If All You See..

…is carbon pollution created snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Right Scoop, with a post on super Trump guy Joe Walsh turning on Trump.

It’s snow week!

Read: If All You See.. »

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

Patriotic Pinup Pearl Frush

Happy Sunday! Another gorgeous day in the Once And Future Nation of America. The sun is shining, frost is in the air, Christmas is almost here. This pinup is by Pearl Frush, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. A View From The Beach has some fake news from the Chesapeake
  2. Bizzy Blog notes that Hillary lost due to one word
  3. Chicks On the Right notes Canadian liberals not wanting women to be able to defend themselves
  4. Creeping Sharia covers sharia courts in Germany
  5. Diogenes’ Middle Finger highlights how progressivism isn’t very progressive
  6. Flopping Aces laughs at Hillary on fake news
  7. Jihad Watch notes another fake Islamophobia incident
  8. Legal Insurrection covers Dems bummed about that whole nuclear option thing
  9. Michelle Obama’s Mirror covers fake news, fake ID
  10. Moonbattery discusses the latest insane Microsoft ad
  11. Patterico’s Pontifications covers Trump’s 2 rules
  12. Powerline has more of that fake news stuff
  13. The Daley Gator features the media doing their thing again
  14. The First Street Journal covers abuse of freedom of speech
  15. And last, but not last, The Geller Report discusses Sharia law, rape, and violence

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

NY Times Wonders If It’s OK To Lie To Get Faith Based Insurance, Because Ocare Is Really Expensive And Failing

As usual, there are lots of fun opinion pieces at the highly leftist NY Times. The Editorial Board is whining about Trump using social media to reach directly to We The People. Frank Bruni is losing it over Trump taking a hard look at people to serve in his administration. Liberals in the comments are upset that Nicholas Kristoff has a problem with the close-mindedness on college campuses. And, finally, we get a Typical Liberal Complaint about the movie Moana.

That said, Hillary Rosner provides the hilarity, as she attempts to slam faith based insurance plans, and those who are religious, but, she unintentionally exposes just how bad Obamacare actually is

Should I Lie About My Beliefs to Get Health Insurance?

HERE’S an ethical dilemma. If you could save your family more than $8,000 next year simply by signing a statement affirming belief in principles you find repugnant, would you?

It sounds absurd. But in fact that’s the position I’m in this week, thanks to a loophole in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. My health insurance poses a financial hardship to my family. All I have to do to lower my yearly bills by thousands of dollars is use my John Hancock to denounce gay marriage and a woman’s right to control her reproductive destiny.

She spends a lot of time slamming what is known as the statement of standards for Altrua HealthShare, a non-health insurance health insurance (you read that right), even though it would save her $8400 a year. Here’s what it says

  • I believe in keeping my body clean with proper nutrition and consuming foods in moderation. I
    believe that the use of tobacco, illicit drugs, and excessive alcohol consumption is harmful to
    body and soul.
  • According to the word of God sexual relations outside the bond of marriage between a man
    and a woman are morally wrong.
  • I believe that abortion is wrong, except in special circumstances such as rape or serious injury
    to the mother, and then, only after careful consideration by all concerned.
  • I believe that I am obligated to provide and care for my family and that abuse of any kind, of a
    family member or anyone else is wrong.

Funny that she fails to mention the first and last ones. But, yes, according to the word of God, marriage is between a man and a woman. If she wants to control her reproductive destiny, how about practicing sex whereas she doesn’t get pregnant mistakenly? There are a wide range of methods, such as condoms and the Pill, to avoid this happening.

Anyhow, this is all meant to slam this type of religiosity and all those mean people. But, here’s where it gets funny

By Dec. 15, like many Americans, I need to choose a new health insurance plan for 2017. I am a freelance journalist and editor. My husband runs a small business that pays him a salary but no benefits. We are among the millions of Americans who, under the Affordable Care Act, buy individual insurance through an increasingly expensive and inadequate marketplace. Since the law went into effect, monthly premiums for my family of three have already more than doubled, from $450 a month to $930. (In Colorado, my home state, 2017 rates are on average 20 percent higher than they were in 2016; in some counties that number is 40 percent.) On top of that, high deductibles mean we pay for nearly everything ourselves. In 2016, between monthly premiums and out-of-pocket costs, we’ve spent roughly $20,000 on health care.

Our new plan, the fourth in four years, is being discontinued, so we must again seek new insurance. We don’t qualify for federal subsidies. I’ve got six months of 2015 insurance premiums accruing interest on a credit card, and a $4,200 bill for a four-hour emergency room visit sits menacingly on my desk. The number of insurers offering individual plans in Colorado, as in many other states, has dwindled; there are now only three companies — Anthem, Cigna and Kaiser — left in our ZIP code. (In 14 Colorado counties, there is only one provider offering plans.) Only one of our longtime doctors participates in any of these 2017 A.C.A.-plan networks.

She totally supports Ocare, as does her husband, but, admits that it’s passage has totally reduced her quality of life. Because it is terrible. Expensive. Hard to use. Failing.

She ultimately decided she couldn’t join a faith based health share, so, instead of $500 a month with a yearly $1000 deductible (and a requirement to treat medical professionals with respect), she went with a $1,200 a month plan (no mention of deductible), and will, surprise!, have to give up the O.B. practice she’d been using for a long, long time. The one she liked.

Roughly 625,000 people belonged to health sharing ministries as of September; that number is sure to rise as people like me balk at their diminishing options. As Republicans grapple with the Affordable Care Act, it would be wise for them to keep in mind that, like it or not, America is composed of people with different backgrounds, ethnicities and beliefs. The answer is not to repeal the law, which could result in more than 23 million Americans losing their coverage. The answer is to find solutions that allow all working families to find affordable health care that doesn’t demand choosing between their ethics and their ability to provide for their children.

Again, an attempt to slam people , she exposes that the name of the law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is an utter misnomer and a lie. And why it should be repealed and replaced with something that works.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Wonders If It’s OK To Lie To Get Faith Based Insurance, Because Ocare Is Really Expensive And Failing »

Good News: D.C. Poster Cop For The Gender Confused Is A Pervert

In most situations, if an employee acted in this manner they would be terminated. And, potentially, the justice system would become involved and press charges

DC’s Transgender Cop Poster Child Turns Out To Be A Pervert

A transgender police officer in Washington, D.C., who has repeatedly been praised as a community role model has also quietly been reprimanded for improper sexually-tinged antics with underage police interns.

In a story published Thursday night, NBC4 News profiled Jessica Hawkins as a police officer who “helps build trust in [the] D.C. community” due to his work on an LGBT outreach unit. Hawkins, who previously went by Billy, is biologically male but identifies as a woman, and publicly transitioned two years ago.

Hawkins has been praised again and again in articles. But, see, there’s a wee bit of a problem

But a new report by local D.C. station Fox 5 shows another, more disturbing side of Hawkins that hasn’t appeared in profiles. According to the report, Hawkins has repeatedly landed in hot water because of his conduct around interns for D.C.’s police department.

“Sgt. Hawkins showed the interns a ‘homemade video of her having sex with 4 men while she was intoxicated,’” Fox’s report says. Another complain filed against Hawkins accused him of taking under-21 interns to an Arlington gay bar, where she helped them buy alcohol and laughed at one intern’s possession of a fake ID.

Hawkins has voluntarily shown inappropriate pictures to other interns, and doesn’t dispute the allegations against him, admitting that they are correct. The D.C. police are supposedly “investigating” this conduct through the disciplinary review division, yet, Hawkins is still on duty after being briefly suspended. This has been going on for over seven weeks.

If you took underage people to a bar and got them in, what would happen to you? As a police officer, he laughed at the fake ID used by one, instead of arresting that person. He’s further admitted to purchasing and drinking alcohol on duty and at the station. There are also charges of bias in her policing, giving preference to LGBT people.

What will the result be? Most likely, this will be whitewashed and swept quietly under the rug. This doesn’t mean that straight people can’t be perverts. They certainly can. But, here we see the double standards in dealing with the gender confused. Even if the D.C. police decide to crack down, they know that the Typical Activists will pitch a fit.

Read: Good News: D.C. Poster Cop For The Gender Confused Is A Pervert »

If All You See…

…is a world suffering from extreme rainfall from motor vehicle carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on Irony and whiny liberals.

Read: If All You See… »

Washington Post Aghast That Trump Picked Guy Who Doesn’t Follow “Settled Science”

With apoplectic editorials like this, Trump definitely picked the right guy to head the EPA

A man who rejects settled science on climate change should not lead the EPA

THE WEEK started with a hopeful sign for those concerned about climate change: Former vice president Al Gore met with Donald Trumpfor about 90 minutes on Monday, leading some to believe that the president-elect might be ready to accept facts and evidence. By the end of the week, however, Mr. Trump had selected Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Pruitt wrote this in National Review in May: “Global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates of our time. That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime.”

Obviously, saying that people should be able to debate and continue doing science and dissent are major Thoughtcrimes and Wrongthink.

Dissent, indeed, is not a crime, and acknowledging the uncertainties in climate forecasts is reasonable. But rejecting or playing down the near-unanimous warnings of experts, which are based on decades of substantial and continually accumulating evidence and suggest vast implications for future generations, should disqualify a nominee from leading an expert agency charged with making science-based decisions. Among scientists there is virtually no dissent from the conclusion that human activity — the burning of fossil fuels, which releases heat-trapping gases that stay in the atmosphere — is leading to planetary warming, and that the coming changes pose severe risks.

That link? It goes to NASA, which then cites the utterly discredited Cook et al “consensus” “study.” If this is what the Warmists at the Washington Post want to cite as ‘consensus” on science, well, then, looks like they are utterly disqualified from discussing the subject.

But rejecting settled science strikes us as being in a different category. The Senate should probe Mr. Pruitt’s position on climate change. If he explicitly or implicitly rejects the scientific consensus, that would be justification to vote no. If, on the other hand, he acknowledges the risks facing the globe, lawmakers should ask what Mr. Pruitt would be prepared to do as the nation’s chief environmental officer to combat them.

When you read things like that, you should wonder what they’re hiding, and why they want to shut down scientific inquiry. And just how much like a cult this is.

Read: Washington Post Aghast That Trump Picked Guy Who Doesn’t Follow “Settled Science” »

Cruz, DeSantis To Introduce Term Limits Bill To Drain The Swamp

Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Ron DeSantis have an op-ed up in the Washington Post, explaining the steps needed to actually drain the swamp

If Republicans really want to drain the swamp, here’s how to do it

On Election Day, the American people made a resounding call to “drain the swamp” that is modern Washington. Yet on Capitol Hill, we seem mired in the same cycle of complacency: The game hasn’t changed, and the players remain the same. Thankfully, there’s a solution available that, while stymied by the permanent political class, enjoys broad public support: congressional term limits.

During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump called for enacting term limits, and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) has endorsed the idea. As soon as the 115th Congress convenes, both of us will move to restore accountability among the entrenched Washington establishment by introducing a constitutional amendment to limit the number of terms that a member of Congress can serve to three in the House and two in the Senate.

Passing term limits will demonstrate that Congress has actually heard the voice of the people.

In an age in which partisan divisions seem intractable, it is remarkable that public support for congressional term limits is strong regardless of political affiliation — huge majorities of rank-and-file Republicans, Democrats and independents favor enacting this reform. Indeed, according to a Rasmussen survey conducted in October, 74 percent of likely voters support establishing term limits for all members of Congress. This is because the concept of a citizen legislature is integral to the model of our democratic republic.

They go on to note that the Founders, who declined to add term limits at the time, were very concerned with the creation of a Political Aristocracy, what Cruz and DeSantis refer to as a “permanent political class” and “political careerism”, and they are exactly correct. I remember a few years ago when two Senators, one a Democrat, one a Republican, were lauded and celebrated in the Senate for each having taken over 25,000 votes. That’s despicable. No one should spend that long in a political position. They should spend a short time as a publicly elected servant, then go home to live under the laws they passed.

The rest goes on to describe more reasons for term limits, well worth the read, and worth the support. You may not like Ted Cruz, but, The People on both sides of the political aisle support term limits.

One thing I’ll mention again, if they want to drain the swamp, the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed at the same time, restoring the Federalist notion that State general assemblies should vote on their Senators, meaning that the Senators are beholden to their states, not their parties.

Read: Cruz, DeSantis To Introduce Term Limits Bill To Drain The Swamp »

Obama Begs Republicans Not To Repeal His Failing Healthcare Law

If it was working so well, would it need to be repealed and replaced?

(The Hill) President Barack Obama on Saturday lauded the Affordable Care Act as a Republican-controlled Congress looks forward to its repeal.

During his weekly White House address, Obama encouraged Americans who don’t currently have healthcare to enroll in the program, and said that he wants to “build on the progress we’ve made” with the law.

Would that be the “progress” where costs are rising dramatically, service is restricted, deductibles make the insurance almost unusable for so many, medical facilities and doctors not accepting it, and insurers are dropping out? Among other issues? That progress?

“Whether or not you get insurance through the Affordable Care Act, that’s the health care system as we now know it,” Obama said. “Because our goal wasn’t just to make sure more people have coverage – it was to make sure more people have better coverage. That’s why we want to build on the progress we’ve made – and I’ve put forth a number of ideas for how to improve the Affordable Care Act.”

A 2000+ page bill, years to implement it, and people do not have better coverage. Anyhow, his idea seems to be to implement a government option. Seriously, what else has he proposed?

The president then criticized the Republican effort to repel and replace the law, stating that such a political move would erase all progress that has been made toward securing a better healthcare system in America.

“Now Republicans in Congress want to repeal the whole thing and start from scratch – but trying to undo some of it could undo all of it. All those consumer protections – whether you get your health insurance from ObamaCare, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or on the job – could go right out the window,” he said.

In other words, Obama is scaremongering with some prognostication because his signature legislation is on the chopping block because it’s failing, a bill that only Democrats voted for, and did so over the objections of the majority of Americans.

“One new study shows that if Congress repeals Obamacare as they’ve proposed, nearly 30 million Americans would lose their coverage. Four in five of them would come from working families. More than 9 million Americans who would receive tax credits to keep insurance affordable would no longer receive that help. That is unacceptable,” Obama said.

So, how do 30 million lose coverage when only 20 million (at least, those who signed up, we aren’t really getting numbers on those that actually pay their premiums) joined? Funny how Obama wasn’t worried when millions were losing their insurance they liked when this bill went into effect. Why was that not acceptable?

Here’s the thing: Democrats have continued to lose elections ever since Obamacare was passed. And now, they no longer control Congress nor the White House, and Trump will (hopefully) nominate a good Originalist for the Supreme Court. The Era Of Obama can be wiped away. As Obama himself stated, elections have consequences. If Obama and the Dems didn’t want this to happen, they should have crafted a better bill that actually worked.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama Begs Republicans Not To Repeal His Failing Healthcare Law »

Fake News/TDS: Trump Has Blocked Women From Protesting Day After Inauguration

Oh my God, this is horrendous! What a horrible person! Let’s first start with this other lunacy from Salon’s abortionista Amanda Marcotte

With fake news spiraling out of control, what can real people do?

Fake news is a big deal. Recent research suggests that the proliferation of conspiracy theories and other urban legends, vaguely disguised as real news and disseminated widely on social media, played a significant role in helping elect Donald Trump as president.

Well, what can they do? Avoid Salon, for starters (of course, it’s just too much fun reading these wackadoodles), who engage in a bit of fake news themselves (shocking!) and Trump Derangement Syndrome

Women’s March on Washington barred from protesting Donald Trump inauguration
Trump’s Presidential Inauguration Committee has blocked access to the landmark Lincoln Memorial in D.C.

That’s a pretty specific headline and subhead, is it not? How about paragraphs 1 and 2?

Protesters who plan to descend on Washington in the days surrounding President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration next month will find themselves barred from the nation’s most famous public protest site.

The National Park Service, on behalf of the Presidential Inauguration Committee, filed a “massive omnibus blocking permit” securing much of the National Mall, Pennsylvania Avenue, the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial for Trump’s inauguration festivities, The Guardian reported on Thursday.

So, sorta the NPS?

The temporary ban mostly affects a planned march from the Lincoln Memorial to the White House on Jan. 21, 2017, the morning after Trump’s inauguration. The morning after the election, organizers began the  Women’s March on Washington, which leaders say is an intentional nod to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s 1963 civil rights march at the Lincoln Memorial.

How dare Trump! Ah, but we eventually find out deep into the article, after most moonbats have tuned out and started tweeting in High Dudgeon

But organizers ran into permitting issues early in the planning process. The Park Service issues permits for protests on a first-come, first-serve basis and other protests had already received permits before the women’s march organizers applied. Now, the massive omnibus blocking permit has blocked at least a dozen other groups from protesting in the days after Trump’s inauguration.

So, they took to long, and the NPS said “nope.” So, not Trump’s fault?

Essentially, this same thing happened in 2008 for Obama’s coronation, and, too a lesser degree, for his 2012 inauguration.

As a sidebar here, the big issue post-inauguration is that the area is considered a construction zone, though, lord knows why it takes up to March 1 to clean it up….oh, right, government…., so, it would unsafe for anyone to demonstrate, so, blocked, because, if anything happened, they could sue. So, being ultra-litigious and overly cautious are things that Progressives love, especially when it empowers Government. Here? Hoist. Petard.

Read: Fake News/TDS: Trump Has Blocked Women From Protesting Day After Inauguration »

If All You See…

…is a carbon pollution created deluge, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is White House Dossier, with a post on Trump seeming more like the president than the president.

Read: If All You See… »

Pirate's Cove