Anti-Semite Ilhan Omar Tries To Explain Difference Between BDS And Sanctions On Iran

By William Teach January 10, 2020 – 10:30 am

Jew and Israel hater Ilhan Omar is a big fan of the BDS movement, not so much with sanctions on the Islamist nation of Iran, which is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers over the past 15 years

Ilhan Omar lies about BDS to explain why she supports sanctions on Israel but not Iran

Rep. Ilhan Omar has resorted to lying in a desperate attempt to explain how she could support the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement against Israel while expressing deep opposition to sanctions on Iran.

As Kaylee McGhee detailed earlier, Omar lashed out at President Trump’s policy of applying “maximum pressure” on Iran through tightened sanctions. “Sanctions are economic warfare,” she fumed.

Yet the statement was particularly incredible coming from Omar, who has been one of the most prominent supporters of the BDS movement. She clearly has no problem sanctioning an American ally, yet she has major qualms about sanctioning the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.

Asked about the double standard by Townhall on Thursday, Omar said, “The BDS movement is a movement that is driven by the people. The sanctions on Iran are sanctions that are being placed to create maximum pressure by a government. That’s very different.”

While it’s true that the “B” aspect of the BDS movement involves private boycotts of Israel, the “S” refers to the ultimate goal of the movement: getting governments to slap sanctions on Israel.

You don’t have to take this from me. Just check out the website of the Palestinian BDS National Committee, which is the coalition of Palestinian organizations that leads BDS efforts.

BDS is all about sanctioning every part of Israel, and is, at it’s root, anti-Jew

It’s impossible to believe that Omar doesn’t understand that government-driven sanctions are the ultimate goal of the BDS movement. The only way the situations are “very different” is that Israel is a Jewish state and Iran has threatened to wipe the Jewish state off the map. And, for an anti-Semite like Omar, that’s the distinction that matters.

Israel is not without faults, but, it is the only democratic nation in the region. They are allies. Iran consistently holds rallies calling for death to the U.S. and death to Israel. Who, really, is surprised that Omar has taken this stance? Remember, she introduced a pro-BDS resolution in the House, which was like “boycotting Nazis”. The House then went on a few days later to pass a resolution against BDS, 398-17. Don’t forget, the cofounder of the BDS movement, who is barred from entry into the U.S., is a Jew hater, and that is really the point of the BDS movement.

Read: Anti-Semite Ilhan Omar Tries To Explain Difference Between BDS And Sanctions On Iran »

Posted in Democrats, Iran, Israel | Comments Off on Anti-Semite Ilhan Omar Tries To Explain Difference Between BDS And Sanctions On Iran | Trackback URL

Oregon Democrats To Give Their ‘Climate Change’ Legislation A Whirl Yet Again

By William Teach January 10, 2020 – 7:05 am

It didn’t work out too well for them the last time, and now they seem to have crafted legislation that satisfies no one

Oregon Dems ready to unveil new climate change legislation

Eager to avoid the acrimony and Republican walkouts that temporarily paralyzed the end of last year’s legislative session, Oregon lawmakers have been busy crafting a new version of their climate change policy in hopes of passing it in the 35-day session that begins Feb. 3.

From Democrats’ perspective, the proposal includes significant concessions to appease critics who claimed the bill would be a disaster for rural Oregon; that it threatened the viability of some of the state’s biggest industrial employers; and that backers were trying to ram a bill through on party lines while ignoring Republican input.

There are already signs, however, that Republicans will continue to satisfy their rural base on the issue. Sen. Fred Girod, R-Stayton, who was invited by Senate President Peter Courtney’s office to contribute to the new concept, said he has abandoned the effort, adding that the concessions “are all fake,” and that he was disgusted by the process.

Climate change activists, meanwhile, worry that backers of the bill overreacted to criticism and so fundamentally diluted the program that it may be worse than doing nothing at all. They also worry a weakened bill would disqualify Oregon from linking its proposed carbon cap and trade market with California’s – a feature of last year’s bill designed to lower costs and keep the program uniform across state lines.

Backers acknowledge that they’ve had to water down the legislation in hopes of getting it passed. But they say the proposal maintains the same emissions caps and will generate the desired pollution reductions in the same time period as last year’s failed House Bill 2020. Senate backers plan to unveil Legislative Concept 19 for their colleagues at a hearing Monday, and stress that it’s a work in progress.

That would be next Monday when we get to see what their little plan is. But, see, those darned rural voters are getting in the way of Fascism, er, progress

“We got the message there was fear out there around HB 2020, particularly in rural areas,” said Sen. Michael Dembrow, D-Portland, chair of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee and co-chair of the Joint Carbon Reduction Committee. “I believe those fears would not have come to pass, that there would have been more benefits than difficulties for rural parts of the state. But we took those fears seriously and addressed them in these changes.”

Here’s an idea: make the Hotcoldwetdry legislation only apply to the cities and areas that vote Democrat. See how they like this in practice

The broad framework of HB 2020 remains in place. That means the bill would establish a gradually declining cap on statewide carbon dioxide emissions. It would also require polluters from the transportation fuels, utility and industrial sectors to acquire “allowances” to cover every metric ton of their emissions. As the supply of those allowances declines over time, the theory goes, the price of allowances will go up and force polluters to clean up — by electrifying transportation, building more wind and solar farms or adopting more efficient production technology.

Or, businesses just leave and go to another state.

Read: Oregon Democrats To Give Their ‘Climate Change’ Legislation A Whirl Yet Again »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Global Warming | Comments Off on Oregon Democrats To Give Their ‘Climate Change’ Legislation A Whirl Yet Again | Trackback URL

Excitable House Passes Concurrent Resolution Demanding Trump Get Approval For Any Iran Attacks

By William Teach January 10, 2020 – 6:56 am

Remember how they did this with all of Obama’s strikes on jihadis in countries throughout Africa, the Middle East, and Asia? How about his Big Libyan Adventure? This is just TDS, with no force of actual law

House passes measure seeking to limit Trump on Iran

The House on Thursday approved a measure aimed at restricting President Trump’s ability to go to war with Iran, a day after a number of lawmakers expressed frustration at the briefing where the administration provided its arguments for a drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

In a largely party-line vote of 224-194, the House passed a war powers resolution that would direct the president to end military hostilities with Iran unless Congress specifically authorizes it or the United States faces an “imminent armed attack.”

The measure would not need Trump’s signature because it’s what’s known as a “concurrent resolution.” But that has also left Democrats open to criticism that the resolution is just a messaging bill since concurrent resolutions are typically nonbinding, though their use to force the end of military hostilities under the War Powers Act is untested in court.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) insisted Thursday the resolution has “teeth” and would send a strong message.

“This is with real teeth,” Pelosi said at her weekly press conference. “We’re taking this path because it does not require … a signature of the president of the United States. This is a statement of the Congress of the United States, and I will not have that statement be diminished by whether the president will veto it or not.”

Except, it has no force of law, as it won’t be sent to the Senate. Congress has the power to declare war. The President is the commander in chief of the armed forces. He (or she, eventually) can take military action without the approval of Congress. Always has and always will, unless they change the Constitution. Remember, Nancy Pelosi had zero problem with Obama not informing Congress about his plan to attack Libya, and said he didn’t their permission.

You know, that was a war. A sustained military engagement with a country.

Anyhow, three Republicans voted for this (Matt Gaetz, Thomas Massie, and Francis Roonie), while eight Democrats voted against it.

“This is a meaningless vote that only sends the wrong message that the House Democrats would rather stand with the socialist base than stand against Iran,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said at his weekly press conference.

Democrats love their meaningless votes, and supporting Iran.

The House may have more votes on Iran in the coming weeks. Pelosi vowed Thursday to vote to repeal the 2002 authorization for the use of military force, which authorized the Iraq War and which the Trump administration has used as legal justification for the Soleimani strike. She has also said the House may vote on a bill to block funding for military action against Iran.

Does Pelosi think this will play well come General Election time? Think that Team Trump and the GOP won’t bring up the Democrats support of Iran?

Read: Excitable House Passes Concurrent Resolution Demanding Trump Get Approval For Any Iran Attacks »

Posted in Democrats, Donald Trump, Iran | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Progressive Minded Washington City May Ban Use Of Natural Gas To Solve Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach January 9, 2020 – 2:41 pm

Looking forward to the resulting freakout when their energy bills skyrocket thanks to their own beliefs

To Fight Climate Change, One City May Ban Heating Homes With Natural Gas

As a progressive-minded city nestled where the Cascade mountains reach the sea, Bellingham, Wash., has long been looking to scale back its contribution to climate change. In recent years, city leaders have converted the streetlights to low-power LEDs, provided bikes for city employees and made plans to halt the burning of sewage solids.

But while the efforts so far have lowered the city’s emissions, none have come close to erasing its carbon footprint. Now, Bellingham is looking to do something that no other city has yet attempted: adopt a ban on all residential heating by natural gas.

The ambitious plan set for consideration by the City Council in the coming weeks had already prompted vigorous debate over how much one small city should try to do to avert climate catastrophe, at a time when the federal government was putting less emphasis on halting the trajectory of rising temperatures. (snip)

In places like the Northwest, which benefits from a robust network of hydro-powered electricity, the move to detach from natural gas may be within reach — but at a cost.

Lots of climate cult cities are considering banning new construction with natural gas. Some have already banned new construction

Bellingham is talking about going even further: banning natural gas heating not only in new construction but also in existing homes and businesses.

The article, and the city council, is rather sparse on what home owners and businesses are supposed to do. It is not exactly cheap to convert gas heating and/or fireplaces and/or water heaters and/or stoves to something else. But, hey, if they are Believers, they will be willing to shell out, right?

Read: Progressive Minded Washington City May Ban Use Of Natural Gas To Solve Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Energy, Global Warming | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 9, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is a sea that will soon rise and kill all the turtles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is America’s Watchtower, with a post on Joe Biden noting that no one understood Obamacare when they voted for it.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

The Squad Members Still Upset Over Targeted Killing Of Suleimani

By William Teach January 9, 2020 – 10:51 am

Where are the Democrats who slam Iran and stone cold terrorist Suleimani? Can’t really find any, and, of course, Squad members are unhinged

(Breitbart) Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, proclaimed on Wednesday that “there was no raw evidence” of an “imminent threat” to warrant the elimination of Iran’s top terror chief, declaring that President Trump “recklessly assassinated” Qasem Soleimani.

Jayapal, upon emerging from a congressional classified briefing on the strike eliminating Iran’s top general, proclaimed that there was “no evidence of an imminent threat or attack” to justify the action against the terrorist mastermind, who directed terrorist proxies abroad. She claimed:

President Trump recklessly assassinated Qasem Soleimani. He had no evidence of an imminent threat or attack, and we say that coming from a classified briefing where again, there was no raw evidence presented that there was an imminent threat.

Well, of course she goes there, because she hates Trump and loves her Islamist buddies in Iran

The Pentagon said in a statement:

General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.

The Pentagon also confirmed that Soleimani approved of last week’s violent attack against the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

She’d rather listen to her friends in the Iranian government

And then there’s Jew hater and terrorist lover Ilhan Omar (via Twitchy)

Read More »

Read: The Squad Members Still Upset Over Targeted Killing Of Suleimani »

Posted in Democrats, Iran, Islamification, RoP | 45 Comments | Trackback URL

German, Canadian Warmists Want To Jail Climate Skeptics

By William Teach January 9, 2020 – 8:10 am

Does this surprise anyone? Many members of the Cult of Climastrology have called for jailing “deniers”, ie, heretics of their cult. Remember that Comrade Bernie called for “bringing deniers to justice”, a phrase reminiscent of taking out Islamist jihadis. His Green New Deal calls for “The EPA’s Office of Civil Rights will step up its investigations into alleged environmental justice violations”. Wrongthink is not allowed (via Watts Up With That? through NoTricksZone)

Downplaying the climate catastrophe endangers human survival – do we have to accept that?

Why the trivialized must not hide behind the fundamental right of freedom of expression

Misleading alleged “studies” or scandal news are still spreading worldwide, the purpose of which is to sow doubts about scientifically proven warnings from climate science. For example, it has been claimed that climate scientists are exaggerating the extent and risks of global warming – in order to secure their jobs and receive more research funding. The aim of such misleading contributions is to continue fossil energy generation and economic activity for as long as possible. The Background section in more detail below .

One of the latest climate science studies at https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252 now foresees the demise of mankind due to global overheating, if the global economic climate gas emissions are not ended within the next 10 years and active return of greenhouse gases is also introduced worldwide using technical methods. But this study painstakingly avoids any wording that could lead to panic.

Mark that prognostication down

It is important, not only in Constance, but everywhere in Germany (everyone should first come to their front door) and finally worldwide, to avert the danger to the best of their knowledge and belief. In the event of a climate catastrophe, the natural sciences provide the best knowledge, but not the trivialists. What the trivialists do can be called sabotage. And sabotage of emergency measures should be punished. (snip)

No change to the Basic Law is necessary, just a further provision in the “general laws” – here in the Criminal Code – something like this: “Anyone who trivializes or prevents the climate catastrophe defense against the climate catastrophe according to the Paris Climate Agreement and its follow-up agreements, denies or prevents the climate catastrophe, will be fined up to 300 daily rates. In the event of a repeat sentence, the sentence is imprisonment .

But, hey, this totally doesn’t undermine freedom of opinion

Such a threat of punishment in no way undermines the fundamental right to freedom of opinion. Also the freedom of opinion has, as already mentioned in the introduction, legal limits (Article 5, Paragraph 2, first half sentence German Law). For example, according to Paragraphs 185 to 187 of the German Criminal Code, insult, libel and slander are also sanctioned, because otherwise peaceful coexistence is not possible.”

As P. Gosselin of NoTricksZone notes

Emergency laws, sabotage, punishment. This seemingly undemocratic argumentation is not entirely new in Germany. The last time it was heard was 80 years ago.

You can bet most Warmists outside of Germany agree with jailing Skeptics for Wrongthink. Oh, look, Jo Nova finds more fun

If anyone should be passionately devoted to free speech, surely it’s journalists. Five years ago yesterday, nine writers, editors, and cartoonists associated with the satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, were slaughtered in Paris. Islamic fundamentalists considered them guilty of blasphemy.

So what did the entire editorial board of Canada’s Winnipeg Free Press newspaper do the day before that anniversary? It loudly called for censorship. It promoted intolerance. It published a lengthy editorial titled Time to silence voices of denial. This isn’t the opinion of a single writer, we’re informed, but an official, “consensus view.”

Most journalists are part of the Cult.

Read: German, Canadian Warmists Want To Jail Climate Skeptics »

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

Washington Post: Proclaiming Trump Victorious On Iran Is Shortsighted Or Something

By William Teach January 9, 2020 – 7:35 am

The Washington Post Editorial Board is just continuing the media policy of slamming Trump and not slamming Iran, because Orange Man Bad

Proclaiming Trump victorious in Iran is shortsighted and premature

THE ESCALATING confrontation between the United States and Iran paused on Wednesday, which, as President Trump put it, “is a good thing for all parties concerned.” Having demonstrated that it can strike Iraqi bases where U.S. troops are deployed with precision, Iran announced that it had “concluded” its response to the killing of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani; Mr. Trump, reporting that no Americans were killed or injured by Tehran’s missiles, set aside the sweeping attacks he had threatened on 52 sites inside Iran.

Mr. Trump’s acolytes quickly proclaimed him victorious for having eliminated the architect of Iran’s foreign adventurism while avoiding a more damaging response. That assessment was premature and shortsighted. Iran’s strikes on U.S. interests and allies will almost certainly continue in the coming months. Unless the Trump administration quickly steps up its diplomatic game, what Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called his ultimate aim — the removal of the United States from the Middle East — could soon be realized in Iraq and Syria.

Um, I’m betting most who aren’t deranged Trump haters, like the WPEB, are glad Trump whacked Suleimani, a man with the blood of hundreds of Americans on his hands. A guy who was a big part of the whole “death to America” crowd in the Iranian Islamist government. A guy who liked to torture children and women. Killing him is rather victorious, in the same way as killing Osama Bin Laden. I don’t remember the WPEB chiding Obama and his acolytes for spiking the football when Obama had him whacked, do you? Most Americans, right and left, celebrated it. They didn’t take the side of al Qaeda and the hardcore Islamists around the world.

But, Orange Man Bad, so, the WPEB has to push ahead with taking Iran’s side. See, we should be talking to them, giving them billions and billions in cash, removing sanctions which allows Iran more money for their anti-American, anti-Israel, hardcore Islamist operations, and allw them to normalize relations. Maybe a deal which would provide them help to build nuclear weapons in 5-10 years

Mr. Trump ought to embrace the pause in hostilities as an opportunity to begin serious negotiations with the Islamic republic. That is the course favored not only by a majority of Americans but also by Mideast allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which have been pressing for restraint. Though he nodded to the idea, saying the United States was “ready to embrace peace,” Mr. Trump also said he would intensify already-massive sanctions on Iran. That campaign of “maximum pressure” has failed to bring about the new nuclear negotiations Mr. Trump says he wants, much less the regime collapse or capitulation his more hawkish advisers hope for. But it virtually ensures that Iranian responses like last year’s attacks on Persian Gulf shipping and Saudi oil fields will continue.

Iran has been the prime aggressor against the U.S. since 1979. What, exactly, are we to negotiate on? They really gave up nothing for Obama’s little deal. And were violating the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action within a year of signing it.

But, hey, Orange Man Bad. Democrats and their pet media should consider that all this support of Iran will show up on the campaign trail. It may not have been Trump’s intention to create a political issue, but, he has one now.

Read: Washington Post: Proclaiming Trump Victorious On Iran Is Shortsighted Or Something »

Posted in Democrats, Donald Trump, Iran | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Gizmado Warmist: The Aussie Fires Aren’t Arson (except for all the arsonists)

By William Teach January 8, 2020 – 3:00 pm

You know the Narrative is in danger when Warmists go off the rails, as witnessed by Gizmado’s Brian Khan

It’s Not Arson, You Absolute Fucking Morons

Australia’s bushfires are a bright red warning sign that the climate crisis is most definitely upon us and worse lies ahead if we don’t curb carbon pollution. That also makes them a bright red warning sign for a disinformation campaign about their causes for anyone looking to maintain the status quo.

After months of hell, coverage of the bushfires has penetrated mainstream conversation around the globe with an uptick in Google search interest, news stories, and Twitter hashtags. Celebrities even used their time at the Golden Globes to outline the clear link between the fires and climate change. It’s an easy one to make since Australia just had its hottest year on record and many areas are going through a record drought as well, and research has shown climate change is already increasing the risk of fire weather in the Land Down Under. Some real Climate Science 101 stuff.

Where’s the proof of anthropogenic causation?

Yet over the past week, a counter-narrative has emerged that no, it’s not climate change. It’s arsonists and nefarious green groups who have pushed to stop back burns and controlled fires that reduce fire risk. While 183 arrests have been made in connection with fires, only 24 people have actually been charged with arson. As for the green group’s thing, that’s just trash as far as I can tell. As someone who had a tweet about the fires “doing numbers” this week, I can attest to hordes of accounts responding with some iteration of these two conspiracy theories or mashing them up to say it’s, in fact, environmentalists who did the arson (which is weird since I thought they made it so that nobody could light fires but OK whatever).

So, wait, people have been arrested and charged for setting fires? Weird. Remember, not all are intentional. Many fires are simply accidents. Many are accidents that could have been avoided. But, hey, this is your fault for that steak you ate the other day.

Read: Gizmado Warmist: The Aussie Fires Aren’t Arson (except for all the arsonists) »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 8, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is a book made from killing a climate saving tree, you might just be a Warmist

IAYS

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on CNN caving to the Covington kid.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove