If All You See…

By William Teach October 23, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, with a post on the election looking good!

Read: If All You See… »

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

Hooray! With Two Weeks Left, Obama Finally Finds An Agenda

By William Teach October 23, 2012 – 12:50 pm

Which looks remarkably like the same old same old that has gotten America pretty much nowhere (via Hot Air)

(National Journal) After weeks of being challenged by Democrats and Republicans to lay out his second-term agenda, President Obama’s campaign is releasing a 20-page booklet called “Blueprint for America’s Future” on Tuesday and airing a new television ad to support it.

The 60-second spot, called “Determination,” outlines several policy initiatives the president will tackle if he were to get reelected. Calm and poised, speaking over soft music and images of soldiers coming home, farmers in the fields and manufacturing workers in factories, Obama makes a pitch directly to the camera in the ad.

Obama then describes his plan: “Making education and training a national priority; building on our manufacturing boom; boosting American-made energy; reducing the deficits responsibly by cutting where we can, and asking the wealthy to pay a little more. And ending the war in Afghanistan, so we can do some nation-building here at home. That’s the right path.”

Ed at Hot Air writes

People will rightly ask why Obama waited until 14 days out from the election to bother to make a positive case for a second term — and come to the proper conclusion that Obama’s arrogance led him to believe he’d never have to make that case to voters at all.  He figured he was owed a second term.

That, and that Obama is out of ideas. Platitudes based on the same old same old. What’s the point of education and training if there are no jobs? Manufacturing doesn’t work when people do not want, nor can afford, the product (hint: Chevy Volt). Reducing deficits? Oh, brother. Obama isn’t willing to cut $8 million from Sesame Street. Asking the wealthy to pay more? How does that help? All it does is put more money in the hands of government.

Regarding said “Blueprint for America’s Future”, where is it? It’s not on the URL pimped by the video. It’s not this two page thing linked by Politico. The link to his “plans” on the front page of his campaign website go to the same URL pimped by the video. What we’re getting are the same old failed policies and sticky notes, along with a healthy dose of “donate now!!!!!!” Even if you are a non-US citizen.

Video below the fold

Read More »

Read: Hooray! With Two Weeks Left, Obama Finally Finds An Agenda »

Posted in Barry Obama, Elections | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Really Bummed That Climate Change (Hoax) Ignored In All Debates

By William Teach October 23, 2012 – 10:07 am

Is hotcoldwetdry dead as a political policy? (via Climate Depot, which has a good roundup of hotcoldwetdry being ignored)

(UK Guardian) The Pentagon ranks it as a national security threat and, left unchecked, climate change is expected to cost the US economy billions of dollars every year – and yet it has proved the great unmentionable of this election campaign.

Amid unprecedented melting of the Arctic summer sea ice, new temperature records in the US and a historic drought, the last of three presidential debates wound up on Monday night without Barack Obama or Mitt Romney ever uttering the words climate change.

It was the first time since 1988, the year Congress was first briefed on the emerging threat by the scientist James Hansen, that there had been no mention of climate change in an election debate.

Perhaps they should mention the record Antarctic ice? Oh, and how about Europe having extra cold winters the last 4-5 years? And Europe having very cool springs and summers? Snow in Iraq? Early snows during the winter in the Southern hemisphere? How about abnormal cold during Al Gore’s Live Earth in South Africa and during the IPCC in Cancun? Record low years for tornadoes and landfalling hurricanes? To the rest of us, this is called “weather” as controlled by nature. Especially when the warming trend since the end of the Little Ice Age took its second break during the last 16 years (the first was the 40’s through the 70’s).

By Monday night, the debate about “climate silence” was in full voice. Al Gore weighed in, tweeting during the course of the debate: “Where is global warming in this debate? Climate change is an urgent foreign policy issue.”

Isn’t $100 million enough for Al? He appears rather greedy, wanting all sorts of cap and trade regulations to line his pockets while he travels around on fossil fueled flights.

The Green party’s presidential candidate, Jill Stein, went so far as to label Obama a climate change denier in an interview with the Guardian for his failure to discuss the issue on the campaign trail.

Other commentators argued allowances should be made for Obama’s failure to discuss climate on the campaign trail, and his middling support for environmental concerns while in the White House.

Obamanuts will excuse Obama for anything. Obama probably has one of the largest “carbon footprints” of any citizen of this planet. Hey, remember a few short months ago when Obama said that hotcoldwetdry would be a major focus of his campaign?

Joe Romm’s Climate Progress is besides themselves with no discussion of HCWD

At the end of tonight’s foreign policy debate, CBS’ Bob Scheiffer got the closest of anyone to the issue: “What do you believe is the greatest future threat to the national security of this country?” he asked.

Neither answered HCWD. Because it isn’t. The climate changes. There are many issues which are the greatest threat. Islamists. $16 trillion in debt. Unsustainable and unpayable safety net liabilities. Liberals in government killing our energy.

Time discusses why HCWD has been absent, and comes to the conclusion that it’s because most people could not give two sh*ts about this fake issue, especially when the “answers” to solving it require massive government, taxes, and loss of freedom.

Grist is also pretty bummed, naming Hillary Clinton the winner of the debate, since she recently talked about HCWD.

If you Warmists want “climate change” to be a viable political issue, then you should lead the way and give up your fossil fueled vehicles, refuse to take fossil fueled flights, unplug every appliance when not in use, stop using your icemaker, give up your unsustainable Smartphone, only buy local, take two minute showers, and restrict yourselves to 2 sheets of TP.

Read: Warmists Really Bummed That Climate Change (Hoax) Ignored In All Debates »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | Comments Off on Warmists Really Bummed That Climate Change (Hoax) Ignored In All Debates | Trackback URL

Debate #3: Bayonets, Horses, And Jihadis

By William Teach October 23, 2012 – 9:24 am

I’m not going to write a whole lot about the debate, since I only saw a few snippets, being at a friends house watching the Bears-Lions game, and John Hawkins does a good job of breaking it all down. Two interesting ones I did hear (while walking in the kitchen for a beer or food, friends wife, a big Obama supporter, was watching it). Here’s the first

(Daily Caller) In a debate exchange Monday night that set Twitter on fire, President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney crossed swords over the kinds of equipment and materials the U.S. military uses for modern warfare.

In a response to Romney’s barb that Obama has allowed the U.S. Navy’s inventory of battleships to approach a historic low mark, Obama snarked that “we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed.”

But horses and bayonets both remain vital parts of the U.S. arsenal.

“I think Gov. Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works,” Obama claimed Monday night.

As the article points out, horses were used as the first US soldiers entered the fight in Afghanistan in 2001. “And bayonets remain a fixture in Army infantry training and deployment.” While we certainly do have fewer horses, Obama apparently thinks the only thing we have are drones, which our Nobel Peace Prize president uses to personally authorize strikes using his kill list, which should make Liberals nuts.

Obama also added in that same talking point “We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

Perhaps we can ask a “corpse-men” about those ships. If you watched that, you realized that Obama wasn’t being snarky, but truly was having a tough time remembering the name for those “ships that go underwater.” Oh, and tip for the Pres, they aren’t referred to as ships, but boats.

Then there was this, also at the Daily Caller

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney identified “jihadists” as the enemy facing the United States in the Middle East, marking a sharp rhetorical contrast with U.S. defense policy in place since 2001.

“We’re going to have to put in place a very comprehensive and robust strategy to help the — the world of Islam and other parts of the world, reject this radical violent extremism,” Romney said, highlighting the link between Islam and terrorism.

“We can’t kill our way out of this mess … The right course for us is to make sure that we go after the — the people who are leaders of these various anti-American groups and these — these jihadists, but also help the Muslim world,” Romney said.

This is a serious break from both the Bush and Obama administrations, which refuse to really link terrorism to Islam in any form or fashion. They would refer to terrorism, terrorists, violent extremists, and so forth, but rarely would there be any mention that these folks are doing it in the name of Mohammed and Allah. Not long after 9/11, we’d hear about these people who are perverting Islam to kill in the religion’s name, but that dried up quickly. Sure, most realized that the majority of terrorism in the world is performed by those who follow Mohammed (there have been 19809 terrorist attacks since 9/11, the majority by Islamists, ie, Islamic extremists, not too mention all the other things like honor killings, riots, arson, mayhem, vandalism, murders, etc), but the US government tends to take a nebulous approach when naming it.

(Jerusalem Post) One of President Barack Obama’s main themes is to convince Middle East Islamists that America is not their enemy. But the reason this strategy never works is that the radicals know better. The United States is their enemy.

No amount of sympathy, empathy, economic aid, apology or appeasement will change this fact. Nor did such efforts succeed in making either Obama or the United States popular in such circles and the tens of millions of people influenced by them. The only thing surprising about all of this is that so few “experts” and politicians seem to comprehend it.

To defeat something, you have to name something. You have to know what you’re fighting. It doesn’t always have to be direct conflict using bullets and Hellfire missiles: it can be through outreach and education. One of the big problems is not so much the Islamic terrorists, but the spread of hardcore extremist Islam, as taught in the Mosques and madrasas (Islamic schools). This is occurring all over the world. Slowly, more and more are being indoctrinated into this perversion of Islam.

Oh, and one last thing, regarding another snippet I heard regarding Israel

More: Maggie’s Notebook has more on bayonets and others.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Debate #3: Bayonets, Horses, And Jihadis »

Posted in Barry Obama, Elections, Romney, RoP | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Questions For Obama On Benghazi

By William Teach October 22, 2012 – 8:11 pm

The Weekly Standard’s Stephen F. Hayes has 20 question for POTUS

If the president really wants to level with the American people, here are some questions he needs to answer.

1. Were there references to Libyan security threats in the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) during the three weeks before the attacks in Benghazi?

2. If there were, did President Obama participate in an intelligence briefing after the Libya threat was raised in the PDB?

3. Did President Obama ask his CIA briefer about threats in Libya during the three weeks before the attacks?

4. Were Libyan security threats discussed in any daily intelligence briefing that President Obama did not attend?

Make sure to read the rest.

I have one myself: didn’t the president think it was strange that all these “spontaneous protests” featured large numbers of people carrying professionally made Salafist flags and wearing professionally made Salafist headbands? Did anyone in the administration think it was strange? How about all the intelligence folks?

Oh, and here’s an interesting one that the Washington Examiner’s Timothy P. Carney hopes is asked tonight

There are plenty of issues to talk about in tonight’s foreign-policy presidential debate. But here’s a pretty straightforward question I want answered: Why does President Obama think it was okay for him to attack Libya without congressional authorization?

Remember, there was no direct or imminent threat posed by the civil war in Libya to the United States, her people (particularly in Europe and the Middle East/N. Africa, or her military assets in the Mediterranean. As the article points out, and has been mentioned many times, Obama even stated that the President doesn’t have the authority to launch a military operation like occurred with Libya.

Oh, and perhaps someone might ask Obama about the disposition of US Navy and Marine ships in the Med, and whether any could have launched air power (plans and gun ships) as well as rapid troop disbursement during the long hours our people were under assault in Benghazi. Where was the Ike? How about any Marine assault ships? Could a few Ospreys or Seahawks have brought SEALs and/or Marines to the rescue within a short time? How about sending a few Super Cobras?

Read: Questions For Obama On Benghazi »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs, RoP | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

UN: Don’t Elect Romney, He’s A Big Meanie

By William Teach October 22, 2012 – 2:47 pm

And why is he mean?

(Breitbart) The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights has warned Americans not to elect Republican Mitt Romney in next month’s presidential election, saying that doing so would be “a democratic mandate for torture.”

The UN’s Ben Emmerson was referring to Romney’s refusal to rule out the use of waterboarding in interrogating terror detainees, a practice that President Barack Obama has ended.

Without waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation methods Obama would never be able to say he personally jumped out of a helicopter and shot Osama in the head.

Emmerson warned that Romney could reinstate waterboarding if he took office. He also criticized the Obama administration’s drone program–an initiative begun by the Bush administration but accelerated by President Obama, partly because of his reluctance to capture, detain or interrogate terror suspects.

So, Obama is a big meanie, too, but, Romney is the ultimate big meanie, so don’t elect him, because he might be mean to jihadis who would be happy to slowly saw Emmerson’s head off.

Blazing Cat Fur says this is the UN shilling for Obama. The Jawa Report says this is the best endorsement for Romney. Glenn Reynolds says this is a real shocker, and “that sovereigns have an inherent right to protect their citizens…”

And let’s not forget that a UN partner will break our sovereignty to monitor our elections. Who wants to bet that they will find all sorts of problems that benefit Obama? That they will report lots of fraud by Republicans, and virtually none by Democrats?

Read: UN: Don’t Elect Romney, He’s A Big Meanie »

Posted in Barry Obama, Elections, Romney, UN | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 22, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is a desert caused by someone using more than two sheets of TP, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is And So It Goes In Shreveport, with a post on the upward Romney trend.

And, why, yes, this week is Orange. And, in reference to an email I received, if you want to be feature in an IAYS post, send me a link. I’m willing, of course, to feature multiple links in these posts.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Crazy Warmist Wants To Feed People Oxytocin To Change Their Behavior

By William Teach October 22, 2012 – 11:05 am

Tom Nelson calls this a video that you can’t miss, which includes this quote from NYU Bioethicist S. Matthew Liao

“if you can give something like oxytocin to people, then maybe they’ll be more willing to cooperate, to care more about the environment, care more about the big global collective action issues…”

Perhaps Warmists should try this on themselves, since they refuse to practice what they preach.

As Marc Morano points out, this is not the first time Liao has gone of the reservation

And here’s No Tricks Zone:

In the video, the psychopathic professor resurrects the darkest science of our past and proposes a series of methods for altering humans so that they fulfill the green master standards and plan. This “human engineering” is all about an elite group of humans viewing the rest as inferior, and eliminating the inferior by fundamentally altering them.

This modern eugenicist claims “people are not thinking correctly” and that we should consider giving the inferior ones ”oxytocin to make them more willing to cooperate” and to “get them to act collectively”. He says we also should give people Ritalin “to better control the population” and to “screen for embryos using a genetic diagnosis” so that only small humans get selected. Liao proposes hormone treatments to toddlers in order to stunt their growth and keep them small. He also suggests drugging people to make them allergic to meat.

These people really are bat shit insane.

Read: Crazy Warmist Wants To Feed People Oxytocin To Change Their Behavior »

Posted in Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Yes, The World Really Did Stop Warming 16 Years Ago

By William Teach October 22, 2012 – 7:57 am

The UK Daily Mail provides a follow on their report about warming ending 16 years ago

Last week The Mail on Sunday provoked an international storm by publishing a new official world temperature graph showing there has been no global warming since 1997.

The figures came from a database called Hadcrut 4 and were issued by the Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University.

But the Met Office, whose lead was then followed by climate change campaigners, accused The Mail on Sunday of cherry-picking data in order to mislead readers. It even claimed it had not released a ‘report’, as we had stated, although it put out the figures from which we drew our graph ten days ago.

Warmists had conniption fits over the report, and went typically unhinged. Alas, the story author, David Rose, is an adult who addresses criticisms with cold hard facts

Is the world warming or not? A The Hadcrut 4 figures that show a ‘pause’ in warming lasting nearly 16 years are drawn from more than 3,000 measuring stations on land and at sea. Hadcrut 4 is one of several similar global databases that reveal the same thing: that since January 1997 there has been no statistically significant warming of the Earth’s surface.

Rose highlights the margins of error, and highlights that, yeah, no warming in 16 years

Why does it matter if the world is warming or not? For years, the Government’s energy and climate policy has been dominated by the belief that we need swift, drastic and expensive reductions in carbon dioxide emissions to avert imminent catastrophe. In September, The Guardian claimed there were ‘less than 50 months to avoid climate disaster’.

These fears are based on computer models that show temperatures continuing to rise in step with levels of CO2.

That’s a big one, because all these governments are pushing legislation, regulations, taxes, and controls on people and economies based on computer models that have failed spectacularly. Which is why, of course, Warmists blame everything that happens on “climate change”. Hot, cold, wet, dry, snow, ice, hurricanes, no hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, you name it, Mankind’s CO2 output is to blame in Warmist World.

Ross covers many other questions, notable that the data was not cherry picked (unlike so much Warmist data), that the “science” is not settled, that no one has a clue whether or not the warming will restart in the immediate future, and a few others.

What we do know is that the previous warm periods were, in fact, warmer than today. We know that temperature is not moving with the curve of CO2 output. We know that while small parts of the world have had above average temperature years, other parts have been way below. And we know that Warmists aren’t enthused enough about their own Warmist beliefs to change their lives to be “carbon neutral.”

I highly recommend reading the entire thing, because I obviously haven’t excerpted the entire thing. That would be bad form (and theft).

Read: Yes, The World Really Did Stop Warming 16 Years Ago »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

5 Things To Watch For In Final Debate, For Those Who Aren’t Watching Football

By William Teach October 22, 2012 – 7:11 am

First of all, I’d love to know which fools decided scheduling the final debate on a Monday night against football was a bright idea. Unless Mitt gets some serious knockout blows, the Credentialed Media will be allowed to spin the debate as either a draw or an Obama win, since the viewership will certainly be lower than the previous two.

Anyhow

(USA Today) Obama touts his record. Expect to hear the president talk about winding down wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the multinational operation that toppled Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. And how many times will Obama cite the 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden? The president is also expected to emphasize Romney’s lack of foreign policy experience.

I’m not so sure that Obama discussing the Libyan airstrikes will be a wise idea, since that would give Mitt plenty of ammunition to discuss what happened in Benghazi, how Obama decided that the Libyan civilian population was worthy of protection but the Syrian civilian population wasn’t, not too mention all of Obama’s foreign policy gaffes. Mitt can also make Obama look bad by bringing up the Nobel Peace Prize in conjunction with all the “warmongering” ways of Obama. Most of that is the second thing to watch for per the story, and the 3rd which is specifically about Libya.

Iran. The last Obama-Romney battle takes place amid reports that the Obama administration may soon enter into one-on-one talks with Iran, seeking to dissuade it from pursuing the means to make nuclear weapons. Obama says economic sanctions have pressured Iran to reconsider its nuclear ambitions. Romney says Obama has done little to slow Iran’s drive toward nuclear weapons, and has left long-time ally Israel in the lurch over the Iranian threat.

The White House sort of kinda disputed the report. We’ll see if Obama brings it up, and, if he does, expect Romney to mention that there aren’t actually any talks, just a nebulous sorta kinda possibility of maybe possibly deciding to possibly have talks. Talks which have, unfortunately, never worked previously. Can’t really blame Obama, nor Bush, nor any other non-Iranian world leaders for that. The problem is squarely on the Iranian leaders.

How much talk about the economy? Yes, it’s a debate about foreign affairs, but don’t be surprised if the U.S. economy pops up — either candidate can argue that it has a direct effect on global affairs. Romney has criticized Obama over the $16 trillion-plus national debt, and will likely challenge the president over the prospect of major Pentagon cuts. Obama says Republicans have not cooperated on a debt reduction plan, and that the United States is recovering from the severe recession he inherited from predecessor George W. Bush.

Expect Romney to discuss countries like Greece, and how America is on an unsustainable path. Furthermore, expect Romney to attack Obama as a weak leader who only blames others for his own failed policies. Notice that Obama tended to avoid the Blamestorming during the first two debates.

Other things to watch for

  • Does Mitt take a few cheap shots about such foreign policy gaffes such as giving the Queen an iPod, refusing to keep the Churchill bust, annoying the British press, poor conduct towards foreign leaders such as Netanyahu, the British PM, and the Dali Lama?
  • Does Mitt bring up O’s hot mike gaffes regarding Netanyahu and with Medvedev?
  • Does Mitt mention that Obama essentially led from the golf course and blew off the Iranian Green Revolution and the Arab Spring?
  • Does Obama sound like a robot while repeating his stale talking points?
  • Does Mitt bring up that Obama actually stuck with President Bush’s exit policy for Iraq, rather than his own 16 month timeline?
  • Does Mitt bring up the expansion of domestic surveillance?

It’ll be interesting. For those who tune in during the football game commercials.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: 5 Things To Watch For In Final Debate, For Those Who Aren’t Watching Football »

Posted in Barry Obama, Elections, Romney | Comments Off on 5 Things To Watch For In Final Debate, For Those Who Aren’t Watching Football | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove