Say, Why Was Obama Criticized For Visiting A Mosque When Bush Wasn’t?

By William Teach February 4, 2016 – 10:44 am

This is one of those Important Questions that the media likes to delve into, in order to create a Narrative.

Why Obama’s mosque visit is criticized — in a way George W. Bush’s wasn’t

The same day President Obama visited a mosque for the first time as president, the Pew Research Center showed why many Americans likely objected to his even setting foot there.

That sentiment was pretty well expressed by GOP presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who cast Obama’s suggestion that the United States discriminates against Muslims as Obama pitting Americans “against each other.”

There are certainly a few difference. Bush was attempting to highlight that the U.S. wasn’t at war with Islam. Al Qaeda most definitely wanted a religious war against the U.S., but Bush refused to give it to them. Said mosque also didn’t have the links to radical Islam like the one Obama visited. It was a much different time. Fifteen years makes a big difference. Fifteen years of people being exposed to the true nature of radical Islam.

Furthermore, Bush attempted to bring people together. Obama used his occasion to divide people. But, hey, you know the real reason why there is such a different tone, right?

Others criticized Obama for the specific mosque he chose and its ties. And late Wednesday night, Donald Trump said perhaps Obama “feels comfortable there” — a comment thick with innuendo from a man who championed conspiracy theories about Obama’s birthplace.

Innudendo is, of course, raaaaacism.

Anyhow, one commentor makes an interesting point

We could learn a lot from Islam when it comes to tolerance. Just look at how the Sunnis and Shia treat each other. The Saudis and Kuwaitis are the best when it comes to their loving generosity care and concern for their Muslim brother refugees from Syria.

Huh.

Read: Say, Why Was Obama Criticized For Visiting A Mosque When Bush Wasn’t? »

Posted in RoP, Wonky Media | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmist Naomi Klein: We Need To Change Everything To Solve ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach February 4, 2016 – 9:13 am

High-ranking leader in the Cult of Climastrology Naomi Klein is the one you need to listen to, if you want to really know what this whole issue of anthropogenic global warming/climate change is really all about. The article is an interview by Michael Winship of Klein, and has the headline

Naomi Klein: Climate Change “Not Just About Things Getting Hotter… It’s About Things Getting Meaner”

This is also available at the Huffington Post, and the “meaner” part refers to something later in the interview

So climate change is an accelerant. We often talk about how when you interview a climate scientist like Michael Mann or James Hansen and you say, “Well, did climate change cause this storm?” They won’t say that. “No, it didn’t cause it, but it loaded the dice. So we were going to have the storm anyway but because of climate change you’ve got this super storm.” So what I would say is climate change does that but not just with the weather. If you’ve got a racist society, if you’ve got a problem of racism in your society and then you add climate change to it, then it goes crazy. If you’ve got a problem with inequality and then you add climate change to it, then it becomes sci-fi. So what brings me to this is that I’m not just worried about things getting hotter, and this is what I think that I wish more environmentalists would wrap their heads around: This is not just about things getting hotter and wetter, it’s about things getting meaner. And that’s why we have to talk about values and who we want to be in the face of this crisis.

Go that? It’s a new one, that Hotcoldwetdry means things get “meaner”. Anyhow, let’s get back to the beginning of the interview

Naomi Klein: So the ‘this’ in This Changes Everything is climate change. And the argument that I make in the book is that we find ourselves in this moment where there are no non-radical options left before us. Change or be changed, right? And what we mean by that is that climate change, if we don’t change course, if we don’t change our political and economic system, is going to change everything about our physical world. And that is what climate scientists are telling us when they say business as usual leads to three to four degrees Celsius of warming. That’s the road we are on. We can get off that road, but we’re now so far along it, we’ve put off the crucial policies for so long, that now we can’t do it gradually. We have to swerve, right? And swerving requires such a radical departure from the kind of political and economic system we have right now that we pretty much have to change everything.

We have to change the kind of free trade deals we sign. We would have to change the absolutely central role of frenetic consumption in our culture. We would have to change the role of money in politics and our political system. We would have to change our attitude towards regulating corporations. We would have to change our guiding ideology.

Klein is the honest voice of the CoC, saying that this whole thing, especially their policy prescriptions, are about doing away with capitalism, changing the political system away from democracy, and having Big Government controls of our lives, private entities, and economies. They want to “build a better society”, which is a direct quote from Klein regarding her book. What they want is an authoritarian society. Klein talks about throwing ‘climate change’ in the blender with virtually every issue, be it jobs, economies, transportation, you name it, because this is what it’s all about: Progressive ideology, a Big Government dominance over all things.

Read: Warmist Naomi Klein: We Need To Change Everything To Solve ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Cruz Coins A New Word: Trumpertantrum

By William Teach February 4, 2016 – 8:52 am

Donald Trump likes to be the only bully in the room. He doesn’t like it when people best him

(The Hill) Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz on Wednesday afternoon took to Twitter to respond to voter fraud allegations made against him by rival Donald Trump, dismissing the comments as a “Trumper tantrum.”

“Yet another #Trumpertantrum,” Cruz tweeted. “@realDonaldTrump very angry w/the people of Iowa. They actually looked at his record.”

Earlier Wednesday, Trump used social media to accuse the Texas senator of committing fraudin order to win Monday night’s Iowa caucuses.

“Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa, he stole it,” the real estate mogul told his followers. “That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!”

Someone should call a Waaaambulance for Trump, who’s complaining that Cruz stole Hawkeye Cauci, that he cheated, and there should be a do-0ver. Sounds much like a grade school student government election complaint. Or Democrats in 2000 and 2004. Via Patterico, we read a full comment by Cruz (video available)

CRUZ: I think they’re very funny. I think Donald — I wake up every day and laugh at the latest thing Donald has tweeted. Because he’s losing it. Look, we need a Commander in Chief, not a Twitterer in Chief. We need someone with the judgment and the temperament to keep this country safe. I don’t know anyone who would be comfortable with someone who behaves this way having his finger on the button. I mean, we’re liable to wake up one morning, and Donald, if he were President, would have nuked Denmark. That’s not the temperament of a leader to keep this country safe.

Meanwhile, the Star Ledger, one of New Jersey’s premier papers, which provides most of the original content on NJ.com, and which is utterly in the bag for Hillary, deeming her server issues a big nothing-burger through a series of disingenuous machinations of semantics and conscious ignorance of certain material and the law, provides the case to vote for Ted Cruz.

If he reached the White House, Cruz would “repeal every word of Obamacare,” on the basis that it is “the biggest job-killer in this country,” and has forced “millions into part-time jobs.”

Cruz would be the Commander in Chief that tears up the Iran nuclear deal, and issues orders with a macho blather that makes military people cringe. The most cited example is his repeated pledge to “carpet bomb” ISIS, which our top commander had to explain is “Indiscriminate bombing, where we don’t care if we are killing innocents,” and is “inconsistent with our values.”

President Cruz vows to abolish marriage equality, because the Supreme Court ruling that allowed it is “fundamentally illegitimate, lawless, and unconstitutional.” In fact, he’s calling for a Constitutional amendment that would subject Justices “to periodic judicial retention elections.”

And a Cruz presidency would abolish the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Energy, and four other federal agencies; introduce another amendment that would end birthright citizenship; defund Planned Parenthood; privatize Social Security for future retirees; and push for a 10-percent flat tax, which the nonpartisan Tax Foundation says would cost the government $768 billion over 10 years.

They refer to him in the headline as America’s Worst Nightmare. Sounds like he’s America’s best bet to reign in the ever expanding Big Government, while looking towards prosperity for the middle class and protection against our enemies.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Cruz Coins A New Word: Trumpertantrum »

Posted in GOP | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Palin Has Hissy Fit Over “Dirty Politics”

By William Teach February 3, 2016 – 6:08 pm

Having thrown her lot in with a moderate Republican, Donald Trump, Sarah Palin has decided that she’s going to attack a much more Conservative Republican, Ted Cruz, since Cruz is currently taking the spotlight from Trump

Dirty Politics: Witnessing Firsthand It’s Always Heartbreaking, Never Surprising

Thank heavens Donald Trump opened so many eyes to the lies, corruption and total lack of accountability that come so naturally to the permanent political class. And Sen. Ted Cruz was spot on when he once noted that “millions of Americans are asking for accountability and truth.” Which is why it’s so curious – and saddens us – this lack of accountability with the lies of Cruz’s own campaign.

Cruz’s campaign chairman, U.S. Representative Steve King, is lying, and good for Dr. Ben Carson for calling this out. King, who’s previously asked for and received my endorsement, time and resources to support his own election, is still lying about my altruistic support of Mr. Trump, and he’s refused to provide any evidence to the contrary. And, this U.S. Congressman actually lied to his own constituents on behalf of Cruz, regarding a good man, Dr. Carson. He told voters Carson was dropping out of the Presidential race immediately before the Iowa caucus, causing a relative uproar inside the process, so the word would spread and he could rack up more votes for his candidate, Cruz. That’s a dirty trick. Dr. Carson deserved better. The voters deserved better!

This sounds more the whine of the person who failed to achieve first place in the Iowa Caucus, then about anything substantive. Notice that she fails to call out neither Marco Rubio nor CNN, who actually hit on Carson quitting earlier than Cruz’s campaign did. Here’s where she completely comes off the tracks (which is unusual, since she typically only takes things halfway (yeah, cheap shot))

The Cruz Campaign’s actions to destroy a good man’s efforts to serve are no different than Obama’s practice of not holding anyone accountable. Typical politics. Typical politicians.

At this point, Palin has zero conservative cred, when she dares to compare Ted Cruz with Barack Obama. Cruz apologized. When will Palin demand Trump apologize for all his smears, along with the Birther game he’s currently playing? You want a dirty trick, Sarah? Try that one on for size.

Read: Palin Has Hissy Fit Over “Dirty Politics” »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Sarah Palin | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 3, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil mass produced smartphone which creates massive amounts of carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Chicks On The Right, with a post on PC killing the Year Of The Monkey.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Warmists Want To Tax Your Food To Change Your Diet

By William Teach February 3, 2016 – 11:26 am

Leftists typically want Government out of the bedroom. But, your kitchen? Not so much. And, by “your”, they rarely mean their own kitchens. Just Other People’s

Tax high carbon food, sugar for climate and health gains – study

Taxing the carbon footprint of food could slow global warming and stave off heart disease, UK policy makers have been told.

It should be coupled with a sugar levy to secure the health gains, according to a study by researchers at Oxford and Reading universities.

In isolation, hiking the price of high-carbon products like beef, lamb and cheese decreases people’s cholesterol intake, but pushes consumers towards sweeter options that are also bad for them.

It’s cute how they’ve combined two notions, ‘climate change’ and “health” in order to push their Progressive notions, Big Government in charge of your life For Your Own Good, with added taxation on top. Leftists are always looking for ways to propagate their notions of government control of your life.

Read: Warmists Want To Tax Your Food To Change Your Diet »

Posted in Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Leftist German Mayor: Schoolgirls Should Avoid Migrants So They Aren’t Sexually Harassed

By William Teach February 3, 2016 – 8:38 am

This is not the first time that we’ve seen Leftists in Germany, along with other nations, put the abusive refugees above the rights of female citizens, and it surely won’t be the last

(RT) A German mayor became the least popular resident of his own town after saying that schoolgirls should not “provoke” refugees and should take alternative routes to school to avoid sexual harassment. The comments outraged concerned citizens.

The Bad Schlema town hall meeting turned sour after a grandfather confronted Mayor Jens Müller about young schoolgirls who have been harassed by asylum seekers from the windows of the town’s refugee shelter. He asked Müller what would happen in the summer, when the girls are wearing less clothing.

“That’s easy, just don’t provoke them and don’t walk in these areas,” said Müller, a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union party.

This did not go over particularly well with the residents. And, yes, there is video at the link. Muller decided to keep digging that hole

“Well, it’s technically not necessary for the girls to walk there. There are alternative routes for going to school,” Müller said.

He then decided to go down the “well, some Germans do it, too” deflection route

But the mayor didn’t stop there. He went on to remind the residents that sexual harassment also takes place among Germans.

“Do you think this doesn’t exist among Germans?” he said.

The citizens were having absolutely none of it, and let Muller know, in no uncertain terms, that Germans go to jail for it, while the refugees are let off the hook. In fact, the German government seems to be doing all they can to allow sexual harassment and violence against German women by refugees. Which is no surprise, as, in Leftist dogma, Muslims are placed higher on the ladder than women.

Read: Leftist German Mayor: Schoolgirls Should Avoid Migrants So They Aren’t Sexually Harassed »

Posted in Liberal World | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Oklahoma Democrat Wants People To Run Away Before Standing Their Ground

By William Teach February 3, 2016 – 8:20 am

Here’s an idea that will surely be mimicked by Democrats across the country

(Huffington Post) Oklahoma state Sen. Kevin Matthews (D) is seeking to amend his state’s “stand your ground” law in the wake of a 2015 shooting that led to the death of a young man.

In February 2015, a security guard at a Tulsa apartment complex shot 21-year-old Monroe Bird III in the spine, paralyzing him. The guard, Ricky Stone, argued that he was acting in self-defense because Bird had allegedly backed his vehicle into him.

Oklahoma’s “stand your ground” law, enacted in 2006, authorizes a person to use force — even deadly force — when attacked. They are not required to try to retreat first.

Matthews’ amendment would change that, stipulating that people must attempt to retreat before they resort to using force.

“I just want to take away an excuse for me to be able to shoot somebody, leaving me all the options to leave rather than shoot someone,” Matthews told The Huffington Post. “I think that’s what we need to be doing as human beings, and definitely as Oklahomans.”

Here’s the thing: you do have the option to leave. The law itself says a person has “a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force,…” It doesn’t say that one cannot simply retreat (or call 911) before standing their ground. The vast majority of the time that people use their Castle Doctrine legal right they are in imminent danger.

Now, if possible, one should try to call 911 or retreat, rather than shooting. Requiring anyone standing their ground to retreat and/or call 911 before defending themselves will put many people in danger, both from the person(s) threatening them, and from the legal system, where they could be held criminally and civilly liable.

I will say this: Matthews does, to a degree, a point. There are uses of Castle Doctrine which are rather dubious. Taking a look at the incident mentioned in the article, Mr. Stone could have, and should have, backed away from the vehicle. There was zero need to fire his weapon.

Another incident was mentioned, where a man shot a 14 year old in the back who was playing a “ring the doorbell and run away” game. What isn’t mentioned is that the homeowner, who had stated he thought the kids looked threatening, being in the middle of the night, has been charged with multiple felonies. Oklahoma law doesn’t allow people to be charged or sued when Castle Doctrine is involved.

Regardless, forcing retreat when in danger puts the person who is being threatened in danger.

Matthews opposed the original “stand your ground” bill when it was introduced in the state legislature in 2006. “Initially when it came here, I said on the floor that I feared that African-Americans and others will be killed,” he said. “Since this law has passed, it has not only been African-Americans, it has been others. Some may have been justified, but to be able to shoot people when you have an option to leave [or] they are leaving — they’re not pulling a gun on you, they’re not aiming a gun at you, they’re not committing violence against you … It’s a dangerous law.”

Would this be the Oklahoma in which only 7.4% of the population is Black, per the 2010 census? Sounds like someone is pandering. It’s more dangerous to require anyone to run away. He also wants to require that people not chase, which is actually common sense, and part of many other States’ Castle Doctrine.

One can expect Democrats in other States and in the US Congress to attempt to push the retreat part.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Oklahoma Democrat Wants People To Run Away Before Standing Their Ground »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Delicate Snowflake Demands Lifetime Of Kit Kats

By William Teach February 2, 2016 – 2:44 pm

Special Snowflake Syndrome Strikes again

(Yahoo News) A woman is demanding a lifetime supply of KitKats after she bought a packet of the chocolatey treats without any wafer.

Saima Ahmad, 20, a law student from Enfield, north London, purchased a multipack of eight KitKat bars from a supermarket for £2 last month.

But when she opened the bars to find them waterless, she wrote a letter to manufacturer Nestle demanding a lifetime supply of Kitts, even quoting a case from the 1930s.

Here’s the part that got me

“The loss I have suffered is of monetary and emotional significance.”

Read: Delicate Snowflake Demands Lifetime Of Kit Kats »

Posted in Good Move Slick | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 2, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a lightbulb that may not be climate friendly, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Maggie’s Farm, with a post on a no brainer.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove