If All You See…

By William Teach August 13, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…are horrid climate un-friendly dogs causing rivers to flood and dry up, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Patterico’s Pontifications, with a post on a student punished for an All Lives Matter Thoughtcrime.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Too Good To Check: Physician Says Hillary Has Parkinson’s

By William Teach August 13, 2016 – 10:30 am

Here’s a piece by Mike Cernovich at Danger And Play, relying on to anonymous physicians, one who is said to have Parkinson’s himself. We’re provided with some evidence, such as when she fell and broke her elbow, the emails from Huma saying Hillary is often confused, head bobbing, being caught like a deer in headlights. Then we get

It is the premise of this discussion the HRC is most likely suffering from Parkinson’s Disease (PD).

It explains every one of the items listed above. Further, since it is a diagnosis primarily made by observation, the video record is sufficient to create a high degree of certainty.

The 2009 fall where HRC broke her elbow suggests that she had working protective reflexes, and her arm took the brunt of the fall. But three years later, she had a catastrophic fall where her reflexes were unable to help her. It is notable that this fall took place at home, where she would have been unstressed and in a familiar setting. Failing reflexes are common in PD. Poor balance is also common in PD, and a fall without working protective reflexes is a prescription for head injury. Her subsequent concerns with transverse sinus thrombosis are plausibly related to the fall. Her need for fresnel lens glasses also fits with post-concussion syndrome.

That continues for awhile, leading to

HRC probably has PD.

She has had clinical symptoms for a minimum of 4 years, and probably much longer, given that the fall leading to her head injury required a significant progression of the disease. All of her bizarre physical actions since that time fit nicely into the spectrum of signs that we expect in PD. And since PD explains all of them, we have a high probability of a correct diagnosis. It has almost certainly been treated with levodopa. Some of her symptoms may be related to this drug treatment.

It is most curious that all of the bizarre physical signs seem to be in 2016 videos. HRC was a public figure in 2015, with a lot of campaign work underway. Yet all of the oddities seem to be within the last several months. This suggests a significant progression of her PD. We also know that her contact with the public has been rigidly controlled. She has not done news conferences during the campaign. These would be highly stressful to a PD sufferer and would elicit many PD signs.

And the conclusion

It is not appropriate for a physician to make a diagnosis at a distance. But since the evidence in the public record so strongly suggests that HRC has moderate to advanced PD, it is imperative that HRC release her complete medical record to an impartial panel of physicians for review. It is not necessary for the public at large to see them. Such a panel should be secure in its deliberations and should present a summary to the public. If she has PD, the panel would know and it would be made public. If not, then the air would clear.

There’s even a PDF, as noted by Gateway Pundit, a major, major, major Trump supporter. Basically, Jim Hoft has lost it as much as Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, among others.

Hillary Clinton Health by Anonymous jfnQLLY on Scribd

Too good to check?

Read: Too Good To Check: Physician Says Hillary Has Parkinson’s »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 35 Comments | Trackback URL

Man With Largest Carbon Footprint In World Says Everyone Else Has More Work To Do

By William Teach August 13, 2016 – 8:07 am

Obama’s sitting pretty up in Martha’s Vineyard, having take a huge fossil fueled trip to hang in an energy hog home. Meanwhile, he uses his weekly address to tell citizens he plans on raising their cost of living by executive fiat

(White House) Hi, everybody. One of the most urgent challenges of our time is climate change. We know that 2015 surpassed 2014 as the warmest year on record – and 2016 is on pace to be even hotter.

Hundredths of a degree is not particularly scary. Heck, if Obama cut down on his fossil fueled travel to attend fundraisers, vacations, and golf he could have erased it.

When I took office, I said this was something we couldn’t kick down the road any longer – that our children’s future depended on our action. So we got to work, and over the past seven-and-a-half years, we’ve made ambitious investments in clean energy, and ambitious reductions in our carbon emissions. We’ve multiplied wind power threefold. We’ve multiplied solar power more than thirtyfold. In parts of America, these clean power sources are finally cheaper than dirtier, conventional power. And carbon pollution from our energy sector is at its lowest level in 25 years, even as we’re continuing to grow our economy.

All those failed companies which left environmental messes and the taxpayer on the hook for the “loans” sure worked out. As far as “kick down the road”, well, why not? He did that with Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions.

We’ve invested in energy efficiency, and we’re slashing carbon emissions from appliances, homes, and businesses – saving families money on their energy bills. We’re reforming how we manage federal coal resources, which supply roughly 40% of America’s coal. We’ve set the first-ever national standards limiting the amount of carbon pollution power plants can release into the sky.

OF course, in reality, energy prices are rising, so the cost of everything else rises to match. And the cost of appliances are rising due to these regulations.

There’s still much more to do. But there’s no doubt that America has become a global leader in the fight against climate change. Last year, that leadership helped us bring nearly 200 nations together in Paris around the most ambitious agreement in history to save the one planet we’ve got. That’s not something to tear up – it’s something to build upon. And if we keep pushing, and leading the world in the right direction, there’s no doubt that, together, we can leave a better, cleaner, safer future for our children.

Yet, most nations haven’t bothered to sign that agreement, one designed specifically to avoid allowing the duly elected United States Congress have a vote. You know, the lawmakers who represent We The People?

Funny, though, he wants America to be the world leader in this, yet, he won’t cut his own massive carbon footprint. And, on virtually everything else on the international stage, including the fight against Islamic terrorism, he wants America to lead from behind.

Read: Man With Largest Carbon Footprint In World Says Everyone Else Has More Work To Do »

Posted in Barry Obama, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

What, Exactly, Is Trump Doing With The Money He’s Raised?

By William Teach August 13, 2016 – 7:51 am

It’s a valid question. Trump is said to be running a “different type of campaign.” It sure seems so

https://twitter.com/_Drew_McCoy_/status/763776555835207680

And barely any campaign offices. Heck, Clinton has pulled ads in Colorado, since it is almost a slam dunk at this point in the state

(Huffington Post) If you’re watching the Olympic games, you may have noticed “Hillary for President” ads. She’s bought $13.6 million worth, while Donald Trump has bought none. In fact, since garnering the Republican nomination, he’s spent $0 on TV. Nonetheless, the Trump campaign spent $63m in July. What happened to it?

Open Secrets uses FEC data to report that, at the end of June, the Trump campaign had $20m on hand. According to the latest Trump reports, they raised an additional $80 million in July and, early in August, had $37m on hand. If you do the math, that means Trump spent $63m in July. He didn’t spend it on TV advertising. How did Trump spend the money?

Was it on offices? I bet it was on offices, right?

According to his website Trump has 5 offices in Pennsylvania; none in Philadelphia. (Clinton has more than twenty offices and at least 200 full-time staff members.)

According to an Ohio news source, Trump just opened an office in Columbus and has four paid staff members. (The same news source said Clinton has a dozen Ohio field offices and about 250 paid staffers.)

According to Politico, Trump has one office in Florida and one paid staff member. Politico quotes a Bush operative, “The Trump campaign is about to rapidly ramp up and have 25 offices open throughout the state by early September.” (Politico says, “The Clinton campaign has hundreds of volunteers canvasing neighborhoods across the state, and 12 campaign offices.”)

In my state of North Carolina, he supposedly has 4 offices. The only contact number is in the Charlotte area, yet, no offices are listed in Charlotte. I had to look up where Rutherfordton, NC is, and it is way the heck out in the middle of nowhere in the western part of the state, between Charlotte and Asheville. Looking at a map, this makes zero sense.

It doesn’t get much better in other States. We’re a little under 3 months from election day. Things move pretty quick.

So what happened to Trump’s $63m? There are three possible explanations. One is that Trump plans an “October surprise.” That is, Trump has put the money aside and, come October, is planning to flood the airwaves with pro-Trump ads. But that doesn’t seem to be happening; there’s no evidence that Trump has reserved ad space in October.

Trump doesn’t seem very interested in get out the vote operations. He also seems just as interested in attacking Republicans as in attacking the media and Democrats, while talking about himself entirely too much instead of policy.

The second explanation offered is that Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing, and is instead relying upon the RNC, so, he gave them the money. That’s pretty darned dangerous, because there’s no telling when the RNC may say “the hell with it” and put their money and time into down ballot races.

The third is that Trump repaid himself for all of the money ($50 million) that he has lent his campaign.

Regardless, there doesn’t seem to be much spent on getting people to vote. How many offices are there actually? Who knows, as most of the web pages are discussing the primary dates, not the general election date. All those offices could be closed, or he could have opened more. Driving around Raleigh I rarely see any Trump-Pence or plain Trump bumper stickers. Granted, more of a Democrat leaning area, but I saw plenty of Romney, McCain, and Bush pumper stickers. And lawn signs. I see plenty of these for Hillary. I see them for the Senate candidates and those for NC governor.

https://twitter.com/_Drew_McCoy_/status/764132677721034752

It’s getting to the point where my vote really doesn’t matter, because state polls are skewing Hillary in places that Republicans traditionally win.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: What, Exactly, Is Trump Doing With The Money He’s Raised? »

Posted in Donald Trump, Elections | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 12, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible pool made with evil concrete, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on irony.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Would Trump Be Better On The Environment Than Hillary?

By William Teach August 12, 2016 – 11:10 am

Food for thought(?) from Pierre Gosselin at No Tricks Zone

Rising conservative media star Breitbart here writes that “A Donald Trump presidency would be way more beneficial to the environment than a Hillary Clinton presidency“.

Much of the Breitbart article, written by James Delingpole, focuses on Trump’s loathing of windfarms, which blight the landscape, kill birds, bats, and insects, require old school energy for when the wind is not perfect, take up vast tracks of land, need giant concrete foundations, etc. While Gosselin also goes this way, he has a few more reasons

  • Number one manufacturing would relocate from dirty third world conditions (China, India) back to more modern and cleaner conditions in the USA. Making and buying locally are almost always better for the environment.
  • Number 2, prosperity also means more money for environmental clean ups.
  • Number 3: Money would finally pour into massively upgrading the USA’s crumbling and inefficient transportation system, which is plagued by traffic jams, inefficient networks and road conditions that lead to wasteful energy consumption.
  • Number 4, prosperous nations by far tend to have lower population growth.

He also mentions the “huge social consequences of exorbitantly costly and unstable energy for the poor.” Are they correct? Hillary really doesn’t talk much about the environment, mostly about ‘climate change’, and she seems rather halfhearted about caring, except for the part about increasing government control, spending, taxes.

Trump’s website has no specific policy on the environment. There are a few things about doing away with the Clean Power Plan, the Waters Of the USA plan, not putting coal out of business, etc, buried in his economic policy. Basically killing lots of regulation that costs jobs.

So, who would be better? Consider that Hillary loves taking lots of money from countries with horrible environmental standards, and those whose main product is oil.

What do you think?

Read: Would Trump Be Better On The Environment Than Hillary? »

Posted in Donald Trump, Environment, Hillary Clinton | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Warmists Really Want To Redistribute (Other People’s) Wealth

By William Teach August 12, 2016 – 7:53 am

One of the problems with having an interest in the ‘climate change’ debate is the constant re-recurring themes that crop up on a constant basis. The same things get discussed time after time, because Warmists keep bringing up the same ideas again and again, regardless of how much the science is against their beliefs. Because this is not about science, it’s about politics, namely, the far left Progressive politics Warmists push

To Stop Climate Change, Don’t Just Cut Carbon; Redistribute Wealth

This year’s Democratic platform has the fingerprints of progressive movements all over it. A $15 minimum wage, a pathway to cannabis legalisation, improvements to social security, police accountability, and financial reforms — including a tax on speculation — all make an appearance.

The platform also highlights the critical link between climate and the economy. In particular, it argues that “carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases should be priced to reflect their negative externalities”.

That’s a complicated way of saying that the cost of the harm done to people and the planet should be calculated into the price of energy generated by burning coal, oil and gas. If these costs were factored into the price consumers pay at the pump or in their utility bills, it could make dirty energy expensive enough to change both consumer and industry behaviour. And that, in turn, would make renewable energy much more cost-competitive.

It could also — potentially — raise a lot of money.

Of course, at that money raised comes at the expense of the middle and lower classes, who’ll pay more for pretty much everything. Warmists conveniently ignore that part.

But a clean energy economy catalysed by a carbon tax is only a progressive victory if it’s also a just economy. That means the policies to fight climate change also have to help end inequality. Why? Because the two are inextricably linked.

Sure, wealthy people may be in a better position to buy an electric car, cover their roofs in solar panels, and pay a premium for energy-saving appliances. But studies, including one by economists Thomas Piketty and Lucas Chancel, show that the rich are actually super-polluters. In the US, the top 1% of income earners have an average carbon footprint two orders of magnitude bigger than someone in the bottom 10 percent of income earners.

A carbon tax could help transfer wealth from people at the carbon-intensive top to less polluting middle and lower-income households, and ensure the costs of addressing climate change are distributed equitably. But it this won’t happen automatically. It will take thoughtful and inclusive policy design and implementation.

So, take from the rich to give to the poor in order to cover the extreme costs of living increases from the Warmists policies. The article ends thusly

A successful approach to climate change would be one in which taxpayers eventually accept the true costs of dirty energy, and actively demand and work towards a cleaner future. Though by no means a silver bullet, a truly climate justice-driven carbon pricing scheme should be part of the equation.

It’s interesting how most Warmists not only want Someone Else to pay the penalty for their beliefs, but to be given the largess from Other People being successful.

Read: Surprise: Warmists Really Want To Redistribute (Other People’s) Wealth »

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

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
Pirate's Cove