NY Daily News Laments Trump’s SC Win, Calls Him “Bloodthirsty”, Voters “Piggish”

By William Teach February 21, 2016 – 8:34 am

There are lots and lots of interesting articles regarding what happened in South Carolina, and Nevada, Saturday. We learned that Jeb! Bush has “suspended” his campaign. Hillary just barely beat out Sanders. And, that the NY Daily News is unhinged

That’s the headline graphic from the front page of the fishwrap. The headline within the article is a bit different

Donald Trump wins South Carolina Republican presidential primary

But, the story itself is a masterful piece of disgusting invective (bold mine)

The piggish voters of South Carolina gobbled up the slop that Donald Trump served up Saturday — handing the bloodthirsty billionaire his second straight Republican presidential primary win.

Trump’s victory in the Palmetto State follows the orange-hued mogul’s first-place finish in New Hampshire and capped a dizzying stretch in which he called rivals liars, tangled with Pope Francis, and retold a discredited story about a U.S. general shooting Muslims with bullets dipped in pigs’ blood.

Just another typical week in the life of the candidate who can drop one outrageous bombshell after another and not lose a drop of momentum.

“There’s nothing easy about running for president, I can tell you. It’s tough, it’s mean, it’s nasty, it’s vicious … it’s beautiful,” Trump said in his victory speech.

And, Trump supporters are fanatics for daring to chant “USA USA”

Some chanted “USA! USA!” The fanatics snacked on cheese and crudité, and sipped beers from plastic cups.

Sipping beer from a plastic cup? Love of the USA? How gauche!

Nihad Awad, the Council on American-Islamic Relations national executive director, said Saturday in a statement that Trump’s “inflammatory rhetoric has crossed the line from spreading hatred to inciting violence.”

But the hate-filled campaign speeches only endeared Trump to South Carolina voters.

Cruz, who topped Trump in the Iowa caucuses, said that his was “the only campaign that has beaten and can beat Donald Trump.”

Yeah, wouldn’t want to incite violence against people who are violent themselves and have no problem in blowing up women and children.

How dare those piggish South Carolina voters give Trump a win!

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Daily News Laments Trump’s SC Win, Calls Him “Bloodthirsty”, Voters “Piggish” »

Posted in GOP, Journalistic Malpractice | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 20, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a world turning to desert from Other People’s carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post wondering if Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist or a hardcore Marxist.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Surprise: UN Links Hotcoldwetdry To Ebola And Zika

By William Teach February 20, 2016 – 10:55 am

Warmists linked Ebola to ‘climate change’ when the latest outbreak occurred. Because Ebola obviously only happens because someone drives a fossil fueled vehicle. And, with the rise of Zika, Warmists linked it in the same manner. Now comes the United Nations

(The Hill) The United Nations is urging action on climate change as a way to prevent the spread of diseases like Ebola and the Zika virus.

In a speech this week, the executive director of the UN’s Environment Programme (UNEP) said officials should take a more aggressive stance toward climate change, highlighting studies that show nearly a quarter of premature deaths around the world can be attributed to environmental problems.

“The spread of Zika, just as with Ebola, has sent a strong signal to the international community that there is a need for increased attention to the linkages between environment and health,” UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said on Thursday.

What this does is diminish the threat of diseases, putting them under the banner of the More Important Issue to them, ‘climate change.’ Instead of making the diseases the primary issue, they’re secondary to Hotcoldwetdry. Yes, diseases can spread more in certain ways due to a warmer climate. That doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation, or the need for draconian controls on our lives, nor massive taxation increasing our cost of living. Don’t forget, the Black Plague and the 75 million deaths happened during a cooling period.

Read: Surprise: UN Links Hotcoldwetdry To Ebola And Zika »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

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
Pirate's Cove