cause a “natural catastrophe.”

“The U.S.-Mexico border is made up of mountains, jungle, coastline and many other diverse ecosystems,” Professor Gerardo Ceballos, who led the investigation published last week, told Fox News. “Wildlife has populated these regions for millions of years, and has always had freedom of movement to hunt, reproduce and migrate. To make these animals suffer as a result of man’s political agenda is entirely immoral.”

Sounds more like a political study and statement rather than a research paper, does it not?

Let’s consider jaguars

Environmental groups are now voicing opposition to President Trump’s proposed border wall because they say it could interfere with jaguar migration between Mexico and the United States.

On an entirely unrelated note, please raise your hand if you live in Arizona and have ever seen a jaguar. No? ‘Kay.

In a move that smacks of its anti-oil efforts to “save” the lesser prairie chicken, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service actually proposed the creation of a critical habitat zone for jaguars across parts of Arizona and New Mexico back in 2012. But, seeing as jaguars aren’t known to inhabit the area, the Arizona Game and Fish Department pushed back, according to documents obtained by Judicial Watch.

“[The] habitat essential to the conservation of the jaguar as a species does not exist in either Arizona or New Mexico under any scientifically credible definition of that term,” Arizona argued in their response.

“Occurrence records for recent history (i.e. post 1850s) fail to show that AZ or NM has never been occupied by a jaguar ‘population,’” the department added.

So, no jaguars. Back to the original story

Of the 800 species that will be affected by President Trump’s border wall, 140 are in danger of extinction, including the bald eagle, grey wolf, armadillo and jaguar, a big cat of which remain only 10 in the highlands of the Sonora Desert that straddle Arizona. Those animals whose range will be halved by the border wall’s construction will be impeded in their ability to reproduce with other members of their species, thereby creating a shallower gene pool and heightening the chance of inbreeding.

Eagles can, get this, fly. For the most part, grey wolves barely inhabit the border area. What this is really all about is fear-mongering, which has been pushed with an environmental idea for months now.

Leonora Esquivel is the founder of AnimaNaturalis, Mexico’s leading animal rights organization, which recently succeeded in banning the use of animals for performance in circuses throughout the country. She says her organization will fight the process of construction at the border wall should U.S. Congress approve it in the federal spending bill this month.

“Animals have no concept of political boundaries created by humans, and to impose a physical barrier that impedes their movement is entirely wrong,” she told Fox News.

Stop sending your people illegally across the border, and we won’t need a wall.

Read: “Experts” Warn Border Wall Will Harm 800 Species »

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

TDS: Cable TV President Launches Cable TV War Or Something

By William Teach April 11, 2017 – 6:58 am

Hey, remember the days when opinion writers at America’s news outlets complained about our previous celebrity president was constantly on talk shows, cable shows, going Between Two Ferns, chatting with a Youtube personality who does shows bathtubs full of milk and cereal, all while discussing policy and even launching air strikes and starting wars? Remember when they complained about our golfer-in-chief briefly making a statement about a U.S. citizen being beheaded by ISIS before heading back for some fun? Or any of the numerous things Mr. Obama did? No? Huh.

You can bet that the Philadelphia Enquirer’s Inquirer’s Excitable Will Bunch doesn’t remember, either

Cable TV president launches cable TV war — and the reviews are boffo!

Sometimes in America, the rocket’s red glare is all the proof through the night that you really need.

The folks over at the Pentagon understand that well, which is why — even as the flames from 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles that struck a Syrian airstrip were still smoldering on Thursday night — the military brass made sure all of the TV networks were rapidly supplied with video of the Xbox-perfect launches from Navy ships in the Mediterranean Sea. The  reddish streaks of combustible fuel gave instant light and clarity to the muddled darkness of an Arabian night, and so they played over and over again on cable TV networks thirsty for pictures to illuminate the drama and importance of President Trump’s most high-profile miltary adventure since taking office.

So, news outlets were supposed to ignore the strike? Bunch does understand he’s slamming his employer, as well, which had plenty of ink about the strikes, along with the pictures, right? And that he’s slamming the U.S. Navy in an attempt to be the #Resistance to Trump, right?

Did Will have complaints about the photo op of Obama sitting around while our Special Ops folks where taking out Bin Laden? Or when we got all the pictures of Obama being Serious and Involved when we struck back against Islamic jihadis in Benghazi? Oh, wait, right. My Bad.

The pictures were beautiful, but the policy was a mess. No one understood exactly why the most politically inexperienced and most truth-challenged president in American history had just pulled a complete flip-flop in the world’s most volatile civil war. No one could explain on what legal authority Trump had launched the deadly missiles, whether our allies knew this was coming — or what happens next. There were no pictures showing the seven people said to be killed when those “fearsome armaments” slammed into the al-Shayrat airfield, the part of the video game we rarely see.

It’s not hard to understand, and I’d bet the majority, even unhinged liberals get it: Syria used Sarin on its citizens, Trump and his people said “can’t cross that red line without consequences”, and he put Assad on notice that the use of chemical weapons will get a quick response. It doesn’t have to be anything more. There doesn’t have to be a deep meaning, nor a change in the overall policy of Stand Off, which was set by Team Obama.

Three days later, it’s impossible to say how history books will view the U.S. missile strike on Syria — as a strange blip in a six-year civil war that’s killed 500,000 people and created millions of refugees, as just another nocturnal emission of cruise missiles from a nation that’s fired off more than 1,000 from Iraq to Libya to Somalia since 2001…or, less likely, as the Archduke Ferdinand moment of the 21st Century.

I think the history books will have more than enough time to discuss Obama’s fecklessness in regards to Syria rather than discussing Trump’s missile strike. Then again, if Assad never uses chemical weapons again, well, then, I wonder if Bunch will be happy to write “you know, that strike Made A Difference”?

But in the broader context of humanity — and this strange and sometimes, yes, beautiful world that we’ve created after millions of years of evolution — I believe that what we witnessed on April 6, 2017, marked a dangerous turning point. Vital decisions of war and peace, life and death, have been sucked into our vortex of around-the-clock entertainment.

And now the true derangement starts, and continues on for quite some time. Entirely too much to excerpt. But, let’s put it in context: can you imagine this derangement towards Obama? Or if Hillary Clinton, who thought there should be quick strikes against Syria for the use of chemical weapons, and approved of the strike, was president and did it herself?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: TDS: Cable TV President Launches Cable TV War Or Something »

Posted in Donald Trump, Unhinged Tools | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

China’s Leading On Climate While America Launches Cruise Missiles Or Something

By William Teach April 10, 2017 – 3:00 pm

I’m choosing to ignore the Internet Rules, I believe it is Rule 1004.6, that states “Or Something may only be used once per calendar day” or something for this one

While America Launches Missiles, China Quietly Leads On Climate Change

Chinese President Xi Jinping arrived at Mar-a-Lago on Thursday for his first face-to-face meeting with President Trump, including a two-day summit and formal dinner. By the end of the trip, the two are set to discuss the North Korean threat and trade, before the Trump team retreated to launch Tomahawk missiles at Syrian airfields. Climate change isn’t on the agenda, which is unfortunate—if not surprising—because the two nations are now taking precisely opposite approaches to the global crisis.

Joe Flintosh (@jflintosh) asked if they were kidding. Sometimes, I have to wonder if this kind of bat guano insanity is really just Expert Level Trolling, because one would think this was too insane.

Read: China’s Leading On Climate While America Launches Cruise Missiles Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Special Snowflake Syndrome | Comments Off on China’s Leading On Climate While America Launches Cruise Missiles Or Something | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…are evil fossil fueled motor engines which cause the seas to rise, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on an illegal Obama let stay.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Bummer: In The Dumps EPA Staff Turning To Alcohol ‘Cause Trump

By William Teach April 10, 2017 – 10:45 am

Another day, another report of EPA employees having meltdowns

(Heartland) EPA lifers are “in the dumps” about life at the agency under President Trump. The level of anxiety is so high that alcoholism may be on the rise among climate-alarmist lifers, according to one staffer quoted in The Washington Post. If that is true, that’s very good news, because it means the EPA will be getting back to its original — and largely accomplished mission — of cleaning up America’s air, land, and water.

The Washington Post article is about Mike Cox quitting the EPA, and devolves into

“It is pretty bleak,” one staffer, an environmental engineer, said about employee morale.

“It’s in the dumps,” said another.

“Pretty much everybody is updating their resumes. It’s grim,” added a third.

Awwwwwww, too bad. Have fun in the private sector.

Black humor and burying themselves in a project’s scientific minutia will work for some.

“For the rest of us,” added one longtime regional staffer, “there probably will be a significant rise in alcoholism.”

Well, I hope not. Alcohol is bad for the climate, especially beer, which releases CO2. And wine and other alcohols require lots of water and land, and require lots of fossil fuels to take to market.

Read: Bummer: In The Dumps EPA Staff Turning To Alcohol ‘Cause Trump »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Sanctuary Cities Have Much Higher Crime Rate Than Non-Sanctuary Cities

By William Teach April 10, 2017 – 8:06 am

Would would have thought it?

(WND) Surprise! Sanctuary cities do, indeed, experience higher crime rates than do non-sanctuary cities, an in-depth WND analysis of the most recent study of the question reveals.

An August 2016 study of the relationship between “sanctuary city” policies and crime rates shows that cities refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities consistently have significantly higher violent crimes rates than do non-sanctuary cities with similar populations and demographics, WND has found.

The study, published last fall by researchers from the University of California-Riverside and Highline College in Des Moines, Washington, is frequently cited by proponents of “sanctuary cities” who ignore or downplay one important detail – the actual crime statistics of the carefully selected cities chosen for the comparison model.

An analysis of the data by WND reveals that non-sanctuary cities comparable in population, size and demographics consistently – year over year – experience and report lower percentages of violent crime as well as lower percentages of property crimes.

There may be lots of illegal aliens who aren’t violent criminals, however, there are still lots who are. They tend to congregate in certain cities, particularly those which call themselves sanctuary cities, because they know law enforcement will be hands off.

The researchers examined 54 cities in 19 states, plus the District of Columbia – cities listed by the National Immigration Law Center that implemented sanctuary ordinances post-9/11, during or after 2002. Using city-level crime data compiled by the FBI, they assessed crime rates at the city level immediately following the implementation of a sanctuary policy.

They then matched each sanctuary city to a similarly situated non-sanctuary city – based on relevant census and political variables, creating a scenario where the two cities are as similar as possible with the exception of the sanctuary policy.

The researchers claim, in conclusion, that their study shows designating a city as a sanctuary has no statistically significant effect on crime.

But, no

Data gathered in the study, however, overwhelmingly contradict the conclusions of the authors.

Violent crime rates are, in fact, drastically higher in sanctuary cities than their non-sanctuary counterparts, as is evidenced by the chart the authors used to delineate their conclusion.

The violent crime rate in sanctuary cities, as indicated above, dramatically increased after sanctuary city policy was enacted, and even doubled in some cases. The researchers found “similar results for property crime property crime and rape.”

So, in reality, higher crime due to the presence of illegal aliens in cities which ignore their lawlessness.

The original paper is available here. It reads like a leftist position paper from MoveOn.org, The Center For American Progress, or any of the hardcore Progressive think tanks out there. Their preconceived hypothesis and expectation (page 12) is that there would be no difference between the cities. And, of course, that’s what they determined. Despite the data not bearing that conclusion.

One thing to consider, though, is that all the cities involved are heavily Democratic Party voting cities, run by Democrats, so, they are going to have higher crime rates to start with, so, it could be that it isn’t the illegals, it’s just Democrats. Food for thought.

Then there’s this

One of the mantras of the pro-sanctuary movement has been that the policies of non-enforcement and non-reporting of immigration violations to federal authorities would have the effect of fostering cooperation between police and city officials in matters of crime reporting and finding witnesses for prosecutions.

No data has ever been collected to suggest illegal immigrants are offering such cooperation in preventing and fighting crime in these jurisdictions. Concurrently, there is no study, scientific or anecdotal, to suggest illegal immigrants cooperate in fighting crime in these jurisdictions. At the same time, data shows criminal aliens being released by sanctuary jurisdictions commit more crimes when they get out than do non-aliens.

That brings a good question: can illegal aliens prove that their assertion that leaving illegal aliens alone leads to better policing?

Read: Surprise: Sanctuary Cities Have Much Higher Crime Rate Than Non-Sanctuary Cities »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove