If All You See…

…is a horrible charcoal grill cooking evil climate un-friendly meat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Rhymes With Right, with a post on thinking money in politics was bad.

Read: If All You See… »

Nothing Like Marching Through Snow To Protest “Climate Change”

Oh, wait, sorry, I forgot that cold and snow are caused by “climate change”

ail reported. If it were a real thermometer it would have shown temperatures at a chilly 44 degrees Fahrenheit by 4 p.m. — the high for the day. Most of the day, however, temperatures were lower with some wind chill and high humidity.

Poor little snowflakes.

Read: Nothing Like Marching Through Snow To Protest “Climate Change” »

Good News: DOD Claims Bible, Constitution, Declaration Of Independence “Sexist”

I’ve mentioned this before, and I’ll mention it again: the Left has a virtual lock on many sectors, such as the entertainment industry, the legacy news, unions, Lawyers guild, education, and many others. Now they are going after organized religion and the military. They used to try and destroy them from the outside. Now they are working to do it from the inside, which leads to things like this

(Daily Caller) According to a Defense Department approved “sexism course,” the Bible, the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence all contribute to modern sexism.

Those three cherished texts all count as “historical influences that allow sexism to continue,” according to a presentation prepared by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, whose mission is to give a ”world-class human relations education.” (snip)

“The content of the lesson is provided to generate academic discussion concerning how these historical documents have been included in discussions about the topic of sexism,” Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Defense Department spokesman, told The Daily Caller.

Liberals always have to create in “ism” in order to conquer and divide.

But following TheDC’s request for comment, the sexism course — as well as two other courses listed on DEOMI’s website, entitled “Prejudice & Discrimination” and “Racism” — were taken offline.

In other words, they didn’t want people seeing the actual material.

TheDC continues on with a discussion of the other two courses, regarding “raaaaacism” and the newest bugaboo, “privilege”.

When do our troops train to actually, you know, defend the nation?

Read: Good News: DOD Claims Bible, Constitution, Declaration Of Independence “Sexist” »

Marco Rubio, The Other GOP Establishment Candidate?

I was expecting a howler of idiocy from the NY Times’ Nate Cohen after the beginning

Marco Rubio, who announced his bid for the presidency on Monday in a call to donors, has been called the “best communicator” in the Republican Party. Over and over and over again.

But he has little to show for it.

Of course, Obama had nothing to show for his time in office, both at the federal and state levels. But, that’s not where Cohen is going

He enters the fray with surprisingly low support. Despite four years of national prominence, he has averaged 6 percent of the vote in primary polls over the last few months. That’s the same or worse than five candidates who are thought to have a much smaller chance of winning the nomination: Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie. Mr. Rubio is acceptable to many but, so far, the first choice of few.

Obama was at the bottom early on, as well. People have forgotten that Hillary was the choice of the media and Establishment Dems. John Edwards was the choice of the Netroots and young Dems. It was only when Edwards flamed out that Obama really rose in the polling and started competing with Hillary. One has to wonder how much Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” affected the Dem primary, keeping it going, allowing Obama to take it home.

Here’s what really caught my interest

His central problem is that Jeb Bush has found considerable support from the party’s mainstream conservative and moderate donors in the so-called invisible primary — the behind-the-scenes competition for elite support that often decides the nomination.

Mr. Rubio is competing for many of the same donors and operatives as Mr. Bush. Both not only come from the same state but also from similar ideological wings of the party. Despite the initial insurgent bid against Charlie Crist that made him a Tea Party hero, Mr. Rubio has always been an establishment-oriented candidate. The reporting about Mr. Rubio’s time in Washington suggests that he has followed an elite-driven path, following all the rules, seeking the guidance of the conservative intelligentsia, and trying to lead the party toward a compromise on immigration reform — the preferred means of the establishment-business wing of the party to expand the party’s general election appeal.

Other than Rubio’s foray into “amnesty-lite” the other year, Rubio would certainly be more viable and acceptable as an Establishment guy than Jeb Bush. He certainly carries much less baggage than Bush, and many of his ideas are more acceptable. If, though, you still think Rubio isn’t Establishment, let’s hear from mostly squishy Jennifer Rubin

So, too, with the GOP, which needs a makeover, not only generationally but also in tone, in focus and in the charisma category. Even the young men (e.g. Sen. Ted Cruz) seem older than they are and certainly embody the angry, harsh attitude for which Republicans have been pilloried. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (who could well be on a ticket with Rubio, in either the top or supporting role) is the “everyday” American Hillary Clinton can only describe abstractly. Walker is tenacious and pugnacious, qualities Rubio has not shown. Rubio, however, has plenty going his way. He has not been on the national stage forever, has a gee-whiz enthusiasm about him and is skilled to a degree we have not seen since Bill Clinton was in his prime. His passion is genuine, especially when it comes to fighting tyranny and pushing for the accessibility of the American dream. A son of immigrants who fled repression can express a keen awareness of the nature of repressive regimes and a hagiographic view of the United States. (At the Conservative Political Action Conference, Rubio declared, “See, America doesn’t owe me anything. I have a debt to America that I will never be able to repay.  . . . For me America isn’t just a country, it’s the place that literally changed the history of my family, it’s a nation of equal opportunity, it’s the most powerful force for good the world has ever known.”)

Establishment attitude encapsulated. Ted Cruz as “angry and harsh”. Walker and Rubio as super awesome.

Either way, the debates should be interesting and spirited, something that may not happen on the Democrat side.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Marco Rubio, The Other GOP Establishment Candidate? »

When You Really Need Someone To Tweet Something Obscenely Dumb, Ask DWS

Bless her heart

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/587707719060217856

https://twitter.com/Crunched4time/status/587692421917474817

Read: When You Really Need Someone To Tweet Something Obscenely Dumb, Ask DWS »

Hotcoldwetdry Is Like A “Civilisational Wake-Up Call” Or Something

Doom

(The Platform) Climate change is changing everything and time is not on our side

Today, carbon dioxide molecules make up approximately 400 parts per million. This notorious greenhouse gas is one of the most significant contributors to climate change. Merely 160 years ago, carbon dioxide molecules made up just 250 parts per million. The safe level to sustain life as we know it cannot exceed 350 parts per million. Going past this point will change all life on earth – it is changing all life on earth.

Interesting. Life cannot be sustained with CO2 above 350ppm? Weird how a good chunk of the Earth’s history had much, much higher levels of CO2 and life thrived.

Droughts and floods, mass extinction of species and a rise of pests, coral bleaching and acid rain, deforestation and desertification, hurricanes and tornadoes, rapidly shrinking ice caps and rising sea levels… the list goes on and on. We know that climate crisis is causing catastrophic detriment to the biosphere. And the burden of reversing these effects, if this is even possible, is left to this generation – a generation globally faced with a great recession, austerity and war, alongside other impediments that previous generations faced, including poverty, poor access to basic human needs, income disparity and so on. In the current state of affairs, it is unreasonable to demand that humans focus all their energy on tackling the climate crisis when they are also encumbered by social-economic crises. But actually, could the two be related? Naomi Klein says they have one common root: Capitalism.

Funny how hatred of capitalism (by people who engage in consumerism ) seems to crop up so often among Warmists, eh?

Read: Hotcoldwetdry Is Like A “Civilisational Wake-Up Call” Or Something »

If All You See…

…is an evil carbon infused charcoal fire, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Evil Blogger Lady, with a post on the difference between Hillary and Scientology.

Read: If All You See… »

Northeast Has Snowiest Winter Since 1717

A report from the Overheated Planet

(Daily Caller) This past winter broke tons of low temperature records across the eastern seaboard, but would you have guessed the Northeast just had the snowiest winter since the “Little Ice Age”?

“Looking back through accounts of big snows in New England by the late weather historian David Ludlum, it appears for the eastern areas, this winters snowblitz may have delivered the most snow since perhaps 1717,” wrote seasoned meteorologist Joe D’Aleo with Weatherbell Analytics.

I blame you and your refusal to ride your bike to work and keep your heat set to 55F.

Read: Northeast Has Snowiest Winter Since 1717 »

Say, How Does Hillary Stack Up When It Comes To “Climate Change”?

This is obviously an Important Question for the Cult of Climastrology

(Climate Progress) The choices the next president will make will decide what sort of climate confronts the world this century….

Clinton is by many definitions a climate hawk. Importantly, she has said the President’s use of the Clean Air Act to rein in carbon pollution from power plants, “must be protected at all costs” during a speech last year to the League of Conservation Voters. She has been critical of fossil fuel subsidies and supported boosting renewables. To her, climate change represents “the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and a world.”

“The science of climate change is unforgiving, no matter what the deniers may say, sea levels are rising, ice caps are melting, storms, droughts and wildfires are wreaking havoc,” she said.

That’s interesting. Can she point to any policies, initiatives, etc, that she accomplished during her time as Secretary of State? Or in the Senate? It probably doesn’t help that she notes fossil fueled travel as an accomplishment, having traveled almost a million miles as Sec State.

But in other areas, she falls short of that hawkish moniker. She still advocates for domestic fossil fuel production, specifically natural gas, arguing it is cleaner than coal “with the right safeguards in place.” She said enforcing smart regulations is important, “including deciding not to drill when the risks are too high.” As Secretary of State, Clinton received criticism around the world for advocating global fossil fuel development, specifically fracking for shale gas in eastern Europe. Her successor, climate hawk John Kerry, has stuck with this strategy, viewing natural gas as a tool to use for fighting climate change. Clinton still frustrates greens refuses to comment on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, the long and ongoing approval process for which she oversaw at the State Department.

Well, at least she’s not a total hypocrite. Expect her Belief in Hotcoldwetdry to shift during the campaign to pander to the CoC.

The rest of the article is about other potential players in the Democrat primaries, leading to

Taking bold stands on climate change could be one way of getting disillusioned young progressives excited enough about a Clinton campaign to go knock on doors. On Monday, climate activists organized by 350.org Action will be outside Clinton’s campaign office protesting her stance on the Keystone XL pipeline instead.

Yes, the disillusioned young progressives, who have poor job prospects and low paying job prospects, thanks to Liberal policies. Skewed priorities.

Grist also takes on Hillary’s beliefs in “climate change”, and provides 8 important things to know (you’ll have to hit the link for the full details, of course)

  1. She understands the science. (sure she does)
  2. She thinks the politics of climate change are daunting.
  3. She fully supports Obama’s landmark power-plant rules (in other words, making people’s power bills skyrocket, easy for a rich person to not worry about)
  4. She connects climate change to women’s rights (just another Progressive talking point)
  5. She promoted fracking abroad while secretary of state (will she support fracking at home?)
  6. Her family’s charitable foundation takes lots of oil money (fortunately, she “quit” the foundation. Wink wink)
  7. She has supported offshore oil drilling (expect that to change to patronize Warmists)
  8. She avoids saying anything about Keystone XL (she’s gotta take a stance at some point, since Obama will kick the can to the next POTUS)

What will Hillary focus on during the campaign? I guess we’ll find out.

Read: Say, How Does Hillary Stack Up When It Comes To “Climate Change”? »

NY Times Op-Ed: Making Fetus’ A Protected Class Is A Big Mistake

Let’s see: liberals make virtually everyone else a protected class. Gays, minorities, women, Blacks, you name it. Well, except white men. They apparently do not want the unborn to have any protections. Here’s Deborah Tuerkheimer, who tries to tell us that the idea to stop making fetus’ a protected class isn’t about abortion rights

How Not to Protect Pregnant Women

IN the wake of a savageattack on a pregnant woman and the removal of her fetus, Colorado lawmakers are planning to introduce a bill that would criminalize fetal homicide. If the bill passes, the state would join nearly 40 others that make fetuses a distinct class of victims. (The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 similarly makes it a crime to kill or injure a fetus in certain circumstances.) (snip)

This type of legislation, however, is not about protecting the rights and well-being of the pregnant woman. Rather the reverse: The risk is that, without statutory reform, the pregnant woman as a category of victim will remain overlooked, while the fetus gets special protection.

Opposition to the creation of fetal victimhood has focused largely on the threat to abortion rights. This is a legitimate concern, but affording victim status to a fetus has implications beyond the erosion of abortion rights. Legally severing a fetus from the pregnant woman has the effect of pitting her interests against the fetus’s. (snip)

Granting personhood to fetuses makes women criminally responsible, not only for the life of the fetus, but also for its well-being. This is a particularly high burden. Pregnancy in our society tends to be idealized and women counted on to provide a perfect uterine environment.

Liberals want Government involved with every facet of Other People’s lives except when it has anything to do with abortion on demand.

Prosecutors could, in theory, use the notion of “prenatal abuse” to pursue pregnant women who consumed too little folic acid; neglected exercise; gained too much or too little weight; continued on a course of anti-depressants; or had a stressful job. Under the mantle of fetal protection, pregnancy could become subject not only to criminal sanction but to pervasive state regulation.

Funny how Liberals all of a sudden espouse Conservative beliefs about Government being too big when abortion is involved, don’t you think?

In reality, those who are targeted by government intervention on behalf of the unborn tend to be the vulnerable and marginalized. In recent decades, hundreds of women, disproportionately low-income and African-American, have been prosecuted or subjected to court orders over behaviors like drug use that are considered a risk to developing fetuses. Often, these women are themselves victims of violence during pregnancy.

Of course, Ms. Tuerkheimer had to throw in some raaaaacism.

Granting fetuses victim status, however, does not address the core harm. When violence is done to a pregnant woman, her reproductive freedom is trampled.

So, it’s all about abortion.

The law should provide a remedy. Reform matters because abuse of pregnant women is so common. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that more than 300,000 pregnant women a year are victims of domestic violence. Unlike headline-grabbing cases like the Colorado attack, violence against pregnant women is usually inflicted not by strangers, but by current or former partners.

What Ms. Tuerkheimer is doing is a headfake. A distraction. By all means, pregnant women should be protected. In fact, if they are assaulted, there are actually laws that make assault illegal. Imagine that. That in no way means that the unborn shouldn’t be protected. What she doesn’t come out and say is that these laws make it typically a murder to cause the death of an unborn baby when the mother is assaulted. Liberals do not like that unborn babies are accorded personhood, which could, theoretically, cause problems with their devotion to abortion on demand.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Op-Ed: Making Fetus’ A Protected Class Is A Big Mistake »

Pirate's Cove