Surprise: A Greener Earth Is A Big Problem!

By William Teach May 24, 2016 – 7:18 am

Do you remember the articles a few months ago about the Earth getting greener? This was, of course, blamed solely (there are a lot of articles, to be sure) on the rise of CO2 by Warmists, what the Cult of Climastrology calls “carbon pollution.” Even though a goodly chunk was from regrowth programs in China and Russia. This is apparently a Very Bad thing, showing that you just can’t win with Warmists

Who Knew Living on a Greener Earth was a Problem?

When you see rolling hills of lush, green grass and trees, you probably think to yourself, “right on!” Well, don’t celebrate just yet because apparently, a greener Earth is actually a bad thing.

All this confusing research comes from a new study that was printed in the journal Nature Climate Change. The big conclusion of the study was, yes, the Earth has become significantly greener over the past 33 years, but that greening is because of all the carbon dioxide humans have been pumping into the air.

Scientists came to their conclusion by using “satellites to examine vegetation growth over time, assuming that the extra green is coming from leaves on plants and trees,” Grist reports.

“Using a computer model to estimate leaf growth, they find the extra greening is equivalent to adding about 18 million square kilometers of vegetated land to the globe, more than twice the area of the mainland U.S.”

One would think a greener Earth would be a good thing, especially in light of the urbanization of so much of the planet. You know, the concrete jungles where the Warmists tend to live, far removed from actual nature. Except when they take long fossil fueled trips to visit nature and Make A Statement. And, you know, Warmists, having subsumed real environmental concerns, become hysterical over the loss of forests and jungles. But….

Now, technically, Earth greening isn’t so bad—plants love soaking up carbon. But the problem is, there’s no way all of Earth’s plants can soak up all the carbon we’re releasing. “All that extra plant growth can’t keep up with the 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide humans dump into the atmosphere every year,” Grist explains. Also, another problem: A lot of the world’s greening is happening in the arctic. Yeah, that’s not good.

So, let’s hope humans will actually find a way we all can agree on that will help us cut carbon emissions extensively so the planet can green naturally–and, you know, not die.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/wteach/pirates/facepalm.gif

This isn’t the first time a Warmist has positioned the greening of Earth as a Bad Thing. There are many other hysterical rants, as well.

Read: Surprise: A Greener Earth Is A Big Problem! »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Trump “Clarifies” Position On School Guns

By William Teach May 24, 2016 – 6:59 am

What is Donald Trump’s actual position on guns and the 2nd Amendment? He used to be for an assault weapons ban and comprehensive gun control. Now? He claims to be a champion of law abiding gun owners, a position he staked when he decided to run for president as a Republican in 2011, and has now broadened. We know what Hillary stands for: significant restrictions. If you want to know, look at what California is doing. Hillary would go there, along with most Democrats. Though she won’t give up her own armed security

(CNN) Donald Trump on Monday clarified his position on allowing guns in schools, telling CNN in a phone interview that “school resource officers” or trained teachers should be the ones carrying guns.

He stood by his adamant criticism of gun free zones but backed away from his blanket call to eliminate all gun free zones in schools, saying they would only be eliminated “in some cases.”

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton this weekend accused Trump of wanting to “mandate that every school in America allow guns in classrooms.”

Trump responded Sunday morning on Fox News with a muddled comment that seemed to both reject and reaffirm his support for arming teachers in classrooms.

“I don’t want to have guns in classrooms, although in some cases teachers should have guns in classrooms, frankly,” he said.

I think we would all prefer that teachers not need to carry weapons to protect themselves and the children, but, schools, like other gun free zones, have become easy shooting grounds for nutjobs. This second position from Trump is much better than the first. Allowing some school personnel, who have been properly trained on the use of firearms, much like the way people are trained for concealed carry (in those states, such as NC, which require actual training), would go a long way towards keeping nutjobs from seeing schools as easy picking grounds.

Trump’s refusal to reiterate his support for ending gun-free zones on day one of his presidency as he did earlier this year and his emphasis on school resource officers providing armed security suggest Trump is mollifying the hard-right policy positions that he staked out to successfully snag the Republican nomination. And his apparent waffling on whether to arm teachers once again raises questions about his consistency issues crucial to his conservative constituency.

Actually, modifying his positions in this manner would go a long way towards telling Republicans and Conservatives that he is being more thoughtful of his positions, and is less bluster and spouting off at the mouth than what he usually seems to be. Few gun owners/supporters will have a problem with Donald’s clarification. Gun owners/supporters expect gun owners to be responsible with their weapons. Required training on having a gun in school is a good idea.

One still, though, has to wonder, and worry, about what Trump really believes. Hence, I still do not trust him.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump “Clarifies” Position On School Guns »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Donald Trump | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Darn, These Black People In Mostly Democratic Run Cities Sure Like Shooting Each Other

By William Teach May 23, 2016 – 4:48 pm

The NY Times has a long, long, long, long, tediously long missive on “gun violence” on their front page, which states that America is just not listening to the drumbeat. Heck, it’s in the headline: A Drumbeat of Multiple Shootings, but America Isn’t Listening. The article starts out with a discussion of a shooting that didn’t capture the attention of America in the Democratic Party run city of Cincinnati, unlike the mass shootings by he nutjobs in South Carolina and Oregon.

But what took place at 6101 Prentice Street on Aug. 21 may say more about the nature of gun violence in the United States than any of those far more famous rampages. It is a snapshot of a different sort of mass violence — one that erupts with such anesthetic regularity that it is rendered almost invisible, except to the mostly black victims, survivors and attackers.

In a Democratic Party run city. Weird. The Cincinnati shooting involved all Blacks.

Seeking deeper insight into the phenomenon, The New York Times identified and analyzed these 358 shootings with four or more casualties, drawing on two databases assembled from news reports and citizen contributors, and then verifying details with law enforcement agencies.

What’d they find?

They chronicle how easily lives are shattered when a firearm is readily available — in a waistband, a glove compartment, a mailbox or garbage can that serves as a gang’s gun locker. They document the mayhem spawned by the most banal of offenses: a push in a bar, a Facebook taunt, the wrong choice of music at a house party. They tally scores of unfortunates in the wrong place at the wrong time: an 11-month-old clinging to his mother’s hip, shot as she prepared to load him into a car; a 77-year-old church deacon, killed by a stray bullet while watching television on his couch.

Where is this happening? Mostly Democratic Party run areas.

The shootings took place everywhere, but mostly outdoors: at neighborhood barbecues, family reunions, music festivals, basketball tournaments, movie theaters, housing project courtyards, Sweet 16 parties, public parks. Where motives could be gleaned, roughly half involved or suggested crime or gang activity. Arguments that spun out of control accounted for most other shootings, followed by acts of domestic violence.

This is an important point: so many shootings (and stabbings and such) have nothing to do with gangs and drugs: so many have to do with “respect”. Someone gets disrespected in a minor way, someone looks at someone else’s girlfriend, someone leaves a barbecue early, or owes someone a few bucks, and it turns violent.

Over all, though, nearly three-fourths of victims and suspected assailants whose race could be identified were black. Some experts suggest that helps explain why the drumbeat of dead and wounded does not inspire more outrage.

Why is there so little outrage? There’s little outrage for extended periods of time in Black communities by Blacks. They’ll run a “take back our streets” march or something (which often features gunplay somewhere within half a mile or even a few blocks away), but, nothing changes. There just doesn’t seem to be that much outrage when Blacks are killing and shooting (and stabbing) Blacks, what is known as Black in origin crime. 50% of the murders are committed by a population that is less than 14% of the overall US population, and the majority occur in Democratic Party run areas.

Maybe there’s so little outrage because so many involved are hoodlums and criminals. There’s little outrage if a White or Asian or Hispanic is killed when they’re a hoodlum. One has to also wonder why Democratic Party policies are enacted which keep Blacks in poverty and a position for all these shootings to occur.

Michael Nutter, a former Philadelphia mayor, who is black, said that society would not be so complacent if whites were dying from gun violence at the same rate as blacks.

But, they aren’t. Neither Whites nor Asians nor Hispanics are whacking each other at the rate Blacks are whacking each other. Not even close.

No one worries more about black-on-black violence than African-Americans. Surveys show that they are more fearful than whites that they will be crime victims and that they feel less safe in their neighborhoods.

Most parents Mr. Abdullah meets are desperate to protect their children but are trapped in unsafe neighborhoods, he said, “just trying to survive.” And some are in denial, refusing to believe that their sons are carrying or using pistols, even in the face of clear evidence.

Welcome to the reality of the Democratic Party plantation. They used to be overt about advocating for the keeping down, and even killing, of Blacks, back when they enacted Jim Crow, segregation, and other policies. When they were part of the KKK. Now? They just keep them in crummy conditions in Dem Party run cities. That’s the Democratic Party comfort zone. Perhaps, one day, Blacks will realize just how bad the Dem’s policies are for Blacks.

Read: NY Times: Darn, These Black People In Mostly Democratic Run Cities Sure Like Shooting Each Other »

Posted in Dems in Charge: Now What? | 24 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 23, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a carbon pollution created muddy world, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Cold Fury, with a post on it can’t happen here.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Virgin Islands AG Rescinds ‘Climate Change’ Subpoena

By William Teach May 23, 2016 – 10:12 am

The subpoena of all materials from climate skeptical organizations was an over-reach and an abuse of power. The Virgin Islands AG has revoked it. But, don’t think this issue is over

(Washington Times) Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude E. Walker has withdrawn his subpoena of the Competitive Enterprise Institute after a rash of criticism over his investigation into climate-change dissenters.

Still, CEI general counsel Sam Kazman said Monday that the free-market think-tank would still push the court for sanctions against Mr. Walker, one of an 17-member coalition of attorneys general pursuing fraud allegations against climate skeptics.

“We are doing so because Walker’s underlying Virgin Islands subpoena remains in effect and, as his local counsel expressly stated, Walker can reinstate the DC [District of Columbia] subpoena whenever he wants,” Mr. Kazman said in a statement.

“More importantly, his withdrawal only strengthens our claim that this subpoena was a constitutional outrage from the very beginning, violating our right to free speech and our donors’ right to confidentiality, and threatening the right of all Americans to express views that go against some party line,” Mr. Kazman said. “This was an abuse of process, plain and simple, and we’re determined to see that Walker faces sanctions for an action whose illegality he refuses to recognize.”

Again, what Walker and other Warmists AGs (who use lots and lots of fossil fuels and energy themselves) are doing is Lawfare, using the legal powers of Government to infringe on the Constitutional Rights of private citizens and groups. It is blatant intimidation, and tyrannical. The Cult of Climastrology doesn’t want to debate the issue, they want to force everyone to accept their views, even using the barrel of the Government powers gun. This was a fishing expedition, one which had no evidence, in an attempt to scare citizens.

Walker shouldn’t be sanctioned: he should be impeached, and possibly jailed for abuse of power.

Read: Virgin Islands AG Rescinds ‘Climate Change’ Subpoena »

Posted in Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Say, All That Leftism In South America Is Sure Failing, Eh?

By William Teach May 23, 2016 – 7:30 am

The Editorial Board of the NY Times is Very Concerned about the state of the nations in South America, noting just how bad it all is, thanks to Leftism

The Left on the Run in Latin America

In 2004, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and the Cuban leader, Fidel Castro, launched the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our Americas, a regional alliance of leftist leaders designed to subvert a hemispheric free trade agreement that the United States had been pushing for a decade.

In the years that followed, Washington’s hope of a trade pact of 34 nations faded, and its clout in the region diminished as voters across much of Latin America put their faith in firebrand politicians who promised to spread the wealth of a commodities boom and topple old elites. The region’s exports to China increased 25-fold between 2000 and 2013, allowing Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela and Bolivia to bankroll generous welfare and social programs that lifted millions from poverty.

So, the Bolivarian Alternative started just 12 short years ago. Now?

But today, Latin America’s leftist ramparts appear to be crumbling because of widespread corruption, a slowdown in China’s economy and poor economic choices. For the most part, leaders failed to create diversified economies capable of withstanding slumps. The welfare and pension programs that kept voters loyal proved unsustainable. Leaders in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia flouted democratic traditions by expanding or eliminating term limits and co-opted independent institutions with networks of patronage.

In other words, they instituted hardcore Progressivism (you can call it Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Leftism, whatever), vastly increased the power of their central governments, played games with redistribution and Promises to citizens, restricted this and that, enabled vast government interference in their economies, even nationalized certain sectors, and failed badly. Surprise! Let’s not forget that one of the worst, Venezuela, can’t even get toilet paper and beer, much less food. Yet, the nation is oil rich. Leftism fail.

Of course, now, many of those nations are looking back to the United States.

The United States can help its neighbors become more competitive and stable by promoting investment in technology, innovation and high-quality education. It can point to the security turnaround of Colombia, which has one of the growing economies in the region, as evidence of the potential of sustained security partnerships. Washington can do more to help Central American and Caribbean nations find sustainable sources of energy, now that they can no longer count on subsidized oil from Venezuela. It also can support anticorruption initiatives that citizens around the hemisphere are clamoring for.

So, the answer from the NY Times for South America’s ills are….more Big Government. Just US style Big Government.

Yet, a brighter future for struggling Latin Americans cannot depend on the United States. Ultimately, that will require leaders who are accountable to their citizens, are willing to invest in long-term prosperity rather than their political brands and stand ready to acknowledge the colossal mistakes of their predecessors.

Their colossal mistake was following Leftist principles and thinking they would work. They aren’t working too well here, where Obama will be the only president to never see yearly GDP growth of 3% in any year.

Read: NY Times: Say, All That Leftism In South America Is Sure Failing, Eh? »

Posted in Liberal World | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

The Donald Acknowledges Climate Change At His Irish Golf Course Or Something

By William Teach May 23, 2016 – 7:15 am

There’s an axiom for the Internet that the majority of people tend to read the first 3 paragraphs or for 30 seconds, so, get your main points in quickly. Here’s a perfect example, where Politico writer Ben Schreckinger, and whichever editor wrote the headline, attempt to set a Tone

Trump acknowledges climate change — at his golf course
The billionaire, who called global warming a hoax, warns of its dire effects in his company’s application to build a sea wall.

Donald Trump says he is “not a big believer in global warming.” He has called it “a total hoax,” “bullshit” and “pseudoscience.”

But he is also trying to build a sea wall designed to protect one of his golf courses from “global warming and its effects.”

Donald Trump says he is “not a big believer in global warming.” He has called it “a total hoax,” “bullshit” and “pseudoscience.”

But he is also trying to build a sea wall designed to protect one of his golf courses from “global warming and its effects.”

The zoning application raises further questions about how the billionaire developer would confront a risk he has publicly minimized but that has been identified as a defining challenge of this era by world leaders, global industry and the American military. His public disavowal of climate science at the same time he moves to secure his own holdings against the effects of climate change also illustrates the conflict between his political rhetoric and the realities of running a business with seaside assets in the 21st century.

That’s 5 paragraphs, 4 of them very short, or about 30 seconds of reading. And you’ll certainly come away with the opinion that what Donald says in public is different from what he does in private, right? That’s certainly what I came away with while initially reading this on my tablet. The next paragraph even features a quote from super squishy ‘climate change’ believing Bob Inglis (R-SC) exactly to that effect. One has to wonder if it is true. It certainly seems like Trump is backsliding a bit.

Trump bought the resort in 2014. The area was hit by some storms afterwards, causing some erosion, both things that have happened throughout the history of the earth, yet are now blamed on man-induced climate change. Trump tried to build a seawall for protection. Sea walls have been used for thousands of years by mankind to protect against storms and minimize erosion. He was turned down. So…

Earlier this month, after failing to win special approval from the national government for the structure, Trump re-submitted a planning application with the Clare County Council seeking permission to build the wall, which would consist of 200,000 tons of rock distributed along two miles of beach. As part of the application, Trump International Golf Links submitted an environmental impact statement — prepared by an Irish environmental consultancy — which argues that erosion is likely to accelerate as sea levels rise more quickly.

The application included an Irish study that was super concerned about sea rise from Hotcoldwetdry, and whined about erosion from bigger, more frequent storms. You know, the standard Warmist gripes, that haven’t really come to pass. Team Trump went all in on their application with ‘climate change’.

The question here is, was this done because Trump really believes or because they had to play the game in order to get the permit? Dublin shows just .07 millimeters a year sea rise, which is equivalent to .02 feet of sea rise over 100 years. Even looking at UK stations, they are all well below even a foot of sea rise over 100 years. Was this all just a game by Trump to get a permit? And, even if one has a minor concern about sea rise and changes in climate which cause Bad Weather, it could be concerns based on climate change being mostly/solely caused by nature.

So, is this the real position of Trump, or simply a business decision to take advantage of the beliefs of Warmists to get the sea wall permit? Someone should ask Trump. Perhaps they should have asked the Trump campaign for a response. Which Politico failed to do. It is interesting how deep the media will dig when it comes to a Republican politician, while not doing the same for Democrats.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: The Donald Acknowledges Climate Change At His Irish Golf Course Or Something »

Posted in Donald Trump, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Hillary Totally Wants Other People To Pay For Child Care

By William Teach May 22, 2016 – 5:09 pm

Over at the Washington Post today, a woman who charges $250,000 a speech to Wall Street corporations, who has made a ton of money along with her husband and child running a so-called charity, that is more pay-for-play, has her piece on the cost of child care, and other things, published

Hillary Clinton: Child care now costs more than rent. Here’s how to fix this crisis

…..

In every state in the country, child care for two kids now costs more than the average rent. You read that right — child care costs more than housing. And in many states, it’s even more expensive than college tuition.

How to fix this? Other People’s money and Government! Because it’s a crisis, and there’s nothing like more government taxation and regulation and control to fix it

Today’s families have it worse. Child care, college and housing costs have skyrocketed while incomes have barely budged. And workplace policies haven’t changed even though families have, with women earning more of the family income than ever and men doing much more to care for kids and aging parents.

Many workers don’t have paid family leave. Many women don’t even get a single paid day off to give birth. The pressures are so intense that some workers worry that taking an earned vacation day will be seen as slacking off. (snip)

As president, I would work to make quality, affordable child care available to all families.

I’m committed to increasing federal investments and incentivizing states so that no family ever has to pay more than 10 percent of its income for child care. This is a big idea, and I’m determined to fight for it.

Let’s double our investment in programs I helped develop as first lady:Early Head Start and the Early Head Start-Child Care Partnership program. These programs bring an evidenced-based curriculum to child care and make sure kids get the best possible start in life, no matter how much money their families have. (there’s just too much to excerpt)

Under my plan, working Americans would earn up to seven days of paid sick leave each year. They would be guaranteed up to 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave to care for a new baby or sick family member or to recover from an illness or injury. And we can fully fund this program by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share of taxes.

OK. Let’s ask Hillary and Bill and Chelsea, who have made some pretty good money running their “charity” and giving speeches, to pony up themselves.

Of course, what this is really all about is making people even more dependent on the federal government, while the same federal government will have even more control and power over day care and what the kids learn. And pandering to people by offering them “free” stuff, of course.

Read: Hillary Totally Wants Other People To Pay For Child Care »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 22, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a muddy wet world in places that aren’t bone dry, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on feminist motherhood and transgender kindergarten.

It’s muddy girls week!

Read: If All You See… »

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

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach May 22, 2016 – 9:31 am

Gil Elvgren Patriotic Pinup

Happy Sunday! A fantastic day in America. The sun is shining, the mockingbirds are mocking the geese, and summer is fast coming. This pinup is by Gil Elvgren, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Patterico’s Pontifications is not impressed by Donald’s Hispanic outreach
  2. Raised On Hoecakes is unimpressed with Hillary’s Venn diagrams
  3. Scared Monkeys covers the new polling on the Washington Redskins name
  4. White House Dossier has a list of celebs who promise to leave if Trump wins
  5. The Daley Gator notes that liberalism is an ideology of convenience
  6. The Last Refuge wonders why the motive of a guy who beheaded someone is a mystery
  7. Theodore’s World has Al Gore’s response on whether he’s voting for Hillary
  8. Vlad Tepes has discrimination in the name of Allah
  9. Independent Sentinel covers Hillary’s whoops moment on the 2nd Amendment
  10. Watts Up With That? covers another crazy Warmist claim
  11. Jo Nova covers the solar wind and ocean surface temperatures
  12. Blazing Cat Fur wonders if biological facts no longer matter
  13. Bookworm Room explains why Trump is probably not a fascist
  14. Capitalism Is Freedom exposes 9 laws you break without even knowing it
  15. And last, but not least, Chicks On The Right explains just how silly the anti-gunnites have become

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
Pirate's Cove