People With Giant Carbon Footprints Warn There’s No More Time For People To Be Allowed To Have Opinions

By William Teach October 4, 2016 – 10:18 am

Let me posit a hypothesis: if you say you believe in anthropogenic global warming/climate change, yet have a carbon footprint well beyond most citizens on the planet, are you, in fact, denying your own beliefs?

Obama And Leonardo DiCaprio Warn There’s No Time Left For Climate Change Denial

President Barack Obama on Monday warned that Republicans in Congress who deny climate change contribute to a growing problem that he hoped to give more political urgency by emphasizing moral issues.

“Climate change is happening even faster than five years ago or 10 years ago,” Obama said. “What we’re seeing is the pessimistic end of what was possible, the ranges that had been discerned or anticipated by scientists, which means we’re really in a race against time. We can’t put up with climate denial or obstructionist politics for very long, if we want to leave for the next generation beautiful days like today.”

If by faster and more pessimistic he means “a more stable climate system with fewer severe storms”, well, alrighty then.

That said, it’s rather disturbing, to say the least, that the POTUS is essentially saying that people should not be allowed any belief, even when based on Science, that disagrees with the beliefs (not based on Science) of the Cult of Climastrology. Seems rather fascistic, does it not?

Monday’s panel at the White House “South by South Lawn” festival preceded the U.S. premiere of DiCaprio’s climate change documentary, “Before the Flood,” which will air on the National Geographic channel later this month.

The Oscar winner opened the panel by explaining that he planned to release the documentary before the November election to highlight the political importance of the issue. Like Obama, DiCaprio had strong words for climate change deniers.

Which means it should be considered an in-kind contribution to Hillary, and treated accordingly by the FEC and IRS, among others.

“If you do not believe in climate change, you do not believe in facts, or in science, or in empirical truths, and therefore, in my humble opinion, should not be allowed to hold public office,” DiCaprio said.

If you are an utter hypocrite on the subject, you shouldn’t be allowed to dissemble on the subject. And, let’s see, since Obama is an utter hypocrite, it must mean he doesn’t actually believe in ‘climate change’, and shouldn’t have held office. The same goes for Hillary Clinton.

Patterico’s Pontifications touches on Leo’s climahypocricy, based on a Hill story: “And you thought we were against religious tests…”.

Twitchy has more.

Read: People With Giant Carbon Footprints Warn There’s No More Time For People To Be Allowed To Have Opinions »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post: A President Trump Could End The Era Of American Global Leadership Or Something

By William Teach October 4, 2016 – 8:09 am

Sunday, the Washington Post Editorial Board told us that a President Trump could “deport freely”, which was supposed to be a negative. Monday we learn something interesting (which fails to mention the phrase “leading from behind”)

A President Trump could end the era of American global leadership

IN NO realm is the U.S. president more powerful than in matters of national security. A president may launch wars, conduct intelligence operations and strike deals with foreign governments with minimal checks from the courts and Congress. If he wished, a President Donald Trump could carry out — or at least order — many of the most extreme proposals he has tossed off during the election campaign.

If Mr. Trump chose to “take the oil” of Iraq or Syria, as he has frequently proposed, he could direct the armed forces to plan and launch such an operation, whatever its prospects for success. If he wanted to assassinate foreigners who opposed him, he could unilaterally and secretly change the executive order prohibiting such action. If he wanted to reinstate waterboarding and other torture methods for use on detainees, he could cancel President Obama’s orders governing torture and appoint lawyers to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel willing to issue a secret opinion invalidating a congressional ban.

Mr. Trump could launch surveillance programs targeting foreigners without informing Congress. He could scrap — again, without public notice — the rules Mr. Obama instituted for limiting U.S. drone strikes. He could shut U.S. bases abroad, withdrawing troops from Japan, South Korea and Europe.

Could might may. Last time I checked Trump didn’t start a war in Libya which turned the nation into a hotbed of radical Islam and a truly failed state, nor did he fail to implement the security measures that the diplomatic personnel on the ground were begging for in Benghazi as all the other nations, along with the news media, were abandoning the region due to the threat of extreme violence.

The WPEB spends a few more paragraphs whining about what Trump might may could possibly do regarding NATO and Putin (last time I checked, it wasn’t Trump getting punked by Russia nor seeing Russia take over a portion of Crimea on his watch), ending with

In sum, the election of Mr. Trump would likely bring about the end of the era of American global leadership that began in 1945. The U.S. alliances built after World War II, which have been the foundation of that strength, would be disregarded. A new, cynical, self-interested America would emerge, ready to use walls, boycotts, assassination and torture to achieve its aims, and to partner with like-minded regimes such as Russia. For those who believe in traditional American liberal values, the world would become a much colder — and more dangerous — place.

Obama, with Hillary by his side for 4 years, annoyed our allies and patronized our enemies. Iran is treated better than Israel. Obama downplayed our relationships with England and Germany, and relationships with Japan and South Korea are so-so. The rise of ISIS happened under his watch. He blew off the Iranian Green Revolution and the Arab Spring. He and Hillary held up Bashar Assad as a “reformer.” How’s that working out? They blew out our relationship with Egypt by calling for the end of Mubarek and forcing him out (granted, not the greatest of people) and supported the installation of the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamic organization that had long been banned in Egypt, with hardcore Islamist Mohammed Morsi as President. Obama was upset when the Egyptian military forced him out with a coup and installed people who weren’t radical Islamists, ending with the current president, El Sisi.

Our allies do not trust or respect us, our enemies are taking advantage of us. Obama pushed the idiotic Iran nuclear deal, which simply kicked the can down the road for their nuclear aspirations. Yet, the WPEB is worried about Trump? Please. Perhaps they can explain exactly what Hillary accomplished as Secretary of State.

Just to be clear, I have serious misgivings about Trump as president, though not as many as Hillary. We don’t know what he would actually do. There’s no record. He could be great. Or, he could be miserable, like Obama. We are assured Hillary would be miserable, based on her record. All in all, though, this WPEB piece is deranged.

Read: Washington Post: A President Trump Could End The Era Of American Global Leadership Or Something »

Posted in Donald Trump, Journalistic Malpractice | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

NJ Democrats Call For Public Option As Insurers Flee Obamacare

By William Teach October 4, 2016 – 7:36 am

Does it need to be stated that the only ones who voted for Obamacare were Democrats? Does it need to be stated that the majority of Americans were against Obamacare prior to passage, and still are? Does it need to be stated that Ocare is collapsing exactly like predicted? Does it need to be stated that even before passage, those who saw the whole picture stated that the system was designed to eventually put private insurers out of business, which would lead to a public option then single payer? In Blue state New Jersey, the Exchange will only have two insurance providers this coming year, as all the others pulled out citing extreme monetary losses

(NJ.com) With insurance companies in New Jersey fleeing the health exchange created by the Affordable Care Act, a state lawmaker has introduced a bill to create a government-operated plan that he said will stabilize the volatile market.

The “New Jersey Public Option Health Care Act” would require the state Health and Banking and Insurance departments to develop the plans, according to the legislation Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer) introduced on Thursday and announced on Monday.

Any consumer could enroll in the plans, which would compete with those offered by private carriers, according to the bill (A4211). Carriers that already provide Medicaid and Medicare coverage would be eligible to join the public plans.

“Health care should be a right for every New Jersey resident,” said Gusciora (D–Mercer). “I think the climate is finally right to make significant changes to our system that will enshrine that principle in our laws.”

The climate was created by the Democrat’s malfeasance in passing Obamacare. The idea here is to force the remaining private insurers out of the Exchange, followed by getting as many people as possible to switch from their company provided plans to a government run plan, killing off more choice. How are Democrats going to pay for it? Surely the same old tired tropes like taxing the rich, taxing businesses, raising fees and other taxes. If all the providers, who actually know what they are doing, abandon the system over extreme financial losses, how will the state do? The money has to come from somewhere.

Of course, Governor Chris Christie would have to sign the bill if it passes the General Assembly. He’s in office till January 16, 2018. Democrats would have to regain the NJ Executive Office to pass this.

“That’s really the need and the goal, here — to cut costs,” Gusciora added. “With this plan, our insured and uninsured alike will have a reliable, affordable option for healthcare, where they can use their existing doctors and hospitals without having to deal with obtrusive and damaging network arrangements.”

We’ve heard that one before. Ocare’s goal was to cut costs. Which meant reduced networks. Which meant losing their existing doctors they liked. Which meant hospitals opting out. And still, costs rose faster for premiums, and deductibles tend to be higher than what company provided plans offer.

Funny how they rarely talk about increasing actual patient services, wouldn’t you say?

What you have here is a problem created by government intrusion into the private sector with government being the major issue, so, the fix is to institute more government involvement.

A couple choice comments

  • Well if the state gets involved we won’t have to worry about nepotism, political corruption, bloating the state payroll with hundreds of extra workers who can never get fired and who will put more burden on the pension system.
  • So this will get fixed just like the pension fiasco?
  • Yes…lets fix a disaster national health plan called the Affordable Care Act with a State Plan that will be a state level disaster.
  • Right, let’s take the reins on a program that even the largest health insurers couldn’t sustain. Makes sense, especially given our fiscal problems. These people are unbelievably stupid.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NJ Democrats Call For Public Option As Insurers Flee Obamacare »

Posted in Democrats, Healthcare | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

CO2 Emissions Are Wreaking Havoc On The Planet Or Something

By William Teach October 3, 2016 – 6:04 pm

Members of the Cult of Climastrology are such negative nellies. But, at least David Suzuki isn’t telling us to f*ck off

David Suzuki: Climate Deniers Are Wrong … CO2 Emissions Are Wreaking Havoc on the Planet

Life evolved to live within limits. It’s a delicate balance. Humans need oxygen, but too much can kill us. Plants need nitrogen, but excess nitrogen harms them and pollutes rivers, lakes and oceans. Ecosystems are complex. Our health and survival depend on intricate interactions that ensure we get the right amounts of clean air, water, food from productive soils and energy from the sun.

Right. Because the planet has totally been stable within those limits for the last 4.5 billion years.

Climate change deniers either willfully ignore or fail to understand this complexity—as shown in their simplistic argument that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a beneficial gas that helps plants grow and is therefore good for humans.

Industry propagandist Tom Harris of the misnamed International Climate Science Coalition writes, “Grade school students know CO2 is not pollution; it is aerial fertilizer.” He adds, “Increasing CO2 levels pose no direct hazard to human health.”

The unscientific Heartland Institute-ICSC study he references claims, against all evidence, “Carbon dioxide has not caused weather to become more extreme, polar ice and sea ice to melt or sea level rise to accelerate.”

Except, the weather hasn’t gotten more extreme, polar and sea ice typically melt during a Holocene warm period, and sea rise has not accelerated. Suzuki goes on to describe real science, which apparently is making prognostications of future doom by reading tea leaves creating computer models, before ending with

Recently, 375 U.S. National Academy of Sciences members, including 30 Nobel laureates, published an open letter stating:

“We are certain beyond a reasonable doubt … that the problem of human-caused climate change is real, serious, and immediate, and that this problem poses significant risks: to our ability to thrive and build a better future, to national security, to human health and food production, and to the interconnected web of living systems.”

The evidence is clear and overwhelming: Rapid increases in CO2 emissions are not beneficial. It’s past time we started conserving energy and shifting to cleaner sources.

All by force of government, you know. Otherwise, havoc! Havoc, I say!

Read: CO2 Emissions Are Wreaking Havoc On The Planet Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 23 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 3, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is carbon pollution based extreme weather, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Patterico’s Pontifications, with a post on whether character matters.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Surprise: Warmists Link Hurricane Matthew To ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach October 3, 2016 – 10:30 am

The United States hasn’t been hit with a major hurricane (category 3+) in over 10 years, almost 11. We are fast approaching 4,000 days since that last strike, Wilma in October 2005. So, obviously, ‘climate change’

(Think Progress) Hurricane Matthew, the most powerful cyclone to form over the Atlantic in nearly a decade, has forced the Navy to airlift non-essential personnel like spouses and children out of the controversial Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base in Cuba Sunday. (snip)

Hurricane Matthew, the strongest storm since Hurricane Felix hit the region in 2007, is a Category 4 of the five-step Saffir-Simpson scale of hurricane intensity. On Saturday it was ranked Category 5. (snip)

As human-caused climate change exacerbates, the planet is experiencing more extreme weather events like hurricanes. A graph of natural catastrophes over the last century shows a clear rise in number of meteorological and hydrological events, including storms and floods.

Scientists have linked worsening Atlantic storms to global warming. “Rising sea levels exacerbated Sandy’s storm surge, for example, a direct link between global warming and storm damage. And abnormally high sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic probably intensified the storm,” writes NASA.

Pretty funny definition of “more” and “worsening.” We’re seeing very few, and even fewer strong hurricanes. But, they’re more and worse. Sigh.

Then we have uber Warmist Eric Holthaus (who is actually a rather nice guy)

Katz says that, no matter Matthew’s impact in Haiti, the storm serves as a wake-up call for vulnerable parts of the world in an era of climate change. Heavier rainfall, stronger hurricanes, worsening crop production, and rising sea levels are all particularly pronounced in Haiti, and are all expected to worsen in the coming decades. “People [in Haiti] are very self-sufficient,” Katz says, “but a hurricane is just not the kind of situation where self-sufficiency does the trick.”

A wake up call! And more government control. Surprise.

Of course, Twitter is replete with the Matthew-climate change silliness.

And we had a winner for being one of the first and wackiest, though, sadly, she’s blocked me because I dared to call out her own BS (so, I have a mobile screenshot taken when not logged in to Twitter)

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/782216115443335168

Read: Surprise: Warmists Link Hurricane Matthew To ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Obamacare Has To Change To A More Government System To Survive

By William Teach October 3, 2016 – 7:23 am

Obamacare is collapsing in exactly the way that opponents (which was, and still is, a majority of Americans) said it would before it passed. We also stated that private sector insurers would be priced out of the Ocare marketplace due to financial losses, which would lead to Democrats calling for a public option and single payer. And, now that insurers are leaving the Exchanges, Democrats are calling for….a public option

Ailing Obama Health Care Act May Have to Change to Survive

The fierce struggle to enact and carry out the Affordable Care Act was supposed to put an end to 75 years of fighting for a health care system to insure all Americans. Instead, the law’s troubles could make it just a way station on the road to another, more stable health care system, the shape of which could be determined on Election Day.

Seeing a lack of competition in many of the health law’s online insurance marketplaces, Hillary Clinton, President Obama and much of the Democratic Party are calling for more government, not less.

Democrats own Ocare lock, stock, and barrel. They created it, they crafted it, the voted for it. They implemented it. Now that it’s been shown to be a failure as predicted, they want more government. Surprise?

The departing president, the woman who seeks to replace him and nearly one-third of the Senate have endorsed a new government-sponsored health plan, the so-called public option, to give consumers an additional choice. A significant number of Democrats, for whom Senator Bernie Sanders spoke in the primaries, favor a single-payer arrangement, which could take the form of Medicare for all.

An additional choice? The way insurers are abandoning the Ocare marketplace would soon make it the only choice. Of course, medical providers are already reticent to accept Ocare insurance now, and many of them don’t. Many of them are not accepting any new Medicare patients. Do you think they will be happy to accept the government option insurance? They aren’t in business to constantly lose money and spend lots of time trying to get their payments from the government.

In such divergent proposals lies an emerging truth: Mr. Obama’s signature domestic achievement will almost certainly have to change to survive. The two parties agree that for too many people, health plans in the individual insurance market are still too expensive and inaccessible. (snip)

“Too many Americans still strain to pay for their physician visits and prescriptions, cover their deductibles or pay their monthly insurance bills; struggle to navigate a complex, sometimes bewildering system; and remain uninsured,” Mr. Obama wrote in The Journal of the American Medical Association.

In other words, the law crafted and passed by Democrats, against the wishes of the American People, is a disaster. But, instead of getting rid of it and enacting policies that work, they want to double down on government involvement with our health care and health insurance.

“Even the most ardent proponents of the law would say that it has structural and technical problems that need to be addressed,” she said. “The subsidies were not generous enough. The penalties for not getting insurance were not stiff enough. And we don’t have enough young healthy people in the exchanges.”

So, more force of government, and young people are not joining. Huh.

Read: NY Times: Obamacare Has To Change To A More Government System To Survive »

Posted in Healthcare | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News From The Washington Post: A President Trump Could Deport Freely

By William Teach October 3, 2016 – 7:04 am

The Washington Post Editorial Board is very vexed over the notion that a President Donald Trump could lawfully do lots of the things he promised to do when it comes to immigration, because that would be mean or something to people who shouldn’t be in the country legally and to people who not only don’t give a damn about assimilating, but expect America to change for them

A President Trump could deport freely

DONALD TRUMP has telegraphed his intentions, if not always consistently, to radically shift immigration policy and, in so doing, subvert America’s vitality and international standing as a beacon of diversity and tolerance. While he cannot unilaterally undertake every change he proposes, there is plenty he can do, on his own, to overhaul America’s approach to immigrants. His program would undercut the nation’s economic prospects, its values and the vibrancy of its neighborhoods and communities.

We used to be a beacon of law and order, which would accept people who wanted to be a part of our great nation and do it legally. Many of those neighborhoods are rife with violence, drugs, and criminality. Others are hotbeds of radical thought, the type where women need 4 witnesses when they are raped. We have plenty of diversity: strangely, we are supposed to be tolerant of people who refuse to accept our laws and even work to subvert them.

A President Trump could slash the number of refugees allowed to enter the country, including from Syria, downgrading President Obama’s goal of admitting 110,000 in the fiscal year that started Saturday. Federal law gives presidents the power to bar any “class of aliens” they deem “detrimental to the interests of the United States,” so Mr. Trump could as promised ban immigrants from Muslim-majority countries. The effect would be to undercut Washington’s standing with allies as well as America’s relations with its own Muslim citizens — a blow to America’s capacity to fight terrorism.

Of course, Trump has not talked about banning all Muslims: he wants to do deep background checks on any who originate from those countries with a background in radical Islam. Many of America’s allies are looking to do the same, as the European nations are learning just what happens when these people are let in willy nilly. Rape, sexual assault, violence, criminality, and abuse towards the citizens in the host areas. Not too mention all those holding radical Islamic beliefs and members of ISIS.

It is interesting that the paragraph is the only real mention of “law.” The law would give Trump the power to deport the heck out of illegals, who aren’t just border jumpers, but those who overstayed their visas.

In the same category of feasible but self-defeating policies, Mr. Trump could revoke work permits and the protection from deportation granted by Mr. Obama to nearly 1.5 million young undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children by their parents. Just as Mr. Obama has used executive orders to shield those “Dreamers,” Mr. Trump could remove the shield and thereby expel from the country a generation of promising, American-educated young immigrants, most of whom have little or no memory of their birth countries.

Technically, Obama’s executive order ends with him leaving office. Regardless, it was a lawless order. Trump getting rid of it would be consistent with federal law. People who took advantage of America, and who, rather than politely asking to be a part of America, made Demands.

As president, Mr. Trump could also unilaterally broaden the categories of undocumented immigrants targeted for accelerated deportation; they would include, as he has pledged, visa overstayers. Together, they amount to more than 5 million people.

As they should be. We allowed them into our country, usually for work or school. They repaid that by staying illegally.

A study by the American Action Forum, a conservative group, estimates that deporting all illegal immigrants, as Mr. Trump has threatened, would require more than 90,000 federal deportation agents; there are fewer than 5,000. The nation’s 34,000 detention beds would have to increase tenfold, and more than 30,000 additional federal lawyers would be needed to process the throngs that would jam immigration courts.

Not really. Instead of catch and release, it’s catch and deport.

The price of carrying out such a mass expulsion (along with the wall Mr. Trump would build) would not be limited to the estimated budgetary expense ($400 billion to $600 billion), nor even the blow to the economy of depleting the labor force by more than 10 million workers. The most lasting and damaging cost would be to America’s prestige globally and to its founding principles. A nation that expels millions of long-standing residents with deep roots in their communities is not a leader; it is a fearful, mean and meek place, heartless and spiritually crabbed. This is not the America envisioned by the Founding Fathers; it is certainly not a home of the brave.

America’s founding principle was a nation based on law with the consent of the governed. That we are a nation of Law, not of Men. And the most lasting and damaging cost is not our prestige globally or what hardcore leftists think are our founding principles (which apparently doesn’t include freedom and limited government and adherence to Law): it’s things like this

124 illegal immigrants released by DHS later charged with murder, report finds

More than 100 illegal immigrants caught but released by the Obama administration over the last five years have gone on to be charged with murders after they were set free, according to a new report released Monday from the Center for Immigration Studies.

In all, some 121 immigrants who were freed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement between 2010 and 2014 have since been charged with a total of 135 homicide-related crimes. Another three immigrants were charged with murders in 2015, bringing to 124 the total number of murder suspects the government had, then released.

Every murder, every rape, every assault, every time an illegal steals the identity of a legal citizen, causing them significant harm, this can all be laid at the feet of the people who support the illegals.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Good News From The Washington Post: A President Trump Could Deport Freely »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 32 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 2, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is extreme weather, where it snows in the heat of summer, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post on Duke creating a safe space for men…but not why you think.

It’s snow week!

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach October 2, 2016 – 8:59 am

Patriotic Pinup Gil Elvgren

Happy Sunday! A gorgeous first Sunday of October. Can you believe how fast the year has gone by? The sun is shining, there’s a little nip in the air, and the geese are honking away. This pinup is by Gil Elvgren, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. The Daley Gator notes a Halloween decoration deemed too scary
  2. The Last Refuge notes spray paint pro-Hillary vandalism on a Trump building
  3. The Right Scoop covers Newt and Hannity bitching about Trump’s lack of discipline
  4. This ain’t Hell…., has some feel good stories
  5. Watcher Of Weasels discusses suicide by cop in San Diego
  6. Weasel Zippers notes a leftist judge who wants to dump all guns in the ocean
  7. Independent Sentinel notes Hillary wants to give Obamacare to illegal aliens
  8. Watts Up With That? covers what might have caused the big Aussie blackout
  9. A View From The Beach discusses feminists trying to destroy science
  10. Basil’s Blog (is back) covers voting your conscious
  11. Chicks On The Right notes police officers refusing to provide security for protesters
  12. Conservatives4Palin wonders if Hillary has already committed voter fraud
  13. Creeping Sharia covers France’s new Sharia police
  14. Doug Ross @ Journal discusses Hillary’s new Middle East
  15. And last, but not least, Fire Andrea Mitchell covers the names Hillary uses to slur Americans.
  16. Separately, my prayers go out to Fausta, who lost her mother yesterday.

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 »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove