Why Are We Not Removing All Things Related To Robert “KKK” Byrd?

By William Teach June 25, 2015 – 7:10 am

The “National Conversation” has now spread out from just the Confederate Flag

(Fox News) The debate over the rebel flag that began anew after last week’s church shootings in Charleston, S.C., has morphed into a full-blown Confederate controversy.

While Stars and Bars have long been associated by many with slavery, the latest campaign to remove Confederate emblems has extended beyond the flag to statues, memorials, parks and even school mascots. Never has the debate over what symbolizes heritage and what stands for hate covered so much ground, as efforts to strip icons that have been part of the visual and cultural landscape of the South for decades are afoot at national, state and local levels.

In one Arkansas town, the school board voted unanimously Tuesday to ban the song “Dixie” for the next school year and phase out “Rebel,” the school’s mascot.

Harry Reid linked the Charleston shooting with gun control and the flag. What about renaming the UNLV Running Rebels in his home state of Nevada? Yes, it has a link to the Confederacy, not through action, as Nevada had no part in the Civil War or the Confederacy, but, simply a cool name.

In Maryland, Baltimore County Executive Kevin Kamentz is pushing a plan that would change the name of Baltimore’s Robert E. Lee Park. A spokesman for Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake told The Associated Press she supports the name change and is willing to work with the county to find an appropriate alternative.

Baltimore has more important things to worry about, like crime, murder, violence, mobs, declining property values, tax base, and education, and so much more, but, hey, why not.

Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers in Tennessee have called for a bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Confederate general and early Ku Klux Klan leader, to be removed from an alcove outside the Senate chambers. The bust, with the words “Confederate States Army” engraved on it, has been at the state Capitol for decades.

A group of Kentucky officials, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, want to kick a statute of Confederate leader Jefferson Davis out of the state Capitol rotunda, and activists in Minnesota have demanded a lake named after John C. Calhoun, a senator and vice president from South Carolina who supported slavery, be re-christened.

Should we remove George Washington and Thomas Jefferson from Mount Rushmore? How about all statues, streets, monuments, and references to the two? Despite being opposed to slavery, they had been slave owners at one time.

Better yet, why are we not calling for the removal of all things named after Robert “KKK” Byrd (Democrat), as well as any and all statues? The man was an actual high ranking member of the KKK. Fire Andrea Mitchell notes

What’s more offensive? A KKK Grand Kleagle like Democrat Robert Byrd, or a Confederate flag that was on top of the General Lee in the Dukes of Hazzard? Andrew Wilkow has started a petition at change.org to have Robert Byrd from the public space, road ways and government buildings (including schools). The petition to get rid of Robert Byrd from public spaces has been up less than an hour at the time of this post and already has over 100 signatures.

Byrd made many racist pronouncements. He was a virulent racist. Let’s remove all references to him.

How about John F. Kennedy? He voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act. He refused to send in federal troops to enforce desegregation. He has a mixed record on civil rights, but, hey, it’s the bad things that count. We should remove all statues and such in his name. Hey, get rid of the eternal flame and memorial to this raaaaacist.

Kevin D. Williamson wrote about officially having reached peak leftism. I disagreed

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/613859073654714368

It’ll never end. They always want more more more. It started with a shooting, and rather than focusing on the racist murderer, they focused on a flag, with help from some Republicans. Then they move to other related notions. Then bring in other things. It’s always something. Give an inch, they take a mile. It never stops. Till they realize that their peak leftism actually harms them in their own lives.

They are coming after the American Flag. Gone With The Wind. Aunt Jemima pancakes and syrup, Uncle Ben’s Rice, Chiquita Bananas’ Miss Chiquita, the ice cream truck song, and The Washington Redskins

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Why Are We Not Removing All Things Related To Robert “KKK” Byrd? »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Greens Aren’t Particularly Happy About Biofuels

By William Teach June 24, 2015 – 7:01 pm

And, unsurprisingly, is super expensive. The road to Hell (and economic disaster) is paved with good intentions

(NY Times)  Now, environmental experts are suggesting that some parts of the strategy are, at best, a waste of money and time. At worst, they are setting the United States in the wrong direction entirely.

That is the view of some of the world’s top environmental organizations, including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club. On Tuesday, they argued in a letter to the White House that allowing the burning of biomass to help reduce consumption of fossil fuels in the nation’s power plants, as proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, would violate the Clean Air Act.

It’s also the view of economists from the University of Chicago and the University of California, Berkeley, who on Tuesday released the disappointing results of a field test of the federal Weatherization Assistance Program, the government’s largest effort to improve residential energy efficiency.

It turns out that burning biomass — wood, mainly — for power produces 50 percentmore CO2 than burning coal. And even if new forest growth were to eventually suck all of it out of the atmosphere, it would take decades — perhaps more than a century — to make up the difference and break even with coal.

This is actually a big problem in Europe, where the draconian “climate change” regs and laws has resulted in more people burning various forms of biomass. You know, like our ancestors did before modern types of energy production were developed.

What this evidence suggests is that climate change strategies too often lack strong analytical foundations, and are driven more by hope than science. Policy makers would be making a mistake to proceed as if their favored methods are working, when the data shows they aren’t.

You don’t say.

The task of replacing the world’s entire energy system within the next few decades requires experimenting intensely along many technological avenues, learning quickly from failures and moving on. Yet too often the goal of bringing the world’s carbon emissions under control is put at the service of other agendas, ideological or economic, limiting the world’s options.

You don’t say.

The King Canute strategy cannot protect us and our children from climate change. We need experimentation that will deliver genuine breakthroughs. And that requires putting wishful thinking and phobias aside and letting science guide the way.

Whether you agree with anthropogenic climate change or not, we do need to invest in research for more viable, more stable, inexpensive, easily obtainable, and cleaner energy sources. Unfortunately, we keep doing the same over and over, which tends to serve an ideological cause, as well as serving the cash flow to ideological groups and big money political donors.

Read: Surprise: Greens Aren’t Particularly Happy About Biofuels »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 24, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible greenhouse gas outputting refrigerator, which should be banned for Everyone Else, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is protein wisdom, with a post on Obama’s march to get Iran the bomb.

Read: If All You See… »

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

NY Times Discussion: To Fight Hate, Eliminate Free Speech

By William Teach June 24, 2015 – 10:06 am

The voices of Progressivism (nice fascism). This comes on the Room For Debate page, and, of course,

It’s become clear that the man who is accused of slaughtering nine people in a historic black church in Charleston, S.C., had becomederanged by racial hatred, and was inspired by organized groups who shared his views. Since 9/11, national security agencies have focused on Muslim terror threats from abroad. But the threat of domestic hate groups has grown as government resources to combat them have shrunk.

How should we deal with the threat of rightwing extremism?

Is there any point in delving into all the left wing extremism, the violence, the threats, the fact that so many of these domestic murderers share many beliefs with Progressives? Na. We know it, Leftists are in denial. The NY Times will never admit it. But, let’s consider that 4 out of the 5 Leftists involved with this debate call for suppression of free speech and thought. For the most odious, we do not even have to go beyond Jessie Daniels’ headline

Restrict White Supremacist Hate Speech Online

A clear violation of the 1st Amendment. Mark Pitcavage starts down the right road, then goes off the tracks

Rightwing extremism takes many forms and its adherents engage in many activities, from spreading propaganda to major acts of terrorism. The most effective strategies for responding to these activities involve exposing and countering them, while respecting constitutional boundaries.

As a general rule of thumb, the best response to hate speech is more speech. The First Amendment protects freedom of expression, including hate speech. But people have a right to speak out when they encounter hate: Whether in town halls or on social media, they can drown out the voices of hate and anger. People of goodwill outnumber extremists.

The best response to criminal conduct is effective law enforcement action. When someone engages in bias-motivated violence, law enforcement should enforce hate crime laws. Currently, 45 states and the federal government have hate crime laws on the books but some, including South Carolina, do not. Accurate hate crime reporting is also a must.

Criminalizing thought. Then we have Cornell William Brooks

Five states, including South Carolina, do not have hate crime legislation on their books. All states should have hate crime laws that impose harsher penalties for crimes motivated by a victim’s race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, color, national origin or age.

We need to engage faith communities, business communities and our civic organizations in a robust campaign to combat symbols used by hate groups. Whether for the Confederate flag that flies in front of the American flag at the South Carolina state house or the Confederate flag embedded in the state flag of Mississippi, we must demand an unqualified rejection of such symbols of hate and call on Americans, as both citizens and consumers, to boycott companies that support these symbols as well.

So, enforcing thought crimes and banning certain symbols. Remember, it’s Free Speech to trash, jump on, and burn the U.S. flag, but Free Speech should be stopped for things like the Confederate flag. But, hey, if Mr. Brooks wants to talk about hate, as part of his job with the NAACP, what about charging all those Blacks involved in 50% of the murders, an a goodly chunk of other violent crime, as haters?

William Braniff also starts strong, then finishes with a whimper

Between 1990 and 2013, there were 155 ideologically motivated homicide events committed by far-right extremists in the U.S., killing 368 individuals. From 1995 to 2010, there were 239 arson and bombing attacks committed by the ecoterrorism groups Earth Liberation Front (E.L.F.) and Animal Liberation Front (A.L.F.), approximately 90 percent of which targeted businesses and private homes. And between 1980 and 2013, there were 196 failed and foiled plots associated with Al Qaeda. (In addition, NBC news recently cited a statistic, alleging that 52 U.S. citizens and/or permanent residents have been charged with supporting the Islamic state over the last 15 months – a significant uptick in arrests).

Oh, look, lots of Left wing attacks.

In all of these cases, community-based approaches to countering violent extremism have an important role to play. For instance, Dylann Roof’s acquaintances were generally aware of his racism but were not primed to take it seriously and direct him to an intervention program. It is also possible that existing programs, such as those addressing gang violence, school violence or violent Islamist extremism were seen as the wrong fit for Roof’s issues.

Once we acknowledge that rightwing extremism is among the many forms of violent extremism tearing at the fabric of American society, raising awareness and developing community-based prevention, intervention and rehabilitation programming are the next steps in minimizing the threat.

So, not only deeming thought crimes and restricting free speech, but forced rehabilitation.

Liberals shouldn’t forget the old saying: “Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.” And their fascistic anti-free speech/thought prescriptions would certainly come back and bite them in the ass.

Read: NY Times Discussion: To Fight Hate, Eliminate Free Speech »

Posted in Liberal World | 37 Comments | Trackback URL

Harry Reid Calls For Expanded Background Checks, Explains How Democrats Hurt Blacks

By William Teach June 24, 2015 – 8:14 am

Never let a good crisis go to waste

(The Hill) Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called Tuesday for Congress to expand background checks for gun purchases in the wake of a shooting in Charleston, S.C., last week that left nine dead.

“The United States is the only advanced country where this type of mass violence occurs,” Reid said from the Senate floor. “Let’s do something. We can expand, for example, background checks. … We should support not giving guns to people who are mentally ill and felons.”

Of course, that part about mass violence has already been proven a lie. The Hill forget to tell us what those actual checks are. Politico expands

The Senate’s top Democrat also touched on the issue in a floor speech earlier Tuesday, citing several mass shootings in the United States within the past six years. He called for background checks that would prevent the mentally ill and people with criminal records from buying firearms.

Felons are already barred from purchasing/possessing a firearm. Many with mental illness are, as well. Perhaps Senator Reid’s official website will provide more details

We can expand gun background checks and prevent the mentally ill and criminal from buying guns. Is that asking too much? Couldn’t we at least do this little thing to stop people who are mentally ill, people who are criminals from purchasing guns? The people support it. It has bipartisan support. Americans overwhelmingly agree that those who are mentally ill or are felons should not be able to buy guns. We should act to save lives by expanding background checks.

I guess not. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. What criminal backgrounds? Should those with non-violent misdemeanors be barred? How about those who got a speeding ticket? A DUI? What mental health? Insomnia? An eating disorder? What? Interestingly, Reid mentions Fort Hood, without mentioning Islamic jihad, and the Navy Yard shooter, who completely failed the federal background check for a security clearance. And, he goes down other roads

One cannot ignore this underlying issue. It deeply troubles our nation. Hatred and bigotry persist. The harsh realities of hatred and bigotry in this country in addition to the consistent lack of opportunity in communities of color have led far too many men and women of color to feel as if their lives do not matter. It’s easy to feel that your life does not matter when the odds are stacked against you on every hand.

Here are some facts African-Americans face on a daily basis:

  • Nearly half of all African-American families have lived in poor neighborhoods for at least two generations, compared to just 7 percent of white families.
  • African-American men are far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes, and sentenced to longer prison terms than white men, 10 percent longer for the same crimes in the federal system. In the state system the numbers are more skewed than that.

These facts alone illustrate that countless men and women face unprecedented challenges and are still judged by the color of their skin and not the content of their character. We have a moral obligation to change these realities. We must do everything within our power to ensure that all Americans know that their lives matter. That means standing for what is right, calling out bigotry and hatred when it’s seen and felt and then taking action to address this bigotry.

This coming from a leader for a Party that sees people, especially Blacks, simply as a large voting block to be pandered to, a Party whose policies have left Blacks stuck in those same ghettos. Those Black men being stopped and searched are typically within Democratic Party run stronghold cities. Why is it that the majority of crime in big cities, which tend to be Democratic Party strongholds, is perpetrated by Blacks, particularly Black men? Why are Blacks typically the vast majority of those who are murdered (by other Blacks) in these Democrat cities? Why are Blacks living in these poor neighborhoods in Democratic Party cities? Sure seems like Democratic Party has utterly failed the Black community, wouldn’t you say?

Read: Harry Reid Calls For Expanded Background Checks, Explains How Democrats Hurt Blacks »

Posted in Democrats | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Normal People: We Can Now Save The Planet From Hotcoldwetdry By Eating Our Dogs

By William Teach June 24, 2015 – 7:44 am

Hey, you know how I link dogs being evil in relation to “climate change” in my If All You See posts? Heck, I did it Tuesday, and I hadn’t even run across this article till several hours after I set the IAYS post to auto-post. Usually, though, the bat-guano insane member of the Cult Of Climastrology isn’t writing at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), as Anna Maria Tremonti does, giving time to a lunatic in print and on the radio

Environmental impact of pets may mean it’s time to ‘eat the dog’

There are about 35 million Canadians… and about 14 million of our best friends, living a fairly pampered existence. But our dogs and cats are cherished companions that are rarely factored in when we talk about what needs to be done to combat climate change.

And certain voices are trying to change that — by calling attention to just how much of an ecological pawprint, those cats and dogs can have.

Robbie Parks is a climate physicist and epidemiologist sounding the alarm. He points out that our pets are methane-producing, meat-eating drags on the planet and the time may have arrived for drastic measures.

In fact, he says, the time may even have arrived to eat the dog.

I’d usually include a facepalm gif, but, at this point, this is beyond the normal unhinged behavior and rants of Warmists.

BTW, make sure to contact the CBC: “Send us an email, find us on Facebook and also on Twitter@TheCurrentCBC.” Let them know how insane this is. But, hey, EPA head Gina McCarthy apparently thinks this is normal behavior

(Daily Caller) EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told an audience Tuesday gathered at a White House conference “normal people,” not “climate deniers” will win the debate on global warming.

“But in any democracy, it’s not them that carries the day,” McCarthy said. “It is normal human beings that haven’t put their stake into politics above science. It’s normal human beings that want us to do the right thing, and we will if you help us.”

How soon till these “normal human beings” call for eating people? Many have already proclaimed cannibalism is coming due to Hotcoldwetdry.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Normal People: We Can Now Save The Planet From Hotcoldwetdry By Eating Our Dogs »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If You See Animals In Different Places, It Means “Climate Change”

By William Teach June 23, 2015 – 3:27 pm

This article actually follows on the heals of the one on bread from this morning

This article is part of Climate for Change, a Fairfax Media series on global warming. Full coverage can be found here. Follow our coverage on Facebook.

Let’s not forget that when the Warmists say climate change, they mean mostly/solely caused by Mankind

(SMH) You’re probably familiar with celebrity selfies, or those posted on Facebook by your friends, but soon the internet will be flooded with nothing less than … animal selfies.

Of course, these animals don’t know they’re being filmed by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage’s remote-sensing cameras placed in state nature reserves.

Some of these candid moments are sure to go viral now that the office has partnered with the Australian Museum to put the footage online in August so the public can help identify the animal striking a pose.

Projects like WildCount increasingly rely on interested citizens to gather information about their local surroundings. The observations, when collated, can be used to monitor the condition of ecosystems, the movements and behaviour of species and to predict how they might adapt or succumb to climate change.

“One of the features of climate change is that you start to see animals or plants in locations that you wouldn’t have expected previously. By having citizen scientists you’ve got a much better geographic dispersal,” said Kate Wilson, the executive director of science at OEH.

Interesting. Are Warmist positing that animal life has always been static? That life has always been in exactly the same place always? Talk about anti-science folks.

Read: If You See Animals In Different Places, It Means “Climate Change” »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 23, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible dog sucking up valuable resources, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Maggie’s Farm, with a post on Dolezal funny pages.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Bummer: Climate Change Could Maybe Possibly Mess With Your Bread

By William Teach June 23, 2015 – 10:18 am

Total doom!

What climate change will do to your loaf of bread

If the promise of higher temperatures, rising sea levels and more frequent natural disasters doesn’t convince you of the urgent need for the world to act on climate change, maybe this picture above will.

This is what global warming will do to your loaf of bread.

On the right is a loaf made from grain grown in today’s climate conditions. On the left is a loaf made from grain that sprouted in concentrations of carbon dioxide that are expected by mid-century if greenhouse gas emissions aren’t reduced significantly.

So this is 2050 bread. It was baked at the Australian Grains Free Air COâ‚‚ Enrichment facility (AgFace) in Victoria by a research group studying the effect elevated carbon dioxide will have on crops such as wheat, lentils, canola and field pea.

Or, it could be that they’re bad bakers.

AgFace leader Glenn Fitzgerald said the effect of high carbon dioxide on grains is complex. On the one hand, it makes plants such as wheat and canola grow faster and produce greater yields but, on the other hand, they contain less protein. Elevated carbon dioxide also alters the ratio of different types of proteins in wheat, which, in the case of bread, affects the elasticity of dough and how well a loaf rises.

“We don’t understand completely why that’s the case,” said Dr Fitzgerald, a senior research scientist with the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources.

Huh. Imagine that.

Read: Bummer: Climate Change Could Maybe Possibly Mess With Your Bread »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: They’re Now Going After Mississippi Flag

By William Teach June 23, 2015 – 8:12 am

Since the Charleston shooting, many people with an axe to grind have decided to Blame the Confederate flag (any version), and Republicans have been quick to comply. As Jazz Shaw wrote Sunday, you will be made to care…about the Confederate Battle Flag, a play on Erik Erickson’s posts about being made to care about gay marriage. Now

(AP) A top Mississippi lawmaker said Monday that the Confederate battle emblem is offensive and needs to be removed from the state flag.

House Speaker Philip Gunn became the first top-tier Republican to call for a change in the flag, which has had the Confederate symbol in the upper left corner since Reconstruction.

“We must always remember our past, but that does not mean we must let it define us,” Gunn, a leader in his local Baptist church, said in a statement. “As a Christian, I believe our state’s flag has become a point of offense that needs to be removed. We need to begin having conversations about changing Mississippi’s flag.”

Mississippi and Tennessee officials are grappling with whether to retain Old South symbols, even as South Carolina leaders are pushing to remove a Confederate battle flag that flies outside the statehouse there.

Mississippi voters decided by a 2-to-1 margin in 2001 to keep the state flag that has been used since 1894. It features the Confederate battle emblem — a blue X with 13 stars, over a red field.

A couple of points: after deep reflection, I would agree that the Confederate flag should not be flown over government buildings, nor be a part of any official flag. We don’t fly the British flag, do we? Nor should we be flying the flag of any other country on government property. And, certainly, at a government level, the Confederate flag does have part of its background in slavery.

But this will not stop there. Walmart has stated that they will no longer sell the Confederate flag. Certainly, pressure will be placed on any business that sells them. License plates with the flag will be attacked. Because people have been Offended, there will be a push to have the Confederate Flag, in any form, banned.

I wonder how these same Offended people would respond if the Islamic flag, linked to slavery, mass killings, jihad, Sharia law, abuse of women and gays, misogyny, and so much more, was banned?

Should we ban all versions of the Black Power flag, which is about Black supremacy?

For most who fly the Confederate flag in some form, it has nothing to do with slavery, white power, or anything negative. It’s about Southern pride, being proud to be a Southerner, in the same way Liberals are uber-proud to live in big cities. And vote Democratic Party.

Perhaps we should ban the use of the Democratic donkey, which, while not an official symbol of the Democratic Party, has its roots in Northern anti-Civil War Democrats (Copperheads). Since they had that opinion, wouldn’t that make them pro-slavery? So, the Dem donkey is a symbol of white supremacy.

Furthermore, we should ban the Democratic Party, which stood overall for slavery. Democrats were the Party of the South for a long time, until the Reagan revolution (and, no, the Southern Dems didn’t just become Republicans), and were the ones pushing Jim Crow and Segregation. A goodly chunk, both Northern and Southern Dems, were against the various Civil Rights Acts. So, ban the Democrats. Hey, you guys can’t have it both ways.

Read: Surprise: They’re Now Going After Mississippi Flag »

Posted in Current Affairs | 40 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove