Good News: GOP Candidates Entrenched Against Gun Controls

By William Teach February 28, 2016 – 7:41 am

The NY Times Editorial Board is apoplectic over the gun control positions of the Republican candidates, and is more than happy to let us know about it

Republican Candidates Deeply Entrenched Against Gun Controls

…..

President Obama has labored and even shed tears in pleading for just a bit of compromise to widen background checks on gun buyers and do more about the mental health problems underlying many of the mass shootings. He has also done what he can through executive actions. But the winner of the Republican nomination is almost guaranteed to be an ironclad defender of the gun lobby, pandering to voters by portraying the government as intent on trampling gun owners’ rights and confiscating their firearms.

That sounds like an excellent position to me.

“No more gun-free zones!” vows Donald Trump of local governments’ efforts to limit the killings. “Gun laws fail everywhere they’re tried,” insists Senator Marco Rubio, contradicting studies showing that states with strong gun safety laws suffer fewer shooting deaths. “We define gun control real simple — that’s hitting what you aim at,” Senator Ted Cruz says with a grin as the industry’s concealed-carry campaign to arm more and more Americans advances from barrooms to college campuses.

I’d like to use the thumbs up animated emoticon right here, but, it won’t work for the cross-post at Right Wing News.

Of course, the NYTEB is thrilled that Hillary is a staunch advocate of gun control (without mentioning that she’s a staunch advocate of killing the unborn), and that Bernie Sanders is slowly getting on board. Interestingly, they never mention how many Black people kill and shoot each other with guns, usually illegally obtained and possessed, only mass shootings. It’s like Democrats do not care that Black people are offing each other at a very high rate.

Gun safety should be a bipartisan issue, but the Republican candidates seem too afraid of the gun lobby to let that happen. All the more reason for the Democrats to drive the point home all the way to November.

It’s cute how they end the screed by changing it to “safety”, when the rest of the piece is about “control”. It’s right there in the headline. You want gun safety? Stay out of most big cities, which are run by the Democratic Party and have high rates of shootings.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Good News: GOP Candidates Entrenched Against Gun Controls »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 27, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a rising sea that will kill us all, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Creeping Sharia, with a post on conversion homework.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Clinton Crowd Boos Military Vet For Questions On Benghazi

By William Teach February 27, 2016 – 10:29 am

Clinton supporters could care less about Hillary’s incompetence as Secretary of State, nor leaving our citizens to die, much like they don’t care that Bill is a serial sexual predator

(Daily Caller) Former President Bill Clinton became angry when he was heckled by protesters during a campaign event in Bluffton, South Carolina on Friday.

The protesters demanded to know if his wife Hillary Clinton lied about the four American deaths that occurred during the attack in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.

The man responded that he’s seen Gold Star families “who have mourned.”

“We had four lives in Benghazi killed and your wife tried to cover it up.”

The crowd began to moan and boo in unison.

Then Bill had a hissy fit

“I heard your speech. I heard your speech. Will you let me answer? I’m not your commander in chief anymore but if I were, I’d tell you to be more polite and sit down,” Clinton said, growing angrier as the man began screaming at him.

Of course, the crowd was having none of it, and security escorted the man and others who wanted answers out.

Read: Clinton Crowd Boos Military Vet For Questions On Benghazi »

Posted in Democrats, Hillary Clinton | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: ‘Climate Change’ To Cause Catastrophic Weather

By William Teach February 27, 2016 – 7:45 am

The latest scaremongering from the Cult of Climastrology

Climate Change Effects on Weather Are “Potentially Catastrophic,” Scientist Says

The long-term effects of climate change are still unclear, but, as one scientist explained on Thursday, there is already “pretty scary” evidence that the planet is in for a series of dramatic, and dangerous, changes.

“The evidence is very clear that rapid and unprecedented changes are happening in the Arctic,” Dr Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute in California, told the The Independent in an email. “And while there remains uncertainty about the ultimate consequences, there is a good and growing body of research that is pretty scary, and pretty much no evidence that the possible impacts will be good.”

Among the likely effects of a warming Arctic on the rest of the planet are more and more unpredictable weather patterns, according to Gleick.

“Massive storms, sometimes called ‘bomb cyclones,’ are created when warm air from the Atlantic and cold air from the Arctic combine,” Gleick told the The Independent. “There may be connections between out-of-season strong tornados in the central US and these new storm patterns.”

Got that? Uncertainty, but, they just feel that the consequences will be all doomy. If we do not implement lots of tax schemes, and surrender a goodly chunk of our personal freedom to the Central Government, as well as control of private entities and the economy, we are utterly doomed. It matters little that the Warmists all agree that the plans will have virtually no effect on the climate, you just need to shut up and comply.

Oh, and this comes from Peter Gleick, of Fakegate notoriety.

Read: Good News: ‘Climate Change’ To Cause Catastrophic Weather »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

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

By William Teach February 27, 2016 – 7:26 am

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 »

Posted in GOP | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama: Solar And Wind Not Reliable Without A Storage

By William Teach February 26, 2016 – 5:04 pm

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 »

Posted in Barry Obama, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 26, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…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… »

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

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

By William Teach February 26, 2016 – 10:46 am

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 »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

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

By William Teach February 26, 2016 – 7:19 am

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 »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Energy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

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
Pirate's Cove