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

Chris Matthews, Liberals Upset Over Mother Of SEAL Killed In Benghazi Speaking At RNC

By William Teach July 19, 2016 – 7:01 am

She apparently “ruined” Monday night for the GOP

(The Hill) Patricia Smith — the mother of Sean Smith, who was killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 — delivered a raw, emotional and unapologetic speech at the Republican National Convention that centered on one person: Hillary Clinton.

“For all of this loss, for all of this grief, for all of the cynicism, the tragedy in Benghazi has wrought upon America, I blame Hillary Clinton,” Smith declared from the convention stage in Cleveland on Monday night. “I blame Hillary Clinton personally for the death of my son.”

Smith went on to call Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, a liar for her explanation of Smith’s death.

“In an email to her daughter shortly after the attack, Hillary Clinton blamed it on terrorism,” said Smith. “But when I saw Hillary Clinton at Sean’s coffin ceremony, just days later, she looked me squarely in the eye and told me a video was responsible. Since then, I have repeatedly asked Hillary Clinton to explain to me the real reason why my son is dead. I’m still waiting.”

Then we get the hot take by Chris Matthews, which was pretty much the MSNBC hot take

“I don’t understand why the Republicans would choose to put this on prime-time television when they have such wonderful stories of American heroism to speak to the American people,” an emotional Matthews said. “I think it was wrong.

“I don’t care what that woman up there, the mother, has felt,” he continued. “Her emotions are her own. But for the country in choosing a leader, it’s wrong to have someone get up there and tell a lie about Hillary Clinton. It’s not true. It’s logically not true. I think it’s wrong that they ruined their evening with this.”

Sean Smith was a hero. He rushed to the aid of others in Benghazi when they were being assaulted by Islamic terrorists. He chose to put himself in deadly danger to help others. He expected help to come. It never did. And Hillary lied to his mother and the other parents. She lied to the country while telling the truth privately. She and Obama, along with others and aides, yammered on about the “video” in a meeting called 3 hours after the attack started, rather than dealing with getting help to the region immediately.

As Secretary of State, Hillary was responsible for the safety of the diplomatic mission. She failed. Then, she and the Obama administration spun a web of lies in order to make sure the Obama narrative held up through the election.

I wonder how Matthews and other liberals will react when Democrats trot up all sorts of human shields who slur Trump and Republicans? It’s funny, Liberals tell us we’re always supposed to believe the victim, no matter if they have zero proof, and, on college campuses, if a guy is accused of rape, there is no proof required, the guy is simply run out of school on a rail and has his life ruined. Yet, according to these same liberals, we shouldn’t listen to Patricia Smith, whose son was killed due to Hillary incompetence and then had to endure lies to compound it.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Chris Matthews, Liberals Upset Over Mother Of SEAL Killed In Benghazi Speaking At RNC »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Hillary Clinton | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

The GOP Would Support Hitler Against Trump Or Something

By William Teach July 18, 2016 – 5:12 pm

You know me, I’m more than willing to calling moonbattery, unhinged idiocy from lefties. Well, I’m also will to call out this kind of stuff

Yes, the GOP Would Support Hitler Against Hillary

There are sensitive sorts who will immediate decry me for comparing Trump to Hitler. I am actually not doing that at all in this piece. But you cannot read this Jon Ward piece and come away with any other conclusion.

The GOP, if Hitler made it through the primaries with 33% of the vote, would swap the elephant for the swastika.

To review, Donald Trump got 33% of the GOP vote. Only after every single person dropped out was Trump able to get to 44%. (snip)

Trump is not Hitler and I have repeatedly defended him on television and radio against others who have compared him to Hitler. But the overriding point remains. The GOP is so invested in their hatred of Hillary Clinton and their fear of a minority of their own voters that if the voters chose Hitler himself, the GOP would stand behind him against Hillary Clinton.

If you think otherwise, you are not paying attention to this campaign season.

This is Erik Erickson who attempts to quibble a bit with this, but, seriously, come on. This is silly. Trump is a buffoon, a fool, and really a Democrat pretending to be a Republican on most issues, but, 99.9% of Republicans know the difference between him and Hitler, and this type of loose yammering serves no purpose.

Besides, Hitler had way more in common with the Progressives who run the Democratic Party than the GOP.

Read: The GOP Would Support Hitler Against Trump Or Something »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 18, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an angry sea caused by America’s big carbon footprint, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on Congressional staffers not wanting gun free zone signs.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Warmist Sheldon Whitehouse Seems Unclear On This Whole 1st Amendment Thingy

By William Teach July 18, 2016 – 10:30 am

Sheldon Whitehouse, U.S. Senator from Rhode Island, has long used vast amounts of fossil fuels to rail against climate change, and has long attempted to use his power as an elected federal official to go after those who fail to share his Cult of Climastrology viewpoints. Well, he’s still doing it

(Washington Times) Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse wants newspapers to stop publishing “extreme” and “phony” op-eds written by climate-change skeptics, blasting such articles as “industry propaganda.”

The Rhode Island Democrat said he was stunned by the “extraordinary barrage of opinion pieces” that followed his May 2015 op-ed recommending that Attorney General Loretta Lynch investigate fossil-fuel companies and their supporters for possible civil violations of federal racketeering laws.

He blamed the flood of what he described as “error-plagued criticism” on “the climate denial apparatus” and urged newspapers to reject such opinion pieces in the future.

“The breadth of the op-ed assault suggests that a new level of critical scrutiny will be needed at honorable editorial boards to make responsible choices between legitimate and honest opinion and clever, made-to-order, industrial-scale dissemination of industry propaganda,”said Mr. Whitehouse in a Tuesday op-ed in the Columbia Journalism Review.

Here’s a sitting U.S. Senator calling for censorship by the news media of people he doesn’t agree with. Regardless of the notion that most journalists and their parent companies are left leaning, they should be appalled at Whitehouse attempting to tell them how to do their job, and telling them what they should and shouldn’t print.

Imagine this was a Republican telling the media what they shouldn’t print: can we easily imagine the collective apoplexy form the media? And from Democrats? That Republican would be smeared as a fascist, against democracy, and against the 1st Amendment. They would go ballistic. But, they’re good when their folks do the same. Even when the threats are against themselves.

Read: Warmist Sheldon Whitehouse Seems Unclear On This Whole 1st Amendment Thingy »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Seem Very Confused That Skeptics Would Embrace “Renewables”

By William Teach July 18, 2016 – 8:00 am

Apparently, all Republicans/Climate Skeptics are only allowed to push for coal and oil usage

For Republicans, clean energy boom, shifting ties test climate change stance

Texas Congressman Lamar Smith has made a name for himself as one of the country’s leading climate change deniers, issuing subpoenas to state attorneys general investigating oil companies and questioning the scientific chops of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

But earlier this month, the San Antonio Republican was back in his seat as chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology arguing to expand government spending on solar and energy storage technologies. Avoiding terms like fossil fuels or climate change, Smith stuck to statements like, “breakthroughs in energy storage are one of the next frontiers, without costly subsidies or mandates.”

The seeming contradiction of endorsing government research into clean technology while arguing against one of its fundamental reasons for being – climate change – is not uncommon in Washington these days. As Republicans maintain their party’s long-standing blockade against action to reduce carbon emissions, they also are embracing a renewable energy industry that is driving investment and jobs in GOP strongholds like Texas.

That part I put in bold is exactly the problem with Leftists/Warmists: they think that the only reason for “clean technology” – which is often anything but, so let’s refer to this as renewables, which isn’t perfect either – is to solve ‘climate change.’

However, from our point of view, we support all of the above.

  • We support wind, we just do not want it slapped up in these big wind farms that fail to capture the energy they say it will, kill lots of birds, chopping them to pieces, blighting the landscape, and leaving messes when they collapse on their giant concrete pads
  • We support solar, we just don’t like these giant farms that provide a lot less energy than they said it would, leaves a toxic mess from production, and sucks up vast amounts of taxpayer money for failed projects.
  • We support hydrothermal. Dams and such.
  • We would prefer that the private sector do this, but, if government is going to use our money, it should be for research and development first, to create viable technology that has a smaller footprint and actually provides the energy it claims it provides. And the loans need to be paid back.
  • Many of us are not big fans of coal and oil, not due to greenhouse gases, but because they are dirty. We also understand, though, that they work for the lowest price, and the best way to bring people out of poverty is reliable, inexpensive energy.
  • We aren’t the ones running around the world clamoring about doom from a tiny increase in CO2 while using vast amounts of fossil fuels.

Democrats prefer projects that are simply payback to Democratic Party donors using taxpayer money. Whether the project works is not even a consideration, especially since hardcore environmental groups will protest the projects, and try and shut them down.

There is no cognitive dissonance for our stance. We believe in an all of the above strategy. But let’s do it wisely. And our version of “clean” is about protecting the environment, not stopping a tiny increase in CO2 that has virtually nothing to do with the current Holocene warm period.

Read: Warmists Seem Very Confused That Skeptics Would Embrace “Renewables” »

Posted in Energy, Environment, Global Warming, GOP | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove