If Elected, Trump Would Mean Forever Climate Change Wars Or Something

By William Teach June 1, 2016 – 10:42 am

Don’t misunderstand, at this point I do not trust Donald Trump on ‘climate change’. But, I do enjoy a good caterwauling from unhinged members of the Cult of Climastrology. Here’s Joe Romm, George Soros’ paid climate flunky, shrieking

Memorial Day: Trump’s War On Climate Action Would Ensure A World Of Wars

On Thursday, Donald Trump declared that if elected President, he would wage an all-out waragainst national and global climate action. On Friday, he went so far as to to deny the reality of California’s devastating drought.

Because Trump gave his big energy and climate speech right before Memorial Day, it is altogether fitting and proper that we look at what Trump’s plans to destroy a livable climate would mean for the future of war.

Trump said he would kill the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and all domestic climate-related regulations. And he said, “We’re going to cancel the Paris climate agreement” — truly humanity’s best if not only chance to avoid catastrophic irreversible climate change lasting 1000 years.

Now Trump can’t really cancel that agreement, since it involves nearly 200 other nations unanimously agreeing to leave most fossil fuels in the ground in a global effort to keep total warming “well below 2°C.” But since that agreement requires every country to ratchet down their carbon pollution targets ever five years, Trump could certainly throw a big wrench into the machinery of national and global climate action, making the already-difficult task of staying below 2°C nearly impossible.

He might not be able to cancel the agreement, but, he can end Americas’ involvement in it. Here’s the fun part, though

If President Trump does what he says he will, then America and the world will be doomed to decades, or more likely, centuries, of strife and conflict from catastrophic climate change from the synergistic effect of soaring temperatures, Dust-Bowlification, extreme weather, sea level rise and super-charged storm surges. These climate impacts will create the kind of food insecurity that drives war, conflict, and the competition for arable and habitable land.

 

Read: If Elected, Trump Would Mean Forever Climate Change Wars Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama: Prepare To Run For Your Lives From Climate Change Hurricanes!

By William Teach June 1, 2016 – 7:43 am

Obama trots out some duckspeak regarding hurricanes

(MRCTV) Pres. Obama called for every American to put together a disaster supply kit and evacuation plan because climate change is bringing “more powerful and more devastating” hurricanes to the U.S. – even though the U.S. hasn’t been hit with a major hurricane in more than a decade.

Announcing the June 1 start of hurricane season, Obama warned Americans to prepare for imminent climate change-caused hurricanes:

“All of us have seen the heartbreak, the damage and, in some case, the loss of life that hurricanes can cause. And as climate continues to change, hurricanes are only going to become more powerful and more devastating.

“One of the things that we have learned over the course of the last seven and a half years is that government plays a vital role, but it is every citizen’s responsibility to be prepared for a disaster. And that means taking proactive steps, like having an evacuation plan, having a fully stocked disaster supply kit. If your local authorities ask you to evacuate, you have to do it. Don’t wait.”

He’s not wrong on the second part, but, as to the first on climate change?

Meanwhile, the U.S. has now gone a record 127 straight months without a major hurricane making landfall – and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is predicting a “near normal” Atlantic hurricane season this year.

For the past ten-plus years, “normal” has meant no major hurricanes – even with the effects (if any) of climate change – so “near normal” suggests the U.S. will remain safe from climate-caused hurricane devastation.

The last major hurricane to make landfall was Wilma, all the way back in 2005. Furthermore, since the big 2005 season, the continental US has only see a few hurricanes make landfall, some of which could be argued were not hurricanes at landfall. Not that a tropical storm is any fun, to be sure. Superstorm Sandy was not a hurricane at landfall.

Let’s not forget, there was a progression of Warmist duckspeak. First it was that the big 2005 season would be the new normal. Then, when landfalling activity dried up, it was that hurricane activity would lessen, but they’d be bigger and more powerful. When they failed to materialize, Warmists claimed that ‘climate change’ was killing the hurricanes and shifting them away from land. I guess Obama is back to the more powerful talking point.

One thing to be clear on: people in coastal areas should be prepared. People get complacent. And the actual normal is to see some landfalling hurricanes and tropical storms. Even a tropical depression can cause problems. Heck, Hurricane Sandy caused major problems here in Raleigh. And the storms can dump enormous amounts of rain far inland. You never know what a season will bring.

But, it’s not ‘climate change’.

Read: Obama: Prepare To Run For Your Lives From Climate Change Hurricanes! »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Barry Obama | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Half Of Voters Think Hillary’s Use Of Private Server Was Illegal

By William Teach June 1, 2016 – 7:16 am

This could be a wee bit of a problem for Entitled Hillary, and you can bet the ranch that the Trump campaign has seen, or will shortly see, this poll, using it as an added attack line against Hillary. Whatever you say about the guy, he will not only fire a salvo, but, he will keep firing and firing and firing.

(The Hill) Half of all voters think that Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time as secretary of State was illegal, according to a new Morning Consult poll released Wednesday.

Meanwhile, 27 percent say they’re not sure if it was legal or not, and 22 percent believe it was legal. And 20 percent said the practice was ethical.

Nearly half of voters polled, 48 percent, see her use of a private server as a major problem for the campaign, while 24 percent see it as a minor one. Eighteen percent said it isn’t a problem at all.

Neither The Hill article nor the Morning Consult article break it down fully by party affiliation, race, sex, etc for the 2,001 registered voters surveyed. One must have a subscription to see the raw data. Regardless, this is a devastating poll for Hillary. With 50% saying it’s illegal, and the ability to sway another 27%, and you know that a goodly chunk of that 27% will have a low opinion if they aren’t quite sure, this could become a major issue and headache as pushed by Trump and Republicans as the general election approaches. Some pundits are very concerned with down ticket elections due to Trump. Well, Democrats should also be concerned for the down ticket elections, as they are linked with a corrupt and law-breaking presidential candidate.

There is a slight breakdown by party, per the Morning Consult article

But even among Democrats, a quarter of them think it is a major problem for Clinton, compared with 50 percent of self-identified independents and 78 percent of Republicans.

That will leave a mark. So will this

Only 20 percent of voters believed her practice was ethical.

In other words, 80% believe she acted in an unethical manner. Best case for Hillary is that the FBI comes out and says she broke no laws. At that point, though, we might as well understand that laws for you and me do not apply to Big Wigs.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Half Of Voters Think Hillary’s Use Of Private Server Was Illegal »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 27 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 31, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a world flooded by carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on whether an indictment of Hillary is imminent.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Change Today: What Is “Duckspeak”?

By William Teach May 31, 2016 – 11:44 am

Tom Harris explains

(Business Day Live) IN OCEANIA, the dystopian society of George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, a new language was created by the government to control the thinking patterns of the populace. Officially labeled “Newspeak”, it was the first language that, when fully adopted, was meant to limit the range of human thought. Concepts such as freedom, scepticism, and debate were virtually unthinkable since no words existed to describe them, aside from the generic term “thoughtcrime”.

Perhaps most insidious was “duckspeak”, a form of speech consisting entirely of words and phrases approved by the party. Someone who had mastered duckspeak could fire off ideologically pure assertions like bullets from a machine gun without thinking at all. Their words merely emanated from the larynx like the quacking of a duck. Being called a duckspeaker was considered a sincere compliment since it indicated that you were well-versed in the official language and views of the state.

More than ever before, we are in an era of climate change duckspeak. Rather than being merely ridiculous or social satire, the apparent underlying purpose of climate duckspeak is ominous: to convince opinion leaders and the public to think about climate change only as the government wants. To support alternative points of view is “climate change denial”, today’s version of thoughtcrime, punishable by excommunication from responsible citizenry and, at times, loss of employment. If AGs United for Clean Power, a coalition of 16 Democratic state Attorneys General (AG), has their way, speaking out on the other side of the climate debate could soon result in civil or criminal charges.

Harris points out words and phrases like “carbon pollution”, “97% consensus”, and “green” as part of the duckspeak. Warmists are using this to justify the use of government force to increase the size and scope of government, especially centralized government. Increasing its power of people, private entities, energy, and the economy. Yet, most Warmists are unable to argue without their talking points. They’ve been told something, and they will simply parrot what they’ve heard. All while refusing to change their own lives to abide by their duckspeak.

Read: Climate Change Today: What Is “Duckspeak”? »

Posted in Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Is Super Enthused For Massive Gun Registration Schemes

By William Teach May 31, 2016 – 8:15 am

Despite anti-gunnite talking points, most law abiding gun owners are not against background checks. We have no problem with making sure that the person attempting to purchase a firearm is not a bad person. But, do background checks actually stop Bad Guys from getting guns? For the most part, no. Hence, the NRA is not suggesting that we do away with the backgrounds check system, they just think it’s absurd to expand it, because it will almost never stop a bad character from getting a gun. And they are against the gun registration schemes of the anti-gunnites, because it is simply a big government control scheme. Furthermore, the government fails to enter those who are “adjudicated mentally incompetent into the National Instant Check System.” But, nothing will ever stop the gun haters from pushing their schemes

Gun Control That Actually Works

FOR more than 80 years, the United States has enforced a tough and effective gun control law that most Americans have never heard of. It’s a 1934 measure called the National Firearms Act, and it stands as a stark rebuke to the most sacred precepts of the gun lobby and provides a model we should build on.

Leaders of the National Rifle Association rarely talk about the firearms act, and that’s probably because it imposes precisely the kinds of practical — and constitutional — limits on gun ownership, such as registration and background checks, that the N.R.A. regularly insists will lead to the demise of the Second Amendment.

In speeches, publications and a steady stream of fund-raising literature, the N.R.A. rails against gun registration and gun owner databases. In 2008, the organization’s chief executive, Wayne LaPierre, claimed that photographing and fingerprinting gun owners was “the key gun control scheme” of the candidate Barack Obama, who, Mr. LaPierre predicted, would confiscate every gun in America before the end of his first term as president. The N.R.A. now says that the “real goal” of “gun control supporters” like Hillary Clinton is “ gun confiscation.”

But the longstanding National Firearms Act not only already mandated the registration of all owners of machine guns, short-barreled rifles, silencers and other weapons deemed highly dangerous at the time, it created a national database of those gun owners with their mug shots and fingerprints, and a detailed description of each weapon purchased, including its serial number. Purchasers of “N.F.A. weapons,” as they are known, must pass an F.B.I. background check, be approved by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and pay a $200 tax. Stolen weapons must be reported to the A.T.F. immediately — the sort of requirement the N.R.A. opposes for other gun thefts.

In other words, the article is about requiring registration, mug shots, and fingerprints, among others, of all guns and their owners. A woman who wants a small .9mm for protection? Take her mugshot and fingerprints, just like she’s a criminal. Yet, these same people who push to treat law abiding gun owners like felons want to turn around and make things easier on actual felons.

Mr. Folloder, a manufacturer and collector of machine guns and silencers, is no fan of the firearms act. He’d like to make machine guns more readily available, and lobbied successfully to repeal a requirement that N.F.A. owners be preapproved by a local law enforcement officer. But Mr. Folloder and the A.T.F. agree that registrants are rarely implicated in crimes. People with registered weapons who can pay $40,000 for a machine gun “bend over backwards to obey the law,” he says. “If you’re going to spend that much money and put that much effort into obtaining one of these, you’re not going to be holding up the liquor store.”

N.F.A.-classified weapons do show up at crime scenes. But nearly all of them were unregistered, so the simple act of possession was a crime. According to A.T.F. analysis, among N.F.A. weapon owners there were only 12 felony convictions between 2006 and 2014, and those crimes did not involve an N.F.A. weapon. If that conviction rate were applied to the owners of the other privately owned firearms in the United States, gun crime would virtually disappear.

The idea here is to make it so damned expensive and burdensome to own a firearm that only those who can afford them will get them, and it won’t be people who will use them for crime. In essence, only people with money will be able to get them, people who tend to live in fancy pants neighborhoods, which rarely see crime, leaving the lower and middle classes un-armed, easy prey for criminals who do not get their guns legally.

Who will be most in danger? Women. Way to support women being able to defend themselves, Liberals.

The case for licensing and registration is stronger now than ever. Yet to today’s N.R.A. such measures are an existential threat to the Second Amendment. If that is true, why hasn’t the government used the N.F.A. database to confiscate weapons? Why has it failed to move against the holders of hunting licenses and concealed carry permits who readily submit to milder forms of gun licensing and registration?

Because they are a tiny number of weapons. But, let me turn the question around: why is it that anti-gunnites constantly push for schemes that make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase and carry firearms? Why do they constantly push for more burdensome registration schemes for law abiding citizens? Why do them want things like registration, mug shots, and fingerprints for law abiding citizens? Why are they not pushing for measures against the criminals that use them and obtain them illegally? Why is it that the cities and states with the most burdensome gun schemes, areas run by the Democratic Party, tend to have the high amount of gun play?

I have a compromise: if law abiding gun owners agree to having their fingerprints and mugshots take for gun ownership, how about doing the same for an official voter ID card, which would be necessary to place a vote? Would that be acceptable to the anti-gunnites?

Read: NY Times Is Super Enthused For Massive Gun Registration Schemes »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Liberal World | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

Bill Kristol Is Betraying The Country By Wanting Democracy Or Something

By William Teach May 31, 2016 – 7:51 am

Sadly, David Horowitz, a guy who used to be a staunch American Conservative, is now a big Trumpite, and he is very, very unhappy with Bill Kristol at the uber-Trump supporting Breitbart

David Horowitz: ‘Kristol’s Betrayal Gets Serious’

Over the Memorial Day Weekend, Bill Kristol doubled down on his betrayal of this country with a pair of tweets:

“Just a heads up over this holiday weekend: There will be an independent candidate — an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance,” Kristol tweeted.

He also said, “Those accused of betraying GOP by opposing Trump can take heart from P. Henry 251 years ago today: ‘If this be treason, make the most of it!’”

This fatuous invocation of an American patriot to justify the betrayal typifies the arrogant disregard for political realities shared by all those involved in a defection that could produce even greater disasters than the Obama era’s 400,000 deaths by jihad and 20 million refugees across the Middle East.

So, Kristol pushing for an independent candidate to run against Hillary and Donald is now a betrayal of the country. Seriously. This is what is being pushed at Breitbart. Andrew is surely rolling in his grave. This is an absurd line of attack, which, really, deems all those who refuse to get on the Trump Train as traitors. I’ve been called a traitor myself by Trump supporters, for failing to support a guy who has little in common with my deeply held beliefs, a guy who is mostly a squishy Democrat.

Horowitz gives little reason to actually support Trump. He just assumes that Trump is better than Hillary, because she’s a registered Democrat. Like Trump used to be. He does spend a long time discussing counter-jihad, and how Democrats have been the party of appeasement and avoidance, till he gets to

Within three months of the invasion, with American troops still in harm’s way, the Democrats who had authorized the use of force and spoken in favor of the removal of Saddam turned against the war and began a five-year campaign to sabotage it. The Democrats reversal — and betrayal of our men and women in arms — was triggered by a presidential primary in which a left-wing candidate, Howard Dean, was running away with the Democratic nomination.

Guess who else decided to complain and oppose the Operation Iraqi Freedom at the same time as the Democratic Party? Donald Trump.

This is the issue that defines the coming election. A party in denial about the Muslim holy war against America and its allies, whose basic instinct is to weaken America’s defenses and enable her enemies, is opposed by a party that wants to rebuild America’s strength, secure our borders, and put the safety of our people first.

The Kristol attack on the Republican Party and its presumptive candidate Donald Trump is an attack on all Americans and needs to be seen in that light.

These are the kinds of despicable, anti-Democracy attacks on those who do not support Trump at this time that further harden the #NeverTrump support and pushing those who could still be wooed into at least holding their nose and checking the box for Trump closer to the #NeverTrump movement.

How do we know Trump would be better than Democrats? Because he has said so? Where’s the evidence? You know what? It doesn’t matter. The Trumpites like Horowitz can kiss my ass and take their traitor talk and choke themselves with it. Trump, and big supporters like Horowitz, enable comments like this

Thomas Williams: Bill Kristol is guilty of sabotaging the vote of the American people and will be held accountable.

Held accountable for daring to engage in our free and democratic process? Sounds more like Trumpites are veering into fascism/authoritarianism.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Bill Kristol Is Betraying The Country By Wanting Democracy Or Something »

Posted in Donald Trump, Unhinged Tools | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 30, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful carbon neutral sailboat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on Memorial Day.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Are You Ready For The “Climatarian Diet”?

By William Teach May 30, 2016 – 10:30 am

We can totally eat to cool the planet or something. You’ve heard most of this before, it’s just the “climatarian diet” schtick that is new

Eating to cool the planet – are you ready for a climatarian diet?

Every year or so you can count on a major report linking what we put on our plate to climate change. Last year the Changing Climate, Changing Diets report from the British think tank Chatham House warned that eating less meat is critical for keeping the global temperature rise under control. This year it was a study from Oxford University saying that if we just stuck to the basic dietary guidelines of eating smaller amounts of meat and more veg we’d shrink food-related greenhouse gas emissions by a third – not to mention save a few million lives along the way thanks to healthier eating.

But is anyone listening?

We might get the link between climate change and burning fossil fuels and even try to limit our use with solar panels and smaller cars, but there’s less awareness that our food choices are also influencing climate change – and that by tweaking our diet we can make a difference.

Obviously, they want Everyone Else to eat less red meat. That goes without saying. Does it need mentioning that most who yammer on refuse to do the same in their own lives? And the food miles schtick.

There’s a word for this climate conscious way of eating – a ‘Climatarian’ diet, a word that Mark Pershin, founder of Less Meat Less Heat wants us to hear more of.

PS: isn’t it wonderful how the news media has become an advocacy format?

Read: Are You Ready For The “Climatarian Diet”? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Democratic Party Run Chicago Celebrates Memorial Day Weekend With Massive Violence And Gunplay

By William Teach May 30, 2016 – 7:16 am

Welcome to the wonderful Democratic Party run city of Chicago, with all its liberal values, its gun control, its big government dominance, which celebrated Memorial Day the same way they celebrate seemingly every weekend

(NBC Chicago) A 15-year-old girl who was riding in a car on Lake Shore Drive was among the four people killed in shootings across the city so far this Memorial Day weekend.

At least 48 others have been wounded from Friday through Sunday evening, marking another bloody weekend in Chicago. Shootings across the city were as follows:

It’s a long list, which, unsurprisingly, fails to note the names and race of those involved. On the bright side, though

In 2015, 12 people were killed and another 43 wounded in shootings across Chicago over Memorial Day weekend. These incidents come as the Chicago Police Department deployed several thousand additional officers to combat violence over the holiday.

So, deaths are down! Hooray, Liberals! Aren’t there massive gun restrictions in Chicago? They sure seem to be stopping criminals, eh?

But, it does say something about Democratic Party run cities that they need a massive deployment of law enforcement to keep people from going on crime sprees. But, it’s unsurprising, what with Chicago seeing a 50% increase in shootings so far this year over 2015.

Read: Democratic Party Run Chicago Celebrates Memorial Day Weekend With Massive Violence And Gunplay »

Posted in Democrats | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove