Salon: Say, Liberal Cities And States Are Really Horrible Places For Sexism And Hatred

By William Teach March 18, 2016 – 7:15 am

I’m not sure Salon really thought about it when they re-posted an article from ultra-leftist Alternet regarding sexism and race hate and stuff

The 10 most bigoted cities in America, according to Twitter
New research measures the frequency that social media users across the country resort to hate speech

In many ways, social media provides an unfiltered look into the American psyche, its prejudices and biases included. Just last week, when a young Mexican-American man sang the national anthem at a Democratic debate, racists took to Twitter to express their indignation. And when a film trailer revealed that the cast of Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens included several non-white actors, including a black lead, several people tried to launch a boycott because the film had “barely has any whites in it.”

Language aimed at women on social media often takes on sexist and misogynist overtones, particularly when women write about issues such as feminism. And for women of color, the intersection of racism and sexism can create a particularly hostile environment, thanks to every anonymous troll with 140 characters worth of bile to spill.

Words matter, which is why this side of social media is both ugly and telling. You can learn a lot about a community by the frequency of its residents’ use of racial slurs on social media. Abodo, an apartment hunting site, decided to take a close look at tweets sent from around the country. Between June 2014 and December 2015, they assessed 12 million tweets, looking out for racist, sexist, fatist, transphobic, ableist and other types of slurs, and were able to identify where those users were most concentrated.

We used to say “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” Nowadays, any minor little word can cause Offense where no offense was meant and mean we need a National Conversation. The article contains all sorts of charts showing this Offense. The states with the worst and least derogatory language are a smattering of both Republican and Democratic ones. This applies similarly to “anti-black” language by state and city.

Anti-Hispanic tweets are primarily in Democratic Party run cities. I think they forgot the one about States, as there are two of the same graphics by city. But, what about negative language against women?

While it is certainly spread out, we can certainly see a disproportionate amount of derogatory language against Women in Democratic Party states. How about cities?

Of all those cities, only Baton Rouge and maybe Arlington, Tx, can be consider right-leaning cities. The rest are lock, stock, and barrel Leftist cities.

What about gays? Liberals are super supportive of gays, right?

Once again, the majority are from Democratic Party run cities. There was no state graphic. So, how about Transgender hate by state?

There’s quite a bit in Liberal run areas. Shouldn’t they all be green for best? Breaking it down by city, all Democratic Party run cities. We see the same pattern when it comes to “cognitively disabled” and overweight people.

Why are Democrats using such ugly, racist, bigoted, misogynistic, and hateful language on Twitter?

Read: Salon: Say, Liberal Cities And States Are Really Horrible Places For Sexism And Hatred »

Posted in Liberal World | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Conservatives Against Trump Looks To Stop Trump

By William Teach March 18, 2016 – 6:53 am

Red State’s Erick Erickson and a smattering of other Conservatives have banded together, calling themselves Conservatives Against Trump to stop Trump, and has released the following statement as a whole

We are a group of grassroots conservative activists from all over the country and from various backgrounds, including supporters of many of the other campaigns. We are committed to ensuring a real conservative candidate is elected. We believe that neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump, a Hillary Clinton donor, is that person.

We believe that the issue of Donald Trump is greater than an issue of party. It is an issue of morals and character that all Americans, not just those of us in the conservative movement, must confront.

That is true, but, as I’ve mentioned prior, you can have your principles, but, this is politics, so you also have to be pragmatic. The idea is to win the election. Trump is already behind the eight ball when it comes to defeating Hillary or Bernie in the national polls. Of course, national polls are meaningless, it is the state polls that are important. Can Trump take all the states Bush did in 2000 or 2004, which would give him the White House? Will all this Stop Trump, this #NeverTrump, cause the GOP most assuredly lose the 2016 general election, which should have been a slam dunk against these terrible candidates? Do you really want Hillary or Bernie over a guy who at least says he’s a Republican?

We call for a unity ticket that unites the Republican Party. If that unity ticket is unable to get 1,237 delegates prior to the convention, we recognize that it took Abraham Lincoln three ballots at the Republican convention in 1860 to become the party’s nominee and if it is good enough for Lincoln, that process should be good enough for all the candidates without threats of riots.

We encourage all former Republican candidates not currently supporting Trump to unite against him and encourage all candidates to hold their delegates on the first ballot.

Lastly, we intend to keep our options open as to other avenues to oppose Donald Trump. Our multiple decades of work in the conservative movement for free markets, limited government, national defense, religious liberty, life, and marriage are about ideas, not necessarily parties.

Cruz is the Conservative candidate. Of course, he’s not liked by the Establishment, what is being referred to as the GOPe, because he is Conservative, and has been willing to stand on Principle. Trump is an even squishier Republican than the GOPe usually pushes. And Cruz polls better against Hillary and Bernie, willing said national vote.

This has made the Trump supporters very angry, as you can guess. Many bloggers, including many I have on my blogroll and feedreader, are angry. It goes without saying that the leadership at Breitbart, which is as in the tank for Trump as liberal sites were for Obama, is furious. Politico notes that not all Republicans are against Trump, particularly if he gets the required delegates, or gets close.

Ultra-squishy Newt Gingrich had this to say

I’m not sympathetic at all to the Erick Erickson of the world. If they want to form the let’s elect Hillary Clinton club, fine. But they ought to be honest about it. Any effort to help anybody but the Republican nominee helps Hillary Clinton. And if you think giving Hillary Clinton the Supreme Court, having Hillary Clinton run our foreign policy, having Hillary Clinton support the unions to continue ruining our children in schools. If you think that’s acceptable, do it. Erick Erickson’s not playing a risk-free game. It’s not like there is some pure middle way. If he does not support the Republican nominee, he is functionally supporting Hillary Clinton in the general election.”

Pragmatism? Even if you loathe Trump, when it gets closer to nomination time, people really need to think about making sure Hillary (or Bernie) does not win. I think Trump is a horrible candidate, he’s not conservative in the least, and he won’t beat Hillary or Bernie. Let’s see what the polls say as we get closer to the convention. And what happens now that Rubio is out. Big battles at conventions are nothing new. We have months to go before any sort of floor fight should be considered.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Conservatives Against Trump Looks To Stop Trump »

Posted in GOP | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

“13 million Americans could become climate refugees” Or something

By William Teach March 17, 2016 – 3:34 pm

Dooooooooom

(CBS News) More than 13 million Americans could become climate refugees by 2100 if the worst sea-level rise comes to pass, new research suggests.

Rising seas caused by climate change could permanently flood hundreds of U.S. counties, according to the study. The hardest-hit county will be Miami-Dade, Florida, where 2 million people could be forced to relocate. In fact, Florida is home to about half of these potential U.S. climate refugees. (Snip)

In the NOAA’s worst-case scenario, the oceans will rise about 6 feet (1.8 meters), on average, by 2100. These NOAA estimates account for permanent coastal flooding but not other potential hazards of climate change, such as increased hurricane numbers and intensity or storm surges.

If there is no climate change mitigation, 13 million people would be forced to move because their homes become partially submerged under water, the researchers found. In a better scenario, with only 3 feet (0.9 m) of sea-level rise, only 4.2 million people would be forced to move, the study found.

Of course, the actual data from taking actual measurements shows nothing even close. But, we can’t let Facts get in the way of a good garbage in garbage out computer model driven hysteria, now, can we?

Read: “13 million Americans could become climate refugees” Or something »

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

If All You See…

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

…is an evil manicured garden for an evil fossil fuels using 1%er, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jammie Wearing Fools, with a post on where Fast and Furious guns have been tracked.

Read: If All You See… »

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

You Really Need To Look At Breaking And Entering From The Thief’s Point Of View Or Something

By William Teach March 17, 2016 – 10:30 am

This is not The Onion. These people are serious

(Daily Caller)  Relatives of a teenager shot and killed while robbing a home in Miami are upset with the homeowner for defending herself.

Trevon Johnson, 17, spent the final moments of his life last Thursday trying to rob a woman’s house before she killed him during a confrontation, according to CBS Miami.

CBS Miami reports that the police seem to be siding with the homeowner during the investigation, but Johnson’s family attempted to justify his actions.

“You have to look at it from every child’s point of view that was raised in the hood. You have to understand, how he gonna get his money to have clothes to go to school? You have to look at it from his point of view,” Johnson’s cousin Nautika Harris said.

She added, “I don’t care if she have her gun license or any of that. That is way beyond the law, way beyond. He was not supposed to die like this. He had a future ahead of him. Trevon had goals. He was a funny guy, very big on education, loved learning.”

Read: You Really Need To Look At Breaking And Entering From The Thief’s Point Of View Or Something »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: ‘Climate Change’ Skeptic Donald Trump Donated To Warmist Group

By William Teach March 17, 2016 – 7:18 am

Donald Trump claims he is not a believer in anthropogenic climate change. He’s even stated that it was created by the Chinese. Back in February, MSNBC noted

In tweets between 2012 and early 2015, he called climate change a “con job,” a “canard,” a “hoax,” “bulls**t,” and a concept “created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

But as his political star has risen, he’s changed his tune on global warming.

He’s walked back his wildest conspiracy theories and toned down his claims that cold weather somehow disproves global warming. He’s also retired some of his most incendiary language (“con job,” “canard”) and wrapped what remains in strong qualifiers.

In January, for example, after relentless mockery from the Sanders campaign, Trump told “Fox & Friends” that his tweet about climate change as a Chinese plot was a “joke.” (snip)

The Republican front-runner still uses the word “hoax,” deploying it on December 30 at a rally in Hilton Head, S.C. But he bookends it in un-Trump-like uncertainty. “A lot of it is a hoax,” he said, according to ThinkProgress, a left-leaning news site “I mean, it’s a money-making industry, OK? It’s a hoax, a lot of it.”

Even skeptics took Trump to task for the foolish conspiracy theory about the Chinese creating it, and, it was foolish. But, has he changed his tune? Is he a skeptic for real or simply a poser, like with many other issues?

(NY Daily News) Donald Trump is a climate change denier for now, but maybe he could warm to the idea.

In 2014, tax records show, the Donald J. Trump Foundation gave $5,000 to an Olympic snowboarder’s climate change advocacy group, even though Trump has repeatedly called climate change a “hoax” and has said it would not be a big priority for him if he succeeds in his bid to become the next U.S. president.

Trump’s $5,000 donation to Protect Our Winters – a nonprofit that mobilizes skiers and snowboarders on the issue – is a surprising entry in the tax forms of the Republican businessman’s nonprofit foundation.

“All joking aside, we are actually the perfect climate organization for Trump to support because it’s about how we protect the business of winter,” says Auden Schendler, chairman of POW’s board of directors and vice president of sustainability at the Aspen Skiing Company.

But, does this mean anything big? Olympic snowboarding champ Jamie Anderson asked Trump to make the donation to the group after appearing on Celebrity Apprentice and losing. It looks more like Trump was simply doing something nice for Anderson

“Dear Jamie, I am pleased to enclose a check for the amount of $5,000 made payable to Protect Our Winters for your great work on The Apprentice,” Trump wrote in the Sept. 4, 2014, letter. In a handwritten postscript he wrote: “YOU ARE GREAT!”

So, maybe he’s not so much of a Warmist, and not on his way to being one. The liberal media will attempt anything in order to make Trump look bad.

Read: Surprise: ‘Climate Change’ Skeptic Donald Trump Donated To Warmist Group »

Posted in Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Will GOP Hold Strong On Supreme Court Pick?

By William Teach March 17, 2016 – 7:02 am

The pick of Merrick Garland has reportedly split some Progressives, who wanted someone more hardcore Progressive and/or a woman/minority (why? Because. That’s pretty much their rationale). Senator McConnell is reportedly holding strong on the “no hearing till we have the next president” thought. So is Senator Grassley

“When they structured our nation, the founders placed trust in three separate but equal branches of government. Co-equal authorities are throughout the Constitution, including Article II, Section 2, where the power to nominate an individual to the Supreme Court is granted to the President and authority is given to the Senate to provide advice and consent. Nowhere in the Constitution does it describe how the Senate should either provide its consent or withhold its consent.

“Today the President has exercised his constitutional authority. A majority of the Senate has decided to fulfill its constitutional role of advice and consent by withholding support for the nomination during a presidential election year, with millions of votes having been cast in highly charged contests. As Vice President Biden previously said, it’s a political cauldron to avoid. Judge Bork learned even after being unanimously confirmed for a circuit court judgeship, the confirmation process for the Supreme Court is unlike any other.

“It’s also important to remember the type of nominee President Obama said he’s seeking. He says his nominee will arrive at ‘just decisions and fair outcomes’ based on the application of ‘life experience’ to the ‘rapidly changing times.’ The so-called empathy standard is not an appropriate basis for selecting a Supreme Court nominee.

“A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice. Do we want a court that interprets the law, or do we want a court that acts as an unelected super legislature? This year is a tremendous opportunity for our country to have a sincere and honest debate about the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system of government.”

Breitbart is having a bit of a tizzy over a few more Republican Senators being willing to meet with Garland. Who is Merrick Garland? Is he really a “moderate”? Well, considering how far left Democrats have moved, yes. The head of Planned Parenthood has praised Garland, but, let’s not forget, Donald Trump has also been praised by PP and said very nice things about PP, as well.

He’s also very much anti-2nd Amendment. On social issues, his record is unclear. On most other issues, though, his record shows him as a moderate Republican. Heck, Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano just said that as I write.

Should he get a hearing? Should he be confirmed? The NY Times has its usual pro-Obama/anti-GOP hissy fit, demanding hearings and a vote, and end with

Mr. Obama has picked a strong nominee, who won bipartisan support in his confirmation to the appeals court. If the Republicans refuse to accept him, they will face one of two scenarios: a nominee selected by Hillary Clinton, who may well be more liberal, or one chosen by President Donald Trump — a racist, vulgar demagogue who many Republicans have said is unfit to run the country.

They have a point: if Hillary wins, she will certainly nominate someone very much to the left, and there is no way the Senate can hold off for a minimum of 4 years. And, moving beyond the Times’ smear of Trump, there’s no guarantee he wouldn’t pick someone exactly like Garland, or even more to the Left.

Ben Shapiro at the Daily Wire notes the GOP has 3 options: stall the nominee, confirm the nominee, or

Stall The Nominee Based on Philosophy. This is what Republicans should do, of course. But Republicans rarely stand for anything. They should reject any nominee who doesn’t mirror Scalia’s philosophy; they won’t. They should make this about principle rather than personalities of those who do the nominating; they won’t.

This is why they lose. And this is why Republicans get so fed up in the first place that they turn to big promise-making snake oil salesmen like Trump.

The pick of Garland is about as safe as we could expect from Obama. He could have done much, much worse. It matters little whether this is a bit of Obama jujitsu, where he wants to the GOP to decline so he can nominate someone more hardcore. It matters little that Obama does almost everything with the intention of creating a brawl. It might be worth it, in my opinion, for the Senate to slow walk the process, with Senators interviewing him personally, than having committee hearings that are drawn out, before having debate in the full Senate. By that point, we should have the two general election candidates. If the Republican is Trump, and the polls say he will lose to Hillary (provided she hasn’t been indicted at that point), then they should vote to confirm. Because better Garland than someone hardcore from Hillary.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Will GOP Hold Strong On Supreme Court Pick? »

Posted in Current Affairs | Comments Off on Will GOP Hold Strong On Supreme Court Pick? | Trackback URL

Warmists Very Upset House Recognizes Magic But Not ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach March 16, 2016 – 5:17 pm

Some enterprising Republican should write up something that recognizes anthropogenic climate change as being on par with magic. Or, links it to the Salem Witch hysteria. This is Climarouttes in action, where virtually everything has to be linked to Hotcoldwetdry

House GOP Recognizes Magic But Not Climate Change: ‘Magic Is A National Treasure’

In the middle of an increasingly bitter and divisive presidential race, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a bill today not to address one of the pressing concerns facing the American people, but rather to formally recognize magic as a national treasure – as a rare and valuable art form. The bill, authored by Representative Pete Sessions (R-Texas), has six Republican co-sponsors, was introduced on Monday, and contains a number of interesting – if spurious – anecdotes related to how the practice of magic makes one a better politician and a better citizen.

“[Mayor Eric Hogue] learned the art of magic as a child, and continues to use those skills to teach elementary school students about the different roles and responsibilities of local government,” the resolution reads, speaking of Wylie, Texas, Mayor Eric Hogue.

The House and Senate do this all the time. It’s just part of politics. Obama, like all presidents, is constantly recognizing things that are Deeply Meaningful. Politics. But, that’s not allowed in Warmist World.

And, yes, the headline is really the only mention of ‘climate change’. Perhaps the author, Jayce Wagner, realized that they’re both fake and based on slight of hand.

Read: Warmists Very Upset House Recognizes Magic But Not ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 16, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful open space that should be full of wind turbines, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Fire Andrea Mitchell, with a post on a KKK Grand Dragon endorsing Hillary. Where was the media interest in this?

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: To Succeed ‘Climate Change” Action Needs Social Equity

By William Teach March 16, 2016 – 10:30 am

It’s almost like the whole anthropogenic climate change movement is all about far left Progressive politics

Why Climate Change Action Cannot Succeed Without Social Equity

Over 120 cities and counties in California have a climate action plan either completed or in the pipeline.  As cities develop these plans and initiatives to address climate change, it is important to emphasize that social equity is integrated within environmental policies. The vulnerabilities, resilience and sustainability of the human ecosystem are as much determined by diversity and interdependence as its natural counterpart. As Pope Francis said inLaudato Sí, “a true ecological approach always becomes a social approach; it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor.”

Sustainability is framed as a three-legged stool consisting of the three ‘E’s: environment, economy and equity. However, the third leg, social and economic equity, is often the weakest.

If you click the article link, you’ll see a cute little graphic at the top, which includes the phrases “Distributive Justice” and “Address Structural Imbalance”. Huh. Where do we hear things like that?

In an earlier article, I have argued that community empowerment is a necessary condition for sustainability. This is because empowerment balances out the forces that make our world unsustainable. I will further argue that sustainability itself can distribute justice, creating a benevolent reinforcing cycle between empowerment, engagement and equity. For example, sustainable modes of commuting like transit, walking and biking promote social movements through increased social interactions in the public domain. And consequently, these social movements both use and politically support these modes.

Sounds more like a political movement than any true concern for “the environment”.

Here are three strategies for integrating equity within climate actions plans:

  • Establish enforceable thresholds for equity issues such as poverty/income, affordable housing, transportation/transit, and targeted socio-economic benefits.
  • Integrate equity in the administration and implementation of all environmental plans, policies and regulations throughout city departments.
  • Institutionalize diversity in terms of both leadership, as well as in outreach among stakeholders.

But, please don’t say that this is far left politics. Of course, this is all about creating more and more Governmental control over citizen’s lives.

Read: Surprise: To Succeed ‘Climate Change” Action Needs Social Equity »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove