…is a horrendous fossil fueled boat, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Blazing Cat Fur, with a post on NYC Muslims mad they have to follow the law.
It’s rebel flag bikini week. Why? I really don’t care that much about the flag, but, freedom is important, fascism and thought control are rampant from the left, and this will surely annoy them.
Read: If All You See… »
Happy Sunday! A great day in America. The Sun is shining, the bunnies are eating my neighbors veggie garden, no t-storms on tap here in Raleigh. This pinup is by Gil Elvgren, with a wee bit of help.
What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15
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 »
CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin discussed Justice Scalia’s dissent in a prior case, and stated what Leftist are surely thinking about anyone discussing gays in a negative manner. This comes via the transcript at Newsbusters
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Blistering dissent, Jake (Tapper), but it’s very different. And I think, if you want illustrations of how much the country has changed in the past decade or so, you need only look at Justice Scalia because in 2003, in the case of Lawrence V. Texas, he also dissented, another Anthony Kennedy opinion. And that was the case that said gay people could not be criminally prosecuted for having sex. And listen to this, what Justice Scalia wrote in 2003. He said:
Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as Scout masters for their children, as teachers for their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They viewed this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.
I mean, really, just outward bigotry against gay people. Now, today Justice Scalia begins his dissenting opinion by saying this issue is of no particular importance to me, and the only real issue here is the democratic process, who makes the decisions. Should it be the courts? Or should it be the people?
Even Justice Scalia, who is the biggest social conservative on the court, he cannot talk the way he used to talk about gay people because culturally, politically, even legally, it’s simply not appropriate, and even legal in many, in ways to talk about gay people the way Justice Scalia used to talk about gay people.
This may have been directed specifically at Justice Scalia, but, think about it: you have the senior legal analyst at Leftist CNN stating that a Supreme Court justice cannot legally speak his mind anymore, vis a vis gays, essentially criminalizing Free Speech and dissent. It’s more than censorship of free speech under the guise of “hate” speech. Think it’s not coming? Who would have thought the Supreme Court would override the votes of citizens in states who were against gay marriage being legal just 5 years ago? Who would have thought bakers would be fined out the wazoo for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding due to their religious belief just 5 years ago? Liberals have long been working hard to criminalize “hate”: think they won’t attempt to criminalize speech they don’t like?
If you think that I’m still being a bit over the top, consider what happened in Canada after gay marriage was legalized, via Chicks On The Right, noting this article by Dawn Stefanowicz
Over and over, we are told, “permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.†That is a lie.
Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic†(including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.
You can be reported the Canadian Human Rights Commissions And Tribunals. They can come into your home to gather material, and it can cost tens of thousands in legal fees. The accusers have their legal fees paid by the government. Even saying that marriage is between a man and a women is considered hate speech and verboten.
Meanwhile, Breitbart’s AWR Hawkins discusses a notion I brought up the other day
https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/614452319325954048
Crucial in this ruling is the fact that same sex marriage–now recognized by the SCOTUS–is not the only right the 14th Amendment shields from state-by-state prerogative and/or recognition.
Consider this pertinent aspect of the court’s Majority Opinion, written by Justice Kennedy and printed by the LA Times:
Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.†The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Now the question–Are 2nd Amendment rights among those “protected by this Clause�
If we take the SCOTUS at its word, then yes, 2nd Amendment rights are protected under the 14th Amendment. After all, it was by viewing 2nd Amendment rights as incorporated under the 14th Amendment that the SCOTUS struck down Chicago’s gun ban inMcDonald v Chicago (2010).
The Constitution also requires reciprocity in Article 4, Section 1: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” Combine that with the 14th and this court ruling, and States should be required to respect and recognize legal gun permits, the same as they must respect gay marriage licenses.
Of course, equal protection under the law only applies to things Liberals like.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: CNN: It’s No Longer Legal To Talk About Gays They Way We Used To »
…is an evil fossil fuels pump, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Capitalism Is Freedom, with a post that sums up economics.
Read: If All You See… »
I wish this was a joke, but, hey, it’s at the far, far left UK Guardian
My hijab has nothing to do with oppression. It’s a feminist statement – video
Hanna Yusuf asks why a simple piece of clothing is seen as the very epitome of oppression. She says many women find empowerment in rejecting the idea that women can be reduced to their sexual allure – and we should not assume that every women who wears the hijab has been forced into it
Sure, not every woman has been “forced” into it. However, most are, even if it is just strongly suggested.
Even the notoriously Progressive readers of the Guardian aren’t buying this explanation
All good points.
Read: A Hijab Is Totally A Feminist Statement Or Something »
Does this mean we would get to see the doctor for 6 minutes, instead of the standard breeze in/breeze out?
(Daily Caller) Americans trust their doctors, so the White House wants these medical professionals to be a mouthpiece for President Obama’s global warming agenda.
“We also need doctors, nurses and citizens, like all of youâ€President Obama said in a taped speech presented to medical professionals gathered at the White House, “to get to work to raise awareness and organize folks for real change.â€
The Obama administration has been hard at work trying to draw a link between global warming and public health issues. The summit included the U.S. Surgeon General, top administration officials, and public health experts from around the country telling doctors, nurses and other conference goers how to talk about global warming with their patients.
The central message: doctors should warn their patients that global warming could make their health worse.
So could global cooling. All changes in climate, which is the result of long term weather, can affect our lives and our health. Warmists are really the true Flat Earthers
Speakers at the White House summit didn’t just tell doctors to go out and raise awareness about global warming, but to also promote the Obama administration’s regulatory agenda aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
“We need people, proponents, to talk about it. Make sure that the public is informed,†said Texas Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson. “Stand behind the EPA, because they’re attacked every day, all day by many committees.â€
Interestingly, the doctors weren’t told that they should stop using fossil fuels and go carbon neutral. They were just told to spread awareness. More important, this is the start of a push by the Cult of Climastrology to make inroads with the medical profession in order to spread their cultish beliefs, with preaching to a captive audience.
Read: White House Wants Your Doctor To Warn You About “Climate Change” »
So, the Supreme Court decided to rewrite the definition of marriage. Well, fine, now gays, sorry, LGBTQ whatever, can now get married in all of Obama’s 58 states. What now? Evan Wolfson, the founder and president of Freedom To Marry expounds
(NY Times) The Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday, that the Constitution guarantees gay people the freedom to marry, is a monumental and inspiring victory. America got it right. Love won. We all did.
That, indeed, is something to celebrate. And now we must get back to work.
Securing protections from discrimination for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans needs to be our priority. In too many parts of the country, people can still be fired, evicted, refused service or even humiliated at stores or restaurants because of their sexual orientation or gender identity — in other words, just for being who they are. (snip)
Federal law, which already rightly protects people from discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, age and religion, should be updated to expressly include sexual orientation and gender identity.
Ah, but here’s the thing: according to the SCOTUS, all rights are equal, hence, any laws specifically mentioning certain groups would give them extra protections, which would violate that “all are equal” ruling. They don’t want equality, they want extra rights at the expense of other people
In addition to the political and legal work, the movement must focus on cultural acceptance. That includes combating the bullying and homelessness that too many young people endure, as well as ensuring that seniors can age with dignity and not be forced back into the closet. The real goal, after all, is not just good law, but good lives.
Forced acceptance. As Erik Erickson has written several times, you will be made to care. And you will be forced to accept. It will all be couched in touchy feely language, with an overtone of a threat.
(Politico) Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.â€
The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.
Since the start of the gay marriage debate, proponents of gay marriage have said “well, that’s just crazy. Legalizing polygamy will never happen.” Though they never say why. The main arguments for gay marriage are about equality and “hey, if people love each other, why should they be stopped from marriage?” Why should those in multiple love, group relationships, be stopped? If they love each other, why can they not have a polygamist or bigamist marriage? Furthermore, if it is all about love, what about a marriage between a legal adult and a legal minor? You can’t just say “that’s crazy, it could never happen!” You need to provide a rational reasoning. Remember when marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman?
Fredrik Deboer eviscerates any argument against group marriages, arguments that have been and will be given in opposition of group marriage from the gay marriage social justice warriors.
Next up, you can bet that the SSM SJWs will intentionally go to churches and synagogues that do not support SSM, demanding to be married. It would be very easy for them to simply go to churches that decided to forgo the teachings of the Bible on marriage, and get married there. But, many will want to make a statement, and will want to involve the Government in forcing compliance by religion. They and their SJW compadres within government will then push to pull the tax exempt statuses from non-compliant churches, threaten lawsuits and hate crime prosecutions. Don’t think so? Who thought bakers would be forced to bake a cake, and be fined exorbitantly for refusing?
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: What’s Next For Gay Advocates? »
Things that apparently never happened before fossil fuels. This comes via The Economist
In May India was struck by a deadly heatwave. Temperatures as high as 47°C caused 2,200 deaths. This week a heatwave in Pakistan claimed the lives of hundreds more. As the chart shows, the number of extreme weather- and climate-related events is rising. Serious storms have more than doubled in frequency since the early 1980s. Floods and heatwaves have more than tripled. The human consequences may be serious. A study published this week by the Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change suggests that previous estimates of the future effect of global warming on health, made by the World Health Organisation and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are underestimates because they failed to take into account vulnerabilities caused by ageing, migration and population growth.
So, future doom. Same old same old.
Read: Warmists Calls Droughts, Temperatures, Forest Fires “Climatological Events” »
An unbelievably stupid and dumbed down method of explanation for people who are thoughtless and mental sheep
(The Verge) It seems like the longer that certain elements of society deny the existence of climate change, the more scientists have to use ever-simpler arguments to get their point across. A decade ago we were looking at detailed studies and charts to prove the Earth is getting warmer, and now we’re here: Bill Nye breaking things down with emoji.
Sure, it’s not the most nuanced explainer we’ve seen, but it gets the basics across. There’s way more of us on the planet than there used to be and we’re producing much more carbon dioxide as a result. This warms up the planet, and to mitigate the effects of this warming we need new technologies, like renewable energy sources and new ways of storing electricity in networks of batteries.
I wonder how much electricity was used to produce this video, along with all those watching it?
Of course, this is simply preaching to the choir. It’s not going to influence those who haven’t joined the Cult of Climastrology, who think for themselves.
Have these monuments actually killed anyone?
(AP) Vandals have targeted monuments dedicated to the leaders and soldiers of the Confederacy, painting the slogan “Black lives matter” on memorials in a half-dozen states where the landmarks stand tall in parks and outside government buildings.
The graffiti reflects the racial tension that permeates post-Ferguson America, more than a week after a white man was accused of shooting and killing nine black congregants at a Charleston, South Carolina, church.
Michael Allen, a lecturer in American culture studies at Washington University in St. Louis, compared the vandalism to the toppling of statues in Russia at the end of the Soviet empire.
“If the monuments are strong statements of past values, defacing them is the easiest and loudest way to rebuke those statements,” Allen said.
So, crime to make a statement. As for post-Ferguson, it’s a movement based on a lie (there was no “hands up don’t shoot” moment), provided by a teen who had just robbed a store, was a moron for walking in the middle of the street, then assaulted a duly sworn officer of the law, and attempted to take his gun, then came back for more.
One of the defaced monuments was the Confederate Memorial in St. Louis’ Forest Park, 10 miles from Ferguson. The same graffiti was reported on memorials in Charleston; Baltimore; Austin, Texas; Asheville, North Carolina; and Richmond, Virginia. No arrests have been made.
Meanwhile, Baltimore has seen 10 homicides in the last 13 days, of which the majority of victims have been Black. There are also plenty of murders in St. Louis county this year. If the pattern holds, the majority of Blacks killed in the U.S. will have been killed by other Blacks, known as “Black in origin” crime. Where’s the concern with these #BlackLivesMatters adherents to all the violence, all the murders, all the rapes, all the assaults, all the property crimes, occurring within the Black community against other Blacks? Why are they not doing something to resolve the heavy violence within their own community? This isn’t being caused by a few old Confederate monuments.
But, hey, someone was Offended.
Read: #BlackLivesMatter Defaces Confederate Symbols, Forgets About Black In Origin Crime »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
