Libya Heads Towards Full Blown Civil War, NY Times Drags Trump Into It

By William Teach April 6, 2019 – 11:49 am

Here’s the mess Obama left behind with his foolish Libyan adventure

In Libya, fears of full-blown civil war as fighting nears capital Tripoli

Libya edged closer to full-blown civil war on Friday as forces of an eastern commander clashed with pro-government militias near the capital Tripoli and an effort by the U.N. chief failed to stop the offensive.

A battle for control of Tripoli would mark the most significant escalation of violence in oil- and gas-rich Libya since the toppling of Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi in 2011 following a populist rebellion backed by NATO bombings.

No mention of Obama. Weird, that. Let’s go to the NY Times opinion pages, where they are suddenly cool with American intervention. If they can bash Trump at the same time

Libya Is Entering Another Civil War. America Can Stop It.

…

Ghassan Salame, the United Nations envoy to Libya, had recently urged opposing Libyan factions to come together at a U.N.-brokered national conference in mid-April to lay the groundwork for elections and pull Libya back from the brink. By ordering his forces toward Tripoli when U.N. Secretary General António Guterres was in the city to help organize the national conference, General Hifter has made his disdain for the peace efforts clear.

The septuagenarian commander, who is backed by the United Arab Emirates, France, Egypt, Russia and Saudi Arabia, was aiming to scuttle the conference in a brazen bid for power. But he has encountered more resistance than he expected.

Despite appeals from the United Nations for stronger American diplomatic engagement, especially to restrain meddling by General Hifter’s foreign backers, the Trump administration has long been uninterested in Libya. Recently, it seems to be warming to General Hifter, according to foreign diplomats we have spoken with. Such support from the Trump administration aligns well with the White House’s ties to General Hifter’s backers in Abu Dhabi and Riyadh, and President Trump’s preference for authoritarian leaders.

So, would this mean that French President Macron also has a preference for authoritarian leaders?

A former officer in Muammar el-Qaddafi’s army, General Hifter broke with the dictator in the 1980s and received C.I.A. support before fleeing to Virginia, where he lived for two decades. He returned to Libya shortly before the NATO intervention in 2011 hoping to lead the revolution against Colonel Qaddafi. Sidelined by the rebels, he re-emerged in 2014, waging a battle against Islamists in the eastern city of Benghazi. After years of fighting, he gained control over eastern Libya. Then he set his sights on Tripoli.

Hifter is against the Islamists, including those in Obama’s “junior varsity” ISIS.

Although the United States has officially backed the Tripoli Government of National Accord, continued American ambivalence on Libya or, worse, active support for General Hifter, could push Libya into greater conflict. This disorder could strengthen the Islamic State, which carried out a spate of attacks in Libya last year.

Would that be the Islamic State which rose when Obama recklessly involved America in the 2011 Libyan civil war?

Anyhow, the Times wants Trump to disavow Hifter, get more involved in talk talk talk, and put sanctions on Hifter. Yeah, that should fix the mess Obama left behind.

The United States cannot solve all of Libya’s manifold problems, but the next several weeks offer a crucial window, and decisive American diplomacy could make all the difference. Without it, Libya risks spiraling into wider violence.

Suddenly, Leftists want Trump to become interventionist. And you can bet they’ll bash him if he does.

Read: Libya Heads Towards Full Blown Civil War, NY Times Drags Trump Into It »

Posted in Current Affairs | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Your Burger And Fossil Fuels Addiction Could Make Trees Grow At South Pole And Seas Rise 60 Feet

By William Teach April 6, 2019 – 7:20 am

When most of the coastline is erased, people are zipping around NYC in bass boats, and the South Pole is an exotic vacation spot, blame yourself

A climate change preview: Trees at the South Pole, 60 feet of sea-level rise.

Trees growing near the South Pole, sea levels 20 meters higher than now, and global temperatures 3 to 4 degrees Celsius warmer. That is the world scientists are uncovering as they look back in time to when the planet last had as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as it does today.

Using sedimentary records and plant fossils, researchers have found that temperatures near the South Pole were about 20C higher than now in the Pliocene epoch, from 5.3 million to 2.6 million years ago.

Many scientists use sophisticated computer models to predict the impacts of human-caused climate change, but looking back in time for real-world examples can give new insights.

The Pliocene was a “proper analogy” and offered important lessons about the road ahead, said Martin Siegert, a geophysicist and climate-change scientist at Imperial College London. “The headline news is the temperatures are 3-4C higher and sea levels are 15-20 meters higher than they are today. The indication is that there is no Greenland ice sheet any more, no West Antarctic ice sheet, and big chunks of East Antarctic [ice sheet] taken,” he said.

Fossil fuel burning was pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere extremely rapidly, he said, though it took time for the atmosphere and oceans to respond fully. “If you put your oven on at home and set it to 200C the temperature does not get to that immediately, it takes a bit of time, and it is the same with climate,” Siegert said, at a Royal Meteorological Society meeting on the climate of the Pliocene.

Wait, what? Who was pumping fossil fuels into the atmosphere back then? Is this saying that someone was using fossil fuels as an energy source millions of years ago, or just shoddy writing? Because we all know that the climate was fully natural all those millions of years ago. So, why can’t it be mostly/solely natural now?

About 100 million years ago an even more extreme climate occurred. In the Cretaceous period, carbon dioxide levels were 1,000 ppm. Antarctica still sat over the South Pole, but the region was warm and covered in great forests, the stumps and soil of which have been preserved as fossils in places like Alexander Island.

“If we keep carbon emissions going at the current rate, by the end of the century we will have 1,000 ppm,” said Siegert. The low 280 ppm level of carbon dioxide in the run-up to the industrial revolution was rooted in carbon being removed from the air by plants and animals and then buried. “It formed coal seams, gas and oil fields. And what we have been doing for the last 150 years is digging it all up and putting it back into the atmosphere, it’s crazy.”

First, it is unscientific language. “carbon emissions” is a political advocacy phrase. Second, what caused the CO2 rise 100 million years ago? Did dinosaurs drive pickup trucks? Then never really explain why everything is different now in their attempt to provide a bit of scaremongering.

Read: Your Burger And Fossil Fuels Addiction Could Make Trees Grow At South Pole And Seas Rise 60 Feet »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 89 Comments | Trackback URL

Excitable Democrat House Sues Trump Admin Members Over Border Declaration

By William Teach April 6, 2019 – 7:07 am

This won’t go very well for the Democratic Party run House when video of what’s going on down at the southern border is introduced as evidence, nor the video of the mass migrant caravans traveling towards the southern border

House sues members of Trump administration over ‘sham’ border-emergency declaration

The U.S. House of Representatives is suing members of President Trump’s administration over his national emergency declaration at the U.S.-Mexico border to divert funds for his signature border wall.

The suit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Washington, alleges the administration “flouted the fundamental separation-of-powers principles and usurped for itself legislative power specifically vested by the Constitution in Congress,” Politico reported.

The complaint names as defendants Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, and the departments they oversee. Trump is not named as a defendant.

“The House has been injured, and will continue to be injured, by defendants’ unconstitutional actions, which usurp the House’s appropriations authority and mean that the relevant funds are no longer available to be spent on the purposes for which they were appropriated,” the complaint says.

It also won’t help that the complaint say early and often that this is a “political fight”, which will mean this is simply a difference of opinion, and will make it difficult for them to win. But, the point is most likely to get a judge to rule that construction on a wall must cease till the hearings are over and a final ruling is made.

The complain further spends a lot of time whining about Trump campaigning for a wall and wanting a wall after he won. The judge might be wise to ask why the main focus of the complaint is not a defendant.

House Speak Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced her intention to sue the administration Thursday, the Politico reported.

“The President’s sham emergency declaration and unlawful transfers of funds have undermined our democracy, contravening the vote of the bipartisan Congress, the will of the American people and the letter of the Constitution,” Pelosi said in a statement.

Congress shouldn’t have give the POTUS the ability to do this in the first place, then.

If Nancy and Company manage to win this, then it would be appealed. And expect Trump to continue to slam Democrats as open borders advocates. This suit just gives him more ammunition, which he then tweets, which the media then picks up in an attempt to defend Democrats, which then even more citizens see and wonder “why are Dems against securing our border?”

Read: Excitable Democrat House Sues Trump Admin Members Over Border Declaration »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

We Can Halt ‘Climate Change’ By Challenging The Logic Of Capitalism Or Something

By William Teach April 5, 2019 – 3:21 pm

Remember, ‘climate change’ is a serious scientific subject which has nothing to do with hardcore leftist politics

The only way to halt climate change is to challenge the logic of capitalism
We need to break with a system in which the value of everything is determined by how much money it can make for the wealthy.

Last Saturday, as Brexit continued to dominate the headlines, Momentum activists sought to draw the nation’s attention to a slightly more pressing issue. The group staged protests outside bank branches across the UK to put pressure on financial institutions such as Barclays to stop “financing climate chaos” after a report revealed that the bank is the largest single lender to fossil fuel companies.

And chaos is exactly what we are facing. On current trends, the planet is set to warm by at least three degrees by 2030. At such temperatures the environmental systems that sustain human life would start to collapse. Harvests would fail, water cycles would be disrupted, and extreme weather events would become the norm. Huge swathes of the planet would become uninhabitable, killing millions of people and displacing many more.

Good luck with this. The world’s temperature has gone up, if data is to be believed, by a mere .8C since 1850. Grace Blakeley is talking about over triple that in 11 years (I assume she’s talking Celsius, as this is a UK publication).

But climate change is, and always has been, a class issue. It has been caused by the wealthy, and its effects will fall on the poor. Just 100 companies are responsible for 70 per cent of all carbon emissions. Globally, the wealthiest 10 per cent are responsible for 50 per cent of all lifestyle consumption emissions. In the UK, the top 10 per cent is responsible for nearly 25 per cent of lifestyle consumption emissions, with the bottom 50 per cent responsible for just five.

And if climate change is a class issue, then decarbonisation should be a class project. The only way to halt climate change is to challenge the logic of capitalism itself: that the value of everything – land, knowledge, and even human life – is determined by how much money it can make for the wealthy.

Marx and Lenin would be proud.

But given the scale of the challenge, we must be far more ambitious. Dealing with the existential threat humanity is facing requires the kind of radical state intervention that no liberal government would consider and no international institution would allow: it requires a global green new deal.

Citizens must pressure their political leaders into implementing a just transition towards a zero-carbon economy. This would mean a huge increase in state spending – in the area of 30 per cent of GDP per year – to decarbonise energy and transport infrastructure and boost investment in green technologies. The costs of such a project should be imposed on the wealthy. This will require tax reform, constraints on capital mobility, and the replacement of private financial institutions with green, democratic, publicly-owned alternatives.

Huh. So the government would essentially take over the financial institutions, including banks. Do you trust your money there? And if citizens are stupid enough to demand this kind of authoritarian government, they’ll get what they deserve.

Providing for green growth over the long term would also require increasing public and collective ownership over the most important economic assets. Pension funds must be reformed and democratised so their members can put pressure on private corporations to take climate change seriously. The state should also start to act as an activist investor, using the funds from quantitative easing to buy up corporate bonds and pressuring companies to reduce their emissions. And some industries will need to be nationalised outright to deliver the levels of investment required to make the green new deal a success.

The green new deal must be global – states must work together to achieve these goals. But they will have to do so outside of existing international institutions. The kind of state intervention required to tackle climate change – democratic public ownership over most of the economy, dramatic increases in state spending, and the controls on capital mobility required to achieve this – are not merely frowned upon by the World Bank and the IMF, they are actively prohibited.

It’s almost like this is about politics and not science, eh?

Read: We Can Halt ‘Climate Change’ By Challenging The Logic Of Capitalism Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 5, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle which will kill all the trees, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Sonoran Conservative, with a post on the fun fact of the day, involving coffee.

Read: If All You See… »

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

New Thing That’s Raaaaacist: Time

By William Teach April 5, 2019 – 10:30 am

Are you white and discuss time? Then you’re an evil, horrible person

Rutgers Professor Brittany Cooper: Concept of ‘Time’ Is Racist

Rutgers University Professor Brittany Cooper is back with another hot take. This time, she’s arguing that the modern conceptualization of time is racist.

According to a report from The College Fix, Cooper, who once argued that Jesus was “queer,” spoke with NPR last week about how white people “own time.” In the interview, Cooper made the case that white Americans have solely been responsible for conceptualizing the notion of “time.”

“If time had a race, it would be white,” Cooper said. “White people own time.”

After the NPR host asked her to explain that statement, Cooper offered a vague answer. She argued that Europeans developed the modern attitude about time which is characterized by the amount of time that is spent in leisure.

Yes. So when I say time has a race, I’m saying that the way that we position ourselves in relationship to time comes out of histories of European and Western thought. And a lot of the way that we talk about time really finds its roots in the Industrial Revolution. So prior to that, we would talk about time as merely passing the time. After the Industrial Revolution, suddenly, we begin to talk about time as spending time. It becomes something that is tethered to monetary value. So when we think about hourly wage, we now talk about time in terms of wasting time or spending time. And that’s a really different understanding of time than, you know, like seasonal time or time that is sort of merely passing.

Cooper went on to argue that white people “own” time in a second way. According to Cooper, European philosophers have refused to recognize African history as part of the global historical timeline.

This race baiter has given TED talks on the subject. Unsurprisingly, she’s a professor of women’s and gender studies and Africana studies at Rutgers University, so, three studies which are all about grievances, rather than helping people and making things better. Here’s a snippet from the TED talk as published in NPR

COOPER: Typically, we talk about race in terms of black and white issues. In the African-American communities from which I come, we have a long-standing multigenerational joke about what we call CP time or colored people time. Now, we no longer refer to African-Americans as colored. But this long-standing joke about our perpetual lateness to church, to cookouts, to family events and even to our own funerals remains. I personally am a stickler for time. It’s almost as if my mother, when I was growing up, said, we will not be those black people. So we typically arrive to events 30 minutes early. But today I want to talk to you more about the political nature of time; for if time had a race, it would be white. White people own time.

So, if you show up on time, you’re actually a racist. Good to know.

Read: New Thing That’s Raaaaacist: Time »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 47 Comments | Trackback URL

After New Zealand Shooting, Australia To Ban “Violent Content” On Internet

By William Teach April 5, 2019 – 7:04 am

Like New Zealand, Australia also has massive bans and limits on private ownership of firearms, nor do they have a 1st Amendment like the United States. As the old saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions

Australia To Criminalize Failure To Remove Violent Content From Internet Platforms

Australia’s parliament has passed new legislation to criminalize Internet platforms for failing to remove violent videos and audio, after an Australian gunman livestreamed himself shooting worshippers in two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.

Under the new legislation, social media executives — among other online content or hosting providers — could be imprisoned for up to three years and companies could face penalties of up to 10 percent of their annual revenue if they do not remove violent content in an “expeditious” manner.

The bill passed on Thursday local time with cross-party support but faced criticism, including that it could cause increased censorship and that the process was rushed.

Christian Porter, Australia’s attorney general with the Liberal party, said of the bill, which he said was likely a “world first,” was a direct response to footage of the terror attacks in New Zealand that spread across social media. The original video was available on Facebook for about an hour from the beginning of the live broadcast – and viewed by thousands of people – before Facebook removed it. Facebook said it blocked or removed 1.5 million copies over the next 24 hours. (snip)

Porter said the legislation is intended to make companies take responsibility for the spread of video or audio of “abhorrent violent conduct” — defined as terrorism, murder, attempted murder, torture, rape and kidnapping.

I’m sure we can all agree that those are pretty bad, right? There’s also like a gazillion (slightly more than a shitload) of videos on the web right now.

Arthur Moses, president of the Law Council of Australia, told the AP that the legislation could have an impact on online business investment and lead to media censorship.

“Media freedom and whistleblowing of atrocities here and overseas have been put at risk by the ill-informed livestream laws passed by the Federal Parliament,” Moses said.

Scott Farquhar, CEO of Sydney-based software company Atlassian, said the bill would make any person working at a company that allows uploads of videos or images “guilty until proven innocent.”

“They need to violate users’ privacy to police this,” he wrote on Twitter.

The question needs to be asked, what next? The law is cool with allowing violent content in the news and for artistic purposes, meaning TV shows and movies. What about video games? Will they be targeted?

And what happens next? What do they ban? The law itself is very vague, so, do they crack down on things that are mean? There’s always mission creep from Government. And what will citizens do about it? That’s one reason we have a 2nd Amendment, to protect the measures in the 1st. Sure, you might not win against the government, which has tanks and such, but, you can try. And when we band together, we can.

Read: After New Zealand Shooting, Australia To Ban “Violent Content” On Internet »

Posted in Current Affairs, Progressive Goals | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

AOC, Who Won’t Force Vote On Green New Deal, Compares It To Civil Rights Fight

By William Teach April 5, 2019 – 6:49 am

Seriously, if this is so darned important, why is she not out there demanding a vote on it daily? Why is she not slamming Nancy Pelosi for refusing a floor vote? Why did she throw a fit when the Senate voted on it, and not take the 43 Democrats who voted “present” to task?

Ocasio-Cortez To Critics Of Green New Deal: “I Pity You For Your Role In History Right Now”

On Instagram Live Wednesday night, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spoke to critics who laugh and make jokes about her often-repeated statement that “we have twelve years left to cut emissions by at least 50%” to stop the most devastating effects of climate change.

“For everyone who wants to make a joke about that, you may laugh, but your grandkids will not,” she warned. “So, understand that the internet documents everything.”

So, understand that the internet documents everything.

You know, you want to look about, you want to talk about looking at the back of history, looking backward?

You look back and you open history books on the civil rights movement, and you see those folks who are protesting against the ability for African-Americans and black Americans to have the right to vote, and they would hold up these bigoted signs, and they would hold up signs that said things like ‘what about white rights?’ and all of this stuff, in the 1950s, 1960s.

So, if it is that important, why not demand a vote? If it’s so important, then why is she making this proclamation while munching on popcorn, drinking wine, and putting together a piece of furniture from IKEA (and having no screwdriver)?

She continues

So just know that in the present day there a lot of people who hide the fact that their families and that their grandparents fought against principles of equal rights in the United States. Not 100 years ago, not 80 years ago, but in this generation’s lifetime.

So just know that while a lot of people can hide that their grandparents did that in the civil rights movement, you should also know that the internet documents everything. And your grandchildren will not be able to hide the fact that you fought against acknowledging and taking bold action against climate change.

And for those of you who are trying to mock and delay this moment, I mean, I just feel bad for you. I pity you for your role in history right now.

First, it was mostly Democrats who fought against the Civil Rights legislation, who lionized a former high ranking KKK member in the Senate, and then turned around and found a way to get the black vote while keeping blacks down in poverty in inner cities.

Second, if she won’t demand that the GND be given a vote and implemented, then she is what she calls a climate delayer, and she should pity herself. Or, perhaps she was just drunk and exhausted from doing minor manual labor.

Read: AOC, Who Won’t Force Vote On Green New Deal, Compares It To Civil Rights Fight »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Feminists Say It’s Now OK To Stare At Breasts

By William Teach April 4, 2019 – 4:08 pm

In fact, it seems as if they want us to stare at female breasts (via Twitchy)

From the article

Giant inflatable breasts were installed across the city of London on Monday in an effort to destigmatize breastfeeding.

According to HuffPost UK, four giant inflatable breasts of varying sizes and colors were installed in different locations across the town on Sunday morning as part of the #FreetheFeed campaign, which aims to remove negative associations from breastfeeding or milk pumping in public.

Tania Boler, CEO of the tech firm Elvie, which created the campaign, told the news publication earlier this week that the effort is an “invitation to everyone to stand with all those women that have felt shamed or confined when breastfeeding or pumping.”

“We know the giant boobs will raise a few eyebrows, but we want to make sure no one overlooks the way that this stigma has been used to repress women,” she continued.

It’s cool to stare now, guys. Because we don’t want to shame women by looking away.

And anyone who calls us out for staring will be told that they are shaming us.

Read: Good News: Feminists Say It’s Now OK To Stare At Breasts »

Posted in Like, Gnarly, Dude | 28 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 4, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is wall meant to keep the rising seas out, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is MOTUS A.D., with a post on feminists being anything they want.

Read: If All You See… »

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