Washington Post Makes Case To Block Any Obama Supreme Court Nominee

By William Teach February 20, 2016 – 8:23 am

Linda Hirshman thinks she’s being wise in stating why the Court needs to go to the left, but unintentionally makes the case for the GOP Senate to refuse to consent to any Obama nominee

After 45 years of conservative rulings, here’s what a liberal Supreme Court would do

Nothing separated the odd couple of the Supreme Court — the late Justice Antonin Scalia and his best buddy, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — more than their visions of the Constitution they both loved. Scalia saw the Constitution as a “dead” document, limited to the meaning of the original words at the moment the ink was dry, a moment when white, propertied men ruled. Ginsburg’s Constitution, by contrast, is the expansive charter of an evolving society. She celebrates “the extension (through amendment, judicial interpretation, and practice) of constitutional rights and protections to once ignored or excluded people: to humans who were once held in bondage, to men without property, to the original inhabitants of the land that became the United States, and to women.”

In other words, a liberal Court will rule by feelings and beliefs, rather than law and the Constitution. One which will manufacture “rights” out of the air, giving some people more rights than others. Hirshman yammers on for a long time about “inclusiveness”, as well as building up unions, removing all rules regarding abortion, and other measures, but, if you read between the lines, what we see is about using the Supreme Court to massively increase the power of the Federal Government over our lives, over our Free Speech rights, our ability to protest, our ability to practice our religion. It’s essentially a screed against the 1st Amendment, and, I’m sure if she had more time, against the other 9 original Amendments. Remember, the Bill Of Rights was never about what rights were assigned to citizens: it was about limiting the power of the Federal Government, telling it what it could not do.

An evolving view would diminish those limits on the federal government, perhaps even removing them. Lord knows, the federal government has worked hard to do this for a long time. A fully activist, hardcore Progressive court would do immense damage, and Democrat supporters should remember the old adage “be careful what you wish for. You might get it”, meaning these same losses of freedom could bit you in the rear.

Read: Washington Post Makes Case To Block Any Obama Supreme Court Nominee »

Posted in Progressive Goals | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Daily Beast Lies About North Carolina Laws

By William Teach February 20, 2016 – 7:37 am

I’ve mentioned Vox Day’s book SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down The Thought Police, in which he lays out the rules for dealing with social justice warriors. The First Rule is that SJWs always lie. And, they do, especially since their peeps are gullible enough to fully believe those lies, and they’ll often tell them without proof, and in a manner that the causal reader will not question the lies. Here’s Jay Michelson at the Daily Beast telling a whopper

Voter Suppression Could Stop 1.3 Million from Voting in Swing States
Since the 2008 election, Republican-led state legislatures have passed a dizzying array of laws to keep Democratic groups from voting. Will they make Trump or Cruz president?

First off, let’s note that this screed is about setting the terms for a Democratic Party loss as being about cheating, much like Dems did heavily in 2004. They’ve pulled this to some degree ever since Bush won the election in 2000.

Thanks to new laws passed by Republicans, 1.28 million votes that were cast in the 2012 presidential election won’t be cast in 2016.

That’s because, of the 12 states considered up for grabs in 2016, four—Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Ohio—have passed onerous new voter suppression laws, which disproportionately affect communities of color and other Democratic constituencies.

Democrats sure seem to have a low opinion of Black people, thinking they cannot obtain a proper ID like the White people in the Democratic party. Perhaps these lilly-white Dems think Blacks are just unable to follow the law, thinking them lawless. Dems are pretty racist.

Here comes the big whopper

For example, in North Carolina, the Republican-controlled legislature and Republican governor eliminated early voting days. In 2012, 900,000 voters cast their ballots during the early voting window. In 2016, that number will be zero.

It’s cleverly written to allow Michaelson to dissemble if he’s accused of lying (which I did on Twitter), another trait of SJWs, but, taken at face value, it is utterly wrong. Hence the reason why there is no link to back the assertion. Does Michaelson not think people can look this up on the Internet? He’s expecting that no one will bother, they’ll just read it, call NC racist, and move on.

Alas, it is all a lie. SB 589, which also provides other measures, such as the voter ID requirement, reduced early voting days from 17 to 10, similar to the number of early voting days in quite a few states. The Democratic hotbed of New York allows zero early voting days. Is NY engaged in voter suppression? How about Michigan, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware, all Dem hotbeds?

Also, despite the reduction in days, the change requires counties to “offer the same number of early voting hours in presidential elections as were available in 2012 and an equal number of early voting hours in midterm elections as were offered in 2010.” So, fewer days, but they’ll have more voting stations to make up for it.

How does that equate to zero? How does this mean that NC eliminated early voting? It’s written so Michaelson can say “Oh, I just meant they eliminated 7 voting days.” What will the casual reader think it means? That’s right, that NC did away with all early voting, and they’re supposed to believe that the NC GOP is raaaaacist. Especially when we get this in the next paragraph

In other words, banning early voting could keep this swing state in the Republican column this November.

It’s not banned. Not by a longshot. SJWs always lie.

Of course, we have to have some whining about voter ID

Thirty states require ID of some kind to vote and 15 states require the ID have a photo. But unlike most of those other states, Virginia is one of the twelve swing states that will probably determine the outcome of the presidential election.

Got that? Requiring voter ID is fine in the states that are locks for Democrats, and only matters in swing states. He ends his whiny screed with

In short, none of these laws prevent voter fraud. They prevent voting, mostly for Democrats. And thanks to new laws in four swing states, they might just prevent a Democrat from getting into the White House.

Is he saying that Democrats are too stupid, too incompetent to obtain a proper ID, something that is pretty much required for life in the US? Heck, here in NC one can obtain a free ID. Is that still too expensive for Democrats?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Daily Beast Lies About North Carolina Laws »

Posted in Election Fraud, Unhinged Tools | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Fossil Fuels Using Democrats Want Investigation Into Oil Companies

By William Teach February 19, 2016 – 3:42 pm

The witch hunts and government intimidation continues

(LA Times) A Southern California congressman and two other representatives are calling for an investigation of Shell Oil over whether it deceived the public on climate change at the same time it was preparing its business operations for rising sea levels.

In a Feb. 17 letter to U.S. Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch, the three members of Congress said growing evidence suggests there may have been “a conspiracy between Shell, Exxon Mobil and potentially other companies in the fossil fuel industry.”

U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) sent the letter along with Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont and Rep. Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania, both Democrats.

Their letter cites an investigation published by the Los Angeles Times that reported that in 1989 Shell Oil announced it was redesigning a long-term, $3-billion natural gas platform in the North Sea to deal with rising sea levels from global warming. Despite this and other incidents, the congressmen noted, “Shell apparently decided to fund climate deniers.”

These Warmists, who use vast amounts of fossil fuels to travel in vehicles and airplanes, are simply attempting to intimidate privately owned corporations and the citizens who work for them because they do not like anyone hold a divergent opinion. I think the 1st Amendment gives elected officials the power to do this, if memory serves.

Read: Fossil Fuels Using Democrats Want Investigation Into Oil Companies »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 19, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a rising sea destroying buildings, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Neo neocon, with a post on being a blogger these days.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Oops: Trump Supported Iraq Invasion In 2002

By William Teach February 19, 2016 – 10:09 am

Food for thought

(Buzzfeed)  For months, Donald Trump has claimed that he opposed the Iraq War before the invasion began — as an example of his great judgment on foreign policy issues.

But in a 2002 interview with Howard Stern, Donald Trump said he supported an Iraq invasion.

In the interview, which took place on Sept. 11, 2002, Stern asked Trump directly if he was for invading Iraq.

“Yeah I guess so,” Trump responded. “I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

Trump has repeatedly claimed that he was against the Iraq War before it began, despite no evidence of him publicly stating this position. On Meet the Press, Trump said there weren’t many articles about his opposition because he wasn’t a politician at the time.

And then, not all that long after the war began, late in 2003, Trump changed his position, just coincidentally at the same time Democrats, including the ones who voted to authorize action against Iraq, decided to change their position in order to bash President George W. Bush.

There’s no doubt that mistakes were made regarding the initial war, such as winning too quickly, which meant so many of Saddam’s supporters in the military were able to fade away and become the initial insurgency. There’s no doubt post-surrender actions were wrong, such as not controlling the borders and disbanding the military. Regardless, Trump espoused the Democratic Party position. And, did you think we would be relitigating the Iraq War during the 2016 presidential season, and it would be due to a candidate who says he’s a Republican?

Read: Oops: Trump Supported Iraq Invasion In 2002 »

Posted in Idiot GOPer's | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Cult Of Climastrology: Satellite Data Only Good When It Tells Us What We Want

By William Teach February 19, 2016 – 7:18 am

Warmists used to think that the best method for measuring the warming of the Earth was via satellites, which could measure global temperatures in places that had no monitoring stations, and would not show the often huge bias within places that suffer from the Urban Heat Island Effect. That is until the satellites started showing a huge divergence from the computer models and land data, especially since Warmists couldn’t adjust the satellite data. Hence, the satellites showed an almost 19 year pause. The satellites were supposed to confirm the land based measurements. Instead, they showed that the land based measurements were wrong. And then we have this

Satellites – “not good enough to tell us global temperature”, but apparently good enough to tell us global climate sensitivity

Remember that video produced a few weeks ago from the usual suspects that says satellite data is no good for climate data? Others in science don’t seem to think so.

Mapping the world for climate sensitivity

By using information gathered by satellites, a group of biologists have developed a new method for measuring ecosystem sensitivity to climate variability.

By developing this method, the international team of researchers has been able to map which areas are most sensitive to climate variability across the world.

“Based on the satellite data gathered, we can identify areas that, over the past 14 years, have shown high sensitivity to climate variability,” says researcher Alistair Seddon at the Department of Biology at the University of Bergen (UiB).

You can find other examples of this, such as last November the UN said that the satellites showed “visible shifts” in food production due to man-caused climate change.

It’s high time for Warmists to admit their movement is a cult, and not based on science. Conversely, if they believe so strongly that their preferred data is proof, they should make their own lives carbon neutral.

Read: Cult Of Climastrology: Satellite Data Only Good When It Tells Us What We Want »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 24 Comments | Trackback URL

Hillary Won’t Say If She’s Ever Lied To American People

By William Teach February 19, 2016 – 6:56 am

Well, on the bright side, at least she won’t lie about lying. She will dissemble and obfuscate, though

(Daily Caller) During a Thursday interview with CBS’s Scott Pelley, Clinton said, “I don’t believe I ever have” lied to voters.

Pelley began by asking Clinton, “You know in ’76, Jimmy Carter famously said, ‘I will not lie to you.’”

“Well, I will tell you, I have tried in every way I know how, literally from my years as a young lawyer, all the way through my time as secretary of state to level with the American people,” Clinton claimed.

Pelley replied, “You talk about leveling with the American people. Have you always told the truth?”

“I’ve have always tried to, always, always,” Clinton suggested.

After being asked a third time by Pelley, she went with “You know, you’re asking me to say, ‘Have I ever?’ I don’t believe I ever have… I don’t believe I ever will. I’m going to do the best I can to level with the American people.” The woman is incapable of giving a straight answer, but, hey, she tried to tell the truth. Except for things like

  • Saying Chelsea was jogging around the WTC on 9/11
  • Landing under sniper fire in Bosnia
  • Being dead broke after leaving White House
  • Being part of the Northern Ireland peace process
  • Benghazi

Politifact has a nice long list of Hillary false statements. Her conflicts of interest between her job as Secretary of State and hooking up her Clinton Foundation and her inability to admit it is a lie on her part.

She’s lied about her insecure, home-brew server, which has exposed many of America’s biggest secrets and put people in danger.

Hillary backed Bill’s lies about his sexual assaults on numerous women, and lied about them directly herself.

Her lies go on and on and on. It’s no wonder that only 67% find her trustworthy.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Hillary Won’t Say If She’s Ever Lied To American People »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 28 Comments | Trackback URL

Pope Francis: Say, That Trump Guy Really Isn’t A Christian

By William Teach February 18, 2016 – 3:40 pm

Say, remember all the times Pope Francis has said that people like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, the majority of the Democratic Party, and Leftists world wide aren’t Christians due to their support for abortion on demand?

(NY Times) Inserting himself into the Republican presidential race, Pope Francis on Wednesday suggested that Donald J. Trump “is not Christian” because of the harshness of his campaign promises to deport more immigrants and force Mexico to pay for a wall along the border.

“A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian,” Francis said when a reporter asked him about Mr. Trump on the papal airliner as he returned to Rome after his six-day visit to Mexico.

Perhaps Pope Francis should consider the walls around Vatican City, and tear them down. It’s just absurd to think that wanting to secure the border of the United States against people coming here illegally, some (supposedly) for a better life, others who want to simply take advantage of the country, and others here to be bad people means that Trump is not a Christian. At the end of the day, the only two who can truly judge that are God and Jesus.

Oh, and Pope Francis did discuss abortion (and contraception) in regards to the spread of the Zika virus, totally condemning abortion. Yet, not the people who support and push it.

Anyhow, The Donald responds

If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened. ISIS would have been eradicated unlike what is happening now with our all talk, no action politicians.

The Mexican government and its leadership has made many disparaging remarks about me to the Pope, because they want to continue to rip off the United States, both on trade and at the border, and they understand I am totally wise to them. The Pope only heard one side of the story – he didn’t see the crime, the drug trafficking and the negative economic impact the current policies have on the United States. He doesn’t see how Mexican leadership is outsmarting President Obama and our leadership in every aspect of negotiation.

For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President. No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith. They are using the Pope as a pawn and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing so, especially when so many lives are involved and when illegal immigration is so rampant.

Personally, I think he should have just gone with the last paragraph, leaving out the first two, and perhaps should have chided the Pontiff, saying how disappointed he was.

Read: Pope Francis: Say, That Trump Guy Really Isn’t A Christian »

Posted in GOP | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 18, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil pool for the 1%ers causing climate change for the rest, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jammie Wearing Fools, with a post on the Trump clown show.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Bummer: Shark Attacks Increasing Because Of ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach February 18, 2016 – 7:14 am

Today’s scaremongering story from the Cult of Climastrology, which would probably be more effective if published in June, rather than February

Shark Attack Numbers Hit Record Heights in 2015; Overpopulation, Climate Change to Blame

Shark hysteria around the globe is reaching an all-time high. It’s like the scene in Jaws where everyone is getting their kids out of the water, screaming and flailing and choking and running. It’s a great scene. It’s not so great in real life. And 2015 now officially holds the record for the most shark attacks in a single year, which is never a good thing for mass hysteria.

According to the International Shark Attack File (ISAF), an organization that’s basically the end-all-be-all of shark encounters around the world, there were 98 unprovoked shark attacks in 2015. The previous record was set back in 2000, when there were 88. Over half of the attacks (59) last year happened in US waters, and 30 of those occurred in Florida. Australia recorded 18 attacks, while South Africa came in at 8–one of which, of course, was broadcast live to the world.

So, what are the causes?

The report from ISAF doesn’t say anything about sharks getting hungrier, or meaner, or more bent on spilling human blood. It does say, however, that there are more of us in the water, which in turn leads to more encounters with sharks. “As world population continues its upsurge and interest in aquatic recreation concurrently rises, we realistically should expect increases in the number of shark attacks and other aquatic recreation-related injuries,” said George Burgess, curator of the ISAF and director of the Florida Program for Shark Research. “In theory, we should see a record number of shark attacks every year, because a shark attack is fundamentally an odd situation that’s built on the number of humans in the water and the number of sharks in the water.”

Shark numbers have increased due to environmental regulations on killing sharks and the aquatic creatures they eat. Of course, Warmists have to bring ‘climate change’ in

But it isn’t just the number of people in the water that led to the record number of attacks. It’s climate change and an exceptionally strong El Nino year, as well. “Since most sharks are warm-water species, they now are covering a wider area than they once did,” Burgess said. “In the summertime, they head farther north or south depending on which hemisphere they are in.”

See? They can’t help themselves.

(Daily News) Sharks that like tropical water, like bull sharks and tiger sharks, have moved beyond the traditional waters of Florida and up the southeastern coast of the United States to the Carolinas, for instance. There, an increase in population has led to more people going in the water from spring to fall, as air temperatures were also warmer in 2015. The combination leads to more potential encounters between sharks and humans and, thus, more attacks, Burgess said.

Two points: first, the horrible shark attacks in New Jersey, 1916, were mostly likely caused by a Bull shark, due to the brackish water in which the initial attacks took place. Few other sharks could survive in that water. Second, none of what they are saying is proof of anthropogenic causation, at least in regards to the climate. Warmer waters and air are simply that: warmer. It doesn’t prove that mankind, via “carbon pollution”, is the cause. As more and more people from the cooler north move to the warmer south, it means more and more people in waters with shark populations, putting them in direct contact. The coast from North Carolina to Florida continues to see population increases, along with people who live inland who travel to the beach.

But, hey, in Warmist world, it must be mostly ‘climate change’. They have to keep the scaremongering strong. I really hope they will stop contributing by jumping in their fossil fueled vehicles for trips to the beach.

Read: Bummer: Shark Attacks Increasing Because Of ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove