Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

Patriotic Pinup Enoch Bolles

Happy Sunday! A gorgeous last Sunday of February. This pinup is by Enoch Bolles, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Zilla wonders if Twitter banded Naked Islam’s URL
  2. Independent Sentinel is laughing at Melissa Harris Perry’s meltdown
  3. Vlad Tepes features “drinking camel pee for Allah”
  4. The People’s Cube modernized the Gettysburg Address
  5. The Other McCain is not impressed by Fox News
  6. The Lonely Conservative has an interesting flashback on Donald Trump and the Tea Party
  7. The Last Tradition exhorts Republicans to support Trump
  8. The First Street Journal endorses Patrick Frey for President
  9. The Daley Gator has your Leftist Utopia update
  10. Rhymes With Right discusses #NeverTrump
  11. Raised On Hoecakes covers the meaning of crony capitalism
  12. Powerline shows us how Iran is spending their new cash
  13. Pamela Geller covers more fake hate
  14. Neo-neocon has proof that Trump’s a tyrant
  15. And last, but not least, Moonbattery discusses where social justice leads

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 »

Good News: GOP Candidates Entrenched Against Gun Controls

The NY Times Editorial Board is apoplectic over the gun control positions of the Republican candidates, and is more than happy to let us know about it

Republican Candidates Deeply Entrenched Against Gun Controls

…..

President Obama has labored and even shed tears in pleading for just a bit of compromise to widen background checks on gun buyers and do more about the mental health problems underlying many of the mass shootings. He has also done what he can through executive actions. But the winner of the Republican nomination is almost guaranteed to be an ironclad defender of the gun lobby, pandering to voters by portraying the government as intent on trampling gun owners’ rights and confiscating their firearms.

That sounds like an excellent position to me.

“No more gun-free zones!” vows Donald Trump of local governments’ efforts to limit the killings. “Gun laws fail everywhere they’re tried,” insists Senator Marco Rubio, contradicting studies showing that states with strong gun safety laws suffer fewer shooting deaths. “We define gun control real simple — that’s hitting what you aim at,” Senator Ted Cruz says with a grin as the industry’s concealed-carry campaign to arm more and more Americans advances from barrooms to college campuses.

I’d like to use the thumbs up animated emoticon right here, but, it won’t work for the cross-post at Right Wing News.

Of course, the NYTEB is thrilled that Hillary is a staunch advocate of gun control (without mentioning that she’s a staunch advocate of killing the unborn), and that Bernie Sanders is slowly getting on board. Interestingly, they never mention how many Black people kill and shoot each other with guns, usually illegally obtained and possessed, only mass shootings. It’s like Democrats do not care that Black people are offing each other at a very high rate.

Gun safety should be a bipartisan issue, but the Republican candidates seem too afraid of the gun lobby to let that happen. All the more reason for the Democrats to drive the point home all the way to November.

It’s cute how they end the screed by changing it to “safety”, when the rest of the piece is about “control”. It’s right there in the headline. You want gun safety? Stay out of most big cities, which are run by the Democratic Party and have high rates of shootings.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Good News: GOP Candidates Entrenched Against Gun Controls »

If All You See…

…is a rising sea that will kill us all, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Creeping Sharia, with a post on conversion homework.

Read: If All You See… »

Clinton Crowd Boos Military Vet For Questions On Benghazi

Clinton supporters could care less about Hillary’s incompetence as Secretary of State, nor leaving our citizens to die, much like they don’t care that Bill is a serial sexual predator

(Daily Caller) Former President Bill Clinton became angry when he was heckled by protesters during a campaign event in Bluffton, South Carolina on Friday.

The protesters demanded to know if his wife Hillary Clinton lied about the four American deaths that occurred during the attack in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.

The man responded that he’s seen Gold Star families “who have mourned.”

“We had four lives in Benghazi killed and your wife tried to cover it up.”

The crowd began to moan and boo in unison.

Then Bill had a hissy fit

“I heard your speech. I heard your speech. Will you let me answer? I’m not your commander in chief anymore but if I were, I’d tell you to be more polite and sit down,” Clinton said, growing angrier as the man began screaming at him.

Of course, the crowd was having none of it, and security escorted the man and others who wanted answers out.

Read: Clinton Crowd Boos Military Vet For Questions On Benghazi »

Good News: ‘Climate Change’ To Cause Catastrophic Weather

The latest scaremongering from the Cult of Climastrology

Climate Change Effects on Weather Are “Potentially Catastrophic,” Scientist Says

The long-term effects of climate change are still unclear, but, as one scientist explained on Thursday, there is already “pretty scary” evidence that the planet is in for a series of dramatic, and dangerous, changes.

“The evidence is very clear that rapid and unprecedented changes are happening in the Arctic,” Dr Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute in California, told the The Independent in an email. “And while there remains uncertainty about the ultimate consequences, there is a good and growing body of research that is pretty scary, and pretty much no evidence that the possible impacts will be good.”

Among the likely effects of a warming Arctic on the rest of the planet are more and more unpredictable weather patterns, according to Gleick.

“Massive storms, sometimes called ‘bomb cyclones,’ are created when warm air from the Atlantic and cold air from the Arctic combine,” Gleick told the The Independent. “There may be connections between out-of-season strong tornados in the central US and these new storm patterns.”

Got that? Uncertainty, but, they just feel that the consequences will be all doomy. If we do not implement lots of tax schemes, and surrender a goodly chunk of our personal freedom to the Central Government, as well as control of private entities and the economy, we are utterly doomed. It matters little that the Warmists all agree that the plans will have virtually no effect on the climate, you just need to shut up and comply.

Oh, and this comes from Peter Gleick, of Fakegate notoriety.

Read: Good News: ‘Climate Change’ To Cause Catastrophic Weather »

Explaining Trump’s Popularity: The Unprotected Vs. The Protected

What explains Donald Trump and his massive popularity among voters which includes your basic Republican, your squishy Republican, Conservatives, moderates, independents, and even some middle of the road Democrats? How is it that Trump can have such great support among Republicans, especially Conservatives, when he has now and had in the past many Democrat positions? How is it that the support not only doesn’t waiver, but grows stronger even after attacks on him and his gaffes? Peggy Noonan thinks she has the answer

Trump and the Rise of the Unprotected
Why political professionals are struggling to make sense of the world they created.

…..

But I keep thinking of how Donald Trump got to be the very likely Republican nominee. There are many answers and reasons, but my thoughts keep revolving around the idea of protection. It is a theme that has been something of a preoccupation in this space over the years, but I think I am seeing it now grow into an overall political dynamic throughout the West.

There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully.

The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful—those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created. Again, they make public policy and have for some time.

That does make some rather good sense, does it not? For all his faults, and money, Donald Trump has tapped into that feeling and made himself the leader of the unprotected. It’s more than just Establishment Vs. Outsider. For those old enough, remember Bill Clinton saying that he felt our pain. It felt legitimate. Regardless of Bernie Sander’s political leanings, I like the guy because he seems real, not manufactured. He’s a cranky old man, and means what he says, says what he means. If he tells you to get off his lawn, it hasn’t been focus grouped to death. Trump comes across as real, as a real person, not a carefully groomed politician.

One issue obviously roiling the U.S. and Western Europe is immigration. It is the issue of the moment, a real and concrete one but also a symbolic one: It stands for all the distance between governments and their citizens.

It is of course the issue that made Donald Trump. (snip)

If you are an unprotected American—one with limited resources and negligible access to power—you have absorbed some lessons from the past 20 years’ experience of illegal immigration. You know the Democrats won’t protect you and the Republicans won’t help you. Both parties refused to control the border. The Republicans were afraid of being called illiberal, racist, of losing a demographic for a generation. The Democrats wanted to keep the issue alive to use it as a wedge against the Republicans and to establish themselves as owners of the Hispanic vote.

Many will call it fear of immigrants, both legal and illegal. Well, yes. When wages are deflated, when we don’t know who’s coming across the border, when they take our jobs (see Disney requiring workers to train their foreign replacements), when they not only refuse to assimilate, but demand that America changes for them, when they won’t speak the language, when they demand that the Southwest be given back to Mexico, when they complain that Americans wear an American flag shirt, when they bring values that are incompatible with American society, etc, and the Protected do nothing, people are fearful. And angry. And Trump rises.

Make sure to read the entire article by Ms. Noonan.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Explaining Trump’s Popularity: The Unprotected Vs. The Protected »

Obama: Solar And Wind Not Reliable Without A Storage

Now he tells us (via Climate Depot)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Thanks to the investments we made in the Recovery Act we’ve seen huge gains in our advanced battery industry. Because, solar and wind don’t work unless we’ve got good ways to store power when the sun’s out or the winds blowing so that it can be used in a regular, reliable way.”

That’s from a speech he made today regarding his wonderful Stimulus in Jacksonville, Florida, so, yet again, massive use of fossil fuels in terms of planes, helicopters, and vehicles.

Let’s not forget all the failures and wasted money from the “green” portion of Obama’s stimulus, which really didn’t do a whole lot to stimulate the economy. Well, China’s economy, what with all that borrowed money.

Read: Obama: Solar And Wind Not Reliable Without A Storage »

If All You See…

…is an evil energy sucking smartphone making it so hot that ice hockey will be a thing of the past, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Chicks On The Right, with a post on everyone paying their fair share.

Read: If All You See… »

NY Times EB Likens Hillary To “Mischievous Child” Regarding Speech Transcripts

If only they’d say the same regarding her emails

(NY Times Editorial Board) “Everybody does it,” is an excuse expected from a mischievous child, not a presidential candidate. But that is Hillary Clinton’s latest defense for making closed-door, richly paid speeches to big banks, which many middle-class Americans still blame for their economic pain, and then refusing to release the transcripts. (Snip)

On Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton further complained, “Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else?”

The only different standard here is the one Mrs. Clinton set for herself, by personally earning $11 million in 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 for 51 speeches to banks and other groups and industries. (Snip)

Public interest in these speeches is legitimate, and it is the public — not the candidate — who decides how much disclosure is enough. By stonewalling on these transcripts Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules. Most important, she is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are begging her to show them that she’d run an accountable and transparent White House.

What makes the Times think Hillary is about transparency? What in her background would even give them that idea?

Read: NY Times EB Likens Hillary To “Mischievous Child” Regarding Speech Transcripts »

Bill Nye Totally Wanted Someone To Ask Questions On ‘Climate Change’ At GOP Debate

Sorry, entertainment guy, most people do not care about the issue that much. Questions on Hotcoldwetdry are barely asked at Democratic debates, but, CNN allows Nye to write this screed anyhow

(CNN) Here’s hoping someone in Houston, at CNN’s Republican debate Thursday night, can manage to ask the candidates a question like: “Mr. _______, you’ve stated repeatedly that you feel that climate change and global warming are not things we need to worry about in the short or even long term; why do you disagree with the world’s science community and the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?”

Then, I’m hoping that the same person or another citizen asks a follow-up: “Mr. _______, would you say that you believe your intuition and experience with weather are more scientifically correct than the research done by the world’s climate scientists, and do you believe that the world’s scientists are part of a conspiracy?”

As to the first, it seems that not everyone in the scientific community agrees. When we dig into that 97% consensus “paper”, we find that only about 36% take a position that Mankind is mostly/solely the cause, and the rest think it is, at most, 50% caused by Mankind. If the UN and these people were really concerned they would modify their own use of fossil fuels, energy, their shopping habits, etc, and make their own lives carbon neutral. Furthermore, they might offer rock solid proof of their beliefs using the scientific method. They fail on all accounts.

The second question highlights what this is really about: politics. Throughout his screed Nye offers zero scientific proof that Mankind is mostly/solely responsible for the warming since 1850. What we do see is that the models from Warmists consistently fail, and that the data is continuously massaged, modified, and manufactured to fit the hypothesis, which is the exact opposite of how the Scientific Method works.

As you may know, the three front-running candidates are apparently in denial about the effects and seriousness of climate change and global warming. As a voter and taxpayer, I’d like to know why each of them has no apparent concern about a problem that is worrying people all over the rest of the world. And by the way, those same people are very much hoping the U.S. will lead, showing the way to produce all of our energy renewably.

As I’ve written time and time again, if this is such a darned serious problem, why do so few Warmists act like it is a serious problem and make changes in their own lives? Why does this always seem to result in a push for taxes and central government restrictions and requirements for citizens and private entities? Why does Nye take so many fossil fueled trips? Why is he not demanding that his appearances be powered solely by “renewables”?

I will give him one thing: he has a point on moving towards a bigger use of solar, wind, and other renewables. But, we have to be smart about it, making sure they work, that the cost is on par with things like oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear (and, we need more nuclear). That the footprint of these projects is drastically reduced, so we aren’t despoiling the country with wind turbines and solar farms.

There would be no need to import oil from purveyors in the Middle East with whom have deep philosophical, uh… difficulties.

Of course, we could also drill for all the energy the US needs if Democrats would get out of the way.

I’ve said before and I’ll say again: Warmists should stop linking everything to Hotcoldwetdry. Stop pushing renewables along those lines. It guarantees opposition. Instead, we should find a way to bridge the gap and push for better research to make renewables cost effective and have smaller footprints, with less danger to the environment. Leave ‘climate change’ out when you talk to a Republican, and I bet you’ll get agreement, rather than a fight.

Read: Bill Nye Totally Wanted Someone To Ask Questions On ‘Climate Change’ At GOP Debate »

Pirate's Cove