NY Times: Know What’s A Scandal Too Far? “Carlos Danger”

You can always rely on the NY Times, be it in their news or opinion sections (which often seem to be the same thing), to provide some progressive silliness to just about everything

A Scandal Too Far? Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton, and a Test of Loyalty

In the summer of 2013, Hillary Clinton had just left the State Department and returned to New York. She planned a quiet year, basking in sky-high approval ratings and enjoying a respite from the media spotlight as she laid the groundwork for a second presidential run.

Then Carlos Danger happened.

Anthony D. Weiner, the husband of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, was running for mayor of New York when news broke that he had continued to exchange lewd messages with women online after the practice cost him his congressional seat. This time, he used the embarrassing Spanish-inspired moniker.

The tawdry story line and Ms. Abedin’s closeness to Mrs. Clinton made the events explode far beyond New York, dragging Mrs. Clinton’s name into messy headlines about penis pictures, Mr. Weiner’s descriptions of his sexual appetites and his online paramour named Sydney Leathers.

Now, with Mrs. Clinton seemingly on the cusp of winning the White House, Mr. Weiner, who once described himself as “a perpetually horny middle-aged man,” has pulled her into another drama. Federal investigators looking into his sexual messaging with an underage girl stumbled upon thousands of emails potentially pertinent to the F.B.I. inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s private email server.

See? This is a scandal too far. Apparently, what Weiner did is Bad, and could effect Hillary, potentially forcing her to let Huma go. Too be clear, what Weiner has done is very bad, and potentially criminal. But, it’s apparently not too far when it comes to Hillary not only standing by Bill Clinton when he’s credibly accused of sexual assault and rape, but actively working to destroy the women who made the accusations.

It’s not a scandal too far when there’s a proven pay for play scandal between Hillary, the State Department, and the Clinton Foundation.

It’s not a scandal too far that the Clinton Foundation only spends 6% on actual charity. That they take lots of money from horrible countries that treat women and gays terribly. Selling US uranium rights to Russia after massive donations to the Foundation. And so much more.

It’s not a scandal too far when Hillary implements her own private server outside the government chain, passing national security material through the server which had little security, hiding the server, deleting emails in violation of subpoena, stripping security markings, wiping the server, not turning emails over, and so much more. Hillary, as Sec of State, should have known better. But, she blew off training’s on security.

And so, so much more. Weiner is a scandal too far, though.

Meanwhile, do you know what’s troubling to Hillary?

Treating Mr. Comey as a threat to her candidacy, Mrs. Clinton took aim at the law enforcement officer who had recommended no criminal charges less than four months earlier for her handling of classified information as secretary of state.

“It’s pretty strange to put something like that out with such little information right before an election,” Mrs. Clinton said at a rally in Daytona Beach, Fla. “In fact, it’s not just strange; it’s unprecedented and it is deeply troubling.”

Strange and deeply troubling. Not like her setting up the email server in the first place. Or her husband sexually assaulting women. Getting oral sex from an intern in the White House. Keeping a woman, Huma Abedin, around who has deep links to the Islamic group the Muslim Brotherhood, which treats women terribly. All the lying from Hillary. Etc and so forth.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times: Know What’s A Scandal Too Far? “Carlos Danger” »

If All You See…

…are horrible fossil fueled vehicles causing hot and cold days, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Feral Irishman, with a post on a Hillary supporter finding out the meaning of “unintended consequences.”

Read: If All You See… »

Warmists Have A New Phrase: Climate Radicalization

It flows off the lips, eh? (via Watts Up With That?)

‘The atmosphere is being radicalized’ by climate change

Climate change’s impacts on extreme weather and society are becoming increasingly clear and undeniable. While we are making progress in solving the problem, we’re still moving too slowly, and one of the two political parties governing the world’s strongest superpower continues to deny the science. This led astrophysicist Katie Mack to make the following suggestion, related to a common refrain from Donald Trump and Republican Party leaders:

https://twitter.com/AstroKatie/status/789817185287811072

Radicalized! Then, as Eric Worrell writes at Watts Up With That?, “… [snip: boring list of rehashed climate claims] …”

These are but a few recent examples of climate extremes amplified by human-caused global warming. These extreme events will only come with greater frequency and intensity as the planet continues to heat up.

The only way to curb these impacts is to cut the carbon pollution that’s intensifying them. As any member of Alcoholics Anonymous knows, denying a problem doesn’t make it go away. Only by admitting we have a problem and taking steps to address it can we avoid a catastrophic outcome.

By “taking steps,” uber-Warmist Dana Nuccitteli (who’s also a big oil consultant) doesn’t mean that people should de-carbonize (another Warmist catch-phrase) their own lives, the whole list of giving up their own use of fossil fuels and stuff, no, he means big government controlling our lives and taxing the hell out of us.

Of course, as Alun Jones notes in the Guardian comments “How about “climate science radicalization” to best describe what’s going on?”

Read: Warmists Have A New Phrase: Climate Radicalization »

Super Cold Winter Days Are Now ‘Climate Change’

No matter the question, the answer from the Cult of Climastrology is “climate change!!!!!” And then they jump in their fossil fueled vehicles to go to a demonstration, using their energy sucking smartphones, tablets, and computers, and drinking out of plastic bottles. Over at the George Soros funded Think Progress, Warmist Alejandro Dávila Fragoso is incensed over the latest “report” on the polar vortex

Brace yourself for a bitterly cold winter, as climate change shifts the polar vortex
Scientists have long said global warming will bring extreme weather.

It’s coming back.

The polar vortex that shocked the northeast with extremely cold days may bring more bitterly cold winters to North America, according to a new study.

According to the study, over the past 30 years, the polar vortex has weakened, in part due to Arctic sea-ice loss linked to human-caused climate change. That weakening has prompted a shifted toward Europe and Asia in February. This means unusually cold days may become more common in February and March, the Weather Channel reported. At the same time, Europe is facing warmer winters.

So, warmer and colder. No matter the question, the answer is always to deem it man-induced climate change. They can’t help themselves. This is what people in cults do.

Scientists have long said global warming will bring extreme weather. This is what it looks like.

Of course they did. Hot, cold, wet, dry, snow, lack of snow, cold records, hot records, you name it, they’ll blame it.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicts a warm, dry winter for much of the country, according to the U.S. Winter Outlook published last week. But that doesn’t mean the polar vortex won’t be capable of bringing record cold days.

So, if most of the winter is dry and warm, and a few days are bitterly cold, it’s your fault for driving a fossil fueled vehicle and using a hair dryer. And refusing to give up your hard earned money to Government, along with your liberty and modern lifestyle.

Read: Super Cold Winter Days Are Now ‘Climate Change’ »

Times, Post Seem Rather Upset About FBI Reopening Hillary Server Case

By now you’re surely familiar with the FBI bringing back it’s examination of the Hillary email server case. Powerline wonders if this is about Huma Abedin committing perjury, but, I’m not sure that Comey would announce the inquiry in this manner for just perjury, not this close to the election, no matter how close she is to Hillary. Hilariously, Hillary stated

“We are 11 days out from perhaps the most important national election of our lifetimes. Voting is already underway in our country,” Clinton said. “So the American people deserve to get the full and complete facts immediately.”

“We don’t know what to believe. And I’m sure there will be even more rumors,” Clinton said. “That’s why it is incumbent upon the FBI to tell us what they’re talking about.”

This from a woman who created a private server outside the control of the State Department, didn’t tell anyone about it, had no regards for transparency (nor national security), deleted 33,000 emails when she learned that it was under subpoena in contradiction of the law, obfuscated and delayed all investigations, and did everything to gum up the works. Lied about it. Humorously, the DNC and John Podesta are also calling for transparency from the FBI. They never did for Hillary, of course.

And then we get this from the NY Times editorial board (which, of course, minimizes the whole case, which, really, would have been sent to a grand jury for anyone not named Hillary Clinton)

Mrs. Clinton, as she has acknowledged, is responsible for this mess, which led Friday night to a gobsmacking headline on CNN: “Weiner Sexting Probe Leads F.B.I. to Review Clinton Case.” If she is elected, she will do well to recall that line should she ever consider being less than forthcoming. Her apparent effort to blunt scrutiny by means of that private server has only led to far more damaging scrutiny and suspicion, with no end in sight.

But Mr. Comey’s failure to provide any specifics about a new, potentially important development, less than two weeks before Election Day, is confounding. As Mr. Comey put it in July, “The American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest.” They deserve details even more urgently today.

See? This is mostly the Comey’s fault, and suddenly transparency is required. From the FBI. Of course, the NYTEB has barely asked for the same from Hillary during this whole time, and, certainly, you can imagine the resulting editorials, including on the reopening of the case, had she been a Republican, and they would have been vastly different.

Not to be outdone, the Washington Post Editorial Board, which had previously only chided Mrs. Clinton over her poor conduct, questions the timing

POLITICAL TENSION is running high in the United States, extraordinarily so, we’d say. And so it behooves everyone in a position of official responsibility to do everything he or she possibly can to help maintain stability — while avoiding all avoidable provocations — until the bitter competition between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump runs its ugly course on Nov. 8.

That is the context for Friday’s announcement by James B. Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, that his agency is again looking into Ms. Clinton’s private email server in light of newly discovered emails “that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.” Mr. Comey may have had good reason to inform Republican committee chairmen in Congress of the review, but his timing was nevertheless unfortunate, given its potential to affect a democratic process in which millions of people are already voting.

Obviously, their concern is for Hillary’s POTUS chances. They certainly weren’t concerned with the provocations of so far unfounded accusations against Trump, ones which have no actual hard proof that he sexually assaulted anyone decades ago. Just someone saying. Imagine, again, the difference had Hillary been a Republican. They would have cheered this reopening, saying it is good for our democratic process.

Of course, the WPEB does their own schtick in saying that Hillary did not wrong (federal statutes, like the Espionage Act, notwithstanding)

Mr. Comey found himself in a bind when his investigators turned up additional, previously unexamined Clinton emails, apparently on devices belonging to top aide Huma Abedin and her husband, Anthony Weiner, seized during an FBI probe of the latter’s alleged sexual misconduct with a minor. (As if this could not get any more bizarre.) If Mr. Comey failed to tell Congress before Nov. 8 about his decision to review them, he would be accused — again — of a politically motivated coverup. By revealing it, he inevitably creates a cloud of suspicion over Ms. Clinton that, if the case’s history is any guide, is unwarranted. Hence Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s not unreasonable demand that Mr. Comey “immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining.”

What they’re upset over is that this could hurt Hillary. Can you imagine finding this out after the election, one she had won?

The interesting question not being asked is what happens if she wins, and then the FBI decides to recommend prosecution prior to Inauguration Day.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Times, Post Seem Rather Upset About FBI Reopening Hillary Server Case »

Renewables Beat Coal In 2015 Or Something

I caught a few big stories from the Cult of Climastrology where they are pimping the notion that renewables surged past coal for energy production. Um, no

(Breitbart) CNBC viewers are being snookered.

The business news network featured an article in the “Sustainable Energy” section of its Website that proclaimed: “Renewables surged past coal in 2015 to become world’s biggest source of electricity: IEA.”

In reading that headline, one might get the impression that wind turbines and solar panels produced more electricity last year than coal. But the fine print actually reveals a very different picture.

Huh. Fine print.

The opening paragraph of the article by “Freelance digital reporter” Anmar Frangoul gives a clue as to the sleight of hand being used. Frangoul cites the International Energy Agency (IEA) as reporting that “Renewable energy moved past coal in 2015 to become the biggest source of global electricity capacity.” The key word there is “capacity.”

What’s noteworthy is that capacity is far different from actual production. The average wind turbine has a maximum rated capacity of roughly 2 megawatts. That means, if the wind is blowing between 26-56 mph, the turbine can spin up to its peak generating capacity. In such moments, the wind turbine can produce its full 2 megawatts.

Of course, the reality is that capacity for renewables tends to be vastly off, especially with wind and solar. Hydrothermal tends to work well. Of course, extreme enviroweenies want to tear dams down.

In contrast, and as the IEA itself notes, coal provided 40.8 percent of worldwide power generation in 2014. The renewables that Frangoul crows about—defined by the IEA as “geothermal, solar, wind, heat, etc.”—produced only 6.3 percent of all power.

One day we’ll see renewables provide the type of power we need, hopefully as truly, or mostly, clean. Perhaps the Cult of Climastrology should stop pimping it as a way of stopping Hotcoldwetdry, they might obtain more support, rather than eye rolls. And they wouldn’t need to push fake numbers.

Read: Renewables Beat Coal In 2015 Or Something »

If All You See…

…is NASA having it’s budget for climate change research cut by deniers, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on Hillary’s tax returns.

Read: If All You See… »

Say, What About Those Secret Trump Voters?

Could this be a real thing?

GOP insiders: Polls don’t capture secret Trump vote

Those battleground state polls that paint such a grim picture of Donald Trump’s prospects against Hillary Clinton? Most Republican insiders don’t believe they’re accurately capturing Trump’s true level of support.

That’s according to the POLITICO Caucus — a panel of activists, strategists and operatives in 11 key battleground states. More than seven-in-10 GOP insiders, 71 percent, say the polls understate Trump’s support because voters don’t want to admit to pollsters that they are backing the controversial Republican nominee.

“I’m not sure how big a factor it is, but there is definitely a ‘Bradley effect’ going on out there,” said a Virginia Republican, referring to the African-American mayor of Los Angeles who led in polls but lost unexpectedly in the 1982 California gubernatorial race. “I personally know many Republicans that won’t admit that they are voting for Trump. I don’t like admitting it myself. It won’t matter if Hillary is up more than 5 points, but we might be in for a surprise if Hillary’s lead is less than 5 points on Election Day.”

A Michigan Republican — who, like all insiders, completed the survey anonymously —added that Trump voters are reticent to admit it publicly: “Anecdotally, that’s clearly the case in barber-shop conversations.”

Every time I hear this kind of schtick on the radio or TV, or in articles, I roll my eyes. It sounds rather wishful and divorced from reality, does it not? But, what if it is real? What if there are tons of people who refuse to admit that they are voting for Trump, including to pollsters? We’ve seen some massive flipping of polls over the past few months, and especially in the past few weeks. I’m not quite sure why someone would refuse to tell a pollster who they’re voting for, but, could you see it happen, with people not wanting to admit they’re voting for Trump?

Where the big difference could be made is within the #NeverTrump and GOP fence sitter #NeverHillary community. What if all these millions of Republicans decide to vote for Trump at the last minute? Usually, I would have hit the early voting booth yesterday, having the day off, but, I’m holding out till next week, to see if Trump can give me a reason to vote for him, at least as a vote against Hillary. Or, do I simply not vote president, and just vote down ballot? That’s the conundrum. Many, many more might be facing the same prospect.

Even 26% of Democrats think the polls underestimate Trump’s support, while 71% of Republicans think the polls understate.

It’s a long, long article, worth the read. And it does beg the question: could this mean more actual votes for Trump (with a goodly chunk being protest votes against Hillary) than thought of ?

Read: Say, What About Those Secret Trump Voters? »

Here We Go Again: NY Times Op-Ed Calls For Public Option

Another day, another call from a liberal for a public option to try and save the utterly failing Obamacare. Elsewhere in the NY Times, Excitable Paul Krugman, who certainly does not purchase his own health insurance via the Obamacare exchanges, says that the recently releases premium hikes and insurers bolting the exchanges is just a “pothole,”, so, no big deal. Then we have Jacob S. Hacker, a Yale professor who wrote “American Amnesia: How the war on government led us to forget what made America prosper.” Without even looking at the book, I’m guessing he thinks government made America great. Looking at Amazon, yup, Government great.

Now we get

The Best Way to Save Obamacare

The Affordable Care Act has faced a rocky six months. First, major national insurers scaled back their participation, leaving about one in five people buying coverage through health exchanges with only one plan to choose from. Then this week, the Obama administration announced that exchange plans would post an average premium increase of more than 20 percent (though most enrollees would be insulated from the full increase by subsidies for their coverage).

As someone involved in the debate over the Affordable Care Act from the start, I don’t find these unhappy events all that surprising. From the outset, I’ve argued that without a public option — a Medicare-like plan that would be available to all Americans buying health insurance — insurance competition would dwindle and premiums would skyrocket. Now that they have, it’s time to do now what we should have done then: take the simplest route to a more stable and affordable health care system.

Because Government does a wonderful job with so many of its other ventures.

Critics of the public option are convinced it’s a one-way ticket to single payer (the government alone provides coverage). History suggests the opposite: The public option isn’t a threat to a system of broad coverage through competing private plans. Instead, it’s absolutely critical to making such a system work.

Got that? The health system, which worked for hundreds of years, needs the Helpful Hand of Government to work correctly.

We’re already heading toward single payer in sections of the nation — only it’s a private plan doing the paying. Next year, five states will have only one insurer in their exchanges, the online marketplaces set up to allow uninsured Americans to buy subsidized coverage. Nine more states will have just two insurers.

Of course, out on the private insurance market, there are plenty that offer health insurance. They just don’t want to participate in Obamacare anymore.

These problems are what motivated proposals for a public option in the first place. Major parts of the country lacked enough insurer competition to keep costs in line, especially with rapidly consolidating providers. And the proposed alternatives to a public option, like the insurance “co-ops” eventually included in the 2010 law, did not have the bargaining power and reach that a Medicare-like plan would have (and most of them have since gone out of business).

Except, it was Government that was restricting competition, and we weren’t seeing the types of premium rise that we see with Ocare, nor were deductibles set so high that for many they might as well not have insurance. And medical facilities participated, rather than opting out.

The argument by public-option supporters wasn’t that it would or should replace private insurance. It was that having a public plan as a benchmark and backup was essential to make competition among private plans work.

A public option would certainly offer such low prices, all on the backs of taxpayers, that even more insurers would abandon the system. That’s not competition, that’s China dumping insanely low priced materials into the economy, shutting out US manufacturers.

Having a public plan alongside private plans won’t merely ensure that everyone has a choice. It will also pull more people into the system, creating a broader pool for all the plans.

The private plans would whither away, and make more people dependent on Government.

The biggest advantage of the public plan, however, is its greater ability to restrain prices. As rapidly as the insurance market is concentrating, medical providers are consolidating faster, driving up prices and creating huge differentials even within regions. Medicare hospital reimbursements vary much less — and they’re typically much lower.

In other words, Government could drive private insurance out of business. Fewer and fewer doctors and hospitals and medical providers take new Medicare patients, because they aren’t in business to lose money. And, don’t forget about all the companies that offer supplements to Medicare, due to coverage gaps. You see their TV commercials all the time.

Hacker also pimps the notion that a public option would reduce the deficit by tens of millions of dollars a year. We’ve heard that promise before, in everything from Ocare to other government programs. Never happens.

If things keep going as they are, Americans are certain to demand greater regulation of private plans to make them operate more like public plans. Instead, we should make them compete with a public option.

And, as said public option causes even more problems, they’ll call for single payer. That’s what they do.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Here We Go Again: NY Times Op-Ed Calls For Public Option »

Hannity Loses It Yet Again

Did anyone ever conceive of Sean Hannity going as fruit loops as Excitable Andrew Sullivan, Markos Molitos (Daily Kos), and Charles Johnson (Little Green Footballs)?

(Mediaite)  The conservative host first stated that we had only 13 days left until we made the decision to “keep screwing the country up” or “try and fix it.”

Letting his audience know that he was angry, he noted that there was going to be a reckoning with the Never Trump crowd the day after the election.

“All this garbage from you Never Trumper jerks out there,” Hannity shouted. “I’ve had it. By the way, that’s more unfinished business. November 9th, I have a lot to say about all of you.”

He’s had it! Nice threat at the last, though, eh? Of course, since he’s lost quite a bit of audience due to this barking moonbat behavior, we won’t actually hear it.

At one point, Hannity apparently had the dump button hit on him after he said Donald Trump isn’t “freaking perfect.” Following up the delay, he yelled, “I’m pissed!”

The problem with people like Hannity, besides utterly abandoning their principles to pimp Trump in the same way Lefties pimped Obama (I don’t remember Hannity being this passionate (loopy) over McCain nor Romney), is that they have decided that they’ll get more done with vinegar then honey. Instead of trying to convince people that Trump isn’t as bad as #NeverTrump thinks they’ve simply decided that insults and abuse are the way forward. This same abuse tends to negatively effect those who are on the fence of deciding whether they will put a gasmask on and check the box for Trump as a protest vote against Hillary or simply just not vote for president.

As for those Republicans voting for Hillary, well, you’ve gone beyond abandoning everything you hold dear. I have zero respect for those who would endorse her, instead of saying “I can’t vote for either.”

Anyhow, what’s the difference between Hillary insulting over 6 million Americans as “deplorables” and Hannity calling the millions who refuse to vote Trump names?

Read: Hannity Loses It Yet Again »

Pirate's Cove