Explaining Trump’s Popularity: The Unprotected Vs. The Protected

What explains Donald Trump and his massive popularity among voters which includes your basic Republican, your squishy Republican, Conservatives, moderates, independents, and even some middle of the road Democrats? How is it that Trump can have such great support among Republicans, especially Conservatives, when he has now and had in the past many Democrat positions? How is it that the support not only doesn’t waiver, but grows stronger even after attacks on him and his gaffes? Peggy Noonan thinks she has the answer

Trump and the Rise of the Unprotected
Why political professionals are struggling to make sense of the world they created.

…..

But I keep thinking of how Donald Trump got to be the very likely Republican nominee. There are many answers and reasons, but my thoughts keep revolving around the idea of protection. It is a theme that has been something of a preoccupation in this space over the years, but I think I am seeing it now grow into an overall political dynamic throughout the West.

There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully.

The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful—those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created. Again, they make public policy and have for some time.

That does make some rather good sense, does it not? For all his faults, and money, Donald Trump has tapped into that feeling and made himself the leader of the unprotected. It’s more than just Establishment Vs. Outsider. For those old enough, remember Bill Clinton saying that he felt our pain. It felt legitimate. Regardless of Bernie Sander’s political leanings, I like the guy because he seems real, not manufactured. He’s a cranky old man, and means what he says, says what he means. If he tells you to get off his lawn, it hasn’t been focus grouped to death. Trump comes across as real, as a real person, not a carefully groomed politician.

One issue obviously roiling the U.S. and Western Europe is immigration. It is the issue of the moment, a real and concrete one but also a symbolic one: It stands for all the distance between governments and their citizens.

It is of course the issue that made Donald Trump. (snip)

If you are an unprotected American—one with limited resources and negligible access to power—you have absorbed some lessons from the past 20 years’ experience of illegal immigration. You know the Democrats won’t protect you and the Republicans won’t help you. Both parties refused to control the border. The Republicans were afraid of being called illiberal, racist, of losing a demographic for a generation. The Democrats wanted to keep the issue alive to use it as a wedge against the Republicans and to establish themselves as owners of the Hispanic vote.

Many will call it fear of immigrants, both legal and illegal. Well, yes. When wages are deflated, when we don’t know who’s coming across the border, when they take our jobs (see Disney requiring workers to train their foreign replacements), when they not only refuse to assimilate, but demand that America changes for them, when they won’t speak the language, when they demand that the Southwest be given back to Mexico, when they complain that Americans wear an American flag shirt, when they bring values that are incompatible with American society, etc, and the Protected do nothing, people are fearful. And angry. And Trump rises.

Make sure to read the entire article by Ms. Noonan.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Explaining Trump’s Popularity: The Unprotected Vs. The Protected »

Obama: Solar And Wind Not Reliable Without A Storage

Now he tells us (via Climate Depot)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Thanks to the investments we made in the Recovery Act we’ve seen huge gains in our advanced battery industry. Because, solar and wind don’t work unless we’ve got good ways to store power when the sun’s out or the winds blowing so that it can be used in a regular, reliable way.”

That’s from a speech he made today regarding his wonderful Stimulus in Jacksonville, Florida, so, yet again, massive use of fossil fuels in terms of planes, helicopters, and vehicles.

Let’s not forget all the failures and wasted money from the “green” portion of Obama’s stimulus, which really didn’t do a whole lot to stimulate the economy. Well, China’s economy, what with all that borrowed money.

Read: Obama: Solar And Wind Not Reliable Without A Storage »

If All You See…

…is an evil energy sucking smartphone making it so hot that ice hockey will be a thing of the past, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Chicks On The Right, with a post on everyone paying their fair share.

Read: If All You See… »

NY Times EB Likens Hillary To “Mischievous Child” Regarding Speech Transcripts

If only they’d say the same regarding her emails

(NY Times Editorial Board) “Everybody does it,” is an excuse expected from a mischievous child, not a presidential candidate. But that is Hillary Clinton’s latest defense for making closed-door, richly paid speeches to big banks, which many middle-class Americans still blame for their economic pain, and then refusing to release the transcripts. (Snip)

On Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton further complained, “Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else?”

The only different standard here is the one Mrs. Clinton set for herself, by personally earning $11 million in 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 for 51 speeches to banks and other groups and industries. (Snip)

Public interest in these speeches is legitimate, and it is the public — not the candidate — who decides how much disclosure is enough. By stonewalling on these transcripts Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules. Most important, she is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are begging her to show them that she’d run an accountable and transparent White House.

What makes the Times think Hillary is about transparency? What in her background would even give them that idea?

Read: NY Times EB Likens Hillary To “Mischievous Child” Regarding Speech Transcripts »

Bill Nye Totally Wanted Someone To Ask Questions On ‘Climate Change’ At GOP Debate

Sorry, entertainment guy, most people do not care about the issue that much. Questions on Hotcoldwetdry are barely asked at Democratic debates, but, CNN allows Nye to write this screed anyhow

(CNN) Here’s hoping someone in Houston, at CNN’s Republican debate Thursday night, can manage to ask the candidates a question like: “Mr. _______, you’ve stated repeatedly that you feel that climate change and global warming are not things we need to worry about in the short or even long term; why do you disagree with the world’s science community and the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?”

Then, I’m hoping that the same person or another citizen asks a follow-up: “Mr. _______, would you say that you believe your intuition and experience with weather are more scientifically correct than the research done by the world’s climate scientists, and do you believe that the world’s scientists are part of a conspiracy?”

As to the first, it seems that not everyone in the scientific community agrees. When we dig into that 97% consensus “paper”, we find that only about 36% take a position that Mankind is mostly/solely the cause, and the rest think it is, at most, 50% caused by Mankind. If the UN and these people were really concerned they would modify their own use of fossil fuels, energy, their shopping habits, etc, and make their own lives carbon neutral. Furthermore, they might offer rock solid proof of their beliefs using the scientific method. They fail on all accounts.

The second question highlights what this is really about: politics. Throughout his screed Nye offers zero scientific proof that Mankind is mostly/solely responsible for the warming since 1850. What we do see is that the models from Warmists consistently fail, and that the data is continuously massaged, modified, and manufactured to fit the hypothesis, which is the exact opposite of how the Scientific Method works.

As you may know, the three front-running candidates are apparently in denial about the effects and seriousness of climate change and global warming. As a voter and taxpayer, I’d like to know why each of them has no apparent concern about a problem that is worrying people all over the rest of the world. And by the way, those same people are very much hoping the U.S. will lead, showing the way to produce all of our energy renewably.

As I’ve written time and time again, if this is such a darned serious problem, why do so few Warmists act like it is a serious problem and make changes in their own lives? Why does this always seem to result in a push for taxes and central government restrictions and requirements for citizens and private entities? Why does Nye take so many fossil fueled trips? Why is he not demanding that his appearances be powered solely by “renewables”?

I will give him one thing: he has a point on moving towards a bigger use of solar, wind, and other renewables. But, we have to be smart about it, making sure they work, that the cost is on par with things like oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear (and, we need more nuclear). That the footprint of these projects is drastically reduced, so we aren’t despoiling the country with wind turbines and solar farms.

There would be no need to import oil from purveyors in the Middle East with whom have deep philosophical, uh… difficulties.

Of course, we could also drill for all the energy the US needs if Democrats would get out of the way.

I’ve said before and I’ll say again: Warmists should stop linking everything to Hotcoldwetdry. Stop pushing renewables along those lines. It guarantees opposition. Instead, we should find a way to bridge the gap and push for better research to make renewables cost effective and have smaller footprints, with less danger to the environment. Leave ‘climate change’ out when you talk to a Republican, and I bet you’ll get agreement, rather than a fight.

Read: Bill Nye Totally Wanted Someone To Ask Questions On ‘Climate Change’ At GOP Debate »

Insiders Say Trump Is Likely GOP Nominee

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 »

White Supremacist David Duke Endorses Donald Trump

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 »

If All You See…

…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… »

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

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! »

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

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 »

Pirate's Cove