If All You See…

By William Teach June 6, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Fire Andrea Mitchell, with a post on Hillary refusing to say whether the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Warmists Upset About Being Accused Of Using Duckspeak

By William Teach June 6, 2016 – 10:20 am

Thinking back to a week ago, I featured an opinion piece by Tom Harris (it was published in multiple papers) which discussed the use of “duckspeak” by members of the Cult of Climastrology. Warmist Jason McClean attempts to rebut Harris by diving into typical Warmist talking points

No, climate change believers aren’t using “duckspeak”

Can a newspaper chain jump the shark?

This past Friday, Canada’s Postmedia published a column in its Toronto Sun by climate change denier Tom Harris. Not a surprise in itself, since Harris, the voice for International Climate Science Coalition, gets featured in the Sun dailies from time to time, but notable all the same for its extra-sad and slightly ridiculous attempt to keep flagging interest in a debate that lost all remnants of reasonable traction years ago.

That’s duckspeak for “the debate is over” and “the science is settled”.

Harris writes of “duckspeak,” that phrase from George Orwell’s 1984 used to represent a person’s mindless repeating back of the terms and logic of a given ideology. Here is Winston Smith in observation of a man chatting at the table next to him, unquestioningly caught up in Big Brother’s totalitarian dogma: “The stuff that was coming out of him consisted of words, but it was not speech in the true sense: it was a noise uttered in unconsciousness, like the quacking of a duck…”

Harris accuses Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of duckspeak when the latter states that “climate change is real” and United States President Barack Obama of the same for calling greenhouse gases “carbon pollution.” (snip)

Who in this day and age doesn’t understand that carbon pollution refers to carbon dioxide?

So, in other words, Harris is completely correct in noting “carbon pollution” is duckspeak. If you’re discussing Science, one needs to be specific. “Carbon pollution” is a political term. CO2 is neither carbon nor a pollutant.

Harris then says that the phrase “97 per cent of experts agree” effectively kills debate through its definitiveness and furthermore commits the logical fallacy of appealing to authority and consensus.

More silliness. An appeal to authority is only faulty if the experts in question are not to be trusted. “I don’t need bypass surgery because my mechanic told me so,” is an improper appeal to authority, but who doesn’t listen when almost every scientist on the planet says that climate change is real and human-caused?

“I don’t need to be taxed out the wahoo and have my freedom limited to solve climate change because politicians told me so.” If the authorities cannot be trusted, and the science and data cannot be trusted, and the 97% assertion is a lie, well, yeah, it is a faulty appeal.

Like everyone else, publishers want to look cool. And so they give space to contrarian viewpoints not just to show two sides of a story but to align themselves with the outsider, with the one who can tell us the real truth hidden by the mainstream viewpoint -the one with the straight goods instead of the duckspeak.

Looks like McClean is trotting out the trope of disallowing Wrongspeak. Warmists love trotting out their fascistic tendencies to shut down opposing voices. End paragraph

And we get it. Being a rebel is cool. Fonzie’s leather jacket was cool. But paired up with a set of waterskis and towed behind a boat? Well, we almost want to look the other way.

Oh, you were expecting more rebuttal from McClean in order to kill the duckspeak idea? Yeah, me too. But, as usual, you just have to trust that Warmists know better, and just assume that it is wrong.

Read: Warmists Upset About Being Accused Of Using Duckspeak »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Hillary Sort Of Supports A Tax On Firearms

By William Teach June 6, 2016 – 8:01 am

When it comes to the gun control debate, Democrats like Hillary Clinton constantly put the burden on those who purchase them in a legal manner and use them in a legal manner. These could be people that use them for hunting, for sporting, simply because they like shooting, for carrying for protection, or they might just simply leave them in a drawer or closet for home protection. Rarely, though, do Democrats attempt to put the burden solely on those bad actors who use guns poorly, and have usually obtained them illegally. Unsurprisingly, Hillary wants to put the burden on those who want to legally purchase a firearm to protect themselves from the lawlessness and criminal activity created by Democratic policies

(ABC News) On Sunday, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told George Stephanopoulos on ABC News’ “This Week” that “the American public has a right to require certain kinds of regulatory responsible actions to protect everyone else” from gun violence.

But just how far would a Clinton administration go to ensure that?

Back in September 1993 at a Senate Finance Committee hearing, the then-first lady was asked by then-Sen. Bill Bradley whether she would support a 25 percent sales tax on handguns and automatic weapons. Her support was unequivocal.

“I’m all for that. I just don’t know what else we’re going to do to try to figure out how to get some handle on this violence,” Clinton said. “I’m speaking personally, but I feel very strongly about that.”

That was 1993. Now?

On Sunday, Stephanopoulos asked Clinton whether she still believes in the idea. Although she stopped short of adding it to her campaign promises, saying, “I’m not going to commit to any specific proposal,” she nonetheless issued a comprehensive defense of the policy, suggesting potential revenue from a gun tax could help cover the medical and law enforcement costs of gun violence.

That’s not a “no.”

But her arguments go beyond the context of 1993, Clinton clarified, invoking several survivors of the San Bernardino attack she said she met Friday, “who were cowering in abject terror by the terrorist’s unbelievable assault on their co-workers,” during the incident last December.

“When you have mass shootings, you not only have the terrible deaths, you have people who are injured,” Clinton said. “What they talked to me about was, where do they get the financial support to deal with both the physical and the emotional trauma. You know, is it a workman’s comp support, which is one of the arguments? Is it private insurance, Is it because they work for the county, something the county should pay for?”

“There are real costs that people incur because of the terrible gun violence epidemic. And we have to deal with it,” she added.

She failed to mention that the San Bernardino shooter was an Islamist acting as an Islamist. And that he was living in a heavily Democratic Party state which features pretty much all the gun control measures Leftists have wanted. Yet, was still able to go on a rampage. Perhaps she should be calling for Islamist control, rather than implementing a burdensom tax on those law abiding citizens which would artificially increase the cost of a weapon used to protect themselves from the very crime created by the Democrats soft on crime and criminals policies.

And, perhaps, a woman who is constantly surrounded by people bearing arms to protect her and her family should not make it harder for the rest of us to do the same. Democrats always want the burden on the good guys. How’s the massive gun control working out in her birth town of Chicago?

Read: Hillary Sort Of Supports A Tax On Firearms »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Hillary Clinton | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Good News: NY Times Says Trump Isn’t Quite Hitler. Yet

By William Teach June 6, 2016 – 7:43 am

It’s normal in American politics for someone to label a politician as “Hitler” or Nazis. Usually, this is aimed at a Republican politician, even though the policies of Hitler tended to have more in common with Leftists/Progressives. George Bush was called Hitler non-stop. Reagan was Hitler. Arnold Schwarzenneger was also Hitler. So was Dick Cheney. The Swift Boat Vets for Truth were Nazi’s and Hitler. Nixon was Hitler. Pretty much ever Republican presidential candidate is Hitler. Even John McCain was called Hitler.

In all fairness, liberals will get compared, as well. Obama has been called Hitler a few times. That’s wrong. He’s more Mao or Castro. But, you can always depend upon Democrats trotting out the meme against Republicans. Fortunately, we have Justin E.H. Smith at the NY Times to shoot this down. Sort of

No, He’s Not Hitler. And Yet …

We are supposed to find some solace these days in the assurance that Donald Trump is “not Hitler.” One reasonable response is this: Of course he isn’t. Only Hitler is Hitler, and he died in a bunker in 1945. There is no such thing as reincarnation, and history is nothing more than a long, linear series of individual people and events that come and go. It is, as the saying goes, “just one damn thing after another.”

This quip is in part a rejection of the idea that history is, or might someday be, a sort of science in which we subsume particular events under general laws. This idea motivated Hegel to conceptualize human history as a law-governed dialectical process of the “unfolding of absolute Spirit.”

What follows is paragraph after paragraph of reincarnation and history fluff, leading to

The degeneration of which Mr. Trump is a symptom is by no means limited to American political life. If Trump is not a reincarnation of Hitler, he is most certainly one head of the same global Hydra that has already given us Vladimir V. Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Narendra Modi. For all of them, the past is not something to study and to attend to, but something to sculpt.

So, he’s not quite Hitler, but he is a big time strongman. We could probably compare and contrast Obama’s strongman/Big Government leanings to the three mentioned, but, let’s move on. Much of the article is about historical truth, and blames Trump for stretching it, massaging it, and making it up. They are quite vexed with Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan. I mean, really, it’s “mythological”, and “No one will ever call on him to cite any dates or figures to back it up.” How horrible!!!!!1!!!

The task that faces American voters at the present moment is enormous: to save the United States from the same post-democratic order to which parts of Europe and most of Asia has already fallen. Our relationship to history will play no small role in this. History may be rooted in storytelling, but we can summon it to be something more — the arbiter of truth against lies told in pursuit of power.

You mean how Europe has fallen into decay of uber-Leftism, resulting in stagnant economies, low GDP, and is being invaded by hordes of outsiders who refuse to assimilate and expect those nations to accommodate them? A goodly chunk of Asia was never democratic, and a goodly chunk is also a hotbed of Islamism or moving in that direction. But, you know, Donald Trump!

Mr. Trump himself appears indifferent to history, as well as to the grave significance of the comparisons of him to Hitler. It’s true that Donald Trump is not Hitler. But the fact that the comparison has any traction at all, that it is a recognizable part of our new political dialogue, and that the man at its center is not actively seeking to prove it wrong, shows how severe the current crisis is, and hints at how dark the future might get.

So, he’s not quite Hitler. Yet. He could be, though! I’m sure Trump’s phrase about putting America and Americans first gives people at the NY Times the vapors and swoons. How dare he! Hitleresque! Doom! Nazi!

Hillary Clinton lobbed the video equivalent of a Nazi buzz bomb at Donald Trump on Saturday by making his German heritage a campaign issue.

The 37-second clip decrying Trump’s attacks on federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s Mexican heritage was subtle — but fans and foes got the message: Clinton thinks Trump, like the Nazis, hates people based on their race.

“His heritage is German. Heil Trump!” tweeted Trump foe Michael Gilmor‏.

“We can all hear the ‘dog whistle’ — she’s calling ‘Drumpf’ a Nazi because he’s German,” posted James Sweitzer.

She had said the day before the video was released “We’re electing a president, not a dictator.” All’s fair in politics. Don’t expect the majority of the media to defend Trump like they would if he called Hillary Hitler.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Good News: NY Times Says Trump Isn’t Quite Hitler. Yet »

Posted in Donald Trump, Wonky Media | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 5, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Chicks On The Right, with a post on what WHO categorizes transgenders as.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach June 5, 2016 – 10:00 am

Happy Sunday! An awesome day in the great nation of America. The birds are singing, summer is almost here, and you can stand outside and take a shower in the humidity. This pinup is by Gil Elvgren, with a wee bit of help.

BTW, this is the 600th post within the Patriotic Pinup category!

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Allen B. West says Bud Lite is making a huge mistake
  2. Capitalism Is Freedom notes an awesome thing a father did
  3. Chicks On The Right covers Stacey Dash’s take on the gender confused
  4. Director Blue wonders why Obama is telling American’s to prepare for a disaster
  5. Fausta’s Blog covers Puerto Rico and how to be a deadbeat
  6. Fire Andrea Mitchell notes the coming Obamacare for illegals
  7. Gay Patriot notes why you only meet nice people at Chik-fil-A
  8. Jihad Watch notes ISIS’s latest threats
  9. Lady Liberty 1885 has a told you so moment on HB2
  10. Legal Insurrection notes Hillary being endorsed by an anti-gun group
  11. Moonbattery covers a RICO suit against Greenpeace
  12. Pamela Geller notes Islamic decals on Canadian police cars
  13. Powerline has a dissenting view on Muhammed Ali
  14. Reaganite Republican has no problem losing friends over his Trump stance
  15. And last, but not least, The Camp Of The Saints covers the Conservative Movement

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 | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

What’s The Pricetag Of “Decarbonizing” The Energy Sector?

By William Teach June 5, 2016 – 8:24 am

Members of the Cult of Climastrology have stated time and time again that their plans for the energy sector will pay for itself, and lead to tons of “good paying jobs” and that everything will be Utopia. Might they be engaged in a bit of mule fritters?

(CNBC) The world’s historic effort to reduce carbon emissions is likely to be a costly if not quixotic endeavor, according to one expert, whose recently published research warns that decarbonizing the globe could have devastating consequences on the world’s way of life.

In a report published this week, the International Energy Agency issued a call for “concrete action” to match the ambitions of last year’s landmark climate change agreement, which was recently ratified by nearly 200 countries. The energy watchdog said the transition to a low-carbon future would require “massive changes in the energy system” to prevent the globe’s temperature from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius.

Yet the agency also put a steep price tag on efforts to combat climate change. In order to decarbonize the power sector within the next 40 years, the world would have to invest at least $9 trillion — and an additional $6.4 trillion to make other industries more environmentally friendly.

Those vast sums are why M.J. Kelly, a University of Cambridge engineering professor, recently wrote that the push to restrict carbon “is set to fail comprehensively in meeting its avowed target, and a new debate is needed.” For that reason, Kelly is skeptical that initiatives like the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris will achieve its lofty goals.

Kelly is not a skeptic. He’s not even a luke warmer. He’s a believer in everything that the UN IPCC says.

In peer-reviewed research, Kelly argued carbon dioxide should be considered the byproduct of the “immense benefits” of a technologically advanced society. Cutting carbon, he added, could result in a dramatic reduction in the world’s quality of life that would usher in mass starvation, poverty and civil strife. Massive decarbonization is “only possible if we wish to see large parts of the population die from starvation, destitution or violence in the absence of enough low-carbon energy to sustain society.”

COP21 “will be an irrelevance within a few years,” Kelly said to CNBC via email, “as the the bills pile up, and … the promises are reneged upon.”

If you’re replacing inexpensive, abundant, reliable energy with unreliable, expensive energy, while implementing draconian Big Government controls and “solutions”, it’s going to effect people. Not the big wigs who make things like this happen. They’ll be OK. Folks like Gore, Obama, the other politicians and folks making a ton of money off pushing anthropogenic climate change. They’ll be set. The middle and lower classes will be, let’s say, screwed. Especially in Third World nations.

Not that Warmists care. And any protestation from them is countered by the fact that they push the policies that lead to the destruction of the middle and lower classes.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: What’s The Pricetag Of “Decarbonizing” The Energy Sector? »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

Paris Needs To Get Used To Permanent Flood Or Something

By William Teach June 4, 2016 – 4:49 pm

Of course, if Paris experiences drought, Warmists will blame it on ‘climate change’, too

Record-breaking floods hit Paris. Get used to it.

Record-breaking rains and flooding have inundated western Europe this week, killing at least 15 in France, Germany, Romania, and Belgium.

Paris has been hit especially hard by the deluge. Thousands have evacuated as the Seine reached nearly 20 feet on Friday, its highest level since 1982. Meanwhile, cultural institutions like the Louvre and the Musée d’Orsay are taking no chances: They’ve closed to tourists and have relocated some valuable works out of harm’s way.

French president Francois Hollande said at a Friday press conference that “what is happening now, especially in Paris and in some regions, is exceptional.” However, scientists note that flooding of this magnitude is the new normal — thanks to climate change.

“Heavy rains? Massive flooding? Get used to it,” Princeton climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer told the Associated Press.

Grist is not the only outlet pushing this meme. A weather even happens, and, despite it having happened before, all the Warmists in the news and advocacy groups charge out to blame ‘climate change. It’s just part and parcel of their ducktalk.

Grist goes on to show all sorts of pictures of the floods, showing us what the permanent doom looks like. Let’s look at some others

https://twitter.com/manny_ottawa/status/738914697764802564

It’s, in the Real World, simply all part of the dynamic weather system of the Earth. But, Warmists cannot help themselves in their brainwashing.

Read: Paris Needs To Get Used To Permanent Flood Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 4, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a world completely covered by water where everyone lives on low carbon sailboats, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on Baltimore getting the time they need to fix chronic sewage overflows and leaks.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Hillary Shared Names Of Intelligence Agents Over Her Breachable Server

By William Teach June 4, 2016 – 7:50 am

Remember the freakout over the release of Valerie Plame’s name as a CIA agent? Even though Joe Wilson featured her name and employer on his Who’s Who page, it resulted in a massive investigation, which went on for years past when the special prosecutor knew who the leaker was, and liberals wanted Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs, often along with Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. What do they think of Hillary?

(Breitbart) Hillary Clinton posted and shared the names of concealed U.S. intelligence officials on her unprotected email system.

Federal records reveal that Clinton swapped these highly classified names on an email account that was vulnerable to attack and was breached repeatedly by Russia-linked hacker attempts. These new revelations — reminiscent of the Valerie Plame scandal during George W. Bush’s tenure — could give FBI investigators the evidence they need to make a case that Clinton violated the Espionage Act by mishandling national defense information through “gross negligence.”

Numerous names cited in Clinton’s emails have been redacted in State Department email releases with the classification code “B3 CIA PERS/ORG,” a highly specialized classification that means the information, if released, would violate the Central Intelligence Act of 1949.

The State Department produced a document to Judicial Watch in April 2014 that identifies different types of “(b)(3)” redactions, including “CIA PERS/ORG,” which it defines as information “Specifically exempted from disclosure by statute … Central Intelligence Act of 1949.”

There are quite a few examples available at the Breitbart article of this conduct, which occurred via a server that was set up in violation of State Department policy, as well as federal record keeping laws and national security laws. She was told not to do it. Yet, she still did. She, and the people who worked for her at the time, some of whom still do, put national security at risk in willful defiance of federal law.

Be honest, Liberals: if Hillary was a Republican, you’d be calling for Hillary to be prosecuted. You’d be demonstrating. You’d be screaming it to the news media. All the leftist groups would be constantly advocating for the prosecution of her and her associates. If you’re honest with yourself, you know that’s true. You have a lady running for POTUS who willfully blew off the national security for her own convenience.

Read: Hillary Shared Names Of Intelligence Agents Over Her Breachable Server »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 14 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove