If All You See…

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

…is evil carbon pollution polluting beer, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Theo Spark, with a post wondering if the bubble is like 2008 or 1929.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach July 19, 2015 – 9:05 am

Happy Sunday! It’s a great day in America. We’re in the depths of summer, and it’s a great time to just laze around enjoy the day. This pinup is by Gil Elvgren, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Just One Minute has some interesting thoughts on The Donald slamming John McCain
  2. Instapundit highlights the nutty goings on at Netroots
  3. The Jawa Report discusses open carry vs open terrorism
  4. Raised On Hoecakes features an even lower low for San Francisco
  5. Independent Sentinel covers Obama’s latest gun grab
  6. This ain’t Hell… notes how to formally arm our troops
  7. Theodore’s World discusses another benefit Obama gave to Iran
  8. The Last Tradition notes a female officer mugged and her gun stolen in DeBlasio’s NY
  9. The Daley Gator covers a drunk squirrel trashing a bar
  10. The Astute Bloggers wonder why Islam is so hard to understand
  11. protein wisdom notes Obama congratulating Oregon regarding “free” college
  12. Public Secrets has more green fail
  13. Pamela Geller covers all the jihad in American since 9/11
  14. Neo-neocon has a different take on Obama and leadership
  15. And last, but not least, Moonbattery notes Politico calling for ethnic cleansing of Southern Whites

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 | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Now That We’ve Surrendered To Iran, Perhaps Other Issues Can Now Be Discussed

By William Teach July 19, 2015 – 7:40 am

The Editorial Board of the “Paper Of Record” is super pumped by the Iran deal, and figures that now that it is signed, perhaps we can work with Iran on other issues. They love this deal. Really love it. Because Obama made the surrender, er, the deal, happen. Interestingly, they inadvertently start off with one of the reasons that it is really, really bad

The Morning After the Iran Deal

If the historic nuclear accord with Iran gets through Congress and is not derailed by hard-liners in Iran, then what?

Apart from preventing Iran from building a nuclear bomb, the agreement is already altering the region’s political dynamics, creating severe tension between the United States and its allies in the Middle East. And yet it may create space to deal more effectively with broader issues like the wars in Syria and Yemen.

Of course, Obama had already been creating severe tension between the US and our allies, not just in the Middle East, but across the world. The question is, how does Obama deal more effectively with the “broader issues” when he has ducked them time and time again in the Middle East, and ducked them during all the years he has been reaching out to Iran? The editorial rather fails to explain

However, here’s the EB’s real point, coming in paragraph four

In theory, Iran’s decision to submit to strict limits on its nuclear activities provides a chance for cooperation on other issues. By lifting crippling international economic sanctions in return for the nuclear restraints, the deal could strengthen the hand of the moderates in Iran. But if the economic benefits don’t flow quickly enough, hopes for an end to economic hardship could be dashed, discrediting the moderates and boosting the hard-liners.

In other words, they want those sanctions lifted too-sweet, all for these supposed “moderates”, who, let’s face it, do not exist within the Iranian government. Remember, Obama utterly blew off the Iranian “Green Revolution”, which was by these moderates. The hard-liners run the country, and lifting the sanctions will help them. Not any of these fictional moderates in government.

In the negotiations, Mr. Obama was right to keep the focus on restraining the nuclear program. Now that the deal is done, Mr. Obama plans to encourage Iran, which has an abysmal human rights record and is exerting influence through proxies in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and elsewhere, to take a more constructive path, though there are no guarantees that Iran will be less disruptive in the future. On issues of human rights, terrorism and ballistic missiles, sanctions under United States law will remain in place indefinitely to keep pressure on Iran. The administration needs to be vigilant about exercising that leverage.

Any sanctions that are lifted will help Iran, as they will mean a huge influx of cash to the repressive regime in Iran, which will be spent on terrorism, weapons, and spreading their influence throughout the Middle East.

Still, with the breakthrough on the nuclear program, it would be a mistake not to test Tehran’s professed interest in working on other issues. On Friday, Iran announced that Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif would soon visit unspecified countries in the Gulf region to pursue a “new opportunity for regional and international cooperation.” Secretary of State John Kerry is in talks with the Russians, Saudis, Iranians and others about a political solution to end the war in Syria.

Iran’s professed interest is in controlling, or at least “sponsoring” (like with Syria) other countries. They want to be The dominant country in the region. And wipe Israel out. Iran’s interests run counter to the interests of the US and our allies. We now have nothing to offer Iran but more concessions. We’ve ceded all power in the region, and would continue to negotiate from a position of weakness.

The editorial goes on to note just how bad our relations with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other ME nations have become. Unsurprisingly, they have no solutions, just like they offer no solutions for how to deal with Iran, other than removing sanctions really, really fast. Hank puts it nicely in the comments

It didn’t work for Neville Chamberlain so one can predict what will happen next. I hope there is a Winston Churchill in the wings.

What, you mean we can’t have peace in our time?

Meanwhile, Americans are still stuck in jails in Iran, and the current POTUS is apparently doing not a damned thing.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times: Now That We’ve Surrendered To Iran, Perhaps Other Issues Can Now Be Discussed »

Posted in Barry Obama, Iran | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

SJWs Want Fayetteville Seal Changed Because It Might Offend

By William Teach July 18, 2015 – 4:30 pm

Next up on the agenda for the social justice warriors

(WRAL) Black leaders in Fayetteville are calling for the removal of the image of the Market House building from the city seal, saying it is a symbol of slavery.

Past president of the Fayetteville Area Minority Lawyers Association, Allen Rogers, has written the mayor and city council asking the seal be changed. The president of the local NAACP agrees.

“I think it is offensive and I think it’s divisive,” Rogers said. “As we try to attract people and businesses in Fayetteville, I think it does nothing to help that cause.”

Slave sales were conducted in Fayetteville near the Market House, although there is little evidence the building itself was used.

Got that? No evidence it was ever used for slavery, but, hey, it was near, so the Fayetteville town seal needs to be changed!!!!! Now! Because someone is offended!

Read: SJWs Want Fayetteville Seal Changed Because It Might Offend »

Posted in NC News | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle distributing evil methane producing ice cream, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on some creepy Hillary posters.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Bummer: Even Democrats Believe “Climate Change” Will Be Minor 2016 Issue

By William Teach July 18, 2015 – 10:35 am

Sad news for all the Cult of Climastrology members, via a National Journal poll, which asked specific Democrat and Republican insiders what they thought

25+ years of spreading awareness…ok, whining… and this is the best they can do.

Amongst the Republican insiders asked, only 4% thought major, 66% minor, 30% no role.

There are many quotes from both sides, generally in a political manner (why else? This is a political issue, not a scientific issue), and the best comes from a Republican

“Voters don’t care.”

No, they really don’t. Climate change tends to be last or next to last in every issues poll. In yet another United Nations international poll, climate change is last overall, yet again. As Anthony Watts notes, the only places where “climate change” ranks higher are a places that have high HDI, human development index

Note that in these countries (medium to dark blue), people already have the things in place that come in lower than the climate change, so they tend to take them for granted. Countries that have a high HDI have reliable energy, Internet access, political freedoms, and social programs, so it is no wonder these sorts of things come in as lower concerns in medium to high HDI countries. These countries also tend to have a population that has people economically free enough to worry about things like climate change, whereas in some countries, you can’t get electricity or get on the Internet to read the latest doom and gloom being spewed by MSM outlets like the Guardian.

First World Problems.

Read: Bummer: Even Democrats Believe “Climate Change” Will Be Minor 2016 Issue »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Latest Gun Control Idea: Using The Purchasing Power Of The Central Government To Force Change

By William Teach July 18, 2015 – 7:33 am

Obviously, just like almost every other idea the anti-gunnites propose, this will primarily effect law abiding citizens, rather than those who intend to use a gun for nefarious purposes. Here’s what Rev. David K. Brawley, the Rev. Otis Moss III, the Rev. David Benke and Rabbi Joel Mosbacher have to say

Here’s a Way to Control Guns

…..

For more than a year, we and fellow religious leaders across the nation have worked to persuade President Obama to use what we believe is the most powerful tool government has in this area: its purchasing power. The federal government is the nation’s top gun buyer. It purchases more than a quarter of the guns and ammunition sold legally in the United States. State and local law enforcement agencies also purchase a large share. Major gun manufacturers depend on these taxpayer-funded purchases. For the government to keep buying guns from these companies — purchases meant to ensure public safety — without making demands for change is to squander its leverage.

Perhaps they should worry more about the use of illegal guns in their own areas of St. Paul, Chicago (especially Chicago), Brooklyn, and Mahwah, NJ.

Some of the leading brands of handguns purchased by the government — Glock, Smith & Wesson, Sig Sauer, Beretta, Colt, Sturm, Ruger & Company — are also leading brands used in crimes. Among the brands of handguns recovered by the Chicago Police Department at crime scenes between January 2012 and October 2013, all six of these companies ranked in the top 11. When police officers carrying Glocks are recovering Glocks at crime scenes on a regular basis, shouldn’t this prompt questions about whether the police department could use its influence to reduce the number of guns that end up in the hands of criminals? When Smith & Wessons turn up frequently in the hands of criminals, shouldn’t questions be asked when Smith & Wesson seeks a contract with the federal government?

None of the companies are responsible for the theft of guns, nor the use of them illegally. Do police question when people are killed by a Chevy, Dodge, or GM vehicle, both of which are purchased in mass quantity by government of all levels? Do they blame the cars, or the people driving them?

What could gun manufacturers do to protect the public?

They could distribute their guns exclusively through dealers that sell guns responsibly, and end their relationships with the small percentage of bad-apple dealers that sell a disproportionate number of the guns used in crimes. They could produce “smart guns” that can be fired only by authorized users, and that therefore are far less likely to be used in accidental or intentional shootings. These measures, over time, would prevent many thousands of deaths.

Seems reasonable, right? Except, most legal gun owners are against so-called “smart guns”.

But companies will innovate in these areas only if their major customers ask them to.

The president can push companies to compete in the area of safer guns and more responsible distribution. Here’s how to start.

First, use federal purchasing power to begin a substantive conversation with gun manufacturers. The Pentagon is in the process of selecting the provider of handguns for the United States Army. It should require all bidders to provide detailed information about their gun safety technologies and distribution practices in the civilian market. No response, no contract.

So, coercion, blackmail even, by the Central Government. They then provide a few more ideas, ending with

Let’s give gun manufacturers an incentive to make more smart guns and to allow fewer guns into the hands of criminals.

At best, this would only effect the illegal use of guns a tiny, tiny bit.

Instead of punishing those who manufacture firearms (do we punish companies that make motor vehicles and alcohol for poor use of their products?), we should be punishing those who use firearms illegally harshly. And we should be dealing with those in the areas which have the most illegal use of firearms harshly. Punishment always seems to be a low priority, and these same people are always against the “broken windows” version of law enforcement. These religious leaders could work to stop the criminal activity in their own areas. Of course, they are constantly holding “take back the streets” marches and demonstrations, preaching, midnight basketball, etc, yet, their neighborhoods, and the people in them, continue to be criminal. I guess if you can’t fix your own people, you fix those who aren’t the bad guys.

Read: Latest Gun Control Idea: Using The Purchasing Power Of The Central Government To Force Change »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Liberal World | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Unintentionally Exposes How Bad Team Obama Blew The Iran Negotiations

By William Teach July 18, 2015 – 7:07 am

Breitbart’s John Hayward focuses on all the yelling from Iranian negotiators and others at Obama’s hapless negotiators

IRAN ‘NEGOTIATIONS’ INVOLVED A LOT OF IRAN SHOUTING AT HAPLESS U.S. TEAM

The New York Times published an embarrassing look at what went on behind the scenes during the long, long months of “nuclear negotiations” with Iran. Apparently, it involved a good deal of Iran shouting at the hapless U.S. team and declaring its demands non-negotiable, while Team Obama threw in one towel after another. (snip for an excerpt from the Times)

We are also still discovering details about this alleged mutual capitulation, too. For example, we just learned American nuclear inspectors are banned from Iran under the deal. We have to help them provide security for their nuclear operations, but we can’t inspect them.

Right after telling its liberal readership that fairy tale, the Times dishes a bit more about what was really going on:

Privately, Mr. Kerry told his team that any lifting of the ban was bound to inflame many in Congress, where fears of empowering Iran would mix with presidential politics. But shortly before midnight on Monday he called President Obama, and together they agreed that it was not worth losing what they saw as the best chance to roll back Iran’s nuclear program simply because there was a risk that sometime in the future Iran would be able to acquire far less dangerous weapons.

Over the 17 long days here in Vienna, the standoffs, trade-offs, shouts and confrontations — some real, some staged for negotiating advantage — sometimes obscured the fact that the two countries were negotiating with entirely different agendas.

As Mr. Obama made clear again Wednesday, the alternative he saw to the deal was a steady slide toward another war — perhaps, aides thought, in just a year or two as Iran’s nuclear abilities accelerated. Throughout the talks, he had one goal: to diminish the prospect that Iran could develop an atomic bomb — or could race for one before the United States and its allies could react — and buy time to try to restructure the relationship.

For the president, everything else — Iran’s support for terrorism, its imprisonment of dissidents and even some Americans, its meddling in Iraq and Syria, its arms trade — was secondary.

None of that is news to anyone, least of all the Iranians. They understood all along that their bargaining position was superior, because Obama needed a deal at any cost — as his critics have said all along, he would take a bad deal over no deal, especially as he got deeper into the process, and it became more obvious that both Obama’s ego and political needs made backing away from the table unthinkable. Obama and Kerry doubled down with every losing hand, until the Iranians cleaned them out.

Right there is the major problem: Obama wanted a deal no matter what. He sees things in black and white, which is why he trots out the “if you have a better idea, let’s hear it” line. He seems to believe that there is a choice between either war or a deal, no matter how bad. Hence, we end up with a deal that gives Iran most of everything they want, and only limits Iran’s nuclear aspirations for about a decade. Provided they don’t cheat. And rogue nations like Iran would never cheat, right? The problem itself has been kicked down the road for another president to deal with, while the US provides security, can’t inspect, drops sanctions, and sees billions put into Iranian coffers. All while ignoring every other issue, as mentioned in that last paragraph in the NY Times excerpt above.

This deal wasn’t about making the U.S. safer, nor the Middle East or even Europe: it was about stroking Obama’s ego. And the Iranian’s knew it, and took advantage of it.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Unintentionally Exposes How Bad Team Obama Blew The Iran Negotiations »

Posted in Barry Obama, Iran | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

It’s Like Totally Time To Get Our Sh*t Together On Climate Change Or Something

By William Teach July 17, 2015 – 4:56 pm

No, really, so says Ethan Sheehy at Cardiff University

It’s really time to get our shit together on climate change!

‘Tipping point’, ‘urgent’, ‘alarming rates’, you’ve all heard these phrases before and I suspect many of you are bored by the flood of forewarning and beseeching language when it comes to climate change.

I’m afraid I’m about to restate these facts and warnings to you once again. There’s a reason there has been such persistence with these matters, because they are extremely important.

Climate change is now a battle of which we are all a part, whether we acknowledge it or not, and is a battle for the survival of our species and for the planet on which it dwells.

We must all force our authorities in government to move to a place of satisfactory commitment and effort in this battle and this can be executed in December’s pivotal United Nations summit in Paris.

Force! How about if Warmists like Ethan move to a place of satisfactory commitment in their own lives?

If we, however, adopt the approach offered by the fatuous oil companies or the unbelievable climate change deniers and do nothing and carry on as we are, and the diminishment does happen (which it obviously will), we will have just provided ourselves with the rope that will choke us.

That’s a microaggression. I might have to file a complaint with Cardiff U for being “triggered”. Yeah, you know I won’t, because I’m not a hyper-Offended lefty whiner.

Climate change is one of, if not the, vital global, collective issues we are facing and it’s about time we did what is needed to rid ourselves of it.

Good luck with that, Bub. Climate has always changed.

Read: It’s Like Totally Time To Get Our Sh*t Together On Climate Change Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 17, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible concrete bench, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Flopping Aces, with a post on how bad the Iran deal really is.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove