If All You See…

By William Teach August 14, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a world turned to desert because Other People won’t buy local, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Blazing Cat Fur, with a post on poo flinging Hillary supporters.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach August 14, 2016 – 9:30 am

Arthur Sarnoff Patriotic Pinup

Happy Sunday! A gorgeous day in America, where our Olympians are kicking butt. As expected. This pinup is by Arthur Sarnoff, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Independent Sentinel notes a Somali woman winning in Minnesota, but, the media forgot to mention something
  2. Wizbang covers Hillary voters holding their noses
  3. Weasel Zippers covers the media forgetting to mention the anti-Israel attitudes at the Olympics
  4. The Quiet Towers has a response to Trump’s fundraising letter
  5. The Lonely Conservative asks “what do you expect?”
  6. The Liberty Zone wonders if Hannity is Fox’s dumbest anchor
  7. The Daley Gator notes that first they came for our speech
  8. Powerline wonders if Trumpism will survive the Trump defeat
  9. Pamela Geller covers the continuing rape epidemic in Sweden from Muslim migrants
  10. Neo-neocon has the Trump question du jour
  11. Moonbattery notes the media eroding resistance to pedophilia
  12. The Right Scoop covers rioting in Milwaukee over a police shooting
  13. Legal Insurrection notes that charity really does begin at home for the Clintons
  14. Jihad Watch covers banning the Burkinis
  15. And last, but not least, House of Eratosthenes discusses what Conservatives must do

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 | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Great News: Trump’s Really Not Running Against Clinton

By William Teach August 14, 2016 – 8:03 am

Can you guess who Trump says he’s running against in this election cycle? Since the headline already says it is not Hillary, you probably guessed “Republicans,”, which sure seems the case since he and his followers spend a lot of time going after Republican voters and elected officials. Nope

(The Hill) Donald Trump said Saturday that his true opponent in the general election is the media.

“I’m not running against crooked Hillary, I’m running against the crooked media,” Trump said at a rally in Fairfield, Conn. “That’s what I’m running against, I’m not running against crooked Hillary.”

Trump has repeatedly lashed out at media that he calls “dishonest” over the course of his campaign.

Earlier Saturday, he bashed the New York Times after a report came out in which sources characterized Trump as “sullen” and struggling to recover in light of lagging poll numbers.

He renewed those attacks on the Times at the rally Saturday, saying he’s considering revoking their credentials to cover his rallies.

“I’ll tell you in particular lately we have a newspaper that’s failing badly, its losing a lot of money, its gonna be out of business very soon: the New York Times,” he said.

How soon till we get a meme from Trump supporters that refusing to vote for Trump is a vote for the media? He’s spent a lot of time bashing the media, which has made many very upset. And, let’s face it, the media does support Democrats at roughly a 90% rate. Regardless, this seems rather freeing, since, if I refuse to give my vote to Trump, while also not checking the box for Hillary, the meme about electing Hillary would be moot. I’m electing the media! Which is not actually on the ballot.

This is apparently a case of Trump just being himself. Which may have worked well during the primaries, but won’t work a lick during the general. Of course, during the primaries, he created such division among Republican voters that there are tons who will refuse to vote for him, and that’s on Trump and his supporters.

Interestingly, the “always correct” model predicts a Trump win

Using several standards to make his prediction, Alan Abramowitz’s “Time for Change” model done for the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics “Crystal Ball” shows Trump winning 51.4 percent to 48.6 percent for Hillary Clinton.

“Based on a predicted vote share of 48.6 percent for the incumbent party, these results indicate that Trump should be a clear but not overwhelming favorite to defeat Clinton: There should be about a 66 percent chance of a Republican victory,” Abramowitz added.

Many Trump supporters are crowing about this poll. Of course, many, including Excitable Jim Hoft, conveniently ignore the rest

However, in an unusual move, Abramowitz is throwing his own model under the bus and suggesting that Clinton will win because Trump is so different from past presidential candidates and has such high unfavorability ratings that his election forecast basics can’t be trusted.

“Based on the results of other recent presidential elections, however, as well as Trump’s extraordinary unpopularity, it appears very likely that the Republican vote share will fall several points below what would be expected if the GOP had nominated a mainstream candidate and that candidate had run a reasonably competent campaign. Therefore, despite the prediction of the Time for Change model, Clinton should probably be considered a strong favorite to win the 2016 presidential election as suggested by the results of recent national and state polls,” he concluded on the Crystal Ball site.

We’re talking electoral vote blowout under the bus. Because, Trump is running a campaign

  • with no spending on ads less than 90 days from the election
  • he has virtually no ground campaign
  • he has almost no campaign headquarters (I called the NC number on Friday and Saturday, no answer)
  • he’s spending time in deep blue states instead of swing states
  • he’s turning GOP states blue
  • he’s averse to doing any get out the vote programs
  • he spends a lot of time bashing Republicans
  • he’s apparently running against the media, not Hillary

You know, there are some #NeverTrump folks in deep blue states like NY and California who don’t feel bad in the least about not voting for the Republican candidate, because they know their vote is meaningless in those states. I’m starting to feel the same way in North Carolina. Trump is finding ways to push people away. Most of his campaign events seem to be all about placating his base. These are insider rallies. And the results will be disastrous in November.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Great News: Trump’s Really Not Running Against Clinton »

Posted in Donald Trump, Elections | 28 Comments | Trackback URL

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
Pirate's Cove