Obama To Announce His Supreme Court Pick Today

By William Teach March 16, 2016 – 8:44 am

Who will it be?

(The Hill) President Barack Obama will announce his Supreme Court nominee Wednesday during an 11 a.m. event in the Rose Garden, according the White House. (WT-my money’s on Obama being 22 minutes late)

In an email message with the subject line “I’ve made my decision,” Obama did not name his pick. But he wrote that he searched for candidates who have an “independent mind, unimpeachable credentials, and an unquestionable mastery of law.”
The announcement will kick off a fierce confirmation battle with Republicans in the Senate, who have pledged to not hold hearings or votes on Obama’s nominee.

The president made reference to the coming battle, arguing it’s the Senate’s duty to give fair consideration to his nominee.

“I’m confident you’ll share my conviction that this American is not only eminently qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, but deserves a fair hearing, and an up-or-down vote,” he wrote.

What will the GOP do? I’m in favor of holding long, long, long hearings. First in committee, which should take 5 or 6 months. Then, discussion in the full Senate, with a vote scheduled sometime in mid-November. Then the GOP should vote overwhelmingly against the candidate. Of course, that’s where it all breaks down, because, can we trust some in the Senate to stay strong? Perhaps that’s what Mitch McConnell was worried about when he said there would be absolutely no consideration on a SCOTUS pick till the new president is installed. Nor has McConnell backed down on that position.

Obama has reportedly narrowed his list to two people: Sri Srinivasan, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia; and Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the same court.

Both Democratic appointees have moderate reputations and were confirmed by the Senate with widespread Republican support.

Both are very moderate. Srinivasan is anything but a hardcore leftist ideologue (I looked at about 20 articles on him), and has been rather non-partisan. Judge Garland was called a “model, neutral judge” by SCOTUSblog back in 2010. This could be a fakeout by Obama, offering a very moderate judge, who may or may not swing the court to the Left, and then, when the GOP says “not going to happen”, Obama offers up a hardcore leftist, putting the blame on the GOP. This is Obama’s M.O. He likes to create fights.

It may be that the GOP controlled Senate needs to give the candidate a legitimate hearing, and possibly even a vote and an approval during this election year. They have to consider that 2016 isn’t just about who will be president, but about keeping the Senate, keeping the House and a large majority, and keeping all the positions at the State level.

Read: Obama To Announce His Supreme Court Pick Today »

Posted in Barry Obama | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

What If They Held An Election Where The Majority Distrusted And Loathed The Candidates?

By William Teach March 16, 2016 – 8:23 am

It would be an interesting election, would it not? Well, as the NY Times’ Michael Barbaro explains, that’s where we are headed

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Are Winning Votes, but Not Hearts

The victories were lopsided. The celebrations were effusive. The delegates were piling up by the hundreds.

But Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton’s resounding triumphs on Tuesday masked a profound, historic and unusual reality: Most Americans still don’t like him. Or her.

Both major parties must now confront the depth of skepticism, resistance and distaste for their front-runners, a sentiment that would profoundly shape a potential general election showdown between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton.

Even as they watched the two candidates amass large margins on Tuesday, historians and strategists struggled to recall a time when more than half the country has held such stubbornly low opinions of the leading figures in the Democratic and Republican Parties. (snip)

America has lived with Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton, in a remarkably intimate fashion, for decades, processing their controversies, achievements and setbacks, from impeachment to marital breakdowns, Senate victories to flashy skyscraper openings. Voters’ impressions of them, with few exceptions, are largely formed and fixed. According to Gallup, 53 percent of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Mrs. Clinton and 63 percent have such a view of Mr. Trump.

At this point, everyone seems to know the negatives of both candidates which leads to those views. Here’s another view

Fewer than half of Republican voters across five states on Tuesday said Mr. Trump was honest and trustworthy. Even in the states where he won, a majority of voters do not view him as truthful.

And while majorities of Democratic voters viewed Mrs. Clinton as honest and trustworthy, she finished second to Mr. Sanders among those who said honesty mattered most in their decision.

Interestingly, Conservatives scoffed at Republican primary candidates who said they were going to not focus on the Conservative base. That’s what Jon Huntsman did. That’s what Jeb Bush did. How’d that work out for them? Yet, Trump is winning by pulling in the moderates, the independents, and, this should tell you quite a bit about his views, a bunch of Democrats. Trump is, at best, a moderate Republican, which one would think would thrill the GOP establishment, which constantly pushes these squishy candidates.

Aides to both predict that a Clinton-Trump contest would be an ugly and unrelenting slugfest, as she pounces on his business practices and personal integrity, portraying him as unscrupulous robber baron, and he lacerates her over ethical lapses and sudden riches, painting her as a conniving abuser of power certain to be indicted in a federal investigation.

One problem with Trump is he’s never been an elected official. He’s never taken votes. What does he stand for? What are his true positions? Is he the guy who was pro-abortion as recent as 2000, or now pro-life in 2011? Is he the guy for gun control and an assault weapons band in 2000 or pro-2nd Amendment in 2011? Is he the guy who was for the Iraq War before switching to opposition at the same time Democrats started using the war to bash Bush? Is he the guy who was for Single Payer before he was against it when he decided to run as a Republican? Let’s be fair, on some issues he has been remarkably consistent, such as gay marriage, some other social issues, crime, support for the police, drugs, and others.

There is a very narrow path for Ted Cruz to win the nomination at this point. There’s little chance Bernie Sanders will hold Hillary back from getting the needed number of delegates. A Hillary-Donald general election season will be a brutal slugfest. On one hand, Conservatives/Republicans should be thrilled, because we’ve been asking for decades for Republicans to attack Democrats back. But, will it help Trump win the general election? It’s been working during the primaries so far. He’s going to have to convince the Republicans who do no trust and/or like him to get out and vote for him, and it might very well come down to making sure that Republican voters understand that Hillary is a worse choice than Trump.

The problem with Trump is, we just don’t know. Is he the dictator in waiting, the next Mussolini, or will he be a CEO type president, asking his subordinates for action plans to Get Things Done for the betterment of the country while offering a Republican direction? Will he be an average president? Will he get the economy on track? What does he do? That’s what concerns a lot of Republicans.

Hillary? We know Hillary. Everyone does. She was beaten by a political neophyte for the Democratic nomination in 2008. She inspires little excitement. We could go on and on regarding her negatives, but, consider, at the end of the day Democrats will get out and vote for her, even if they loathe her. Why? Because that’s what Dems do. They understand that to have power they must have control, and will vote for their candidates almost no matter what.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: What If They Held An Election Where The Majority Distrusted And Loathed The Candidates? »

Posted in Elections | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Al Gore Takes Long Fossil Fueled Flight To Proclaim Doom In 2 Years

By William Teach March 15, 2016 – 3:30 pm

Al Gore was once a sane environmentalist and had concerns over the potential danger of anthropogenic global warming. Then, he apparently decided, after losing the 2000 election, that he would go bat guano insane in pushing ‘climate change’, and make quite a bit of money in attempting to scare people, all while living the exact life he wanted to limit for Everyone Else. He’s made failed predictions such his 10 year “point of no return“, which expired in January. Then we have the one about the Arctic being ice free in 2014. And some others. And now we have this

(Examiner) Speaking in Manila yesterday during a Climate Reality training event, Al Gore said we only have two years left to save the planet and to convince people of global warming‘s imminent threat. But in 2014, former VP-turned-green-activist Gore told Rolling Stones that we have reached a turning point, have seen “the worst effects of climate change and have saved civilization as we know it.” Al “sees the future and it is good,” wrote the Daily Kos in 2014. (snip)

That may be why in Manila he showed an “updated version” of his film [An Inconvenient Truth]. He also notes the Philippines (like the rest of the world) are “still dependent on fossil fuels,” what he believes is responsible for any changes in the climate.

Did Al take a wind powered ship or rowboat to the Philippines?

But in Manila, Gore said: “We’re in an unusual situation in our world. We have to make a very large change. And we have to do it in a ridiculously short period of time.” And that was only on the first day of his boot training camp for what he calls his ‘climate warriors.’

“I say ridiculously because we’re used to making changes [this] large over centuries. We don’t have centuries. We have years. And each day matters.” He said all this to the 600-plus participants, many of whom flew into the country on carbon-spewing jets to attend the three-day workshop. Gore also said their task ahead would be daunting.

We could put Doom off a bit longer if all members of the Cult of Climastrology would give up their own use of fossil fuels.

Read: Al Gore Takes Long Fossil Fueled Flight To Proclaim Doom In 2 Years »

Posted in Climahypocrites | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 15, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil waste of water, water which will be lost forever when Drought World comes!!!!!, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Reaganite Republican, with a post on Team Trump paying off websites and blogs.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Are Very Concerned Over How History Will Judge Deniers Or Something

By William Teach March 15, 2016 – 10:39 am

Well, this is a new one, as written by Warmist Steve Olson in the USA Today, which uses vast amounts of carbon pollution spewing energy and fossil fuels to publish on the Internet and the paper version

The coming reckoning on climate change
Deniers risk both the planet and ending up in history with allies of slavery and colonialism

The campaigns to remove the names of 19th century racists and colonialists from buildings and monuments raise a troubling question for today’s political and business leaders: How will history judge those who would consign future generations to a world severely damaged by climate change?

I’m guessing history will say “thank goodness some people stood for science and reason, rather than accepting a restriction of freedom from politically motivated junk science. And, hey, what’s with all the ‘climate change’ believers refusing to practice what they preach?”

If any issue is as morally fraught today as slavery and colonialism were in the 19th century, it is climate change. Scientists have been warning for more than three decades that continued release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will lead to catastrophic changes in the earth’s climate and ecosystems. Yet humans are now releasing about twice as much carbon from fossil fuels as in 1980.

Read: Warmists Are Very Concerned Over How History Will Judge Deniers Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Hillary: “We Didn’t Lose A Single Person In Libya”

By William Teach March 15, 2016 – 9:08 am

I guess Hillary Clinton forgot to take her Prevagen

(Fox News) Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton committed her second gaffe in as many days on the campaign trail Monday night, claiming that the U.S. “didn’t lose a single person” in Libya during her time as secretary of state.

Clinton made the comment defending her push for regime change in the war-torn North African nation at an Illinois town hall hosted by MSNBC.

“Now, is Libya perfect? It isn’t,” Clinton said. After contrasting her approach toward Libya with the ongoing bloodshed in Syria’s civil war, Clinton said “Libya was a different kind of calculation and we didn’t lose a single person … We didn’t have a problem in supporting our European and Arab allies in working with NATO.”

Clinton made no mention of the Sept. 11, 2012 terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans: U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

True, the U.S. did not lose any personnel during the air war to depose Muammar Gaddafi, or however you spell his name. Yet, the war raged on once we were done with the air campaign, and, Hillary, as Secretary of State, bares direct responsibility for the loss of those four Americans thanks to her policies and lax attention. Every other diplomatic mission had pulled out of the Benghazi area, due to the escalating violence. The British pulled out after multiple attacks and assassination attempts. Yet, Hillary’s State Dept refused to provide all the extra security Ambassador Chris Stevens was begging for.

Let’s not forget that during the last Democratic debate, Hillary called Sean Smith’s mother a liar. Now she forgets those murdered by radical Muslims in what was certainly a pre-planned attack

This should be a Republican campaign commercial once we get through the primaries.

Read: Hillary: “We Didn’t Lose A Single Person In Libya” »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Breitbart: Trump’s A Big Tent Guy Who’s Forcing GOP To Attack Itself

By William Teach March 15, 2016 – 8:52 am

Breitbart writer Charles Hurt is Very Upset that anyone dares challenge Donald Trump

The Nuclear Option: ‘Big Tent’ Trump Forcing Party to Attack Itself

(A couple paragraphs on the Romney/Establishment loss, which led to that “autopsy” document, forgetting that the GOP regained the Senate, took even more House seats, and took even more governorships and state assemblies)

Four years hence, we see a juggernaut front-runner who is reaching and appealing to new voters in creative ways with a fresh message the likes of which Republicans have not seen in recent memory. Donald Trump is precisely the candidate the GOP autopsy envisioned, down to the clarion plea that Republicans once and for all finally deal with illegal immigration.

Establishment Republicans’ response, however, has been anything but in keeping with the autopsy. They are pulling out all the stops to thwart the will of Republican voters.

Can you guess which word appears nowhere within the article? It would be “conservative”.

Interesting that one of the first things they accused Trump of was being a “racist” for wanting to stop illegal immigration. Isn’t it funny how quickly Republicans turn into Democrats at the first sign of trouble?

Except it wasn’t most Republicans doing that. It certainly wasn’t Conservatives. What we have criticized him for was his plan to legalize all the illegals once he built this wall which Mexico is going to pay for (or something). I agree that we want to keep some of them, and they would have to pay fines, along with the fees that those attempting to do it legally from the get go pay. They must speak English. They cannot be a drain on society and taxpayer money. Heck, I met a delightful young lady who was brought to the county illegally when she was 11, and has been here for 12 years. She was smart, spoke excellent English, and was trying to become a citizen. She loved America. That’s who we want.

But, we don’t want them all. And Trump wants to give most of them “touchback” amnesty.

Another thing these people don’t like is all these new people streaming into Ronald Reagan’s “big tent” and jubilantly voting for a Republican. Sure, some small percentage might be Democrats trying to booby trap the Republican Party. But the vast majority of these new voters are independents, Democrats and long-disaffected Republicans enthusiastically casting their votes for Donald Trump.

Here’s the thing about Trump: he’s not a conservative, and about as squishy a Republican as you can get. He holds many Democratic Party beliefs. When he says “I used to believe in a single payer health system but I don’t now”, can you believe him? When his campaign lies about harming a reporter (Michelle Fields), denigrates her, then doubles and triples down in the face of evidence, can you trust him? When he used to support an assault weapons ban and more restrictions on legal gun ownership, but tells you he’s a total believer of the 2nd Amendment, can you believe him now? He’s still a big supporter of Planned Parenthood, which really is all about abortion. They do not perform much else when it comes to women’s “health”. I could run through many issues, and you have to ask yourself “does he still believe that stuff now and he’s lying to us, or has he changed?”

Reagan’s big tent was based on bringing people to the conservative viewpoint, not a squishy center which includes Democrat positions.

The problem with Trump’s big tent is that it doesn’t seem to want to include the Conservative base, hence, he might as well be an Establishment guy, what is being called the GOPe these days. He may be bringing out others, but, will they be there on election day in November?

As for forcing the GOP to attack itself, well, that happens during election cycles. Welcome to Politics 101. But, certainly, Hurst finds it despicable for anyone to dare stand in the way of Trump. And, the people in the comments are saying the same thing. Go ahead, try and write anything in opposition to Trump in the comments. It won’t be pretty.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Breitbart: Trump’s A Big Tent Guy Who’s Forcing GOP To Attack Itself »

Posted in Idiot GOPer's | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

People Who Should Have Known Better Whine About Forgetting Their ID To Vote

By William Teach March 14, 2016 – 3:21 pm

I’m wondering, how does someone attend a major university without a state issued ID?

Voters without photo ID run into new election rules

Lisa Guraya wasn’t surprised earlier this month when poll workers at an early voting site near Duke University told her she didn’t have the right kind of photo identification, but the sophomore knew she should be allowed to vote anyway.

She is one of at least 864 voters across the North Carolina who came out to vote early in person but did not have an acceptable ID with them during the first election they have been required in the state.

More than half of those who lacked ID just forgot their documents and will be able to bring an ID card to their local board of elections office. But Guraya is among the 378 who, as of Saturday afternoon, said they do not have a North Carolina driver’s license, U.S. passport or other acceptable identity document.

Well, it might be the case because she seems to be a resident of Alabama, not North Carolina. WRAL is rather cagey about the whole thing, and either forgot to do that whole journalism thing or is intentionally not letting the readers know.

In Guraya’s case, she had only her Alabama driver’s license. Under new voting rules, she was able to claim a “reasonable impediment” to having the correct ID, but she said the process wasn’t smooth.

Just because one attends school in North Carolina doesn’t give them the right to vote in NC elections. When I attended ECU, I was a New Jersey resident till 1990, hence, I sent in absentee ballots.

“The person who I asked wasn’t even sure at first how to do a reasonable impediment ballot,” recalled Guraya, who has more reason than most undergraduates to be well versed on voter ID laws. She’s from Shelby County, Ala., from whence the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder originated. That decision helped pave the way for voter ID laws like North Carolina’s.

“It just made me not completely sure my vote was going to go through,” she said.

Well, if she’s not an NC resident, then she should understand she cannot vote here.

Guraya said that, during her trip home this summer, she will be able to retrieve her passport in order to vote in the November general election. Down the road in Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina sophomore Isatta Feika says she likely won’t vote in North Carolina again after experiencing the hassles involving voting with an ID in North Carolina.

Why not vote in Alabama? Or, is she trying to do both? Another option would have been to change her state residency from Alabama to NC, which she should have known to do long ago. Nor does the article explain where Isatta Feika is from.

As for the roughly half who forgot their ID, let me know how that works when you try and take an airplane flight, take a tour of the White House, etc.

Read: People Who Should Have Known Better Whine About Forgetting Their ID To Vote »

Posted in Election Fraud, NC News | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…are wonderful plants and trees that will be smothered by carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Not A Lot Of People Know That, with a post on the failing EU carbon markets.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Yet Another State Department Employee Refuses To Testify On Hillary’s Server

By William Teach March 14, 2016 – 12:19 pm

What is it with employees under the Obama administration seeming to never want to testify to Congress or take the 5th? It’s almost like these public sector employees are trying to hide criminal activity

(Daily Caller) A second former State Department official is refusing to talk to Congress about what he might know about Hillary Clinton’s private email system.

Politico reports that John Bentel, who retired from the State Department in Dec. 2012, has told the House Select Committee on Benghazi and the Senate Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees that he will not meet to discuss the server and what, if anything, he knows about it.

In response to a Dec. 5 letter from Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley and Homeland Security chairman Sen. Ron Johnson, Bentel said he had “no memory of knowledge” about the server.

But the Senators believe Bentel may know something. As director of information resources management at the office of executive secretariat, Bentel oversaw information technology for top level officials at the State Department, including Clinton.

If Bentel refuses to testify, the House could issue a subpoena requiring that he appear as a member of the Most Transparent Administration Ever! They could even give him immunity from prosecution, if he decides to take invoke his 5th amendment right against self incrimination. From the Politico article

“Mr Bentel… is understandably not inclined to go through that process again since he has already been questioned at great length about what he knows and what he recalls about that subject,” Turk (Bentel’s lawyer) wrote to Senate investigators in an email last Thursday. “[I]t seems to me that what is really fair here would be for you and the committees to respect Mr Bentel’s decision not to be interviewed a second time about the same subjects he has already been interviewed about at great length.”

Hey, if the police, a prosecutor, a judge, the IRS want to speak with you about something again, tell them the same thing, that you’re not inclined to go through the process again, and you want them to respect your decision. Heck, try telling your boss that.

Read: Yet Another State Department Employee Refuses To Testify On Hillary’s Server »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove