Obama Gave $500 Million Slated For Zika To UN Climate Fund

By William Teach May 25, 2016 – 7:36 am

Recently, liberal groups were aghast that Congress did not pony up as much money as they wanted in order to deal with Zika. But, they weren’t as upset about this

(Daily Caller)  The Obama administration has taken $500 million appropriated by Congress to fight the Zika virus to fund the United Nations Green Climate Fund, which gives foreign countries money for green energy projects.

“The threat to adults from Zika is relatively small, but the threat to pre-born children is very high,” Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford wrote in an oped for The Daily Signal. “Our national priority rightly focuses on protecting the life of these young children in the womb, since each child has value, no matter their age or size.”

Lankford sharply criticized the Obama administration for using Department of State funds meant to fight infectious diseases to fund the president’s global warming agenda. Moreover, the U.N. agency Obama funded recognizes Palestine as a state — making it possibly illegal to pay into the Green Climate Fund.

Of course, Obama doesn’t care. As Senator Lankford noted

While I understand that intelligent people can disagree on the human effects on the global climate, it is hard to imagine a reason why the administration would prioritize the U.N. Green Climate Fund over protecting the American people, especially pregnant women, from the Zika virus.

For the same reason liberals put Islamists over women. Put the gender confused over women. Put this group over that group. Certain people must suffer for their Belief in AGW. Never themselves, of course.

Read: Obama Gave $500 Million Slated For Zika To UN Climate Fund »

Posted in Barry Obama, Global Warming | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Trump Dares To Bring Up Clinton’s Sordid Past

By William Teach May 25, 2016 – 7:29 am

The Politico’s Nick Gass has a big sad over Donald Trump daring to bring up serious allegations of sexual misconduct and murder against Bill and Hillary. He doesn’t bother reaching out to any of the sexual assault victims himself, and seems rather vexed that Trump would even launch these attacks.

Trump dredges up sordid Clinton accusations
It’s going to be a nasty general election battle.

If there was any doubt about the nastiness of the upcoming general election fight between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Trump has obliterated it.

The Manhattan billionaire has launched his most personal attacks yet on the Clintons, dredging up decades-old conspiracy theories and allegations of sexual misconduct on the part of Bill Clinton to kick his “Crooked Hillary” assault into overdrive.

On Monday, Trump released a visceral video featuring the voices of Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick and an image of Bill Clinton not-so-subtly chomping on a cigar. The women describe their allegations of being sexually assaulted by Clinton.

It’s been said it before, but let’s make note of it yet again: in virtually every other case of sexual misconduct, especially allegations of rape, Liberals immediately jump to the conclusion that the accused should be hung up by their privates, metaphorically and otherwise. We see this playing out on college campuses across the country, where students are accused of rape then convicted in kangaroo courts. But, when it comes to Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton enabling the conduct, dismissing the conduct, covering the conduct, well, then, nothing to see here, folks, move along.

Here’s something not considered by the spinmeisters: bringing up these allegations will resonate with the young folks, the ones who are hyper-sensitive in their belief that “no means no”. Yes, no means no, and sexual misconduct is a criminal thing, but, as you’ve probably seen, this rises to a whole new level on college campuses. They might not vote for Trump, but, they won’t vote for Hillary, either.

Salon itself is very upset, and says that the media cannot allow Trump to make this election about Bill. First, is the media to ignore the news, and what candidates say? Are they supposed to become shills for a particular candidate? Not that they don’t already do that to a degree, but, like college kids, the media would have to take this to a new level. Second, the Trump attacks are aimed more at Hillary, for standing by and even enabling Bill’s sordid sexual attacks. Third, Salon, like many liberal outlets, have attacked Bill Cosby for his rape accusation, and most deemed him guilty right from the get go (he most likely is, IMO). But they have never wanted any investigations into Bill and Hillary’s conduct. The accusations against Bill are somehow off limits.

Trump has also brought up the conspiracy theories over the death of Vince Foster. In my opinion, this one is just silly, but, Trump has always seemed to buy into conspiracies. Leave this alone.

The article includes this quote from Rush Limbaugh

“What is so wrong about people being reminded of the Clinton past, or in some cases, being told about it for the first time? I mean, is anything in the past ever out of bounds for a Republican candidate?”

It’s a good point. Democrats bring up things from decades and decades ago. Remember, they dredged up stories about Mitt Romney hazing a kid and put his dog on the car roof in a dog carrier. Slate, which is Salon-lite, was outraged over the hazing hair cut, all the way back in 1965. So were a lot of media outlets. Same with the dog on the roof incident. Yet, most of these outlets are cool with Bill Clinton sexually assaulting, raping even, women.

Investigating, even just discussing, Bill’s sordid past and Hillary’s conduct in those actions? They are supposed to be out of bounds. Likewise, there is supposed to be no investigation of Hillary’s conduct as Secretary of State, especially Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation pay for play while SoS, nor her email server. You know what’s real important, though? Whether Donald has a hair weave.

If this campaign is nasty, it’s because one of the people running for president is a horrible person, married to another horrible person.

(Let’s be clear. I’m not supporting Trump. But, the Clinton’s are sleazeballs, with Hillary being even worse than Bill)

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Bummer: Trump Dares To Bring Up Clinton’s Sordid Past »

Posted in Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 24, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a muddy, flooded world because Someone Else drove a fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Doug Ross @ Journal, with a post on Congress looking to impeach the IRS head.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Thank Goodness, We Now Know What It’s Like To Be A Gender Confused In The “Wrong” Bathroom

By William Teach May 24, 2016 – 10:25 am

We all wanted to know, and “Meredith” Russo tells us

(NY Times) I AM a trans woman, meaning I identify as a woman rather than the sex I was assigned at birth. I transitioned all at once in 2013 while working at a call center; one day I came in a man, and the next I came in a woman. Things went well at first, with co-workers taking it in stride and customers reading my voice as female, but then one of my bosses demanded to speak with me.

She wanted to talk about bathrooms.

“Have you had the surgery?” she asked. (Have you ever talked about your genitals with a superior at work? It’s not exactly a party.) I told her no. “Well, then, you’ll have to use the men’s until you do. We can’t risk a lawsuit.”

I’m calling BS, because the vast majority of companies and bosses wouldn’t raise the issue without checking with HR and Legal, and having a representative of one or both present for that conversation. Not unless they wanted a potential lawsuit on their hands. And, if there’s a call center, there’s a pretty good chance the company is big enough to have HR and Legal.

I headed to the men’s room, where I waited for the solitary stall to open up. I considered going all punk rock, hiking up my skirt at a urinal and flipping off any man who looked at me funny. But there is probably no meeker creature on earth than a newly transitioned woman.

The man who emerged from the stall looked at me as if I were a jug of spoiled milk. I waited on the toilet until the bathroom was empty again, but as soon as I started washing my hands, another man entered. He looked at me for a long time and then made a beeline for the urinal next to the sink, inches away from me, his stare never breaking.

Uh huh. Perhaps they were wondering why someone with a pronounced Adams apple, who probably looked like a cross-dresser, was bringing their perversions to their place of business.

There was a lot of turnover at this job, so every two weeks a fresh batch of employees seemed to come in. This meant that every two weeks new men would come into the bathroom, assume they’d accidentally entered the women’s room when they saw me there, and then glare at me when they figured it out. Some insisted that I was in the wrong place — until they realized what I was, and got really angry. It got so bad that I stopped going to the bathroom at work altogether, and I developed urinary tract infections. So then I stopped drinking water before and during work.

That’s on you, “honey”. You made the choice to act on your confusion, but did not take the steps to do more than pretend you are a female. You’re attempting to force your “morals” on other people, who won’t necessarily cotton to them, and you’re being intolerant of their concerns.

That doesn’t mean it’s not still an issue when I have to use a public restroom. The fear is still there — that someone will take offense, get angry and attack me, or that I’ll be made to leave a business, that I’ll be accused of sexual misconduct, arrested and sent to men’s jail.

That’s the main thing I wish the supporters of these laws would realize: We are much more frightened of you than you are of us.

We aren’t frightened of the gender confused. We have serious concerns about them being in showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms with wives, girlfriends, and children. We’re annoyed by you trying to force your confusions down our throats, that you don’t give a damn about our concerns, that you’re being intolerant. And we’re very much concerned that your in-your-face push for forced acceptance will enable and embolden scumbags, esepcially pedophiles, to take advantage.

Just because you’re gender confused doesn’t mean we have to accept it.

Read: Thank Goodness, We Now Know What It’s Like To Be A Gender Confused In The “Wrong” Bathroom »

Posted in Current Affairs | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

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
Pirate's Cove