Cruz Dares Trump To File Suit On Ad

By William Teach February 17, 2016 – 2:27 pm

I listened to Trump hold a pity party earlier about how the media, especially Fox News, was being oh-so-mean to him (despite him having been on Fox And Friends this morning, and no meanness involved). Of course, the only one really making threats is Trump, and Cruz has responded in force

(Politico)  Ted Cruz on Wednesday said Donald Trump’s campaign had threatened legal action over a campaign ad. His response: Bring it on.

“Donald, if you want to file a lawsuit challenging this ad, claiming it’s defamation, file the lawsuit,” Cruz told reporters here after playing the ad, which shows clips of Trump espousing more liberal positions on issues like abortion from an interview with Tim Russert more than a decade ago.

Cruz, a Harvard-educated lawyer and former Texas solicitor general, went on to say he might depose Trump in court himself. And he warned that should Trump proceed, he and his lawyers would be “sanctioned in court for filing frivolous litigation.”

The Right Scoop has video of what he calls “Cruz throwing down the gauntlet.” Trump had a hissy fit back

Trump fired back at Cruz with a sharp statement. “He is a liar and these ads and statements made by Cruz are clearly desperate moves by a guy who is tanking in the polls — watching his campaign go up in flames finally explains Cruz’s logo,” Trump replied in a statement. He went on to pledge, “If I want to bring a lawsuit it would be legitimate. Likewise, if I want to bring the lawsuit regarding Senator Cruz being a natural born Canadian I will do so. Time will tell, Teddy.”

I triple dog dare him. There’s no way someone like Cruz decides to run for POTUS without doing their due diligence on whether he is eligible. I’d also like to see him file the suit on the add, because it would surely highlight all of Trump’s liberal leanings.

Read: Cruz Dares Trump To File Suit On Ad »

Posted in Politics | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a wonderful low carbon bike, which Everyone Else should be forced to use instead of fossil fuels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on Juan Williams ordering a cheeseburger and finding raaaaacism.

Read: If All You See… »

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

To Solve Hotcoldwetdry, Europeans Need “Profound Lifestyle Changes”

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

You don’t say

(UK Guardian) European countries should prepare for a far-reaching debate on the “profound lifestyle changes” required to limit climate change, according to a leaked European commission document.

Sadly, the Guardian doesn’t actually provide a link to that document. It’d be wonderful to read it to see what those “profound lifestyle changes” are, since the Guardian is rather cagey.

The commission will tell foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on Monday that a Europe-wide debate is needed on how to limit global warming to 1.5C, according to a staff working document for ministers seen by the Guardian. (snip)

“It will require exploring possibilities for realising ‘negative’ emissions as well as profound lifestyle changes of current generations.”

Negative emissions can refer to carbon capture and storage technology powered by biomass, geo-engineering of the atmosphere and oceans, or CO2 removal that sucks emissions out of the air.

Yet, what of these “profound lifestyle changes”? What are they? It’s very easy to guess, based on what the Cult of Climastrology has been recommending for decades. A higher cost of living, higher energy prices, limiting travel, dietary changes, the Government taking more and more power away from the People and giving it to the government, etc and so forth.

One has to wonder why Warmists are always so cagey and circumspect in regards to their ultimate and ulterior goals.

Read: To Solve Hotcoldwetdry, Europeans Need “Profound Lifestyle Changes” »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Surprise? Obama Misses Deadline For ISIS Strategy

By William Teach February 17, 2016 – 7:58 am

One does have to wonder why anyone would possibly think Obama would be on time for releasing an ISIS strategy. About the only thing he’s ever on time for are non-governmental duties, such as golf outings, fundraisers, and vacations

(Daily Caller) The Obama Administration’s deadline to present a plan to defeat Islamic State to Congress by Feb. 15 has come and gone, with no strategy presented.

The report, which is required by law, is officially passed due, according to a press release by House Committee on Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry . When contacted by The Daily Caller News Foundation about the delivery of the report, committee communications director Claude Chafin actually said he triple checked, and the report had not been delivered.

“Unsurprisingly the Administration cannot articulate a strategy for countering violent extremists in the Middle East,” said Thornberry’s press release. “Time and again, the President has told us his strategy to defeat extremist groups like ISIS and al-Qaida is well underway; yet, months after the legal requirement was established, his Administration cannot deliver that strategy to Congress.”

The full press release states

“Unsurprisingly the Administration cannot articulate a strategy for countering violent extremists in the Middle East. Time and again, the President has told us his strategy to defeat extremist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda is well underway; yet, months after the legal requirement was established, his Administration cannot deliver that strategy to Congress. I fear the President’s failure to deliver this report says far more about the state of his strategy to defeat terrorists than any empty reassurance he may offer from the podium.

“The Committee is working now to shape the FY17 National Defense Authorization Act and the Pentagon has already begun requesting authorities our troops need to defeat this enemy. Without a strategy, this amounts to leaving our troops in the wilderness with a compass, but no map. Failing to comply with the report deadline represents more than a failure of strategic vision for the White House. It is a lost opportunity for the Administration and Congress to work together on a common approach to face this threat.”

It all goes to show that Obama is less than concerned with fighting ISIS

“I guess President Obama takes his deadlines as seriously as he does his red line,” said Rep. Peter J. Roskam to TheDCNF via email. “I can’t say I’m surprised President Obama still underestimates ISIS or, as he likes to call them, the ‘JV squad.’”

Good thing he wasn’t in California attending fundraisers and playing golf, prior to some “meetings” with Southeast Asia leaders for a bit, since late last week.

Read: Surprise? Obama Misses Deadline For ISIS Strategy »

Posted in Barry Obama, War On Terrorism | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Is The GOP Cracking On A Potential Obama Supreme Court Nominee?

By William Teach February 17, 2016 – 7:46 am

As you remember, close after the death of Justice Scalia, Senate Majority Leader and many others proclaimed that no Obama nominee would be considered. Many Republican supporters were concerned that the elected Republicans in the Senate would backslide. Is this about to happen?

(The Hill) Freshman GOP Sen. Thom Tillis warned Tuesday that his party risks being seen as “obstructionist” in a fight over Supreme Court nominations with President Obama.

The remarks from the North Carolina Republican are the first crack in GOP unity since Saturday’s stunning news of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, whose passing has put the tilt of the court in question. Scalia’s successor seems likely to determine whether its majority will lean liberal or conservative.

Republicans are under enormous pressure to block any nominee from Obama, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) quickly put out a statement after Scalia’s death stating that the vacancy should not be filled until a new president takes office.

Yet the GOP also faces enormous risks with its strategy if it turns off independent voters already irritated by Washington’s dysfunction.

Of course, they face enormous risk if they do not block any Obama nominee, and simply rubber stamp the pick. Tillis had this to say right after Scalia’s passing

“We are in midst of a great debate about the future of our country, including the future make-up of the highest court in the land, which makes decisions that affect the lives of all Americans,” Tillis said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the uninhibited expansion of President Obama’s administrative state and his penchant for executive orders that contort the rule of law suggest an utter contempt for our nation’s system of checks and balances.

“It is highly likely that the President will nominate someone who shares his views and will rubber-stamp his unilateral actions, which run counter to the original intent of our Constitution. This is why it is incumbent upon the Senate to assert its co-equal authority in the constitutionally prescribed process of determining the make-up of the highest court. I firmly believe the voice of the American people should be heavily weighted in that decision and their voice will soon be heard on Election Day. Given the current circumstances, the process of filling the Supreme Court vacancy would be best left to the next President.”

Then you have this (from the Hill article)

On Tuesday, however, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) appeared to back away from that position, arguing it was at least possible a hearing could be held on an Obama nominee.

“I would wait until the nominee is made before I would make any decisions. … In other words, take it a step at a time,” he told reporters, according to Radio Iowa.

IMO, Republicans shouldn’t have stated that there would be nothing done in the Senate when Obama nominates yet another hardcore Leftist who rules by whim and politics instead of law and the Constitution. Let Obama have his hearings. They can take it very slow during the Judiciary committee and full Senate hearings, and ask questions that expose the person, showing they’re not the right person for the job. Then take a vote and all vote “nay”. That is where concern should be. Will the GOP hold strong in the face of elected Democrats, the White House, and the leftist media putting pressure on the Republican Senators to confirm?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Is The GOP Cracking On A Potential Obama Supreme Court Nominee? »

Posted in GOP | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a wonderful wooded area that would be perfect for a solar farm, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Last Tradition, with a post on needing a teacher discipline database.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Cheney: “Trump Sounds Like A Liberal Democrat”

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

Via Twitchy, we see two story threats. First we have

Not so much. As Jonah Goldberg noted in responding to many, well, let’s charitably call them idiots, Saddam was a big supporter of Middle East terrorism. He paid families to send their kids off to be suicide bombers in Israel. There were numerous terrorism training camps within Iraq, many which were found during the 2003 invasion. He celebrated 9/11. He tried to kill George HW Bush. He harbored Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and, let’s not forget Al Qaeda member Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The 9/11 Commission mentioned all the terrorism and terrorist support by Saddam. In all fairness, this didn’t mean he actively supported al Qaeda, but, he did support terrorism. We could discuss this ad nauseum, but, at this point, you surely know the whole story.

Which leads to this (video at the link)

He does. He’s reminding me of what James Delingpole calls “watermelons”, who are environmentalists who are “green on the outside, red on the inside”, a reference to all the socialists/communists and their supporters who decided to move into environmentalism as the Soviet Union collapsed. Trump seems red (Republican) on the outside, but is apparently blue (Democrat) on the inside. Why do so many of his positions end up having Dem endings? He wants to build a border wall? Yay! And once the wall is built he’ll give “touchback” amnesty, for which the touchback will never happen? Boo. Now he’s going 9/11 Truther and talking up Saddam Hussein. He’s yammering about the Iraq War in the exact same manner as Democrats.

Read: Cheney: “Trump Sounds Like A Liberal Democrat” »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Climate Action Is As Easy As Trading Your Mercedes For A Tesla

By William Teach February 16, 2016 – 8:19 am

Seriously, it’s that darned easy! (via Climate Depot)

Senator Whitehouse: “…I don’t want to leave the impression that mankind must suffer in order to make these changes. The changes in consumption can actually be enjoyable and beneficial. If you trade in your Mercedes for a Tesla, your quality of life just went up.”

This was from the Munich Security Conference, on Feb 13, 2016, in which he surely took a long, fossil fueled flight. One has to wonder if Whitehouse has purchased a Tesla himself. A base model Tesla S will cost you $70000 to $75000, putting it well in the range of the upper end luxury car buyer, rather than your average middle class consumer. Whitehouse’s comment surely tells you this is all about your betters telling you what to do. The “rich kids” won’t worry about suffering.

You can ask Senator Whitehouse if he’s traded in whatever type of fossil fueled vehicle he owns for a Tesla on Twitter.

Read: Good News: Climate Action Is As Easy As Trading Your Mercedes For A Tesla »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

All Criticism Of Hillary Is Sexist Or Something

By William Teach February 16, 2016 – 8:00 am

We’ve seen this act back in 2008, where any criticism of Hillary was treated at sexism, even if it came from reliable leftist news sources. Well, it’s back with a bang. Or, is that a bark?

Anyhow

(The Hill) Women serving in the Senate say Hillary Clinton is being subjected to an unfair, sexist double standard on the campaign trail.

Criticisms of Clinton’s tone of voice have become prominent in recent weeks, stirring strong feelings among Senate Democratic women who say they too have had to battle the stereotype of the shrill female.

“She’s often judged by a double standard,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), the dean of the Senate women.

“Many of we women feel that there’s a double standard. What’s being said about Hillary is what women have heard for centuries. You’re too loud, you’re too aggressive, you’re too pushy. Why do you want the vote?”

But, um, she is shrill. She is loud. She cackle’s. She laughs at inappropriate times. As for being too aggressive and pushy? I haven’t heard that one before.

Wanting the vote? It’s now sexist to ask why she wants people to vote for her? That’s a new one. And rather disturbing.

Female lawmakers were particularly galled by recent statements by Washington Post columnist Bob Woodward, one of the nation’s most respected journalists, characterizing Clinton’s tone as “screaming.”

“She shouts. There’s something unrelaxed about the way she is communicating,” he said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

She does shout. And, here’s something to consider, which will surely be deemed sexist: if women like Hillary, Mikulski, and the other mentioned in the story want to be treated equally, don’t want to be called delicate hothouse flowers, to say they are empowered, they need to be able to roll with the blows and suck it up, rather than devolving into whiners.

Of course, really, this is all about creating a situation where any criticism of Hillary is deemed to be sexist, because, let’s face it, she has a lot of issues, which will be right in your face if she wins the primary. Benghazi, her home-brew server and all the secret information contained on it. Her lack of successes while Secretary of State.

This is much like when any criticism of Obama was deemed to be racist. Voting “present” for almost half the votes while in the Illinois general assembly? Racist. Wearing mom jeans? Racist. Not allowing him to eat his waffle? Racist. And Hillary will be the nominee, no matter how much Democrats feel the Bern, because the game is rigged via the super-delegates.

Oh, and don’t forget, if you dare ask Hillary why she wants to be President, that’s sexist.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: All Criticism Of Hillary Is Sexist Or Something »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

“Much Of Today’s Science Is Basically Astrology”

By William Teach February 15, 2016 – 5:12 pm

Let me point out once again that I am no fan of coal. I’m not buying this who “clean coal” thing, and besides being dirty, coal production damages the actual environment, not too mention the health problems to those who work mining coal. That said, we need a viable replacement, especially in terms of cost, before doing away with it. This opinion piece is very supportive of coal, as written by Mark I. Pfau, a professional geologist, who’ll certainly be dismissed as a dupe of fossil fuels companies and his information dismissed

Climate change is cause of climate change

It is a fundamental tenet of debate that your argument fails when your underlying premise fails. So far this year four guest columns (Russ Doty, Jan. 1; Dick Barrett, Jan. 5; Michael Ober, Jan. 6; and Gary Aitken, Jan. 20) have all argued the need to end Montana’s coal industry to fight climate change. Dick Barrett decries “misinformation” on the part of Colstrip supporters, but misses the point that the purveyors of man-caused climate change are the roots of all climate misinformation. The long reality is that climate change is caused by, well, climate change; not the burning of fossil fuels by man.

Mr. Pfau provides some actual facts, something Warmists hate, before getting to

Much of today’s science is basically astrology; drawing interpretations to support a predetermined objective largely established by government and the science funding machine. When government-funded science has a solution which means more taxes (carbon), more unelected government regulations (Environmental Protection Agency), agency refusal to release the science behind their decisions (EPA, NOAA, NASA), abdication of science to the United Nations, and the de facto nationalization of the energy industry; then we should all be very afraid.

It warms my heart that more and more people are starting to understand what the whole ‘climate change’ movement is about, and actively speaking out on it. I’ve been saying this for damned near a decade.

Read: “Much Of Today’s Science Is Basically Astrology” »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove