Typical Leftist Protester Sets Self On Fire While Trying To Burn American Flag

By William Teach July 21, 2016 – 8:00 am

Liberals love desecrating the American flag. Walking on it, tearing it, dropping it to the ground, setting it on fire. Of course, they’ll tell us that they really love America, they’re just doing it because they hate everything the country stands for. They’re protesting! Jammie Wearing Fool calls this the feel good story of the day

(CBS New York) Police arrested 17 people Wednesday after a melee broke out during a flag-burning in the streets outside the Republican National Convention.

Among those arrested was Gregory “Joey” Johnson, whose torching of the flag at a GOP convention three decades ago led to the landmark 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision that said flag-burning is speech protected by the First Amendment.

Moments after the flag was set on fire, officers charged in to put it out with an extinguishing spray that some in the crowd thought was pepper spray because of similarities in the design of the canisters and the eye irritation caused by the fire-suppression substance.

“You’re on fire! You’re on fire, stupid!” a Cleveland officer shouted at a protester while firing the extinguishing spray.

Oops. Sadly, no video or pictures of the actual moment. It was all hidden by the crowd, but, you can kinda see what was all going on here

https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/755931701654786048

“Burn that rag! Burn that rag!” supporters of the group yelled.

Carl Dix, a representative of Revolutionary Communist Party, said the group organized the burning of the American flag as a “political statement about the crimes of the American empire. There’s nothing great about America.”

Only in Liberal World, folks. You won’t see Republicans/Conservatives burning the American Flag at the DNC, nor any types of the wackadoodle protest stuff we see from Leftists in Cleveland.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Typical Leftist Protester Sets Self On Fire While Trying To Burn American Flag »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Hot Outrage Of The Day: Trump Might Look To Purge Obama Appointees

By William Teach July 20, 2016 – 5:40 pm

I actually had a fun little ‘climate change’ story teed up, but, hey, things move fast, especially during a campaign season and a convention week, and this little story amused me

Exclusive: Trump could seek new law to purge government of Obama appointees

If he wins the presidency, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump would seek to purge the federal government of officials appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama and could ask Congress to pass legislation making it easier to fire public workers, Trump ally, Chris Christie, said on Tuesday.

Christie, who is governor of New Jersey and leads Trump’s White House transition team, said the campaign was drawing up a list of federal government employees to fire if Trump defeats Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

You’re probably wonder why Trump would need a special law to terminate people who essentially serve at the pleasure of the president. In most transitions, the appointees, other than a select few, such as Supreme Court justices, simply leave. A few might be kept on if they were particularly good at their jobs, as a way of smoothing feathers, if they are rather non-partisan, or a combo of all three. The president can still let them go later, or suggest that they leave their post to spend more time with their families.

Trump’s transition advisers fear that Obama may convert these appointees to civil servants, who have more job security than officials who have been politically appointed. This would allow officials to keep their jobs in a new, possibly Republican, administration, Christie said.

“It’s called burrowing,” Christie said. “You take them from the political appointee side into the civil service side, in order to try to set up … roadblocks for your successor, kind of like when all the Clinton people took all the Ws off the keyboard when George Bush was coming into the White House.”

Would Obama do this? If you think the chances are minimal, you haven’t been paying attention the past 7+ years. Heck, if he wasn’t, it would have occurred to him and/or his advisers soon enough. Shame that Christie had to give them the idea early.

Of course, places like the NY Times, Vox, Daily Kos, and Balloon Juice are having fits, with more available at Memeorandum.

Here’s a better idea (not that the above one is bad): Trump should state that he will have manpower studies done on federal agencies, looking for things like over-redundancy, over-duplication, and non-essential positions, much like in the private sector. Slim the federal government down through attrition. Someone leaves, you just do not replace the position if it is un-needed.

Read: Hot Outrage Of The Day: Trump Might Look To Purge Obama Appointees »

Posted in Current Affairs | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 20, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a football linked to giant stadiums which have huge carbon footprints from all the fossil fueled vehicles, electricity usage, and foods with meat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on all the commies in Cleveland.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Say, Why Has The Debate Cooled Off Regarding ‘Climate Change’?

By William Teach July 20, 2016 – 12:06 pm

Over at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, a few Warmists are Very Concerned that ‘climate change’ has been such a miniscule issue this campaign season, and they wonder why that is

Why the Climate Change Debate Has Cooled Off in the U.S. Election Season

As the Republican National Convention got underway on Monday in Cleveland, Ohio, the issue of climate change was conspicuous by its near total absence from the agenda.

The U.N. summit on climate change in Paris last December raised global awareness about the impact of climate change, both in the run-up to the conference and soon thereafter. But little has been achieved in the seven months since then by way of follow-up action in the U.S. and elsewhere, according to the experts. Distractions have been plenty in the U.S. and Western Europe since then, including Brexit, the influx of migrants, terrorist attacks, issues relating to the economy and the U.S. presidential elections.

However, the presidential election season is an opportune time to address climate-change issues, according to Howard Kunreuther, Wharton professor of operations, information and decisions, and co-director of the school’sRisk Management and Decision Processes Center. “The principal point is we need to have a dialog with the two [presidential] candidates about how they feel about climate change,” he said. It is also important for the candidates to acknowledge “that there is a lot that we know about it that should be put on the table,” he added.

When it comes down to it, the GOP mostly doesn’t care, and neither Trump nor Hillary really care about. Oh, sure, Hillary mentions it at her website, but, quick, think about when she really talks about it. Is this something she mentions much? How about in the past? She may be a Believer in anthropogenic climate change, but, it is not an issue that moves her. Heck, for all we know she may be a skeptic, simply throwing out the duckspeak of her unhinged base.

Why Is Everybody Quiet?

Michel-Kerjan said he had expected the subject of climate change to continue to be actively discussed in global forums after the Paris accord, given the positive mood at that time and the general feeling that “everybody moved in the right direction.” However, in the run-up to the U.S. presidential elections, issues of unemployment and terrorism have dominated debates, and those of environmental solutions have been sidelined, he noted.

In other words, most citizens really do not care that much, or care at all, especially in light of real issues. This is born out by poll after poll after poll.

Kunreuther said he wasn’t surprised that the discussions on climate change have not kept up the energy levels seen around the time of the Paris accords. He noted that the issue has been “very controversial in Congress and there hasn’t been an effort made to have a very informed discussion.”

Well, are they supposed to have a discussion on an agreement that was specifically create to avoid the need to submit it to Congress for ratification? It’s never been sent to Congress by Obama.

On the other hand, Kunreuther said “the general public is concerned about climate change,” citing studies conducted by Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change at Yale University’s School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. He said he was surprised that even as public concern about climate change runs high, it hasn’t become one of the issues in the election season.

At the end of the day, though, people really do not care. Especially when you note that implementation of ‘climate change’ measures will reduce their standard of living and increase their cost of living, all for barely any change in global temperatures. And when they see the biggest believers refusing to walk the talk, why should they care?

Read: Say, Why Has The Debate Cooled Off Regarding ‘Climate Change’? »

Posted in Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Chris Christie Lays Out The Case Against Hillary

By William Teach July 20, 2016 – 7:41 am

Chris Christie (I’m no big fan) gave perhaps one of the best speeches against electing Hillary Clinton so far. At the end of the day, that’s very much what this “dumpster fire” election is about: making sure Hillary is not president. For those who are #NeverTrump or I’m-not-sures, we aren’t quite sure what Trump really truly stands for nor what he will do. But, we know what Hillary stands for and what she will do

(ABC News) Chris Christie put on a rollicking show trial of Hillary Clinton at the Republican Convention Tuesday night — leading the audience in Cleveland to shout “guilty!” over and over again in response to his allegations about the former secretary of state.

New Jersey’s governor, a former federal prosecutor, allowed the audience at the Quicken Loans arena to play jury as he presented an “indictment” to them.

“We’re going to present the facts to you, as a jury of her peers, both in this hall and in living rooms around our nation,” the former 2016 presidential candidate said in opening his address to the Cleveland convention Tuesday night.

“I’m going to render a case on the facts against Hillary Rodham Clinton,” he continued.

How did he do this?

Christie made the case that Clinton’s character and her record as secretary of state disqualify her for the nation’s top job, specifically accusing her of “ruining Libya,” being a terrorist apologist for not naming an al-Qaeda affiliate in Nigeria a terrorist group for two years and linking that to the “Missing Girls,” and turning previous words of praise for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against her.

“She fights for the wrong people, she never fights for us,” he said.

Christie went on to criticize the nuclear deal with Iran, Clinton’s dealings with Russia, and called her a “coddler of the brutal Castro brothers” in criticizing the Obama administration’s reopening of diplomatic relations with Cuba.

NJ.com has the full transcript, and both sources have the video of his speech

We must ask this question: Hillary Clinton, as an awful judge of the character of a dictator-butcher in the Middle East guilty or not guilty? In Iran, she led the negotiations that brought about the worst nuclear deal in history.

Let me be clear: America and the world are measurably less safe and less respected because of the Iran deal Hillary helped cut.

Period. After she launched those negotiations, she became the biggest cheerleader for it at the end.

A deal that will lead to a nuclear Iran, an Israel that will be less safe and secure and much more dangerous Middle East.

Hillary Clinton, as an inept negotiator of the worst nuclear arms deal in American history guilty or not guilty?

It’s well worth the read and the time to watch the video. Just a little more excerpt

We cannot promote someone to Commander-in-Chief who has made the world a more violent and dangerous place with every bad judgment she has made.

We cannot make the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States someone who has risked America’s secrets and lied about this to Congress and the American people. (snip)

We know exactly what four years of Hillary Clinton will bring: all the failures of the Obama years, but with less charm and more lies. It is our obligation to stop Hillary Clinton now and never let her within 10 miles of the White House again.

She’s been pretty much wrong about everything during her time as Secretary of State. Her supporters cannot really point to any successes, nor during her time as a Senator. It is very easy to point to her failures, because they are abundant.

One thing he, and so many others have missed, is that Hillary will potentially have a chance to choose several Supreme Court justices in the first four years. You can’t be quite sure who Trump will pick, despite his list, but, you can bet Hillary will choose a hardcore leftist.

Hillary, though, tried to swing back

First, no one has been able to produce solid evidence against Christie. Second, playing games with a bridge pales in comparison to propping up Assad, Benghazi, the Iran deal, blowing off the Arab Spring, and so much more.

Read: Chris Christie Lays Out The Case Against Hillary »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 21 Comments | Trackback URL

Sanders Supporters Plan A Really Stinky Protest At DNC

By William Teach July 20, 2016 – 7:10 am

This is Liberal World, folks. Can you even imagine any Conservative group doing this? Not in your wildest dreams

Sanders Fans Plan DNC ‘Fart-In’ Protest of Clinton Nomination

Former Philadelphia health commissioner Dr. Walter H. Tsou can’t help but let out a light-hearted laugh when he talks about flatulence.

But for Tsou, the reason why he and others — including some Democratic delegates who support former candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders — plan to eat beans and pass gas at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia is anything but a laughing matter.

“It’s a whimsical way of raising a protest,” Tsou told NBC News. “There’s a lot of things that stink about this whole democratic primary process.”

Billed as a “fart-in,” the coordinated assault on the olfactory system is scheduled for July 28 both inside the Wells Fargo Center and outside on the street, at the moment presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton accepts the party’s nomination, organizer Cheri Honkala told NBC News.

I wonder if the media will report on this live as they start their protest? Will they show people covering their noses, waving their hands in front of their faces, gagging, and storming away? Will they mention this as it happens during their coverage? Will Democrats Against Farting bring cans of air-spray? I hope not, because aerosols are Bad for ‘climate change.’

Amazingly, this article keeps going

Using flatulence as a protest tool was, according to the Daily Kos, apparently the brainchild of Saul D. Alinsky, who coincidentally corresponded with Clinton while she was writing her 1969 Wellesley College thesis on his theories of community organizing.

Huh. Alinsky.

In the spirit of Depression-era Hoovervilles, Honkala said organizers will erect a shantytown dubbed “Clintonville” in Kensington, one of Philadelphia’s poorest neighborhoods, where protesters can load up on the musical fruit before Clinton’s nomination is announced next Thursday. Some of the city’s homeless will also be living there, she said.

How long it will take to toot will vary from person to person, Tsou said.

“My guess is that, everyone’s a little different, but within six hours or something, you’ll probably feel something,” said Tsou, who added that he’s personally partial to baked beans.

I’d actually recommend Hamburger Helper Chili Mac. Woof! The article is still going

Tsou’s own participation in the fart-in derives from his support of single-payer health care, a cornerstone of Sanders’ campaign, which called for providing universal coverage to all Americans.

Wait, what? Somehow he got from supporting single payer to a fart in? Liberal Logic.

Why yes, this article is still going

Asked about critics who might dismiss the group’s first-ever fart-in as silly or immature, Honkala, who like Tsou enjoys baked beans but with a little bacon in them, said that this novel approach to protesting focuses attention on an important conversation.

“If this is the only way that we can really begin to talk about how our political system in this country stinks — with beans — then I say so be it,” Honkala said.

Bacon? That comes from pigs, and is Bad for ‘climate change.” So are beans, because all that flatulence is methane, again, bad for ‘climate change.’ Anyhow, this is supposed to happen during the time Clinton gets the nomination, so, it might actually be worthwhile to tune in during that time period.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Sanders Supporters Plan A Really Stinky Protest At DNC »

Posted in Democrats | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 19, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a soccer ball, used in all sorts of developing nations which will soon be devastated by too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Victory Girls Blog, with a post wonder about the new Allahu Akbar normal.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, On The Freakout Over Melania Trump’s RNC Speech

By William Teach July 19, 2016 – 12:13 pm

You’ve caught this, right? I’m deeming this as sexism

(CNN) Manafort denied allegations that Melania Trump plagiarized a Michelle Obama speech on the first night of the Republican National Convention, calling the accusation “just really absurd.”

“To think that she would do something like that knowing how scrutinized her speech was going to be last night is just really absurd,” Manafort told CNN’s Chris Cuomo on “New Day.”

At least one passage in Trump’s speech Monday night plagiarized from Obama’s address to the Democratic National Convention in 2008.

Here’s what it looks like, via the NY Times (CNN has a graphic)

Ms. Trump, Monday night:

“From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise, that you treat people with respect. They taught and showed me values and morals in their daily lives. That is a lesson that I continue to pass along to our son. And we need to pass those lessons on to the manygenerations to follow. Because we want our children in this nation to know that the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.”

Mrs. Obama, in her 2008 speech:

“Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you’re going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don’t know them, and even if you don’t agree with them. And Barack and I set out to build lives guided by these values, and pass them on to the next generation. Because we want our children — and all children in this nation — to know that the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.”

Ms. Trump:

“I was born in Slovenia, a small, beautiful and then-Communist country in Central Europe. My sister, Ines, who is an incredible woman and a friend, and I were raised by my wonderful parents. My elegant and hard-working mother, Amalija, introduced me to fashion and beauty. My father, Viktor, instilled in me a passion for business and travel. Their integrity, compassion and intelligence reflects to this day on me and for my love of family and America.”

Mrs. Obama, in 2008:

“And I come here as a daughter — raised on the South Side of Chicago by a father who was a blue-collar city worker and a mother who stayed at home with my brother and me. My mother’s love has always been a sustaining force for our family, and one of my greatest joys is seeing her integrity, her compassion and her intelligence reflected in my own daughters.”

I’m not going to defend nor slam Mrs. Trump. I don’t know what happened, and there is plenty more spin out there. However, there is this, via an email from Popular Technology

Michelle Obama stole her “values” in her 2008 speech from a 1992 Book by African Author Rob Marsh – “Business success in South Africa”

“And Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you’re going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don’t know them, and even if you don’t agree with them.”
“…is based upon the application of certain basic truths: that integrity is all important, that your word is your bond, that if you owe a person money you pay him back, that you work hard, enjoy what you do and show a loyalty to those with whom you work and do business. He instilled in me simple, clear cut values and a will to succeed.”

Huh. So, she kinda cribbed her speech. Why is the media not slamming her on this?

Others such as Zero Hedge are noticing this, too.

BTW, I’m deeming this whole line as sexist aimed at Melania.

Read: Say, On The Freakout Over Melania Trump’s RNC Speech »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats | 22 Comments | Trackback URL

Squishy Republican: We Totally Need New Taxes To Solve ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach July 19, 2016 – 10:14 am

Let’s never forget, when anthropogenic climate change is polled with other issues that Americans are concerned about, it typically comes in last or next to last. This even happens with international issues polls, as well. But, you know, according to some squishes who are aping Leftist talking points, if the GOP doesn’t jump on the bandwagon, they’re doomed

A constructive GOP platform on climate change

Donald Trump says he’s not certain about the validity of climate change. While he mulls that question, scores of Republicans are running for the House and Senate and need sensible guidance from their party.

Addressing the realities of climate change can be a plus for those candidates if they pursue a thoughtful, conservative platform. By grounding the platform in good science and economics, the GOP will appeal to environmentally minded swing voter groups including independents, young people, those who are college educated, Hispanics, and suburban women. Those same voters will be turned off if GOP candidates align with climate skeptics who deny basic findings of the National Academies of Science.

OK, so we’re just supposed to climb(ate) on the Warmist train for convenience, rather than for reality. Second, what are those thoughtful, conservative policies?

Adopt a tax on greenhouse gas emissions throughout the economy that would rise over time so businesses and consumers have time to convert to sustainable activities. The tax could replace numerous, intrusive regulations on personal and corporate behavior. It would be a “revenue neutral” tax on emissions but the revenue wouldn’t stay in the government or pay to enlarge it. Instead, the money would go back to U.S. citizens either as a tax break or, preferably, in a quarterly dividend check.

So, a new tax that would supposedly replace regulations? Good luck with that. Revenue neutral? It’ll never happen. This is strictly a Progressive idea, with nothing Republican about it, much less American Conservative.

Establish a tax at the border on products imported to the U.S. from countries with weak environmental standards. Trump advocates a 35% tariff on items from Mexico. His number may be too high but the thinking behind it is worth considering. There shouldn’t be a price advantage for imports from big-time polluters.

Climate change has nothing to do with the environment, and while well intentioned to go after real environmental polluters, this will simply vastly increase the cost of living to American consumers.

Reconsider intrusive regulations such as the Clean Power Rule, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, the renewable energy mandates, and the California electric-car mandate. These are well-intentioned efforts to reduce climate change but they’re adding layers of costly regulation to business operations. Sometimes the regulations are outmoded and not even linked to environmental results. Those rules should be scrapped. Sometimes businesses have better solutions to environmental problems than a regulation permits. Toyota’s Prius remains a more cost-effective investment than a plug-in electric car. Those kinds of solutions should be approved by regulators, thereby giving increased flexibility for cost-effective innovations that protect for the environment.

They originally weren’t meant to deal with ‘climate change’, they were simply hijacked by Warmists. Interestingly, once we’ve supposedly gotten rid of them, we are right back to government regulators regulating.

Repeal subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuel development and renewable energy. Politicians love to hand out corporate welfare but, as the Solyndra debacle illustrated, the risk of corruption is high. The GOP can say they’re getting the federal government out of the energy business. The amount of money involved isn’t huge but the symbolism is significant.

Most of the tax breaks for fossil fuels and renewables are the same tax breaks that most other companies get. So, all companies should have those tax breaks taken away, otherwise it would be unconstitutional.

In sum, this platform should reassure swing voters that a conservative Republican environmental policy is appealing. All GOP candidates down the ballot can offer a coherent policy to address climate change, sustainability and over-regulation – all at the same time.

Why not just change the name of the party to the Democratic Party Lite party? Besides, when stacked with real issues, no one cares. When their wages are stuck, the economy is lackluster, jobs are poor, and Islamists are killing people, no one cares about a minuscule rise in temperature over 160+ years.

Read: Squishy Republican: We Totally Need New Taxes To Solve ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Global Warming, Idiot GOPer's | 23 Comments | Trackback URL

If You Don’t Support Massive Gun Control You Don’t Support The Police Or Something

By William Teach July 19, 2016 – 7:45 am

I’m surprised that it took this long for liberal Gun Grabbers to come up with this duckspeak. First, we have Gawker saying that police unions should support the massive disarming of people who have committed no crime, so, violate their 2nd and 4th Amendment rights. Then

If You Don’t Support Gun Control, Then You Don’t Support the Police

Beyond the headline, there’s very little content to support that notion. Paragraph after paragraph after paragraph is simply the typical gun grabber point of view. Blaming the NRA, trying to blow away the good guy with a gun idea (you should check This ain’t Hell, but I can see it from here most days, and see the Feel Good Stories, like Monday), all the typical talking points. We finally get to the end

What False Dichotomists fail to realize is that, true to their label, they have set up a false dichotomy between “bad guys” and guns. It doesn’t have to be one or the other; both can be – and are – part of the problem. The fact of the matter is that guns are designed to kill much more easily, rapidly, and efficiently than most other objects – including trucks. So it stands to reason – and the data in different states indicate – that certain gun-control measures are the most effective cure for this part of the problem. These measures include expanding background checks, requiring rigorous background checks for all online and gun-show purchases, requiring a license for gun ownership, renewing the federal ban on assault rifles (both automatic and semi-automatic), repealing these ridiculously permissive open-carry and concealed-carry laws, and raising taxes significantly on bullets (“bullet control”).

In other words, enact heavy restrictions on the 2nd Amendment in order to disarm law abiding citizens, leaving them at the mercy of people who don’t follow the law. This would also violate due process, since people are having their rights stripped without even being accused of a crime.

The NRA and their Republican supporters’ enthusiastic encouragement and passage of lax gun laws and policies over the past 30 years have sadly enabled hundreds of thousands of senseless, needless deaths and injuries. It’s high time, then, that they atone for their destructive influence by renouncing the same old unproductive, callous platitudes and canards and finally getting on board with a sensible multi-pronged approach that includes gun control. In the end, this is really the only way to honor the Baton Rouge and Dallas police officers who were viciously murdered – and to better protect all of the police officers who are still serving.

Got that? Massive Constitutional violations of law abiding citizen’s Rights is the only way to honor officers slain by criminals, many of whom have been emboldened by the very Black Lives Matter rhetoric emanating from the same gun grabbers.

Read: If You Don’t Support Massive Gun Control You Don’t Support The Police Or Something »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Liberal World | 16 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove