Today’s Inauguration Day Trump Derangement Syndrome Brought To You By Most Of The Media

By William Teach January 20, 2017 – 7:03 am

The day has finally arrived when Donald Trump, the most unlikely of candidates, will be inaugurated as America’s 45th President. Rather than attempting to show some hope, maybe offer some ideas for Mr. Trump, the national news media continues it’s meltdown. Here’s the NY Times Editorial Board, part of the paper that published an unsubstantiated hit piece on Trump’s Energy Dept pick, Rick Perry. Those layers and layers of fact checkers took a nap

Can President Trump Be Presidential?

A special strength of American democracy has been the desire of newly elected presidents to unite the public with healing words after the sound and fury of the campaign.

Now comes President-elect Donald Trump. He has won the office and yet has continued his vindictive, disruptive style of politicking. He has run a post-campaign that has corroded the traditional grace period of considerate political transition that the nation needs. The hope of citizens for a better future, for a sense of uplift, has wound up hostage to his impetuous Twitter attacks on individuals, institutions and nations. (snip)

Mr. Obama’s final news conference this week was a study in the sort of intelligent public speaking on complex issues that has characterized his eight years of scandal-free governance. It was leavened with a bit of self-deprecation, as Mr. Obama referred to “No-Drama Obama” in noting his own optimism, as if mindful of the years of melodramatics that might follow.

Yeah, no scandals, because the media failed to do its job. And just whining peevishness at the NY Times, which continues with

And plenty more meltdowns.

Robert De Niro and Alec Baldwin, along with Michael Moore, are having continued meltdowns. Democrats are upset that Trump is calling for deep spending cuts. John Zeigler is assigning blame for Trump being elected, and saying those people should be blamed for the doooooooom to come. The LA Times is telling people how to stop Trump.

The Girl Scouts are being blasted by the Usual Suspects for daring to be involved with the Inauguration. Perhaps they should be careful, because Lefties love to get violent to the point of getting pepper sprayed.

We’re up to 66 weenie Democrats planning to skip the inauguration. When they come calling for things, like budget measures for their districts, they should be told “no.”

Examples of Liberal meltdown is everywhere. Here’s a cute one from the Boston Globe: Trump doesn’t like a watchdog press. Too bad, we’re here to stay. Except for the lat 8 years.

Fortunately, this occurs on a Friday, so, Democrats have all weekend to scream their little hearts out, set off smoke bombs, blow whistles, get maced, get arrested, leave litter everywhere, scuffle with the police, then head home realizing that the good jobs are coming back so they best get their resumes ready.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Today’s Inauguration Day Trump Derangement Syndrome Brought To You By Most Of The Media »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats | 22 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Change And Women Are Linked In March On Washington

By William Teach January 19, 2017 – 3:10 pm

Good news, women! The Cult Of Climastrology is trying to appropriate the march on Washington, much like it attempts to do with everything

Why we march against Trump: violence against women and the Earth is linked

The incoming president of the United States will assume office as a tide of hundreds of thousands of women and allies from across the country, and over 350 cities worldwide, take to the streets to demonstrate their dire concerns, resistance, opposition and demands to the new administration.

On 21 January, women and men will join the Women’s March on Washington, the largest protest in response to a new president in American history, to stand for a spectrum of diverse causes – including women’s and LGBTQ rights, racial justice, indigenous rights, immigration rights, worker’s rights and environmental justice.

Unless you are pro-life, then they don’t want those women there. Oh, and let’s not forget that “Women Of Color” have told white Women to sit down and shut up.

Within the many distinct calls being made, however, there remains a collective driving force – a fierce understanding of the need to stand boldly for the safety of our world at a critical juncture for the Earth, women’s rights and the American democratic experiment.

In response to Donald Trump’s dangerous position on climate change and appointment of fossil fuel industry executives and climate deniers to the country’s top leadership positions, a coalition of diverse groups will join the march as a Women for Climate Justice contingent. The groups are calling for immediate action on climate change, an end to extraction of fossil fuels, and protection of our lands, waters and children’s futures.

Hmm. You have women (and wimpy liberal males) taking fossil fueled trips from all over America to Washington, D.C., and there are even folks coming from around the world on fossil fueled flights. You’ll see the same thing in those 350 cities world wide.

It is important to highlight that violence against the Earth is directly linked to violence against women – and that patriarchy, colonization, imperialism and capitalism are all based in great part upon power over and exploitation of women, the land and peoples of color around the world.

You know what? If only these same nutters were as concerned with the plight of women in Muslim dominated countries. And the way women are treated by Muslim men as those “refugees” stream into Europe and molest, sexually assault, and rape women, not too mention the way they disrespect women.

BTW, it’s capitalism that allows these Moonbats to publish their screeds, travel to protests, and dress themselves for the protests. Oh, and take all the pictures and put them on Twitter, Facebook, etc, during the protests.

 

Read: Climate Change And Women Are Linked In March On Washington »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 19, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful green space which would be perfect for government funded wind turbines, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Feral Irishman, with some well wishes for Barack and Michelle.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Assassination Chic: CNN Fantasizes About Trump And Pence Being Killed To Keep Obama Admin Around

By William Teach January 19, 2017 – 10:43 am

During most of George W. Bush’s two terms, there was a constant fantasy about him being assassinated, especially starting around the time of the 2004 general election. Michelle Malkin did a great job in highlighting this through the years, and noted the big return back in November aimed at Trump. Now we get this

(Breitbart) As the nation prepares for the peaceful transfer of power on Inauguration Day, CNN is dreaming up scenarios whereby the Obama administration can keep power if President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence were blown up as they prepared to take to oath of office.

On the Wednesday, January 18 broadcast of CNN’s The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer aired a segment with a chyron featuring the headline “Developing Now.” During that “developing” segment, Blitzer and correspondent Brian Todd discussed what would happen if the unthinkable occurred on January 20.

Blitzer introduced the segment, saying, “What if an incoming president and his immediate successors were wiped out on day one?” and from there, CNN contributor Brian Todd took over to outline the line of succession if an attack blew up the inaugural dais, killing both Trump and Pence.

Seriously, can you imagine if Fox News ran something like this in 2008? This degenerated into a fantasy of how Team Obama could be kept around if this happened before both Trump and Pence could be sworn in, coming to the conclusion that Team Obama would be able to hang around running things, at least for the time being. Obama and Biden would be gone, but, the lower ranking degenerates would keep power, with possibly one of the current cabinet members being installed as POTUS.

Read: Assassination Chic: CNN Fantasizes About Trump And Pence Being Killed To Keep Obama Admin Around »

Posted in Prozac Diaries | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Man Who Uses Lots Of Fossil Fuels Asks Why The Climate Is Changing

By William Teach January 19, 2017 – 8:22 am

No, not that man. Obama wasn’t present when Senator Bernie Sanders, who used vast amounts of fossil fuels and electricity to travel around the country vying for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, along with his constant use of fossil fuels to travel between D.C. and Vermont, along with all the junkets

(Washington Post) One of President-elect Trump’s most controversial nominees is Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general tapped to head the Environmental Protection Agency — an agency he has sued repeatedly. Pruitt is also on record asserting that there is a “debate” about climate change — meaning it was virtually certain that one or more senators would challenge him on the matter.

This article is written by uber-Warmist Chris Mooney, along with Andee Erickson, and he’s controversial because he actual believes in science and the Scientific Model.

Still, the exchange between Sen. Bernie Sanders and Pruitt from earlier Wednesday was pretty intense, with Pruitt seeking to defend the view that humans may contribute to climate change “in some manner,” and Sanders insisting that the science says a great deal more than that.

At one point in the exchange, Sanders simply asked Pruitt, “Why is the climate changing?” “I’m asking you a personal opinion,” he continued.

“My personal opinion is immaterial to the job of the…” Pruitt began.

“Really? You are going to be the head of the agency to protect the environment, and your personal feelings about whether climate change is caused by human activity and carbon emissions is immaterial?” Sanders retorted.

Has Bernie made his life “carbon neutral?” He wants to tax Everyone Else with a carbon tax, and, this is a guy whose official policy position was to send out the Brownshirts, pushing social justice and “Bring climate deniers to justice so we can aggressively tackle climate change.” Does that sound like he wants to prosecute Wrongthing?

Sanders: Okay. Let me ask you this. As you may know, some 97 percent of scientists who have written articles for peer reviewed journals have concluded that climate change is real, it is caused by human activity, and it is already causing devastating problems in our country and around the world. Do you believe that climate change is caused by the emission, by carbon emissions? By human activity?

He trotted out the utterly discredited and thoroughly debunked 97% thing. Pruitt responded

Pruitt: Senator, as I indicated, you weren’t here during my opening statement, but as I indicated in my opening statement, the climate is changing, and human activity contributes to that in some manner.

Perhaps Bernie should have shown up on time. Maybe he had to stop to fill up his fossil fueled vehicle. Sanders continued whining about the “consensus” and fossil fuels. It’s a shame Pruitt didn’t ask Sanders about his own use of them and whether he plans to give them up. Couldn’t hurt, since we know the vast majority of Democrats won’t vote for him no matter what.

Pruitt tried to take the high road, noting that, as the EPA head, his job is to implement the legislation passed by Congress, not to be an activist making it up himself. Sanders did not like that, and would ask question after question, then interrupt Pruitt as he attempted to answer.

Sanders: You didn’t answer my question. Do you believe we have to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to do what the scientific community is telling us in order to make sure that this planet is healthy for our children and grandchildren?

Start with yourself, Senator, start with your own life.

Read: Man Who Uses Lots Of Fossil Fuels Asks Why The Climate Is Changing »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Democrats, Global Warming | 28 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post: This Is The Most Ominous Inauguration In History!

By William Teach January 19, 2017 – 7:57 am

The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne, Jr. is continuing his Moonbat Meltdown

This is the most ominous Inauguration Day in modern history
Whether or not Trump is “legitimate,” he’s legitimately terrifying.

Whether Dionne wrote the headline or subhead, or an editor did, either way, they’re utterly bat guano insane, and bear out in the actual article

Why is this inauguration different from any other?

Let’s start with the fact that most Americans are not happy that Donald Trump is about to become president. The Post/ABC News poll this week found that Trump enters the Oval Office with the lowest favorable ratings since the question has been asked. Only 40 percent view Trump favorably. That compares with 62 percent for George W. Bush as he entered office in 2001 and 79 percent for Barack Obama in 2009.

I’m doubting Hillary would have been better. But, somehow, this is Really Important to EJ

In the past, presidents facing public doubts of the sort Trump confronts have practiced what you might call self-interested humility. Bush declined to acknowledge the anger so many felt at the time about how the Supreme Court paved the way to his presidency, but in his well-wrought inaugural address he did show how to reach out and reassure those who worried about what he might do with power.

“Civility is not a tactic or a sentiment,” Bush declared. “It is the determined choice of trust over cynicism, of community over chaos.”

How’d that work out for Dubya? The Clinton’s took all the w’s from the keyboards. That may seem a cute prank in 2017. In 2001, it would have been a pain and expensive to replace. Democrats continuously smeared Bush when he wouldn’t fight back, not even on his policies. You had 45% of Democrats believing that Bush either let 9/11 happen or was involved in making it happen. Crazy Democrats held basement impeachment hearings. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called him a loser. The hit parade goes on and on. And I don’t remember Dionne calling for civility from Democrats.

Presidents about to take office typically speak warmly of their vanquished election foes. Not Trump. He renewed his attacks on Hillary Clinton at his news conference last week as if the campaign were still in full swing. He has waged a running war against civil rights icon John Lewis, both on Twitter and in a Fox News interview. Its effect was to incite a boycott of his inauguration by dozens of House Democrats.

Nice historical rewrite, as John Lewis, and many other Democrats, had already pledged to boycott the inauguration. Where is Dionne’s attack against those being uncivil to Trump (well, that would be tough, since Dionne is one of those)

Trump’s disdain for the democratic disposition we like our presidents to embrace was on display when he dressed down CNN’s Jim Acosta at that news conference last week. Trump’s tone, style and sheer rage (whether real or staged) brought to mind authoritarian leaders who brook no dissent.

Perhaps Trump was a bit upset over CNN lying to make Trump look bad.

Lewis stirred controversy when he declared that he did not see Trump as a “legitimate” president because of the Russians’ intervention. One definition of “legitimate” is “lawful,” and here we have, on the one side, Trump legally winning the vote of the electoral college and, on the other, the lawless act of stealing emails.

Another meaning of “legitimate” is “conforming to or in accordance with established rules, standards, principles.” So far, Trump has flouted all of these, and that is far more important than a debate about a word.

So, Lewis started it, but Trump is wrong to respond to that bit of incivility. And Dionne seems to be positioning that Trump is not the legitimate general election winner. He sure doesn’t set Lewis right.

Whatever Trump may be, he is, for so many of his fellow citizens, legitimately terrifying. This is a terrible way to feel on a day that is supposed to observe, as John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address 56 years ago, “not a victory of party but a celebration of freedom.”

These people need heavy medication.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post: This Is The Most Ominous Inauguration In History! »

Posted in Prozac Diaries, Unhinged Tools, Wonky Media | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Obama To Press: Hey, Guys, You Really Need To Do Your Jobs Now

By William Teach January 18, 2017 – 7:40 pm

File this one under “Chutzpah”, as Obama held last presser ever as POTUS telling us how disappointed he is in us all (via Hot Air)

And this

To paraphrase Ed Morrissey’s comments at Hot Air, mighta been nice to have this said 10 years ago, Champ!

Read: Obama To Press: Hey, Guys, You Really Need To Do Your Jobs Now »

Posted in Barry Obama | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 18, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a world turning to desert because Other People won’t buy carbon offsets, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Adrienne’s Corner, with a post on the rest of the leftist’s plot to shut down D.C.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Female Voice Assistants Is Digital Sexism Or Something

By William Teach January 18, 2017 – 10:52 am

Do you have some sort of device that uses a female voice to speak at you? Well, then you’re part of sexism

Digital sexism: Why are all virtual assistants women?
It’s 2017, and our most cutting edge consumer technology is a throwback

Why are virtual assistants from Amazon, Google and Apple all “female”?

Technically speaking, of course, virtual assistants don’t have genders. But they do have names and voices that suggest to users they are more “female” than “male” — a characterization that reinforces some of the worst gender stereotypes in our society.

Amy Ingram, an AI personal assistant, is a popular corporate version produced by x.ai. If you carbon copy Amy on an email, she will help schedule a meeting: she introduces herself to the recipient as your personal assistant, suggests times when you’re available and follows up with a calendar invitation to confirm.

Whereas Amy has entered the workforce, Amazon’s bot, Alexa, is primarily a home assistant. You can call out to her to set timers when making dinner, and have her reorder detergent when you realize you’ve run out. She can dim the lights at night, or read you the news headlines in the morning. Alexa’s appeal is that she’s always a holler away: all you need to do is ask.

You know what this means, right?

Companies cite all sorts of research in their decision to make bots female. They claim we take orders better from women, and that people have shown a preference for female voices in automated systems. Clifford Nass, the late co-author of Wired for Speech, a widely cited book on the topic, argued that male voices are perceived as being more authoritative, whereas female voices are understood to be more helpful and supportive. These preconceptions carry over into synthetic voices, which essentially means that even computers are gender stereotyped.

Why does this matter? Because it reinforces a power dynamic that we simply can’t overlook: virtual assistants are designed to be subservient, and creators send a clear message by making them all “female.”

The thing is, these Social Justice Warriors, such as Ramona Pringle, who wrote this bit of insanity for the uber-leftist CBC, are 100% serious. They aren’t trolling you. They don’t write this then sit around at home laughing at all the fools who are agreeing with this and making fun of it. They mean it. This is their world view.

The irony is that as we watch shows like Mad Men and quietly congratulate ourselves on how far we’ve evolved as a society, our most cutting-edge consumer technology is a throwback: one where our “secretaries,” “sous-chefs” and “housekeepers” are women. And by falling into a trap of assuming users want “female” assistants — instead of challenging their biases — the industry that has appointed itself to design the future is perpetuating outdated gender norms.

It’s not a joke. It’s not satire.

The funny part, as so many in the story comments point out, is that these female voices are telling people what to do. Turn here. Turn there. You’re speeding. They’re the ones with the information, and we listen to what they say. How’s that for female empowerment?

Read: Female Voice Assistants Is Digital Sexism Or Something »

Posted in Special Snowflake Syndrome | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Great News: Obama Pisses Away Another $500 Million To UN Climate Fund

By William Teach January 18, 2017 – 7:24 am

How much damage can this guy do in his last few days?

(BBC News) The US government has given half a billion dollars to the UN’s Green Climate Fund, just three days before Donald Trump takes office.

Barack Obama’s outgoing administration announced the contribution of $500m (£406m; €468m) on Tuesday, bringing the total funds to date to $1bn.

Mr Obama pledged in 2014 to give $3bn to help tackle the effects of climate change in the poorest countries.

Of course, this money will go to dictators and bad guys in many areas. Well, the money that makes it out of the hands of the United Nations, which doesn’t exactly have a great track record of competence and fiscal responsibility. And, what money makes it beyond the greedy hands of 3rd world shithole developing nation leaders, will be position as being from the UN, rather than the United States.

Obama’s just throwing money that taxpayers earned with hard work away, and all for nothing.

Meanwhile, Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, who is actually a statistician, did some calculations

Danish statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, has come out denouncing the UN climate Paris agreement as a massive waste of money that will do nothing to impact climate change. In a January 16, 2017 Prager U video titled, “The Paris Climate Agreement Won’t Change the Climate,” Lomborg explains that “the agreement will cost a fortune, but do little to reduce global warming.” (Full transcript here) (snip)

“Using the same prediction model that the UN uses, I found that [Obama’s] power plan will accomplish almost nothing. Even if its cuts to carbon dioxide emissions are fully implemented – not just for the 14 years that the Paris agreement lasts, but for the rest of the century — the EPA’s Clean Power Plan would reduce the temperature increase in 2100 by just -.023 degrees Fahrenheit,” Lomborg explained. (snip)

“Now, let’s add in the rest of the world’s Paris promises. If we generously assume that the promised carbon cuts for 2030 are not only met — which itself would be a UN first — but sustained throughout the rest of the century, temperatures in 2100 would drop 0.3 degrees — the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years. Again, that is using the UN’s own climate prediction model,” Lomborg said.

He continued: “But here is the biggest problem: These miniscule benefits do not come free — quite the contrary. The cost of the UN Paris climate pact is likely to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year, based on estimates produced by the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum and the Asia Modeling Exercise. In other words, we will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree.”

All while limiting the lives of citizens, increasing the size and scope of Government tremendously, increasing the cost of living for citizens, and stifling economies.

And, remember, many of the wackier of the Cult of Climstrology members want to push a 1.5C limit, rather than the 2.0C limit the Paris agreement is going for. The damage to citizen’s lives and that of economies would be tremendous.

Read: Great News: Obama Pisses Away Another $500 Million To UN Climate Fund »

Posted in Barry Obama, Global Warming | 11 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove