.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Thursday, December 08, 2016


It's the most wonderful time of the year.

Labels: ,


War on Cops update

Georgia cop killed, 1 seriously injured in shooting

Manhunt under way

The shooting unfolded just after 9:30 a.m. at the Country Club Estates apartments. The Americus officer went to the complex on a domestic disturbance call and the GSW officer arrived as backup, Scott told WGXA.
A pattern is emerging: police arrive responding to a domestic disturbance and are shot, often in the head.   Once is an accident, twice is coincidence, a third time is a pattern.


Minguell Kennedy Lembrick, 32, is the suspect believed to have shot two officers.

Minguell Kennedy Lembrick, 32, is the suspect believed to have shot two officers.




When white supremacy was a real force, the Democrats were doing it. Now that it's a spent force, they're trying to blame it on the right.

The Democrats have always been the party of racism and bigotry, and today is no different. High-level democratic officials privately use slurs to describe blacks, Hispanics, and even Catholics, but publicly shift blame to Republicans.

Dinesh D'Souza exposes their con on Varney & Co.. Watch now:

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, December 07, 2016


Old Andrew Breitbart vs. The Arrogant Bastards

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, December 06, 2016


How the Left Strangled Itself With Identity Politics

Still scratching their pointy heads over losing an election they were certain that history had preordained them to win, the Democrats are blaming everything except their own stupidity and arrogance.

The intersectional house of cards has fallen. Every maladjusted minoritarian mini-tyrant in the country is freaking the frick out that their ragged, patchwork coalition of misfits is crumbing before their eyes. From coast to coast, every HIV-positive mulatto one-armed transgender lesbian midget is suddenly worried that Trump and his supporters in the heartland will become “normalized.”

Read the whole thing.


Monday, December 05, 2016


Hillary's final disgrace

Labels: ,


The Chilling Reason Why Black Lives Matter Memorializes Fidel Castro

Two days after Cuban dictator Fidel Castro bit the dust, Black Lives Matter memorialized him, and the reasons for it are not pretty. Castro killed thousands of his own people, imprisoned many more, caused 1 million refugees to flee to the United States, and even canceled Christmas. But Black Lives Matter celebrated him — because he provided a refuge for cop killers.

Labels: ,


A fitting end

The vehicle carrying Fidel Castro’s remains during his funeral parade broke down yesterday. Soldiers had to push it through the streets.
How symbolic! What could be more fitting, given the broken down nature of the antique Cuban state produced by Castro?
There have been plenty of choice comments on Twitter. Here’s the obvious take in the form of an old joke:
NOTHING in Cuba works. Except the prostitutes.
Here’s my favorite:
Even hell doesn’t want him.
I also liked this one:
For anyone who thinks the embargo didn’t work, show them this picture [of the hearse being pushed] and laugh. YES.
And this:
Wish PM Trudeau would have been there to help push.
And finally:
Fidel never got around to “Universal Auto Care.”
Castro wasn’t funny in life. In death, perhaps he will become something of laughingstock.



Snowflake Millennials Butthurt Over New TV Show Portraying Them as Snowflakes

Labels: ,


My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic


Much to my surprise, I showed up in the WikiLeaks releases before the election. In a 2014 email, a staffer at the Center for American Progress, founded by John Podesta in 2003, took credit for a campaign to have me eliminated as a writer for Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight website. In the email, the editor of the think tank’s climate blog bragged to one of its billionaire donors, Tom Steyer: “I think it’s fair [to] say that, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538.”

WikiLeaks provides a window into a world I’ve seen up close for decades: the debate over what to do about climate change, and the role of science in that argument. Although it is too soon to tell how the Trump administration will engage the scientific community, my long experience shows what can happen when politicians and media turn against inconvenient research—which we’ve seen under Republican and Democratic presidents.

I understand why Mr. Podesta—most recently Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman—wanted to drive me out of the climate-change discussion. When substantively countering an academic’s research proves difficult, other techniques are needed to banish it. That is how politics sometimes works, and professors need to understand this if we want to participate in that arena.

More troubling is the degree to which journalists and other academics joined the campaign against me. What sort of responsibility do scientists and the media have to defend the ability to share research, on any subject, that might be inconvenient to political interests—even our own?

I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied and published on as much as anyone over two decades. My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career.

Instead, my research was under constant attack for years by activists, journalists and politicians. In 2011 writers in the journal Foreign Policy signaled that some accused me of being a “climate-change denier.” I earned the title, the authors explained, by “questioning certain graphs presented in IPCC reports.” That an academic who raised questions about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in an area of his expertise was tarred as a denier reveals the groupthink at work.

Yet I was right to question the IPCC’s 2007 report, which included a graph purporting to show that disaster costs were rising due to global temperature increases. The graph was later revealed to have been based on invented and inaccurate information, as I documented in my book “The Climate Fix.” The insurance industry scientist Robert-Muir Wood of Risk Management Solutions had smuggled the graph into the IPCC report. He explained in a public debate with me in London in 2010 that he had included the graph and misreferenced it because he expected future research to show a relationship between increasing disaster costs and rising temperatures.

When his research was eventually published in 2008, well after the IPCC report, it concluded the opposite: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and normalized catastrophe losses.” Whoops.

The IPCC never acknowledged the snafu, but subsequent reports got the science right: There is not a strong basis for connecting weather disasters with human-caused climate change.

Yes, storms and other extremes still occur, with devastating human consequences, but history shows they could be far worse. No Category 3, 4 or 5 hurricane has made landfall in the U.S. since Hurricane Wilma in 2005, by far the longest such period on record. This means that cumulative economic damage from hurricanes over the past decade is some $70 billion less than the long-term average would lead us to expect, based on my research with colleagues. This is good news, and it should be OK to say so. Yet in today’s hyper-partisan climate debate, every instance of extreme weather becomes a political talking point.

For a time I called out politicians and reporters who went beyond what science can support, but some journalists won’t hear of this. In 2011 and 2012, I pointed out on my blog and social media that the lead climate reporter at the New York Times,Justin Gillis, had mischaracterized the relationship of climate change and food shortages, and the relationship of climate change and disasters. His reporting wasn’t consistent with most expert views, or the evidence. In response he promptly blocked me from his Twitter feed. Other reporters did the same.

In August this year on Twitter, I criticized poor reporting on the website Mashable about a supposed coming hurricane apocalypse—including a bad misquote of me in the cartoon role of climate skeptic. (The misquote was later removed.) The publication’s lead science editor, Andrew Freedman, helpfully explained via Twitter that this sort of behavior “is why you’re on many reporters’ ‘do not call’ lists despite your expertise.”

I didn’t know reporters had such lists. But I get it. No one likes being told that he misreported scientific research, especially on climate change. Some believe that connecting extreme weather with greenhouse gases helps to advance the cause of climate policy. Plus, bad news gets clicks.

Yet more is going on here than thin-skinned reporters responding petulantly to a vocal professor. In 2015 I was quoted in the Los Angeles Times, by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Paige St. John, making the rather obvious point that politicians use the weather-of-the-moment to make the case for action on climate change, even if the scientific basis is thin or contested.

Ms. St. John was pilloried by her peers in the media. Shortly thereafter, she emailed me what she had learned: “You should come with a warning label: Quoting Roger Pielke will bring a hailstorm down on your work from the London Guardian, Mother Jones, and Media Matters.”

Or look at the journalists who helped push me out of FiveThirtyEight. My first article there, in 2014, was based on the consensus of the IPCC and peer-reviewed research. I pointed out that the global cost of disasters was increasing at a rate slower than GDP growth, which is very good news. Disasters still occur, but their economic and human effect is smaller than in the past. It’s not terribly complicated.

That article prompted an intense media campaign to have me fired. Writers at Slate, Salon, the New Republic, the New York Times, the Guardian and others piled on.

In March of 2014, FiveThirtyEight editor Mike Wilson demoted me from staff writer to freelancer. A few months later I chose to leave the site after it became clear it wouldn’t publish me. The mob celebrated. ClimateTruth.org, founded by former Center for American Progress staffer Brad Johnson, and advised by Penn State’s Michael Mann, called my departure a “victory for climate truth.” The Center for American Progress promised its donor Mr. Steyer more of the same.

Yet the climate thought police still weren’t done. In 2013 committees in the House and Senate invited me to a several hearings to summarize the science on disasters and climate change. As a professor at a public university, I was happy to do so. My testimony was strong, and it was well aligned with the conclusions of the IPCC and the U.S. government’s climate-science program. Those conclusions indicate no overall increasing trend in hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or droughts—in the U.S. or globally.

In early 2014, not long after I appeared before Congress, President Obama’s science adviser John Holdren testified before the same Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He was asked about his public statements that appeared to contradict the scientific consensus on extreme weather events that I had earlier presented. Mr. Holdren responded with the all-too-common approach of attacking the messenger, telling the senators incorrectly that my views were “not representative of the mainstream scientific opinion.” Mr. Holdren followed up by posting a strange essay, of nearly 3,000 words, on the White House website under the heading, “An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr.,” where it remains today.

I suppose it is a distinction of a sort to be singled out in this manner by the president’s science adviser. Yet Mr. Holdren’s screed reads more like a dashed-off blog post from the nutty wings of the online climate debate, chock-full of errors and misstatements.

But when the White House puts a target on your back on its website, people notice. Almost a year later Mr. Holdren’s missive was the basis for an investigation of me by Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee. Rep. Grijalva explained in a letter to my university’s president that I was being investigated because Mr. Holdren had “highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke of the scientific consensus on climate change.” He made the letter public.

The “investigation” turned out to be a farce. In the letter, Rep. Grijalva suggested that I—and six other academics with apparently heretical views—might be on the payroll of Exxon Mobil (or perhaps the Illuminati, I forget). He asked for records detailing my research funding, emails and so on. After some well-deserved criticism from the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union, Rep. Grijalva deleted the letter from his website. The University of Colorado complied with Rep. Grijalva’s request and responded that I have never received funding from fossil-fuel companies. My heretical views can be traced to research support from the U.S. government.

But the damage to my reputation had been done, and perhaps that was the point. Studying and engaging on climate change had become decidedly less fun. So I started researching and teaching other topics and have found the change in direction refreshing. Don’t worry about me: I have tenure and supportive campus leaders and regents. No one is trying to get me fired for my new scholarly pursuits.

But the lesson is that a lone academic is no match for billionaires, well-funded advocacy groups, the media, Congress and the White House. If academics—in any subject—are to play a meaningful role in public debate, the country will have to do a better job supporting good-faith researchers, even when their results are unwelcome. This goes for Republicans and Democrats alike, and to the administration of President-elect Trump.

Academics and the media in particular should support viewpoint diversity instead of serving as the handmaidens of political expediency by trying to exclude voices or damage reputations and careers. If academics and the media won’t support open debate, who will?

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, December 04, 2016


Even Kid Rock Gets It


Labels: , ,


The Liberal version of American history

Labels: , ,

Saturday, December 03, 2016


The history of America from the Liberal perspective.

America was founded to destroy “native Americans” and to find a place to invent slavery which never existed before.

These slaves built the country, settled the land, fought its wars and invented everything while white male devils whipped the slaves, oppressed women, keeping them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, lying around idly when not destroying the environment.

Christians are hateful bigots who want to ruin your sex life while atheists are enlightened believers in science and Muslims practice the “Religion of Peace™” while living in fear of religious oppression.

Then these racist, bigoted, homophobic, sexist, drug addled, white, male, Bible thumping, deplorable idiots stole the Presidency from Hillary! and elected Donald Trump who will destroy the world.

And that will be the end of history.

Labels: , ,

Friday, December 02, 2016


The showman president

It’s not that previous presidents haven’t tried. Reagan was good at the speeches, as well as some sweeping gestures (“tear down this wall,” and the firing of the air controllers). Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and George Bush were abysmal; Clinton only so-so (playing the sax on TV comes to mind).

Obama tried and sometimes succeeded, particularly during his first campaign. Remember the Greek columns?

But this is the water in which Trump swims. This is his most comfortable place to be: the showman, in the spotlight. He’s been doing it for his entire life.

That’s one of the reasons Trump preferred enormous rallies, and was relaxed when giving lengthy speeches without a teleprompter and ad-libbing extensively. He likes the spectacle of it all and realizes the important of the gesture and the symbol. And despite his more “presidential” demeanor since his election, I doubt this aspect of his personality will fade during his presidency; au contraire. And he understands the elements of surprise, of timing.

The Trump Carrier episode has many aspects—potential problems, and potential upsides. You can read about a great many of them here. But the saving of the Carrier jobs in Indiana is symbolic, too (although it’s not the least bit symbolic to the workers themselves). Trump is trying to convey a number of things about himself, for example that he keeps his word (something he certainly has not always done in the past). That he cares about the “little people, the forgotten ones.” That he can work a deal, just as he said he could. That he’s a man of action. That he’s a man of quick and decisive and successful action.

Labels: ,


Those open minded Libs persecuting Christians again.

Photo published for BuzzFeed Wants To Destroy Chip And Joanna Gaines For Being Christian
BuzzFeed Wants To Destroy Chip And Joanna Gaines For Being Christian And Wildly Popular

The Horror!
“Buzzfeed has uncovered something many fans will likely want an explanation for,” Aurthur writes, that “something” being that Chip and Joanna, house-flippers extraordinaire, HGTV superstars, and perhaps America’s most beloved married couple, belong to a church whose pastor preaches that homosexuality is sinful....

It’s worth noting that “Christians might believe what Christians have always believed about homosexuality” is not the most intriguing headline in the history of newsworthiness. So why are BuzzFeed and Cosmo making such a big deal over this issue? I think the answer is quite simple: Liberal fans of “Fixer Upper” are in full-blown panic mode after learning that people they’ve fallen in love with are, by their own rules, unlovable.

Just as I knew that only morons would give their kids weird names, they knew that only reprehensible people believe homosexuality is sinful. So when evidence surfaced that a couple they already deemed to be loving, kind, and the cutest couple alive probably believes homosexuality is sinful, they responded by assuming the fetal position and mumbling “I thought I knew you” to themselves, the same thing I was tempted to do when my smart friend dismantled my stupid baby names theory.

But if liberal HGTV lovers are looking for a better response, they’ll find it by getting off the Progressive Expressway at Introspection Boulevard and asking themselves, “What’s more likely, that Chip and Joanna Gaines masterfully tricked me into thinking they were endearing, affectionate, loyal, and devoted people when they were actually sneering, sniveling oppression-demons, or that I was wrong to think that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a hateful bigot?”

The answer to that question should come pretty easily. With a fair amount of honesty, liberals shouldn’t have a hard time telling themselves, “It’s far more likely that the Fixer Uppers are genuinely nice folks than that the duo deliberately deceived me, in the same way that the conservative pastor in my town probably cares about people as much as his congregation’s soup kitchen indicates, and in the same way that my church-going grandmother has probably spent my entire life kissing me because she actually loves me, and not because she wants to distract me from her gay-bashing fists.
Read the whole thing.

Remember when, just the other day: Refusing To Serve Customers You Don’t Agree With Is Suddenly Cool Again

Labels: , , , , ,


"You are safe here in Chicago" he said without irony!

Labels: , , ,


10-Year-Old Sally’s Story: Child Bride, Raped, Beaten – Legal Under Islamic Law

Labels: ,


The 21st-century Democrat Party, basically.

Labels: , ,

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?