Is It Immoral To Refuse To Vote For Donald Trump?

By William Teach August 12, 2016 – 7:13 am

I’ve noted for quite some time now that I am not #NeverTrump, but, I flip back and forth between being willing to check the box for Trump as a vote against Hillary, because she, like Obama, stands foresquare against almost everything I believe. She would continue the Obama policies that have damaged the country, and double down on some, as well as instituting her own damaging policies. My vote is simply assumed by Trump and the Trumpites, rather than being earned. There is little to no attempt to woo my vote. Instead, Trump, and especially the Trumpites, work hard to denigrate people who aren’t on the Trump train. I’ve been called a traitor and unpatriotic more times in the last 3 months than I’ve been called that by liberals on chat boards, in comments, and in Twitter since I got involved with politics on the Internet back in 2002. Add to that things like RINO, cuckservative, Democrat, and host of nasty terms.

So, the question is, is it immoral to not vote for Trump? Ben Shapiro takes this on

Hannity, Ingraham Say It’s Immoral Not To Vote Trump. Here Are 3 Reasons They’re Wrong.

On Wednesday night, Fox News’ Sean Hannity, apparently desperate to begin casting blame for Donald Trump’s November election loss in August, called out conservatives unwilling to vote for Donald Trump. “Get my point, all you stubborn Republicans?” Hannity ranted. “Hillary Clinton, well, she’s proven she does not have the character, she does not have the temperament to be the President of the United States.” He then accused Republicans of “sabotage” and brought on Trump RNC speaker Laura Ingraham to agree: “They are clearly cheerleading Hillary Clinton, there’s no doubt about it…if you call yourself a conservative and a Republican, it’s actually immoral not to vote for Donald Trump, if only for the reason of the Supreme Court.” She concluded, “I mean, it’s so selfish.”

It’s rather ridiculous to hear from the respective Trump Train conductor and engineer that Trump losing will be due to conservatives not coming out for him. A strong part of their argument for Trump was that Trump supporters stayed home for Mitt Romney in 2012, and that Trump would bring them forth; at no point did they blame the New Trump Voters™ for the last four years of Obama. And Hannity and Ingraham assured Americans that Trump wouldn’t just be competitive against Hillary Clinton, he’d defeat her because he knew how to play the game in a different way than other Republicans.

Certainly, some Republicans have thrown their support to Hillary. Most, though, are simply choosing to sit it out, with many hoping that Trump will give them a reason to check the box with his name as a vote against Hillary. Excoriating Republicans for refusing to abandon all their beliefs to vote Trump doesn’t help. We just don’t trust him. He can talk a good game, but, does he really believe what he says? He reminds me of the old Spinal Tap gag about turning the amplifier up to 11. He’s so over-the-top that I have a hard to believing in his sincerity. Add to that the number of times that I see things like the US needing an authoritarian to get to liberty (that’s a serious WTF moment) and a rising meme is that this election is about globalism (everyone else) vs nationalism (Trump and the Trumpites). No, no, there’s nothing ominous about nationalism.

But let’s take the argument on its own merits: it’s immoral not to support Trump. Here’s the logic: Trump would be preferable to Hillary Clinton, warts and all. Therefore, it would be immoral not to support Trump.

We get

1. Trump As President Will Damage The Country More Long-Term. If you believe that only small-government conservatism will save the country, having a big government corporatist nationalist with no underlying conservative principles hijack the only supposedly conservative party in America is a recipe for disaster. Trump isn’t going to fulfill his promises to conservatives. And as I’ve written at National Review:

I’ll leave it to you to hit the link, but, let me say this: Trump may or may not be bad for the country. Heck, there’s always the possibility that he would be a great president. We do not have the policy history to know. But, he has been horrible for conservatism, especially with so many Trumpites dumping it for nationalist populism. I’m sure liberals are happy campers over this.

The second reason is that, if (when?) Trump gets blown out, it will be hard to get the stink of supporting him off you. I wonder how many Trump supporters will run for the hills when they see the epic blowout coming. Because the state polls are not trending well. National polls are almost meaningless, since it comes down to the electoral college, based on the state votes. Georgia is in play. Utah is in play. Other states that should be easy are in play. That’s not good.

Then we get the biggest

3. Your Vote Is A Moral Endorsement, Not Just An Instrument Of Policy. Yes, your vote is a choice between Hillary and Trump. But it’s something else, too, particularly for Republicans talking about the election regularly: it’s a statement of principle. You are willing to vote for a longtime Hillary Clinton donor and supporter, but with an R by his name. That’s the new standard for conservatism and Republicanism and morality. So long as a candidate is “not a Democrat,” that’s enough. It doesn’t matter if he’s embraced the vast majority of the Democratic platform at one point or another. It doesn’t matter if he’s personally disreputable, a moral junkyard, a congenital liar and unstable narcissist. All that matters is beating Hillary, and that only matters because anything is better than Hillary.

As Shapiro goes on to note, you can have your morality. For those not supporting Trump, most do not support Trump either, because she doesn’t fit our morality.

Regarding this piece, Allahpundit wonders if there are lines a Republican candidate would cross that would make Republicans withhold their votes? Of course there are.

Two: How much responsibility does Trump bear for his current electoral problems? The blame game we’re playing between Trump fans and #NeverTrumpers is fun but it conveniently obscures the question of how much blame the man himself should be charged with. Even Hannity scolded him recently for attacking Republicans on the stump instead of focusing on Clinton, and most Trumpers, I’m sure, would stipulate as an abstract matter that there are things he could be doing better. But that’s a boilerplate admission. Every candidate can always be doing things better. What I’m interested in is why the tone from fans like Hannity is so much sharper when criticizing anti-Trumpers than it is when criticizing the man himself. Trump is, after all, in the process of blowing a once-in-a-lifetime chance for a populist “outsider” to swoop in and win the presidency…..

There’s a whole bunch more to that paragraph, well worth the read.

Votes must be earned, not assumed. Hillary will not earn the majority of votes from the non-Trump folks. But, Trump isn’t earning ours. And the more Trump supporters attack us, denigrate us, slur us, the less likely we are to hold our noses to check the box for Trump.

And, yes, the Supreme Court is important. So are all the federal judgeship appointments. That’s a main argument made. If that’s the case, then why not earn our vote? There comes a point where principles override political pragmatism. There are only so many principles that can be dumped before the line is crossed.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Is It Immoral To Refuse To Vote For Donald Trump? »

Posted in Donald Trump | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 11, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is horrid concrete which creates carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Victory Girls Blog, with a post on Hillary defending a rapist.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: ‘Climate Change’ Isn’t The Biggest Threat To Biodiversity

By William Teach August 11, 2016 – 12:44 pm

I’ve noted for a long, long time that ‘climate change’ has become a catch-all boogeyman for environmentalists, which sublimates real environmental problems in favor of anthropogenic climate change, often placing those real issues under the banner of Hotcoldwetdry. Now we get a refreshing and honest (mostly) look at true environmentalism

(Huffington Post) Global climate change, including sea-level rise, drought and extreme heat, is no doubt taking a toll on our planet ― but it’s far from the biggest threat humans have imposed on Earth’s plant and animal species.

A new analysis of threatened wildlife has provided a much-needed dose of perspective, showing that age-old human activities, including logging, hunting and farming, continue to pose a greater and more urgent threat.

Despite a “growing tendency for media reports about threats to biodiversity to focus on climate change,” over-exploitation and agriculture are “by far the biggest drivers of biodiversity decline,” the authors write in a comment published Wednesday in the journal Nature. (snip)

The group found that over-exploitation, including logging, hunting, fishing and the gathering of plants, tops the list of biodiversity’s “biggest killers,” affecting 72 percent of the 8,688 species listed by IUCN as threatened or near-threatened. Agricultural activity impacts 62 percent of those species, while urban development and pollution threaten 35 and 22 percent, respectively.

Overall, climate change came in 7th out of 11 dangers (though I’m not sure what #11 is, since only 10 are listed. See the “new analysis” link). If you want to worry about things caused by mankind that are truly a danger to biodiversity, there are many things which are much, much worse than climate change. But, let’s face it, those other issues do not provide the vehicle to institute heavy handed government with more control over our lives and economies, while passing more laws and redistribution schemes, like ‘climate change’.

Read: Surprise: ‘Climate Change’ Isn’t The Biggest Threat To Biodiversity »

Posted in Environment, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: DOJ Doled Out $342 Million To 10 Illegal Alien Loving States And Cities

By William Teach August 11, 2016 – 8:32 am

Have you ever seen the mission statement of the Department of Justice? It’s pretty much what you would expect

To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

How’s that work out in practice?

(CNS News) The U.S. Department of Justice gave $342,168,401 in grant money to 10 “sanctuary” states and cities that shield illegal aliens, even violent ones, from deportation by refusing to cooperate with federal immigration officials, according to a Judicial Watch report.

In a recent memorandum to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz revealed that at least 10 state and local jurisdictions that receive grants from the OJP and Office of Violence against Women (OVW) have policies limiting or effectively precluding local officials’ cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“Among them is Connecticut, a trailblazer in the sanctuary movement that received more than $69 million in grants from the DOJ,” said Judicial Watch.

“Connecticut has long protected illegal immigrants with sanctuary policies and even offers them special drivers’ licenses, known as Drive Only. The state also gives illegal aliens discounted tuition at public colleges and universities and authorities work hard to restrict the feds from deporting illegal immigrants.

The DOJ, the top law enforcement agency in the United States, is giving money to states and cities that refuse to cooperate with federal law. From the Judicial Watch statement

The Obama administration rewards sanctuary states, counties and cities that shield violent illegal immigrants from deportation with hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants and one of the biggest recipients recently made headlines for protecting a serial criminal who murdered a young woman. The money flows through the Department of Justice (DOJ), the agency responsible for enforcing the law and defending the interests of the United States. The DOJ is also charged with providing federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime, according to its mission statement, and seeking just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior.

Essentially, the DOJ is rewarding states and cities that refuse to follow the law the DOJ is supposed to uphold.

Read: Good News: DOJ Doled Out $342 Million To 10 Illegal Alien Loving States And Cities »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 53 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Says Obama And Hillary Clinton Are The Founders Of ISIS

By William Teach August 11, 2016 – 8:14 am

Another day, another media freakout over something Donald Trump said

(Politico) Republican nominee Donald Trump said Wednesday night that President Barack Obama and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, founded ISIL.

At a rally in Sunrise, Florida, Trump once again attacked the foreign policy of Obama and Clinton, saying their policies resulted in the creation of ISIL.

“ISIS is honoring President Obama,” Trump said. “He is the founder of ISIS. He is the founder of ISIS, OK? He’s the founder. He founded ISIS. And I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hillary Clinton.”

Far be it for me to defend Trump, since he and his supporters do not seem to intent on earning my vote, but, consider, Liberals have told us for a long time that context matters. Nuance matters. They attempted to spin Hillary’s non-sanctioned, insecure server for years. They spun Obama’s “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” comment, and they were in full spin yesterday. We’re told there are shades of gray, and we should not take things so darned literally.

Most people would understand that Trump meant that Hillary and Obama have the founding of ISIS at their feet because they did nothing when it started gaining power. This is much the same in the way liberals yammered on about Bush Created Terrorists. But, only in rhetoric, since the BCTs were based on Bush killing Islamic terrorists, and supposedly creating more. Obama/Hillary policies help enable the expansion and growth of ISIS.

Perhaps if Politico showed the video and further comments, there would be context

(The Hill) Trump criticized Obama’s decision to withdraw U.S. military forces from the Middle East and leaving behind a void ISIS could fill.

“We should never have gotten out the way we got out,” he said. “We unleashed terrible fury all over the Middle East.”

“Instead of allowing some small forces behind to maybe, just maybe, keep it under control, we pulled it out,” the GOP’s presidential nominee added.

“Then Obama came in, and normally you want to clean up and he made a bigger mess. We’re not respected. We’re laughed at all over the world.”

I’ve listened to MSNBC and CNN have little freakouts over the comment as portrayed by Politico, forgetting the rest as in The Hill, which has the video. John McCain himself has made the same argument multiple times, including just last June that the policies of Obama led to the rise of ISIS. Nor is this the first time Trump has pulled this, but there was no freakout back in February. The difference? He’s now (unfortunately) the GOP nominee, so, the media must rally the wagons to stop all criticism of Obama and Hillary.

More: Here’s Hugh Hewitt trying to throw Trump a lifeline

But, if you listen to the interview, starting at 15:26…well, Hugh keeps throwing him lifelines, till Trump finally says “with his (Obama’s) bad policies, that’s why ISIS came about. If he would have done things properly you wouldn’t have had (inaudible), therefore he was the founder of ISIS.”

If you’re explaining, you’re losing.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump Says Obama And Hillary Clinton Are The Founders Of ISIS »

Posted in Barry Obama, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Sea Level Rise Is Pretty Much On The Low Side Of Holocene Warm Periods

By William Teach August 10, 2016 – 8:07 pm

I’ve noted innumerable times that the average sea rise over the last 7,000-8,000 years, a period used as it came after the big melt from the end of the last glacial age, is 6-8 inches per century. During a warm period, one would expect at least double that, as the cool periods last longer and can even have negative sea rise. In fact, sea rise during the 20th Century was exactly average, at 7 inches. And here’s the Washington Post’s resident climahysteric, Chris Mooney

Seas aren’t just rising, scientists say — it’s worse than that. They’re speeding up.

On a warming Earth, seas inevitably rise, as ice on land melts and makes its way to the ocean. And not only that — the ocean itself swells, because warm water expands. We already know this is happening — according to NASA, seas are currently rising at a rate of 3.5 millimeters per year, which converts to about 1.4 inches per decade.

So, the lower end of expectations. But, you know, doom

However, scientists have long expected that the story should be even worse than this. Predictions suggest that seas should not only rise, but that the rise should accelerate, meaning that the annual rate of rise should itself increase over time. That’s because the great ice sheets, Greenland and Antarctica, should lose more and more mass, and the heat in the ocean should also increase.

Yes, if it was a normal warm period, we should expect more than 1.4 inches per decade. Of course, the predictions are coming from computer models. Then it gets cute

This record actually shows a decrease in the rate of sea level rise from the first decade measured by satellites (1993 to 2002) to the second one (2003 to 2012). “We’ve been looking at the altimeter records and scratching our heads, and saying, ‘why aren’t we seeing an acceleration in the satellite record?’ We should be,” said John Fasullo, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

So, they went and found an excuse for what is just a mostly natural event, in order to Blame Mankind

In a new study in the open-access journal Scientific Reports, however, Fasullo and two colleagues say they have now resolved this problem. It turns out, they say, that sea level rise was artificially masked in the satellite record by the fact that one year before the satellite launched, the Earth experienced a major cooling pulse.

That came from the explosion of the volcano, Mt. Pinatubo. So, a natural event can cause a climatic change, but, nature can’t cause warming. And Warmists have to find excuses to continue propping up their cult.

 

Read: Surprise: Sea Level Rise Is Pretty Much On The Low Side Of Holocene Warm Periods »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 10, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful carbon friendly boat needed when the world floods, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is American Power, with a post on strange pool colors.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Hmm: DOJ Accuses Democratic Party Run City Police Dept Of Civil Rights Violations

By William Teach August 10, 2016 – 11:05 am

Why does it seem that this kind of stuff happens in Democratic Party run cities so often?

(Baltimore Sun) Baltimore police routinely violated the constitutional rights of residents by conducting unlawful stops and using excessive force, according to the findings of a long-anticipated Justice Department probe to be released Wednesday.

The practices overwhelmingly affected the city’s black residents in low-income neighborhoods, according to the 163-page report. In often scathing language, the report identified systemic problems and cited detailed examples.

The investigators found that “supervisors have issued explicitly discriminatory orders, such as directing a shift to arrest ‘all the black hoodies’ in a neighborhood.”

They also found that black residents were more likely to be stopped and searched as pedestrians and drivers even though police were more likely to find illegal guns, illicit drugs and other contraband on white residents.

I have to wonder: if blacks were being stopped much more often than whites, how do they know that whites were more likely to have “illegal guns, illicit drugs, and other contraband”? Maybe this

Black pedestrians were 37 percent more likely to be searched by Baltimore police citywide and 23 percent more likely to be searched during vehicle stops. But officers found contraband twice as often when searching white residents during vehicle stops and 50 percent more often during pedestrian stops, the report notes.

But, one has to wonder, was there a reason for searching blacks more than whites? In Baltimore, like many other Democratic Party run cities, blacks do account for a much heavier proportion of those who commit property and violent crimes. Almost every single murder committed in Baltimore this year was by a black person (where it is known) against another black person.

However, if you read the article, you will see that what should have been proper policing policies, stemming back to zero tolerance, went way, way, way overboard. In a Democratic Party run city. You can’t pin this on Republicans. Democrats only.

Read: Hmm: DOJ Accuses Democratic Party Run City Police Dept Of Civil Rights Violations »

Posted in Current Affairs | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Majority Of Americans Support 1st Amendment, Are Against Prosecuting Climate Skeptics

By William Teach August 10, 2016 – 9:00 am

This also gives us a good idea as to what percent approve of using the government to prosecute Wrongthink

(Rasmussen) Attorneys general in 15 states are attempting to prosecute corporations and individuals that they believe are misleading the public about global warming. Their action which critics claim is a violation of freedom of speech has prompted a congressional investigation. Most voters continue to believe the scientific debate about global warming is not over and oppose government action against those who question it.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 69% of Likely U.S. Voters oppose the government investigating and prosecuting scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming. Just 15% favor such investigations, while just as many (16%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

So, 15% want to explicitly violate the 1st Amendment. I’m 100% confident that we know which political ideology they represent. Another 16% are mushy headed about this whole Freedom of Speech thing.

Meanwhile, we’re learning a bit more about the targeting scheme of Democrat Party attorney generals

(Washington Times) When New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman invited other Democrats to join his effort to pursue climate change skeptics, he was interested in more than bringing lawbreakers to justice.

A letter obtained by E&E Legal Institute and released Tuesday indicates Mr. Schneiderman was also interested in advancing the Obama administration’s climate-change agenda, including the Clean Power Plan and the Paris climate accord.

“The commitments of the United States and other nations at last year’s Paris climate change conference are very significant steps forward, but states must still play a critical role in ensuring that the promises made in Paris become reality,” Mr. Schneiderman said in a March 7 letter.

The letter offers fresh evidence that the Democratic-led coalition of 17 attorneys general was aimed at burnishing President Obama’s climate legacy as opposed to ferreting out wrongdoing in the form of climate change “fraud,” according to the institute.

“It is unprecedented to have the top state law enforcement officers waging a political war on behalf of the president at the cost of the First Amendment protections they are charged with upholding,” E&E senior legal fellow Chris Horner said in a statement.

“This letter lays bare that the purpose of their investigations was to launch a political campaign to silence critics of the Administration,” Mr. Horner said.

What Democrats are counting on is that Republicans would never retaliate in the same manner. And, they’re correct: most Republicans have ethics, morals, and an adherence to the Constitution, and would never do this. If any did, the Credentialed Media would be in full blown apoplexy, with claims of fascism and totalitarianism abounding.

Read: Majority Of Americans Support 1st Amendment, Are Against Prosecuting Climate Skeptics »

Posted in Global Warming | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

Liberals Apoplectic Over Donald Trump 2nd Amendment Comment

By William Teach August 10, 2016 – 8:31 am

So, Donald Trump, surprisingly, said something very inarticulately. I know, you’re shocked that someone off teleprompter could say something poorly. Funny, the media never made a big deal out of some guy saying “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”, in which the full quote is even more violence laden

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

Anyhow, stories abound. Liberals are vexed. Here’s the NY Times Editorial Board, to go along with several other stories at the Times, including another opinion piece by Thomas Freidman (Oh, and Joe Scarborough just went with “dog whistle” twice in 20 seconds, his guest went with Orwellian. And Joe says it’s a suggestion of fascism and revolt. And crossed a Rubicon. I should probably stop listening while typing)

Further Into the Muck With Mr. Trump

Three months from the presidential election, and one day after his running mate promised “specific policy proposals for how we rebuild this country at home and abroad,” Americans find themselves asking whether Donald Trump has called for the assassination of Hillary Clinton.

On Tuesday at a rally in North Carolina, Mr. Trump falsely charged, as he has before, that “Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment.” Then he added: “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”

Directly behind him, a supporter’s jaw dropped. Afterward, Mr. Trump’s campaign issued an utterly mystifying statement about the “power of unification,” suggesting that Mr. Trump was referring to the political power of Second Amendment supporters, and was not advocating violence. The National Rifle Association, which has endorsed Mr. Trump, concurred with his statement on Supreme Court justices and did not specifically address the rest of his remarks.

Let’s be clear: if Hillary or another Democrat made this statement, the press would be in full cover mode, explaining this away, much as they’ve done for Hillary’s email server, her coughing, pretty much everything.

Was it a threat? Mr. Trump’s campaign has been marked by extraordinarily combative rhetoric. At another rally, he said he would like to punch a protester in the face and see him leave “on a stretcher.” His supporters have shouted “kill her” when he mentions Mrs. Clinton. The Republican convention heard cries of “lock her up.” A New Hampshire delegate, Al Baldasaro, called for Mrs. Clinton to “be put in the firing line and shot for treason.”

Um, there were plenty of cries for “lock her up” at the DNC, as well.

Seldom, if ever, have Americans been exposed to a candidate so willing to descend to the depths of bigotry and intolerance as Mr. Trump. That he would make Tuesday’s comment amid sinking poll numbers and a wave of Republican defections suggests that when bathed in the adulation of a crowd, Mr. Trump is unable to control himself.

Because no Democrat would ever do something like sick his followers on someone. No Democrat would use the power of the State to violate the rights of opposition groups. No Democrat would speak out against private citizens and groups, such as the Koch brothers, the NRA, Rush Limbaugh, for engaging in their 1st Amendment Rights. The list of abuses, bigotry and intolerance, is long.

What Trump said was stupid, and most non-unhinged people would understand that he didn’t say that Hillary should be assassinated. He was speaking in Typical Buffoon. It’s what he does.

Meanwhile, Hillary’s non-sanctioned, insecure email server potentially led to the death of an Iranian nuclear scientist, for which the media went into full cover mode.

Regardless, I’m awaiting the media to finally make a big deal out of Obama’s extreme violence laden “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” quote.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Liberals Apoplectic Over Donald Trump 2nd Amendment Comment »

Posted in Donald Trump, Journalistic Malpractice | 16 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove