…are trees which will die from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on the SJW aspect of Rogue One.
Read: If All You See… »
…are trees which will die from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on the SJW aspect of Rogue One.
Read: If All You See… »
Let’s not forget that Hillary tried to claim all her air miles while Secretary of State as an accomplishment. She’s flying around the country, mostly to attend fancy pants fund raisers, and trotting out silliness like this
(Free Beacon) Hillary Clinton said climate change was to blame for Hurricane Hermine during a campaign rally Tuesday in Tampa, Florida, warning more storms would come.
“Another threat to our country is climate change,†she said. “2015 was the hottest year on record, and the science is clear. It’s real. It’s wreaking havoc on communities across America. Last week’s hurricane was another reminder of the devastation that extreme weather can cause, and I send my thoughts and prayers to everyone affected by Hermine.â€
Yes, that dastardly climate change, which has kept Florida hurricane free for 11 years, till it was hit with a barely a hurricane named Hermine. Heck, it has barely been tagged with tropical storms and depressions over the last 11 years.
“But this is not the last one that’s going to hit Florida, given what’s happening in the climate. Nobody knows that better than folks right here in Tampa and in the broader region,†Clinton continued. “Sea levels have been rising here about an inch per decade since the 1950s. At the rate we are going, by 2030, which is not that far away, $70 billion of coastal property in this state will be flooding at high tide. And whenever our infrastructure is threatened, so too is our homeland security.â€
No, they haven’t. St. Petersburg has data going back to 1947, which shows no acceleration, and .87 feet of sea rise over 100 years. Below what a normal Holocene warm period should see. Ft. Myers is .93 inches. Ceder Key is .65 feet. You can see all the Florida measuring stations here. If, by “about an inch per decade” she means about an inch every 15 years or so, OK then. Which is still not concerning, because it is less than what would be expected. She forgot to mention that part.
And, if sea rise is so dangerous, why do so many hardcore uber-rich Hillary supporters have homes along the coasts? Why is waterfront property so darned valuable? Why is she using so much fossil fuel?
Read: Woman Who Takes Lots Of Fossil Fueled Flights Blames ‘Climate Change’ For Hermine »
This seems to be more of a backhanded endorsement, more of a “dear lord, Hillary is so, so much worse” endorsement from a guy who was very much a full on #NeverTrumper
(Conservative Review) Mark Levin made the big announcement Tuesday night on his radio show after methodically walking listeners through his rationale.
At the beginning of the program, Levin made sure his real feelings were known. It was no secret that Levin’s first choice was not and is not Donald Trump. In fact, he boldly declared Tuesday that despite Trump’s holding some conservative policies, “Donald Trump is not a conservative … and he’s not reliable.â€
And right there is a big part of the problem. Trump is not a conservative, he’s mostly held Democratic positions, he still holds some Dem positions, and he has not earned trust. Who is this guy, really? He has so often sounded so over the top that it makes me wonder if he’s utterly full of it, that he doesn’t really believe what he’s saying. It’s the old Spinal Tap joke about turning the amp up to 11.
Anyway, Levin would prefer Ted Cruz, or almost anyone else, but
But that’s not what happened and … “at the end of the day, someone is going to be president.â€
Levin then listed his critiques of Trump one by one. From his behavioral antics during the GOP primary to his lack of understanding when it comes to the Constitution and limited government, from his massive spending increase for infrastructure to his protectionist trade policies, and more.
It wasn’t all bad for Trump, however, as Levin later spoke positively about his tax plan, his positions on immigration, law enforcement, and foreign policy. Levin did offer a common and recurring disclaimer: Trump is NOT reliable.
Then he got to the big part, which you can listen to at the link, and as transcribed by Mediaite
Levin said, “I’m gonna vote for Donald Trump. I’m gonna wind up voting for Donald Trump on elector day. I take no responsibility for the dumb things he says or the dumb things his surrogates say.â€
In other words, he’s voting for Trump more as a protest against Hillary, and he will not be actively supporting Trump. Don’t expect Levin to go Trumpwonky like Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, and Laura Ingraham. He went on to note that “Hillary is so awful” and that she is far too dangerous of a liberal to let near the White House.
I’ve said before and I’ll say again, Team Trump and his followers should woo those who are on the fence in regards to voting Trump as a vote against Hillary, as well as the #NeverTrumpers to do the same. He should be stable, avoid the craziness, and keep his supporters from being nasty and bombastic. He’s been doing a good job for the past few weeks. He should focus on the economy and hitting Hillary. She is a horrible, awful candidate. He should make use forget the Hamilton Rule
If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.
Do we want to elect a guy from our party who we must oppose? He needs to make it so we do not believe we’ll have to do this.
…is an ocean that will rise up and swamp the areas that Dear Hillary campaigns in, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Hot Air Pundit, with a post on Hillary having another big coughing fit.
Read: If All You See… »
Nothing says “please hear our message and commiserate” like causing a lot of people problems
(UK Daily Mail) London City Airport was brought to a standstill by Black Lives Matter demonstrators who stormed the runway early this morning to protest against the UK’s ‘racist climate crisis’.
The mayhem began at 5.40am when nine protesters chained themselves to a tripod in the middle of the tarmac to ‘highlight the UK’s environmental impact on the lives of black people’, cancelling dozens of flights and delaying several more.
The incident triggered huge security concerns amid reports the demonstrators – who witnesses described as ‘white and middle class’ – managed to get airside by sailing a blow-up dinghy across the Royal Docks.
Hit the link to see photos of these super pasty-white wankers. Not a black face amongst them. Fortunately, the police decided to negotiate with them. For 6 hours. Which delayed all the people who had things to do. Before finally arrested them.
The demonstrators are part of the British wing of a campaign set up in the US to protest about black Americans being shot by police – although the original branch of the group has never campaigned about climate change.
Do they not have blacks in Britain? Or, do only lilly white nutters care? Or, was this really something else?
After arriving on the site, the group released a statement saying black people are ’28 per cent more likely to suffer air pollution’ and that the airport was allowing a ‘wealthy elite’ to fly around the world while migrants are drowning in the Mediterranean.
It appears more likely that these fools are standard wackjob Warmists who hijacked the #Blacklivesmatter movement for their own purposes.
But don’t think that it’s only Warmists willing to hijack memes: real Black Lives Matter (except when they’re killing each other wantonly in the streets) have hijacked the Cult of Climastrology
As the Daily Mail notes “Black Lives Matter have released a climate change appeal to try and stop the London City airport expansion.” Apparently, none of them were willing to hang on the runway and shut it down, though. Anyhow, the climate crisis is apparently a raaaacist crisis. Or something.
Read: Very Pale Black Lives Matter Storms London Airport Runway, Invokes Climate Change »
At the Washington Times, Wesley Pruden asks a fundamental question: why can’t we The People, the voters, demand candidates answer questions?
When questions were raised about Barack Obama’s birth, and whether he was actually eligible to be president of the United States, he brushed the questions aside as if answering them was beneath the dignity of a prince of the crown. He let the questions fester for years before putting them to rest.
It’s still not clear why he did that. He preferred to accuse inquiring minds that wanted to know of racism and bigotry, as if the peasants had no right to ask questions about the crown prince. The presidency is the most precious honor Americans can bestow on one of their own, but Mr. Obama treated the gift as nothing more than a trinket he was entitled to, and who were these uppity people to question him?
Only racists, bigots, mean-spirited zealots, right-wing fanatics and white Christians who couldn’t appreciate the heavenly music of the call to evening prayer at the mosque would do that. Even the mildest criticism, of the sort that every president before him had to endure, was dismissed as disrespect, even racism.
Let’s not forget that Birtherism was started by Camp Hillary, and she never attempted to shut this down. As I noted time and again, Obama was most likely born in Hawaii exactly as stated, but, when there’s a nasty rumor, a candidate for public office should be open to answering the question of whether they are eligible and/or fit for office.
Hillary Clinton is trying a similar tactic, portraying criticism of her vulgarity, her greed and her intolerance as hatred of women, and envy of a woman finally breaking through a crystal ceiling. It’s not working, in part because men have a reputation built over the centuries for mortgaging their lives to provide for their women, and in part because nobody knows better than women themselves that the accusation is silly. Is there a woman anywhere who wants a reputation for ethics, character and feminine grace like Hillary‘s?
She, like candidates before her, may not like the questions, but voters have the right to ask candidates, and particularly candidates for president, any question they please. It’s what democracy and democratic elections are about. “If you can’t stand the heat,†as Harry S. Truman reminded everyone, “stay out of the kitchen.â€
The questions the Hillary campaign are trying to put off limits now are the legitimate questions about Hillary’s health. She has a well-documented record of coughing fits, fainting, stumbling up and down stairs, and uncontrolled giggling and snorting at inappropriate times. There may be good and sufficient reasons for all that, but it’s not against anybody’s rules to ask what they are.
The questions about Obama’s birth certificate were fun for a bit of traffic and discussion, which is the way most handled it. Some, let’s admit, were entirely over the top in their focus and conspiracies. Some still are. There were lots and lots of questions on Obama’s background, schooling, and life that were never answered, especially since the media was almost entirely behind him, and refused to ask the questions that they would have asked of a Republican candidate.
With Hillary’s health, though, this is something that is on display, and citizens have the right to know whether she is in good health.
Her doctor says Hillary’s in good health, and if so that’s good news. We should all send her the traditional Chinese wish (slightly amended) for long life and many (grand)children. But in return the American voter is entitled to a detailed report of a thorough and independent physical examination of both candidates. If such a requirement is good enough for a truck driver, it’s good enough for a candidate for president of the United States. There’s no apology for asking for it.
Likewise, we should have access to Trump’s health and tax records. Voters should have access to knowing all they can about the people running for essentially the most powerful position in the world. We do not work for them: they work for us. Failure to release his taxes has certainly hurt Trump a bit. With Hillary, the longer the questions on her health fester the more voters will wonder what she’s hiding and make their judgements.
Read: What’s The Problem With Questioning Hillary’s Health? »
Much like raaaaacism, sexxxxxism can only be spelled with 5 x’s
On honesty issues, Hillary Clinton fights own missteps, gender stereotypes
Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign may be a case study in the kind of missteps that can be particularly punishing for U.S. political candidates who are women.
Wait, did writer Heidi M Przybyla, and by extension, USA Today, just say that only women are the ones who would set up an against the rules server, destroy her Blackberry’s with a hammer, wipe said server when got caught, lie about it constantly, transmit classified information, sharing it with people who should not have access to the material, etc and so on? You know the story. She did things that would see the rest of us, and our subordinates, in jail. Are they claiming that only a woman would be this incompetent?
Or, perhaps they are referring to Hillary spending most of her time fundraising and hobknobbing with the uber-rich, charging their kids $2,700 to ask her a question? Or, maybe it’s the way she refuses to do press conferences? That she won’t ask questions of the press, and instead offers them chocolates?
Oh, wait, no, they’re claiming sexxxxxism
Just like society assumes most men are competent, the public gives women the benefit of the doubt on ethics and honesty, or a “virtue advantage,†according to a 2014 handbook titled Keys to Elected Office: The Essential Guide for Women that was updated earlier this year. The handbook, published by the Barbara Lee Family Foundation, is based on 20 years of research on public perceptions of female candidates. So when that perception’s tarnished, the results for women can be devastating, the handbook warns.
You see what they’re doing here: claiming that the public only makes a big deal over women on honesty. Seriously, Hillary having to lie and give carefully worded responses is due to sexxxxxism
The Guide stresses the importance of transparency and quickly admitting mistakes. As a candidate and public figure, Clinton has run contrary to much of this advice. Her carefully-worded responses to the uproar over her personal email system has been just the latest in a long line of examples of Clinton’s defensive posture exacerbating concerns about her trustworthiness.
See? It’s because you’re a sexist that she does this.
Anyhow, it’s a long, long article, which eventually delves into the reality of why 59% find her non-trustworthy, basically because she’s shady as hell. Period. Then ends up with the notion that people distrust Hillary because she’s a woman
“Though she (Hillary) has clearly brought some, maybe even a lot, of these questions on herself, it’s hard to escape the long history of questioning women’s trustworthiness,” said Regina Lawrence, co-author of Hillary Clinton’s Race for the White House: Gender Politics and the Media on the Campaign Trail.  “There’s a deeply-embedded notion in Western culture that women should be and just naturally are more trustworthy and honest than men. When a woman leader seems to violate that norm, it’s more noticeable and troubling to many people than when men do it.”
Or, it could simply be that she doesn’t deserve trust, because she’s broken it so many times. The question here, though, is will the media and Hillary supporters turn towards the sexxxxxism road in it’s defense of Hillary?
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: If You Think Hillary’s Not Honest, Well, You’re A Sexxxxxist »
…is an evil football which comes from pig farms which have huge carbon footprints, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lid, with a post highlighting the meme-rable bad week for Democrats.
Read: If All You See… »