Woman Who Accused Trump Of Rape Quietly Drops Lawsuit

By William Teach November 5, 2016 – 7:06 am

Democrats have been crowing about how Donald Trump was going to have to go to court after the election, positioning a federal lawsuit as a criminal case, thinking that it could land him in jail. Neither is going to happen

(Politico) A woman who accused Donald Trump of raping her two decades ago when she was a 13-year-old aspiring teen model has again dropped a federal lawsuit over the alleged assaults.

The accuser, identified in the lawsuit by the pseudonym “Jane Doe,” was expected to appear at a news conference in Los Angeles Wednesday, but that appearance was abruptly canceled.

In the most recent suit, Trump’s accuser asserted that while she was exploring a modeling career in 1994, she attended a series of parties at the Manhattan home of prominent investor Jeffrey Epstein. She alleges that during those parties the real estate mogul tied her to a bed and raped her. She also claimed Epstein raped her during that series of gatherings

Here’s my problem with this case and all the other allegations: none seemed to have gone to the police. None seemed to have filed charges against Trump. Then, suddenly, decades later, they come up with allegations.

The accuser’s lead attorney, Thomas Meagher of New Jersey, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. He filed a one-page notice dismissing the case Friday evening in federal court in Manhattan. No explanation was given for the action.

The UK Daily Mail notes in an article that names her and has her picture

She claimed her motivation to tell her story was to expose Donald Trump to stop him from becoming president.

‘We would have a rapist in the White House. I would feel horrified every single day if I stay in this country,’ she said, in dramatic terms.

Sounds more like she’s just trying to stop Trump. As for a rapist in the White House, that’s what you get if Hillary is elected.

But she also said that in 1994 she had no idea who her attacker was and that it was only when she watched The Apprentice that she came to believe it was Trump, claiming that she could not forget her attacker’s face.

So, zero proof. It could very well be that Epstein raped/sexually assaulted her, because he is a scumbag who’s been under investigation for luring underage girls and served time for soliciting prostitution.

Oh, and Epstein has lots of links to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Huh.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Woman Who Accused Trump Of Rape Quietly Drops Lawsuit »

Posted in Donald Trump | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: We Now Have A Social Justice Warrior Princess!

By William Teach November 4, 2016 – 3:28 pm

Yeah, this is a thing

A lot of people are quick to accuse me of being a “Social Justice Warrior.” I just wanted to be very clear and say that when you casually throw around phrases like that, you are actually diminishing the complexity of who I really am. My preferred term is “Social Justice Warrior Princess.”

Yeah, it doesn’t get any more sane after that. I’d like to believe this is a joke, but, looking at the rest of the site, I don’t think so.

A lot of people are quick to accuse me of being a “Social Justice Warrior.” I just wanted to be very clear and say that when you casually throw around phrases like that, you are actually diminishing the complexity of who I really am. My preferred term is “Social Justice Warrior Princess.”

No offense (well, offense, of course!), it doesn’t look like she’s seen the inside of a gym any time in memory. Like a lot of Millenials, she seems rather doughy with little muscle tone. Obviously, that’s sexxxxxist.

Any these people are nuts.

Read: Good News: We Now Have A Social Justice Warrior Princess! »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 4, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil plastic water bottle causing the seas deoxygenate you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Jawa Report, with a post on al Qaeda threatening election day attacks.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Say, Why Don’t We Talk About ‘Climate Change’ More?

By William Teach November 4, 2016 – 10:09 am

It couldn’t possibly be that no one really cares. Oh, no. Not in Warmist World

(Grist) Why don’t we talk about climate change more?

To find out, Greta Johnson and Tricia Bobeda — hosts of WBEZ’s Nerdette podcast — brought climate scientist Heidi Cullen to talk to 13 Chicago families about climate change and its dangers.

They found that people are scared of climate change — for good reason — and that makes them shut down:

One Loop resident admitted “climate change is important.” But when we asked if he’d think and talk about it more after having Cullen at his kitchen table, he replied, “Nope.”

If he did, he said, he’d just walk around depressed all the time.

So, based on one person, we now know that we generally do not talk about the issue….and what they mean is talk about it to come up with Solutions…. because we’re too scared and we shut down and it makes us depressed. Or something

Still, we persist in avoiding the topic. “In a lot of ways, I think this project affirmed many of my own concerns and fears about climate change,” Johnson told Grist. “I know it’s something I should be concerned about, but it’s also just so overwhelming and theoretical that it’s difficult to contemplate.”

Theoretical. More like prognostication for Madame Zelda at the carnival. This does all show that members of the Cult of Climastrology are all nuts, and are attempting to make everyone else as nutty as they are.

Read: Say, Why Don’t We Talk About ‘Climate Change’ More? »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If You Don’t Believe In ‘Climate Change’ You’re On The Wrong Side Of History Or Something

By William Teach November 4, 2016 – 8:43 am

I always enjoy a Special Snowflake who hasn’t even entered the Real World yammering on about Important Things

Climate change is real

If you don’t believe in climate change, then you will be on the wrong side of human history. The science and evidence for rising sea levels, arctic ice melting and man-made fossil fuels releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is so unequivocal that it’s baffling a presidential candidate has invalidated the phenomenon. Even though theories on global warming have been around for more than a century, it didn’t become a political issue until recently.

Of course, Leftists love trotting out the wrong side of history thing. Perhaps it’s because their support of the Soviet Union and communism, Islamic radicals, and slavery, among other things, showed they were on the wrong side, so, they’re projecting a bit. As for “unequivocal”? Correlation is not causation, as the saying goes.

Today, in the scientific community, about 97 percent of climate scientists believe there has been anthropogenic climate change.

When someone trots out the 97% falsehood, you can go full stop. Anything after that is a lie, and simply cultish beliefs. Skipping to the end of English Major Ezra Solway’s missive

While the problem is deeply rooted in shortsightedness, there is some reason for optimism. President Obama has made it his last mission in office to help combat climate change by instituting the Clean Power Plan, which aims to reduce carbon dioxide levels by 32 percent from their 2005 levels by 2030. What can you do to help? Instead of taking everything the media shows at face value, go educate yourself. Actor Leonardo DiCaprio recently released a documentary on the crisis called Before the Flood, which elucidates many of the problems our society faces. Let’s be more conscientious and leave this beautiful world intact for many future generations to come.

So, nothing about reducing your own carbon footprint? About giving up fossil fuels? How about beer? College kids love beer. It’s bad for ‘climate change’.

It’ll be interesting to see what these Warmists do when they’re beliefs end up on the trashheep of history.

Read: If You Don’t Believe In ‘Climate Change’ You’re On The Wrong Side Of History Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Is A Bit Concerned Over This Impeachment Threat Against Hillary

By William Teach November 4, 2016 – 8:25 am

Seriously, there’s absolultely no reason to consider impeaching Hillary if she wins the White House, right? She’s an angel who does nothing wrong! And no one nor party has ever talked like this during an election season, right?

Donald Trump’s Impeachment Threat

Donald Trump and other embattled Republican candidates are resorting to a particularly bizarre and dangerous tactic in the closing days of the campaign — warning that they may well seek to impeach Hillary Clinton if she wins, or, short of that, tie her up with endless investigations and other delaying tactics.

Of all the arguments advanced by the Trump forces, this has to be among the most preposterous. In effect, what they’re saying is, Mrs. Clinton won’t be able to govern, because we won’t let her. So don’t waste your vote on her. Vote for us.

How dare this occur in politics!  I mean, goodness, certainly Democrats weren’t threatening to investigate and impeach George Bush during the 2004 election season, right?

In a rational world — you know, one that values comity and progress in the national interest — this line of argument would be seen as incendiary at worst and hopelessly wacky at best. Not so in Trumpland, where the candidate himself warns (as he did in Miami on Wednesday) that a Clinton victory would “create an unprecedented and protracted constitutional crisis,” raising the specter that government would be severely hobbled by congressional Republicans’ open-ended investigations and a determination to impeach Mrs. Clinton. All this even if she was fairly elected by a majority of American voters.

It’s so mean!

As nonsensical as this strategy appears, these threats could cause real damage by encouraging Republicans in the next Congress to effectively take the government hostage, exacting revenge by making sure that nothing Mrs. Clinton proposes ever comes to pass. President Obama put it well in underlining the dangers. “Right now, because a lot of them think that Trump will lose, they’re already promising even more unprecedented dysfunction in Washington,” he told North Carolina voters this week. “How does our democracy function like that?”

Considering Obama’s avoidance of engaging the duly elected legislative branch while using executive orders that are often dubious and blocked by the judiciary branch, Obama’s the last person who should be speaking on democracy.

Beyond simple hypocrisy, the Republicans’ impeachment threat demonstrates their gathering disrespect for democracy. If they can’t gain control of government fairly, they’ll simply undermine it. It is the clearest warning yet that voters must deliver a firm rejection of the politics of division that Mr. Trump represents.

Or, it could be that Republicans see an utterly untrustworthy person who blows off national security for her own “convenience” (we all know that her email server was about much, much more), left Americans to die in Benghazi, consorts with people linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, used her position at State to engage in pay for play, enriching herself and her family, sold out US interests to Russia (uranium deal), used her so-called charity to enrich herself, and so much more.

Where was the NY Times Editorial Board when Democrats were working hard to undermine President George W. Bush? Nowhere to be found. They didn’t seem to care about disrespect for democracy then.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Is A Bit Concerned Over This Impeachment Threat Against Hillary »

Posted in Hillary Clinton, Wonky Media | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Bookmakers Going All In On Trump Winning

By William Teach November 3, 2016 – 5:39 pm

Personally, I’d prefer that we just start the whole thing over, but, whatever

(The Hill) A major gambling website says nearly all wagers on the presidential election in the last 48 hours have been on Donald Trump to win.

Irish bookmaker Paddy Power on Tuesday said 91 percent of bets on the election in the last two days have been backing Trump, the Republican nominee.

Huh.

“We’re not reaching for the rosary beads just yet but if money talks, and it usually does, it’s telling us that Trump still has a puncher’s chance and he’ll be leaving us with some very expensive egg on our face if he does manage to pull it off,” spokesman Féilim Mac An Iomaire said in a statement.

Of course, I have to wonder if these bets are based on thinking that Trump will really win, or if people are putting down long-shot bets looking for a big reward should he win, like putting a few bucks down a 30-1 horse to win.

Read: Bookmakers Going All In On Trump Winning »

Posted in Donald Trump, Elections | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 3, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful big city which is Concerned with climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Joshuapundit, with a post on what to expect up till election day.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Who’s Up For Ecosexual?

By William Teach November 3, 2016 – 10:21 am

Mixing advocacy, gender confusion, and bat guano insanity

(Advocate) Over the past few years, some organizations and publications have added a Q, for queer, to the LGBT acronym — and now there are some who say we should add an E, for ecosexual.

The term has been around for much of the 21st century, although its definition can range from those who want to make environmental activism sexy and fun to those who derive sexual pleasure from interactions with nature. There are people who use sex products made from sustainable materials, enjoy hiking or swimming in the nude, or simply want to date other environmental activists, and others “who roll around in the dirt having an orgasm covered in potting soil” or “fuck trees, or masturbate under a waterfall,” Amanda Morgan, an ecosexual activist who teaches at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, told Vice recently.

photo 62971d4a_zps18828beb.gif

Read: Who’s Up For Ecosexual? »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Enviroweenies | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Climastrologists Have Underestimated Sea Rise Or Something

By William Teach November 3, 2016 – 8:01 am

In science, what do you do when the data fails to conform to your hypothesis? Correct, you rethink your hypothesis.

What do you do when you’re a member of the Cult of Climastrology? You change the data

Scientists Say We Underestimated How Much Sea Levels Have Risen

Scientists say in a new study that previous measurements of rising sea levels in the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th century were wrong—it’s actually worse than we thought. They say we have been underestimating rising sea levels by 5 to 28 percent depending on the location in the world.

Crucial to the work was use of “ice melt fingerprints,” a tool originally used in 2001 to help scientists determine why melting ice in say, Antarctica, is different from melting ice in Alaska. Using the fingerprints, scientists from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa closely analyzed various ice centers of the planet for a look at how they’ve been melting. Greenland was estimated to have been wrong by 28 percent off, while the melting Alps were off by 5 percent. The variations in individual ice centers give scientists reason to ratchet up the amount sea levels on the whole actually rose in the 20th century.

“The investigation concludes that it is highly unlikely that global average sea level rose less than” 5.5 inches, the previously widely accepted number, says the discovery’s lead author Phillip Thompson of the University of Hawai’i in a statement. The most likely amount was closer to 6.7 inches, they say.

So, even if they are correct, and it is 6.7 inches (there are already numerous studies that show the 20th Century sea rise was 7 inches), that provides absolutely no need for panic, as the average sea rise over the last 7,000 years, a time picked due to it being after the great sea rise from the end of the glacial age, is 6-8 inches per century. During a Holocene warm period, one would expect much higher sea rise, as they have been shorter than the cool periods, which would have much lower to even negative sea rise. This is how averages are calculated.

“This is the frontier in sea level science right now,” Thompson said. “We care about human timescale planning, decisions we’re going to make in the next 10 to 20 or 30 years.”

In that time frame, there will be little sea rise. Nothing to be concerned about, and certainly not anthropogenic. The point here, though, is to position things as Much Worse than previously thought, so, Government must be involved in central planning.

Read: Climastrologists Have Underestimated Sea Rise Or Something »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove