Post Super Bowl

For the Record, I didn’t watch it. I was playing Lego Dimensions Doctor Who for around 7 hours yesterday and had a great time doing it.

So has the left yelled Racism yet that the Carolina Panthers and their Black Quarterback got beat by an old White Guy?

Well, they are apparently mad at Doritos too!

that @Doritos ad using #antichoice tactic of humanizing fetuses & sexist tropes of dads as clueless & moms as uptight.-NARAL

I always get amused by the “anti-choice” label for not killing a human being. Only the Left could come up with that Orwellian bad boy.

Pro-abortion group offended by unborn baby acting like a human (Cortney Obrien).

Damn straight they are. How dare you show that truth! That’s not the Narrative. That’s no the “Truth”. How dare you defy the Left.

They are Homo Superior Liberalis, they are you Superiors. They are your Lords and Masters! You grubby, insignificant, peasant!

Get a life! 🙂

Josh Perry had it right: It must be hard living life in a state of perpetual outrage.

That’s the Left for ya.

Already mocking the regressives for their furious think pieces over how that funny Doritos ad is a threat to abortion rights. #SB50— Brian S Hall

Right there with you, my man. 🙂

Remember CNN’s Carol Costello? She’s the one who thought it was really, really funny when Bristol Palin was assaulted back in 2014. Well, here’s he reaction to the Doritos Super Bowl ad:

‘I’m never eating Doritos again.’ Screams “outraged” Leftists everywhere.

So how long before they try and boycott or ban it for saying something against the The Holy Writ of Liberalism?

Brought to you by a filmmaker from Perth, Western Australia, Peter Carstairs. 🙂

He’s white, so is this also “White Privilege”?

And 4 People didn’t die over this one. But a Liberal Holy Writ took a hit.

So a good Sunday, over all. 🙂

OK, that ad was adorable! It shows an expectant mother and father getting a sonogram of their new baby, with the mom getting mad at the dad for eating Doritios during the examination. Except the baby can be seen on the screen reacting to the dad and his Doritos. When the mom throws the chip across the room in anger, the baby decides to birth itself to get the tasty snack! Check it out:

Faulty Towers

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s reliance on poorly-sited weather stations to calculate surface temperatures is inflating the warming trend of the U.S. and maybe even the rest of the world, according to a landmark study looking at three decades of data.

“The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts,” Anthony Watts, a seasoned meteorologist and lead author of the study, said in a statement Thursday.

These “compromised” weather stations run hotter than stations that are well-sited, and are used by NOAA as a benchmark to make upward adjustments for other weather stations that are part of the agency’s official temperature record.

Watts and his fellow researchers found only 410 “unperturbed” weather stations out of the 1,218 stations used by NOAA to determine U.S. climate trends. These “unperturbed” stations don’t need to be adjusted by NOAA because they had not been moved, had any equipment changes, or change in the time temperatures were observed.

 

Watts found well-sited stations show significantly less warming than poorly-sited stations from 1979 to 2008 — the time period was chosen in order to respond to NOAA papers from 2009 and 2010 justifying its weather station adjustments. Now, Watts has years of evidence showing NOAA is relying on shoddy weather stations to make its temperature adjustments.

“This study demonstrates conclusively that this issue affects temperature trend and that NOAA’s methods are not correcting for this problem, resulting in an inflated temperature trend. It suggests that the trend for U.S. temperature will need to be corrected.” Watts said.

Why would they? They have the data THEY WANT, not the data they got.

The Agenda is The Agenda. The Narrative is The Narrative.

Watts NOAA thermometers

What’s more troubling, is that similar siting problems have been observed at weather stations around the world, meaning the global warming present in the surface temperature record may be overblown. Watts’ study comes after NOAA published a June study making further adjustments to temperature data and purported to eliminate the “hiatus” in global warming.

Watts’ new paper casts more doubt on NOAA’s temperature adjustments — which always seem to increase the warming trend. Correcting for these poorly-sited stations could also bring surface warming trends more in line with observations from satellites, which show no statistically significant warming for about two decades.

“We believe the NOAA/NCDC homogenization adjustment causes well sited stations to be adjusted upwards to match the trends of poorly sited stations,” according to Watts’ study. “The data suggests that the divergence between well and poorly sited stations is gradual, not a result of spurious step change due to poor metadata.”

Watts says the warming trend at well-sited stations was “found to be collectively about 2/3 as large as U.S. trends estimated in the classes with greater expected artificial impact.” NOAA data adjustments greatly reduce those differences but produce trends that are more consistent with the stations with greater expected artificial impact.”

NOAA has come under fire in recent months for “homogenizing” the temperature data, a process used by scientists to correct for biases in the data. Scientists go in and either ratchet up or down temperatures from thermometers up or down based on things like changes in the time of day temperatures are observed, the equipment used to take readings, or changes in the actual locations of thermometers. NOAA has defended its data adjustments are necessary to get more accurate data.

But there’s a bigger question: why is NOAA relying on so many poorly-sited thermometers to collect temperature data?

“It’s one of the factors they did not consider,” Dr. John Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and co-author of the study, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Many of the thermometer sites have been contaminated,” Christy said, adding that poor siting “increases the warming rates.”

Christy and his colleague Dr. Roy Spencer created the first satellite datasets to observe global temperature trends in 1989, and have global data going back to 1979. Christy’s and Spencer’s satellite measurements, which collect temperature data from the lower atmosphere, show no statistically significant warming since 1994 — a period of 21 years.

“We prefer satellite data because it’s a measurement of the bulk atmosphere,” Christy said, adding this is where global warming should be most apparent. Satellites also don’t need to go through the level of adjustments surface thermometers do.

Watts’ study is likely to be challenged by the global warming “establishment” because it challenges data they believe supports the idea that greenhouse gases are pushing the world towards dangerous warming.

“If you want the truth about an issue, would you go to an agency with political appointees?” Christy said. “The government is not the final word on the truth.” (DC)

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert
Political Cartoons by Chip Bok
Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

The Lion’s Den

Fascinating Video.

Watch the Leftist indoctrinator/puppet mistress in the Left corner of the screen for extra credit.

FYI: Amherst says it is charging students $60,400 in tuition, fees, room and board. By comparison, it charged $43,300 in 2000-01, in inflation-adjusted dollars. So even after Amherst’s prices have been adjusted for economywide inflation, the cost has jumped 34 percent in only 14 years.

For perspective: Arizona State $21,000 in state, $35,000 out of state.

Now that’s White Privilege. 🙂

Dinesh D’Souza is a brave man and a very good speaker, but did the Leftists learn anything?

Of course not.

That, dear Citizens, would be a Thought Crime. Not to mention they are far to narcissistic for that.

If you enjoyed the viral clip of Dinesh destroying a self-satisfied campus leftist at Amherst earlier this year, check out this full-length video of the entire discussion on America’s role in the world.

Love this guy. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

But I am Your King!

Now, 25 Republican governors – and one Democrat too – have said they don’t want Syrian refugees in their states, as President Obama recommitted the U.S. to take a portion of this population fleeing from ISIS.

Military age males…unable to vet properly (according to FBI and Intelligence agencies) from the country is the #1 sponsor and producer of terrorists in the world and one of the Paris Terrorists was a “refugee”. I don’t understand the reason for them to be cautious. 🙂

‘It is very important,’ Obama said. ‘That we do not close our hearts to these victims of such violence and somehow start equating the issue of refugees with the issue of terrorism.’ 

Yeah, don’t equate my Agenda with fighting terrorism. 🙂

my little trojan pony

Oh, and the Leftist yesterday were also going all “Supremacy Clause” on me so you know it’s about the Agenda and The Narrative and not about national security. It’s pure partisan politics.

You will do as your King commands or else!

The problem for Jindal, Abbott and the other governors opposed to admitting refugees, however, is that there is no lawful means that permits a state government to dictate immigration policy to the president in this way. As the Supreme Court explained in Hines v. Davidowitz, “the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution.” States do not get to overrule the federal government on matters such as this one.

This power to admit refugees fits within the scheme of “broad discretion exercised by immigration officials” that the Supreme Court recognized in its most recent major immigration case, Arizona v. United States. (Think Progress)

So you KNOW it’s just partisan politics. You might remember this one. It;s where the State of Arizona decided that since the Feds were not enforcing Federal Law, that they would and Obama and Holder slap them down basically saying if the they want to ignore the border they can.

Mind you, the Left also says the refugees and illegal immigration are two different issues, but they combine them anyways when it’s about their politics and their Agenda.

So you know it’s all politics.

‘If there were a group of radical Christians pledging to murder anyone who had a different religious view than they, we would have a different national security situation,’ Cruz said, who criticized the Obama administration for ‘pretend[ing] as if there is no religious aspect to this.’

Could be because he’s partial to Muslims over Christians. 🙂

But i’m just being “Islamophobic”, “heartless” and “aprtisan” right? It’s because Barack is black right? 🙂

Above, states where governors have voiced opposition to Syrian refugees are in dark red, with states voicing support for the resettlement in pink. Gray states have not made a statement, suggested a review of the policy or have said that they do not expect and refugees would be sent to them. Kentucky's outgoing Democratic governor has indicated that he will follow the federal government's lead on the issue, though the governor-elect, a Republican, has said that he would not
And you know the Left is in full manipulation mode when they start quoting The Devil Himself, The Great Satan, George W. Bush…

The Democratic president said he had a lot of disagreement with Bush on policy. 

‘But I was very proud after 9/11 when he was adamant and clear about the fact that this is not a war on Islam,’ Obama said. ‘And the notion that some of those who’ve taken on leadership in his party would ignore all of that – that’s not who we are.’ 

The president called on Americans to follow Bush’s example.  (UK guardian)

So you know it’s an Agenda policy item and nothing else.
You are being manipulated.

European parliamentarians were warned of the “real and genuine threat” of the Islamic State putting 500,000 Islamic extremists in April this year. The British politician, Nigel Farage MEP, warned the EU its immigration policy placed a “direct threat to our civilisation”.

Mr Farage told a meeting of the European Parliament in French city of Strasbourg: “There is a real and genuine threat. When Isis say they want to flood our continent with half a million Islamic extremists, they mean it.

“There is nothing in this document that will stop those people from coming. Indeed I fear we face a direct threat to our civilisation if we allow large numbers of people from that war-torn region into Europe.

“It is ironic that nine days before a British General Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband are not engaged in this debate, and in fact the UK can do nothing. We are impotent, we have surrendered our ability to get involved (with stopping the immigrants).”

Despite Farage’s warning the EU continued to push ahead with its plan to force each EU country to take a percentage of the refugees. This left countries unable to secure their borders, and the Schengen Agreement meant most EU countries have dropped their passport controls. Only the UK and Ireland have a permanent exception from Schengen and are therefore allowed to keep passport controls.

Following news the French would treble their military presence against the Islamic State the UK admitted it had foiled seven major attacks recently. Islamic affairs expert, Alan Mendoza, said: “It is essential that Western nations now rethink their military strategy towards Islamic State. We have fought ?a phoney war to date and it has led to real casualties on European soil.

“We now need to redouble our efforts to expunge this scourge from the territory it holds. In Britain’s case, this will mean committing to military action in Syria, or risk becoming an international also-ran in terms of our influence.”

At tonight’s Mansion House speech in the City of London the Prime Minister, David Cameron, once again justified the British approach to dealing with the Jihadis. He said: “The more we learn about what happened in Paris the more it justifies the approach that we are taking in Britain.

“When you are dealing with radicalized European Muslims, linked to ISIL in Syria and inspired by a poisonous narrative of extremism, you need an approach that covers the full spectrum – military power, counter-terrorism expertise and defeating the poisonous narrative that is the root cause of this evil.”

His speech did not make any pledge to protect the UK from mass immigration, despite the public anger about it. However he had already pledged a ‘shoot to kill’ policy for terrorists in Britain, something that was immediately condemned by the leader of the UK Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn.

A petition demanding to shut the UK border to Syrian refugees has now reached 410,000. It is unlikely to be acted upon. (Townhall)

So do you want to be next? Is the risk of being “islamophobic” higher than the risk of MORE terrorists getting into the country?

THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA

THE NARRATIVE IS THE NARRATIVE

YOUR KING HAS SPOKEN

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

 

The Agenda is The Agenda

“Damn The Torpedoes, Full Steam Ahead!”

Despite overwhelming opposition from the American people and lawmakers on Capitol Hill, it is becoming clearer by the day President Obama is planning to close Guantanamo Bay prison with or without the consent of Congress. 

For he is King, and his Agenda is King. So the King gets what the King wants regardless. Who gives a crap about a Constitution when The Agenda is The Agenda.

It’s Good to Be The King!

When asked about the constitutionality of unilaterally closing the prison with an executive order, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest admitted Monday that the legality of such a move isn’t clear, but hinted President Obama will do it anyway. 

So what. Obama himself said 22 times that the Executive Order for Amnesty was unconstitutional, but he did it anyways because the Agenda demanded it.

“The focus of our efforts right now is on Congress and there are members of Congress who share this goal [closing GITMO] and who have indicated at least an openness to working with the administration to achieve this goal.

Democrats and RINOs.

That’s the focus of our efforts right now. I’m not aware of any ongoing effort to devise a strategy using only the President’s executive authority to accomplish this goal, but I certainly wouldn’t take that option off the table,” Earnest told reporters Monday.

Either Congress does it for him, or he’ll do it by Executive Fiat.

“There are a wide range of thorny, legal questions that are raised by this ongoing effort to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. I wouldn’t sort of speculate on those right now. These are obviously, in some cases because of the unique nature of this facility, in some cases we’re in uncharted legal waters here but, the President made clear from his first week in office that closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay is a national security priority.”

The national security of The Middle East, not us. Releasing Terrorists is only good for the Terrorists. But when you’re a Muslim to begin with… 🙂

Over the year the White House has slowly released GITMO prisoners in hopes the numbers will become so low, Congress no longer sees the prison as financially viable. Last summer, President Obama traded five top-Taliban commanders for alleged Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl. 

And that worked out really well. But at least he didn’t trade actual prisoners of war for the Iraq Nuke Deal… 🙂

Later this week, a report detailing how the administration plans to shut down the prison is expected to be released by the Department of Defense. (Townhall)

The Agenda is The Agenda.

The King knows Best. The All-Father of Government has spoken!

Needs to make room for real prisoners , maybe . Conservatives and other such lowlife opposition to The State. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The Angry Left

Bernie Sanders is angry. Who is he angry at? Rich people. Why rich people? That’s not clear.

But has been the mantra of The Left for a generation at least. A generation brought up on this garbage. Garbage in, garbage out.

At Liberty University, Sanders complained about a small number of people who have “huge yachts, and jet planes and tens of billions” while others “are struggling to feed their families.” In Madison Wisconsin, Sanders called for a “political revolution against greed.”

So what’s the connection between people who have “tens of billions” and people who are “struggling to feed their families”? For the most part it’s a positive one. In a capitalist system, people get rich by meeting other people’s needs. Because some people are rich, other people find it easier to feed their families.

Take the world’s richest man, Bill Gates. When I was a student at Columbia in the 1970s, I remember a friend showing me a fantastic hand held device. It could add, subtract, divide and multiply. And it only cost $400. Today, I can sit in bed with my lap top, which in 1970 dollars cost less than $400. I can buy and sell goods on eBay, conduct personal banking, purchase airline tickets, book hotel rooms and even work the New York Times crossword puzzle – in large part because of Bill Gates.

Take the world’s richest woman, JK Rowling. When she wrote the last Harry Potter book or helped on the last Harry Potter movie was she making anyone worse off? Was she taking food out of the mouths of babes? Or was she bringing entertainment and pleasure to millions of people?

Is Bill Gates greedy? There’s no evidence of that. He is giving all his money away in ways that are curing diseases that kill children all over the world. More generally, I have never met a truly creative person who was motivated by greed. But even if greed were the motivation, we need more of it – as long as it’s meeting our needs.

So what’s Sander’s complaint? Here are his own words:

“99 percent of all new income today (is) going to the top 1 percent.”

In 2007, “the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income,” which is “more than the entire bottom 50 percent.”

“Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America.”

When Sam Walton was alive, he was one of the world’s richest men. Yet he wore blue jeans and drove a pickup truck. No one in Bentonville, Arkansas even knew he was rich until they read about it in Forbes. Is Walmart making it harder or easier for people to feed their families? You be the judge.

As has been said many times, The Left is only interested in the Narrative, not the truth.

Muslim kid brings homemade electronic device to school and the School system freaked out because of all the school violence.

The Left doesn’t give a crap about that. It’s all about the fact that he’s a Muslim.

Then it came out that it was all a setup by a Muslim “activist” father who set up the whole thing.

The Left doesn’t care. It’s all about “racism” to them because that fits their Narrative and what THEY want to be true.

bomb

Behind the rhetoric on the left, there is one persistent theme, always implicit, never explicit. Leftist rhetoric is designed to encourage people to believe that the reason they are poor are because other people are rich. And this kind of rhetoric is not confined to politicians who know nothing of basic economics. Paul Krugman, Joe Stiglitz, Jeffrey Sachs and other well-known economists are just as guilty. They invariably imply that “all property is theft,” a staple of barn yard Marxism. Yet, on rigorous examination, this idea is silly. Most of the people on the Forbes 400 list are self-made or next generation of self-made billionaires.

But the truth doesn’t matter, to The Left.

Writing in the Dallas Morning News, Cullen Godfrey asks: why do we demonize billionaires?

And usually, not Democrat Million and Billionaires. Nor, say, NFL player millionaires, just the owners.

They didn’t steal our money. They earned our money by providing us with the things that we want and that make our lives better. The Forbes 400 list includes names such as Oprah Winfrey, filmmakers Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Phil Knight (Nike), Elon Musk (Tesla), Charles Schwab, Ralph Lauren and Michael Ilitch (Domino’s Pizza). Of course, there are those with inherited wealth, but the vast majority on the list are first-generation, self-made billionaires, and those with inherited wealth have, as a rule, been excellent stewards of their good fortune.

Like Jeremy Corbyn, the new Labour Party leader in Britain, Bernie Sanders is appealing to our worst instincts. His is not the message of compassion and love. His is the message of resentment, jealousy and hate.

The hallmarks of the Left.

What would he do? Tax capital. He hasn’t given us a figure, but if he goes along with the 90 percent income tax rate favored by Paul Krugman or the 80 percent rate proposed by Thomas Piketty, Bill Gates may never have been able to start Microsoft. Sam Walton may never have given us Sam’s Club.

I’m not sure The Left would care about that.

As I wrote at Forbes earlier this week, the left is intellectually bankrupt. While appealing to our basest emotions, they have no real solutions to any real problems. In fact, their “solutions” would almost certainly make the poor more poor.

But they make them “feel” empowered. Perception is not reality, but it works for them.

There is, however, a proposal from the right of the political spectrum: tax consumption rather than saving, investment and capital accumulation. As I wrote previously:

[W]hen Warren Buffett is consuming, he’s benefiting himself. When he’s saving and investing, he’s benefiting you and me. Every time Buffett forgoes personal consumption (a pricey dinner, a larger house, a huge yacht) and puts his money in the capital market instead, he’s doing an enormous favor for everyone else. A larger capital stock means higher productivity and that means everyone can have more income for the same amount of work. So it’s in our self-interest to have very low taxes on Buffett’s capital. In fact, capital taxes should be zero. That means no capital gains tax, no tax on dividends and profits — so long as the income is recycled back into the capital market. We should instead tax Buffett’s consumption. Tax him on what he takes out of the system, not what he puts into it. Tax him when he is benefiting himself, not when he is benefiting you and me.

But the Left Politicians are only interested in Taxes that benefit THEM.

Framing Wars

The left has figured out how to successfully push through its agenda by using one simple tactic: demonizing the right. Even if there is no truth to the cruel labels, the left has figured out they work. Repeat the words “bigot,” “hate,” “sexist” and “intolerant” enough and they will start to stick. It’s known as the “framing war,” and Republicans aren’t very good at it, probably because we’re too nice. We’re the party of Judeo-Christian morality, so calling the opposition names isn’t considered polite. Instead, we naively think we can stick to debating the substance of issues and the truth will win out.

We saw how a very small minority within the left, the gay community – less than three percent of the population – was able to implement same-sex marriage. A small group of radicals labeled anyone who disagreed with their approach as bigots full of hate. They launched a clever ad campaign with glamorous, photoshopped pictures of celebrities in white wearing No H8 stickers on their faces and duct tape over their mouths. The approach worked, and the movement picked up steam. Support for same-sex marriage increased from 27 percent in 1996 to 60 percent this year, culminating in last week’s sweeping Supreme Court decision.

The irony was many of the activists were full of hate for anyone who disagreed with their methods – even libertarians who simply wanted government completely out of marriage. There was no room for compromise or alternative solutions. Christians found themselves on the receiving end of a barrage of profanity. But it didn’t matter, the mantra had already been successfully set, that Christians were full of hate. In the biggest show of irony, the activists brazenly tweeted out profanity using the hashtag #LoveWins toward anyone who disagreed with their methods after the Supreme Court announced its decision.

The left also had some success last week demonizing the right as racist over the Confederate flag controversy. But in reality, the Confederate flag is the legacy of Democrats, right up through recent years, and they should have been held accountable for the racism. Where were conservatives? Too busy apologizing to engage in the framing war.

The latest area the left is attempting to get ahead of the right through demonization is global warming. They’ve tried several sneaky phrases, hoping to get one to stick; the latest is “climate denier.” The right needs to respond aggressively and place an unflattering label on the left where it belongs. Perhaps a phrase like “global warming mythmakers” or “manmade global warming liars,” and use it consistently and often.

For years, when I didn’t feel like engaging in an intellectual debate with someone, I merely responded with a personal attack directed at them, and it virtually always shut them down. Someone accuses me of being racist/sexist/homophobic? Instead of trying to defend myself, I respond back and point out how they are racist/sexist/homophobic. It usually catches them off balance and they end up trying to defend the indefensible, “have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

Part of the problem is the left substantially controls education and the media. Children are constantly bombarded by messages that the right is full of hate and bigots. We have a generation of Millennials who have grown up with this indoctrination. This is why it is even more imperative to counter that message with one equally as effective.

This is no longer the nostalgic era of the late William F. Buckley, Jr., where people only had a few political sources to choose from, such as reading National Review or watching Firing Line. Nowadays, there are thousands if not millions of news sources and people are overwhelmed with information. Have you seen how thin the print version of National Review is today? The right can no longer count on winning the debate with reasoned arguments alone. As we’re preaching to the choir at Tea Party meetings, the left has our children captive in school teaching them we’re haters.

The truth is, the far left does hate the right, so calling the left bigots is no longer a stretch. How many times have you been attacked on Twitter or Facebook with profane language or threats over your right-leaning viewpoints? I’m beginning to lose track of all the people I’ve had to block. The hate is increasing exponentially.

Bill Clinton was considered a genius as president for using the method of “triangulation” to get his agenda implemented. I would argue that Obama is even more of a genius. He successfully brought Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals into the White House, allowing him to accomplish his full left-wing agenda without resorting to the compromise of triangulation with Republicans.

While the right should use the Alinskyite tactic of vilifying your opponent back, they should not engage in Alinsky’s crooked methods, such as lying. A Democrat activist friend of mine told me if he ever went public about all the corruption he’s seen within his party, it would make a huge story. It is another reason we are at a disadvantage.

Yes, Jesus said to turn the other cheek. But he also threw the money changers out of the temple. Conservatives need to stop reacting and start branding the left. Repeat after me: I’m not a progressive because I’m not a hateful, racist, sexist bigot. Why are you? (Townhall)