Insiders Say Trump Is Likely GOP Nominee

By William Teach February 26, 2016 – 6:44 am

First up, the winners and losers from last night’s debate, per The Hill as we head into Super Tuesday, in which Trump is named a winner

Trump’s performance on Thursday night would not have won him first place in a debating championship. But that hardly matters. The point of the exercise is to win elections — and, by that measure, the billionaire did all he needed to do.

This was a less volatile Trump than was seen at the GOP debate just before the Republican primary in South Carolina. Facing even fiercer attacks from Rubio and Cruz this time, he took some punches but was never put on the canvas, much less knocked out. (snip)

There were also signs of Trump turning his gaze toward a general election audience. He held fast to his view that Planned Parenthood does good work in some areas of women’s health; he asserted that he had the capacity to expand the GOP’s appeal; and he made a vigorous attack on the greed of health insurance companies.

Trump has swatted away all the attacks, just as he’s done almost all the time. The Hill also named Rubio a winner, mostly for his attacks on Trump while keeping a smile on his face.

Cruz, Carson, and Kasich were deemed losers. Cruz had an unmemorable night. Same with Kasich. Carson had a “meandering debate performance.” But, does it all matter?

(Politico) GOP political insiders have been slow to hop aboard the Donald Trump train. But after Trump’s victories in three of the four early-nominating states, Republicans now see him as the party’s most likely nominee in the general election.

That’s according to members of The POLITICO Caucus – a panel of operatives, strategists and activists in a number of states, including some new to the Caucus. (snip)

The vast majority of Republican insiders in the four new states, plus South Carolina, where Democrats will vote on Saturday to round out the month’s early primaries, pick Trump as the GOP’s most likely nominee. More than four-in-five Republicans surveyed this week said Trump has the best chance to win the nomination, with only Marco Rubio (17 percent) and John Kasich (2 percent) earning support from other respondents.

Of course, at the end of the day it is the voters who pick the candidate, but Trump seems to be on an arc to cross the finish line, especially if he does well on Super Tuesday.

“Momentum is incredible,” said a North Carolina Republican, who added that there would have to be “a black swan event somewhere to derail him.”

I know plenty of Republicans who are big supporters of Trump. Many are rabid. Not as many are supporting the other contenders. No one seems to be supporting Kasich. I also know plenty of Independents as soft Democrats, some of whom are supporting Trump, some of whom are very concerned about Trump beating Hillary. Time will tell.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Insiders Say Trump Is Likely GOP Nominee »

Posted in GOP | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

White Supremacist David Duke Endorses Donald Trump

By William Teach February 25, 2016 – 2:31 pm

Well, this is interesting

(Buzzfeed)  David Duke, a white nationalist and former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, is urging the listeners of his radio program to volunteer and vote for Donald Trump.

“Voting for these people, voting against Donald Trump at this point is really treason to your heritage,” Duke said on the David Duke Radio Program Wednesday, referring to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. “I’m not saying I endorse everything about Trump, in fact I haven’t formally endorsed him. But I do support his candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action. I hope he does everything we hope he will do.”

Technically, Duke is a White Supremacist, as he really does despise Black people and other races/creeds/nationalities/religions, and wants to rule over them. White Nationalists may or may not hate, but they generally want to live separately. Think of someone like the guy who runs Stuff Black People Don’t Like. Regardless, this has caused a bit of a tizzy among those on the left and right, and, it’s strange that people on the left have a problem with this, considering they fully embraced Robert “KKK/Sheets” Byrd, even naming him the Conscious of the Senate.

The ever crazy Washington Monthly calls this the ugliest campaign ever. AmericaBlog goes with the headline The word “Trump” is now synonymous with “white power”. At least Talking Points Memo gets it right in calling Duke a white supremacist. Strangely, none have called for removing all references to Robert Byrd from public buildings and roads and stuff.

I do have to wonder something, though: why is it OK for racist/bigoted groups like La Raza, NAACP, New Black Panthers, Black Lives Matter, etc. to endorse people (meaning Democrats), but it’s not OK for any group that stands for white people to endorse? Not that I approve of the KKK, Duke, or any of those groups that go for Dems (I don’t), but, it seems a double standard, does it not?

Anyhow, Caleb Howe at Red State discusses Trump’s biggest endorsement to date.

Read: White Supremacist David Duke Endorses Donald Trump »

Posted in Current Affairs | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 25, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a bridge that will be inundated with flooding from climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Don Surber, with a post on the shuttering of abortion clinics.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Ontario Promises Their Cap And Trade Program Will Be Totally Transparent!

By William Teach February 25, 2016 – 10:22 am

There’s one thing that’s missing from the press release from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, comrades

Proposed Law to Ensure Transparency, Accountability for Use of Cap and Trade Auction Proceeds

To build on the work already underway to fight the effects of climate change, Ontario is laying a foundation to join the biggest carbon market in North America by introducing new legislation today that, if passed, would ensure that proceeds from the province’s cap and trade system are transparently reinvested into green projects and actions that will reduce greenhouse gas pollution.

Under the proposed Climate Change Mitigation and Low Carbon Economy Act, all proceeds from Ontario’s cap and trade program would be deposited into a new Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account. In turn, this account would only fund projects and initiatives aimed at reducing emissions.

Total transparency! What it doesn’t provide is any relief for the cost of living increases the citizens of Ontario (the Canadian province, not the city in California) will see from this. Back in November 2015 the government promised that “Ontario will reduce the overall cost to households and businesses by investing in energy retrofits and low carbon transportation options.” In other words, they know that the cost of living will spike via the “death by a thousand papercuts” method, so, good news, they will save consumers money by letting them ride “carbon friendly” buses and bicycles.

From that same article, the government is worried about “carbon leakage”

The province is also concerned about “mitigating carbon leakage,” which is what happens if a business moves its production to a jurisdiction with more lax pollution standards to evade cap-and-trade rules.

The people of Ontario should thank the Government when their cost of living goes up and the jobs move elsewhere. But, hey, the program will be totally transparent! On the plus side, at least the government is not yammering about returning most of the money to the people. It’s basically a slush fund to pay for government that spends more than it takes in, and will drive business elsewhere.

Read: Ontario Promises Their Cap And Trade Program Will Be Totally Transparent! »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Suddenly, When It Comes To GMO Labeling, NY Times Editorial Board Loves States Rights

By William Teach February 25, 2016 – 8:07 am

The NY Times is typically very much pro-federal government dominance, and against any State using their 10th Amendment Right. Remember, the Times, both in the news section and the opinion pages, was totally against California’s Prop 8 (gay marriage ban) and Arizona’s illegal alien crackdown law, among others. They’ve been very supportive of the food labeling component of Obamacare, and utterly against the 27 States who are suing the Obama administration and the EPA over the power plant rule. But, finally, finally, the NY Times Editorial Board finds a State Right they can agree with

A Bad Effort in Congress to Thwart States on Food Labels

The Senate could soon join the House to try to make it harder for consumers to know what is in their food by prohibiting state governments from requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods. This is a bad idea that lawmakers and the Obama administration should oppose.

In July, Vermont will become the first state to require the labeling of genetically modified food. Many food companies and farm groups say such laws are problematic because they could dissuade consumers from buying foods that federal regulators and many scientists say pose no risk to human health. But that is an unfounded fear and states should be free to require labels if they want to.

The Senate Agriculture Committee is considering a bill by its chairman, Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, that would prohibit state labeling laws. The committee is likely to approve it, primarily with Republican votes. The House passed a similar bill last summer along party lines.

I wonder if the NYTEB would be OK if the GOP run House and Senate were considering bill’s that would allow States to opt out of the Ocare food labeling requirement, or the contraception mandate. I’m thinking the answer would be a collective freak out from the EB.

Usually, Republicans in Congress are eager to give states more power to set policy in areas like environmental protection, health care and social services when they think that legislatures and governors will weaken regulations or cut spending to help the poor. In this case, however, they want to take power away from states that want to impose new rules that their residents support. The only thing these lawmakers seem to favor consistently is protecting corporate interests.

Usually, leading Leftists like the NYTEB are eager to remove power from the States and give it to the federal government. Why the sudden change of heart in this one instance? Most likely it is due to the collective freakout from Leftists over genetically modified foods. You can bet the ranch on the EB taking the side of the federal government if a Democrat Congress or the Obama administration was attempting to force companies nationwide to provide GMO labeling and States were attempting to block this.

Just too be clear, States should have the ability to require GMO labeling if they want, in my opinion. But, I’m consistent in my belief in the 10th Amendment.

Read: Suddenly, When It Comes To GMO Labeling, NY Times Editorial Board Loves States Rights »

Posted in States Rights, Wonky Media | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Media Very Much Wants To Know If Donald Trump Can Be Stopped

By William Teach February 25, 2016 – 7:45 am

I’ll repeat yet again that Trump is not my candidate, and my opposition to Trump has increased over the last month. I’m certainly not at a point where there’s no way I couldn’t vote for him. Many elections are a choice between a bad choice and a really, really bad choice. I’d rather have a guy who calls himself a Republican than Sanders or Hillary. You’d at least get some of what you want, as opposed to getting lots of what you do not want, and, if a President Trump started going Left, well, Republicans could primary him at the end of his first term. All that said, it’s interesting how many articles have been published wondering if Trump can be stopped, most of which are thinly veiled opinion pieces. Here’s the Washington Post

Can Donald Trump be stopped?

Donald Trump has taken firm control of the race for the Republican presidential nomination with his third straight victory, in Nevada. To deny him that role, strategists say, his leading rivals must quickly change the trajectory of the race and then dig in for what could be a long battle that could go all the way to the GOP convention in Cleveland.

It’s all about other Republicans stopping Trump. Have you seen articles like that regarding Clinton or Sanders? But, it gets better, once we look at the Washington Post Editorial Board

GOP leaders, you must do everything in your power to stop Trump

THE UNTHINKABLE is starting to look like the inevitable: Absent an extraordinary effort from people who understand the menace he represents, Donald Trump is likely to be the presidential nominee of the Republican Party. At this stage, even an extraordinary effort might fall short. But history will not look kindly on GOP leaders who fail to do everything in their power to prevent a bullying demagogue from becoming their standard-bearer.

Huh. So, we have the uber-leftists WPEB, who haven’t yet met a Republican that they would even consider endorsing for President, telling the Republican Party, which they continuously bash, that they have to stop Trump. Again, Trump’s not my guy, but, I will abide by the process. The WPEB wants to thwart the process.

Nor are they alone. The Boston Globe Editorial Board also got involved in the Stop Trump Bus

The editorial asks registered voters who are unenrolled with either major party to take a Republican ballot and vote for Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a Trump opponent the Globe has previously endorsed, in an effort to counter the large margin of victory predicted for Trump in Massachusetts.

Not too be outdone by anyone, Danielle Allen wrote an opinion piece saying that stopping Trump is akin to stopping Hitler back in the 1930’s. Then we have Walter Shapiro, a confirmed Leftist who has worked for Democrats as far back as Jimmy Carter, writing that Republican Leaders Must Stop Trump

Dear President George W. Bush, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Gov. Mitt Romney:

I am writing you in your role as the de facto leaders of your party. Gentleman, the Republic is in peril. Donald Trump poses a mortal danger not just to the Republican Party, but also to the American democratic experiment itself.

Huh. So, a danger to the American democratic experiment itself! I do find it interesting that a leftist considers our Democracy system an experiment, after it has been in place for over 200 years.

We could continue on and on with these types of opinion pieces and editorials from Lefties, who would probably be writing the same thing if Cruz or Rubio, or even John Kasich, were the front runner. I’m willing to listen to someone like Charles C.W. Cook, who headlines his article It’s Time for an Anti-Trump Manhattan Project. At least he’s a Conservative interested in seeing Conservative policies succeed. But, here’s one that ultimately takes the cake, written by Haroon Moghul at The Islamic Monthly

There’s Only One Way To Stop Trump, and You Won’t Like It

The piece goes on to state that none of the others running can stop Trump, who’s a total Islamophobe, a bully, and makes Haroon “afraid for my personal security as an American of color who chooses to be Muslim.” He has little trust that either Sanders or Clinton can defeat Trump. So, what to do?

Option one is for President Barack Obama to suspend the Constitution and stay on as president for life, or at least until Trump becomes too old and decrepit to take office. What’s a hobbled Supreme Court going to do? Trump himself is fond of arguing that there is no consensus on what certain amendments mean, perhaps there is really just no consensus on what the whole Constitution means. But I don’t think this is exciting enough. If we’re going to sabotage our democratic experiment to save it, we have to make sure Republicans are on board, and America generally. We need to think big. I want fighter jet flyovers, Beyoncé performing something, Kanye’s tweeted decline, a giant American flag the size of Canada and tens of thousands of fans — I mean citizens — screaming “USA!” I want power, glory, and, well …

I want empire.

Quite frankly, it’s hard to determine whether this is satire or real.

More: Don Surber also notes the editorial from the Washington Post EB, calling it bizarre and desperate.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Media Very Much Wants To Know If Donald Trump Can Be Stopped »

Posted in GOP | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

New Paper Shows 21st Century Warming Slowdown Is Quite Real

By William Teach February 24, 2016 – 5:11 pm

Warmists have continuously trotted out Excuses as to why the 21st Century temps had slowed/paused, while at the same time claiming there was no pause/slowdown. Remember when Michael “Hockey Schtick” Mann crowed about the paper that came out last year saying It Never Happened?

Just out in Science is a new article by Tom Karl of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center and colleagues driving another stake through the heart of the supposed “hiatus” or “pause,” i.e. what I like to call the “Faux Pause.”

I expect this article will be attacked by climate change deniers who are unhappy to see the demise of a narrative they helped frame, a narrative that arguably took hold due in part to the “seepage” of contrarian framing into mainstream climate science discourse.

Well, as Reason’s Ronald Bailey notes

Mann is now a co-author on the new study that pulls that stake out:

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.

That last bit in italics was written by Mann. Bailey excerpts this bit from Nature News

The latest salvo in an ongoing row over global-warming trends claims that warming has indeed slowed down this century.

An apparent slowing in the rise of global temperatures at the beginning of the twenty-first century, which is not explained by climate models, was referred to as a “hiatus” or a “pause” when first observed several years ago. Climate-change sceptics have used this as evidence that global warming has stopped. But in June last year, a study in Science claimed that the hiatus was just an artefact which vanishes when biases in temperature data are corrected.

Now a prominent group of researchers is countering that claim, arguing in Nature Climate Change that even after correcting these biases the slowdown was real.

“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. “We can’t ignore it.”

Fyfe uses the term “slowdown” rather than “hiatus” and stresses that it does not in any way undermine global-warming theory.

I love that last bit. The argument over warming is not about warming, it is over causation. Even a slowing blows out the global warming hypothesis, which states that Mankind’s release of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, has caused global temperatures to go up, and they have the computer models to prove it! And that’s about all they have to prove it. It’s all based on those computer models. The problem for the Warmists is that the real temperatures are not complying with those models. In most scientific endeavors, if the data did not match the models, if the outcomes failed to match the hypothesis, they’d admit that the models and hypothesis were wrong. With the Cult of Climastrology, they change the data, the facts, to match.

Of course, one of the things the study attempts to do is go back to one of their old Excuses, namely that the oceans ate their warming, and we get this from Mann

“The temporary slowdown in no way implies that human-caused warming has ceased or slowed down,” Mann said. “It was temporarily masked by natural factors.”

Got that? Warming is only caused by Mankind, but, nature can mask it. Are you surprised that I refer to this as a Cult? And you can bet they will use this paper to continue pushing that cult.

Read: New Paper Shows 21st Century Warming Slowdown Is Quite Real »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is the rising oceans coughing up mass amounts of seaweed which could only be killed by carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Climate Etc, with a post wondering if sea rise is accelerating.

It’s hump day, and that’s Emmanuelle Vaugier, Canadian hotty.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Beef And Cheese Consumption Must Be Drastically Reduced To Stop Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach February 24, 2016 – 10:23 am

I wonder if Warmists will comply in their own lives

(Canada Journal) Europeans need to eat less beef and consume less dairy products in order to reach the EU’s climate goals, according to a new study by Swedish researchers.

“Reductions, by 50 percent or more, in ruminant meat (beef and mutton) consumption are, most likely, unavoidable if the EU targets are to be met,” according to the findings published in the Food Policy journal.

Chicken and pig is supposedly OK. Until it isn’t, of course.

Dairy products are also problematic, according to the study. Producing 1 kilogram of protein from dairy results in emissions four times greater than for an equivalent amount of poultry.

“EU and US consumption of cheese and other dairy products is among the highest in the world. If we were to replace some of the dairy with vegetable products, such as oat milk, we would have a better chance of meeting our climate targets,” Wirsenius said.

Here’s the question: how do they Make This Happen? So far, most Warmists refuse to give up their own consumption of beef and dairy. What is the mechanism necessary to force people to drastically reduce their intake of beef and dairy? I know you know the answer.

Read: Beef And Cheese Consumption Must Be Drastically Reduced To Stop Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Poll: Number One Reaction To Hillary Is “Dishonest/Liar/Don’t Trust Her/Poor Character”

By William Teach February 24, 2016 – 8:16 am

Hillary Clinton should be thanking her lucky stars that her only competition for the Democratic nomination is Bernie Sanders

(Breitbart) According to the latest poll conducted by Gallup, the most common responses to Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) are “liar” and “socialist.”

Fifty-one percent of voters had a negative reaction to Clinton, in keeping with Gallup’s tracking of her overall unfavorability rating.

Forty percent of initial reactions to Clinton are negative, ranging from “liar” to “thief”:

Well, that’s not good. From the Gallup link

Overall, 29% of Americans offer a positive observation about Clinton while 51% express something negative. The rest have either a neutral comment or no opinion. This loosely fits with her overall image among national adults as measured on Gallup tracking, which is 42% favorable and 51% unfavorable.

She is dishonest. She is a liar. She put America’s national security at risk, and put real lives at risk, with her illegal homebrew server.

Right now, she’s out there whining about why there’s one standard for her and another for everyone else regarding her speeches to Wall Street. Well, as Bernie responded, he’s never given paid speeches where he kept the money. For one thing, that’s illegal. For another, it’s Hillary who’s making a big deal of taking on Wall Street. Republicans aren’t. And she’s the one who raked in quite a bit of cash giving speeches to Wall Street companies.

And her next concern will be her former and current aides being questioned under oath about their role in setting up that illegal server. As John Sexton notes

The problem for Clinton is that, if the judge grants this request, the depositions will drag on through election day. And that means the story itself will drag on even if the FBI does not recommend the DOJ pursue prosecution for mishandling of classified material.

Hillary and her peeps can blame this all on the vast right wing conspiracy all they want, but, few are buying it. Even Democrats have to know that this is a big problem. But, who else do they have?

Read: Poll: Number One Reaction To Hillary Is “Dishonest/Liar/Don’t Trust Her/Poor Character” »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 6 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove