Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach September 25, 2016 – 9:30 am

Happy Sunday! A gorgeous day in the once and future nation of America. Fall is officially here, the NFL and college football are in full swing, and the NHL is soon. This pinup is by Tatiana Doronino, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. The Daley Gator covers the mental malfunction of leftism
  2. The Geller Report discusses the NY Times providing cover for Islamic polygamy
  3. The Last Refuge has the details on the capture of the (Turkish born) Washington state mall shooter
  4. The Liberty Zone discusses things that want to make her nuke civilization from space
  5. The Other McCain says to never take advice from feminists
  6. The Right Scoop notes that Gennifer Flowers will be Trump’s guest at the debate
  7. Watcher Of Weasels covers Charlotte and the run on guns (which leads to Stately McDaniel Manor)
  8. Western Hero discusses how to fix the police
  9. Adrienne’s Corner covers Ted Cruz and not following your conscience
  10. Bizzy Blog discusses the double standards of Glenn Reynold’s Twitter suspension
  11. Creeping Sharia notes Obama picking Saudi Arabia over 9.11 victims
  12. Fausta’s Blog wonders if candidates should run ads in another language
  13. Fire Andrea Mitchell covers Charlotte thugs loving some Islamic terrorism
  14. Flopping Aces says Libya is Hillary’s biggest albatross
  15. And last, but not least, Jihad Watch notes all those fictional no go zones in Sweden

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, How Could Sexxxxxism Hurt Hillary During The Debates?

By William Teach September 25, 2016 – 8:06 am

The media and their Democrat comrades have long attempted to set the conditions where if Hillary loses, it will be do to outside factors having nothing to do with her. It won’t be due to her being a horrible, horrible candidate. It won’t be because she’s rather boring. Or because people are worried about her health. Or that her polices are bad for the middle and lower classes. Or that people who think she is Obama’s third term, having watched the blase economy, the dictatorial style of Obama, how Ocare is failing, the terrible foreign policy, etc. It won’t be due to her being bad at connecting with people. She just doesn’t have that certain something that people like Bill Clinton, Obama, and others have. Nope. It’s sexxxxxism. Now Anna Waters attempts to say if she loses the debate, it will be due to sexxxxxism

How could sexism hurt Clinton in the debates? These female high school debaters know.

Yes, that is correct, Ms. Waters is actually making the case of sexxxxxism towards Hillary by using high school kids. Nothing says “ready to be president of the United States” like being compared to high school females, because, we all know how stable teenagers (male or female) tend to be.

On the national stage, another woman has been battling the gendered perception of what it is to be “presidential,” both in debates and on the campaign trail. “I just don’t think she has a presidential look, and you need a presidential look,” Donald Trump declared this month of his opponent, Hillary Clinton, the second time in two days he’d expressed skepticism about Clinton’s “presidential” appearance and the umpteenth time Clinton has faced gendered mockery. Her political rivals and a cadre of pundits, on the left and the right, have taken her to task for the way she presents herself in debates and speeches — her voice, her clothing, her level of emotion — in a way that resonates with a group far from the world of national politics: female high school debaters. As a former high school debater who now coaches, I know something about how Clinton will be judged when she takes the debate stage against Trump on Monday night.

Ms. Waters is a junior at Northwestern University. Surprisingly, she is majoring in journalism, not Women’s Studies. Still means she’s a leftist, though. So, of course, this is what presidential looks like

https://twitter.com/BardOfEarth/status/776333841808039937

The female high school debaters I know have been belittled by male opponents and told to shush. Judges and parents call these young women naggy, shrill and even bitchy. They’re told to smile more and sometimes get more in-depth criticism of their hem length than their argumentation. Isabelle Bavis, a junior at Evanston Township High School in Illinois, who has been called “screechy” on ballots, puts it simply: “The language they use to correct us is not the same language used when correcting the boys.”

Welcome to the Real World, honey. Oh, wait, sorry, that was misogynistic. My bad. Well, not really. Anyhow, no worries about Hillary being her typical shrill self. She’s either

or looks like death warmed over

https://twitter.com/wendyvoss/status/778017350985461760

Or her eye is wandering. Or she’s yelling at people. Or, she’s apparently akin to a high school female with raging hormones (whoops, that’s a paternalistic saying), which is exactly what we need for president, AmIRight? Because the opinion piece goes on and on and on like a women in a shoe store (sorrynotsorry), getting to

Many female debaters have learned to modulate their voices and temper their emotions to win within this structure, something Clinton discussed doing in a recent interview with Humans of New York. Ella Fanger, a senior at Oakwood School in Los Angeles, says she has to moderate her tone to resist falling into gendered traps.

Uh, yeah, men do this too. In fact, huge numbers of people do this in all facets of life. There are classes in speech, tone, and boy language modification. Would you buy a car from someone who sounds bored, screechy, obnoxious, or too loud? It annoys the hell out of me when football analysts are constantly talking so loud as to almost be yelling. I rather tune them out. Would you trust your doctor if they were were shrill, male or female? Would you want some who looks like death warmed over touching you?

“Clinton faces similar challenges in terms of trying to both confront stereotypes but at the same time being weirdly beholden to them, because she needs voters to vote for her in the same way I need a judge to vote for me,” Fanger says. “I don’t have full freedom to fight the patriarchy in the way I want to because it’s a competitive activity. I’m in that room to get the ballot.”

Which, come November, is exactly what another woman seeks to do. And whether or not these young debaters want Clinton to be president, they are hoping her candidacy helps change what it means to be a woman in debate — and what it means to be “presidential.”

Let’s boil it down: if she loses, well, it’s that darned patriarchy and sexxxxxism. Not Clinton collapsing on 9/11, not her inibility to walk a flight of stairs without help, and certainly not that she’s just a terrible candidate who would be getting slaughtered if a portion of the GOP hadn’t gotten Donald Trump to be the GOP nominee. This is simply setting the stage for Blamestorming if she blows the first debate.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Say, How Could Sexxxxxism Hurt Hillary During The Debates? »

Posted in Hillary Clinton, Special Snowflake Syndrome | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Want Debate To Include Questions On Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach September 24, 2016 – 1:57 pm

Anthropogenic climate change is an issue that continuously polls last or near last on lists of issues American citizens care about. Raw Story says questions on climate change aren’t sexy enough, so, they are ignored. Nope. Most people just don’t care in the face of real concerns. Which leads to Excitable Greg Sargent at the Washington Post

Memo to debate moderators: Ask questions about climate change this time. A lot is riding on it.

Donald Trump believes climate science is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to rob America blind, and he vows to try to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord immediately upon being elected president. Meanwhile, as Coral Davenport recently reported, world leaders have been trying to figure out if there is a way to lock in major countries behind the global deal before Trump can do that, because such an action could badly weaken the deal’s long term success.

In other words, international leaders are literally scrambling around to salvage the planet’s long-term prospects from Donald Trump. If he were to try to pull us out, it could not only deal a debilitating blow to the deal itself; one expert has warned it could also precipitate a diplomatic crisis.

If only there were an exceptionally high profile setting in which Trump might be pressed to detail his views on these matters.

Obviously, he’s referring to the presidential candidate debate on Monday night, and he wants questions asked (I guess to bore people?)

…the positions of the presidential candidates on climate issues could have vastly more real world significance than they might have four years ago. Take the Paris accord. It’s not clear yet whether Trump could succeed in withdrawing the U.S. from the deal in the short term, but even if he didn’t, there are other ways that Trump could frustrate its progress, simply by refusing to participate in international meetings about it or by refusing to submit reports documenting U.S. contributions to it.

All Trump needs to do is sign a paper that says “The U.S. will not participate in the Paris accord.” It’s that easy, since it is not a treaty requiring Congressional approval, hence, no force of law.

Then there’s Obama’s Clean Power Plan, a rule that imposes targets on states for the reduction of carbon emissions from existing power plants. The plan is currently held up in the courts, but if it ends up proceeding, it will be key to long term efforts to reduce carbon pollution, and to meeting our commitments as part of the global deal. Trump has vowed to repeal the rule, along with untold other regulations, but that might be harder than it looks. Still, there are various ways he could undermine it.

Again, Trump could simply use his pen to wipe it out, since it is not something passed by Congress. And liberals would have no standing to complain, after all the times Obama used executive actions, including those in contradiction to the law.

The debate moderators would do us all a service by prodding the candidates to discuss and illuminate these differences. A lot is riding on them — perhaps even more than on whether Trump comes across as “presidential” and Clinton comes across as “likeable,” if such a thing is possible.

Yes, perhaps they could ask Hillary how her plan will increase the energy costs, food costs, cost of living, remove their liberty, and increase the power of government over everything. How it will put people out of work. So, maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad idea. Trump could frame it all in a manner that will highlight exactly how much the policies of the Cult of Climastrology will hurt average citizens. Perhaps it is high time we actually had this debate beyond the “spreading awareness” stage, and outside of the pages of the Opinion section, where people who write about how we have to Do Something are not only being hypocrites, but make enough money that the policies wouldn’t really harm them.

Read: Warmists Want Debate To Include Questions On Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in Elections, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 24, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a low carbon sailboat cruising the rising seas from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Patterico’s Pontifications, with a post on Cruz endorsing Trump.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Snowflakes Can’t Even Give Up Their Smartphones During A Die In

By William Teach September 24, 2016 – 7:37 am

NC State totally stands in solidarity with things they really do not know about

Would that be in solidarity for those who protested peaceably, or those who looted stores, broke windows, damaged cars, assaulted people, tried to throw a reporter in a burning trash can, etc?

(WTVD) Students at NC State joined the growing protest movement over the police shooting death of Keith Lamont Scott, in Charlotte.

About 300 students staged a die-in at the student union on Friday evening.

It began with a gathering on Wolf Plaza. Demonstrators arrived wearing all black. Then, in unity with the demonstrators in Charlotte, they marched in to the student union and played dead. The die-in serving as a symbolic protest over what they see as the latest case of police brutality.

Scott was told to drop the gun or some variation at least 12 times. His wife kept repeating “Keith don’t do it.”

Anyhow, the little Snowflakes had a real hard time putting their phones down. It’s similar to what Michelle Malkin noted of another die in

And there’s wonderful video from the NCSU die in at the WTVD link which shows them playing with their phones. You can even see some with wired earphones in their ears.

Meanwhile, an arrest has been made in the murder of an attendee of the Wednesday night Charlotte riots, which makes an interesting counterpoint to the talking points put out by Black Lives Matter

Charlotte Police Chief Kerr Putney said during a news conference that 21-year-old Rayquan Borum was arrested Friday morning. He provided few other details about the arrest or the suspect but said that video led investigators to the Borum.

The protester, 26-year-old Justin Carr, was shot Wednesday night during a violent night of protests in Charlotte. He died Thursday of his injuries.

Guess the race of the killer and killed. Yes.

Read: Snowflakes Can’t Even Give Up Their Smartphones During A Die In »

Posted in NC News | 21 Comments | Trackback URL

Woman Of The People Is Against Right To Work

By William Teach September 24, 2016 – 7:13 am

Here’s a question Donald Trump should try and work in to the debate: why is Hillary Clinton against the right to work?

(Investors) Democrats love to talk about rights. They say people have the “right to affordable health care,” the “right to a debt free college education,” the “right to choose,” and so on.

But there’s one right they apparently want to erase: The right to work.

Here’s how Hillary Clinton put it in a videoconference this week at the Laborers’ International Union of North America: “I will fight back against so-called right to work. Right to work is wrong for workers and wrong for America.”

Come again? The right to work is wrong for America?

Clinton is referring to state right-to-work laws that give employees the right to work without being forced to join a union. In states without these laws, unions can force new and existing employees to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of employment at unionized companies.

Why would she say this? Because she, like the rest of the Democratic Party, is beholden to the slowly fading away unions, rather than with people who want to work and not have joining a union and paying dues be a requirement for employment. Twenty six states have right to work laws

When Wisconsin was on the cusp of passing its right-to-work law last year, Gov. Scott Walker said that “This isn’t anti-union. It restores worker rights and brings jobs back to Wisconsin.”

He’s right about that last part. Between 2004 and 2014, overall job growth in the U.S. was 6.1%. In states without right-to-work laws, it was a paltry 3.9%. But in right-to-work states, job growth over those years was 9.1%.

In fact, the last poll done on right to work, conducted by Rasmussen in 2012, found that 74% favor right to work laws. But, Hillary is a shill of the unions, which, let’s be honest, aren’t entirely bad. They can do a damned good job in protecting workers from companies, bad policies, and horrible bosses. Which is rather weird, since we’re told that Government is super awesome, so why would we need public sector unions? Regardless, a person should have the right to join a union or not, which puts the burden on the union to provide good reasons for someone to join the union once they join a company. In other words, the union has to woo an employee. As it should be.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Woman Of The People Is Against Right To Work »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Scott’s Wife Sort Of Provides Video Of Charlotte Shooting

By William Teach September 23, 2016 – 2:34 pm

Something is missing, though

(NY Times)  A cellphone camera video made by the wife of Keith L. Scott before he was fatally shot by police here shows the moments before and after the incident, including the wife’s pleas to her husband to get out of his truck, and her pleas to the police not to shoot him.

But the video, which was given to the Times by attorneys for the family Friday, does not include a view of the shooting itself. Nor does it answer the crucial question of whether Mr. Scott had a gun, as the police have maintained.

The transcript, available at the link, provides that the officer gave commands to Mr. Scott multiple times, which were not followed. But, it is missing the key portion as the smartphone is turned away

I do have a few questions. Where is the gun as seen in the photo? Granted, it could have been kicked by one of the officers out of the way and down towards his feet. Consider the photo. It should be near his feet near the grass. Is it in shadow the whole time? According to the photo, it should be in the sun. Is it near the feet originally of the officer to the right in the white shirt? Is it in between the feet of the officer with the red shirt? There really is little that this video addresses, except him being given commands again and again.

And, if he doesn’t have a gun, why is she repeatedly yelling “don’t do it”?

I’m also going to wonder what the f*ck is wrong with society today that the wife is taking video instead of coming to his aid early on, then stiff filming as he lies there shot.

More: MSNBC and MSNBC employee Joy Reid go all sorts of gun truther, trying to say there was a gun thrown down

A couple problems with the Narrative. First, whatever was thrown by the one officer (you can see it starting at 2:11 in the Times video, click the link to open it larger at the NY Times) was also picked up by another officer. MSNBC’s bat guano insane video cuts off before that. Second, whatever was thrown was in a different place than the gun in the photo. Third, these people are nuts. Just pure wonkers.

Read: Scott’s Wife Sort Of Provides Video Of Charlotte Shooting »

Posted in NC News | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 23, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon sailboat trekking the vast-less carbon pollution raised seas of the future, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Astute Bloggers, with a post on Trump supporting Internet freedom.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Big Carbon Footprint Obama Forces Intelligence Agencies To Study ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach September 23, 2016 – 11:32 am

Seriously, none of these agencies tasked with keeping America safe have anything better to do

(The Hill)  President Obama is asking 20 federal offices to work together on a national security strategy to address climate change.

Obama signed a directive on Wednesday telling the offices to develop a “federal climate and national security working group” to “identify the U.S. national security priorities related to climate change and national security, and develop methods to share climate science and intelligence information to inform national security policies and plans,” the White House said.

He charged the group with developing a climate change action plan within 90 days, laying out steps for sharing climate data, research ideas and vulnerability assessments for parts of the United States that are threatened by climate change over the next three decades.

When the boss “asks” you to do something, you do it. It’s really about the same thing as an order.

It’d be funny as hell if they came back and said Obama should stop traveling so much and reduce his own carbon footprint.

Now, let’s consider that the world has warmed. It’s not a bad thing to consider what implications this has to our national security. Just like if the world cooled. The problem here is that, based on Obama’s beliefs, they will surely be required to consider it as a problem caused by Mankind, so all the solutions will be based on that bit of politics. Hence, the results will be politically driven, what the boss wants to see, rather than realistic.

Read: Big Carbon Footprint Obama Forces Intelligence Agencies To Study ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Barry Obama, Global Warming | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

The Numbers On Hotcoldwetdry Are Scarier Than We Thought Or Something

By William Teach September 23, 2016 – 7:22 am

The always unhinged Bill McKibben, who uses vast amounts of fossil fuels to travel the globe and attend anti-fossil fuels demonstrations is out with a new unhinged pronouncement

Recalculating the Climate Math
The numbers on global warming are even scarier than we thought.

The future of humanity depends on math. And the numbers in a new study released Thursday are the most ominous yet.

Ominous!

Those numbers spell out, in simple arithmetic, how much of the fossil fuel in the world’s existing coal mines and oil wells we can burn if we want to prevent global warming from cooking the planet. In other words, if our goal is to keep the Earth’s temperature from rising more than two degrees Celsius—the upper limit identified by the nations of the world—how much more new digging and drilling can we do?

What’s your guess?

Here’s the answer: zero.

That’s right: If we’re serious about preventing catastrophic warming, the new study shows, we can’t dig any new coal mines, drill any new fields, build any more pipelines. Not a single one. We’re done expanding the fossil fuel frontier. Our only hope is a swift, managed decline in the production of all carbon-based energy from the fields we’ve already put in production.

Bill and his palls, who, again, use fossil fuels to travel to all the protests, want to stop all fossil fuels production. The want to Keep It In the Ground, which means stopping all new production, pipelines, etc, while forcing a reduction of production of existing fossil fuels over time by governmental regulation. For instance, a managed decline of fossil fuels of 50% by 2033.

This is literally a math test, and it’s not being graded on a curve. It only has one correct answer. And if we don’t get it right, then all of us—along with our 10,000-year-old experiment in human civilization—will fail.

Meanwhile, a new paper says that the “fingerprint of global warming” doesn’t actually exist in the real world.

Four other papers link climatic changes to, get this, the sun and natural variability. The science just keeps coming out and showing that Warmists are politically driven (and hypocritical) buffoons.

Read: The Numbers On Hotcoldwetdry Are Scarier Than We Thought Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Climahypocrites, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 11 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove