…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… »
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.
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.â€
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 »
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.
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 »
…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… »
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.â€
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?
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
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 »
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.’â€
“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?â€
“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
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 »
Say, remember all the times Pope Francis has said that people like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, the majority of the Democratic Party, and Leftists world wide aren’t Christians due to their support for abortion on demand?
(NY Times) Inserting himself into the Republican presidential race, Pope Francis on Wednesday suggested that Donald J. Trump “is not Christian†because of the harshness of his campaign promises to deport more immigrants and force Mexico to pay for a wall along the border.
“A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian,†Francis said when a reporter asked him about Mr. Trump on the papal airliner as he returned to Rome after his six-day visit to Mexico.
Perhaps Pope Francis should consider the walls around Vatican City, and tear them down. It’s just absurd to think that wanting to secure the border of the United States against people coming here illegally, some (supposedly) for a better life, others who want to simply take advantage of the country, and others here to be bad people means that Trump is not a Christian. At the end of the day, the only two who can truly judge that are God and Jesus.
Oh, and Pope Francis did discuss abortion (and contraception) in regards to the spread of the Zika virus, totally condemning abortion. Yet, not the people who support and push it.
Anyhow, The Donald responds
If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened. ISIS would have been eradicated unlike what is happening now with our all talk, no action politicians.
The Mexican government and its leadership has made many disparaging remarks about me to the Pope, because they want to continue to rip off the United States, both on trade and at the border, and they understand I am totally wise to them. The Pope only heard one side of the story – he didn’t see the crime, the drug trafficking and the negative economic impact the current policies have on the United States. He doesn’t see how Mexican leadership is outsmarting President Obama and our leadership in every aspect of negotiation.
For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President. No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith. They are using the Pope as a pawn and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing so, especially when so many lives are involved and when illegal immigration is so rampant.
Personally, I think he should have just gone with the last paragraph, leaving out the first two, and perhaps should have chided the Pontiff, saying how disappointed he was.
Read: Pope Francis: Say, That Trump Guy Really Isn’t A Christian »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
