DOD Deems People Who Talk About Individual Freedom, Making World Better Place As “Extremists”

By William Teach August 24, 2013 – 8:01 am

Have you ever dressed as a Founding Father? Well, you’re an extremist, as are the Founding Fathers, per Department of Defense training material

(The Blaze) U.S. Department of Defense education materials obtained by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, warn of “extremists” that will “talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.” Judicial Watch and other conservative media outlets claim the disclosure indicates the department is teaching that conservative views are “extremist” in nature.

The guide is reportedly authored by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, a Defense Department-funded diversity training center. Further, the documents cite the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) when identifying “hate groups.”

If the SPLC is involved, you know that all right leaning people are considered haters. Muslim extremists? Never. Some highlights from Judicial Watch

  • The document defines extremists as “a person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights.” (so, any State in the South that passes voter ID laws is now extremist, and if you’re against illegal immigrants? Extremist)
  • A statement that “Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.”
  • “[W]hile not all extremist groups are hate groups, all hate groups are extremist groups.”
  • Under a section labeled “Extremist Ideologies” the document states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.” (Founding Fathers considered extremists)
  • In this same section, the document lists the 9/11 attack under a category of “Historical events.”
  • Other than a mention of 9/11 and the Sudan, there is no discussion of Islamic extremism. (who’s surprised?)

While the document could certainly extrapolate certain Muslim and left leaning groups as “extremists”, the object, and focus, was to brand virtually all people on the right as extremists. The better to build a case for federal spying on the groups and individuals, and perhaps banning them.

The documents is supposedly only supposed to be used for “training purposes” but no one is supposed to use the material “on the job”. Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton had this to say

“The Obama administration has a nasty habit of equating basic conservative values with terrorism.”

“And now, in a document full of claptrap, its Defense Department suggests that the Founding Fathers, and many conservative Americans, would not be welcome in today’s military,” he added. “And it is striking that some the language in this new document echoes the IRS targeting language of conservative and Tea Party investigations. After reviewing this document, one can’t help but worry for the future and morale of our nation’s armed forces.”

What you have is yet another attempt to turn a government institution into one that follows far left doctrine. At one point the Left was trying to destroy the US military, particularly through denigrating it and defunding it. Now they are attempting to infiltrate it. They already have a good chunk of the federal (and state) bureaucracy. They control the public sector unions. They also control the media and teacher’s unions. What if the military is turned into just another branch of the Democrat Party?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: DOD Deems People Who Talk About Individual Freedom, Making World Better Place As “Extremists” »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise! Obama Plan Won’t Help College Costs

By William Teach August 23, 2013 – 2:19 pm

President Pivot has hit the road to push some sort of making college affordable plan, which, let’s face it, isn’t about making college more affordable, it’s about Obama’s flagging approval numbers and Obama doing what Obama does best: giving speeches and Blaming Others, creating strawmen, and ginning up conflict

(Bloomberg) Colleges’ exploitation of young Americans through rapidly rising and increasingly exorbitant fees is a national scandal that can no longer be ignored. In his college tour this week, President Barack Obama is speaking at length about what he intends to do about it, after promising “tough love” on higher education for the last two years.

Some of what he proposes is good in principle; some is very bad. (snip)

The president’s proposal has one very bad idea: a forgiveness boon for those paying off loans right now. The proposal, limiting loan payments to 10 percent of income, potentially relieves millions of students from repaying part of their obligation. So why not major in fields the economy values least — anthropology or drama instead of engineering or math — if you don’t have to worry about earning enough to pay off your student loans over a certain period? (snip)

Obama proposes to ignore or worsen the root cause of much of the explosion in student costs: the federal financial assistance programs that encourage schools to raise costs and that haven’t achieved their goals of providing college access to low-income Americans.

Two recent studies highlight the problem. First, the National Center for Education Statistics released data suggesting that federal college financing is growing rapidly. Now 84 percent of full-time undergraduate students get some aid. Average grant assistance for dependent full-time undergraduate students (unmarried, younger than 24) was $10,600 in 2011-12, up 34 percent in just four years — four times the inflation rate.

Let us not forget that Obamacare included what is essentially a federal takeover of all student loans, so much of the problem Obama is complaining about is due to….Obama and his signature legislation.

I do have to wonder, Team Obama says this is a good deal for the middle class. Apparently he doesn’t care about poor people wanting to go to college. Of course, there are issues with the rising cost of college which need to be addressed. Of course, what’s the point of a college education if there are no decent jobs out there?

Read: Surprise! Obama Plan Won’t Help College Costs »

Posted in Barry Obama | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 23, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is a world killing plastic bottle of water, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Don Surber, with the Daily Scoreboard.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Hey, Ladies, New Study Proves Men Aren’t Pigs

By William Teach August 23, 2013 – 10:48 am

The question is, does the study prove us menfolk are liars?

(UK Express) A lovely pair of peepers is the first thing about a woman to draw a man’s attention, research claims – contrary to popular belief that his attention is likely to be fixed somewhat further down.

Predictably, though, his gaze does wander south next, taking in the lucky lady’s dazzling smile before an appreciative glance at her breasts. Only then is our Romeo likely to notice her well-coiffed hair and consider her overall weight before eyeing up her legs.

If all of that passes muster, the amorous chap will give some thought to her dress sense – perhaps as an excuse to take a furtive peek at her shapely derriere.

Then he will notice her height, though if she is particularly tall he may have had more trouble than usual focusing on her eyes in the first place.

Finally he will delight in her peachy soft skin, according to the survey of 1,000 men.

A spokesman for Murine eye drops, which carried out the poll, said: “This study almost crushes the common stereotype that the first thing men look at is a woman’s chest.

Actually, I can see it. At least when meeting a woman close up. I’d say when we are more than 10 feet we see the head, torso, and lower half all at once, then might focus in. Could be head, hair, smile, eyes. Or legs, breast, butt, waist, etc.

But, we now have scientific proof men aren’t pigs!

Read: Hey, Ladies, New Study Proves Men Aren’t Pigs »

Posted in Like, Gnarly, Dude | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Grist: “Climate Change” Creating Bigger, Badder Hurricanes

By William Teach August 23, 2013 – 7:59 am

Apparently they’re stealth hurricanes, since the US mainland has not been hit by a major hurricane since October 24, 2005

(Hurricane enable: How climate change is mixing up bigger, badder storms )

Global warming and hurricanes are like Bourbon Street and Hurricanes: The farther down the road you go, the more intense they get.

Buy your Hurricanes at the Hard Rock Café, and you can probably make it through a third before you’ve dimmed enough to believe the Republican talking points on climate change. But by the time you get to The Marigny, they’re making those things with three kinds of rum, a half-gallon of rocket fuel, and the soul of an angry leprechaun.

Most climate models predict the same thing with storms: The more we stray from the climate norm, the stronger the hurricanes become. Which makes a lot of sense when you look at how these tempests work.

Those same models have failed spectacularly.

But will hurricanes find our new climate so likeable that they not only become stronger, but more frequent as well? Here, the science is unsettled. One recent model by Kerry Emanuel of MIT makes some worst-case assumptions and predicts hurricanes getting stronger and more frequent. The majority of climate models, however, predict we won’t see more hurricanes — they’ll just get a hell of a lot worse.

Judith Curry discusses this over at NPR, in terms of the big report that stated that 2005, a big, big hurricane year, would be the new norm

Curry actually entered the public eye in 2005, with a paper in Science magazine warning that hurricanes were likely to become more intense as a result of climate change. But in the years since then, she’s soured on the scientific consensus about climate change. Her mantra now is, “We just don’t know.” (snip)

Curry says her 2005 hurricanes paper “generated a lot of media attention which we were ill-prepared to deal with,” she says. “We were being attacked by the anti-global-warming crowd as well as a large number of people in the hurricane community who thought this was natural variability.”

Curry learned quite a bit over that situation, and she decided to dive in and engage with more than just the True Believers, and now wonders how much is anthropogenic and how much is natural variability. After that paper was published, hurricane landfalls dropped off precipitously. So then Warmists said, as the Grist article notes in a disingenuous way, there won’t be more hurricanes, they’ll just be stronger. Which is false, according to actual data, as opposed to “computer models”. A warmer atmospher should actually cause fewer and weaker. We’ve actually seen some of the worst activity over the past 150 years during early parts of pauses and during slight cooling (late 40’s to late 70’s).

But, Warmists have to keep up the scary stories for their cult. Even making it up, like Gore did with his “category 6” yap yap, for which he was smacked around by science and reality.

Read: Grist: “Climate Change” Creating Bigger, Badder Hurricanes »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Deems Syria Situation “Troublesome”

By William Teach August 23, 2013 – 7:14 am

What’s probably “troublesome” is attempting to dig his way out making a pronouncement about their being a “red line” regarding the use of WMD. Which has been crossed. Several times. And Team Obama seems clueless as to what they’re supposed to do. New UN Ambassador Samantha Powers blew off an emergency meeting at the United Nations on the Syria crisis (remember that for a little later), and, as for Obama

(Politico) President Barack Obama called recent reports of violence in Syria “troublesome” but warned against “jumping into” the situation, according to an interview aired Friday morning on CNN.

“It is very troublesome,” he said. “That starts getting to some core national interests that the United States has, both in terms of us making sure that weapons of mass destruction are not proliferating, as well as needing to protect our allies, our bases in the region.”

In all fairness, he did say that they had a “grave concern” over the possible use of chemical weapons, without noting that this is not the first time, and that they were continuing to gather information. It is interesting that he changed the concern to proliferation, rather than use. He did go on to whine about Operation Iraqi Freedom in relationship to any proposed intervention in Syria

“What I think the American people also expect me to do as president is to think through what we do from the perspective of what is in our long term national interest,” Obama said. “Sometimes what we’ve seen is that folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff, that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations, can result in us being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region.”

Interesting, because that was approved by the United Nation. President Bush left a plan to end our involvement, which Obama managed to screw up.

“When we take action there are rules of international law and if the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence being presented then there are questions in terms of whether the international law supports it,” he said.

To reiterate, there was a UN mandate of the Iraq War. Second, his brand spanking new UN Ambassador, Samantha Powers, sent a low ranking State Dept employee with no experience in the Middle East to the emergency meeting. Where was she? Team Obama won’t say. Instead, they refer reporters over to the UN. Because at no time does Team Obama know what Team Obama is engaged in.

And while Obama is “gathering information”, France is urging military intervention. Gathering information seems to be a euphemism for “twiddling thumbs” with zero leadership

Senior officials from the Pentagon, the State Department and the intelligence agencies met for three and a half hours at the White House on Thursday to deliberate over options, which officials say could range from a cruise missile strike to a more sustained air campaign against Syria.

The meeting broke up without any decision, according to senior officials, amid signs of a deepening division between those who advocate sending Mr. Assad a harsh message and those who argue that military action now would be reckless and ill timed.

And where, exactly, was the POTUS? Where is the leadership from The Most Powerful Man In The World?

I will note that I do not support military intervention in Syria, beyond some possible airstrikes. Implementing a no fly zone is worthless, because this civil war is now between the Asad forces and Islamists. The time for helping an “Arab Uprising” is long past. Obama has put himself in a difficult situation with his red line comment. And now he’s trying to squish his way out and run out the clock.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Obama Deems Syria Situation “Troublesome” »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Waiting For That Climate Change Tipping Point

By William Teach August 22, 2013 – 6:48 pm

But not the one you’re thinking of

(Concord Monitor) One of these days, the tipping point will be reached. No, not the tipping point that leads to a continued warming of the globe. That one, unfortunately, is probably behind us. The even more elusive tipping point is the action, event or increased collective concern that finally prompts Americans to make combatting climate change a national goal akin to winning a world war.

Going to be tough to have a tipping point when a) no statistically significant warming in 17 years and b) Warmists refuse to practice what they preach

Hurricane Katrina didn’t do it, and neither have Hurricanes Sandy and Irene. So the notion that a slim book and a barnstorming state senator from Iowa will spur the nation to action seems far-fetched. But Sen. Rob Hogg’s book, America’s Climate Century, and his talks across the state this week should move the needle in the right direction.

Thanks for that science, since neither Sandy nor Irene were hurricanes when they made landfall. As for Hogg, it seems like he’s taking fossil fueled trips to push a book saying fossil fuels are evil.

Preventing an even bigger temperature increase will require U.S. leadership, which in turn, require bipartisan support. That support has been wanting among Republicans, but that too may be changing. Earlier this month four former heads of the Environmental Protection Agency, William Ruckelshaus, Lee Thomas, William Reilly and Christine Todd Whitman, authored a joint column in The New York Times. It was called “ A Republican Case for Climate Action.” They wrote, “The only uncertainty about our warming world is how bad the changes will get, and how soon. What is most clear is that there is no time to waste.”

And they were roundly ignored, because they are Republican Progressives pushing un-scientific doctrine which leads to more Big Government and fascistic control.

The tipping point that will result in American leadership on climate change is approaching. Our hope is that it is no more than one election away.

We can start by all Warmists voluntarily making their lives “carbon neutral”. The editorial talks about everyone doing what they can to reduce their energy usage. That’s not a bad idea from an economic point of view. I do. But there is so much more Warmists can do in their own lives, like giving up fossil fueled travel. They won’t.

Read: Warmists Waiting For That Climate Change Tipping Point »

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

Detroit Apparently Auditioning For “Life After People”

By William Teach August 22, 2013 – 2:29 pm

I forget what website I was on a couple days ago that was discussing some other issue with Detroit, made I made the comment to the effect that Detroit is the model for that History Channel TV series “Life After People”. I might have been closer to the truth

(Bloomberg) As many as 50,000 stray dogs roam the streets and vacant homes of bankrupt Detroit, replacing residents, menacing humans who remain and overwhelming the city’s ability to find them homes or peaceful deaths.

Dens of as many as 20 canines have been found in boarded-up homes in the community of about 700,000 that once pulsed with 1.8 million people. One officer in the Police Department’s skeleton animal-control unit recalled a pack splashing away in a basement that flooded when thieves ripped out water pipes.

“The dogs were having a pool party,” said Lapez Moore, 30. “We went in and fished them out.”

Packs of wild dogs? Check. Infrastructure falling apart? Check. Nature taking over? Check. Though some people still live there. Mostly democrats waiting for Someone, probably Government, to come save them.

Read: Detroit Apparently Auditioning For “Life After People” »

Posted in Liberal World | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 22, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is baby that is bad for carbon pollution, and Everyone Else should be restricted from having them (especially Black people in 3rd world countries), you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, who continues to write furiously on the #FreeKate movement.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Takes Neverending Campaign To Young Voters For His Failed Economic Policies

By William Teach August 22, 2013 – 11:44 am

Rather than sitting down with Congress, the duly elected government branch that passes laws (he isn’t even sitting down with people in his own Party), Obama’s taking the show on the road

(The Hill) President Obama begins a two-day college bus tour Thursday hoping to rally support for economic policies that have failed to gain traction with the GOP Congress or voters.

Obama will visit four college towns in an effort to win over young voters who polls suggest have soured on the president.

He’ll travel to state universities in the New York college towns of Buffalo, Syracuse and Binghamton, where he’ll host a town hall discussion.

You can bet this will be a speaking tour, not a listening tour, because Obama surely doesn’t want inconvenient questions to come up from these college students, who are being left with tons of student loan debt that can’t be paid off with the types of jobs available in the Obameconomy, namely, low wage part time jobs. But this tour isn’t really about economic policies: it’s about Obama’s flagging approval numbers and patronizing college kids

Obama is expected to tout policies that could appeal to students and their parents during the bus tour, something the White House hopes will turn around his poll numbers.

The effort is also designed to boost Obama ahead of economic fights with Congress in the fall on government spending and the debt ceiling. (snip)

In an email to supporters, Obama said he would offer a new plan “to make college more affordable, tackle rising costs, and improve value for students and their families.”

Why make college more affordable when their are few jobs out there?

“More campaigning isn’t going to change the fact that the Obama presidency and Democratic policies have made life harder for young Americans,” Reince Priebus said, according to The Journal News.

This is what Obama knows. It’s what he’s good at. Sound fiscal policy and actually fixing economic problems? SCOAMF.

Read: Obama Takes Neverending Campaign To Young Voters For His Failed Economic Policies »

Posted in Barry Obama | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove