Democrats Suddenly Worried About Trump’s Unlimited War Powers

By William Teach December 29, 2016 – 8:15 am

A little bit of fake news, as this is something that hasn’t happened, it’s just Democrats caterwauling to create an atmosphere of potential doom

Congress leaves Trump with unlimited war powers
The failure to pass a war authorization against the Islamic State will mean few checks on his provocative campaign vows.

For much of Barack Obama’s second term, Congress sought to pass a formal authorization for the war against the Islamic State — both to signal the country’s resolve and to provide a check on the president’s unfettered war powers.

That failure to act now means Donald Trump will effectively have free rein to wage what he calls a global U.S. war on radical Islam, a prospect that terrifies many Democrats.

Democrats consistently blocked any attempt to reign on the war powers, particularly as established per several pieces of legislation post-9/11. Obama has used those powers mostly pretty well, in my opinion, in launching attacks on Jihadis throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa. These attacks have upset many on both the left and right, but, I’m good with them. The media has been mostly quiet on the use of drone and special forces strikes on Islamic jihadis, as have Democrats and their anti-war coalition. But, suddenly, they’re very concerned.

“You could easily see him wanting to ramp up the war on terror and take it to new parts of the globe,” said Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “There are few limits on what he can do.”

Democrats like Schiff worry that without an updated legal framework to govern the war on terror, Trump could turn some of his controversial campaign rhetoric into reality — from vows to bring back waterboarding to killing the families of terrorists.

For “an inexperienced president who tweets and gets angry … to have broad war-making power, it’s a dangerous place to be,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the lone member of Congress who voted against the nation’s existing war authorization, which was passed in 2001 but has not been updated since.

In other words, this is all paranoia and scaremongering. And now they have plans to introduce a new push for a resolution to reign in Trump. And, granted, there does need to be a new resolution to replace the one passed in 2001. It’s just funny that Democrats are hot to trot to do it now.

(The Surrender Monkey will make his triumphant return after Trump takes office, after an 8 year layoff, as Democrat surrender and malfeasance is highlighted)

Read: Democrats Suddenly Worried About Trump’s Unlimited War Powers »

Posted in Democrats, Donald Trump, War On Terrorism | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

John Kerry’s Israel Speech Was Even Worse Than You Thought It Would Be

By William Teach December 29, 2016 – 7:54 am

As Allahpundit notes, this was the anti-Israel speech Kerry has been practicing in the mirror for years, which certainly had the approval of Mr. Obama, what with just a few weeks left in his administration

(Politico) In a lengthy, at times bitter speech boiling over with frustration, outgoing Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday accused the Israeli government of risking future prospects for peace with the Palestinians by adopting the right-wing agenda of the mushrooming Israeli settler movement.

And Kerry did so knowing that, in just three weeks, Donald Trump will likely do his best to undermine everything he just said.

Interesting. Kerry seems good with the ultra-leftist agenda of Cuba, in opening up relations, as well as the theocratic and terroristic agenda of Iran. Cuba throws dissidents in jail (among other human rights abuses), and Iran has the green light to build nuclear weapons at the end of the Iran deal in about 10 years, yet, building a few settlements in land Israel won after being attacked? A bridge too far for Kerry, apparently.

Using language rarely heard from a U.S. secretary of state, Kerry warned that the settlers’ growing political power would eventually force Israel to make a fateful choice: “Israel can either be Jewish or democratic – it cannot be both – and it won’t ever really be at peace.”

Again, interesting. Israel is the only nation in the Middle East where Muslims actually have democratic rights and protections under a stable system of law. How are Jews treated in other middle eastern nations? As you can guess, this anti-Semitic comment from Kerry didn’t go over so well.

And he blasted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in strident terms, calling his ruling coalition “the most right-wing in Israeli history, with an agenda driven by the most extreme elements.” Those elements, Kerry said, are now “defining the future of Israel, and their stated purpose is clear. They believe in one state: greater Israel.”

What are they supposed to believe in? An Israel wiped off the map, as we see from many nations and terrorist groups, along with the United Nations? Israel gives land to the Palestinians, who respond by launching rockets at civilian areas.

Kerry did not give the Palestinians a free pass. He decried acts of terrorism perpetrated by individual Palestinians and groups such as Hamas, which he said was pursuing “an extremist agenda” and refused “to accept Israel’s very right to exist.” But his harshest words were reserved for Israel and Netanyahu in particular.

Right. Attack our ally while going soft on the terrorists. Of course, to Leftists like Kerry, Israel is the terrorist in this situation. That’s their mindset. They hate Jews and love Muslim terrorists. And they want Israel to make concession after concession to people who do not acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: John Kerry’s Israel Speech Was Even Worse Than You Thought It Would Be »

Posted in Israel, Kerry, Unhinged Tools | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

People Really Love Carbon Pricing!!!!!

By William Teach December 28, 2016 – 2:17 pm

…right up till

(Toronto Sun) Recent polls have suggested most Canadians support carbon pricing, without explaining what it is and what it does.

Carbon pricing means attaching a cost to something that has never had a cost before — emitting industrial greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when fossil fuels are burned.

Politicians from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on down like to say carbon pricing is a mechanism for making polluters pay for the environmental harm they cause when burning fossil fuels for energy.

They’d also like you to think the polluters who will be paying are giant corporations like oil companies.

The problem is, this isn’t true.

Shockingly, the costs that the government/Warmist view of the free market slaps on these companies ends up directly on the consumers. And Canada is looking at both cap and trade along with a carbon tax, really, just about the same, meaning

In either case, the end result is the same –  a higher cost of living for all Canadians, paid either through higher prices or higher taxes on most goods and services.

Years of polling on this issue have shown that most people favour carbon pricing and making polluters pay until it’s explained to them that this means they will be paying more for virtually all goods and services.

When that’s made clear, support for carbon pricing typically drops precipitously, with only a minority of those surveyed supporting it.

Here’s the question for all the Warmists pushing these policies: are they willing to pay the taxes and higher fees and prices and cost of living themselves? We know that the majority are not willing to change their own lifestyles

to accord with their supposed beliefs, much like how Socialists, such as Bernie Sanders, won’t give away their books for free and like to make lots and lots of money. Go figure.

Read: People Really Love Carbon Pricing!!!!! »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | Comments Off on People Really Love Carbon Pricing!!!!! | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 28, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil carbon pollution causing beer, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on queer feminism vs the fragile male ego.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Excellent News: The Triumph Of Climate Denial In The Age Of Trump

By William Teach December 28, 2016 – 9:18 am

As we all know, anthropogenic climate change is almost always a low ranking issue in polls on the issues people care about, typically coming in last or next to last. And when you add in that ‘climate change’ policies will raise the cost of energy bill, raise the cost of food, raise the cost of living, all while increasing government taxation and governmental control of citizens lives, care for the issue drops further. But, that doesn’t mean the Cult of Climastrology will give up their push

Donald Trump and the Triumph of Climate-Change Denial

Denial of the broad scientific consensus that human activity is the primary cause of global warming could become a guiding principle of Donald Trump’s presidential administration. Though it’s difficult to pin down exactly what Trump thinks about climate change, he has a well-established track record of skepticism and denial. He has called global warming a “hoax,” insisted while campaigning for the Republican nomination that he’s “not a big believer in man-made climate change,” and recently suggested that “nobody really knows” if climate change exists. Trump also plans to nominate Republicans to lead the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Department who have expressed skepticism toward the scientific agreement on human-caused global warming.

Once you start yammering about consensus, especially based on flawed, manufactured, and disingenuous publications, you’ve dropped science and moved to politics.

Indeed, Trump’s election is a triumph of climate denial, and will elevate him to the top of a Republican Party where prominent elected officials have publicly rejected the climate consensus. It’s not that the presidential election was a referendum on global warming. Climate change barely came up during the presidential debates, and voters rated the environment as a far less pressing concern than issues like the economy, terrorism, and health care. But that relative lack of concern signals that voters have not prioritized action on climate change, if they want any action taken at all. Trump’s victory sends a message that failing to embrace climate science still isn’t disqualifying for a presidential candidate, even as scientists warn that the devastating consequences of global warming are under way and expected to intensify in the years ahead.

Hotcoldwetdry barely came up in the election because almost no one cares except for Warmists. Despite 25+ years of spreading awareness, voters really do not care. Continuing to scold and scare voters is not going to help voters “prioritize” it higher. They just don’t care.

If Trump fails to take climate change seriously, the federal government may do little to address the threat of a warming planet in the next four years. A presidential administration hostile to climate science also threatens to deepen, or at the very least prolong, the skepticism that already exists in American political life. “If the Trump administration continues to push the false claim that global warming is a hoax, not happening, not human caused, or not a serious problem, I’d expect many conservative Republican voters to follow their lead,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of Yale University’s Program on Climate Change Communication.

And there’s the Warmist fascism on display: they refuse to allow for other opinions. Really, if the science was so founded in facts, there would be no doubt. Republicans would agree with it. Instead, the science is shady beyond belief, and no matter how hysterical Warmists become, that won’t change.

Read: Excellent News: The Triumph Of Climate Denial In The Age Of Trump »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

John Kerry Plans Middle East Peace Speech Or Something

By William Teach December 28, 2016 – 8:53 am

The outgoing Team Obama has made a hash of the Middle East. They blew off the Iranian Green Revolution. They blew off the Arab Spring, right up till it hit Egypt, then they messed that up, even going as far as to back the Muslim Brotherhood candidates. They started a war in Libya to supposedly deal with the civil war and “protect” civilians (more like to protect the oil flowing to France and Britain), then left half the country a mess and in the hands of terrorists. Then there’s Syria and the utter incompetence of Obama’s policies. They saw the rise of ISIS and did little. Squishy policies on Iraq. The foolishness of the Iran deal. And, of course, their heavy handed policies towards Israel. There’s supposedly a transcript of the Obama administration working with the Palestinians on the anti-Israel resolution from the anti-Semitic United Nations.

So, now we have John Kerry

(Bloomberg) U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will offer a “comprehensive vision” for how Middle East peace can be achieved in a speech Wednesday in Washington, as Israel steps up its response to a censure from the United Nations over the construction of settlements in the West Bank.

With barely three weeks left in the Obama administration, Kerry will lay out his plan as tensions over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies threaten to leave Israel more isolated internationally. Along with the Kerry speech, France is gathering dozens of foreign ministers in Paris on Jan. 15 to discuss the conflict. Israeli officials say that could result in a proposal they view as unfavorable, which may then be taken to the UN for a seal of approval.

The U.S. last week broke with tradition and decided not to veto a UN Security Council resolution condemning the West Bank settlements. Israel has already moved to limit ties with countries that voted for the resolution, rebuked member states’ representatives, recalled ambassadors from co-sponsors New Zealand and Senegal and pledged to cut off nearly $8 million in funding to UN institutions.

Kerry, describing himself as a “lifelong friend of Israel,” defended the U.S. decision to abstain on the vote in a Dec. 23 statement, warning that the possibility of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “is now in jeopardy, with terrorism, violence and incitement continuing and unprecedented steps to expand settlements being advanced by avowed opponents of the two state solution.”

Lifelong friends of Israel do not do that to an ally, especially when it is Israel constantly under assault from people who hate Israel and hate Jews. It’s the Palestinians and other Middle East players who are constantly attacking Israel, particularly civilians, with guns and bombs and rockets. Yet, rarely does the United Nations condemn the Palestinians, which are essentially run by a political party which grew from a terrorist organization.

And, tell me, from your personal experience, if someone is slamming you, is complaining about you to the boss, is bad mouthing you, do you work with them? What reason is there for Israel to work with the people who hate them, who hate Jews, and want to take away the land Israel won in wars they didn’t start?

Perhaps the United Nations, and Team Obama should worry more about the spread of radical Islam.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: John Kerry Plans Middle East Peace Speech Or Something »

Posted in Democrats, Israel, Kerry | Comments Off on John Kerry Plans Middle East Peace Speech Or Something | Trackback URL

Climate Science Deserves a Nobel Prize Or Something

By William Teach December 27, 2016 – 3:03 pm

This is Slate trying to out Salon Salon in nuttiness.

Do you know why?

It may not have the wow factor of other sciences, but the goals are equally noble.

I don’t know about the wow factor. It’s pretty “wow” when someone cheats and manufactures data and results. People like Stalim, Mao, Chavezz, and many other authoritarians probably think the end goals are noble, too.

Climate science in the United States is in an existential crisis. President-elect Donald Trump has promised to cut funding for Earth science, and the Republican-controlled Senate and House of Representatives will probably make good on those promises. The broader scientific community has mostly stood in solidarity with climate researchers assaulted by denialism.

Sounds more like a religious or political movement, doesn’t it?

The rest is just trying to push this silly notion, but, hey, it might be a great idea, as it would certainly expose just how fraudulent the AGW science is, much like giving a Nobel to Obama.

Read: Climate Science Deserves a Nobel Prize Or Something »

Posted in Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 27, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon motorbike that probably runs on solar and everyone else should be forced to use, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Virtual Mirage, with a post noting that elections have consequences.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Katherine Hayhoe: You Don’t Have To Be A Liberal Weenie To Believe In ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach December 27, 2016 – 10:21 am

Katherine Hayhoe really, really, really wants you to believe this is about science

Katharine Hayhoe: Why Climate Change Should Matter to You

What’s one of the most insidious myths we’ve bought into, when it comes to climate change?

It has nothing to do with the science: It’s the simple idea that we have to be a certain type of person to care about climate change.

If I’m a liberal, if I bike to work and call myself a “tree-hugger,” then of course I care about climate change. But what if I’m conservative, I drive a car or I worry about the economy—does agreeing with the science of climate change mean I have to change who I am?

When I moved to Texas 10 years ago, I didn’t know what to expect. I study climate change, one of the most politicized issues in the entire U.S. If we’re serious about it, we have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. That’s not a popular message in a state best known for its oil and gas.

It’s not a popular message for Warmists, either, since they, including Hayhoe, refuse to give up their own use of fossil fuels.

To answer these questions, I’ve teamed up with our local West Texas PBS station to produce a new PBS Digital Studios web series, Global Weirding: Climate, Politics, and Religion. Every other Wednesday, we roll out a new video exploring climate change and what it means to all of us.

This episode tackles the identity myth, head-on. Climate change is not some distant issue that only matters to the polar bears. It’s affecting our lives right now, in the places that we live. And if we’re a human living on planet Earth, then we already have every value we need to care about a changing climate.

Do you know which episode I want to see? The one where Warmists stop using fossil fuels and live like it it’s the 10th century, giving up all the luxuries of the modern lifestyle.

Climate change isn’t a niche issue that only matters to people who think or act or vote a certain way. Each of us, exactly who we are, with exactly the values we already have, already have every reason we need to care.

Virtually every poll says it is a niche issue. And, as long as Warmists continue to be hypocrites and demand that Other People comply, it will be a niche issue. Yes, climate change is real. The debate is on the cause.

Read: Katherine Hayhoe: You Don’t Have To Be A Liberal Weenie To Believe In ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Where’s The Evidence That “Fake News” Had Any Impact?

By William Teach December 27, 2016 – 8:25 am

For all the caterwauling from the people who lost the election fair and square, is there any actual hard evidence that fake news had an impact?

(Daily Caller) As 2016 draws to a close, the ongoing debate regarding “fake news’ has pressed forward, but notably absent from the debate is any evidence that “fake news” impacted voters’ decisions on whom to vote for in last month’s election.

Lots and lots of (leftist) media outlets have run story after story about the proliferation of “fake news”, running specials yammering about it. But,

Putting aside the fact that BuzzFeed was accused of using suspect methodology to fit a narrative, and putting aside the fact that Facebook has since discredited the data upon which BuzzFeed relied for the study, the findings still didn’t show that fake news had any impact on the way people voted last November.

Vanity Fair ran a piece titled, “Did Russian Agents Influence The Election With Fake News?” late last month. But that article was based on a Washington Post article that relied on since-debunked experts. That article now includes a length editor’s note saying the Post “does not itself vouch for the validity” of the data upon which its article was built. Even before the Post walked back the article, the piece did not provide any evidence that fake news changed the outcome of the election.

The Guardian’s Hannah Jane Parkinson wrote a piece titled, “Click and elect: how fake news helped Donald Trump win a real election.” But Parkinson offered no hard facts to back up her claim other than noting that Facebook helped two million people register to vote.

Essentially, it’s just more Blamestorming from the people who nominated a horrible candidate. No need to reiterate just how bad she was or how bad her campaign was. Just remember, this was a candidate who fainted on video on 9/11 for all to see and had to be thrown into a van like a side of beef. Think that didn’t make an impact? This is a candidate who blew off actually traveling through swing states and talking to people, and they rewarded her by voting Trump, who did reach out and campaign in those places.

As originally reported by TheDC, the data actually shows that “fake news” struggles to actually reach — much less convince — any kind of audience.

So, where’s the evidence? Much like global warming and so many other things, Leftists do not have it. Just feelings.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Where’s The Evidence That “Fake News” Had Any Impact? »

Posted in Liberal World | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove