Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach October 2, 2016 – 8:59 am

Patriotic Pinup Gil Elvgren

Happy Sunday! A gorgeous first Sunday of October. Can you believe how fast the year has gone by? The sun is shining, there’s a little nip in the air, and the geese are honking away. This pinup is by Gil Elvgren, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. The Daley Gator notes a Halloween decoration deemed too scary
  2. The Last Refuge notes spray paint pro-Hillary vandalism on a Trump building
  3. The Right Scoop covers Newt and Hannity bitching about Trump’s lack of discipline
  4. This ain’t Hell…., has some feel good stories
  5. Watcher Of Weasels discusses suicide by cop in San Diego
  6. Weasel Zippers notes a leftist judge who wants to dump all guns in the ocean
  7. Independent Sentinel notes Hillary wants to give Obamacare to illegal aliens
  8. Watts Up With That? covers what might have caused the big Aussie blackout
  9. A View From The Beach discusses feminists trying to destroy science
  10. Basil’s Blog (is back) covers voting your conscious
  11. Chicks On The Right notes police officers refusing to provide security for protesters
  12. Conservatives4Palin wonders if Hillary has already committed voter fraud
  13. Creeping Sharia covers France’s new Sharia police
  14. Doug Ross @ Journal discusses Hillary’s new Middle East
  15. And last, but not least, Fire Andrea Mitchell covers the names Hillary uses to slur Americans.
  16. Separately, my prayers go out to Fausta, who lost her mother yesterday.

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 | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Bombshell Or Something: Trump Might Possibly Could Have Avoided Paying Taxes For 18 Years

By William Teach October 2, 2016 – 7:44 am

At the end of the day, the question this brings up is “will anyone beyond the anti-business left give a damn?” Here’s the NY Times going hysteric

“Trump Tax Records Obtained by The Times Reveal He Could Have Avoided Paying Taxes for Nearly Two Decades.”

Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show.

The 1995 tax records, never before disclosed, reveal the extraordinary tax benefits that Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, derived from the financial wreckage he left behind in the early 1990s through mismanagement of three Atlantic City casinos, his ill-fated foray into the airline business and his ill-timed purchase of the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan.

Tax experts hired by The Times to analyze Mr. Trump’s 1995 records said that tax rules especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period.

If the part where he didn’t pay taxes afterwards is true, then, so what? He followed the laws. Mr. Trump didn’t pass the law. Would you not follow the laws, take advantage of the laws? Of course you would. Democrats who constantly call for higher taxes, for everyone paying their “fair share,” they themselves take advantage of all the “loopholes”, as the put it, in the tax law to reduce their tax liability.

Virtually everyone takes advantage of the tax code to reduce their tax liability. Nearly 45% will had a net zero federal tax liability in 2016, up from 42% in 2013.

Did the Clinton’s and Obama’s not do all they can to avoid paying their fair share? Obama’s effective rate was 18.7% for his 2015 returns. If you had a loss, you can take advantage of the tax code, too. You can take advantage of mortgage deductions. Is that fair to people without a home mortgage? Deductions for children. Is that fair to people to people who don’t have children?

We’ll have to see if this even makes a difference in the least to the polls. Will anyone beyond the Democrat base care?

And, is this worse than what Hillary has done? Smearing and attempting to destroy the women who credibly accused her husband of sexual misconduct and rape? The loss of 4 Americans due to the mismanagement of Obama’s Libyan adventure? Her email scandal, exposing national security material to anyone who wanted to easily hack her server? Her conflicts of interest between her job as Secretary of State and the Clinton Foundation? Her speeches to Wall Street, which she won’t release? The “Muslim Brotherhood Princess”, Huma Abedin, serving as her chief go to person?

Let’s not forget Bill using the IRS as his personal Gestapo during his time as president. Think Hillary won’t do the same? How about keeping enemy files via the FBI? Sale of high-tech secrets to China? Seriously, there is so much material, it’s hard to know where to start with the Clinton’s.

Will Trump strike back using any of the material? It’s October 2nd, and he’s barely touched any of it. Instead, he likes to get into spats with former Ms. Universe winners rather than going after Hillary.

There is one interesting thing to consider about the report, as Patterico writes at Red State

My guess: Hillary Clinton found out about this before the debate. Regarding the timing, the story says only that the Times obtained the records “last month.” If Hillary was tipped off, that could explain her comment at the debate speculating that the records, if revealed, would show that Trump had paid no income taxes for several years — an accusation that Trump seemed to confirm when he replied: “That makes me smart.”

Would anyone be surprised if there was collusion between the NY Times and the Hillary campaign?

Anyhow, of course the media is having a field day with this report. Few had the same degree of apoplexy when Hillary left 4 Americans to die in Benghazi nor over her whole email issue, which would have seen other people not named Clinton put on trial.

Oh, BTW, I wonder if the NY Times will take advantage of the same tax laws to avoid paying taxation for years due to their “slight loss” of $500,000 during the 2nd quarter of 2016?

More: Via Hot Air, we learn that the NY Times not only paid $0 taxes in 2014, they got a refund

More recently, for tax year 2014, The New York Times paid no taxesand got an income tax refund of $3.5 million even though they had a pre-tax profit of $29.9 million in 2014. In other words, their post-tax profit was higher than their pre-tax profit. The explanation in their 2014 annual report is, “The effective tax rate for 2014 was favorably affected by approximately $21.1 million for the reversal of reserves for uncertain tax positions due to the lapse of applicable statutes of limitations.” If you don’t think it took fancy accountants and tax lawyers to make that happen, read the statement again.

Huh.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Bombshell Or Something: Trump Might Possibly Could Have Avoided Paying Taxes For 18 Years »

Posted in Donald Trump, Wonky Media | 38 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Warmists Blame Beached Whales On ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach October 1, 2016 – 1:51 pm

I’m going to start blaming everything on ‘climate change’. Forgot to call a customer back? Climate change. Speeding? Yes, officer, it was climate change. Caught looking at a girl’s posterior, reading what is written on her yoga pants? It was climate change

Climate change suspected as whales wash up dead in Chile

Several large whales have washed up dead in recent months on beaches in northern Chile, where scientists suspect they are moving to in increasing numbers because of climate change.

After the beaching of hundreds of dead whales in the south last year, the trend has now shifted to areas where the phenomenon was previously rare.

Last weekend, a 14m-long fin whale was found dead on rocks at a beach near the city of Coquimbo. This prompted experts from the National Fisheries and Aquaculture Service (Sernapesca) to investigate. They say that the whales in the Pacific off Chile’s coast are acting unusually. (snip)

“There has been an increase in marine life in the area, possibly due to climate change,” said conservation medicine professor Frederick Toro, of Andres Bello University. “That may have increased the diversity of the whales.”

I blame all the scientists in clothing with links to petroleum moving around in fossil fueled vehicles and boats.

The rise in whale beachings might also be a natural consequence of the greater number of whales now in the region, Dr Cerda said.

So, it could possibly be something totally natural? Huh.

Read: Surprise: Warmists Blame Beached Whales On ‘Climate Change’ »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach October 1, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…are trees that will be killed by carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on “transparency”.

Any ideas for next week’s theme?

Read: If All You See… »

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

NY Times Seems Rather Upset That Trump Would Attack Hillary Over Bill’s “Infidelities”

By William Teach October 1, 2016 – 7:43 am

The word “rape” fails to appear in this Times article by Patrick Healy and Maggie Haberman. Sexual assault only appears once. It barely touches upon the whole issue of how Bill treated women over the years, nor how Hillary has enabled and defended this behavior, nor how she attempted to destroy the women who credibly accused her husband of rape and sexual misconduct

Donald Trump Opens New Line of Attack on Hillary Clinton: Her Marriage

Donald J. Trump unleashed a slashing new attack on Hillary Clinton over Bill Clinton’s sexual indiscretions on Friday as he sought to put the Clintons’ relationship at the center of his political argument against her before their next debate.

Mr. Trump, aiming to unnerve Mrs. Clinton, even indicated that he was rethinking his statement at their last debate that he would “absolutely” support her if she won in November, saying: “We’re going to have to see. We’re going to see what happens. We’re going to have to see.”

In an interview with The New York Times, he also contended that infidelity was “never a problem” during his three marriages, though his first ended in an ugly divorce after Mr. Trump began a relationship with the woman who became his second wife.

The article spends a little time on former Ms. Universe, Alicia Machado, because of course it does

Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, argued that Mrs. Clinton’s support for Ms. Machado was part of a pattern by the Democrat of treating women to suit her own political ends, and raised Mrs. Clinton’s criticism of women who had been involved with her husband, such as Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers.

He said he was bringing up Mr. Clinton’s infidelities because he thought they would repulse female voters and turn them away from the Clintons, and because he was eager to unsettle Mrs. Clinton in their next two debates and on the campaign trail.

“She’s nasty, but I can be nastier than she ever can be,” Mr. Trump said.

“Hillary Clinton was married to the single greatest abuser of women in the history of politics,” he added about Mr. Clinton. “Hillary was an enabler, and she attacked the women who Bill Clinton mistreated afterward. I think it’s a serious problem for them, and it’s something that I’m considering talking about more in the near future.”

Quite frankly, if he was going to do this, he should have done it in response to Hillary during the debates, while noting that if she wanted to go down these sleazy roads, well, there are plenty of roads leading to Bill. Instead, he’s been defending (which is losing in politics) and talking way too much about Machado, doubling down, getting silly. By this metric, he lost the debate.

Some of Mr. Trump’s advisers have tried to suggest focusing on accusations that Mrs. Clinton tried to discredit women who said they had been harassed by Mr. Clinton. Chief among those suggesting this approach is Roger Stone, the longest-serving Trump adviser, who wrote a book called “The Clintons’ War on Women,” laying out accusations from Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey, who have accused Mr. Clinton of sexual assault — accusations the Clintons or their lawyer David Kendall have denied.

Well, that’s one way to gloss over the dozens of women who credibly accused Bill, and there’s no mention of how Hillary attacked those women, such as calling Gennifer Flowers “trailer trash” and Monica Lewinsky “narcissistic loony tunes.”

In the interview Friday afternoon, Mr. Trump said he would begin preparing as soon as this weekend for the next debate, on Oct. 9, and would be plotting ways to attack Mrs. Clinton on policy issues like trade and national security, as well as to unnerve her with possible targets like her husband’s past.

He should have been doing this for the first debate. And, quite honestly, while the Times seems rather upset that Trump would consider doing this, Trump seems to be rather lost and in over his head. With a bit over a month left, things really haven’t gotten much better. There’s no real ground game beyond speeches and depending on the Trumpites. I doubt there have been all that many offices opened in the states. He is easily baited by Team Hillary, and looks bad taking it. Does he really want to win?

Read: NY Times Seems Rather Upset That Trump Would Attack Hillary Over Bill’s “Infidelities” »

Posted in Donald Trump | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

21 States Sue Obama Over New Overtime Rules

By William Teach October 1, 2016 – 7:22 am

Has there ever been a president that has been sued this much? His administration has sued numerous times over their lack of response to Freedom Of Information Act requests. They’ve been sued over regulations and rule making. It just continues on and on

(Fox News) President Obama is doing anything but closing out his lame duck term quietly.  On the contrary he’s doing yet another end run around both the U.S. Congress and all 50 states, imposing yet another mandate that will cost money and jobs, possibly forcing states to raise taxes as well.

Twenty-one states have filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Sherman, Texas, to stop him.  Hours after the states filed their lawsuit, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups filed a similar lawsuit with the same federal court.

Obama’s new mandate would force employers in all states to pay overtime to certain state employees. These employees include “bona fide executive, administrative, or professional” workers as they are not covered by the federal law that requires states to pay overtime for work performed beyond 40 hours in a week.  The mandate applies to both private and public sector employers.

This seems to go back to Obama’s overtime decree, which would require employers to give certain people OT even though they are what is called “exempt” per law, which would mean fewer people being made management and more people having their hours limited. Oh, and more turned into part timers. As Andy Puzder, CEO of CKE Restaurants and a member of the Job Creators Network noted

(Forbes) The real world is far different than the Labor Department’s Excel spreadsheet. This new rule will simply add to the extensive regulatory maze the Obama Administration has imposed on employers, forcing many to offset increased labor expense by cutting costs elsewhere. In practice, this means reduced opportunities, bonuses, benefits, perks and promotions.

Perhaps the biggest consequence of the rule is that it will cause some employers to reclassify salaried employees as hourly, and set schedules so they can more easily track hours worked and avoid excessive claims for overtime. For example, taking a manager’s current salary and allocating it across 45 hours (with 5 hours of overtime pay) will result in no increased labor expense or increased salaries. However, it would mandate five hours of overtime, rather than allowing managers to take advantage of the flexible schedules they currently enjoy.

Back to the Fox article

As of now, starting December 1, 2016, all state employees will be entitled to overtime if they earn up to $913 per week regardless of whether they have “executive, administrative, or professional” responsibilities.

State government estimates peg the number of workers impacted at a minimum of 500 and reaching into the thousands, per state.  Iowa projects its budget hit to be over $19 million, other states likely a lot more.

It’s a lot harder for government to get rid of employees than the private sector, and less ability to do things that limit costs. Since they are rarely in the business of providing products and/or service that generates revenue, their #1 option is to raise taxes to increase revenue. There’s another avenue available, as well

Not coincidentally, Nevada – through its Attorney General Adam Laxalt – is the lead plaintiff in this lawsuit.

In filing the suit Laxalt said: “This rule, pushed by distant bureaucrats in D.C., tramples on state and local government budgets, forcing states to shift money from other important programs to balance their budgets, including programs intended to protect the very families that purportedly benefit from such federal overreach.”

Barring new revenue, they would have to shift money, taken from the taxpayers, from programs and services that benefit the taxpayers into paying employees.  This is all the typical Obama overreach, from a guy who has barely ever worked in the private sector or had to hire and employ and pay people. He has no working knowledge of how the economy works.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: 21 States Sue Obama Over New Overtime Rules »

Posted in Barry Obama | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Michigan Student Punks Silly People With His Own Pronoun: “His Majesty”

By William Teach September 30, 2016 – 3:55 pm

Beating the nutjobs at their own game

(Fox News)  As Heat Street‘s Politics Editor Jillian Melchior reported this week, a new policy at the University of Michigan allows students to choose their preferred pronouns — including the gender-neutral “they” and “ze” — to appear on class rosters.

With that in mind, one conservative student, Grant Strobl, who is also chairman of the Young Americans for Freedom board of governors, decided to troll the university administration by officially requesting his pronoun to be changed to “His Majesty.”

Although Storbl says he has “no problem with students asking to be identified a certain way,” he thought it important to show just how ludicrous it is for universities to institutionalize the use of “arbitrary” pronouns and threaten disciplinary action if students and staff repeatedly fail to use them.

https://twitter.com/grantstrobl/status/781245613639868418

You can request that people call you whatever you want. However, Special Snowflakes need to remember that out in the real world, few will tolerate this silliness. And there will be no penalties like in the cloistered unreality of college.

Read: Michigan Student Punks Silly People With His Own Pronoun: “His Majesty” »

Posted in Good Move Slick | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 30, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible, evil carbon polluting grill which can be used to cook evil carbon polluting meat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Maggie’s Farm, with a post on Peak 2016.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmist Takes Long Fossil Fueled Trip To Freak Out About Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach September 30, 2016 – 10:30 am

Enric Sala, of the World Economic Forum, decided to take a long fossil fueled trip, which also included a fossil fueled helicopter flight, and here’s his response

I visited Greenland, and now I’m freaking out about climate change

We were flying fast and steady, 300 meters over the fjord, when the helicopter pilot suddenly turned downwards, and our stomachs leapt up to our throats.

Instead of blue sky, we now had ice in front of our eyes.

A wall of ice. Thirty stories of ice, of a delicate pale blue. It felt like being on a fast elevator with glass windows, with the stories passing in front of us at vertiginous speed.

Below, the dark blue sea looked frigid, and was approaching too fast for comfort. Suddenly, another left turn and then up; in a few seconds we were over an iceberg 150 meters high and a kilometer wide. That was a monster of an ice cube, broken away from the Ilulissat glacier in Greenland, the fastest-moving glacier in the northern hemisphere.

Twenty kilometres in 20 years. That’s how much the Ilulissat glacier has retreated as this mighty, flowing river of ice crumbles into the ocean. It sounds like a lot. But I did not fully realize what this meant until we flew over the Ilulissat icefjord. It takes 10 minutes for the helicopter to fly over the amount of ice that has been lost because of global warming – in this glacier alone.

A fossil fueled flight to Greenland, the vehicles to get to and from the airport, then a helicopter flight. Nothing says “I believe in anthropogenic climate change” like this hypocrisy.

At the end of the Greenland journey, we all wanted to commit to doing something. No one person alone can convince governments to price carbon, or industries to move towards cleaner practices and reduce carbon pollution. The question is: can we do something that has a measurable positive impact? In my case, as an oceanographer and explorer, I will try to help protect as much as the sea as possible from fishing and pollution, so that ocean life can be more resilient against the effects of global warming.

I leave it up to you to think about what you are willing to do.

Obviously, giving up use of fossil fuels by Warmists is verboten, even when they are “freaking out.”

Read: Warmist Takes Long Fossil Fueled Trip To Freak Out About Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

What About Hillary’s Decades Of Humiliating Women?

By William Teach September 30, 2016 – 7:14 am

That’s what Lifezette writer Kathryn Blackhurst wants to know. She spends a few paragraphs on the media “firestorm” over the “fat shaming” (sigh) of Ms. Universe Alicia Machado, before noting

The media jumped on the opportunity to bash Trump for something he said decades earlier and help paint Clinton as a feminist defender.

But what about Juanita Broaddrick? Or Paula Jones? Or Kathleen Willey? Or Gennifer Flowers? You won’t see Anderson Cooper bring these women on and ask how they felt when they were humiliated and maligned by Hillary Clinton or assaulted by her husband.

“Hillary likes to call Donald out for shaming women, calling them names, repeating the names he’s called them. But let’s remember one thing: Hillary Clinton has called me a bimbo for the last 19 years,” Willey said Wednesday on “The Laura Ingraham Show.” “It started years ago in Arkansas. So she doesn’t have a whole lot of room to talk about who’s calling women names.”

Willey, a former White House volunteer, claimed that former President Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her in a private study in the Oval Office in 1993. As the author of the 2007 book, “Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton,” Willey represents one of the so-called “bimbo eruptions” that the Clintons and their surrogates tried to suppress and discredit.

“They all called us bimbos. They called us sluts. They called us whores,” Willey said. “If you ask somebody a word comparison, you put our names up there and you ask somebody a word to describe us, it’s probably going to be, unfortunately, ‘bimbos’ — instead of we’re victims of Bill Clinton’s. And [Hillary Clinton’s] OK with that. She just hasn’t called off her dogs when it comes to that.”

Will the media run with this? Of course not. Monica Lewinsky was called a “narcissistic loony toon” by Hillary (who has never denied that). She called Gennifer Flowers “trailer trash.” When former Sen. Bob Packwood was accused of sexual harassment, Clintontold her friend Blair that she was “tired of all those whiney women,” and that she needed Packwood on health care. A private investigator named Ivan Duda claims that, after Bill lost his second governor’s race, Hillary told him: “I want you to get rid of all these b****** he’s seeing . . . I want you to give me the names and addresses and phone numbers, and we can get them under control.”

If you remember, Hillary said earlier this year on the subject of sexual assault that “everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.” Yet, Hillary not only didn’t believe the credible accusers, which stands at over ten women, but actively worked to destroy them.

Here’s a question for Team Trump: why are you not out there on the attack against Hillary with this?

Read: What About Hillary’s Decades Of Humiliating Women? »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 20 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove