Guy Who Stuffed Classified Material In His Pants Says Iran Deal Can’t Get Any Better

By William Teach April 6, 2015 – 8:06 am

You remember Samuel “Sandy” Burgler, er, Berger, who stuffed classified material down his pants after removing it from the National Archives, material related to 9/11 and al Qaeda. He’s also the one who was in charge of national security when President Clinton gave North Korea food and fuel for ending their nuclear program in a similar deal. How’d that work out? He’s back, telling us that it’s a fantasy to think we can get a better deal with Iran

(Politico) Some are insisting on a “better deal” than the framework nuclear agreement reached with Iran on April 2. But the idea of a better deal is a chimera, an illusory option, and it should not lull us into thinking there is another agreement to be had if only we were to bear down harder. The present agreement, which depends on important pieces to be resolved by the end of June, can substantially reduce the ability of Iran to develop a nuclear weapon over the next ten years or more and also creates a dynamic that could be a game changer in the combustible Middle East

Yes, it would be a game changer. It would see Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, putting vast sums of cash in their coffers, which would certainly be used to increase their support for Middle East terrorism and increase the size of their military machine, all while supposedly suspending their nuclear weapons program for a mere 10 years.

Syria, Hezbollah hail nuclear deal with Iran

One has to wonder, if Iranian backed Syria and Hezbollah love this deal, it must really be good for Iran, eh?

…Putting aside what the Iranians might do in response to additional pressure—dig in deeper, speed up their program–and looking just at our side of the equation, the notion of a better deal is unachievable.

Here is why. According to critics, seeking a better deal starts with increasing sanctions on Iran. If tough sanctions brought them to the table, tougher sanctions will bring them to their knees. At some point their economy will be in tatters from the intensified sanctions, and they will be forced to return to the bargaining table and agree to better deal. With a closer look, however, this scenario unravels.

Well, sure, implementing tougher sanctions through the UN, particularly with Russia backing Iran, would be difficult. However, that’s not the point. Said point is that this deal is so weak, and has basically just kicked the can down the road a mere 10 years, all on a whisper of a promise to stop trying to make a nuclear weapon. We all know Iran is trustworthy, right? Team Obama capitulated on almost every goal they set for this “deal.”

Meanwhile, Team Obama is going to trot out scientists to attempt to sell this deal

The White House is calling in the geek squad to sell its Iran deal.

Skeptical members of Congress – and the general public – might not trust the administration when it says it will prevent the Islamic Republic from building a nuclear weapon. And they certainly don’t trust the Iranians. So the White House is asking them instead to put their faith in science

Will they give us the scientific odds on how quickly Iran will cheat and how much more cash they will put into their military and terrorist activities, once the sanctions are removed?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Guy Who Stuffed Classified Material In His Pants Says Iran Deal Can’t Get Any Better »

Posted in Iran | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 5, 2015 – 1:23 pm

…is an Arctic that is melting away like has never ever ever happened ever before, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day on this baseball week is 90Ninety Miles From Tyranny, with a post on yet another upstanding illegal alien.

Go Dodgers! And, yeah, I know that someone photoshopped the heck out of the picture.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach April 5, 2015 – 9:27 am

Happy Sunday! A gorgeous spring day is on tap in the great nation of America. Sun is shining, birds are singing, many people’s NCAA brackets are busted. This pinup is by Gil Elvgren, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Vox Popoli explains Sad Puppies and the Hugo Awards (I vote for Marko Kloos)
  2. Israel Matzav notes Iran’s increase support for Hamas
  3. The Daley Gator highlights a bad day for a carjacker
  4. Protein Wisdom discusses a wonderful use of taxpayer money in California
  5. Powerline wonders about the mystery of the sputtering economy
  6. Legal Insurrection highlights a wonderful use of Politfacts time, involving a sweater and Scott Walker
  7. Jihad Watch covers another appearance of the jihad flag at a Muslim Day parade
  8. House of Eratosthenes wonders why Liberals hate Walmart and love Apple
  9. Fire Andrea Mitchell notes Obama leaving 4 Americans behind in Iran
  10. Cold Fury notes there is only one way to go for SJWs
  11. Chicks On the Right has Peeps and .22
  12. Black and Right discusses the latest misleading study
  13. A View From The Beach covers whether black holes are real or not
  14. This ain’t Hell… has your Sunday feel good stories
  15. And last, but not lease, Nice Deb provides your Easter Hymn

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 | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, “What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?”

By William Teach April 5, 2015 – 8:02 am

This should make Warmists happy: an actual Republican voter (supposedly, being that the writer, Ronald Bailey, is a Libertarian) who joined their Cult Of Climastrology, and writes at the always squishy hotbed of libertarianism known as Reason

What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?

First, call it “anthropogenic global warming” again, and change your entire life to match your beliefs. That might go a ways to convincing me.

In 2005, I changed my mind about climate change: I concluded that the balance of the scientific evidence showed that man-made global warming could likely pose a significant problem for humanity by the end of this century. My new assessment did not please a number of my friends, some of whom made their disappointment clear. (snip)

So what evidence would convince you that man-made climate change is possibly real? Keep in mind that despite what progressive dimwits like Naomi Klein might assert, the scientific evidence does not mandate any particular program.

What about higher temperatures? Obviously, in order for there to be any man-made global warming, temperatures must be going up. Are they? Yes.

Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased from 280 parts per million in the late 18th century to around 400 ppm today. And the trend in average global surface temperatures has been increasing since the late 19th century. As I’ve reported before, all of the global temperature datasets, both the instrumental and satellite, find that the atmosphere has warmed since the 1950s.

Of course, what is going on here is belief that one causes the other, despite the history of the Holocene. Just because you wore your lucky socks the past few games and your favorite team one doesn’t mean wearing your lucky socks is real. What caused the previous warm periods, which were actually warmer than the current Modern Warm Period? Warmists will say “it was nature then, but it simply cannot be nature now, because shut up, you must be anti-science and believe in God.” As the saying goes, correlation is not causation. We could blame leaves turning and falling on the NHL and NBA, because the NHL and NBA start playing right about the time the leaves turn and fall. Several hundred years ago they blamed Bad Weather on witchcraft.

We also get

  • What about converging daytime and nighttime temperatures?
  • What about earlier spring and later fall seasons?
  • What about disappearing glaciers and Arctic sea ice?
  • What about warming oceans?

None of those are unreasonable during a Holocene warm period. Furthermore, none prove anthropogenic causation, at least not how the CoC portrays it, being mostly/solely caused by Mankind. There’s no doubt in my mind that Mankind does play a small roll, mostly through agriculture, landfills, pollution, the Urban Heat Island effect, and land use. Not too mention falsified data, smoothed data, manufactured data, data invented out of thin air, and garbage in garbage out computer models. The scientific evidence that says that CO2 from Mankind is causing the Modern Warm period is thin to non-existent, scientifically.

It might be that it is just so happens that natural climate variability has boosted global temperatures and the trends discussed above are occurring coincidentally at the same time the concentrations of carbon dioxide are 30 percent above their highest levels in the past 800,000 years. Correlation does not imply causation. The data cited (and uncited) do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that man-made climate change is real. However, in my best judgment the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the greenhouse gases produced by humanity are warming the climate and that it could be a significant issue later in this century. In the foregoing I have aimed to cite data, not model outputs. I have long been a critic of computer climate models.

There’s no “might” about it. If Warmists really believed, they’d modify their own behavior. Warmists will cite that as some sort of strawman, but, if you believe in something, you should do all you can to match your life to those beliefs.

To restate: The existence of man-made warming does not mandate any particular policies. So back to the headline question: If generally rising temperatures, decreasing diurnal temperature differences, melting glacial and sea ice, smaller snow extent, stronger rainstorms, and warming oceans are not enough to persuade you that man-made climate is occurring, what evidence would be?

In the comments at Reason, LC Bennet asks a better question

I propose that you are asking the wrong question and omitting the companion question. First, most skeptics and lukewarmers know that AGW is real so the better question, imo, is – What would persuade skeptics and lukewarmers that AGW is catastrophic? Second, given the many failures of the models, decline of extreme weather, greening of the planet, increase in crops, fewer cold-related deaths, increased standard of living and “The Pause” – What would persuade alarmists that AGW is not catastrophic?

Now that they have stopped denying the pause, climate scientists seem to be coalescing around the idea that the pause i(15-18 years and counting) is caused by natural variability and natural cycles that are suppressing the AGW warming trend. If true, wouldn’t it be plausible, even probable, that the warming of the 80s and 90s (18-20 years)was amplified by those same forces. If so, catastrophic (CAGW) human-caused warming seems even less likely. Mild warming – yes, catastrophic – unproven and leaning towards no. The truth is that climate science needs better data and more decades of observation to see if warming/cooling is actually a sine wave with a mild upward trend due to recovery from the Little Ice Age and CO2 emissions or an unprecedented linear warming caused by humans. Note: All those events you have listed as proof have happened before so they prove neither the claim to being catastrophic nor unprecedented.

I’d actually go with “what would persuade Warmists that AGW/climate change/climate disruption/etc is not mostly/solely caused by Mankind?

Read: Say, “What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?” »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Change Is Totally Linked To Voter ID Laws Or Something

By William Teach April 4, 2015 – 2:49 pm

Apparently, the members of the Cult Of Climastrology are too stupid to obtain proper identification

If You Care About Climate Change, You Need to Care About Voter ID Laws

In late 2014, the Supreme Court gave the nod to Texas’ tough voter ID law, despite cries that it would unconstitutionally disenfranchise thousands of American voters who would otherwise be perfectly eligible to register and cast ballots. Voters in the state would be required to present Texan or federal identification to cast their ballots—and poll workers could be quite choosy about what they’d accept. That presented a problem for Lindsay Gonzales, a voter who only had an out of state driver’s license, and consequently would be cut out of the vote, like many Texans.

Voter ID laws are a pressing political issue, but as Brentin Mock at Grist notes, there’s another problem with them: They’re terrible for the climate. The very same population that’s most invested in action on climate change is the population that is getting the short end of the stick on such laws, leaving them unable to cast votes to make their opinions heard. Republican pushes to pass and protect voter ID laws are, along the way, limiting action on climate change, and in some cases that’s a deliberate decision. By pushing for the election of Republican lawmakers who aren’t interested in climate change action, lobbyists and supporters can avoid potential policy changes like increased fines for polluters and pressure to adopt more environmentally-friendly business practices.

If Warmists are too moronic to be able to obtain an ID, perhaps they’re too dopey to listen to on Hotcoldwetdry.

Low-income people are at a particular disadvantage with voter identification laws because they may lack the funds needed to procure the necessary documentation..

Of course, all the States that require voter ID have included measures to make sure that these people can obtain them for little to no cost.

Many are also racial minorities, as people of color are more likely to be poor.

That’s a rather racist attitude, wouldn’t you say?

Some immigrants, moreover, may have difficulty tracking down documents like birth certificates and translating them so they can be used to apply for American identification documents, even if they are in the United States legally and have taken citizenship in the U.S.

If they’ve gone through the citizenship process or are here legally, then they would have needed identification in the first place. Of course, what this is really pushing is getting illegals to vote, linking another issue into the mix.

In theory, fair elections could create a radical push for climate change action as politicians would be forced to respond to voter questions and to make good on campaign promises. Voter ID laws, however, are making it difficult to put that theory into action. Thanks to such laws, minority voters can’t hit the polls, and the status quo is upheld—no wonder the faces promoting voter ID tend to be conservative and white.

Gotta love that Warmists, typically part of the Far Left, have such a low opinion of minority (meaning Black) people.

Anyhow, what could be more fair than making sure that the person voting is eligible to vote and is the actual voter? This is just more confirmation that “climate change” is not about science, but about far left Progressive politics.

Read: Climate Change Is Totally Linked To Voter ID Laws Or Something »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 4, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a society devastated and desertified by climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on Gays pushing for churches to lose their tax exempt status.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Warmists Desperately Praying For A Jump In Global Temperatures

By William Teach April 4, 2015 – 10:28 am

They really, really, really, really are hoping. Here’s George Soros funded Cultist Joe Romm

Long-Awaited ‘Jump’ In Global Warming Now Appears ‘Imminent’

We may be witnessing the start of the long-awaited jump in global temperatures. There is “a vast and growing body of research,” as Climate Central explained in February. “Humanity is about to experience a historically unprecedented spike in temperatures.”

A March study, “Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change,” makes clear that an actual acceleration in the rate of global warming is imminent — with Arctic warming rising a stunning 1°F per decade by the 2020s.

Scientists note that some 90 percent of global heating goes into the oceans — and ocean warming has accelerated in recent years. Leading climatologist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research explained here in 2013 that “a global temperature increase occurs in the latter stages of an El Niño event, as heat comes out of the ocean and warms the atmosphere.”

This is simply desperation on the part of the Cult Of Climastrology. And wishful thinking. What they’re positing is that all the “missing” heat that was eaten by their dog the oceans will suddenly start pouring forth. Their computer models tell them so!

Indeed it will be a very bad year for the Earth and for climate science deniers if 2015 proves to be the beginning of the long-awaited temperature jump.

Not really. Because this wouldn’t prove anthropogenic causation, just what happens in a typical Holocene warm period. Climate fluctuates on Earth. It always has, and always will.

But, question: what if it doesn’t happen? Will this mean a very bad year for Warmists? Of course not. They’ll simply trot out more excuses, as well as blaming Mankind for whatever happens.

Read: Warmists Desperately Praying For A Jump In Global Temperatures »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Is Totally Up For A Robust Debate On Iran Deal

By William Teach April 4, 2015 – 7:37 am

He really wants one. Which, of course, means he wants everyone to shut the hell up, and he’ll trot out lots of strawmen and Blamestorming

(The Hill) President Obama said he expects a “robust debate” about the budding deal with Iran over its nuclear program and fervently defended the draft accord.

“Here in the United States, I expect a robust debate,” he said in his weekly address, released Saturday. “We’ll keep Congress and the American people fully briefed on the substance of the deal.”

Well, that would be a first. He failed to keep the Congress and the People fully briefed as the deal was being negotiated, and don’t expect much more than a rah rah campaign as the time comes to actually sign a printed deal.

“As we engage in this debate, let’s remember — we really only have three options for dealing with Iran’s nuclear program,” Obama said, before enumerating them: “Bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities — which will only set its program back a few years — while starting another war in the Middle East; abandoning negotiations and hoping for the best with sanctions — even though that’s always led to Iran making more progress in its nuclear program; or a robust and verifiable deal like this one that peacefully prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

Of course, his “robust deal” only pushes back Iran’s nuclear weapons program about a decade. Bombing the facilities back to the stone age, and bombing them if we see them restarted, would put a serious crimp in the program. I’m not advocating for this, just making note. Let’s consider

THE “KEY parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.

That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years.

Mr. Obama argued forcefully — and sometimes combatively — Thursday that the United States and its partners had obtained “a good deal” and that it was preferable to the alternatives, which he described as a nearly inevitable slide toward war. He also said he welcomed a “robust debate.” We hope that, as that debate goes forward, the president and his aides will respond substantively to legitimate questions, rather than claim, as Mr. Obama did, that the “inevitable critics” who “sound off” prefer “the risk of another war in the Middle East.”

That’s not from some Conservative site, like National Review or the Weekly Standard. That comes directly from the Washington Post Editorial Board. They see this deal for what it is: a temporary fix that helps out Iran and kicks the can down the road, while also noting that Mr. Obama generally act particularly well when he himself is calling for debate.

The proposed accord will provide Iran a huge economic boost that will allow it to wage more aggressively the wars it is already fighting or sponsoring across the region.

Strange, wouldn’t you say? Obama, in his Weekly Address, talked about “phased removal of sanctions”.

(Powerline) Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani went on state-run television today to explain the deal that has been reached (in principle, at least) to the Iranian people. FARS News describes the speech:

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani underlined on Friday that all the UN and economic, financial and banking sanctions against Iran will be annuled the moment a final nuclear deal between Iran and the six world powers goes into effect.

Of course, at the end of the day, the deal is not finalized. Right now it seems that Iran is getting everything they want, namely, the removal of sanctions while still having the ability to seek nuclear weapons, albeit at a slower pace. We’ll have to see what the end result is.

Read: Obama Is Totally Up For A Robust Debate On Iran Deal »

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

Los Federales To Fly In Children From Central America For Illegals

By William Teach April 4, 2015 – 7:13 am

Is it any wonder that “57% of Likely U.S. Voters think the policies and practices of the federal government encourage people to enter the United States illegally”?

(Fox News) Images of unaccompanied children flooding across the U.S.-Mexico border defined the immigration crisis last summer.

Now, the federal government is intervening so these children won’t have to make that trek -– they’ll get to fly into the U.S. instead. For free.

A new State Department and Department of Homeland Security program seeks to stop the surge of immigrant children from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador at the southern border by giving their U.S.-based parents the option to apply to have their kids picked up and put on a plane, without paying a penny.

The parents are eligible as long as they have some sort of legal status. As first reported in The Daily Caller, this would include permanent residents and even illegal immigrants given a work permit and deportation reprieve under President Obama’s recent executive actions, though much of that is on hold due to a pending court case. Of them, those with children under 21 and living in El Salvador, Guatemala or Honduras reportedly could apply.

“I think many Americans are going to be surprised to learn that illegal aliens here in the United States are getting the Obama administration to go and get their children and fetch them,” Tom Fitton, president of the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, told Fox News. “And all at our expense.”

I’m not surprised in the least by this action. I wouldn’t even have been surprised had this occurred under President Bush, much less under Mr. Obama. The kids would be considered “refugees”, hence, eligible for all sorts of government benefits, including food stamps and living expenses.

Obviously, Democrats are for this, creating an interesting political fantasy

“I think it’s good for the tax base,” said Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha. “Every year, 13 billion dollars are put into the Social Security Trust Fund from undocumented immigrants. So if you have immigrants here who are working, who are doing the jobs that need to be done, that’s money going into our tax system. People will say that it’s free health care, that it’s free education. Nothing in this town is free.”

How, exactly, do kids add to the tax base? Is Mr. Rocha suggesting that we put them to work? How many illegals are paid under the table, because they are, you know, illegal? But the ultimate point is that they should not be here. We have laws for a reason

“My gosh, what does the rule of law mean if you break the law to get here, and then you get the government to help bring the rest of your family?” Fitton asked.

If you are caught driving drunk, and haven’t harmed anyone or damaged any property, you’ll still be penalized heavily under the rule of law. If you refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, you’ll have the Government breathing down your neck, possibly fining you or forcing you out of business. If you come across the border illegally or overstay your visa (the true cost of illegal immigration is more than just economic), the Government will attempt to legalize you, give you government benefits, and even fly in your kids free of charge!

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Los Federales To Fly In Children From Central America For Illegals »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 3, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon lifestyle, living by candlelight, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Fire Andrea Mitchell, with a post on the silence of the media when it comes to Muslim bakers refusing to bake a cake for gay weddings.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove