Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach March 20, 2016 – 9:22 am

Happy Sunday! It’s another great day in America, and it’s the first day of Spring! Since it’s rather chilly and dreary today, perhaps a good day for some bowling, as painted by Arnold Armitage, with a wee bit of help?

What’s happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Right Wing News notes hyper-lefties shutting down roads to block Trump
  2. Raised On Hoecakes covers “Who said it, Trump or Hillary?”
  3. The Lonely Conservative wonders if we’re as dumb as they think we are
  4. The Other McCain hits up feminist tumblr
  5. This ain’t Hell… has your Sunday feel good stories
  6. Weasel Zippers notes the Queen is refusing to meet with Obama
  7. Independent Sentinel covers private citizens not counting on keeping their private property
  8. The Diary Of Daedalus says Little Green Footballs is a Nazi site
  9. The Daley Gator has some “congratulations” for the FBI on this Islamist guy
  10. Public Secrets has a reason for saying #NeverTrump
  11. Powerline highlights more federal overreach
  12. Political Clown Parade notes that Communism seems a great idea for Fidel Castro right up to…..
  13. Pamela Geller notes “Draw Mohamed Day”
  14. Neo-neocon covers Trump and religion
  15. And last, but not least, Moonbattery covers Fabio and Trump

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

Senator Tillis: Senate “fulfilling its constitutional obligation by deferring consent in order to let the people’s voice be heard”

By William Teach March 20, 2016 – 8:09 am

Here’s an interesting point: the Constitution has no requirement that the Senate hold hearings and a vote on anyone nominated by the President. Article II, Section 2

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States,….

If the Senate withholds that Advice and Consent, it sure seems Constitutional

(Daily Caller) “Justice Scalia was widely admired and respected for defending the original intent of the Constitution and its prescribed separation of powers, and he served as a critical check on President Obama’s executive overreaches,” Senator Thom Tillis said. “While the Constitution allows the president to nominate a Supreme Court justice, our founding fathers also made sure to give the Senate advise and consent authority, to help protect the integrity of our system of checks and balances.”

“The president and Democratic leaders aren’t exactly thrilled with giving the American people a voice,” Tillis continued. “And contrary to their claims, the Senate is doing its job and fulfilling its constitutional obligation by deferring consent in order to let the people’s voice be heard.”

It’s an excellent point. There is no requirement to hold hearings or a vote. Considering that Democrats blocked many Bush appointees for lower courts for years, and, furthermore, refused to pass an actual budget in both the Democratic Party run House and Senate during the years 2009 through 2010, and the Democratic Party run Senate refused to consider a budget once the GOP took over the House in 2011, they have no leg to stand on.

“Will they join us in doing our jobs on behalf of the American people? Or will they instead seek to further divide our nation by turning the Supreme Court process into a blatantly partisan back and forth?” he said. “Are they going to resort to blocking and sabotaging important legislation and good-faith efforts to help the American people…all in the name of seeking to score cheap political points in an election year?”

Of course they will seek to further divide. It’s what they do. It’s what Obama has been doing since even before the 2008 general election. Everything with them is about power, and they like the notion of picking fights for power. Heck, even liberal Democrats are not happy about the pick

Liberal House Democrats are holding their fire on President Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court.

Many liberals on and off Capitol Hill had pushed the president to pick a minority nominee –– specifically a black woman, which would be an historic first –– and some liberal advocacy groups quickly condemned Obama’s choice of an older white man with a centrist track record.

But a number of House liberals, while privately grumbling about the decision, have been exceedingly careful not to criticize the president publicly. Instead, they’re praising Garland’s legal bona fides and training their attacks on the Senate Republicans blocking the nomination.

It’s a sign that Democrats appreciate the tactical acumen behind the Garland pick, even if they are not especially enamored of the judge himself.

They wanted a hardcore Progressive who would legislate from the bench, using their feelings, foreign law, and Social Justice in their rulings. In other words, they want someone who cares little for the American Constitution in their attempt to remake America. Hilariously, they claim that Republicans are violating the Constitution for refusing to hold hearings and take a vote. To repeat, a SCOTUS pick requires Advice and Consent to be appointed. The Constitution does not specify how, and, if Senators say their advice is “there should be no pick till the next president” and they refuse to provide consent, that’s Constitutional.

I still think that it would be better to slow walk the pick and set it up for a vote just after the election, because, if Hillary wins, and she will more than likely beat Donald Trump in the Electoral College, Garland Merrick would be better than anyone Hillary picks. How to convey this to the Republican voters, and especially the Conservative base, to make sure they are pumped up and get out to vote?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Senator Tillis: Senate “fulfilling its constitutional obligation by deferring consent in order to let the people’s voice be heard” »

Posted in Constitution | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 19, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a greenhouse which will be needed in the future when carbon pollution makes it too hot for plants to survive outside, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post wondering if the GOP has had a weaker front-runner than Trump.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

A Fair Look At Donald Trump’s Record

By William Teach March 19, 2016 – 10:30 am

Is Donald Trump a liberal in Republican clothes? A progressive? A Conservative? Where does he stand? Let’s take a look at where he has stood on issues over the past. Over course, we cannot look at a voting record like most politicians, since he has never served in an elected position. On The Issues as a fantastic place to look at a candidates record, such as it is, and rates Trump as a Libertarian-leaning Conservative. How do they arrive at this? Let’s look (hit the link to see the full details and quotes).

  • Abortion: Since 2011, he has been pro-life, after being pro-abortion back on 2000.
  • Budget and economy: he’s been remarkably consistent in leaning towards Republican/Conservative/Libertarian policies
  • Civil Rights: was against gay marriage before Supreme Court decision. Seems to want to move on. Against political correctness
  • Corporations: very much pro-corporation, but has also noted that being a know-it-all shuts the door on new ideas
  • Crime: Trump is very tough on crime
  • Drugs: he’s no fan of drugs or alcohol, but, does favor legalization, mostly leaving it up to the states
  • Schools: favors school choice and competition, against Common Core and teacher’s unions, against much of the silly stuff taught in schools
  • Energy and Oil: for drilling, doesn’t believe in ‘climate change’
  • Environment: against circuses and their abuse of elephants, thinks environment should be considered in development, and thinks the EPA is a disgrace
  • Foreign policy: has long had a concern with China. Very concerned with Middle East
  • Free Trade: has long been concerned with trade imbalances, especially regarding Mexico and China
  • Government reform: thinks private sector can do it better, the role and scope of government should be limited
  • Gun control: he used to be for gun control and an assault weapons ban, before changing his mind in 2011
  • Health care: he was for universal health care before changing to being a free market guy against Obamacare in 2011
  • Homeland security: he’s been for a strong military and strong homeland defense, especially against radical Islam.
  • Immigration: This is a very mixed bag, with some statements against illegal, and to a degree, legal, immigration, some are in support of legalization of illegals and expanding legal.
  • Jobs: Trump has been pro-America, bringing jobs back, is against a minimum wage, prefers more opportunities, and against raising business taxes
  • Principles and Values: I’d recommend reading all these for judgement
  • Social Security: he’d prefer people invest in their own retirement, but, understands SS isn’t an entitlement, it’s honoring a deal
  • Tax reform: against flat tax, but, wants a simple tax code with low rates. Did advocate for a 14% tax on wealthy back in 1999 to erase national debt. Flipped on Bush tax cuts in 2011.
  • Technology: is big on supporting tech
  • War and Peace: big supporter of Israel, as well as the US military. Wanted to attack North Korea. Slurred John McCain multiple times, going back to 2000. Supported Iraq War before flipping.
  • Welfare: supports workfare, and limited food stamps.

The only thing I’ll note in letting you make up your mind, is that several of Trump’s positions flipped in 2011, when he decided to run for President as a Republican. His position on the Iraq War flipped at the exact same time as when the Democrats decided to use the war to attack President Bush of political purposes. Also, the quotes generally do not go back that far, sometimes only since 2011. Of course, in a lot of cases, no one would have been asking Donald questions about political positions before 2011. He seems to be, for the most part, a moderate Republican who is pro-business, wants limited government, supports the military and Israel, is against radical Islam, and wants people to succeed through hard work, education, and increasing America’s economy.

What are your judgements?

 

Read: A Fair Look At Donald Trump’s Record »

Posted in GOP | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Swedish Town Cancels Earth Hour Due To Threat Of Refugee Violence

By William Teach March 19, 2016 – 7:13 am

Why yes, it is almost that time, when members of the Cult of Climastrology are supposed to turn off all their lights for a massively long hour to show their support for Other People Doing Something about anthropogenic climate change. This is a bit of a problem in one town in Sweden

(Breitbart) The annual virtue-signalling festival known as ‘Earth Hour’ won’t be celebrated in one Swedish town this year, thanks to a sex-crime epidemic sweeping the municipality.

The small Swedish town of Östersund — population 44,300 — is presently living in a state of fear. Police have instructed women to not go outside alone at night following a spate of sex attacks, and police patrol in search of the perpetrators who have so far avoided capture.

There have now been 14 separate reports of sex attacks in the town, with victims ranging from grown women to 10-year-old girls. Police have refused to release details of the suspects they are seeking — as is usual in a country where police took the decision last year to combat racism by not discussing the ethnicities of crime suspects — but victims have described “foreign origin” attackers.

The danger is considered so great the symbolic act of turning the town’s municipal lights off for one hour is considered too much of a risk, and police have requested the event be cancelled. The final decision was taken in consultation with local officers on Tuesday, with Social Democrat spokesman for the local council Ann-Sofie Andersson remarking:

“Earth Hour is a good and important event, but this year we chose to have the street lights on in view of what has happened. We want everyone to feel safe”.

The town had earlier told women to not go out at night due to the threat of rape, sexual assault, and violence from all the “refugees.” They’ve expanded their night patrols by adding volunteers to the police force. Leftists have refused to acknowledge the threat to citizens, and especially women, from these migrants streaming into Europe. They’ve chosen to put extremist Muslim men over the safety of women in the hierarchy of Things Liberals Care About. Will cancelling Earth Hour be the final straw that makes Leftist give up their support of a segment of a religion that overwhelmingly treats women with a profound lake of respect? Of a religion that has a large segment that treats women as pleasure toys for men? Probably not.

Read: Swedish Town Cancels Earth Hour Due To Threat Of Refugee Violence »

Posted in Global Warming, RoP | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Fox News: “What’s Up With Donald Trump’s Extreme, Sick Obsession With Megyn Kelly?”

By William Teach March 19, 2016 – 6:59 am

Donald Trump has been attacking Fox News’ Megyn Kelly for months, ever since that horrible debate for which she was a moderator. One would think Trump would move on. No. He’s continued on and on and on, and has, as of late, started to refer to her almost exclusively as “Crazy Megyn” in Tweets. This culminated in this tweet

Fox News responded (via Mediaite)

Donald Trump’s vitriolic attacks against Megyn Kelly and his extreme, sick obsession with her is beneath the dignity of a presidential candidate who wants to occupy the highest office in the land. Megyn is an exemplary journalist and one of the leading anchors in America — we’re extremely proud of her phenomenal work and continue to fully support her throughout every day of Trump’s endless barrage of crude and sexist verbal assaults. As the mother of three young children, with a successful law career and the second highest rated show in cable news, it’s especially deplorable for her to be repeatedly abused just for doing her job.

While I’m not sure this rises to sexist, it certainly is crude, rude, deplorable, and beneath a presidential candidate. Sure, politics is a rough and tumble game, and high end people should be ready for others to respond. But, people in elected office or who are seeking elected office should certainly limit condemnation of Citizens engaged in using their 1st Amendment rights. What does Trump get out of these constant assaults on Kelly? His supporters apparently like this school yard brawl type of tweeting, but, will it play well during the General election? Does it simply reinforce that Trump is a vulgar, nasty person?

Let me say that I’m not a big fan of Kelly. She’s a moderate squish, and, much like Bill O’Reilly, I do not like the way he treats guests. And, yes, she does go far in attacking Trump. Perhaps Trump could take the high road. Alas, no. Trump will attack almost anyone who has even mild concern or opposes him. He’s recently gone after Mitt Romney, Lindsay Graham, Mitt Romney’s campaign manager Stuart Stevens, Marco Rubio, the Wall Street Journal, and, of course, Ted Cruz, among others. Can you guess who he rarely attacks?

That’s right, Hillary Clinton. He has no special name for her, like he does for Crazy Megyn and Lying Ted Cruz. He almost never even mentions her on Twitter, which seems to be his preferred method of communication. The most recent mention is

If it was another Republican, he’d be attacking them, calling them names. But, with Hillary? Mild chiding. Perhaps that should give Republicans a clue as to whom Trump sees as his real enemies. If Trump wins the Republican nomination, will he go after Hillary as hard as he’s gone after Conservatives and Republicans?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Fox News: “What’s Up With Donald Trump’s Extreme, Sick Obsession With Megyn Kelly?” »

Posted in Idiot GOPer's | Comments Off on Fox News: “What’s Up With Donald Trump’s Extreme, Sick Obsession With Megyn Kelly?” | Trackback URL

Ivanpah Solar Plant Could Be Soon Shut Down For, Get This, Not Producing Enough Power

By William Teach March 18, 2016 – 4:16 pm

Color me shocked!

(Daily Caller)  California regulators may force a massive solar thermal power plant in the Mojave Desert to shut down after years of under-producing electricity — not to mention the plant was blinding pilots flying over the area and incinerating birds.

The Ivanpah solar plant could be shut down if state regulators don’t give it more time to meet electricity production promises it made as part of its power purchase agreements with utilities, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Ivanpah, which got a $1.6 billion loan guarantee from the Obama administration, only produced a fraction of the power state regulators expected it would. The plant only generated 45 percent of expected power in 2014 and only 68 percent in 2015, according to government data.

This is what happens when Big Promises are made on technology that is less than viable. That $1.6 billion could have been spent on research and development to produce solar that works well. Nope. Had to go to an Obama donor (also, Harry Reid). The cost is rated at $200 a megawatt hour, almost 6 times the cost of natural gas. Said natural gas is also need to supplement the running of the plant, since it apparently cannot produce enough electricity to run itself.

And, the plant has till July 2016 to supply more power or it could be shut down. Which could mean big problems, considering that the owners asked for a $539 million grant to help pay of the $1.6 federal loan.

One has to wonder, if this technology is so great, why is it necessary to finance it with taxpayer money? If it worked well, the private sector would be dumping oodles of their own money into it.

Read: Ivanpah Solar Plant Could Be Soon Shut Down For, Get This, Not Producing Enough Power »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 18, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a water intensive orchard making orange juice for The Rich, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The H2, which, of course, does their Big Boob Friday, and has an art post on Louis Lozowick.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Huh: Who Knew That Solar Is For The Affluent And Not The Poor?

By William Teach March 18, 2016 – 10:30 am

One of the things about the push to build solar, along with other “alternatives” (when the actual projects aren’t actually being blocked by hardcore enviros), is that they are expensive, and the increased cost in energy will harm the poor and middle class. Interestingly, the hardcore Warmist, George Soros funded, Joe Romm website Climate Progress agrees, and says we should Do Something

Low-Income Communities Might Need Solar More Than Anyone Else

Solar power has been criticized for helping the wealthy and punishing the poor. Some groups — largely, it should be noted, utilities and advocacy groups funded by fossil fuel interests — say only affluent people can afford solar, leaving less-affluent people to pay more than their share for the grid.

Who receives most of the benefits when it comes to expensive solar power? The rich. Who benefited from all the money thrown towards building solar from all the stimulus programs passed by Democrats? The rich. Who can afford to pay the increased cost for solar energy, both at the base energy level and with the following cost of living increase? The rich. Who suffers? Those who are barely making ends meet in the first place. Those who are on fixed incomes. Those who are middle and lower class.

Who benefits most from affordable energy? The poor and middle class. Seems like this push for solar is for The Rich. It’s easy for them.

But there are some basic impediments to getting every low-income community to go solar. The challenge is in the financing. For starters, many of the financing programs for rooftop solar are only available to people who own a home.

And, typically, those who are poor and middle class cannot afford that high cost to install solar, nor will the building owners generally pony up tens of thousands of dollars for installation, which would mean a rent increase. The Warmists can spin this all they want, but, it is bad for the lower and middle classes at this time. Instead of pissing money away and raising the cost of living for citizens, why don’t these Warmist groups dump their own money into research and development? Without massive government subsidies…not tax breaks, but actual subsidies…solar cannot sustain itself. Why is everything from Progressives about harming the middle and lower classes in practice?

Read: Huh: Who Knew That Solar Is For The Affluent And Not The Poor? »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Salon: Say, Liberal Cities And States Are Really Horrible Places For Sexism And Hatred

By William Teach March 18, 2016 – 7:15 am

I’m not sure Salon really thought about it when they re-posted an article from ultra-leftist Alternet regarding sexism and race hate and stuff

The 10 most bigoted cities in America, according to Twitter
New research measures the frequency that social media users across the country resort to hate speech

In many ways, social media provides an unfiltered look into the American psyche, its prejudices and biases included. Just last week, when a young Mexican-American man sang the national anthem at a Democratic debate, racists took to Twitter to express their indignation. And when a film trailer revealed that the cast of Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens included several non-white actors, including a black lead, several people tried to launch a boycott because the film had “barely has any whites in it.”

Language aimed at women on social media often takes on sexist and misogynist overtones, particularly when women write about issues such as feminism. And for women of color, the intersection of racism and sexism can create a particularly hostile environment, thanks to every anonymous troll with 140 characters worth of bile to spill.

Words matter, which is why this side of social media is both ugly and telling. You can learn a lot about a community by the frequency of its residents’ use of racial slurs on social media. Abodo, an apartment hunting site, decided to take a close look at tweets sent from around the country. Between June 2014 and December 2015, they assessed 12 million tweets, looking out for racist, sexist, fatist, transphobic, ableist and other types of slurs, and were able to identify where those users were most concentrated.

We used to say “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” Nowadays, any minor little word can cause Offense where no offense was meant and mean we need a National Conversation. The article contains all sorts of charts showing this Offense. The states with the worst and least derogatory language are a smattering of both Republican and Democratic ones. This applies similarly to “anti-black” language by state and city.

Anti-Hispanic tweets are primarily in Democratic Party run cities. I think they forgot the one about States, as there are two of the same graphics by city. But, what about negative language against women?

While it is certainly spread out, we can certainly see a disproportionate amount of derogatory language against Women in Democratic Party states. How about cities?

Of all those cities, only Baton Rouge and maybe Arlington, Tx, can be consider right-leaning cities. The rest are lock, stock, and barrel Leftist cities.

What about gays? Liberals are super supportive of gays, right?

Once again, the majority are from Democratic Party run cities. There was no state graphic. So, how about Transgender hate by state?

There’s quite a bit in Liberal run areas. Shouldn’t they all be green for best? Breaking it down by city, all Democratic Party run cities. We see the same pattern when it comes to “cognitively disabled” and overweight people.

Why are Democrats using such ugly, racist, bigoted, misogynistic, and hateful language on Twitter?

Read: Salon: Say, Liberal Cities And States Are Really Horrible Places For Sexism And Hatred »

Posted in Liberal World | 5 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove