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

Man Who Continuously Smears Other People Wants Other People To Cool Their Rhetoric

By William Teach July 18, 2016 – 7:33 am

By now, you have obviously heard of the murder of three Baton Rouge police officers, with other wounded, by Gavin Eugene Long, a Black man who had previously been a member of the Nation of Islam and has railed against “crackers”, as well as Indians and Orientals. As NBC News notes, he had a long digital footprint, and some of that was anti-white/Black supremacist. Was this a targeted attack? We don’t know yet. But, Obama wants us to calm our Blamestorming and rhetoric

(ABC News) Confronting another killing of police officers, President Barack Obama on Sunday urged Americans to tamp down inflammatory words and actions as a violent summer collides with the nation’s heated presidential campaign.

Obama said the motive behind Sunday’s killing of three officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, was still unknown. It was the latest in a string of deadly incidents involving law enforcement, including the police shooting of a black man in Baton Rouge and the killing of five officers in Dallas.

“We as a nation have to be loud and clear that nothing justifies attacks on law enforcement,” Obama said in remarks from the White House briefing room.

Obama said that going into the political conventions, elected officials and interest groups should focus their words and actions on uniting the country, rather than dividing it.

“We don’t need inflammatory rhetoric. We don’t need careless accusations thrown around to score political points or to advance an agenda. We need to temper our words and open our hearts … all of us,” Obama said.

This is a man who has made a career out of using inflammatory rhetoric, always casting blame. Where was he in calling for the reduction of inflammatory rhetoric when Black Lives Matter was chanting multiple different sayings about dead cops many, many times?

The president also seemed intent on demonstrating again his support for law enforcement. Some organizations have cast doubt on that support. The National Association of Police Organizations said after the Dallas shooting that America was in the midst of a war on law enforcement officers. The group said the administration needed to show political leadership by “supporting them and giving them the resources they need to protect themselves and their communities.”

“Attacks on police are an attack on all of us and the rule of law that makes society possible,” Obama emphasized Sunday.

Where was he well over a year ago in his support for the police? Heck, during the Dallas memorial he continuously took shots at police officers while defending Black Lives Matter. Obama loves to pick sides, rather than standing for all people, including those who didn’t vote for him. As Powerline points out, Obama has spent seven years stirring up racial animosity. Calling for cooling the rhetoric now is a little late. Especially when he surely won’t cool his own.

Victor David Hansen offers three ideas for Obama

No longer invite into the White House any leaders [e.g., DeRay McKesson] whose affiliated members have marched chanting their desire to kill police officers (e.g., “What do we want? Dead cops” / “Pigs in a blanket; fry ’em like bacon”).

Do not consult with any self-appointed leader in the White House whose past has included overt and implicit calls to shoot police officers (e.g., Al Sharpton: “I believe in offing the pigs. Well, they got pigs out here. You ain’t offed one of them. What I believe in, I do. Do what you believe in. Or shut up and admit you’ve lost your courage and your guts to stand up”).

Do not invite into the White House any artists whose work has glorified the killing of officers of the criminal-justice system (e.g., Lamar Kendrick’s To Pimp a Butterfly album, one of whose songs was dubbed by Obama as his favorite of 2015), whose cover depicts a group of African-American youth celebrating with champagne and cash on the White House lawn over the corpse of a white judge with his eyes X-ed out).

He won’t. Which is probably a good reason why Cleveland Police Association head Detective Steve Loomis said that Obama has blood on his hands. I’d add that so does Hillary and a good chunk of the elected Democratic Party class.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Man Who Continuously Smears Other People Wants Other People To Cool Their Rhetoric »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 17, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible carbon pollution creating dog, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post wondering if the the public option Obama’s now pushing was the goal all along (me-yes, yes it was.)

It’s girls playing at the beach week!

Read: If All You See… »

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

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach July 17, 2016 – 8:56 am

Happy Sunday! A gorgeous, but kinda wet (at least in the Raleigh area), day here in America. The sun is shining, the squirrels are scampering, the geese are quiet. This pinup is by Gil Elvgren, with a wee bit of help.

What’s happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Powerline is not impressed by Hillary’s call against Citizens United
  2. No Tricks Zone notes the wind power mafia killing off rare storks
  3. Allen B. West covers a jaw dropping statement by Obama on Sharia law
  4. Blazing Cat Fur notes all the urban violence in France on Bastille Day
  5. Chicks On The Right explains what the NY Times is blaming for the Nice attack
  6. Creeping Sharia covers a month of Islam in Sweden
  7. Fire Andrea Mitchell notes what Obama was doing Saturday as the world burned
  8. Gay Patriot wonders how much you’d be willing to submit to Islam for peace
  9. Happy 50th Bday to MK Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes
  10. Jihad Watch covers France suppressing the massacre information on Bataclan
  11. Legal Insurrection has the Internet response to the new Trump/Pence logo
  12. Newsbusters notes that the Trump/Pence logo is now raaaaacist
  13. Raised On Hoecakes wonders where the call to ban trucks is
  14. Reaganite Republican discusses the demographics that could doom Trump
  15. And last, but not least, Virtual Mirage discusses civilizational suicide

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Hypocrite Hillary Clinton Wants A Constitutional Amendment Against Citizens United

By William Teach July 17, 2016 – 7:23 am

Democrats have been hysterical over the Citizens United ruling ever since it was announced. They’ve railed against it, trying to whip up the masses…well, the masses of the Democratic Party base, because, otherwise, no one really cares. In all fairness, they have gotten a few polls to go their way, but, really, the same Democrats have taken advantage of the very thing they rail about. Shocking, eh, that Democrats would be hypocrites, right?

(CBS News) Doubling down on a key campaign pledge to take big money out of politics, Hillary Clinton announced Saturday that she intends to back a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that made way for unlimited corporate spending in elections.

In a video address Saturday to the progressive Netroots Nation conference in St. Louis, Clinton promised that she would introduce the amendment within “the first 30 days” in the White House.

The amendment would, she said, “give the American people — all of us — the chance to reclaim our democracy.” The proposed change is expected to protect against the outsized influence of the billionaire class in U.S. political system.

She might actually recommend it, but, would she fight for it, or just set it aside after an announcement, mentioning it now and then much like Obama has done with Guantanamo Bay detention facility? She goes on to yammer

For Clinton’s own campaign finance reform plan, a campaign official said she intends to sign an executive order requiring all federal government contractors to publicly declare all political spending, in addition to pushing Congress for more effective legislation on donation disclosures.

Intending to close any loopholes allowing for dark money, Clinton would urge more transparency for outside groups and any “significant” donors sponsoring their cause.

The former secretary of state would also promote a Securities and Exchange Commission rule that would require any publicly traded company to disclose their political spending to shareholders, according to the campaign.

So, executive action to limit the 1st Amendment rights of citizens and groups, as upheld by the Supreme Court. CBS finally gets to something important at the end

Clinton herself has benefited from these super PACs, which allow for unlimited donations from wealthy Americans. At the start of June, the pro-Clinton super PAC, Priorities USA, had $52 million cash on hand. And the group told CBS News last month that it has already reserved more than $150 million in advertising for a general election campaign against Trump.

That’s putting it kindly

(Center for Public Integrity) Clinton’s massive campaign machine is built of the very stuff — super PACs, secret cash, unlimited contributions — she says she’ll attack upon winning the White House.

Indeed, a Center for Public Integrity investigation reveals that Clinton’s own election efforts are largely immune from her reformist platform. While Clinton rails against “unaccountable money” that is “corrupting our political system,” corporations, unions and nonprofits bankrolled by unknown donors have already poured millions of dollars into a network of Clinton-boosting political organizations. That’s on top of the tens of millions an elite club of Democratic megadonors, including billionaires George Soros and Haim Saban, have contributed.

CPP is very much a Progressive outlet, receiving money from groups such as the Open Society Foundation, which is a George Soros group. They have lots and lots of Leftists on their board. Even the NY Times and LA Times call them “liberal.” Yet, here they are pointing out that Hillary is a big beneficiary of Citizens United. Nor is that the first time.

What she’s essentially doing is advocating the partial repeal of the 1st Amendment. You may not like CU, but, it is based on the notion of allowing citizens and their groups to participate in the political process, engaging in Free Speech, protesting peaceably, and petitioning for redress of grievance. CU was a 1st Amendment case. Why do Democrats like Hillary want to restrict the 1st Amendment? Of course, they mean for Other People, not for themselves and their groups.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Hypocrite Hillary Clinton Wants A Constitutional Amendment Against Citizens United »

Posted in 1st Amendment, Hillary Clinton | 34 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Pence And Trump Are On Same Page Regarding Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach July 16, 2016 – 6:03 pm

For all Mike Pence’s faults (which aren’t even close to Trump’s), he’s not a member of the Cult of Climastrology

On Climate Change, Pence and Trump Are a Perfect Match

Donald Trump calls global warming a “hoax.” He claims climate science is “bullshit,” and he’s even described it (supposedly as a joke) as a Chinese conspiracy. So perhaps it isn’t that surprising that Mike Pence—whom Trump just named as his running mate—has similar views. (WT note: I’ve written before that the Chinese thing is idiotic and wrong)

“Global warming is a myth,” Pence wrote nearly two decades ago in an op-ed unearthed by . “Environmentalists,” the Indiana Republican explained, “claim that certain ‘greenhouse gases’ like carbon dioxide are mucking up the atmosphere and causing the earth to gradually warm. Despite the fact that CO2 is a naturally occurring phenomenon in nature, the greenpeace folks want to blame it all on coal (another natural mineral) and certain (evil) coal burning power plants.” He added (inaccurately) that “the earth is actually cooler today than it was about 50 years ago.”

Oh, noes, 20 years ago! And, the computer models have failed over that period of time. Go figure.

He was wrong about being cooler than 50 years prior, which isn’t actually nearly 20 years ago, more like 2001, as you can see from the Wayback Machine archive (seriously, this is how unhinged Leftists get in their research). It was warmer in 2001 than 1951, especially since that was a time of cooling up to the late 1970’s.

Anyhow, he’s expressed a Skeptical viewpoint since, and

Pence has also been an outspoken opponent of policies that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He told the Star Press that a cap-and-trade proposal passed by the US House of Representatives in 2009 would raise energy prices and harm the economy. The legislation would have put a limit and a price on the carbon emissions that cause climate change. “I really believe Democratic climate change legislation will cap growth and trade jobs,” he said.

As governor of Indiana, Pence has continued to fight against policies intended to combat global warming. His latest battle? An effort to block President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, a set of Environmental Protection Agency regulations that would limit greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. Last year, Pence called Indiana a “proud pro-coal state” on a press call, according to the Indianapolis Star. He vowed to resist the new regulations.

Well, I like Pence on this issue.

Read: Good News: Pence And Trump Are On Same Page Regarding Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in Global Warming, GOP | 8 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove