Bummer: Hurricane Matthew Causes All Sorts Of Problems For Illegals

By William Teach October 7, 2016 – 3:51 pm

Over at Grist, Excitable Rebecca Leber is whining about Matthew bringing out the weather deniers (she might have a little bit of a point, though, if you look at the bouy and surface level data, not seeing much which says “hurricane!” much less “major hurricane!”). Then you have her compatriot with this bit of wackadoodleness

https://twitter.com/aurabogado/status/784257358234996736

Matthew is bringing out the climate wackos in force. Here’s Esther Yu Hsi Lee in Stuck On Stupid mode

Hurricanes like Matthew leave undocumented immigrants with fewer options to rebuild

Undocumented immigrants living in Florida may have the most to lose as Hurricane Matthew hit the state Thursday night, bringing with it dangerous storm surge, destructive winds, and flooding rainfall.

Florida has about 610,000 undocumented immigrants, who contribute more than $588 million in state and local taxes according to recent calculations. But because of their legal status in the country, they are prohibited from receiving some forms of disaster assistance since they are less likely to be insured and may not have Social Security numbers to qualify for aid.

Right. They have the most to lose. In that case, all 610,000 can get the hell out and go back where they came from illegally.

“All individuals, regardless of citizenship status, that have been impacted by a Hurricane are eligible for short-term, non-cash, in-kind emergency disaster relief programs,” a FEMA spokesperson told ThinkProgress via email. Programs include search and rescue, medical care, shelter, food and water, as well as “Disaster Legal Services and Crisis Counseling.”

And then they should be deported.

Read: Bummer: Hurricane Matthew Causes All Sorts Of Problems For Illegals »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Illegal Immigration | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 7, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is evil carbon polluting meat, which causes extreme snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on the economic “recovery”.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Slate Tells Us The Most Important Issue With Matthew: The Election

By William Teach October 7, 2016 – 10:30 am

People have died and may die from Hurricane Matthew. They’ve been injured and there will certainly be more injures. People will be without power, their homes and property will be damaged. But, know what is the most important part?

Hurricane Matthew Could Have Devastating Consequences for the Election

If Hurricane Matthew is as devastating to Florida as forecasters have predicted, it could be a human tragedy costing people their lives, health, homes, and personal property. Beyond that initial tragedy, though, the storm also may have dire electoral implications, potentially affecting the outcome of the 2016 presidential election and landing emergency election litigation from Florida once again before the (now-deadlocked) United States Supreme Court.

Florida is seen as a state key to Donald Trump’s chances of victory over Hillary Clinton for the presidency, and this storm could have major impacts on voter registration and voting.

In other words, Trump might win, because, apparently, Democrat voters are too incompetent to register early and to get to voting places in a timely manner.

Lot’s of whining throughout, even about the 2000 election (because they just can’t let go), ending with

With Trump’s uncertainty about whether he would concede a close election to Clinton, this is a nightmare in the making. Let’s hope, for the sake of Floridians and all of us, that this storm is not as bad as it appears it will be.

Yeah, let’s hope that’s the reason the storm is not as bad as it appears to be.

Read: Slate Tells Us The Most Important Issue With Matthew: The Election »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 28 Comments | Trackback URL

Paul Krugman Is Very Concerned About The Lack Of Focus On ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach October 7, 2016 – 7:19 am

He says it’s almost like there’s a rule that keeps the (mostly leftist) media from bringing it up

What About the Planet?

Our two major political parties are at odds on many issues, but nowhere is the gap bigger or more consequential than on climate.

If Hillary Clinton wins, she will move forward with the Obama administration’s combination of domestic clean-energy policies and international negotiation — a one-two punch that offers some hope of reining in greenhouse gas emissions before climate change turns into climate catastrophe.

If Donald Trump wins, the paranoid style in climate politics — the belief that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a vast international conspiracy of scientists — will become official doctrine, and catastrophe will become all but inevitable.

I’ll start believing Paul is sincere when he moves out of his McMansion and into a tiny home (some of those are actually pretty cool, if you’ve seen the shows, eh?).

So why does the media seem so determined to ignore this issue? Why, in particular, does it almost seem as if there’s a rule against bringing it up in debates?

Probably because the majority of Americans find ‘climate change’ to be a low ranking issue, typically last or next to last. Of course, it doesn’t seem that the (mostly leftist) media wants to focus on the big issues, either.

And if Mrs. Clinton wins, it’s more or less certain that the biggest moves yet — the Clean Power Plan, which would regulate emissions from power plants, and the Paris climate agreement, which commits all of the world’s major economies to make significant emission cuts — will become reality.

Well, there’s a good reason to vote against her.

I’m not saying that there has been no reporting on the partisan climate divide, but there has been nothing like, say, the drumbeat of stories about Mrs. Clinton’s email server. And it’s really stunning that in the three nationally televised forums we’ve had so far — the “commander in chief” forum involving Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump, the first presidential debate and the vice-presidential debate — the moderators have asked not a single question about climate.

Because people care about her careless disregard for transparency and national security, and don’t care about Hotcoldwetdry.

It’s time to end the blackout on climate change as an issue. It needs to be front and center — and questions must be accompanied by real-time fact-checking, not relegated to the limbo of he-said-she-said, because this is one of the issues where the truth often gets lost in a blizzard of lies.

There is, quite simply, no other issue this important, and letting it slide would be almost criminally irresponsible.

It’s easy for people living in McMansions and making a lot of money to care: the cost of living increases from ‘climate change’ policies won’t affect them that much.

But, hey, I’m all for this discussion: it can be exposed on the national stage that this whole issue is a progressive (nice fascist) push to implement higher taxes along with more control of citizens, private entities, the energy sector, and economies. There’s nothing benign about it.

Read: Paul Krugman Is Very Concerned About The Lack Of Focus On ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post: Say, How Much Damage Could A President Trump Do?

By William Teach October 7, 2016 – 6:56 am

I’m continuing to see a pattern here from the Washington Post Editorial Board. It’s another day, another crazy editorial from the WP editorial Board. Previously, we’ve learned that a Pres Trump could deport freely (hooray!), that he’d end the era of US global leadership (not much left to lose after 8 years of Obama) or something, that he could wreck progress on ‘climate change’, and that he could destroy the world economy.  Now we see that the WPEB should write disaster books

How much damage could a President Trump do? We can only begin to imagine.

A PRESIDENT TRUMP could alter the face of this country and its role in the world, in many cases with Congress and the courts having little power to check him. In a series of editorials over the past several days, we have described the vast reach of executive power in areas where Mr. Trump has made his intentions clear. He could, in fact, unilaterally order mass deportations, resume torturing detainees, undo the preservation of natural treasures and tear up long-standing trade agreements.

But we should be clear: The scope of the damage a President Trump could do cannot be fully predicted or imagined. His candidacy forces us to confront the extent to which democracy depends on leaders adhering to a set of norms and traditions — civic virtues, to be old-fashioned about it. Mr. Trump has made clear his contempt for those virtues, norms and traditions: He despises the press, threatens his enemies, bullies the judiciary, disparages entire religions and nations, makes no distinction between his personal interest and the public good, hides information that should be revealed and routinely trades in falsehoods. Handed the immense powers of the presidency, what could such a man do? The honest answer: No one can be sure.

That’s interesting, because it explicitly describes the Obama presidency, which the WPEB lauds. Actually, Obama does more than just threaten enemies: he acts on it. Hillary does the same. Both disparage large swaths of American citizenry. She certainly makes no distinction between her personal interests and the public good….well, really, she has appeared to use the public sector to enrich her and her family through mixing with her foundation.

She’s hidden vast amounts of information, just like Obama, and routinely lies to the extreme. Falsehoods is such a mild word.

In one of the more thoughtful examinations of the danger, the Brookings Institution’s Benjamin Wittes explained why checks and balances cannot be counted on to protect the nation from an elected leader with contempt for democracy. “Ultimately, the entire executive branch is corruptible by one person because constitutionally, the executive branch is one person,” Mr. Wittes wrote on the Lawfare blog. “Everyone else is just his arms, hands, and fingers. That means that over time, the executive branch under Donald Trump becomes Donald Trump.”

The irony of this all is amazing, after watching what has happened with Obama in office, and the heavy politicization of agencies such as the FBI, DOJ, EPA, and so many others. Reading that paragraph and thinking about the Executive Branch becoming Hillary Clinton is enough to make me want to vote against her and check the box for Trump. Hilariously, the editorial alludes to the problems that could occur within the National Security Council and federal law enforcement under Trump in exactly the way we’ve seen happen under Obama, without acknowledging the problems, before moving on to

If Mr. Trump wanted to wield the IRS against that Chicago family; if he tried to use U.S. diplomats to help his hotel business in Russia or Azerbaijan; if he barred disfavored reporters from the White House; if he ignored a judge who told him, say, that immigrants had to be given hearings before being deported — what recourse would Americans have?

Obama has wielded the IRS against numerous people and groups that oppose him. Hillary used US diplomats to help her Foundation, increasing her personal bank account. Obama has barred reporters from the White House and his campaign, and has even had them locked in sheds during events. Hillary has also barred reporters from her campaign, and even corrals them like they are cattle. Obama has ignored judicial rulings numerous times.

We have faith, ultimately, in the integrity of the federal workforce, the resilience of the U.S. system and the essential fairness of the American people. But all three could be tested as never before by a Trump presidency. The nation should not subject itself to such a risk.

Just imagine that this was written about Obama in 2008. Or2012. It could be written about Hillary quite easily.

Again, do not take this as an endorsement of Trump. I’m simply amused by the incoherence, apoplexy, and fear-mongering of the WPEB, which never seems to question Hillary Clinton and her ideas in the least. Or Obama.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post: Say, How Much Damage Could A President Trump Do? »

Posted in Donald Trump, Wonky Media | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Now Using Aliens To Promote ‘Climate Change’ Awareness

By William Teach October 6, 2016 – 3:23 pm

Which aliens were you leaning toward?

(WTNH)  New Haven Healthy City Healthy Climate Challenge is using dozens of alien signs carrying “NO Alien Planet!!” signs in an effort to start up new climate change discussions in the New Haven area.  30 3 to 5 foot aliens will be placed at College and Elm Streets from 10 a.n to 3 p.m. on Thursday to promote the challenge.

The “Let’s talk about climate change” project is the result of studies that show most people are afraid to talk about global warming because they think others also don’t want to talk about it but the study shows people are actually willing to discuss it.  The project is designed to provide constructive opportunities for such discussions to help overcome the lack of climate conversations and help people better respond to global warming.

Here’s a quick peak at what people are doing instead of having an Adult Job

Read: Warmists Now Using Aliens To Promote ‘Climate Change’ Awareness »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 6, 2016 – 1:00 pm

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

The blog of the day is Jammie Wearing Fools, with a post on the number of Afghan troops who have disappeared in the US.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Hurricane Matthew Is A Harbinger Of Future Climate Doom Or Something

By William Teach October 6, 2016 – 10:12 am

One would think that the Cult of Climatrology would be a bit reticent about throwing out hurricane predictions, considering how wrong they’ve already been. First we were told that the big 2005 season would be the new normal. Then, when landfalling hurricanes dropped off quickly, we were told that there wouldn’t be as many, but they would be stronger. When they didn’t happen, this was blamed on ‘climate change.’ But, we were still told that the future would be all sorts of doomy. Now that we have a potential major hurricane which could make landfall in the U.S., the first in almost 11 years, the longest stretch since well before the Civil War, we get (this originally came from the UK Guardian, republished at Newsweek)

HURRICANE MATTHEW SIGNALS THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEVASTATION THAT LIES AHEAD AS THE PLANET WARMS

Major storms such as Hurricane Matthew, which has slammed into Haiti and is now headed towards the U.S., will grow in menace as the world warms and sea levels rise, scientists have warned. (snip)

While the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s prediction of a “near-normal” Atlantic hurricane season is still on track, scientists have pointed to Hurricane Matthew as the sort of fierce lashing that will become more common due to climate change.

There was previously far more certainty among climate scientists over the increase of temperatures than trends in hurricanes, but government officials are now confident enough to say there has been a “substantial increase” in Atlantic hurricane activity since the 1980s, with the destruction set to ratchet up further as the world warms.

“We expect to see more high-intensity events, category 4 and 5 events, that are around 13 percent of total hurricanes but do a disproportionate amount of damage,” said Kerry Emanuel, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “The theory is robust and there are hints that we are already beginning to see it in nature.”

Let’s not forget that they also predicted that Superstorm Sandy would be the “new normal.” Have we seen one since? This is just more doomsaying. Which continues elsewhere, with

There are plenty more out there, not too mention all the climahysteria on Twitter. It’s like the Warmists are trying to make up for almost 11 years of relatively quiet hurricane seasons. And it’s all your fault, for driving a fossil fueled vehicle, using air conditioning, and refusing to give up your liberty to government.

In reality, this tends to track more with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which, interestingly, tends to see increased tropical system formation during pauses and cooling periods, with lower storm formation during warming.

Nature will do what nature will do. And Warmists will do what they do best: become deranged prophets of doom.

Read: Hurricane Matthew Is A Harbinger Of Future Climate Doom Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 22 Comments | Trackback URL

DOJ Report: Criminal Background Checks, Immigration Status Are Barriers To Law Enforcement Diversity

By William Teach October 6, 2016 – 8:37 am

This is, um, well, just bat guano insane. The DOJ is utterly sincere in their, let’s call it “wackadoodle”, beliefs

(CNS News) The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released a comprehensive report Wednesday examining hiring, recruitment, and retention policies with the aim of increasing diversity in law enforcement.

The report highlighted barriers to diversity within police departments, such as “the use of criminal background checks” which the researchers found “is likely to disproportionately impact racial minority applicants.”

The report also found that U.S. citizenship requirements “may prevent a considerable number of racial and ethnic minorities – many of whom have valuable foreign language skills – from being hired by law enforcement agencies.”

Well, of course they are barriers. Does it really need to be stated that they should be barriers? Should a non-citizen really be in charge of law enforcement? Should a convicted felon really be in charge of law enforcement? One would think that the Department Of Justice, that nations top law enforcement office, would be interested in law and order, but, they’re morphing into the Department of Social Justice.

The report opened with an analysis of EEOC labor force data, which “found that African-American, Latino, and Asian-American police officers were underrepresented relative to the local area population in a significant number of the departments analyzed. Using a statistical test of underrepresentation, the researchers found that within their sample, African Americans were underrepresented in 60 percent of the departments, Latinos were underrepresented in 41 percent, and Asian Americans were underrepresented in 31 percent.”

So what? Women are underrepresented in the NFL and STEM fields. Men are underrepresented in education and health sciences. Whites are underrepresented in rap music and the NBA, Blacks in heavy metal and the NHL. Go to a car dealership: how many women work there in sales? It all comes down to choice and capability. There’s nothing wrong with attempting to diversify a work force. Many police forces have been thrilled to be able to have more female officers, who can often deescalate situations, but, guess what? They still have to pass a background check. And they have to want to become police officers.

What if Blacks, Latinos, and Asians do not care about becoming officers in amounts large enough to be “represented”? Are we to force them? What if part of it is that they cannot pass a citizenship or background check? Sadly, it needs to be said “of course not.”

The use of criminal background checks, the report noted, “is likely to disproportionately impact racial minority applicants since, for a variety of reasons, individuals from those communities are more likely to have contact with the criminal justice system.”

It added that “law enforcement agencies are undeniably justified in carefully vetting and investigating potential hires,” but “excluding applicants regardless of the nature of the underlying offense, or how much time has passed since an offense occurred, or without any consideration of whether the candidate has changed in the intervening period, can be a significant – and unwarranted – barrier.”

So, if someone is essentially committing crimes as a teenager and young adult, that should be thrown out or something. There wouldn’t be a lot of time passing between those time periods in a person’s life and when they would try to join law enforcement.

One has to wonder: while the DOSJ is whining about local, county, and state police forces, are they forcing the FBI and DOJ to hire people with serious criminal offenses in their backgrounds, or who are illegal aliens?

On the hiring of women in law enforcement, according to the report, “research has shown that physical tests may have a significant and unnecessary impact on female applicants when they lack a corresponding benefit or job-related need.

So now the DOSJ wants to add “physically unable to do the job” as a barrier to getting a job.

I’ll leave it up to you to read the rest of the article, which doesn’t get any better when it comes to facepalming from what the DOSJ is stating.

 

Read: DOJ Report: Criminal Background Checks, Immigration Status Are Barriers To Law Enforcement Diversity »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post: A President Trump Could Destroy The World Economy Or Something

By William Teach October 6, 2016 – 7:51 am

I’m starting to see a pattern here from the Washington Post Editorial Board. It’s another day, another crazy editorial from the WP editorial Board. Previously, we’ve learned that a Pres Trump could deport freely (hooray!), that he’d end the era of US global leadership (not much left to lose after 8 years of Obama) or something, and that he could wreck progress on ‘climate change’.  Now we see

A President Trump could destroy world economy

THE DECADES since the end of the Cold War have seen strong and widely shared economic growth, on a global scale. The portion of the world’s population living on $1.25 per day or less fell from 44 percent to 23 percent. Some 200 million Chinese, 90 million Indians and 30 million people each in Indonesia, Egypt and Brazil moved into the global middle class. This progress had many causes, but a major one was the United States’ hard work, under presidents of both major parties, to promote the free flow of goods and capital, within a robust legal framework, among nations.

Except, of course, the past 7+ years, where leftist economic policies have kept most of the 1st World in economic doldrums, where people, at least in the U.S., still think the country hasn’t recovered from the recession, and many still think we’re in one.

These policies benefited the American people, too — though by no means all of them, a fact that has caused understandable concern, especially in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Seizing on this backlash, and dissenting radically from the long-standing bipartisan consensus, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks of “bringing back” American jobs by repudiating international trade agreements and resorting instead to pressure tactics, such as threatening tariffs against China and other trading partners.

Because attempting to bring back jobs, businesses, increasing wages, and thinking of American citizens first is a Bad Idea in Liberal World. Which is an interesting idea, considering how many of the Democratic Party base are stuck working low wage, often part time, jobs. If they can get one after building up $50,000+ in student loans debt.

The United States needs to ensure that more of its own middle class shares in the benefits of globalization. Mr. Trump’s policies, however, could trigger a trade war, or wars, thus threatening the achievements of the past three decades without helping Americans who need it most.

So, doom.

Anyhow, a few more paragraphs of Doooooooooom, ending with

U.S. leadership of the global trading system has helped stabilize an area of international life that had bred conflict, even war, for centuries. To abdicate in favor of Mr. Trump’s zero-sum mind-set not only would undo the work of generations and lower the United States’ standing among the nations; it also would license other nations to conduct themselves just as selfishly. The disruption to market confidence could breed economic damage in excess of any transitory benefits. His approach would be a historic error, which, as president, he would be free to commit.

Here’s the question not discussed by the WPEB: what if his policies work? In reality, Mr. Trump would not implement policies that would damage American prosperity: he may be rather bombastic and wacky, but, he’s no dummy when it comes to business. He’s certainly smarter than our current president, who has never seen a year with 3%+ GDP growth since Herbert Hoover.

Many of the Trumpites say this election is about the Globalists vs. the Nationalists. Certainly, I have some serious reservations and concerns over pitching nationalism, but, while globalism has certainly afforded Americans cheaper goods, we’re seeing companies and jobs constantly bolt overseas. We see foreign workers brought in to take the jobs of American citizens for lower wages. We see countries dump their products in the US at a cost that is below typical value, damaging American workers and companies. Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate the global business models, and do what we can to put Americans first.

Again, do not take this as an endorsement of Trump. I’m simply amused by the incoherence, apoplexy, and fear-mongering of the WPEB, which never seems to question Hillary Clinton and her ideas in the least.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post: A President Trump Could Destroy The World Economy Or Something »

Posted in Donald Trump, Wonky Media | 11 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove