House Overwhelmingly Votes To Require Better Vetting Of Refugees

By William Teach November 19, 2015 – 3:11 pm

The LA Times tries a little bit misdirection. …oh, who am I kidding, their headine and first paragraph is a bald face partisan lie, unless…

Tapping heightened safety concerns after the Paris terror attacks, House Republicans — joined overwhelmingly by Democrats — approved legislation Thursday effectively halting the resettlement of refugees from Syria and Iraq to the U.S.

That’s designed to make the GOP look mean. But, then reality steps in

The House bill would require the leaders of the nation’s security apparatus — the heads of the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence — to certify that refugees who are admitted pose no security threat.

The White House said the House bill creates “unnecessary and impractical requirements,” noting the current screening process takes up to 24 months. Critics say it would essentially shut down the program.

In other words, Team Obama is upset that they might be put on the record when it comes to these potential terrorists, and they Do Not Want That.

The vote was 289-137, with more than enough Democrats joining in to make it veto proof.

Read: House Overwhelmingly Votes To Require Better Vetting Of Refugees »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 19, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a waterspout on a sunny day, another example of carbon fueled extreme weather, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on social justice warriors equaling crybabies.

It’s still French babes week.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Sorry, Ladies, Red Lipstick Is Bad For ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach November 19, 2015 – 10:35 am

This is the kind of thing that counts for Being Important in Liberal World

From the article

As a climate change advisor at the United Nations, 35-year-old Cassie Flynn spends her days talking about hefty issues. There are rising sea levels wiping out entire countries, droughts impacting the food security of an entire region, and mega-storms like Superstorm Sandy becoming the norm.  “It’s very hard not to feel overwhelmed by this,” she said. “You want to do nothing or leave it to the CEOs or world leaders or people having these large conversations.”

Name one country wiped by sea rise. Droughts have always occurred. The last superstorm like Sandy was…Sandy.

There’s entirely too much in this article which could be laughed at, so let’s skip to the lipstick schtick

Another video called “sustainable flirting” teaches you how to make better decisions when getting ready for a date. Both men and women use health and beauty products like makeup, deodorant, cologne, and hair products before leaving the house. These have chemicals that don’t break-up and accumulate in the ecosystem (“Talk about a shitty party,” says Flynn.) So it’s important to use products that are organic. “Ignore fancy words like ”natural’ or ‘hypoallergenic’ on the front and choose products with shorter lists of ingredients and avoid things that have synthetic fragrance,” she advises. Red lipsticks are particularly known for containing toxins like lead, so check if yours does!

Here’s the interesting part: from a true environmental standpoint, they’re correct. Yet, they aren’t arguing this out of concern for the actual wellbeing of the environment, but due to their unscientific believe in anthropogenic climate change. These people are fools.

It also goes to show that there are too many people in the 1st world who have nothing better to do with all their free time, thanks to all the modern advances these same people complain about.

Read: Sorry, Ladies, Red Lipstick Is Bad For ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Whistleblowers Claim NOAA Climate Report Was “Rushed To Publication”

By William Teach November 19, 2015 – 7:17 am

Would the Cult of Climastrology actually do that?

From the link

House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) opened another front in his war with federal climate researchers on Wednesday, saying a groundbreaking global warming study was “rushed to publication” over the objections of numerous scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

That’s a rather misleading opening paragraph, an attempt to make this appear political

Whistleblowers have told the committee, according to Smith’s letter, that Thomas Karl — the director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, which led the study — “rushed” to publish the climate study “before all appropriate reviews of the underlying science and new methodologies” used in the climate data sets were conducted.

“NOAA employees raised concerns about the timing and integrity of the process but were ignored,” he wrote.

I hope these whistleblowers are hiding deep, because they will be in big trouble from the CoC when found, laws be damned. Some Warmists are already calling for the whistleblowers to be named and forced to testify publicly, in contradiction of federal law.

NOAA Communications Director Ciaran Clayton, one of the officials whose communications the committee has subpoenaed, said in an e-mail:

“The notion that this paper was rushed to publication is false. In December 2014, the co-authors of the study submitted their findings to Science — a leading scientific journal. Following a rigorous peer review process, which included two rounds of revisions to ensure the credibility of the data and methodologies used, Science informed the authors that the paper would be published in June.

“The notion that NOAA is ‘hiding something’ is also false. We have been transparent and cooperative with the House Science Committee to help them better understand the research and underlying methodologies. … We stand behind our scientists who conduct their work in an objective manner.”

Well, there’s a simple answer: comply with the House committees subpoenas, and release all the documents they have requested, including the internal communications and emails, which, last time I checked, are owned by The People as government records. Smith has threatened to subpoena Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker if the material is not released by Friday. Science is an open process. What is it with this Administration and stonewalling? If they aren’t releasing the requested material, they’re hiding something.

If there was nothing there, you can bet the communications and emails would have been released. At this point, we must ask what NOAA is hiding.

Read: Whistleblowers Claim NOAA Climate Report Was “Rushed To Publication” »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Polls: Most Americans Against Letting In Syrian Refugees

By William Teach November 19, 2015 – 6:52 am

Mr. Obama is totally for polls of the will of The People when it means backing what He Wants. What about when they don’t jibe with others?

(Bloomberg) Most Americans want the U.S. to stop letting in Syrian refugees amid fears of terrorist infiltrations after the Paris attacks, siding with Republican presidential candidates, governors, and lawmakers who want to freeze the Obama administration’s resettlement program.

The findings are part of a Bloomberg Politics national poll released Wednesday that also shows the nation divided on whether to send U.S. troops to Iraq and Syria to fight the Islamic State, an idea President Barack Obama opposes, and whether the U.S. government is doing enough to protect the homeland from a comparable attack.

Fifty-three percent of U.S. adults in the survey, conducted in the days immediately following the attacks, say the nation should not continue a program to resettle up to 10,000 Syrian refugees. Just 28 percent would keep the program with the screening process as it now exists, while 11 percent said they would favor a limited program to accept only Syrian Christians while excluding Muslims, a proposal Obama has dismissed as “shameful” and un-American.

The poll isn’t saying Americans want a pause, or better screening. It’s saying “Stop. Now. No more”. Liberals do not like that poll? How about this one?

(NBC) In the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris, more than half of the nation’s governors have declared they will not accept new Syrian refugees into their states, and a new poll shows that a majority of Americans disapprove of President Obama’s plans to accept increased numbers of Syrian refugees. The latest NBC News/SurveyMonkey online poll shows that 56% of Americans disapprove of allowing more migrants fleeing violence in Syria and other nations into the country, while 41% approve and the issue divides sharply across party lines. But overwhelmingly, Americans say the U.S. and its allies are losing the war against ISIS and the poll shows bipartisan support for sending additional ground troops to fight the Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria.

About 8 in 10 Republicans disapprove of accepting more Syrian refugees – including 64% who strongly disapprove. Nearly two thirds of Democrats support the president’s policy, while more independents disapprove (59%) than approve (40%).

This goes with 70%, which is the number who believe that the U.S. is losing the fight against ISIS.

Will Mr. Obama listen to the American People?

(Fox News) President Obama threatened late Wednesday to veto legislation aimed at improving screening for Syrian refugees, potentially putting the White House and Congress on a collision course in a matter of days.

The veto threat came as the House was preparing the bill — which sets high hurdles for refugee admission including FBI background checks and sign-offs by top officials — for floor action as early as Thursday. In a committee meeting, Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, accused the president of confusing the public about the intentions of the legislation.

Considering that the Obama administration is vowing to veto a bill that would require the Obama administration to increase background checks and sign off on them, I’d say listening is a Big No.

Meanwhile,

(The Hill) GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) challenged President Obama on Wednesday for attacking Republicans who oppose plans to admit thousands of Syrian refugees into the U.S.

“It is utterly unbefitting of the president to be engaging in those kind of personal insults and attacks,” Cruz said in Washington, D.C., in video captured by NBC News.

“He talked about how he was belittling the Republican field as scared. Well let me suggest something: Mr. President, if you want to insult me, you can do it overseas, you can do it in Turkey, you can do it in foreign countries. But I would encourage you Mr. President, come back and insult me to my face,” Cruz said.

Not that Obama cares, but, historically, American politicians do not insult Americans or America while overseas. Will Obama take up this challenge? Obama likes to insult people when they are a captive audience or not in attendance. Perhaps he can explain this to Mr. Cruz

(Reuters) Honduran authorities said on Wednesday they had intercepted six Syrian nationals traveling on doctored Greek passports in the past week, including five who had been trying to reach the United States.

Police said there were no signs of any links to last week’s deadly attacks in Paris that killed 129 people. Islamic State claimed responsibility for the shooting and suicide bombing assault.

Of course, no links, they just took an extremely circuitous route from Greece, through Turkey, Brazil, Argentina, and to Costa Rica before ending in Honduras. All Syrian refugees have the kind of money necessary to take all those flights, right? Why not just stay in Greece, or head to Germany?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Polls: Most Americans Against Letting In Syrian Refugees »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Salon Says ISIS Really Is Islamic…Wait, What?

By William Teach November 18, 2015 – 4:18 pm

One can usually depend on Salon to be the unhinged of the unhinged for the Left-side of the Internet, kinda like Moonbat² (squared). Yet, somehow, this article, originally posted at Alternet, another far left site, actually ended up in Salon, and makes an astonishing admission

6 keys to understanding ISIS’ barbaric brand of nihilism

The latest terrorist attacks by ISIS have changed the 2016 presidential race, sparking a range of predictable reactions across the partisan spectrum, from “Fortress America” stances from Republicans to Democrats pushing to create a new international coalition and combined military response.

But most Americans, especially those running for president, do not really understand what ISIS is about: what they believe and seek, why they are so bloody, how they lure recruits from abroad, and why they are now striking in Paris and Beirut. Last winter, the Atlantic’s Graeme Wood spent weeks with ISIS defenders, sympathetic clerics and academics overseas before writing a revelatory profile, “What ISIS Really Wants.” (snip)

What follows are six key takeaways from Wood’s reporting, updated from a previous AlterNet report.

1. ISIS is Islamic. There are many experts in the West and the Middle East, from academics to other conservative Islamics, who, like President Obama, have said ISIS is not Islamic or is a twisted distortion of the Muslim faith. That’s wrong. ISIS “follows a distinctive form of Islam whose beliefs about the path to the Day of Judgment matter to its strategy,” Wood writes, explaining that they are not like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, or even Al Qaeda under bin Laden, but akin to “the realization of a dystopian alternate reality in which David Koresh or Jim Jones survived to wield absolute power over not just a few hundred people, but some 8 million.”

ISIS lives by the most literal translation of the Koran imaginable, as revealed by Mohammed in the seventh century. A Christian analog would be living under the strict edicts in the Book of Leviticus.

“Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and announcements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationary, and coins, ‘the Prophetic methodology,’ which means following the prophecy and example of Mohammed, in punctilious detail,” Wood writes. “But pretending that it isn’t actually a religion, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combated, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it.”

Salon has long shown a hatred for some religion, particularly Christians and Jews, while protecting all of Islam, portraying any condemnation of the extremists as an attack on all Muslims, with their favorite word “Islamophobia”.. Perhaps it is a turning point that they will go after ISIS in this manner, noting that they are, in fact, following what the Koran tells Muslims to do.

Read: Salon Says ISIS Really Is Islamic…Wait, What? »

Posted in RoP | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 18, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is the need to move to high cliffs to avoid the hundreds of feet of sea rise coming soon, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is This ain’t Hell…, with a post on a very dangerous sign removed from an Army base.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Excitable Mike Bloomberg Says Best Way To Support Paris Is Attend Climate Change Meetings

By William Teach November 18, 2015 – 10:09 am

These people are nuts

(Breitbart) No, this is not a parody account. Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg really said this.

At least he had the minimal degree of shame necessary to realize this would be a bad time to push his other obsession, gun control. Disarming law-abiding citizens worked out great for Paris, didn’t it?

This isn’t a new idea. The Climate Cult has been pushing global warming as the principal cause of terrorism for years. While hostages were still being slaughtered in the Bataclan concert hall, cultists were suggesting the killers’ true goal was to inconvenience the upcoming Paris conference on climate change… as if ISIS has ever done anything but laugh uproariously and thank Allah for their good fortune when they hear dingbat Western politicians nattering on about how global warming is a bigger security threat than terrorism. Becoming invisible is the super-power every murderer longs for. Islamists love their chances against weak infidel governments that can’t even name them, let alone fight them.

I’d recommend reading the rest of the article, but, let’s flip to the link in the Tweet and see what Bloomberg had to say

On November 13, only hours before terrorists launched despicable attacks on the people of Paris, I met with Mayor Anne Hidalgo to discuss the upcoming Climate Summit for Local Leaders that we are convening on December 4, as part of the U.N.’s gathering of world leaders at COP21.

After watching the city endure a night of monstrous barbarity that left at least 129 people dead and hundreds wounded, I went to Paris’s City Hall on Saturday to offer my full support to Mayor Hidalgo during this painful period. I gave Mayor Hidalgo my personal pledge that I would do everything possible to convince the global community of local leaders to express its solidarity with Paris and the people of France by attending the Summit. (snip)

There is no better opportunity for mayors to support the people of Paris than by accepting Mayor Hidalgo’s invitation to attend the summit. Cities face many common challenges, and overcoming them requires us to stand together – and that’s why the summit in Paris is now more important than ever.

People like Bloomberg are not only shameless, but are beyond insane.

Read: Excitable Mike Bloomberg Says Best Way To Support Paris Is Attend Climate Change Meetings »

Posted in Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Man With World’s Largest Carbon Footprint Speaks To APEC About A “Low Carbon Future”

By William Teach November 18, 2015 – 8:03 am

Paris being hit by a big terrorist attack? ISIS on the march? World economy in a duldrum? People living in abject poverty, without power and running water throughout the Asian-Pacific region? Islamic extremism rising? Real world issues? Bah! Climate change!

Obama tells Apec: Let’s talk about climate change

US President Barack Obama on Wednesday urged the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) member-economies to start talking about climate change.

Speaking before the Apec CEO Summit held in Manila, Obama in his keynote speech urged the executives to start investing in climate change resilience for future generations.

“But the topic I want to focus on today would have a greater impact not just on our companies, but on every country in this region around the world. I’m talking about the urgent and growing threat of climate change,” he said.

Obama urged a conversation about climate change as he lobbied for a landmark change deal, which is set to be signed during the 21st Conference of Parties or COP21 in Paris in December.

He urged Apec member-economies to support COP21, an “ambitious agreement” among companies to invest in a “low carbon future.”

How cute. This is the guy who just took a fossil fueled flight on a jumbo jet, first to Turkey, then from Turkey to Manila, Philippines. Accompanying him was a backup jumbo jet, as well as multiple fighter jets. Then we add in the huge number of fossil fueled vehicles for on the ground transportation. The man lives in a giant mansion, which uses vast amounts of energy, and he is able to get food from all over at a whim. He lives a huge carbon footprint life, yet, he wants all these Other People to live a “low carbon future”.

And, no, he did not speak on anything else but Hotcoldwetdry during that speech.

So, my message to you today is that your businesses can do right by your bottom lines and by our planet and future generations. The old rules that said we cannot grow our economies and protect our environment at the same time, those are outdated. We can transition to clean energy without squeezing businesses and consumers. When we double fuel efficiency on cars, that’s money in people’s pockets because they’re spending less money at the gas station.

So far, that’s been a fantasy, as the push has come from Government. Furthermore, let’s not forget that with better fuel economy we’ve seen a massive reduction in gas taxes, which has Government looking for other ways to recoup that money from the public which thought they were saving money.

Americans aren’t concerned about tiny increase of the global temperature. Based on his actual gigantic carbon footprint, neither is Obama. Except as a way for government to increase its control.

Read: Man With World’s Largest Carbon Footprint Speaks To APEC About A “Low Carbon Future” »

Posted in Barry Obama, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Mother Jones: Liberals Should Pretend They Care About Threat From Syrian Refugees

By William Teach November 18, 2015 – 7:37 am

Perhaps Kevin Drum should explain this to Mr. Obama, who has shown quite a bit of emotion demonizing Republicans as he performs on foreign stages (which always used to be a no no in American politics), emotion he failed to show when speaking of the actual Paris attacks and ISIS. He treats fellow countrymen like enemies, while Islamic terrorists are just an afterthought for him

Liberals Should Knock Off the Mockery Over Calls to Limit Syrian Refugees

….

Here’s the thing: to the average person, it seems perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of admitting Syrian refugees to the country. We know that ISIS would like to attack the US. We know that ISIS probably has the wherewithal to infiltrate a few of its people into the flood of refugees. And most voters have no idea how easy it is to get past US screening. They probably figure it’s pretty easy.

So to them it doesn’t seem xenophobic or crazy to call for an end to accepting Syrian refugees. It seems like simple common sense. After all, things changed after Paris.

Mocking Republicans over this—as liberals spent much of yesterday doing on my Twitter stream—seems absurdly out of touch to a lot of people. Not just wingnut tea partiers, either, but plenty of ordinary centrists too. It makes them wonder if Democrats seriously see no problem here. Do they care at all about national security? Are they really that detached from reality?

The liberal response to this should be far more measured. We should support tight screening. Never mind that screening is already pretty tight. We should highlight the fact that we’re accepting a pretty modest number of refugees. In general, we should act like this is a legitimate thing to be concerned about and then work from there.

Let’s break that down: Drum, taking a look at polls, understands that there is a serious concern among the American people regarding the refugees, who aren’t just from Syria, but all over the Muslim world (one has to wonder why these refugees aren’t going to other Muslim nations), so, liberals should pretend they actual care about that concern, when they really, really don’t. ISIS has stated that they will sneak people in. Supposedly, according to an ISIS member, they’ve managed to infiltrate 4,000 into Europe. Does anyone think that won’t happen here?

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/646674892184797184

That was September. Does anyone think the numbers have gotten better?

NJ.com is running a web poll in which 75% say “No. They could pose a threat to our security, not to mention stretching our resources” and 22% say “Yes. If they make it through our vetting process, there’s no problem” in regards to letting them in to New Jersey. I wonder if it would make a difference if it was explained that the vetting process essentially comes down to taking the refugees word that they aren’t an extremist? How about if we place these refugees in the same neighborhoods as liberal supporters?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Mother Jones: Liberals Should Pretend They Care About Threat From Syrian Refugees »

Posted in Current Affairs, Liberal World | 20 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove