In Order To Solve “Climate Change”, We Need Vast Amounts Of Marxist Babble

By William Teach January 28, 2013 – 11:52 am

You could also refer to it as progressive babble, communist babble, socialist babble. It’s all one and the same, and generally means “someone else must be forced to Do Something. Meanwhile, I’m not planning to change my life at all”

(Fish Wrap) Well-intentioned critics of fossil fuel divestment have called for students to lobby their senators and representatives as a more direct path to federal action on climate change. These critics underestimate the fossil fuel industry’s stranglehold over our political system, and their suggested path would only repeat past failures of the climate movement. They also ignore the networks of institutions, influence and capital that can be moved to support an end to extraction and fight climate change.

To make change, players including universities, foundations and public pension funds must be pushed to act for the greater good.

By building the skills and relationships necessary to overcome government inaction, student activists, working alongside those already fighting for a sustainable future, can not only push Washington to enact adequate legislation, but can also create a mass movement to demand truly sustainable societies and economies.

Is there like some calls Leftists take to learn to write this way? Or do they simply learn it at there far left group meetings?

Kate Aronoff is a student organizer with Swarthmore Mountain Justice and a board member at the Responsible Endowments Coalition.

She even manages, in the last paragraph, to compare the fight (that others must be forced to engage in) against hotcoldwetdry to the fight against apartheid. At least the latter was a real issue.

Read: In Order To Solve “Climate Change”, We Need Vast Amounts Of Marxist Babble »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Sharpton: People Don’t Have The Right To Unregulated Rights

By William Teach January 28, 2013 – 8:56 am

And who should regulate those Rights afforded to The People? The Government, of course!

(Daily Caller) Following a public policy meeting of African-American leaders, National Urban League president Marc Morial and National Action Network president Al Sharpton called for a new national assault weapons ban, saying the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be regulated.

“The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not absolute. One cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and hide behind the First Amendment,” said Morial when asked by TheDC if he supports California Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein’s assault weapon ban bill.

That’s because the portion about Free Speech regards political speech, Al. Perhaps you should read the documents regarding the Bill of Rights from the time it was being debated. I bet Al’s view would change if The Central Planning Office decided to slap a few restrictions on what MSNBC could broadcast.

“No one has been more aggressive in our defense of the Constitution than this nation’s civil rights leaders. …We respect the Second Amendment,” Morial added. “None of these provisions speak in absolute terms.”

So, if they do not speak in absolute terms, then slavery was OK, Al? Because the 14th Amendment sure seemed to “speak in absolute terms.”

People do not have the right to unregulated rights in this country,” Sharpton continued….

Prick a liberal and a fascist bleeds.

Sharpton also said “everybody is regulated with every right,” using airports as an example.

Air flight is not a “right”. I love when liberals start yammering on about the Bill of Rights which they seem to never have read nor understood.

Read: Sharpton: People Don’t Have The Right To Unregulated Rights »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Barking Moonbats | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Here We Go Again: Gang Of 8 Pushes “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”

By William Teach January 28, 2013 – 8:35 am

Which, just like in 2007, is all about amnesty for people who came to this country illegally or overstayed their visas while giving lip service to border control

(NY Times) A bipartisan group of senators has agreed on a set of principles for a sweeping overhaul of the immigration system, including a pathway to American citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants that would hinge on progress in securing the borders and ensuring that foreigners leave the country when their visas expire.

The senators were able to reach a deal by incorporating the Democrats’ insistence on a single comprehensive bill that would not deny eventual citizenship to illegal immigrants, with Republican demands that strong border and interior enforcement had to be clearly in place before Congress could consider legal status for illegal immigrants.

The minute this legislation is signed into law (provided it passes, of course), the Obama administration will start moving forward with legalizing and naturalizing illegals, who come from all over the world. Approximately 1/3rd of all illegals are people who overstayed their visas, they aren’t just Mexicans.

“Look at the last election,” Mr. McCain said Sunday morning on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.” “We are losing dramatically the Hispanic vote, which we think should be ours.” The senator also said he had seen “significant improvements” in border enforcement, although “we’ve still got a ways to go.”

McCain, Bush, Lindsay Graham, and many of the others pushing Shamnesty in 2007 were saying the same thing, and the answer now is the same as then: these illegals, when they obtain citizenship, will mostly end up being Democrat voters, not Republican voters. So many of them are going to end up right in the social entitlement system. Just like happened in 1986 when Democrats talked Reagan into it, saying “just this one time”. And just like then, any deal will embolden future illegals to come.

If Democrats thought the illegal’s votes would go to the GOP, they wouldn’t be pushing so hard for amnesty.

Among the plan’s new proposals is the creation of a commission of governors, law enforcement officials and community leaders from border states that would assess when border security measures had been completed. A proposal would also require that an exit system be in place for tracking departures of foreigners who entered the country through airports or seaports, before any illegal immigrants could start on a path to citizenship.

And the commission, surely stacked with amnesty supporters, will quickly say “it’s good! Let’s get on with the “pathway to citizenship!””

You’re welcome to read the proposals mentioned in the article, but, it will look eerily like it is 2007 again, and we all know the way this ends: border barely secured, illegals allowed to gain citizenship without going through the same process as everyone else has to (most will barely speak English, if speak at all, the fines and taxes will be voided, the surely won’t go to the end of the line nor “touch base” back in their originating country, among others), our entitlements programs overwhelmed, and more illegals streaming in.

Tell you what, let’s look back to 1989, when an ultra far right wing neoconservative paper assessed the result of the 1986 amnesty

The most sweeping effort to halt illegal immigration in American history, the 1986 overhaul of immigration law, may have cut the flow of illegal aliens less than expected and may have actually encouraged unlawful entry in several ways.

”We have found no evidence that the 1986 immigration law has shut off the flow of new undocumented migrants,” said Wayne Cornelius, director of the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies at the University of California at San Diego. A Decade of Study (snip)

A plan to strengthen the Border Patrol was never fully carried out, and experts reach widely differing verdicts on the effectiveness of the sanctions against employers who hire illegal aliens.

But, it did create lots of Democrat voters.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Here We Go Again: Gang Of 8 Pushes “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, GOP, Illegal Immigration | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

What Say To Using Art To Spread Awareness Of Hotcoldwetdry?

By William Teach January 27, 2013 – 2:30 pm

Obviously, living the carbon neutral lifestyle and recommending every Warmist do the same would be stupid

(Ashland Daily Tidings) Hannah Sohl and Camila Thorndike believe that art, Facebook and YouTube are powerful tools to address climate change.

The two young Ashland women are expanding the traditional environmental activist toolbox, which long has focused on protest and litigation.

Sohl and Thorndike are inviting Rogue Valley residents to decorate cardboard tiles with artistic designs or words that reflect why they love living in the Rogue Valley and what worries they have about climate change.

Lots of local people and organizations have gotten involved, because it’s easier to whine about “climate change” then to actually make massive changes within one’s own life that could prove annoying and inconvenient.

Read: What Say To Using Art To Spread Awareness Of Hotcoldwetdry? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 27, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful tree that sucks man’s carbon pollution out of the atmosphere, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is House Of Eratosthenes, with a post on Information as a Containment.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach January 27, 2013 – 8:54 am

Happy Sunday! Another super fine day to live in America. The sun is shining, the birds are signing, climate change is going to kill us all or something like that. This pinup is by Vaughn Bass, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. The Right Newz has an interesting poll on women in combat
  2. The Other McCain on…wait, Scarborough 2016?
  3. The Lonely Conservative discusses electoral college initiatives and liberals knickers
  4. The Daley Gator points to a sheriff that needs to be emulated
  5. Rhymes With Right highlights typical liberal intolerance
  6. protein wisdom covers the Marxist view of gun control
  7. neo neocon finds something that annoys the hell out of her
  8. Maggie’s Notebook wonders about D.C. being the 51st state
  9. Jihad Watch points to Islamist threats against France
  10. Jammie Wearing Fools notices that it was a slow night in Chicago
  11. American Power showcases the Orange County Gunshow
  12. And Rightly So! discusses how guns in America are used
  13. Atlas Shrugs points out what kind of people DHS is naturalizing
  14. Doug Ross explains why Americans are arming up
  15. And last, but not least, Fire Andrea Mitchell wonders if it is really a gun problem

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 outwhat I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts

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.

The posts do take a long time, so, if you want to send me your links for Rule 5 babeage or links, use ye olde email in the header bar (remove the NOSPAM part). Preferably, create the html link so I can copy and paste how you want it to read.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

That’s Weird: DHS Wants 7,000 Scary Looking Rifles For Personal Defense

By William Teach January 27, 2013 – 8:13 am

In Liberal World, only The Government should be afforded guns. Because that worked well in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany

(The Blaze) The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.

Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.

The RFP describes the firearm as “Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) – 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.” Additionally, DHS is asking for 30 round magazines that “have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.”

Critics of such a ban on semi-automatic rifles are already arguing that the government is showing its hypocrisy by essentially saying they are good “personal defense” for them, but not for American citizens. When civilians own semi-automatic rifles, they somehow become “assault weapons.”

Like The Blaze writer Jason Howerton, I don’t have a problem with making sure DHS is properly armed to deal with whateverthehell it is they deal with nowadays. Probably people who fail to properly inflate their tires and look at Wooded Owls meanly. And lord knows that the government would never over-react and send in armed government employees. Let’s see, when terrorizing a small child. But, realistically, law enforcement at all levels does need proper weapons when they enter into a confined space.

Of course, this same government now wants to take the same right for personal protection away from citizens looking to protect themselves (along with hunting and shooting for fun) along with 30 round magazines. Were I to consider purchasing an “assault rifle” I would look for one that is very compact. I’d actually look at one like an MP5 or MP10 type, which are technically “submachine guns”, even when only semi-automatic, but there are also very compact rifles which fire the 5.56 round. Other people, with larger properties, might like a bigger weapon with more stopping power.

So, what have we learned? That The Government thinks that their employees should have protection, but the same Government is against law abiding citizens being similarly armed for their own protection.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: That’s Weird: DHS Wants 7,000 Scary Looking Rifles For Personal Defense »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Current Affairs | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Hooray, We’re Saved From Evil People Who Unlock Their Mobile Phones

By William Teach January 26, 2013 – 2:09 pm

Yes, you can now be fined big time and even do a stint in jail as a felony

(ABC News) You likely have a cellphone that you bought from a carrier, like AT&T, Verizon or Sprint, and that phone only works on that carrier’s cellular and data network — unless you “unlock” it.

That is a software process that allows the phone to work on other carriers if you put in a new SIM card or want to take the phone to another carrier for service.

If that sounds complicated to you and like something you wouldn’t bother with, then today’s news won’t matter to you. But if that’s something you’ve done before or have thought about doing, then you should know that starting today it is illegal to unlock a subsidized phone or tablet that’s bought through a U.S. carrier.

On one hand, I can agree and understand. The reason you sign a contract is because the carrier is selling you a phone that costs them anywhere from $100 to $400 more than what you pay for it. The contract allows them to recoup that money, which is marginal when it comes to talk plans (hence the reason they push data, text, and accessories for more revenue). Of course, once you have fulfilled the terms of your contract, you should be legally entitled to do whatever you want with the phone. Alas, no.

“Violations of the DMCA [unlocking your phone] may be punished with a civil suit or, if the violation was done for commercial gain, it may be prosecuted as a criminal act,” Brad Shear, a Washington, D.C.-area attorney and blogger who is an expert on social media and technology law, told ABC News. “A carrier may sue for actual damages or for statutory damages.”

The worst-case scenario for an individual or civil offense could be as much as a $2,500 fine. As for those planning to profit off of the act or a criminal offense — such as a cellphone reseller — the fine could be as high as $500,000 and include prison time.

Really, there’s not much going on in terms of switching. You can’t use an AT&T phone on Verizon or Sprint’s network, nor Verizon on Sprint, etc.. Different protocols. But, people may take an AT&T phone to T-Mobile. Or overseas. Or sell it to someone else. What this ruling is saying is that the phone you paid for can never be fully yours.

Read: Hooray, We’re Saved From Evil People Who Unlock Their Mobile Phones »

Posted in Web/Tech | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 26, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is a desert created because someone took an unnecessary fossil fueled flight, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Public Secrets, with a post on the EUSSR.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Hey, Ladies, You Can Now Share The Delight Of Childbirth With Your Husband

By William Teach January 26, 2013 – 11:29 am

Sounds like fun (via Caveman Circus)

Read: Hey, Ladies, You Can Now Share The Delight Of Childbirth With Your Husband »

Posted in Like, Gnarly, Dude | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove