Trump Is Vexed By Challenges Of Government Or Something

By William Teach February 10, 2017 – 6:53 am

He’s totally surprised that government doesn’t run like a business. Just another attempted hit piece, featuring tons of anonymous sources

Trump vexed by challenges, scale of government
The new president’s allies say he has been surprised that government can’t be run like his business.

Being president is harder than Donald Trump thought, according to aides and allies who say that he’s growing increasingly frustrated with the challenges of running the massive federal bureaucracy.

In interviews, nearly two dozen people who’ve spent time with Trump in the three weeks since his inauguration said that his mood has careened between surprise and anger as he’s faced the predictable realities of governing, from congressional delays over his cabinet nominations and legal fights holding up his aggressive initiatives to staff in-fighting and leaks.

I’m betting that Barack, who had no experience running anything, had some issues as well. Even those with experience running government, such as George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan, among others, surely had difficulty, particularly with an unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy.

The administration’s rocky opening days have been a setback for a president who, as a billionaire businessman, sold himself to voters as being uniquely qualified to fix what ailed the nation. Yet it has become apparent, say those close to the president, most of whom requested anonymity to describe the inner workings of the White House, that the transition from overseeing a family business to running the country has been tough on him.

Seriously, it has been three weeks, guys. Three weeks. These things do not happen overnight. They do not happen that fast in the private sector, either. Even taking over a small store doing the same as you did at another small store can take time. If this is still happening in a year, then it would be a problem.

But, the idea here is to paint things negatively for Trump, because that’s what out professional and totally unbiased media does.

There’s this anonymous quote, that anonymous quote, most of which are designed to make Trump look bad.

Last week, Trump told an associate he had become weary of in-fighting among — and leaks from — his White House staff “because it reflects on me,” and that he intended to sit down staffers to tell them “to cut this shit out.”

That, though, despite the negative portrayal, sounds like someone who’s in charge, and is trying to implement a typical theme from the private sector about “getting on board with the changes.”

There are two actual quotes from people among all the negative anonymous nellies

Christopher Ruddy, a Trump friend and the chief executive of the conservative Newsmax Media, said “Running the federal government is something new for him, for sure.” But, Ruddy added, “I think if he’s demonstrated anything in his life, he is a very fast learner and adapts very quickly. The man is not to be underestimated.”

“I’m not disappointed in the President’s work so far – he operates like many great CEO’s I know – and I hope he continues to manage the country in a manner worlds apart from the way we’ve seen in the past,” said Michael Caputo, who was a Trump campaign aide. “It’s about time.”

Running the country is no easy business, especially when Trump is attempting to change the way it runs. And, it’s just been three weeks, for goodness sakes.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump Is Vexed By Challenges Of Government Or Something »

Posted in Donald Trump, Wonky Media | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is horrible carbon pollution created heat snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is MOTUS AD, with a post on the vexing of Snowflakes.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Say, If Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Real, Why Do Scientists Keep Cheating?

By William Teach February 9, 2017 – 10:40 am

Periodically, I like to make sure we are talking about the correct thing and on the same page. Climate change is real. Global warming is real. There has been warming since the mid-1800’s. The question as posed by most Skeptics is not on whether there has been warming, it is on the causation. Warmists say it is mostly/solely caused by the action of Mankind, particularly “carbon pollution”. They can barely even admit that nature plays any part. Except where a Pause is concerned, then they say that nature is masking the symptoms. Hence, we refer to it as AGW, anthropogenic global warming, anthropogenic climate change, and ‘climate change’, among others. When they say global warming and climate change, they mean man caused. Which leads to

If Global Warming Is Real, Why Do Government Scientists Have To Keep Cheating?

A few decades back, an upstanding member of the global warming alarmist community said that if the public was going to take the threat of man-caused climate change seriously, the alarmists were going to have to exaggerate the evidence.

It was in 1989 that Stephen Schneider wrote in Discover magazine that in order “to capture the public’s imagination . . . we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

Let’s not forget that the late climatologist was first a believer in global cooling in the 1970s. He was worried that a new ice age was coming.

Of course the alarmist community has followed Schneider’s script. It’s spent much of the last three decades trying to spook the public into a panic.

Which, of course, led to ClimateGate, ClimateGate 2.0, and many other issues, including the current one being mostly embargoed by the media, as scientist John Bates has accused NOAA of failing to follow science and ruled in publishing the Karl paper, which was designed to make the climate look worse as they headed to Paris for the UN IPCC conference.

Please don’t be surprised. Government-paid researchers are desperate to perpetuate the climate shock. They know that if there is no warming as they have predicted, the generous public funds that support their work will eventually dry up.

It is in their financial interest to keep the public tied up in knots of anxiety and to dupe politicians, who are eager to assume the posture of caring guardians of the environment so they’ll to continue to hand them money

And it fits right in with the other evidence problems that undermine the global warming narrative, such as the hopelessly flawed temperature record, the unreliable models that can’t even predict the past, and the possibility that as many half of the alarmist research papers could be wrong.

I, and many others, have said it before and I’ll say it again: if the science is so sound, why the need to adjust the data, smooth the data, manipulate the data, manufacture the data? Why does the data not stand on its own? Why the need for doomy prognostications? Why are publicly funded “scientists” advocating for Big Government policies that will harm the lower and middle classes, while increasing the power of government? Why are they acting more like an advocacy group than scientists?

Read: Say, If Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Real, Why Do Scientists Keep Cheating? »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

Illegal Alien Felon Arrested In Phoenix, Liberals Go Apoplectic

By William Teach February 9, 2017 – 8:08 am

If you’re here illegally, you shouldn’t be here. If you’re here illegally, and you’ve committed any crime, especially a felony, you definitely shouldn’t be here. This LA Times headline says it all: illegally

Longtime Phoenix resident in U.S. illegally detained in early display of Trump executive order’s reach

A Phoenix woman in the country illegally who was considered a low priority for deportation by the Obama administration has been taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Immigrant advocates say her detention reflects the severity of the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration.

Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos, 36, had lived in the country since she was 14. She was arrested in 2008 during a workplace raid ordered by then-Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio at Golfland Sunsplash amusement park in Mesa, Ariz., and convicted of felony identity theft for possessing false papers.

Identity theft hurts actual, real people. It’s not a victimless crime.

ICE officials confirmed the detention on Wednesday. “Ms. Garcia de Rayos is currently being detained by ICE based on a removal order issued by the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review which became final in May 2013,” the agency said in a news release.

Garcia de Rayos’ detention is an early indication of the reach of an executive order by President Trump on Jan. 25, which expanded deportation priorities to include any immigrants in the country illegally who had been convicted of a criminal offense, regardless of its severity. Previous orders by President Obama prioritized violent offenders.

Last time I checked, Obama was president in 2013, so, that would be an order under his regime. Because, contrary to opinion, Team Obama was deporting people like Guadalupe left and right. Yes, the focus was on violent criminals, but, they would deport those who had other felonies. It just takes time to get around to many of them.

But, it’s right there in the headline: in U.S. illegally.

The NY Times forgets to mention that she was convicted of a felony, though they do mention her bust for using a fake SS number and such. Just suspicion. One interesting thing they get around to near the end

In 2013, an immigration court ordered that she be sent back to Mexico, but her case had been on hold since the federal authorities — under the Obama administration — decided not to act on the deportation order.

So, a judge told her vaya con dios back to Mexico, and Team Obama decided to hold off for the time being. We keep being told that we should keep the good illegals. A convicted felon wouldn’t be one of the good ones.

Read: Illegal Alien Felon Arrested In Phoenix, Liberals Go Apoplectic »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Dhimmitude: NY Times Doesn’t Want The Muslim Brotherhood Designated A Terrorist Organization

By William Teach February 9, 2017 – 7:50 am

Why? They apparently feel that this would be blaming all of Islam or something, and Liberals seem to get very upset when anyone notes that certain portions of Islam are extremists

All of Islam Isn’t the Enemy

Is President Trump trying to make enemies of the entire Muslim world? That could well happen if he follows up his primitive ban on refugees and visa holders from seven Muslim nations with an order designating the Muslim Brotherhood — perhaps the most influential Islamist group in the Middle East — as a terrorist organization.

Such an order, now under consideration, would be seen by many Muslims as another attempt to vilify adherents of Islam. It appears to be part of a mission by the president and his closest advisers to heighten fears by promoting a dangerously exaggerated vision of an America under siege by what they call radical Islam.

If the NY Times feels that most Muslims are part of the MB, that would mean that most of them are extremists, who believe in the killing of Jews, the destruction of Israel, Sharia law, turning countries into Muslim theocracies bound to a caliphate, and that jihad against infidels is just fine, among other beliefs.

The United Kingdom had no problem designating the MB a terrorist organization, as it is “anti-democratic, openly supportive of terrorism, dedicated to establishing an Islamist government — and opposed to the rule of law, individual liberty, and equality.”

The struggle against extremism is complex, and solutions must be tailored both to the facts and to an understanding of the likely consequences.

The NY Times editorial board apparently has zero facts.

There are good reasons that the Brotherhood, with millions of members, doesn’t merit the terrorist designation. Rather than a single organization, it is a collection of groups and movements that can vary widely from country to country. While the Brotherhood calls for a society governed by Islamic law, it renounced violence decades ago, has supported elections and has become a political and social organization. Its branches often have tenuous connections to the original movement founded in Egypt in 1928.

Oh, brother, we are out in La La Land here. It supports elections in order to get its people in power using the established methods of government, the better to infiltrate and establish its principles. In Western nations, it’s using our systems of government, or “democratic” ideals, our founding documents, our laws, and our social mores against us. Many, many, many of its leaders, and members, still call for jihad and the killing of Jews.

But those advising Mr. Trump seem unwilling to draw distinctions. Stephen Bannon, the chief White House strategist, once called the Brotherhood “the foundation of modern terrorism.” And Frank Gaffney Jr., an anti-Muslim analyst who heads a small think tank, recently told The Times that the Brotherhood’s goals are “exactly the same” as those of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda.

They pretty much are. It’s not just those people who say this. The facts are there.

It is wrongheaded and dangerous to tar all Brotherhood members with one brush. The Brotherhood is associated with political parties in Indonesia, Pakistan, Morocco, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Yemen and even Israel, and runs schools and hospitals. Many of those parties are America’s partners. The governing party in Turkey, a NATO member, also hasconnections to the Brotherhood. If the group is named to the terrorism list, how will Washington continue these relationships without violating the law?

As to the last, Britain doesn’t seem to have a problem, nor do the other countries that have banned it. As to the first line, the NY Times has had no problem tarring others, particularly whites, white men, gun owners, Republicans, and Conservatives, among others, with that broad brush.

Mr. Trump made America look cruel and incompetent in the eyes of the world with his sweeping immigration edict. Now talk of branding the Brotherhood as a terrorist group has fueled darker fears of an administration intent on going after not just terrorists but Islam itself.

Again, if the NY Times believes that the MB represents Islam, then that’s saying that Islam is extremist, as are the practitioners. Discover The Networks has a long piece on the MB, worth the read, as does Counterjihad. The MB official statement in 2015 reads

“It is incumbent upon everyone to be aware that we are in the process of a new phase, where we summon what is latent in our strength, where we recall the meanings of jihad and prepare ourselves, our wives, our sons, our daughters, and whoever marched on our path to a long, uncompromising jihad, and during this stage we ask for martyrdom.” [Ikhwanonline.com, 2015]

The MB is the root of most modern Islamic terrorism, as well as sets the conditions for extremist, repressive Islam. It teaches extremism. A great example is this David Horowitz video, where he engages with a member of the MSA, Muslim Student Association, of which many have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The NY Times EB seems Very Brave in taking the side of a group that kills gays, represses women, and wants to destroy all that the EB members hold dear.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Dhimmitude: NY Times Doesn’t Want The Muslim Brotherhood Designated A Terrorist Organization »

Posted in Dhimmitude, RoP, Wonky Media | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Argue That Climate Models Understate The Problem, And That Climate Models Suck

By William Teach February 8, 2017 – 4:43 pm

On one hand, this is just so typical of members of the Cult of Climastrology: they keep saying that things are worse than they have been saying. Meanwhile, at the same time, they unintentionally tell us they that their whole backbone of “science” has been worthless

Scientists argue current climate change models understate the problem

A new study on the relationship between people and the planet shows that climate change is only one of many inter-related threats to the Earth’s capacity to support human life.

An international team of distinguished scientists, including five members of the National Academies, argues that there are critical components missing from current climate models that inform environmental, climate, and economic policies.

The article, published in the National Science Review, describes how the recent growth in resource use, land-use change, emissions, and pollution has made humanity the dominant driver of change in most of the Earth’s natural systems, and how these changes, in turn, have important feedback effects on humans with costly and serious consequences.

The authors argue that current estimates of the impact of do not connect human variables—such as demographics, inequality, economic growth, and migration—with planetary changes. This makes current models likely to miss important feedbacks in the real Earth-human system, especially those that may result in unexpected or counterintuitive outcomes.

So, not only are the models crappola, they now need to involve Social Justice, which isn’t Science. It’s politics, which dovetails perfectly into what the CoC is all about.

Read: Warmists Argue That Climate Models Understate The Problem, And That Climate Models Suck »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 8, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a world flooded by carbon pollution from Other People, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post explaining why Elizabeth Fauxahontas Warren was smacked down in the Senate.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Will The GOP Use Rule 19 To Push Through Gorsuch To Supreme Court?

By William Teach February 8, 2017 – 10:30 am

Rule 19 is more than just a way to shut down Senators who are being disrespectful to colleagues, as Elizabeth Warren learned Tuesday, as Sean Davis explains. It’s a way to keep debate without invoking the nuclear option. The two speech rule, a way to stop continuous filibusters which can stop Senate business

(Federalist) However, this state of affairs is not actually required by Senate rules, nor by Senate precedents (to understand the distinction between the two, think of Senate rules as a statute and of precedents as case law, which can invalidate laws as originally written). The modern practice of allowing 41 senators to indefinitely obstruct up-or-down votes under the guise of debate is just that: a mere practice, indulged by courtesy. No precedents or rules require this state of affairs to continue. By enforcing Senate rules regarding debate — specifically Rule XIX — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can guarantee an up-or-down vote on Supreme Court nominees without resorting to the nuclear option, which would kill the filibuster and instantly eliminate all debate at the whim of a simple majority.

Rule XIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate plainly states that on any given question, a senator may speak only twice on the same legislative day. This clause is known in Senate parlance as the two-speech rule. No senator may speak more than two times on the same matter on the same legislative day. Here’s the relevant text from the rule:

OK, you can head over to read the whole thing, as well as that relevant text. What it all means is that Mitch McConnell can keep the Senate in the same “day” for days, weeks, even months. Once people have spoken twice, he can force a simple majority vote, and no filibuster can stop it. This was actually used to pass the Civil Rights Act over the (mostly Democrat Senators) filibuster, when the legislative day ended up being 81 days long

Davis wraps it up with

The two-speech rule option provides the best of all worlds by addressing the concerns of both sides of the Supreme Court nomination debate. Instead of nuking debate, the two-speech rule option merely nukes obstruction. And it does so by encouraging debate and by encouraging the input of every single senator.

Current Senate practice empowers a lazy minority by allowing indefinite obstruction without requiring any effort or debate. If voters want a confirmation process that simultaneously encourages debate while limiting obstruction, they should demand that the Senate set the nuclear option aside and invoke the two-speech rule option instead.

That’s a powerful point. Force debate. Of course, Democrats won’t actually debate, they’ll smear and lie and try all sorts of shenanigans. But, Rule 19 will eventually force them to vote.

Read: Will The GOP Use Rule 19 To Push Through Gorsuch To Supreme Court? »

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

Are You Ready For Yet Another Conservative Case For Climate Action?

By William Teach February 8, 2017 – 8:22 am

Here we go again: yet another plan to deal with anthropogenic climate change/global warming/we’re doomed!!!!!!!! from a supposedly Conservative point of view. A plan that proves that some Republicans aren’t Conservative in the least, especially when they go running to the NY Times for validation

A Conservative Case for Climate Action

CRAZY as it may sound, this is the perfect time to enact a sensible policy to address the dangerous threat of climate change. Before you call us nuts, hear us out.

Yeah, it does sound crazy. Several paragraphs are spent yammering on about how Obama did his climate schtick via regulation, and how Trump has promised to reduce regulations.

On-again-off-again regulation is a poor way to protect the environment. And by creating needless uncertainty for businesses that are planning long-term capital investments, it is also a poor way to promote robust economic growth.

By contrast, an ideal climate policy would reduce carbon emissions, limit regulatory intrusion, promote economic growth, help working-class Americans and prove durable when the political winds change. We have laid out such a plan in a paper to be released Wednesday by the Climate Leadership Council.

How will they do this? First, let’s see who these so-called Conservatives are

Our co-authors include James A. Baker III, Treasury secretary for President Ronald Reagan and secretary of state for President George H. W. Bush; Henry M. Paulson Jr., Treasury secretary for President George W. Bush; George P. Shultz, Treasury secretary for President Richard Nixon and secretary of state for Mr. Reagan; Thomas Stephenson, a partner at Sequoia Capital, a venture-capital firm; and Rob Walton, who recently completed 23 years as chairman of Walmart.

Let’s see this plan

First, the federal government would impose a gradually increasing tax on carbon dioxide emissions. It might begin at $40 per ton and increase steadily. This tax would send a powerful signal to businesses and consumers to reduce their carbon footprints.

Yup, government increasing taxes on the private sector and citizens to control their behavior is certainly conservative, amIright?

Second, the proceeds would be returned to the American people on an equal basis via quarterly dividend checks. With a carbon tax of $40 per ton, a family of four would receive about $2,000 in the first year. As the tax rate rose over time to further reduce emissions, so would the dividend payments.

Making citizens more reliant on government is certainly conservative, right? Do the math: the average carbon footprint for each American is over 19 metric tons. So, a family of four would be charged $3,040 to start out, meaning they are paying more in fees/taxes, which doesn’t even account for all the cost of living increases caused by this plan. This is actually the sleight of hand that is being pushed by many hardcore leftist Warmists, such as James Hansen.

The third point is about rebates and taxes on imports and exports, followed by one on repealing regulations made unnecessary by this massive tax and control policy, including the Clean Power Plan.

Republicans are in charge of both Congress and the White House. If they do nothing other than reverse regulations from the Obama administration, they will squander the opportunity to show the full power of the conservative canon, and its core principles of free markets, limited government and stewardship.

It bears repeating: conservative canon doesn’t include raising taxes, which causes a cost of living increase, while increasing the power of the central government over citizens while also making them more dependent on centralized government.

Much better would be a strategy of “repeal and replace.” This would be pro-growth, pro-competitiveness and pro-working class, which aligns perfectly with President Trump’s stated agenda.

This is all pro-bullshit.

Read: Are You Ready For Yet Another Conservative Case For Climate Action? »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Majority Of Democrats Feel Other Religions As Violent As Islam

By William Teach February 8, 2017 – 7:45 am

Democrats always look for some sort of equivalence when they attempt to protect the subsection of Islam which is increasingly violent in the name of Islam. Further, they are quick to blame all of Christianity, Judaism, etc, when something happens, while claiming that any attack by someone yelling “Allahu Akbar!” has nothing to do with Islam. So, we end up with this

(Breitbart) Almost seven out 10 Democrats believe Islam “encourages violence… about the same as other religions,” according to a new CBS poll.

The trusting attitude towards Islam is revealed in the February 2017 poll follows 17 tumultuous years of attacks against Americans motivated or shaped by Islamic ideology throughout the United States—from the 9/11 atrocity to the Pulse nightclub attack in Florida committed by an observant, orthodox Muslim man from a Muslim family.

Merely one-in-seven Democrats believe that Islam is more violent than other religions, such as Christianity, Mormonism, Judaism, and Buddhism. One-in-ten Democrats believe that Islam is less violent that other religions, according to the poll of 1,019 adults, which was taken Feb. 1 and Feb. 2.

In contrast, Republicans have a far colder view of Islam. Sixty-three percent of Republicans view Islam as  aggressive compared to other religions, and only two percent view Islam as more pacific than other faiths.

The specific question asked in the survey was “Generally speaking, do you think the Islamic religion encourages violence more than other religions around the world, less than other religions around the world, or about the same as other religions around the world?” So, the answers are not as bad as they appear, but, this is really an extension of Democrat beliefs that are pro-Islam and anti-every other religion.

Now, is all of Islam violent? No. Of course not. Democrats will make the case that other religions are all equally violent, because crime occurs. They’ll look and say something like “Dylann Roof is a Christian, hence, Christianity is violent!” Here’s the difference: most Christians (and Jews, Buddhists, Mormons, etc) are not committing violence in the name of their religion or as pushed by their religion. Roof didn’t commit murder as pushed by the Bible. The Bible would tell him not to do it. He wasn’t praising God will committing mass murder. They aren’t committing terrorist acts in the name of Jesus and Jehovah. Hardcore radical Islamists are doing it in the name of Islam, Allah, and Mohammad.

They are also doing things like honor killings, throwing gays from roofs, setting people on fire, stoning gays and women, making women 2nd class citizens, whipping women who have been raped, and so much more as told by the Koran, usually explained to them via the Islamic teachers and leaders, including those in the Mosques.

Democrats don’t get it, and don’t want to get it. For whatever reason, they’ve decided to put hardcore extremist Islam on a pedestal, most likely due to early 2000’s Bush Derangement Syndrome, even though Islamism stands against just about everything Democrats say they support, and is competing for authoritarian control the same as the Democrats.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Majority Of Democrats Feel Other Religions As Violent As Islam »

Posted in Democrats, RoP | 20 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove