George Soros: Stop Being Afraid Of Radical Islamsts Or Something

When George Soros makes a statement, you should understand that it’s necessary to do exactly the opposite

The terrorists and demagogues want us to be scared. We mustn’t give in

What he means are you people giving in to fear of people who want to kill you, your friends, your loved ones, your coworkers, and your fellow citizens. He makes a long case about fear, that this is what the jihadis want (mostly, they want to kill infidels), so we need his big idea of the Open Society!

How can it be stopped and reversed? Abandoning the values and principles underlying open societies and giving in to an anti-Muslim impulse dictated by fear certainly is not the answer, though it may be difficult to resist the temptation. I experienced this personally when I watched the last Republican presidential debate; I could stop myself only by remembering that it must be irrational to follow the wishes of your enemies.

See? You shouldn’t do anything to fight back! He irrationally equates the fight instinct with fear.

To remove the danger posed by jihadi terrorism, abstract arguments are not enough; we need a strategy for defeating it. The challenge is underscored by the fact that the jihadi phenomenon has been with us for more than a generation. Indeed, gaining a proper understanding of it may be impossible. But the attempt must be made.

And that strategy would be? He’s a little vague on this point. OK, well, he offers nothing but his Open Society, which means, surprise, letting all the “Syrian” refugees in. Which is easy in his world, because he has a massive security component protecting him, whether he’s at one of his numerous homes, on one of his planes, or out and about. Think they aren’t armed? Remember, he wants to take your guns away.

Oh, and as The Last Refuge points out, Soros seems to be afraid of Donald Trump.

Read: George Soros: Stop Being Afraid Of Radical Islamsts Or Something »

If All You See…

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

The blog of the day is Betsy’s Page, with a post cruising the web.

Read: If All You See… »

Good News: Snow Totally Means ‘Climate Change’

Warmists have been blaming the current unseasonable warmth in the East on ‘climate change’, despite even climate scientists noting that it is really El Nino. And something that has happened several times prior. But, what about snow?

Why, yes, that UK Guardian article does blame the early 2015 snowmageddons on ‘climate change’. It also blames it for drought, floods, hot, cold, a lack of tornadoes. Hotcoldwetdry. But, what of the current snow?

Read More »

Read: Good News: Snow Totally Means ‘Climate Change’ »

2015 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Thank you to Doug Ross, it’s an honor. And congratulations to all the other winners.

Read: 2015 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards »

Is The Paris Climate Agreement As Toothless As It Appears?

I’ve blogged and tweeted numerous times that the Paris agreement is essentially non-binding, voluntary, and has no force of law. I’ve even had Warmists retweet that, because they are upset that it is non-bonding, voluntary, and provides no mechanisms to force legal compliance. Marlon Lewis at GlobalWarming.org argues that the agreement is not a paper tiger, though

Summary: The Paris climate agreement is “non-binding, underfunded, and unenforceable,” as one conservative commentator put it. However, Paris is a “paper tiger” only on paper. The treaty’s core purpose is not to impose legal obligations but to establish the multi-decade framework for a global political pressure campaign. The pressure will be directed chiefly at those who oppose EPA’s unlawful Clean Power Plan and other elements of the President’s climate agenda. Republicans will get rolled unless GOP leaders organize a political counter-offensive centered around a Byrd-Hagel 2.0 resolution. Key message point: Contrary to President Obama, the Paris agreement is a treaty, hence it is not a policy of the United States until the Senate ratifies it.

Dismissing the Paris Climate Agreement as a paper tiger because America’s emission-reduction and foreign-aid commitments are not “legally binding” is whistling past the graveyard. The Paris agreement is first and foremost a device for mobilizing political pressure against U.S. opponents of President Obama’s climate policies. Those would be Republicans and their fossil-fuel industry allies.

Mr. Lewis makes the case that, while not legally binding, it is “politically binding”. “Commitments are to be enforced via political pressure (“naming and shaming”) rather than through international tribunals or economic sanctions.”

The absence of formal sanctions does not mean Paris has no teeth. Suppose, for example, the next president, future Congresses, or even courts try to upend any part of Obama’s climate agenda. Thanks to Paris, 190 foreign heads of state, hundreds of Democratic pols, scores of green advocacy groups, and legions of liberal pundits will be primed to denounce Republicans for breaking “America’s promises” and sacrificing mankind’s future on the altar of corporate greed.

Think about how George Bush was vilified by Warmists and their compliant media for “taking the US out of the Kyoto Protocol”, despite never having joined it formally. The Senate voted 95-0 against it. Bill Clinton signed it, and, but, it had no force of law without Senate confirmation, since it was a treaty. Al Gore symbolically signing it had no force of law in the least.

The Obama administration spins the Paris agreement as a non-treaty exempt from Senate review so that U.S. and global greens can more efficiently organize political pressure to defend and promote the Clean Power Plan, other regulatory assaults on affordable energy, and EPA’s unlawful reign as the nation’s climate legislator.

Mr. Lewis makes a compelling argument, which should be read in full. The agreement is a mechanism to browbeat those who refuse to comply with the push to enact “green” initiatives, which are really just mechanisms to control citizens, private entities, the energy sector, and economies.

Read: Is The Paris Climate Agreement As Toothless As It Appears? »

Misgender A Transexual In NYC? That’s A $250,000 Fine

First Amendment? What First Amendment?

(Breitbart) Did you call a transsexual person “he” or “she” when they preferred to be called “zhe?” According to a newly updated anti-discrimination law in New York City, you could be fined an eye-watering $250,000.

In the latest, astonishing act of draconian political correctness, the NYC Commission on Human Rights have updated a law on “Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression” to threaten staggering financial penalties against property owners who “misgender” employees or tenants.

Incidents that are deemed “willful and malicious” will see property owners face up to $250,000 in fines, while standard violations of the law will result in a $125,000 fine. For small business owners, these sums are crippling.

Got that? Use the wrong pronoun towards one of these confused individuals, which includes things like “ze” and “hir”, and you, as a property or business owner could be smacked with a huge fine. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama pardoned 97 “drug” offenders, many of whom pleaded down from violent crimes to non-violent felonies. One felon was a bank robber. Another was a felon who was busted in possession of a firearm. Many of them were drug dealers.

Other violations of the law include refusing to allow individuals to use single-sex facilities such as bathrooms that are “consistent with their gender identity,” failing to provide employee health benefits for “gender-affirming care” and “imposing different uniforms or grooming standards based on sex or gender.”

NYC is basically trying to turn the city’s businesses into drag shows. These are the kinds of things Democrats are Very Worried about. ISIS schmisis, forget about the danger from radical Islam. Someone used the wrong, well, wrong in the mind of a seriously confused individual, pronoun! Off with their heads!

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Misgender A Transexual In NYC? That’s A $250,000 Fine »

Apparently, Canadians Never Talked About Climate Change Before The Totally Natural El Nino

Canada was an original signatory of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, and reaffirmed that in 2002. They’ve had numerous ‘climate change’ initiatives over the years, and discuss it quite a bit in their government. Or, have they talked about it?

It took El Nino to get Canadians talking about climate change: Teitel
The reason for our weirdly warm temperatures is a weather phenomenon that arises from warm ocean water in the equatorial Pacific west of South America.

2016 will mark the 10-year anniversary of a very important film that put a lot of teenagers to sleep.

That film was An Inconvenient Truth. Ten years ago, at the age of 16, I, like thousands of high-school students across the country, was forced to watch former U.S. vice-president Al Gore’s Academy Award-winning documentary — a mashup of PowerPoint data and melting ice caps — in a class of overwhelmingly bored peers.

On screen, Gore was kind and intelligent, but he wasn’t exactly rabble-rousing, especially to a group of young Canadians who had never seen or, in some cases, even heard of him. But what made the American politician’s passion project doubly dull at the time was the fact that despite boatloads of research pointing to a warming climate, it was cold outside.

For a lot of people (especially hormonal adolescents) seeing — not thinking — is believing; and when all you see is snow and slush, animated evidence pointing to a future absent those things might alarm you, but not enough to prod you into activist mode.

And seeing?

But ironically, the reason for this weird weather isn’t Al Gore-ian; it’s El Nino — a weather phenomenon that arises from a band of warm ocean water that develops in the equatorial Pacific west of South America every five years or so, often reaching its highest temperatures around Christmas time (hence the “El Nino” appellation — it’s Spanish for the Christ child).

A totally natural climatic/weather event, right?

Yet it feels as though for the first time, in light of this particularly, weirdly balmy, El-Nino weather, normal Canadians (not just activists or climatologists) are talking about climate change — and talking about it not as a theory whose effects we won’t know for many years, but as a living, breathing fact.

El Nino has managed to do in less than a month what Al Gore has been trying to do for a decade: alarm us.

Other than crazy Warmists, who is alarmed? El Nino is a natural event. Much of the US, and Canada, saw warmer weather back in the 1950’s, which, interestingly, was also a time of a pause/slightly declining temperatures. It just goes to show the lengths the Cult of Climastrology will go to in order to continue pushing their pseudo-religious dogma.

Read: Apparently, Canadians Never Talked About Climate Change Before The Totally Natural El Nino »

If All You See…

…is champagne that will be decimated by too much carbon pollution from Other People’s carbon footprints, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Blazing Cat Fur, with a post wondering about the majority of peace loving Muslims.

It’s New Years week!

Read: If All You See… »

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

Peter Driben Patriotic Pinup

Happy Sunday! An unseasonably warm one, as we get the last Patriotic Pinup of 2015. And are being treated by lots of lots of “best of” lists. This pinup is by Peter Driben, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Vox Popoli discusses the possibility of Manning using HGH
  2. The Liberty Zone notes they’ll give a doctorate to anyone these days
  3. The Last Refuge highlights moonbats upset over Harrison Ford
  4. The Daley Gator notes Offendinitis over an Old Navy commercial
  5. Powerline notes Chris Christie being exposed…in a good way
  6. Pamela Geller highlights a real rape culture in Islam
  7. Moonbattery notes a crazy liberal who wants to replace Merry Christmas
  8. Legal Insurrection covers male feminists getting no respect
  9. Jihad Watch covers Islamists torching a Christmas tree
  10. Free North Carolina says “Happy Kwanza”
  11. Flopping Aces covers Bill Maher proving liberals are hypocrites
  12. Fire Andrea Mitchell notes Muslims stealing propane tanks
  13. Fausta’s Blog covers the coming bankruptcy for Puerto Rico
  14. Evil Blogger Lady notes the real war on women
  15. And last, but not least, Director Blue has the top 10 dumbest gun control cartoons of 2015

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 »

Trump Goes After Bill Clinton: “Penchant For Sexism”

Have you heard the one about Bill Clinton taking a bigger role in Hillary’s campaign? I wonder how that’s going to work out?

(The Hill) Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump late Saturday blasted the announcement that former President Bill Clinton will campaign for his wife, Hillary Clinton.

The real estate mogul said the former president has a “penchant for sexism” in a tweet.

The Democratic front-runner said in an interview last week that Trump has “a penchant for sexism” after the billionaire said she “got schlonged” in losing to then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2008.

“It’s not the first time he’s demonstrated a penchant for sexism,” Hillary Clinton told the Des Moines Register. “Again, I’m not sure anybody’s surprised that he keeps pushing the envelope.”

Trump later warned Clinton to “be careful as you play the war on women or women being degraded card.”

I’ll easily admit, I’m not fan of Donald Trump. Yes, he says some good things, and he holds a few positions that I agree with, but he also holds many positions I do not agree with. Some are liberal, some are very very leftist, some are GOP Establishment. That said, if Hillary wants to play this game, The Donald is the guy who will fight back, and fight back hard. He won’t be aiming shots at the gloves, or even body blows. He’ll be attempting to aim shots at the jaw, see how glass it is.

And there are lots of shots he can take. Bill has been credibly accused of sexual assault and rape by many women. He has tended to treat women as objects and play-things. While Mika Brzezinski might think that bringing up Bill Clinton’s ‘misogynistic, sexist’ past is misogynistic and sexist, it is entirely appropriate and relevant to bring up Bill’s past, and the way Hillary enabled him, particularly if he’s going to be a bigger figure in her campaign.

The one thing you can count on from Trump is that he will not back down. He will not offer groveling apologies and/or squishy musings like many Republicans. When Trump says “be careful”, it’s a warning.

BTW, isn’t it sexist for Bill to have to ride in to help out a woman?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump Goes After Bill Clinton: “Penchant For Sexism” »

Pirate's Cove