Suddenly, Liberals Are Very Concerned Over Personal Records

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 »

If All You See…

…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… »

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

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’ »

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

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 »

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

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 »

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

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 »

If All You See…

…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… »

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

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 »

Suddenly, ‘Climate Change’ Groups Are Against A Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax

For several years now, many ‘climate change’ groups and individuals have been calling for revenue neutral carbon taxes, whereby citizens are reimbursed to cover the cost of living increases caused by the carbon taxes – you know, that cost if living increase which they said wouldn’t happen due to carbon taxes. Such big wig members of the Cult of Climastrology as James Hansen and Michael Mann have called for revenue neutral carbon taxes. What happens when someone tries to actually pass one? Well…

In twist, environmentalists fight proposed carbon tax – because it doesn’t grow gov’t

On paper, it looks like a big win for environmentalists: a ballot initiative in Washington state to make it the first in the nation to impose a tax on all carbon emissions.

Yet green groups are united almost in lockstep against the proposal – all because it includes tax cuts, to offset the tax hike.

Yoram Bauman, who authored Initiative 732 and generally sides with environmental groups that have claimed for years that greenhouse gasses are responsible for climate change, now says he’s shocked at the pushback he’s facing from these same organizations.

Huh. How about that

The turn of events has highlighted a curious aspect of the environmentalist coalition in the region: as much as these groups want to fight carbon emissions, they also want to make sure the money from any carbon tax is used primarily to boost the government’s clean-energy programs.

In other words, they really want the money funneled back to their own groups as well as increasing government control of the energy sector.

The tax would start out at $25 per ton and rise each year until hitting a cap of $100 a ton. Initially, it is projected to add 25 cents to the cost of every gallon of gasoline, increase air fares and raise utility bills — costing $2 billion a year. But this would be offset by cutting the state’s sales tax by 1 percent, lowering taxes for 400,000 working-class families and eliminating a tax on businesses that manufacture in Washington.

So, doing it this way would offset for citizens and small businesses, reducing economic harm. But

“It’s not only about reducing carbon,” said Rich Stolz of One America, a group that advocates for poor minorities. “It’s how we do it, and developing the kind of clean-energy economy we need.”

Stolz said he would have backed I-732 if it were a tax increase, funding government programs and new regulations on polluters.

So, wait, it’s not about reducing “carbon emissions”? It’s all about growing government? Well, that’s strange. If only someone had been writing about this.

Read: Suddenly, ‘Climate Change’ Groups Are Against A Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax »

Black Lives Matter Releases Six Demands

Much like with Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter has gone well beyond its original meaning, an is now delving into all sorts of other interests

(NY Times)More than 60 organizations associated with the Black Lives Matter movement have released a series of demands on Monday, including for reparations.

The list of six platform demands is aimed at furthering their goals as the presidential campaign heads into the homestretch.

The release of the six demands comes a few days before the second anniversary of the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., which set off months of protests and led to a national conversation about police killings of blacks.

Yeah, supporting a guy who assaulted and robbed, was walking in the middle of the street, assaulted a police officer in his car, attempted to take his gun, ran away, then came back for more. That’s who they’re supporting. They still trot out the “hands up don’t shoot” lie. But, anyhow, let’s take a look at those demands

  • END THE WAR ON BLACK PEOPLE: they’re demanding that bail be done away with, end capital punishment, stop deporting Black illegal aliens, taking police out of mostly Black schools (which need them because they are violent and dangerous), and pretty much stop holding Black kids who break the law responsible.
  • REPARATIONS: They want all sorts of money, such as free education for life, a guaranteed minimum living wage (for no work, of course), and others
  • INVEST-DIVEST: What do they want? More money for nothing. Oh, and expunging all records of drug and prostitution crimes. Universal health care. Divestment from fossil fuels (good grief). Cutting the military budget and putting it into black communities.
  • ECONOMIC JUSTICE: A progressive tax structure. Federal and state jobs programs (we have these. Most are ignored in the deep black communities as being “white people things”). Environmental justice. An end to the trans Pacific partnership. Union organization. Starting to sound pretty much like the Democratic Party platform.

Here’s where it gets even more fun

COMMUNITY CONTROL: We demand a world where those most impacted in our communities control the laws, institutions, and policies that are meant to serve us – from our schools to our local budgets, economies, police departments, and our land – while recognizing that the rights and histories of our Indigenous family must also be respected.

So, run for the school board. Run for the city council. Run for state and federal positions. In fact, in many of these areas, Blacks make up most of the government. That’s what happened in Detroit. But, hey, that’s not good enough for Black Lives Matter. They want to be Black Lives Separate From Everyone Else. Fine. Let them pay for it. Oh, wait, they want to be utterly separate but want Other People to pay for it. Well, let’s remove the police they hate so much.

POLITICAL POWER: We demand independent Black political power and Black self-determination in all areas of society. We envision a remaking of the current U.S. political system in order to create a real democracy where Black people and all marginalized people can effectively exercise full political power.

Fine, let’s remove all the police officers. See how that goes. But, much of this also reads like a Democratic Party platform. Here’s where it gets cute:

  1. An end to the criminalization of Black political activity including the immediate release of all political prisoners and an end to the repression of political parties.

They want things like the “Removal of Assata Shakur from international terrorist lists.” Who’s that? Well, she shot two NJ State Troopers, killing one. She was convicted of 1st degree murder and seven other felonies from the shootings. She escaped prison in 1979 and fled to Cuba. BLM calls her a political prisoner, and want the bounty removed from her head. The fact they they support a murderer like this should tell you quite a bit about these people.

Powerline notes about the overall tone of these demands

The larger lie behind the Black Lives Matter movement is that American police officers are“executing” Black men. The evidence does not support this slander. Indeed, the evidence apparently doesn’t even support the more plausible claim that police officers, as a result of overreaction to perceived threats, are killing more Blacks than a completely race-neutral response would cause them to.

But the biggest lie of all is that the Black Lives Matter movement is a reaction to the loss of Black lives at the hands of the police. This was pretty evident from the outset. As a longtime observer of, and one time participant in, left-wing protests, the unrest in Ferguson seemed to me to have all the markings of generalized left-wing agitation opportunistically grafting on to the understandable protest over an unfortunate event.

What’s most interesting is how black communities in Democratic Party run cities tend to be hotbeds of violence, crime, urban blight, collapsed property values, high unemployment, and high murder rates. Yet, BLM wants to drastically increase these policies. That should work out well.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Black Lives Matter Releases Six Demands »

Pirate's Cove