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

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
Pirate's Cove