Good News: The Gadsden Flag Is Now Considered Racial Harassment By EEOC

By William Teach August 5, 2016 – 7:21 am

Do you want to wear a Gadsden Flag symbol to work? You know, the one with coiled rattlesnake bearing the logo “Don’t Treat On Me”? Well, you’re a raaaaacist, via Eugene Volokh

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, among its other functions, decides “hostile work environment” harassment claims brought against federal agencies. In doing so, it applies the same legal rules that courts apply to private employers, and that the EEOC follows in deciding whether to sue private employers. The EEOC has already ruled that coworkers’ wearing Confederate flag T-shirts can be punishable harassment (a decision that I think is incorrect); and, unsurprisingly, this is extending to other political speech as well. Here’s an excerpt from Shelton D. [pseudonym] v. Brennan, 2016 WL 3361228, decided by the EEOC two months ago:

I’ll leave it to you to hit the link for the excerpt of the ruling, and note a few things from Mr. Volokh

Instead, this is a case about the rules that all employers, public or private,must follow, on pain of massive legal liability. The harassment law rules (which, as I noted, are the same for private employers as for the federal government) are imposed by the government acting as sovereign — the area where the First Amendment should provide the most protection — not just the government acting as employer.

2. Nothing in the opinion suggests that the cap wearer said anything racist to Shelton D.; I’ve read many such EEOC decisions, and they generally list all the significant allegations of harassment. (I can’t access the specific complaint in the case, because all that information is kept secret in EEOC proceedings.) Shelton D.’s objection was apparently just to the wearing of the flag, and the ideology that he thinks has become associated with the flag. And the claim that the EEOC is allowing to go forward is simply that the cap, in some social or workplace “context” would be reasonably seen as conveying a racially offensive message.

He goes on to note that private employers would feel pressured to restrict this kind of thing under pain of lawsuit and government investigation. And he’s utterly correct. This could apply even to an employee vehicle in the parking lot, or if the hat was removed before entering the workplace. He further discusses people getting upset and complaining if someone has Trump/Pence gear, which would drive liberals nuts.

Really, most contentious stuff should be left out of the workplace, not due to government pressure, but in order to have a more unified, smoother running workplace. But, people are people, and will discuss things. It is interesting to note that it’s pretty much only liberals that will complain, though. Perhaps it’s time for Republicans to complain about all the Democrat material in the workplace. Think the EEOC will rule in favor of removing Black Lives Matter stuff, or Hillary for President?

Regardless, this ruling chills free speech, because companies will want to crack down on anything they see to avoid issues.

Read: Good News: The Gadsden Flag Is Now Considered Racial Harassment By EEOC »

Posted in Government | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Hannity Pre-Blames Everyone Else For If (When?) Trump Loses

By William Teach August 5, 2016 – 7:03 am

This presidential election should have been a slam dunk for the GOP. Democrats were intent on making damned sure that Hillary Clinton would be their nominee, and virtually any Republican could have beaten her handily. She’s a candidate with incredible negatives, and really doesn’t inspire much excitement. So, what do enough GOP voters do? They get Trump installed as the nominee because he was brash and loud, he was an outsider who told them what they wanted to hear. But, he seems to know less than the average political junkie on policy, and likes to make lots of unforced gaffes, and his negatives are as bad as Hillary’s. So, what’s a guy like Sean Hannity, who has fully embraced Trump, to do? I actually listened to this live

(Sean Hannity) GOP insiders are in full-on panic mode over Donald Trump after a rough week led to a dip in the polls for the Republican nominee. While we’re still several months from the November election, criticism from high ranking Republican is arguably making it more difficult for Trump to regain lost ground.

On Wednesday’s Sean Hannity Show, Sean explained that should Trump lose in November, high ranking Republicans will shoulder some of the blame for the defeat, as they’ve spent more time criticizing Trump than they have combating the policies of President Barack Obama or criticizing Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton.

“If in 96 days Trump loses this election, I am pointing the finger directly at people like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham and John McCain and John Kasich and Ted Cruz if he won’t endorse – and Jeb Bush and everybody else that made promises they’re not keeping,” Sean said in the first hour of Wednesday’s show. “And because I have watched and witnessed to the point of incredible frustration – I have watched these Republicans be more harsh towards Donald Trump than they’ve ever been in standing up to Barack Obama and his radical agenda that had doubled the debt, that has resulted in a 51-year low in home ownership in this country, the percentage of homes that are owned by Americans, the lowest labor participation rate since the 70s and that has led to millions and millions of Americans in poverty and on food stamps and out of the labor force.”

Well, it could be that Trump doesn’t actually represent the Republican Party for real. Those folks mentioned represent a pretty wide smattering, from squishes to true American conservatives, and they do not care for Trump, who suddenly switched all his positions to GOP when he decided to run for president in 2011. This guy was pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-big government, pro-eminent domain for other private entity use, pro-taxation, and so much more.

And, I’ve tweeted to Sean many times, if someone slurred your wife and father, would you endorse them?

“They did nothing, nothing – all these phony votes to repeal and replace ObamaCare, show votes so they can go back and keep their power and get reelected,” he added. “Sorry, you created Donald Trump, all of you because of your ineffectiveness, because of your weakness, your spinelessness, your lack of vision, your inability to fight Obama. Your fear of being blamed for a government shutdown and I’m getting a little sick and tired of all of you. Honestly I am tempted to just say I don’t support any of you people ever. You know what, Paul Ryan wants to play this game – I haven’t made up my mind either. He’s running against a guy in the primary. I haven’t made up mind who I’m going to support.”

Sean says his support is just based on his promise that he would back whoever won. Seems a bit over the top to me. I’ve also tweeted in the past whether he would be so on-board and adamant if the nominee was named Lindsay Graham, Mitch McConnell, or Michael Bloomberg. Remember, Bloomberg had been a Republican. Does he really represent the GOP, other than his economic beliefs? No.

Funny thing, though, Hannity used to be a big fan of the votes to repeal Ocare, and explained that it was impossible without controlling the White House.

Right Scoop writes

The fact that Hannity is willing to blame Ted Cruz, among others, because he still thinks Cruz should have endorsed Trump, after all the lies and smears Trump threw at Cruz and his family in order to defeat him in the primary — well that tells us all we need to know about Hannity. He’s a lost cause and he’s delusional.

Trump is the reason he’s in this mess and if Trump loses in November, it’s all on Trump.

It’ll be on his supporters, as well. They picked Trump. At the end of the day, would a president Trump be better than Hillary? Maybe, maybe not. We really do not know. Let’s go back to something Neal Boortz said

The next president is going to be a disaster, an abject disaster, whether it’s Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

If it is Hillary Clinton, it will be their disaster, and you can sit there and point out what a disaster their president is and how we need to do something to recover from the disaster that is their president. If the disaster is Donald Trump, then you immediately have to start talking (if you do) about what a disaster our president, this guy we put into the White House is.

How are you then going to talk about the need for reform? How are you then going to talk about the need to return to more limited government, less government interference? How are you then going to talk about the need for big-time electoral change in the next election coming up in two years? How are you going to do that when you are the person who put the disaster in office in the first place?

It’s called 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.”

The only downside is how much damage Hillary can do in four years, especially with potential Supreme Court appointments, as well as lower courts. But, then, what damage could Trump do?

But, this is what’s going to happen when Trump loses. The blame will be cast to everyone else and to outside forces and what have you. But, not the candidate or the people who chose him.

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/761314935666253825

Likely not.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Hannity Pre-Blames Everyone Else For If (When?) Trump Loses »

Posted in Donald Trump | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Suddenly, Liberals Are Very Concerned Over Personal Records

By William Teach August 4, 2016 – 4:31 pm

The liberal media is Very Concerned about Melania Trump’s immigration records, because there are gaps that are raising questions

Gaps in Melania Trump’s immigration story raise questions
A racy photo shoot is prompting fresh scrutiny of the would-be first lady’s early visits to the United States.

See? Oh, and Politico throws in a bit of “slut shaming”, or at least, that is what it would be called if the target was not a Republican. You can see a wide array for Lefties who are also Very Concerned at the Memeorandum thread. And some are slut shaming, her, too.

Bloomberg calls her a Lucky Immigrant. Mememorandum has more liberals being Concerned.

And then we have Mother Jones

Melania Trump Could Clear Up Her New Immigration Controversy by Releasing Her Visa Records
Is Donald Trump married to a woman who violated US immigration law?

This is all interesting, because none of these lefties were particularly concerned with Hillary’s records, such as her 33,000 deleted emails. They did not want to know a thing about the rest of the emails that weren’t deleted. They were not interested in the story at all. Nor are they interested in the pay for play while she was Secretary of State. Many Bernie Sanders fans wanted her to release the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street and other big money companies, but, among the majority of the media and Democrats? Not so much. There are lots of records Hillary needs to release. Last time I checked, Melania wasn’t running for President.

Read: Suddenly, Liberals Are Very Concerned Over Personal Records »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 36 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a horrible waterpark wasting tons of non-renewable water which will disappear from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on who could possibly have predicted what is going on in the presidential race.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Bummer: Gulls Might Be Turning Cannibal Due To ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach August 4, 2016 – 10:02 am

The latest hyperventilating bit of insanity from the Cult of Climastrology

Climate Change Might Be Turning Gulls Into Cannibals

Jim Hayward slips on a hard hat and pops open an umbrella before stepping into a storm of angry gulls.
Hayward, a seabird biologist based on Protection Island in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, is making his evening rounds through the largest gull nesting colony in the Puget Sound region. He’s been monitoring this site since 1987, so he’s used to the shrieking, the dive-bombing, the frequent splatterings of gull poop, and the pecking at his head, hands and feet.

What he’s not accustomed to is the cannibalism. It’s hard to watch: A fluffy chick straying a few yards from its nest is suddenly snatched up by its neck. Another hungry gull swoops in and bites at the chick’s leg. The mother intervenes but is outnumbered. Her baby disappears under a frenzy of flapping and pecking.

Over the last decade, the gulls have shown a growing taste for their neighbors’ eggs and chicks. The trend appears linked to climate change.

“It doesn’t seem like a lot, but a one-tenth of a degree change in seawater temperature correlates to a 10 percent increase in (the odds of) cannibalism,” said Hayward, a professor at Andrews University in Michigan.

It couldn’t be anything other than humans driving fossil fueled vehicles. That is obviously the only answer. At least in Warmist World. It’s not scary enough to make Warmists give up their own use of fossil fuels and make their lives carbon neutral mind, you.

(Listverse) Gulls don’t respect species relationships and will not only eat other gull species, but engage in cannibalism from time to time—just because. Several species take young from a neighboring gull’s nest and eat them. In a bizarre (and exceptionally creepy) research project, an ornithologist noted a weekly pattern in one species’s cannibalism incidents. On Sundays, the carnage increased, and the gulls not only stole other chicks to consume, but occasionally fed on their own. It appears that human trawling cycles influence the availability of food, and on Sundays (without trawlers to follow) cannibalism becomes a more attractive choice.

Seagulls, like many birds, mammals, insects, sea life, and amphibians, basically life on earth, have long been known to engage in cannibalism. Among life forms, those that scavenge are much more likely to do this.

But, you know, ‘climate change.”

Read: Bummer: Gulls Might Be Turning Cannibal Due To ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Let’s Watch The Environmentally Friendly Ivanpah Solar Plant Incinerate Birds And Insects

By William Teach August 4, 2016 – 8:18 am

When most think of something that’s environmentally friendly, they think that it doesn’t pollute, doesn’t hurt wildlife, and doesn’t damage the environment. When members of the Cult of Climastrology think of the environment, they think only of “carbon pollution”, an unscientific way to say carbon dioxide. Let’s see this in action

(Daily Caller) The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released video footage showing how the intense heat generated by the Ivanpah solar plant incinerates thousands of birds and bats.

“At Ivanpah, evidence of flying animals impacted by intense heat near the solar towers had been observed,” according to new USGS research. “The new study showed that although birds and bats were occasionally seen near the towers at Ivanpah, most observations involved insects.”

Ivanpah is a federally-backed solar power plant that uses more than 170,000 mirrored heliostats to direct sunlight at tall boilers towers to generate electricity in California. The concentrated sunlight creates an intense field of heat, called a solar flux, around the facility that’s “enough to cause injury or death” to birds or anything else that flies through it.

Ivanpah reportedly incinerated over 6,000 birds in 2015. Warmists will say “yeah, but fossil fuels kill more!!!!!”, forgetting that solar plants are positioned as being environmentally friendly. It’s not environmentally friendly if it is incinerating birds and insects.

Interestingly enough, most Warmists do not want solar projects near where they live. Same for wind. Go figure.

Read: Let’s Watch The Environmentally Friendly Ivanpah Solar Plant Incinerate Birds And Insects »

Posted in Environment, Global Warming | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

Elections Today: Trump Says Might Have Stopped 9/11, People Don’t Trust Hillary On Emails

By William Teach August 4, 2016 – 8:01 am

From the “For the love of all that’s Holy, just stop ad-libbing and stay on message” files

(The Hill) Donald Trump argued Wednesday that his immigration policies could have prevented the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks by keeping the hijackers from entering America in the first place.

The GOP presidential nominee brought up the issue at a rally in Daytona Beach, Fla., while rehashing a series of controversies that plagued his primary bid, specifically when he said Muslims were “dancing on the streets and the rooftops” in New Jersey celebrating the attack on the World Trade Center.

“By the way, those people who knocked down the World Trade Center, most likely under the Trump policy wouldn’t have been here to knock down the World Trade Center,” he said.

Trump has called for a ban on all immigration from countries with a history of terrorist activity, but hasn’t specifically laid out which countries would qualify. That policy amounted to a shift from his earlier call to temporarily ban all Muslim immigration.

The majority of the 9/11 attackers originally arrived on tourist or business visas. Several of them asked to have those visas changed to longer visas. Most of them blew the visas off. Mohammed Atta came in via Germany. Would Trump attempt to ban all people coming in to US from all Muslim countries? Or would there be any nuance? On one hand, most of the hijackers weren’t on any watch list. On the other, do we ban all visits because they came from a Muslim nation? Regardless, this is simply stupid messaging from Trump. Which has been a big problem from him lately. Ad-libbing things that make people go “wait, what? What the heck is he yammering on about now?”

Stay on message. Stop making unforced errors. Go after Hillary, not after other Republicans, and stop with this type of foolishness. Ben Carson just stated on MSNBC that Trump won’t allow others to drag him into the bushes. First of, he has. Second, he does a great job of that himself

As for Hillary

(Gallup) Voters are very suspicious about the 30,000 e-mails Hillary Clinton and her staff chose to delete and not turn over to the FBI and aren’t all together sure it would be a bad thing if Russia returned those e-mails to investigators here.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone and online survey finds that 62% of Likely U.S. Voters think it is likely Clinton and her staff deleted those e-mails to hide something incriminating from the FBI, with 45% who say it’s Very Likely. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s unlikely they were trying to hide anything, but that includes only 15% who say it’s Not At All Likely. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

So, most think she’s a criminal. It gets better

Clinton’s Republican rival Donald Trump suggested last week that if the Russians have the missing 30,000 Clinton e-mails, they should turn them over to the FBI. Just 34% of voters feel it would be bad for U.S.-Russia relations if the Russians had obtained Clinton’s e-mail through cyberspying and now turned them over to the FBI. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say such a move would be good for relations between the two countries, while 26% think it would have no impact. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure.

So, while Democrats were caterwauling over what Trump said, most think there’s no problem with Russia giving up those emails. If they have them.

Message to Donald: hit Hillary.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Elections Today: Trump Says Might Have Stopped 9/11, People Don’t Trust Hillary On Emails »

Posted in Donald Trump, Elections, Hillary Clinton | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Most “Refugees” In Europe Are Not Women And Children

By William Teach August 3, 2016 – 3:18 pm

Well, gee, color me shocked

(Daily Caller)  Pew’s research shows that four out of 10 refugees in Europe are young men, aged 18 to 34. Approximately three-fourths (73 percent) of refugees entering Europe in total were male, while 53 percent of all refugees were young adults between the ages of 18 and 34. Individuals hailing from war-torn countries making up a large portion of all refugees were also overwhelmingly male. Syrian refugees were 71 percent male, Iraqi refugees were slightly higher at 75 percent, while Afghan refugees were a remarkable 80 percent male. Refugees from these three countries made up over half of Europe’s refugees in 2015.

Research found that young male refugees make up a large portion of asylum applicants in certain countries. Italy’s applicants were heavily young and male, at 74 percent. Germany, which fell victim to a spat of terror attacks committed by refugees last month, saw 39 percent of asylum applications come from young men. Germany has seen the most applications for resettlement, with 442,000– or 33 percent of all applications in Europe. (snip)

Obama lambasted Republican politicians who opposed allowing Syrian refugees into the U.S. after the Paris attacks last November, claiming they were “scared of widows and orphans.” He also accused several former Republican presidential candidates of engaging in rhetoric that serves as a “potent recruitment tool” for the Islamic State.

Obama’s trying to sell snake oil. The question is, why does he want so many fighting age males to be imported from war torn Islamist areas? We can see the problems in Europe easily.

Read: Surprise: Most “Refugees” In Europe Are Not Women And Children »

Posted in Barry Obama | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a waterpark which has a big carbon footprint, and no one should be allowed to go to one, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post saying that yes, Hillary is the devil.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Semi-retired President With Massive Carbon Footprint Forces All Federal Agencies To Consider ‘Climate Change

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

I suggest that the White House reduce their carbon footprint to zero. Not through carbon offsets, but by giving up all use of electricity that doesn’t come from solar and wind. Stop using fossil fueled vehicles. Only eat locally grown food. Handwash clothes. And a raft of other measures. Of course, they won’t. Obama has golfing and parties to attend. And fundraisers on the other side of the country. And vacations. They aren’t worried about what all these regulations will do to your cost of living

(Washington Post) In the past several weeks alone, the Obama administration has made multiple new moves to fight climate change. The administration announced new steps to help fill U.S. roadways with electric vehicles. It ruled that greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft endanger human health and welfare. And on the international stage, it moved the world closer to a deal to phase out super-polluting HFCs, chemicals in refrigerants and other industrial substances that warm the climate.

But as Obama’s term dwindles, the act isn’t over — on Tuesday the White House released yet another policy to fight climate change, one with potentially far-reaching consequences. The White House’s chief environmental office, the Council on Environmental Quality, finalized a six-year process of shaping how the government’s agencies, across the board, will factor climate change into their decisions. (snip)

And now, the new guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality will ask agencies to not only include climate change in these considerations but actually quantify the climate impacts of their decisions, when possible, in the context of the environmental reviews that are already required by NEPA. It will also ask them to consider how to do things differently, in a way that could help prepare the U.S. better for a warming climate.

If this forced federal agencies to actually practice what they preach, it would actually be good, because it would limit their travel and reach. Instead

When it comes to quantification, the new guidance suggests trying to calculate how many carbon dioxide emissions a new project, permit, or other agency action would cause — or, alternatively, how much carbon it may sequester. Replanting trees or other land use changes affecting agriculture, for instance, could lead to more storage of carbon in the U.S.’s soils and its vegetation, rather than in the atmosphere.

So, you the taxpayer will be ponying up for the costs of these offsets, all while paying more for projects and environmental climate change impact reviews.

Will the VA have to consider ‘climate change’ in treating veterans? Will the Border Patrol have to reduce their use of helicopters, ATVs, and trucks to patrol the border? Will the military have to use carbon neutral weapons and ammunition? Will the FBI have to consider the carbon footprint of investigating kidnappings?

This is all just plain stupid, and further shows that this has nothing to do with science, but government.

Read: Semi-retired President With Massive Carbon Footprint Forces All Federal Agencies To Consider ‘Climate Change »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Barry Obama, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove