Dhimmitude: NY Times Doesn’t Want The Muslim Brotherhood Designated A Terrorist Organization

By William Teach February 9, 2017 – 7:50 am

Why? They apparently feel that this would be blaming all of Islam or something, and Liberals seem to get very upset when anyone notes that certain portions of Islam are extremists

All of Islam Isn’t the Enemy

Is President Trump trying to make enemies of the entire Muslim world? That could well happen if he follows up his primitive ban on refugees and visa holders from seven Muslim nations with an order designating the Muslim Brotherhood — perhaps the most influential Islamist group in the Middle East — as a terrorist organization.

Such an order, now under consideration, would be seen by many Muslims as another attempt to vilify adherents of Islam. It appears to be part of a mission by the president and his closest advisers to heighten fears by promoting a dangerously exaggerated vision of an America under siege by what they call radical Islam.

If the NY Times feels that most Muslims are part of the MB, that would mean that most of them are extremists, who believe in the killing of Jews, the destruction of Israel, Sharia law, turning countries into Muslim theocracies bound to a caliphate, and that jihad against infidels is just fine, among other beliefs.

The United Kingdom had no problem designating the MB a terrorist organization, as it is “anti-democratic, openly supportive of terrorism, dedicated to establishing an Islamist government — and opposed to the rule of law, individual liberty, and equality.”

The struggle against extremism is complex, and solutions must be tailored both to the facts and to an understanding of the likely consequences.

The NY Times editorial board apparently has zero facts.

There are good reasons that the Brotherhood, with millions of members, doesn’t merit the terrorist designation. Rather than a single organization, it is a collection of groups and movements that can vary widely from country to country. While the Brotherhood calls for a society governed by Islamic law, it renounced violence decades ago, has supported elections and has become a political and social organization. Its branches often have tenuous connections to the original movement founded in Egypt in 1928.

Oh, brother, we are out in La La Land here. It supports elections in order to get its people in power using the established methods of government, the better to infiltrate and establish its principles. In Western nations, it’s using our systems of government, or “democratic” ideals, our founding documents, our laws, and our social mores against us. Many, many, many of its leaders, and members, still call for jihad and the killing of Jews.

But those advising Mr. Trump seem unwilling to draw distinctions. Stephen Bannon, the chief White House strategist, once called the Brotherhood “the foundation of modern terrorism.” And Frank Gaffney Jr., an anti-Muslim analyst who heads a small think tank, recently told The Times that the Brotherhood’s goals are “exactly the same” as those of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda.

They pretty much are. It’s not just those people who say this. The facts are there.

It is wrongheaded and dangerous to tar all Brotherhood members with one brush. The Brotherhood is associated with political parties in Indonesia, Pakistan, Morocco, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Yemen and even Israel, and runs schools and hospitals. Many of those parties are America’s partners. The governing party in Turkey, a NATO member, also hasconnections to the Brotherhood. If the group is named to the terrorism list, how will Washington continue these relationships without violating the law?

As to the last, Britain doesn’t seem to have a problem, nor do the other countries that have banned it. As to the first line, the NY Times has had no problem tarring others, particularly whites, white men, gun owners, Republicans, and Conservatives, among others, with that broad brush.

Mr. Trump made America look cruel and incompetent in the eyes of the world with his sweeping immigration edict. Now talk of branding the Brotherhood as a terrorist group has fueled darker fears of an administration intent on going after not just terrorists but Islam itself.

Again, if the NY Times believes that the MB represents Islam, then that’s saying that Islam is extremist, as are the practitioners. Discover The Networks has a long piece on the MB, worth the read, as does Counterjihad. The MB official statement in 2015 reads

“It is incumbent upon everyone to be aware that we are in the process of a new phase, where we summon what is latent in our strength, where we recall the meanings of jihad and prepare ourselves, our wives, our sons, our daughters, and whoever marched on our path to a long, uncompromising jihad, and during this stage we ask for martyrdom.” [Ikhwanonline.com, 2015]

The MB is the root of most modern Islamic terrorism, as well as sets the conditions for extremist, repressive Islam. It teaches extremism. A great example is this David Horowitz video, where he engages with a member of the MSA, Muslim Student Association, of which many have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The NY Times EB seems Very Brave in taking the side of a group that kills gays, represses women, and wants to destroy all that the EB members hold dear.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Dhimmitude: NY Times Doesn’t Want The Muslim Brotherhood Designated A Terrorist Organization »

Posted in Dhimmitude, RoP, Wonky Media | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Argue That Climate Models Understate The Problem, And That Climate Models Suck

By William Teach February 8, 2017 – 4:43 pm

On one hand, this is just so typical of members of the Cult of Climastrology: they keep saying that things are worse than they have been saying. Meanwhile, at the same time, they unintentionally tell us they that their whole backbone of “science” has been worthless

Scientists argue current climate change models understate the problem

A new study on the relationship between people and the planet shows that climate change is only one of many inter-related threats to the Earth’s capacity to support human life.

An international team of distinguished scientists, including five members of the National Academies, argues that there are critical components missing from current climate models that inform environmental, climate, and economic policies.

The article, published in the National Science Review, describes how the recent growth in resource use, land-use change, emissions, and pollution has made humanity the dominant driver of change in most of the Earth’s natural systems, and how these changes, in turn, have important feedback effects on humans with costly and serious consequences.

The authors argue that current estimates of the impact of do not connect human variables—such as demographics, inequality, economic growth, and migration—with planetary changes. This makes current models likely to miss important feedbacks in the real Earth-human system, especially those that may result in unexpected or counterintuitive outcomes.

So, not only are the models crappola, they now need to involve Social Justice, which isn’t Science. It’s politics, which dovetails perfectly into what the CoC is all about.

Read: Warmists Argue That Climate Models Understate The Problem, And That Climate Models Suck »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 8, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a world flooded by carbon pollution from Other People, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post explaining why Elizabeth Fauxahontas Warren was smacked down in the Senate.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Will The GOP Use Rule 19 To Push Through Gorsuch To Supreme Court?

By William Teach February 8, 2017 – 10:30 am

Rule 19 is more than just a way to shut down Senators who are being disrespectful to colleagues, as Elizabeth Warren learned Tuesday, as Sean Davis explains. It’s a way to keep debate without invoking the nuclear option. The two speech rule, a way to stop continuous filibusters which can stop Senate business

(Federalist) However, this state of affairs is not actually required by Senate rules, nor by Senate precedents (to understand the distinction between the two, think of Senate rules as a statute and of precedents as case law, which can invalidate laws as originally written). The modern practice of allowing 41 senators to indefinitely obstruct up-or-down votes under the guise of debate is just that: a mere practice, indulged by courtesy. No precedents or rules require this state of affairs to continue. By enforcing Senate rules regarding debate — specifically Rule XIX — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can guarantee an up-or-down vote on Supreme Court nominees without resorting to the nuclear option, which would kill the filibuster and instantly eliminate all debate at the whim of a simple majority.

Rule XIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate plainly states that on any given question, a senator may speak only twice on the same legislative day. This clause is known in Senate parlance as the two-speech rule. No senator may speak more than two times on the same matter on the same legislative day. Here’s the relevant text from the rule:

OK, you can head over to read the whole thing, as well as that relevant text. What it all means is that Mitch McConnell can keep the Senate in the same “day” for days, weeks, even months. Once people have spoken twice, he can force a simple majority vote, and no filibuster can stop it. This was actually used to pass the Civil Rights Act over the (mostly Democrat Senators) filibuster, when the legislative day ended up being 81 days long

Davis wraps it up with

The two-speech rule option provides the best of all worlds by addressing the concerns of both sides of the Supreme Court nomination debate. Instead of nuking debate, the two-speech rule option merely nukes obstruction. And it does so by encouraging debate and by encouraging the input of every single senator.

Current Senate practice empowers a lazy minority by allowing indefinite obstruction without requiring any effort or debate. If voters want a confirmation process that simultaneously encourages debate while limiting obstruction, they should demand that the Senate set the nuclear option aside and invoke the two-speech rule option instead.

That’s a powerful point. Force debate. Of course, Democrats won’t actually debate, they’ll smear and lie and try all sorts of shenanigans. But, Rule 19 will eventually force them to vote.

Read: Will The GOP Use Rule 19 To Push Through Gorsuch To Supreme Court? »

Posted in Constitution, Current Affairs | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Are You Ready For Yet Another Conservative Case For Climate Action?

By William Teach February 8, 2017 – 8:22 am

Here we go again: yet another plan to deal with anthropogenic climate change/global warming/we’re doomed!!!!!!!! from a supposedly Conservative point of view. A plan that proves that some Republicans aren’t Conservative in the least, especially when they go running to the NY Times for validation

A Conservative Case for Climate Action

CRAZY as it may sound, this is the perfect time to enact a sensible policy to address the dangerous threat of climate change. Before you call us nuts, hear us out.

Yeah, it does sound crazy. Several paragraphs are spent yammering on about how Obama did his climate schtick via regulation, and how Trump has promised to reduce regulations.

On-again-off-again regulation is a poor way to protect the environment. And by creating needless uncertainty for businesses that are planning long-term capital investments, it is also a poor way to promote robust economic growth.

By contrast, an ideal climate policy would reduce carbon emissions, limit regulatory intrusion, promote economic growth, help working-class Americans and prove durable when the political winds change. We have laid out such a plan in a paper to be released Wednesday by the Climate Leadership Council.

How will they do this? First, let’s see who these so-called Conservatives are

Our co-authors include James A. Baker III, Treasury secretary for President Ronald Reagan and secretary of state for President George H. W. Bush; Henry M. Paulson Jr., Treasury secretary for President George W. Bush; George P. Shultz, Treasury secretary for President Richard Nixon and secretary of state for Mr. Reagan; Thomas Stephenson, a partner at Sequoia Capital, a venture-capital firm; and Rob Walton, who recently completed 23 years as chairman of Walmart.

Let’s see this plan

First, the federal government would impose a gradually increasing tax on carbon dioxide emissions. It might begin at $40 per ton and increase steadily. This tax would send a powerful signal to businesses and consumers to reduce their carbon footprints.

Yup, government increasing taxes on the private sector and citizens to control their behavior is certainly conservative, amIright?

Second, the proceeds would be returned to the American people on an equal basis via quarterly dividend checks. With a carbon tax of $40 per ton, a family of four would receive about $2,000 in the first year. As the tax rate rose over time to further reduce emissions, so would the dividend payments.

Making citizens more reliant on government is certainly conservative, right? Do the math: the average carbon footprint for each American is over 19 metric tons. So, a family of four would be charged $3,040 to start out, meaning they are paying more in fees/taxes, which doesn’t even account for all the cost of living increases caused by this plan. This is actually the sleight of hand that is being pushed by many hardcore leftist Warmists, such as James Hansen.

The third point is about rebates and taxes on imports and exports, followed by one on repealing regulations made unnecessary by this massive tax and control policy, including the Clean Power Plan.

Republicans are in charge of both Congress and the White House. If they do nothing other than reverse regulations from the Obama administration, they will squander the opportunity to show the full power of the conservative canon, and its core principles of free markets, limited government and stewardship.

It bears repeating: conservative canon doesn’t include raising taxes, which causes a cost of living increase, while increasing the power of the central government over citizens while also making them more dependent on centralized government.

Much better would be a strategy of “repeal and replace.” This would be pro-growth, pro-competitiveness and pro-working class, which aligns perfectly with President Trump’s stated agenda.

This is all pro-bullshit.

Read: Are You Ready For Yet Another Conservative Case For Climate Action? »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Majority Of Democrats Feel Other Religions As Violent As Islam

By William Teach February 8, 2017 – 7:45 am

Democrats always look for some sort of equivalence when they attempt to protect the subsection of Islam which is increasingly violent in the name of Islam. Further, they are quick to blame all of Christianity, Judaism, etc, when something happens, while claiming that any attack by someone yelling “Allahu Akbar!” has nothing to do with Islam. So, we end up with this

(Breitbart) Almost seven out 10 Democrats believe Islam “encourages violence… about the same as other religions,” according to a new CBS poll.

The trusting attitude towards Islam is revealed in the February 2017 poll follows 17 tumultuous years of attacks against Americans motivated or shaped by Islamic ideology throughout the United States—from the 9/11 atrocity to the Pulse nightclub attack in Florida committed by an observant, orthodox Muslim man from a Muslim family.

Merely one-in-seven Democrats believe that Islam is more violent than other religions, such as Christianity, Mormonism, Judaism, and Buddhism. One-in-ten Democrats believe that Islam is less violent that other religions, according to the poll of 1,019 adults, which was taken Feb. 1 and Feb. 2.

In contrast, Republicans have a far colder view of Islam. Sixty-three percent of Republicans view Islam as  aggressive compared to other religions, and only two percent view Islam as more pacific than other faiths.

The specific question asked in the survey was “Generally speaking, do you think the Islamic religion encourages violence more than other religions around the world, less than other religions around the world, or about the same as other religions around the world?” So, the answers are not as bad as they appear, but, this is really an extension of Democrat beliefs that are pro-Islam and anti-every other religion.

Now, is all of Islam violent? No. Of course not. Democrats will make the case that other religions are all equally violent, because crime occurs. They’ll look and say something like “Dylann Roof is a Christian, hence, Christianity is violent!” Here’s the difference: most Christians (and Jews, Buddhists, Mormons, etc) are not committing violence in the name of their religion or as pushed by their religion. Roof didn’t commit murder as pushed by the Bible. The Bible would tell him not to do it. He wasn’t praising God will committing mass murder. They aren’t committing terrorist acts in the name of Jesus and Jehovah. Hardcore radical Islamists are doing it in the name of Islam, Allah, and Mohammad.

They are also doing things like honor killings, throwing gays from roofs, setting people on fire, stoning gays and women, making women 2nd class citizens, whipping women who have been raped, and so much more as told by the Koran, usually explained to them via the Islamic teachers and leaders, including those in the Mosques.

Democrats don’t get it, and don’t want to get it. For whatever reason, they’ve decided to put hardcore extremist Islam on a pedestal, most likely due to early 2000’s Bush Derangement Syndrome, even though Islamism stands against just about everything Democrats say they support, and is competing for authoritarian control the same as the Democrats.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Majority Of Democrats Feel Other Religions As Violent As Islam »

Posted in Democrats, RoP | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

Protesting Enviroweenies Prove Just How Much They Really Care

By William Teach February 7, 2017 – 5:48 pm

Does this really shock and/or surprise you?

Sanitation crews work to remove massive amounts of garbage from DAPL protest camp before spring thaw

Last week, we showed you all the garbage that was left by Dakota Access Pipeline protesters at the Oceti Sakowin Camp.

Now, we’re showing you where all that trash will end up.

Sanitation crews are working hard to dispose of six months’ worth of garbage from a community the size of Wahpeton or Valley City. The mountains of debris need to be moved before the spring thaw occurs.

Making a dent in the immense amount of trash being hauled out of the Oceti Sakowin protest camp is being hindered by the weather. All the garbage that was left behind is now frozen into massive chunks of junk.

In a month, all this trash could become toxic.

“Standing Rock Environmental Protection Agency and Dakota Sanitation are working together to try and advert an environmental tragedy,” says Tom Doering, Morton County Emergency Manager.

They estimate it will take 250 trucks to clean up the environmental mess these little Social Justice Warriors slash environmentalists slash climate change believers have left behind.

Having trouble copying code for the video, head to the link to check the report out.

Read: Protesting Enviroweenies Prove Just How Much They Really Care »

Posted in Enviroweenies | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 7, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a pond that is shrinking from carbon pollution heat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Bizzy Blog, with a post on a law introduced to protect doctors who don’t want to do abortions.

I forgot to mention that that it is Blondes Week. And, remember, all IAYS posts are open to whatever you want to discuss.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Kids TV Shows Are Ignoring ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach February 7, 2017 – 10:30 am

Can’t we just let kids be kids? Is it necessary to indoctrinate them into believing certain political issues? In Liberal World, the answer is no, as Slate tries to out-Salon Salon

Kids’ TV Is Ignoring Climate Change
Shows like Nature Cat and Sid the Science Kid teach children everything about wildlife and the environment—with one glaring exception.

A cheetah can run 70 miles per hour. Venus and Earth are about the same size. Blobfish don’t have any bones.

These are facts I’ve learned from my 5-year-old in the past several weeks courtesy of the science- and nature-themed television shows he loves: Wild Kratts, Nature Cat, Blaze and the Monster Machines, and Octonauts. He is an erupting volcano of scientific trivia right now, so I was surprised the other day when I mentioned climate change and he said: “What’s that?”

After a few more questions, I discovered that he’s never heard any of his favorite science shows mention climate change or global warming. Which is strange, because according to overwhelming scientific consensus, climate change is one of the most important environmental issues of our time. It affects wildlife, natural resources, weather, and human health, all of which are regularly discussed on kids’ shows. My son can tell you everything you ever wanted to know about red pandas, except for the fact that their very existence is being threatened by the changing climate.

This is such a Huge Issue that

I know better than to trust a 5-year-old’s memory, of course, so I reached out to PBS Kids, Nickelodeon, and Disney Junior to see if there was any truth to his claim.

Yes, Warmists are this nutty. This is the garbage that they think is Important. Melinda Werner Moyer is the parenting advice columnist for Slate. Really, do you want parenting advice from someone who is unhinged?

Read: Bummer: Kids TV Shows Are Ignoring ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | Comments Off on Bummer: Kids TV Shows Are Ignoring ‘Climate Change’ | Trackback URL

House Committee Moves Forward With Investigation Into NOAA Climate Manipulation

By William Teach February 7, 2017 – 8:24 am

Members of the Cult of Climastrology will complain about the politicization of science, their typical complaint when government investigates what Warmists are doing, forgetting that government, which is funding a goodly chunk of the research, has every right to investigate what they are funding. Warmists also conveniently forget that they have already politicized the issue, and want the exact same government to ram laws, rules, and regulations down the throats of citizens

(Daily Caller) House lawmakers will renew their long-dormant investigation into the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on the heels of whistleblower testimony that agency scientists rushed a landmark global warming study to influence policymakers.

“The chairman intends to push for responses to his initial requests,” an aide for the Committee on Science, Space and Technology told reporters on a press call Monday, “to uncover exactly what was going on” at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, the committee’s chairman, will “move forward as soon as possible” in asking NOAA to hand over documents included in a 2015 subpoena on potential climate data tampering.

The Warmists are in a bit of a pickle when it comes to all those emails the committee previously demanded

Smith’s investigation largely petered out in late 2015 after the Obama administration refused to hand over scientists’ emails regarding highly-publicized “Karl study,” named after its lead author Tom Karl. Democrats, environmentalists and science organizations joined forces to condemn Smith’s investigation.

Guess who’s no longer in charge? Neither is that lady everyone thought would win.

Over the weekend, Dr. John Bates, the former principal scientist at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., went public with complaints that NOAA scientists put a ‘thumb on the scale’ to get results that showed more global warming since 1998 — a period usually referred to as the “pause” in warming.

“The committee is going to push ahead to gather the emails from NOAA,” the aide said, signalling Smith preferred to see if NOAA would hand over documents the agency withheld from congressional investigators.

I mentioned Bates yesterday. It looks like Smith reads all the climate blogs, as well, because this is not something you will find in the Credentialed Media like the NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, et all.

Bates has put out a second blog post taking each criticism on one-by-one. Critics have yet to address issues of Karl study authors violating NOAA policy on archiving.

Warmists are going to learn that the government will no longer support their manipulation of data, falsifying of data, manufacturing of data, nor their activism.

Read: House Committee Moves Forward With Investigation Into NOAA Climate Manipulation »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove