Good News: Finding Dory To Have A Gender Confused Character!

By William Teach June 14, 2016 – 8:30 am

Were you looking to take your kids to see Finding Dory, the sequel to Finding Nemo, which opens this Friday? Have fun explaining a few things to your kids, as Disney pushes far left insanity

(UK Independent) Finding Dory will feature Disney’s first transgender character, according to lead voice actor Ellen DeGeneres.

The openly gay TV chat show host, who voices blue tang fish Dory in the upcoming Finding Nemo sequel, told USA Today: “There’s a stingray that’s becoming sting-Rhonda, so there’s a trans sting in the movie.”

DeGeneres’ revelation comes just weeks after the movie’s trailer briefly showed two women with a baby, leading fans to suggest they were a lesbian couple.

Director Andrew Stanton has remained cagey on the topic, insisting “there’s no right or wrong answer”, but DeGeneres thinks the possible LGBT representation is “a great thing”.

But, of course. A children’s movie is the perfect place to push a leftist political message. A perfect place to expose them to people who are confused to their body parts. Can’t we just let kids be kids? Where is the propriety? Liberals do not care. To them, Other People’s kids, and sometimes their own, are just little laboratories to inundate with deviant ideas.

So, perhaps skipping Finding Dory might be in order.

Of course, that’s pretty much the most Christians will do. In radical Islam, they whip gays, stone them, hang them, and throw them off buildings.

Read: Good News: Finding Dory To Have A Gender Confused Character! »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats To Push Their “No Fly List” Gun Ban Again

By William Teach June 14, 2016 – 8:09 am

Most high end Democrats surely recognize that using the no fly list will do virtually nothing to stop anything, but the idea here is really to claim they are Doing Something and to satisfy their rabid anti-gun base

(Washington Post) Senate Democrats are prepping a host of gun control proposals in response to the mass shooting that killed 49 in an Orlando nightclub on Sunday, beginning with a measure to prevent suspected terrorists from buying a gun.

Democrats argue that the legislation drafted by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), which they plan to offer as an amendment to an appropriations bill this week, is the “most relevant” gun control measure they could offer in response to the Orlando incident and a “painfully obvious” opening step.

Feinstein’s legislation would prevent anyone whose name appears on a list of known or suspected terrorists – such as the “no-fly” list – from purchasing a firearm or explosives. Presently, there is no legal barrier to such individuals buying a firearm, and individuals on terror watch lists who try to buy firearms are successful in over 90 percent of cases,  according to the Government Accountability Office. The proposal also would give the attorney general the power to block firearms transfers to anyone with known or suspected links to terrorism or anyone who might use a firearm to engage in terrorism, even if that person is not already on a list.

One of the big problems here is that US Citizens often have no idea that they are on any sort of list, are often on the list by mistake (remember, Senator Ted Kennedy was on the no fly list and had a tough time getting off it), and there are no mechanisms for getting off it, much less finding out why one is on it. It is the Big Government solution, which blows off all 4th and 5th Amendment protections. And 9th. Due process has gone out the window, as has petition for redress of grievance.

Funny thing is, Republicans had a viable, Constitutional alterative, as the Weekly Standard noted yesterday

As THE WEEKLY STANDARD reported back in December, Senate Republicans proposed alternative legislation that required the government to establish “probable cause”—the same standard used to obtain a search warrant—to deny the sale of a gun:

The Democratic proposal relies on a secret list and mere suspicion to strip some Americans of their constitutional rights. It provides no process for Americans wrongly placed on the list to get their names removed. The FBI is already alerted during the criminal background check process anytime someone on the watch list tries to purchase a gun, and it is already illegal for almost all of the people on the list to buy a gun. According to the National Counterterrorism Center, only 25,000 of the 1.1 million people on the watch list are U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents, and the Gun Control Actgenerally prohibits both illegal aliens and legal aliens who have “been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa” from buying guns. There have nevertheless been some high profile cases of innocent U.S. citizens—including former senator Ted Kennedy and The Weekly Standard‘s Stephen F. Hayes—being erroneously placed on the terror watch list.

Remember, that is what Democrats are pushing again

What’s been lost in the debate is the fact that Republicans have an alternativeto the Democratic proposal. Under Republican legislation sponsored by Senator John Cornyn, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there’s “probable cause”—the same legal standard used to obtain a search warrant—that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright. The measure received 55 votesin the Senate. It secured the backing of staunch conservatives like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Marco Rubio as well as moderate Republicans Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski and moderate Democrats Joe Manchin and Joe Donnelly. The only Republican to oppose it was Mark Kirk.

The Democratic bill sponsored by Senator Diane Feinstein, by contrast, simply allows the federal government to ban anyone on the watch list from buying a gun. The government’s decision may be challenged in court by the prospective gun buyer, but the government’s decision will be sustained if a “preponderance of evidence” indicates that the attorney general has a “reasonable belief” that the prospective gun buyer may be engaged in terrorism.

In other words, the GOP bill puts the burden on the government to get judicial clearance, while the Democratic bill puts the burden on the individual to prove his innocence. The GOP bill requires the government to show “probable cause” to a judge, while the Democratic bill relies on a lower legal standard that a “preponderance of evidence” shows the attorney general has a “reasonable belief” that the prospective gun buyer may be a terrorist.

The Democratic push is for ultimate government control, where bureaucrats can simply block people for nebulous reasons, making it virtually impossible to remove the restriction. Democrats do not care. They idea here is not to stop Islamic terrorism, it’s to restrict the 2nd Amendment Right of as many citizens as possible. We can tell because they will offer more gun control laws, without a wit of radical Islamist control, as we switch back to the Washington Post article

Democrats on Monday said they will also be looking to impose a ban on assault weapons as part of their Orlando response. They expect to present that proposal after addressing Feinstein’s measure.

They also are planning legislation to stiffen background checks, deal with mental instability and address spousal abuse. On Monday, Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) released a bill that would prevent people who have committed a hate crime from purchasing a firearm.

So, just a catchall of gun control

What about the radical Muslim control? Where’s that?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Democrats To Push Their “No Fly List” Gun Ban Again »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Hillary Says People Under FBI Scrutiny Shouldn’t Be Able To Buy A Gun

By William Teach June 13, 2016 – 6:35 pm

I suggest that people under FBI scrutiny shouldn’t be allowed to have security which carries firearms, because they are like totally a big danger to everyone

(ABC News) In her first rally since becoming the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton blasted regulations that allowed a lone gunman to purchase weapons that he used to kill 49 people in Orlando over the weekend — a slaughter that represented the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

“We may have our disagreements about gun safety regulations, but we should all be able to agree on a few essential things,” Clinton said, speaking to a crowd gathered at the Cleveland Industrial Innovation Center. “If the FBI is watching you for a suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked.”

OK, she has a point. Right? Right? Of course, if this person is a US citizen, protected by the Constitution, well, then, if they haven’t broken any laws, should they have their Constitutional Rights suspended? If they are a non-citizen, they have zero right to purchase any firearm.

In reality, you can’t just go and buy a gun with no questions asked, as moronic liberals like to claim. You need a background check. And the Orlando jihadi passed said background checks prior to becoming radicalized.

And, since Hillary is under criminal investigation by the FBI, she would possibly be denied.

BTW, who has been president for the last 7+ years? Obama has zero problem using Executive Orders for just about everything. Why not for tightening up background checks? I guess he doesn’t care.

Read: Hillary Says People Under FBI Scrutiny Shouldn’t Be Able To Buy A Gun »

Posted in Constitution, Hillary Clinton | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 13, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is evil ice cream coming from evil greenhouse gas producing cows, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Datechguy’s Blog, with a post on some horrible and perhaps insulting questions on the Pulse terror attack.

Read: If All You See… »

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

The Gun Banners Are (Again) Out In Full Force

By William Teach June 13, 2016 – 10:17 am

I mentioned this a bit in an earlier post, but that was more a case of the typical “Blame The Gun” duckspeak, often coming from people who are they themselves protected by either carrying a gun themselves or having armed security protecting them. But, now the gun banners are starting to chime in at full throat, starting with the always unhinged Salon, as written by Heather Digby Parton

Nobody needs an AR-15: The Orlando massacre teaches us (again) that we must ban semi-automatic human killing machines
Do it now: Congress must ban military-style weapons and make it harder for terrorists to act on their hate

The headline and subhead say it all. Of course, they are already banned. Private ownership of any automatic weapon is, for all intense purposes, banned. The article also mentions this

Background checks are required for most sales. What Casey is implying is that all scary looking weapons be banned. Even though the previous assault weapons ban did not work. And I love when people chime in who are too incompetent to use the correct terminology.

And then there was Bernie Sanders, calling for a ban on automatic weapons. Glad a major presidential candidate has such great knowledge.

Hillary wants to reinstate the “assault weapons ban”. Funny how Democrats didn’t do this when they had full control of the House, Senate, and White House in 2009, with the GOP unable to stop them at all.

The Hartford Courant is likewise calling for a ban on assault weapons

But we must set aside, for this moment, the temptation to focus on the abhorrent zeal that apparently drove Omar Mateen to murder on Sunday. This conversation could just as easily be about the delusions of Adam Lanza, who killed 20 children and six women at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.

Illness, prejudice and ignorance will always be with us. But the guns don’t have to be.

This is where it gets odious. The blame is place on the guns, rather than the idiology of those using them for mass murder.

There is no excuse for allowing madmen access to assault weapons. Military-spec weapons have no business being in the hands of anybody other than the military. The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to the technology of mass murder.

Last time I checked, murder was illegal, but people still do it. Furthermore, if you’re saying civilians should not have access to military spec weapons (they generally don’t), then this would restrict citizens from having certain knives and handguns. It would restrict citizens to pretty much a .22 caliber, as the military makes big use of 9mm weapons. It would mean hunters would not be allowed to have rifles that could actually take game down. The military uses shotguns, so they would be banned.

Oh, and the Second Amendment does say that the right “shall not be infringed”.

The Boston Globe picks up the insanity even more

Prayers aren’t enough. The US needs fewer guns.

…

It makes no more sense to blame Islam for the Orlando shooting than it would to blame mental illness for the Sandy Hook massacre. The common thread and decisive factor in those and so many other mass shootings was the availability of powerful semiautomatic weapons that serve no purpose but to kill. It’s not likely the nation will ever be free of malcontents, whether they’re homophobic religious zealots or unstable nuts. But it could be free from the guns that enable them to do so much harm, so easily.

See? It’s the gun, not the disciple of a segment of extremist Islam. So, ban the gun!

Tell you what: let’s ban all guns. And I mean all guns. No waivers for certain people. Not for politicians, including the president and his protection. Not for celebrities and sports figures. No excuses allowed. What you’ll be left with are bad people who get them. Banning alcohol worked well, right? No one in the United States drank, right?

And, we have to ask, who does this hurt the most? Women, who like the lightweight weapons, handguns and “assault weapons”, for protection. They are a great equalizer. Liberals would prefer they have rape whistles, though.

Expect more ban calls from liberals.

Read: The Gun Banners Are (Again) Out In Full Force »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

Study: Democrats Are Rather Clueless On Climate Change

By William Teach June 13, 2016 – 7:45 am

It’s a shock

From the article

A survey has found some interesting takeaways about Kentuckians’ attitudes toward climate change, including that the biggest influence on beliefs may be political affiliation rather than scientific knowledge.

There have been numerous studies about attitudes toward climate change around the country, but very few have looked at Kentucky specifically. For her master’s thesis at Kentucky State University, Jennifer Hubbard-Sanchez surveyed 229 Kentuckians about their climate change beliefs and knowledge.

She had three major hypothesis

  • That those who self-identify as Democrats would be more likely to say that climate change is happening and is being caused by humans, while people who self-identify as Republicans would be less likely to come to those conclusions;
  • That people with a higher understanding of climate science would be more likely to believe that climate change is happening; and
  • That people with a higher understanding of climate science would be more likely to believe that climate change is being caused by humans.

She decided to practice Science, and found some interesting conclusions

But only Hubbard-Sanchez’s first hypothesis was supported by her study. Overwhelmingly, the factor that influenced how people felt about climate change and its causes was their political affiliation. In fact, she found that the Democrats who took her survey didn’t know as much about climate science as the Republicans did. And yet, despite their levels of knowledge, both Republicans and Democrats echoed their party lines.

We’ve seen this time and time again. Democrats profess belief that climate change is mostly/solely caused by Mankind, especially “carbon pollution”, yet, their actual science foundation is rather low. They simply devolve into duckspeak and insults when confronted with facts.

“Democrats are saying ‘yes, this is happening,’ without knowing as much science,” Hubbard-Sanchez said. “And Republicans, who know more, their knowledge score was higher but their belief score was lower.”

Because we know better, and also understand that the issue is primarily political, not scientific.

Read: Study: Democrats Are Rather Clueless On Climate Change »

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

In Wake Of Orlando Shooting, Political Left Blames All But Radical Islam

By William Teach June 13, 2016 – 7:02 am

What is it that keeps Democrats and Leftists around the world from placing blame where it belongs, namely, an ever growing segment of Islam that is extremist (which the counter jihad movement calls Islamists), with a smaller segment that is willing to perform violence in the name of their religion? They refuse to allow for the separation of the Islamist from the regular Muslim, and deem any verbal attack on the Islamists as full on Islamophobia of the entire religion. And they will blame everything but Islam

(PJ Media)The Un-American Civil Liberties Union has found the real culprit in the Orlando shooting. One guess:

Several American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorneys took to Twitter to blame the “Christian Right” for Sunday’s deadly terrorist attack at a nightclub in Orlando, Fla., which left 50 dead and 53 injured.

Chase Strangio, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s LGBT and AIDS Project, claimed the social and political environment cultivated by Christian conservatives in recent months was to blame for the shooting at Pulse, a nightclub popular with Orlando’s LGBT community.

Watching Twitter, there were more than a few who blamed Christians and Conservatives/Republicans and Tea Party members, and, of course, Trump supporters, and were not shy about blaming all. But, they still can’t bring themselves to blame the Islamists. When Dylann Roof went on a murder spree, the Left was more than willing to blame Christians, White people, the Tea Party, Republicans, all Southerners, and the Confederate flag. Here, they can’t even blame radical Islam.

Of course, guns are too blame. Lefty Twitter and blogs and Democratic politicians were awash with blame on guns. Here’s Dick Durban, for one

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on Sunday called on Congress to pass new gun control laws following the Orlando, Fla., shooting that left 50 people dead and 53 more injured.

If Congress does not act, Durbin said it would be “complicit in the next killing.”

The killer, Omar Mateen, passed a background check performed by the FBI, but, since, has been investigated three times by the FBI for ties to radical Islam. What gun control will stop this? For many lefties, it is simply banning all private ownership of guns. Of course, Lefties are also blaming the NRA. And “assault rifles” with high capacity magazines. They just can’t help themselves. And they love the phrase “military style”. No, sorry, those are illegal, since they would be automatic.

We don’t need gun control, we need radical Muslim control.

Not too be outdone, here’s Obama, blaming Americans rather than Islamic terrorists

So determined is the president to avoid the subject of Islamist, ISIS-inspired or ISIS-directed terrorism that he concluded his remarks with an astonishing insistence that “we need the strength and courage to change” our attitudes toward the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.

That’s just disgusting. There’s no other word for it. (snip)

The attack on the Pulse nightclub was an attack on us all, no less than the World Trade Center attack.

To suggest we must look inward to explain this is not only unseemly but practically an act of conscious misdirection on the president’ s part to direct out attention away from Omar Mateen’s phone call.

Unsurprisingly, Obama, a man constantly surrounded by people carrying firearms, including actual military assault rifles capable of firing on automatic with large capacity magazines, went on a tear about citizens owning guns. Did anyone tell him that Pulse was a gun free zone?

When France was attacked by Islamic terrorists, they were unafraid to name the danger, and, rather than take on gun control and blaming everyone else, they focused on the actual problem. Here, Leftists use the occasion to push their put peeves.

One has to wonder if radical Muslim groups are thinking “our members attack, kill, and terrorize in the name of Mohamed and Allah, they tell everyone they’re doing it in their name, yet, those crazy leftist Americans refuse to blame us. We even attack one of their cherished interest groups, the LGBT community, in a horrific attack. What do we have to do to get them to blame us?”

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: In Wake Of Orlando Shooting, Political Left Blames All But Radical Islam »

Posted in Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 12, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is evil ice cream which comes from evil moo cows, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Gay Patriot, with a post that there are some things you can’t fix.

It’s ice cream week!

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 33 Comments | Trackback URL

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach June 12, 2016 – 9:22 am

Guilherme Asthma patriotic pinup

Happy Sunday! It’s a gorgeous global warming day in America. The sun is shining, the geese are now all in the pond behind mi casa, and the ducks are not happy about it. Loud little buggers. This pinup is a bit more modern, by Guilherme Asthma, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Watts Up With That? discusses green millenials as big wasters
  2. Victory Girls Blog explains what the echoes on Twitter are (when you see things like (((echoes))) )
  3. Vox Popoli uses, sadly, those echoes in wondering who killed conservatism
  4. This ain’t Hell… has your Sunday feel good stories
  5. The Lid explains Hillary’s bigotry
  6. The Jawa Report notes that confirmed liberals are psychos
  7. Shot In The Dark has an open letter on “starting a conversation”
  8. Raised On Hoecakes features the criminality of having your own home garden
  9. Powerline has a perfect storm of cluelessness
  10. Political Clown Parade has the nominees (so far) for the Paul Revere Award
  11. Patterico’s Pontifications highlights full circle political correctness
  12. Outside The Beltway notes ‘Murica 1, Canada o
  13. Neo-neocon covers the new anti-Semitism
  14. Moonbattery has a eulogy for a legendary athlete
  15. And last, but not least, Michelle Obama’s Mirror notes that Islam does not approve of the gay lifestyle

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

Surprise: Donald Trump Stacks Up Well To Fictional Literature Dictators. Or Something

By William Teach June 12, 2016 – 7:36 am

No, I’m still not a Trump supporter, and would not vote for him (or any other presidential candidate) if the vote was today. Yet, all these “Trump’s a dictator in waiting” articles from the Credentialed Media are a hoot. And this one raises the Barking Moonbat scale up to about a 9, as Carlos Lozado loses it in the pages of the Washington Post

How does Donald Trump stack up against American literature’s fictional dictators? Pretty well, actually.

Americans have seen this leader before. Boastful, deceptive, crudely charismatic. Dabbling in xenophobia and sexism, contemptuous of the rule of law, he spouts outlandish proposals that cater to the lowest instincts of those angry or frightened enough to back him. He wins the nation’s top office, triggering fears of an authoritarian, even fascistic U.S. government.

Normally, though, this leader resides safely in the pages of American fiction.

Donald Trump’s ascent to become the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has released a spasm of mea culpas from reporters and pollsters who failed to anticipate the biggest story in national politics — and a spate of literary and film references among those fearing a turn toward dictatorial government. It is Plato’s “Republic” that anticipatedthe rise of Trump. Or maybe the 2006 political comedy “Idiocracy.” Or the 1981 young-adult novel “The Wave.” Or is it Howard Beale’s mad-as-hell rants in 1976’s “Network” that truly portended the anger erupting four decades later?

In particular, two novels depicting homegrown strongmen have become ways to interpret Trump’s campaign and to imagine his presidency. Sinclair Lewis’s “It Can’t Happen Here” (1935) features a populist Democratic senator named Berzelius “Buzz” Windrip who wins the White House in the late 1930s on a redistributionist platform — with a generous side order of racism — and quickly fashions a totalitarian regime purporting to speak for the nation’s Forgotten Men. Salon hasdubbed it “the novel that foreshadowed Donald Trump’s authoritarian appeal,” while Slate’s Jacob Weisberg writes that you can’t read the book today “without flashes of Trumpian recognition.”

Seriously, in this long, long, long opinion piece Lozado is actually making comparisons of Trump to fictional dictators. It doesn’t get much dumber in Liberal World.

The dictators whom Roth and Lewis conjure share the intolerance underlying Trump’s most controversial proposals — banning Muslims from entering the United States, building a wall straddling the U.S.-Mexico border, deporting millions of undocumented immigrants — but the fictional characters often go further and scarier. Lindbergh moves Jews from urban centers into the rural heartland through an ominous Office of American Absorption, leaving them vulnerable to anti-Semitic violence. Windrip creates concentration camps for dissidents; establishes a sham judiciary; and bars black Americans from voting, holding public office, practicing law or medicine, or teaching beyond grammar school. “Nothing so elevates a dispossessed farmer or a factory worker on relief,” Jessup realizes, “as to have some race, any race, on which he can look down.”

So, because Trump is against letting in potential Islamic jihadis into the country, is against an invasion of illegals causing problems for Americans, and is (supposedly) for kicking illegals out, he’s a fictional dictator. Interestingly enough, it is Democrats who tend to be anti-Semitic. It is Democrats who fantasize about rounding up Conservatives and climate skeptics and putting them in re-education camps. Or just killing them. Want to use foreign law, or simply their gut feelings, in legal rulings. And love that Blacks are concentrated in crummy parts of big cities run by the Democratic Party.

I don’t imagine that is possible beyond a writer’s imagination. Even now, whether or not Trump wins this election, whether or not he builds his walls and subverts our laws, he has set loose passions and compelled choices that will long mark us. If the politics he represents take deeper root, as in so many other nations and times, tweeting #NeverTrump or slapping a “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for Hillary” sticker on the car will offer little solace. And the man promising to make America great again will have succeeded in rendering America, finally and conclusively, unexceptional.

Good grief. This is the part where you say “me thinks thou protests too much.” I certainly think that Trump is yet another Big Government Republican, but he pales in comparison to the type of Big Government that Hillary and Democrats want, rooted in Progressivism, which is termed “nice fascism.” In other words, big, controlling government that is enacted in your best interests. At the end of the day, though, expect whiny liberals to continue this meme, as they do for every Republican presidential candidate.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Surprise: Donald Trump Stacks Up Well To Fictional Literature Dictators. Or Something »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Donald Trump | 7 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove