Prince Charles Bleats About ‘Climate Change” Being Root Of Syrian War

By William Teach November 23, 2015 – 10:37 am

If mankind’s release of “carbon pollution” from all its activities, especially the use of fossil fuels, doesn’t that mean Prince Charles is at fault?

Prince Charles: Climate Change Is a Root Cause of Syrian War

Britain’s Prince Charles has pointed to the world’s failure to tackle climate change as a root cause of the civil war in Syria, terrorism and the consequent refugee crisis engulfing Europe.

The heir to the British throne is due to give a keynote speech at the opening of a global climate summit in Paris next week where the leaders of 118 countries will gather to try to nail down a deal to limit rising greenhouse gas emissions.

In an interview with Sky News that was recorded before the attacks in Paris, the prince said such symptoms were a “classic case of not dealing with the problem.”

“Some of us were saying 20 something years ago that if we didn’t tackle these issues, you would see ever greater conflict over scarce resources and ever greater difficulties over drought, and the accumulating effect of climate change which means that people have to move,” he said. “And in fact there’s very good evidence indeed that one of the major reasons for this horror in Syria, funnily enough, was a drought that lasted for about five or six years, which meant that huge numbers of people in the end had to leave the land but increasingly they came into the cities.”

Of course, this isn’t about scare resources or anything along the lines of the diminished resources as espoused by nutters since the early 20th Century, it’s about unhinged people following what their religion tells them to. I’m not a particularly big fan of Erik Erickson, but he makes a great point

Global warming is the cause of terrorism in the Middle East and around the world according to Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, and other Democrats.Let’s add in the Prince of Wales. With a straight face they make this claim, ignoring any and all other evidence to the contrary.

But if that is so, if global warming causes terrorism, then I think the Democrats need to answer this question: why does global warming only turn Muslims into terrorists?

There are Jews in the Middle East and Africa. There are Christians in the Middle East and Africa. There are animists, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and others. But only certain Muslims, often from wealthy families, turn into terrorists. The Jews, Christians, animists, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and the rest never seem to be affected by global warming in that way.

Why is that only Muslims are radicalized? Sure, there are your typical nutters amongst the other religious beliefs, but none have the large scale organized belief sets, nor violent leanings, that radical Islam does.

Read: Prince Charles Bleats About ‘Climate Change” Being Root Of Syrian War »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Hillary Tweets All Sexual Assault Accusers Should Be Believed, Hilarity Ensues

By William Teach November 23, 2015 – 7:43 am

She should probably think ahead before tweeting

(Daily Caller) On the night CNN aired a controversial and, as many legal critics call it, flawed documentary on sexual assault on college campuses, Democratic Party frontrunner Hillary Clinton tweeted solidarity with victims of sexual assault. The response could not have been what she was hoping for.

The link in her tweet went to a campaign webpage on sexual assault on campus that starts with a quote from a speech Hillary gave in September: “I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed, and we’re with you.”

Here’s the tweet

As you can imagine, many, many people responded back, noting the vast number of times her husband, William Jefferson Clinton, had been accused of sexual assault and rape, along with the number of times Hillary has defended Bill and attempted to shut down the accusers. Oh, and this one

https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/668614560300015618

This is who you want in the White House, liberals, a women who has supported demonizing and destroying women who accused her husband of sexual assault and rape, who tried to shut down their voices.

Read: Hillary Tweets All Sexual Assault Accusers Should Be Believed, Hilarity Ensues »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Calling Radical Islam Radical Islam Is Super Mean Or Something

By William Teach November 23, 2015 – 7:08 am

Have you noticed that Liberals seem to be more concerned with not offending hardcore Muslim practitioners and extremists than going after hardcore Islamists? Oh, and creating strawmen arguments. Over at CNN, John McWhorter writes a whopper of a tale

Should we call it ‘radical Islam’?

Republicans who despise Democrats such as Hillary Clinton for describing America as in a battle against “terrorism” rather than “radical Islam” need to get out of the sandbox. Their charge is, at heart, childish.

The gripe is that Clinton, President Barack Obama and others, in refusing to say we are battling radical Islam, are too caught up in political correctness to even call our enemies by name. The further implication is that our leaders’ reluctance to directly call out our enemies stems from not truly considering them culpable — i.e., believing that the West had it coming.

No. The complainants think that as long as we say “radical Islam” rather than “Islam” alone, we are suitably specifying that we don’t hate Muslims. But that isn’t how it would appear to Muslims themselves, and for understandable reasons.

In a sentence such as “We must eradicate radical Islam,” the object of eradicate is technically “radical Islam,” yes, but the core object, the heart of the expression “radical Islam” is “Islam.” Radical Islam is a kind of Islam. The object of the eradication in the sentence is “Islam,” modified by “radical.”

That affects how one processes such a sentence — the adjective can come off as a kind of decoration. “I’m thinking about one of those juicy steaks” — note how we process the person mainly as thinking about steak, not steaks with the particular quality of being juicy. The “juicy” feels parenthetical.

Got that? The idiocy should leave you shaking your head like the look your dog gives you when it sees your eat the last bite of said steak.

But we need not exoticize them on this. Suppose someone decided to battle “radical Christianity”? Note that whatever the justifications along the lines of “We don’t mean all Christians,” they’d sound a little thin — especially given that in some minds, “radical” suggests authenticity.

Of course, there aren’t hundreds of thousands, if not more, of Christians taking up arms to kill the infidel around the world in the name of The Christ. There aren’t hundreds of millions of Christians pushing for a hardcore version of Christianity which requires stoning adulterous women, forcing women to be 2nd class citizens, not allowing women out of the house without a related man, keeping young females as sex slaves, cutting off limbs for criminal violations, and throwing gays off tall buildings, among others. There aren’t millions of Christians dancing in the streets when a mosque is blown up by a Christian suicide bomber. Christians are pushing for blasphemy laws around the world and at the United Nations. Those are all things from the Religion of Peace. If Muslims don’t like the term “radical Islam”, perhaps they should take their religion back from the extremists. Unfortunately, millions and millions practice some of the extremist viewpoint, but aren’t getting involved with the violent jihadi style.

The best McWhorter can come up with is to call them simply “terrorists”. Because identifying what type they are is super duper mean, and might require radical Muslims to head to their safe spaces.

Not too be outdone, Excitable Charles Blow has trotted out the tired old tripe which conflates any condemnation of radical Islam as being 100% anti-Muslim. This part near the end is cute

As the ACLU has written of these laws:

“Efforts to single out Muslims and to advance the ugly idea that anything Islamic is un-American are unjust and discriminatory and should be rejected. Laws that single out Sharia violate the First Amendment by treating one belief system as suspect.”

This demonizing a single religious faith is a slippery slope. It feeds something that is at odds with the most noble ambition of this country’s better angels: equality.

If Muslims do not want their religion being demonized (which is not what is happening, as most take great pains to identify the issue with the radicals), then they need to take it back….by the way, when liberals attempt to equate the condemnation of the radicals with condemnation of the whole, aren’t they themselves making a case that all Muslims are radical? As for Sharia law, the UK Telegraph is running an opinion piece advocating for an alternate Islamic caliphate, which has to be read to be believed (Breitbart has a deeper discussion of it), and includes

All pious Muslims well-read in the Hadith (the compiled sayings of the Prophet) firmly believe in the need to establish an Islamic State headed by a Muslim Caliph. This is mentioned twice in the Holy Quran and it’s central to the Islamic faith. No Muslim scholar would debate an Islamic state and the caliphate. Muslim Sunnis claim that the caliph should hail from Meccan notability. Shiite Muslims add that he must be from Ahl al-Bayt; a member of the prophet’s family.

So, essentially, all Muslims want the same final outcome as ISIS? The writer, Sami Moubayed, who is a Syrian historian and former Carnegie scholar, and the author of Under the Black Flag: At the frontier of the New Jihad, is telling us that every Muslim should believe in a worldwide caliphate, they should just want one not run by ISIS. Huh.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Calling Radical Islam Radical Islam Is Super Mean Or Something »

Posted in ISIS, Liberal World, RoP | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 22, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a turkey that was probably transported too many miles increasing its carbon footprint, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Flopping Aces, with a post on just letting dying Obamacare die.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach November 22, 2015 – 9:15 am

Happy Sunday! A great day in America, just a few short days away from Thanksgiving, another holiday which affords Leftists a reason to complain (yet they will still accept their holiday pay rather than working). This pinup is by TJ Kuck, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Legal Insurrection notes SJWs going after yoga
  2. protein wisdom discusses “lumbersexuals”
  3. The Lid notes Democrats being out of touch
  4. The Other McCain wonders if your kid is a weirdo
  5. Western Hero has little snowflakes
  6. Not A Lot Of People Know That discusses NOAA’s fabricated temperature records
  7. Adrienne’s Corner offers trends that need to go away
  8. Allen B. West notes the truth on who the “Syrian” refugees are
  9. American Power notes Obama refusing to read intelligence reports
  10. Blazing Cat Fur notes the #BlackLivesMatter crew at a Canadian university
  11. Creeping Sharia has dhimmitude at a California grade school
  12. DaTechGuy has a point no one is making about legal marijuana
  13. Don Surber notes bravery when surrounded by 10 armored SUVs
  14. Evil Blogger Lady notes some subtle differences Obama has missed
  15. And last, but not least, Fire Andrea Mitchell notes what was found during a Brussels raid

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

Obama Says He’s Personally Going To Destroy ISIS

By William Teach November 22, 2015 – 8:05 am

Because that’s the kind of guy he is, per reports from the AP and Reuters (note: I had to flip between multiple reports to dig into the whole story of his remarks)

(Haaretz) U.S. President Barack Obama on Sunday said the United States and its allies would not relent in its fight to combat Islamic State extremists and would hunt down their leaders and cut off the group’s financing.

“Destroying (Islamic State) is not only a realistic goal, were going to get it done,” he told a news conference after a meeting of Asian leaders in Malaysia.

“We will destroy them. We will take back land they are currently in, take out their financing, hunt down leadership, dismantle their networks, supply lines and we will destroy them.”

Oh, wait, sorry, it seems like Obama is going to outsource everything to other nations rather than showing the leadership that the United States was known for. Perhaps that is why he blocks 75% of the air strikes against ISIS?

Obama also said that Russia needs to make a strategic decision to go after the Islamic State group, not the moderate opposition forces trying to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad. He says initial military operations by Russia did not add to efforts to deter ISIS, and in some ways, strengthened it.

Sadly, this is all just typical Obama yammering. Rarely does he ever follow through with action that makes any difference. In context, his entire comment about defeating ISIS is without leadership, putting it in terms of a collective effort for which there really isn’t a collective.

(NBC News) “The most powerful tool that we have to fight ISIL is to say that we’re not afraid,” Obama said, using another name for ISIS. “They’re a bunch of killers with good social media.”

Really? This is the kind of flippant, foolish comment that highlights his un-serious nature on the subject. Anyone who needs an explanation as to why has been brainwashed into the Cult of Obama.

(ABC News) The president also decried news headlines that sought to label the recently-deceased ringleader of the Paris attacks, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, as a “mastermind.”

“He’s not a mastermind,” Obama said. “He found a few other vicious people, got [his] hands on some fairly conventional weapons, and sadly, it turns out if you’re willing to die, you can kill a lot of people.”

More flippancy. Perhaps that’s why he’s cratering in the polls

(CNN) Still, such gains appear to have been largely overshadowed by the horrors brought to Paris. A new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds 57% of Americans disapprove of the president’s strategy for defeating ISIS. Only 35% approve.

David Gergen, a CNN political analyst who has advised both Republican and Democratic presidents, argued Obama will have a difficult time persuading Americans to show compassion when they fear that he lacks the resolve to destroy ISIS.

“The truth is that we don’t have a strategy. No one understands what he wants in an end game or how he plans to get there,” said Gergen, a professor at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

As Allahpundit noted “Having no strategy on Syria or ISIS and sounding like you’re on your “man period” at press conferences when pressed on that fact can do that to you.” The sad truth is that Obama provides no strategy, what little he’s doing is having mixed results, he gets snippy when questioned, he shows more passion in demonizing domestic political opponents than people who saw off heads, creates strawman, and refuses to listen to the American People who are very concerned over bringing in Syrian refugees.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama Says He’s Personally Going To Destroy ISIS »

Posted in Barry Obama, War On Terrorism | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 21, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a world backing from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post wondering why students are demanding campus police not wear protective vests.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Special Snowflake Syndrome Strikes Duke University

By William Teach November 21, 2015 – 10:29 am

All the Special Snowflakes say “we’re unique, we’re all different, you can’t put us all in the same box” followed by “let’s do what they’re doing!”

(WRAL )  For the second day in a row, Triangle college students are demanding change on their campus. Students gathered Friday afternoon in Page Auditorium at Duke University to meet with administrators.

They want action from university leaders, but so far they said they feel there hasn’t been enough.

Duke students that organized the meeting said they have experienced racism and homophobia at the University. Some students said they feel that the issues have been ignored, to some degree, by university leaders.

Well, that’s weird. A very liberal institution having an atmosphere of intolerance?

“Students are fearing for their safety on campus,” Iro said. “We wanted to give them concrete things we needed as students.”

So, they don’t feel safe on a very liberal campus? Of course, by safe they don’t  mean violence, they mean from getting their feelings hurt. One of their demands is punishment for “hate speech”, which these Special Snowflakes deem as anything that offends them or makes them butthurt.

It’s going to be funny as hell when they actually have to go out into the Real World and pull these stunts, then find out that the Real World won’t coddle them. Or hire them.

Read: Special Snowflake Syndrome Strikes Duke University »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | Comments Off on Special Snowflake Syndrome Strikes Duke University | Trackback URL

German Professor Finds Massive Alterations To NASA Temperature Datasets

By William Teach November 21, 2015 – 8:30 am

Well, color me shocked!

(No Tricks Zone) Veteran journalist Günter Ederer* writes a piece reporting that massive alterations have been found in the NASA GISS temperature data series, citing a comprehensive analysis conducted by a leading German scientist. These results are now available to the public.

Ederer reports not long ago retired geologist and data computation expert Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert began looking at the data behind the global warming claims, and especially the datasets of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS).

Ewert painstakingly examined and tabulated the reams of archived data from 1153 stations that go back to 1881 – which NASA has publicly available – data that the UN IPCC uses to base its conclusion that man is heating the Earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. According to Ederer, what Professor Ewert found is “unbelievable”:

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”

Ederer writes that Ewert particularly found alterations at stations in the Arctic. Professor Ewert randomly selected 120 stations from all over the world and compared the 2010 archived data to the 2012 data and found that they had been tampered to produce warming.

The Cult of Climastrology has long been shown to have altered the data, what they will call “smoothing”. I’ve noted in the past that that yearly values have changed, with the past typically being adjusted downwards, and the current upwards. They often take the data from properly sited stations and stations out in the country (which provide more realistic readings) and adjust them upwards, thereby coming in line with the improperly sited stations and those in areas subject to an Urban Heat Island effect, which is a totally reversed way the data should be treated.

They also manufacture data out of nothing, especially in areas like the Arctic, Antarctic, Siberia, oceans, Africa, and so many other areas which have no monitoring stations.

The old data showed regular cycles of warming and cooling over the period, even as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 0.03% to 0.04%. According to the original NASA datasets, Ederer writes, the mean global temperature cooled from 13.8°C in 1881 to 12.9°C in 1895. Then it rose to 14.3°C by 1905 and fell back under 12.9°C by 1920, rose to 13.9°C by 1930, fell to 13° by 1975 before rising to 14°C by 2000. By 2010 the temperature fell back to 13.2°C. –

In other words, nothing beyond the typical natural. What’s manmade are the adjustments to the data sets. If the science is so darned sound, why this need to change the data to match the assumption? What is to be gained by the Cult of Climastrology?

Read: German Professor Finds Massive Alterations To NASA Temperature Datasets »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Totally Worried About The Price Of Fear

By William Teach November 21, 2015 – 7:46 am

The Editorial Board, comprised mostly of White People and men who live a nice 1%er life, is Very Concerned that everyone will overreact to the threat from ISIS and, primarily, wants to defend the “Syrian” refugees to Obama’s satisfaction

The Price of Fear

After the attacks in Paris, the world is again challenged by fear. With every bombing, beheading and mass shooting, the dread spreads, along with the urgency of defeating this nihilism.

But no less a challenge for the civilized world is the danger of self-inflicted injury. In the reaction and overreaction to terrorism comes the risk that society will lose its way.

What do they see as overreactions? The Iraq War (they just can’t get over it), which they initially supported, along with the majority of Democrats and intelligence agencies. Guantanamo Bay detention facility, which holds/held lots of stone cold jihadis, whom are called “perceived threats” by the EB. They do have a point on the expansion of the “ever-expanding surveillance apparatus”, which their Democratic elected officials seem to support.

Al Qaeda and the Islamic State did not compel us to shackle ourselves to a security state, or to disgrace our values by vilifying and fearing refugees and immigrants.

Yet, is this a perceived fear, or a true concern? In sales we refer to questions and concerns, and not to conflate questions with real concerns. A question is “how much does this cost?” A concern is “I’m not sure I can afford it”. The American people seem to be more in terms of asking a question, namely “how can we be assured that these refugees from places that feature hardcore Islam will not be extremists, and will be valued members of the USA?”

As for the members of the House, Democratic and Republican, who voted to effectively shut down the Syrian and Iraqi refugee program, and the governors who would somehow block Syrians from their borders — Americans should hope it’s just fearful ignorance that clouds their vision, and that in time it clears.

The bill in question requires several key members of the Obama administration to sign off on the background checks of each Syrian refugee, putting them on record. They do not want to do this. That’s how it “effectively shuts down” the refugee program. If these refugees were so darned safe, they’d have no problem signing off. They are obviously fearful of the potential fallout and have concerns over the background checks

Terrorist violence is terrifying, and it is natural to want to restore a shattered sense of safety. But the best way to do that has always been to draw upon our greatest ideals.

Our greatest ideals include protecting the citizenry from foreign threats. Humorously, the NY Times is the same paper that, well, let’s say, craps itself in fear over anthropogenic climate change constantly, like a 3 year old who thinks something moved under the bed or that the closet door moved. Concern for Islamic jihadis is very real, and poll after poll after poll show that the American People are concerned over that very real threat. Liberals worry about ACC, which is as imaginary as the monster under the bed and the boogeyman in the closet.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Totally Worried About The Price Of Fear »

Posted in Liberal World, RoP | 6 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove