Just 21% Support Iran Deal In New Poll

By William Teach September 9, 2015 – 7:45 am

Virtually every single poll on the Iran deal here in the U.S. finds it underwater, other than a U of Maryland poll, which seems to be a complete outlier. Quite often, the polls show an erosion of support for the deal, as well

(Pew Research Center) As Congress prepares to vote on the Iran nuclear agreement, public support for the deal has declined. Currently, just 21% approve of the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program reached between the United States, Iran and other nations. Nearly half (49%) disapprove of the agreement, while three-in-ten (30%) offer no opinion.

In mid-July, a week after President Obama announced the deal, 33% of the public approved of the agreement, while 45% disapproved and 22% had no opinion. Over the past six weeks, the share approving of the agreement has fallen 12 percentage points (from 33% to 21%), while disapproval has held fairly steady (45% then, 49% now). Somewhat more express no opinion than did so in July (22% then, 30% now).

Even among Democrats, support has declined. In the July poll, support was at 50%. It’s dropped to 42%.

Among Independents, support has eroded from 31% to 20%.

In both cases, some of the loss of support has moved into the “don’t know” category. Much of that could be due to it supposedly disappearing, to a degree, from the news

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Sept. 3-7 among 1,004 adults, finds that the contentious debate over the Iran agreement has not resonated widely with the public. In fact, the share saying they have heard either a lot or a little about the agreement has declined from 79% in July to 69% in the new survey. The share saying they have heard “nothing at all” about it has increased nine percentage points, from 21% to 30%.

It hasn’t completely disappeared from the news, but we are getting much less coverage. Hey, did you know this (particularly starting with the red bold I’ve added)?

Fallacious “Snapback” Sanctions. Obama has said that if Iran violates the nuclear deal, all of the sanctions can snap back into place and we will not need the support of other members of the U.N. Security Council. The United States, he claims, can trigger these snapback sanctions on its own. But paragraph 37 of the JCPOA makes clear that the provisions of the U.N. Security Council resolutions would be reimposed “unless the U.N. Security Council decides otherwise,” and it even goes on to insulate established contracts with Iran from whatever snapback sanctions are imposed. Knowing that any contracts entered into with Iran by foreign companies could survive so-called snapback sanctions even when Iran is caught cheating, the Obama administration has sent letters to the governments of China, Germany, France and Britain assuring them that companies doing business with Iran will not be penalized if Iran violates the JCPOA. Senators Mark Kirk and Marco Rubio are demanding that the Obama administration release the contents of these letters – contents that are currently undisclosed – to the American public.

Per the Corker Amendment, no review period nor vote can be held until Congress receives all relevant material. This includes side deals and letters as described above.

Meanwhile, Rep. Louis Gohmert is saying that House leadership is considering holding a vote on the Iran deal on September 11th. A day that saw so much bravery by Americans in the face of Islamic terrorism could see utter cowardice by GOP leadership. They probably do not care, they’re surely looking for a late Friday heading-into-the-weekend vote.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Just 21% Support Iran Deal In New Poll »

Posted in Iran | Comments Off on Just 21% Support Iran Deal In New Poll | Trackback URL

Say, Why Is Greenpeace Worried About Global Cooling?

By William Teach September 8, 2015 – 5:13 pm

Bishop Hill finds something interesting

Greenpeace are fond of telling us that the planet is going to fry because of our evil addiction to fossil fuels. How then to explain their submission to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which maintains a register of issues and potential problems with the nation’s nuclear waste repositories?

The long-term effects of glaciation on repository safety could be very serious, potentially involving a large release of radionuclides due to glacial flushing from a damaged repository zone. Future glaciations could cause faulting of the rock, rupture of containers and penetration of surface and/or saline waters to the repository depth.

Obviously, this is all do to anthropogenic climate change, which not only makes it planet scalding hot, but, super cold at the same time.

Read: Say, Why Is Greenpeace Worried About Global Cooling? »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach September 8, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is an ocean that will rise hundreds of feet soonish, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post noting Samantha Power backing the oppressor.

Read: If All You See… »

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

The Blight Of Wind Farms

By William Teach September 8, 2015 – 10:00 am

An interesting video, via NoTricksZone, highlighting the environmental destruction and scenery blight of wind farms

A new video (below) has been produced by wind-energy protest group www.rtf-radmarathon.de presenting a series of before-and-after photos that drive home the profound negative impacts wind parks are having on Germany’s idyllic landscapes and natural scenery.

Here’s what it looks like

Read: The Blight Of Wind Farms »

Posted in Energy, Environment, Global Warming | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post Editorial Board Goes Warmonger On ISIS

By William Teach September 8, 2015 – 7:10 am

On one hand, this editorial makes sense. There is a need for a war resolution/authorization for dealing with ISIS. Let’s not forget, though, that the Washington Post was a big advocate for the 2003 Iraq war, before turning against it for political purposes. On the other hand, this seems a way to Blame Congress and protect Obama

Congress should authorize war against the Islamic State

MORE THAN a year after the United States began airstrikes against the Islamic State, the results are mixed: The terrorists have been pushed back in some parts of Iraq and Syria but have expanded their territory in others, and they continue to attract recruits and inspire the creation of affiliates in countries from Afghanistan to Libya. The Obama administration has slowly ramped up its commitment of troops, its cooperation with allies and its range of operations. To all appearances, a solid majority in Congress supports this creeping escalation; many, like us, believe that President Obama should have embraced more robust measures. Extraordinarily, however, Congress has yet to vote on authorizing the conflict, leaving Mr. Obama to act on the dubious legal authority provided by the 2001 congressional vote to support action against al-Qaeda.

Obama submitted an authorization that Republicans felt was too restrictive and Democrats felt was too loose

One big reason for Congress’s failure to act has been disputes among Democrats, Republicans and the White House over what an authorization should say. Democrats would like to include limits on the scope of the war, including a ban on ground troops and an expiration date for the authority. Republicans generally reject such provisions, seeing them as improper micromanagement of military operations or as an attempt to bind the next president.

Democrats want to give authorization while hamstringing the ability to actually fight ISIS.

Lost in this debate is what should be the overriding imperative of a vote to authorize the war. Those who insist on conditionality ensure only that the president will continue to act on authority that is as expansive as it is thin.

So, wait, the Post is now saying they don’t like Obama taking on so much power unilaterally? Where were they in condemning all his other expansions of power?

But, it does look like the WPEB is suddenly in warmongeville, eh?

Encouragingly, a bipartisan war authorization draft has emerged in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Crafted by Sens. Timothy M. Kaine (D-Va.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), it attempts to bridge the gap between the two parties’ positions with language that discourages the use of “significant” ground troops against the Islamic State while stopping short of an explicit ban. Importantly, it does not limit the war geographically, making action against Islamic State affiliates in places such as Libya possible; and it authorizes action against any entity that “presents a direct threat” to “forces trained by the coalition,” which would cover potential action to defend Syrian rebels against the Assad regime.

Of course, they can’t make it simple, like

WHEREAS, The Islamic State has committed repeated acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America; therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Islamic State, which has thus been thrust upon the United States, is hereby formally declared; and that the President be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Islamic State; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States

It used to be pretty darned simple: you messed with the United States, we declared war and beat you. Even the authorizations for military action, as opposed to full war, tended to be simple things.

Read: Washington Post Editorial Board Goes Warmonger On ISIS »

Posted in ISIS, Politics, RoP | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Hillary: “What I Did Was Allowed” Or Something

By William Teach September 8, 2015 – 6:29 am

And no apology for you!

(AP) Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday she does not need to apologize for using a private email account and server while at the State Department because “what I did was allowed.”

In an interview with The Associated Press during a Labor Day campaign swing through Iowa, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination also said the lingering questions about her email practices while serving as President Barack Obama’s first secretary of state have not damaged her campaign. (snip)

As she has often said in recent weeks, Clinton told AP it would have been a “better choice” for her to use separate email accounts for her personal and public business. “I’ve also tried to not only take responsibility, because it was my decision, but to be as transparent as possible,” Clinton said.

Sadly, AP writer Catherine Lucey failed to do more than really regurgitate her talking points, rather than doing any research and finding things like this, which took me all of 1 minute

The department’s security policy basically forbade employees from having a mobile device on which they could use its built-in mail application to connect to a State Department account and other accounts at the same time, according to department spokeswoman Jen Psaki at a press conference on Thursday. The policy allowed users to check State Department email accounts only on a department-issued device, she said. And it barred users from connecting the mail programs on those devices to personal or other accounts, Psaki said.

State Dept policy at the time forbid anyone to receive their work email account on anything but a department issued device, because they had proper security. Hillary used her own device and created a homebrew, insecure server rather than use the appropriate device and email platform. Sure seems like Hillary did something wrong.

The one-on-one interview with AP was the second for Clinton in the past four days. On Friday, she did not apologize for using a private email system when asked directly by NBC, “Are you sorry?” Asked Monday by the AP why she won’t directly apologize, Clinton said: “What I did was allowed. It was allowed by the State Department. The State Department has confirmed that.

The State Department long ago stated it was not allowed. And, perhaps the interviewer could have asked Hillary what specific policies made Hillary think she could do this? You can bet a Republican would have been asked those follow up questions.

“I did not send or receive any information marked classified,” Clinton said. “I take the responsibilities of handling classified materials very seriously and did so.”

The article fails to mention that, in fact, classified information was on her server. A second review shows that, yes, there was classified information within her email. It’s absurd to think that nothing classified nor sensitive would not be emailed to the US Secretary of State. Hillary is attempting an “it depends on the definition of “is”” moment with the “marked classified” talking point. In fact, as the AP forgets to include, it doesn’t matter. 18 USC 793 specifically notes that it doesn’t matter. The Espionage Act specifically says it doesn’t matter.

“There is always a debate among different agencies about what something should be retroactively (marked classified),” Clinton told the AP on Monday. “But at the time, there were none. So I’m going to keep answering the questions and providing the facts so that people can understand better what happened.”

Well, for one thing, the documents were never meant to be transmitted in any electronic form, they were meant to be kept in secure reading rooms. Her aides could end up being guilty of the same thing as David Patreaus, unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents, which was a misdemeanor. Or even felonies. Hillary was in possession of that information, and, per her initial read-in when she took over State, should have known. And, per, US Code, it doesn’t matter: she was in possession.

“It is not a criminal investigation, it is a security review,” Clinton said. “People are asked to provide any copies of any of these materials that are the subject of the debate. So, I immediately said, ‘turn over everything.'”

The FBI wouldn’t be the ones doing a security review: that would be State. And, apparently, Hillary never received the exit briefing, nor signed the proper exit documents. Hillary, and the AP, can spin it all they want: it’s a criminal investigation.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Hillary: “What I Did Was Allowed” Or Something »

Posted in Hillary Clinton, Wonky Media | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Pacific Leaders Say Paris Climate Talks Are Totally Their Last Chance

By William Teach September 7, 2015 – 3:50 pm

Their last chance to get lots and lots of sweet, sweet cash

(AFP) Pacific leaders said Monday that upcoming climate talks in Paris are the last chance for the world to reach an agreement that can save their vulnerable island nations.

The leaders of the six smallest members of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) said they were among the hardest hit by climate change, and a binding agreement at the so-called COP21 talks in December was crucial.

Here’s one of the photos accompanying the article

Because high tide and storm surge never happened before CO2 went over the “safe” limit of 350ppm.

Territories such as Tuvalu and Tokelau fear their nations will become unlivable as rising waters erode coastlines and ruin crops, while Kiribati has purchased a large block of land in Fiji in case its entire population needs to relocate.

Except, the seas are barely rising in those areas, and there’s nothing new about sea rise during a Holocene warm period. What is this really about? Money. These island nations want lots and lots of money. Interestingly, this is what’s embedded in the photo stream for the article

It seems rather serendipitous that the big ad of the day at Yahoo News is Citi bank pimping credit cards, which shows up in the article photo stream.

Maybe these islands should be more worried about their poo infested waters. And should wonder how coral based islands came into creation in the first place.

Read: Pacific Leaders Say Paris Climate Talks Are Totally Their Last Chance »

Posted in Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 7, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…are wonderful trees which are getting in the way of building a solar farm, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Vox Popoli, with a post on whether The Donald can win.

Read: If All You See… »

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

It’s Labor Day, So, It Must Be Time To Talk About Climate Change

By William Teach September 7, 2015 – 10:30 am

I’ve mentioned it time and time again: whenever this is some sort of big holiday, Warmists must link the two. I was initially disappointed that there really weren’t any unhinged Cult of Climastrology missives prior to Labor Day. How dare they break my notion of linkage! Ah, but today is the day. Let’s start here with George Soros funded climate monkey Joe Romm

Labor Day 2050: How Unchecked Global Warming Threatens Labor Productivity

Unchecked global warming will have a serious negative impact on labor productivity this century. Ironically, strong climate action would be a huge boost to productivity.

Here’s what we know: A 2013 NOAA study concluded that “heat-stress related labor capacity losses will double globally by 2050 with a warming climate.” If we don’t get off our current path of carbon pollution emissions, we face as much as a 50 percent drop in labor capacity in peak months by century’s end.

“If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we’d all have a wonderful Christmas.” I don’t get to trot that one out too often.


Labor Day is a time to celebrate and reflect

….

As our drought continues and forest fires devastate large parts of Eastern Washington, the impacts of climate change are bearing harshly down on our communities. We can address the impacts of climate change and create tens of thousands of family wage jobs if we invest in rebuilding our state’s infrastructure – e.g., investing in water projects that increase water storage and protect against floods and storm water run-off. These types of investments protect us against quicker glacial melts and droughts.

By placing a cap on carbon emissions and investing fees from carbon in alternative and renewable energy sources we can address both inequality and climate change at the same time. We can create tens of thousands of new jobs in the energy efficiency industry if we take to scale retrofitting public, commercial and residential buildings.

It’s so simple! If we institute a huge tax scheme, everything will be A-OK! The writer, Jeff Johnson, a member of the Washington State Labor Council, wrote something similar for The Olympian. Then there’s this

Labor Day Trivia Facts 2015: 10 Fun Things For Kids To Know

Oh, good, trivia! I love trivia! Did you know that Led Zeppelin played their first gig on this day in 1968? And that The Who drummer Keith Moon died on this day? And that Louis the Stammerer was crowned as King of West Francia by Pope John VIII in 878? Oh, wait

We can attack inequality and the adverse impacts of climate change by placing a cap on carbon and investing carbon fees in retrofitting our homes, businesses and public buildings; by investing in our water infrastructure to prevent against drought, flooding and stormwater run-off; and by investing in renewable and sustainable energy sources.

It’s a very weird article, devoid of anything linked to the headline, and it’s almost like it was printed without the beginning. But, hey, climate change!

Read: It’s Labor Day, So, It Must Be Time To Talk About Climate Change »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, “Is Right Wing Extremism the Biggest Danger Facing America?”

By William Teach September 7, 2015 – 8:50 am

In Liberal World, having a different political viewpoint is Dangerous. Unless you’re an Islamist. Liberals are more than willing to ignore, even defend, Islamists, both the violent ones and the ones who use the laws of Western society against us. But, if you’re a Conservative, if you believe in the sanctity of life, if you want a limited government, etc? You’re an extremist

Is Right Wing Extremism the Biggest Danger Facing America?

A Planned Parenthood clinic in Washington state was set on fire over the weekend. Officials determined the cause of the fire was arson.

The fire follows a a series of videos released by anti-abortion activists appearing to show Planned Parenthood executives boasting of profits made from the sale of fetal tissue. The videos were later found to be “deceptively edited” by an independent investigator.

Writer Marvin Meador forgot to mention that the “independent investigator” was paid to conduct the investigation by Planned Parenthood. Nor does he mention that one can watch the videos in long form, hours each, and see nothing edited in the least.

Accordingly, such extreme right groups have carried out more acts of terror in the United States than have Islamic militants. According to the New York Times:

Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, anti-government fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims: 48 have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim, including the recent mass killing in Charleston, S.C., compared with 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists, according to a count by New America, a Washington research center.

Non-Muslim extremists have carried out 19 such attacks since Sept. 11, according to the latest count, compiled by David Sterman, a New America program associate, and overseen by Peter Bergen, a terrorism expert. By comparison, seven lethal attacks by Islamic militants have taken place in the same period.

Interesting

  • Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Reg­istered Democrat and Muslim.
  • Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter
  • Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
  • James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occu­py guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.
  • Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter
  • Andrew J. Stack, flew plane into IRS building in Texas – Leftist Democrat
  • James J. Lee who was the “green activist”/ leftist took hostages at Discovery Channel – progressive liberal Democrat.
  • Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter – Leftist, Marxist.

Those are just a few of the recent nutballs.

The sovereign citizen movement, a far right group which number as many as 300,000 and claims not to recognize the authority of federal or local government, is recognized by the FBI as the “nation’s top domestic terrorism threat. ” The group, like many on the extreme right, shares a “fear that government will confiscate firearms” and a nihilistic “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”

Yet few are involved in any violence. Few threaten violence. And Democrats are, shockingly, constantly pushing for confiscatory gun laws.

But, consider, hundreds have been murdered in Baltimore alone this year. The majority of those suspected and/or caught in Baltimore for those homicides were Black. The same goes for Chicago, which had a pretty big weekend of violence. The same goes for many other Big Cities in the U.S. Should we blame Blacks? Or, should we acknowledge that Liberal Democratic Party policies are extreme and create extremists? More people were killed in Baltimore in just July and August 2015 than all those supposedly killed by “right wing extremists” since September 11, 2001.

What’s also not mentioned are the number of people killed by Islamic extremists in other countries. The Jihad Report shows 388 killed in the last week, and 2297 during August, with 26,834 deadly jihadi attacks since 9/11/01.

The whole point here, though, is for Leftists to link those who are actually far, far, far right extremists to the non-extremists on the right, making them part and parcel. There are extremists on both sides. Liberals want right side extremists joined to the non-extremists in order to destroy Conservatives, to, let’s face it, make it easier to ban their viewpoints.

But, look at the overall violence in Democratic Party run cities, and we can see which political policies are the real danger.

Read: Say, “Is Right Wing Extremism the Biggest Danger Facing America?” »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Liberal World | 13 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove