Charlotte PD Release Full Videos Of Keith Scott Shooting

By William Teach October 5, 2016 – 8:44 am

For the most part, the videos solve nothing, except showing that the officers were not cold hearted racists who just love shooting Black people (despite the officer who took the shot being Black): the spent a lot of time providing medical aid

(Charlotte Observer) Police body camera footage released on Tuesday shows in graphic detail the final minutes of Keith Lamont Scott’s life after he was shot on Sept. 20 by a Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer.

The video shows police officers handcuffing Scott and then trying to save his life in the parking lot of his University City apartment complex. Officers in the video said they found three bullet wounds on Scott– on his wrist, abdomen, and on the back of his shoulder.

While a gun is not seen in the footage, one officer is heard telling another to “come watch this gun.”

The body camera video, which lasts 16 minutes and 29 seconds, begins after Scott was shot. Much of it shows officers assessing and then tending to Scott’s wounds, securing the scene and talking to Scott as they knelt beside him.

“Stay with us, bro, stay with us now,” one officer says to Scott.

Weirdly, the article barely mentions the second video, which is the full dash cam. Neither solves the question of the gun. What has been proposed is that the officer in the red shirt was initially standing over the weapon. Then you see him putting on medical gloves to render aid, and another officer goes and stands in the exact same spot.

You can also download the videos from Charlotte governmental website, or watch them at WTVD, which also offers

Keith Lamont Scott was a different person after suffering a traumatic brain injury in a motorcycle accident last year. Friends say his medications made him zone out, slurring his words and forgetting what he was saying in the middle of a conversation.

“You could look at him and tell something was wrong,” said Dana Chapman, a former neighbor. “You could walk up to him, you didn’t have to speak. You could look at him and tell there was a problem.”

Doesn’t matter. Officers do not know this. When they are giving commands to a subject carrying a firearm, and they are not complying, then the results are on the subject, not the officers.

The events surrounding Scott’s death are more important than anything in his past, said Justin Bamberg, the family’s attorney. “In the end, it was his life to live until law enforcement determined they should take it from him.”

In other words, we are to ignore his long history of criminality and violence, all the threats and restraining orders. If he wanted to live his life, then he shouldn’t have been sitting around at the bus stop waiting for his child with marijuana and a handgun. If he had so many problems, perhaps someone should have been watching him.

Read: Charlotte PD Release Full Videos Of Keith Scott Shooting »

Posted in NC News | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

UN Makes A Power Play Against Trump On Paris Climate Deal Or Something

By William Teach October 5, 2016 – 8:23 am

Last night we had the big Vice Presidential debate, which pretty much everyone said that Pence won. He looked and acted like the adult in the room, while Tim Kaine looked over-caffeinated and was rude. And desperate. Even with the assist from moderator Elaine Quijano. Politico offers 12 of the most interesting moments, but, Ed Morrissey offers the best play by play of the debate. Which, no, I did not watch. Masterchef Canada returned! And you do not miss an episode, because they do not have in-demand. Unfortunately, I think I may have seen the name of the winner (it is played in Canada well before shown on Cooking in the States) while searching for the start time. Much like the GOP declared Pence the winner….before the debate. Good thing Tim Kaine wasn’t interrupting, eh?

Anyhow, there’s this

UN makes power play against Donald Trump

International governments have made a power play against Donald Trump by ratifying an international climate deal earlier than expected, effectively preventing him from “canceling” the deal as he has promised to do.

The European Union’s Tuesday decision to join the Paris climate deal will push the deal over the threshold for ratification; it will formally take effect in 30 days.

That means Trump, should he be elected president in November, could not “cancel” or renegotiate the terms of the agreement.

The Hill then contradicts itself

President Obama committed the United States to reduce its emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025 as part of the deal. The agreement is nonbinding, so Trump would be free to ignore it if he wins the White House.

A President Trump could do more than ignore it: he could cancel America’s involvement, since Congress did not ratify it. Obama used an Executive Order. Trump could cancel that EO with a second EO. It really is that simple.

Once the deal takes effect, the United States cannot back out of the plan — or force changes to it — for at least four years.

Yes, it can, because, without Senate ratification, it has no force of law for the United States, so the US can opt out. Forcing changes? That won’t happen anyhow, because I doubt Trump cares enough to even bother.

Before the U.S. joined the agreement in September, Obama’s top climate change adviser, Brian Deese, said the dynamics of a change in presidential administration is “certainly a discussion we have.”

“The history of these agreements is: Once they’re in place and once the United States has not only supported and signed the agreement, but has formally joined the agreement, that we stay in the agreement that we commit to,” Deese told reporters in early September.

We didn’t agree. The United States did not sign the agreement. Obama agreed. Which is not the way our Republic works. Trump could, again, simply ignore the deal, or sign an EO rescinding Obama’s EO.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: UN Makes A Power Play Against Trump On Paris Climate Deal Or Something »

Posted in Donald Trump, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Progressive Haven Of NY Times Suddenly Upset About This Whole “Democracy” Thing

By William Teach October 4, 2016 – 3:00 pm

Progressives have long been big adherents of Direct Democracy, where the people vote for lots and lots of things directly to determine the outcome. Think of ballot initiatives. This is different from representative democracy, where people vote lawmakers, who then go and vote the way their big moneyed donors constituents determine. But, NY Times writers Amanda Taub and Max Fisher have a problem with people actually voting for things

Why Referendums Aren’t as Democratic as They Seem

The voters of the world have had quite a year: They rejected Colombia’s peace deal; split Britain from the European Union; endorsed a Thai Constitution that curtails democracy; and, in Hungary, backed the government’s plan to restrict refugees, but without the necessary turnout for a valid result.

Each of these moves was determined by a national referendum. Though voters upended their governments’ plans, eroded their own rights and ignited political crises, they all accomplished one thing: they demonstrated why many political scientists consider referendums messy and dangerous.

When asked whether referendums were a good idea, Michael Marsh, a political scientist at Trinity College Dublin, said, “The simple answer is almost never.”

“I’ve watched many of these in Ireland, and they really range from the pointless to the dangerous,” he added.

You can see where this is going, no need for more excerpts. I wonder, though, have they explained this to the People’s Republik Of Brokeifornia, which has 17 ballot initiatives on deck for November? Probably not, because the article thinks that citizens are just too stupid to know which way to vote.

How does that accord, though, with voting for representative democracy?

Of course, the big problem here is votes that do not come out the way Progressives want. Then we’re told that direct democracy is a Bad Idea (or they sue to overturn the results of the will of the people).

And, no, the results are not always optimal. Sometimes they are downright stupid. People may vote against their own best interests. Democracy is messy. Would they prefer dictatorships of some fashion (well, yes, they kinda would, but, that is a different story.) How is representative democracy any less messy? People so often do not know what they are voting for, who they are voting for, what they stand for, what they have done, what they plan on doing, their legislative record, or who influences them.

Oh, and let’s definitely take note that one of the things the Times is bitching about is the vote in Columbia. About that

(NY Sun) Congratulations are in order for the people of Colombia, who, in a democratic referendum, have rejected the peace deal with the Revolutionary Armed Forces known as FARC. The vote is a rejection of a compromise with a nihilistic Marxist movement whose entry into peace talks was one of the most cynical maneuvers in the history of the Americas. Yet the resulting compact was hailed by nearly every liberal paper and politician in the world (including Hillary Clinton), only to be brought up short by a people who turned out to be smarter than the elites who rule them.

Read the whole thing. Maybe voters are smarter than the Times gives them credit for being.

Read: Progressive Haven Of NY Times Suddenly Upset About This Whole “Democracy” Thing »

Posted in Politics, Wonky Media | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is snow melting from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Welcome To The Rightly Guided, with a post on losing a billion dollars.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

People With Giant Carbon Footprints Warn There’s No More Time For People To Be Allowed To Have Opinions

By William Teach October 4, 2016 – 10:18 am

Let me posit a hypothesis: if you say you believe in anthropogenic global warming/climate change, yet have a carbon footprint well beyond most citizens on the planet, are you, in fact, denying your own beliefs?

Obama And Leonardo DiCaprio Warn There’s No Time Left For Climate Change Denial

President Barack Obama on Monday warned that Republicans in Congress who deny climate change contribute to a growing problem that he hoped to give more political urgency by emphasizing moral issues.

“Climate change is happening even faster than five years ago or 10 years ago,” Obama said. “What we’re seeing is the pessimistic end of what was possible, the ranges that had been discerned or anticipated by scientists, which means we’re really in a race against time. We can’t put up with climate denial or obstructionist politics for very long, if we want to leave for the next generation beautiful days like today.”

If by faster and more pessimistic he means “a more stable climate system with fewer severe storms”, well, alrighty then.

That said, it’s rather disturbing, to say the least, that the POTUS is essentially saying that people should not be allowed any belief, even when based on Science, that disagrees with the beliefs (not based on Science) of the Cult of Climastrology. Seems rather fascistic, does it not?

Monday’s panel at the White House “South by South Lawn” festival preceded the U.S. premiere of DiCaprio’s climate change documentary, “Before the Flood,” which will air on the National Geographic channel later this month.

The Oscar winner opened the panel by explaining that he planned to release the documentary before the November election to highlight the political importance of the issue. Like Obama, DiCaprio had strong words for climate change deniers.

Which means it should be considered an in-kind contribution to Hillary, and treated accordingly by the FEC and IRS, among others.

“If you do not believe in climate change, you do not believe in facts, or in science, or in empirical truths, and therefore, in my humble opinion, should not be allowed to hold public office,” DiCaprio said.

If you are an utter hypocrite on the subject, you shouldn’t be allowed to dissemble on the subject. And, let’s see, since Obama is an utter hypocrite, it must mean he doesn’t actually believe in ‘climate change’, and shouldn’t have held office. The same goes for Hillary Clinton.

Patterico’s Pontifications touches on Leo’s climahypocricy, based on a Hill story: “And you thought we were against religious tests…”.

Twitchy has more.

Read: People With Giant Carbon Footprints Warn There’s No More Time For People To Be Allowed To Have Opinions »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post: A President Trump Could End The Era Of American Global Leadership Or Something

By William Teach October 4, 2016 – 8:09 am

Sunday, the Washington Post Editorial Board told us that a President Trump could “deport freely”, which was supposed to be a negative. Monday we learn something interesting (which fails to mention the phrase “leading from behind”)

A President Trump could end the era of American global leadership

IN NO realm is the U.S. president more powerful than in matters of national security. A president may launch wars, conduct intelligence operations and strike deals with foreign governments with minimal checks from the courts and Congress. If he wished, a President Donald Trump could carry out — or at least order — many of the most extreme proposals he has tossed off during the election campaign.

If Mr. Trump chose to “take the oil” of Iraq or Syria, as he has frequently proposed, he could direct the armed forces to plan and launch such an operation, whatever its prospects for success. If he wanted to assassinate foreigners who opposed him, he could unilaterally and secretly change the executive order prohibiting such action. If he wanted to reinstate waterboarding and other torture methods for use on detainees, he could cancel President Obama’s orders governing torture and appoint lawyers to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel willing to issue a secret opinion invalidating a congressional ban.

Mr. Trump could launch surveillance programs targeting foreigners without informing Congress. He could scrap — again, without public notice — the rules Mr. Obama instituted for limiting U.S. drone strikes. He could shut U.S. bases abroad, withdrawing troops from Japan, South Korea and Europe.

Could might may. Last time I checked Trump didn’t start a war in Libya which turned the nation into a hotbed of radical Islam and a truly failed state, nor did he fail to implement the security measures that the diplomatic personnel on the ground were begging for in Benghazi as all the other nations, along with the news media, were abandoning the region due to the threat of extreme violence.

The WPEB spends a few more paragraphs whining about what Trump might may could possibly do regarding NATO and Putin (last time I checked, it wasn’t Trump getting punked by Russia nor seeing Russia take over a portion of Crimea on his watch), ending with

In sum, the election of Mr. Trump would likely bring about the end of the era of American global leadership that began in 1945. The U.S. alliances built after World War II, which have been the foundation of that strength, would be disregarded. A new, cynical, self-interested America would emerge, ready to use walls, boycotts, assassination and torture to achieve its aims, and to partner with like-minded regimes such as Russia. For those who believe in traditional American liberal values, the world would become a much colder — and more dangerous — place.

Obama, with Hillary by his side for 4 years, annoyed our allies and patronized our enemies. Iran is treated better than Israel. Obama downplayed our relationships with England and Germany, and relationships with Japan and South Korea are so-so. The rise of ISIS happened under his watch. He blew off the Iranian Green Revolution and the Arab Spring. He and Hillary held up Bashar Assad as a “reformer.” How’s that working out? They blew out our relationship with Egypt by calling for the end of Mubarek and forcing him out (granted, not the greatest of people) and supported the installation of the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamic organization that had long been banned in Egypt, with hardcore Islamist Mohammed Morsi as President. Obama was upset when the Egyptian military forced him out with a coup and installed people who weren’t radical Islamists, ending with the current president, El Sisi.

Our allies do not trust or respect us, our enemies are taking advantage of us. Obama pushed the idiotic Iran nuclear deal, which simply kicked the can down the road for their nuclear aspirations. Yet, the WPEB is worried about Trump? Please. Perhaps they can explain exactly what Hillary accomplished as Secretary of State.

Just to be clear, I have serious misgivings about Trump as president, though not as many as Hillary. We don’t know what he would actually do. There’s no record. He could be great. Or, he could be miserable, like Obama. We are assured Hillary would be miserable, based on her record. All in all, though, this WPEB piece is deranged.

Read: Washington Post: A President Trump Could End The Era Of American Global Leadership Or Something »

Posted in Donald Trump, Journalistic Malpractice | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

NJ Democrats Call For Public Option As Insurers Flee Obamacare

By William Teach October 4, 2016 – 7:36 am

Does it need to be stated that the only ones who voted for Obamacare were Democrats? Does it need to be stated that the majority of Americans were against Obamacare prior to passage, and still are? Does it need to be stated that Ocare is collapsing exactly like predicted? Does it need to be stated that even before passage, those who saw the whole picture stated that the system was designed to eventually put private insurers out of business, which would lead to a public option then single payer? In Blue state New Jersey, the Exchange will only have two insurance providers this coming year, as all the others pulled out citing extreme monetary losses

(NJ.com) With insurance companies in New Jersey fleeing the health exchange created by the Affordable Care Act, a state lawmaker has introduced a bill to create a government-operated plan that he said will stabilize the volatile market.

The “New Jersey Public Option Health Care Act” would require the state Health and Banking and Insurance departments to develop the plans, according to the legislation Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer) introduced on Thursday and announced on Monday.

Any consumer could enroll in the plans, which would compete with those offered by private carriers, according to the bill (A4211). Carriers that already provide Medicaid and Medicare coverage would be eligible to join the public plans.

“Health care should be a right for every New Jersey resident,” said Gusciora (D–Mercer). “I think the climate is finally right to make significant changes to our system that will enshrine that principle in our laws.”

The climate was created by the Democrat’s malfeasance in passing Obamacare. The idea here is to force the remaining private insurers out of the Exchange, followed by getting as many people as possible to switch from their company provided plans to a government run plan, killing off more choice. How are Democrats going to pay for it? Surely the same old tired tropes like taxing the rich, taxing businesses, raising fees and other taxes. If all the providers, who actually know what they are doing, abandon the system over extreme financial losses, how will the state do? The money has to come from somewhere.

Of course, Governor Chris Christie would have to sign the bill if it passes the General Assembly. He’s in office till January 16, 2018. Democrats would have to regain the NJ Executive Office to pass this.

“That’s really the need and the goal, here — to cut costs,” Gusciora added. “With this plan, our insured and uninsured alike will have a reliable, affordable option for healthcare, where they can use their existing doctors and hospitals without having to deal with obtrusive and damaging network arrangements.”

We’ve heard that one before. Ocare’s goal was to cut costs. Which meant reduced networks. Which meant losing their existing doctors they liked. Which meant hospitals opting out. And still, costs rose faster for premiums, and deductibles tend to be higher than what company provided plans offer.

Funny how they rarely talk about increasing actual patient services, wouldn’t you say?

What you have here is a problem created by government intrusion into the private sector with government being the major issue, so, the fix is to institute more government involvement.

A couple choice comments

  • Well if the state gets involved we won’t have to worry about nepotism, political corruption, bloating the state payroll with hundreds of extra workers who can never get fired and who will put more burden on the pension system.
  • So this will get fixed just like the pension fiasco?
  • Yes…lets fix a disaster national health plan called the Affordable Care Act with a State Plan that will be a state level disaster.
  • Right, let’s take the reins on a program that even the largest health insurers couldn’t sustain. Makes sense, especially given our fiscal problems. These people are unbelievably stupid.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NJ Democrats Call For Public Option As Insurers Flee Obamacare »

Posted in Democrats, Healthcare | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

CO2 Emissions Are Wreaking Havoc On The Planet Or Something

By William Teach October 3, 2016 – 6:04 pm

Members of the Cult of Climastrology are such negative nellies. But, at least David Suzuki isn’t telling us to f*ck off

David Suzuki: Climate Deniers Are Wrong … CO2 Emissions Are Wreaking Havoc on the Planet

Life evolved to live within limits. It’s a delicate balance. Humans need oxygen, but too much can kill us. Plants need nitrogen, but excess nitrogen harms them and pollutes rivers, lakes and oceans. Ecosystems are complex. Our health and survival depend on intricate interactions that ensure we get the right amounts of clean air, water, food from productive soils and energy from the sun.

Right. Because the planet has totally been stable within those limits for the last 4.5 billion years.

Climate change deniers either willfully ignore or fail to understand this complexity—as shown in their simplistic argument that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a beneficial gas that helps plants grow and is therefore good for humans.

Industry propagandist Tom Harris of the misnamed International Climate Science Coalition writes, “Grade school students know CO2 is not pollution; it is aerial fertilizer.” He adds, “Increasing CO2 levels pose no direct hazard to human health.”

The unscientific Heartland Institute-ICSC study he references claims, against all evidence, “Carbon dioxide has not caused weather to become more extreme, polar ice and sea ice to melt or sea level rise to accelerate.”

Except, the weather hasn’t gotten more extreme, polar and sea ice typically melt during a Holocene warm period, and sea rise has not accelerated. Suzuki goes on to describe real science, which apparently is making prognostications of future doom by reading tea leaves creating computer models, before ending with

Recently, 375 U.S. National Academy of Sciences members, including 30 Nobel laureates, published an open letter stating:

“We are certain beyond a reasonable doubt … that the problem of human-caused climate change is real, serious, and immediate, and that this problem poses significant risks: to our ability to thrive and build a better future, to national security, to human health and food production, and to the interconnected web of living systems.”

The evidence is clear and overwhelming: Rapid increases in CO2 emissions are not beneficial. It’s past time we started conserving energy and shifting to cleaner sources.

All by force of government, you know. Otherwise, havoc! Havoc, I say!

Read: CO2 Emissions Are Wreaking Havoc On The Planet Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 23 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is carbon pollution based extreme weather, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Patterico’s Pontifications, with a post on whether character matters.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Warmists Link Hurricane Matthew To ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach October 3, 2016 – 10:30 am

The United States hasn’t been hit with a major hurricane (category 3+) in over 10 years, almost 11. We are fast approaching 4,000 days since that last strike, Wilma in October 2005. So, obviously, ‘climate change’

(Think Progress) Hurricane Matthew, the most powerful cyclone to form over the Atlantic in nearly a decade, has forced the Navy to airlift non-essential personnel like spouses and children out of the controversial Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base in Cuba Sunday. (snip)

Hurricane Matthew, the strongest storm since Hurricane Felix hit the region in 2007, is a Category 4 of the five-step Saffir-Simpson scale of hurricane intensity. On Saturday it was ranked Category 5. (snip)

As human-caused climate change exacerbates, the planet is experiencing more extreme weather events like hurricanes. A graph of natural catastrophes over the last century shows a clear rise in number of meteorological and hydrological events, including storms and floods.

Scientists have linked worsening Atlantic storms to global warming. “Rising sea levels exacerbated Sandy’s storm surge, for example, a direct link between global warming and storm damage. And abnormally high sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic probably intensified the storm,” writes NASA.

Pretty funny definition of “more” and “worsening.” We’re seeing very few, and even fewer strong hurricanes. But, they’re more and worse. Sigh.

Then we have uber Warmist Eric Holthaus (who is actually a rather nice guy)

Katz says that, no matter Matthew’s impact in Haiti, the storm serves as a wake-up call for vulnerable parts of the world in an era of climate change. Heavier rainfall, stronger hurricanes, worsening crop production, and rising sea levels are all particularly pronounced in Haiti, and are all expected to worsen in the coming decades. “People [in Haiti] are very self-sufficient,” Katz says, “but a hurricane is just not the kind of situation where self-sufficiency does the trick.”

A wake up call! And more government control. Surprise.

Of course, Twitter is replete with the Matthew-climate change silliness.

And we had a winner for being one of the first and wackiest, though, sadly, she’s blocked me because I dared to call out her own BS (so, I have a mobile screenshot taken when not logged in to Twitter)

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/782216115443335168

Read: Surprise: Warmists Link Hurricane Matthew To ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove