Obama Super Concerned About The Diaper Divided

No, really

Cecilia Munoz writes

But the benefits of this new economy aren’t available to all Americans, and the consequences of that divide are severe. Nearly 1 in 3 families struggle to afford diapers for their babies. In some cases, moms and dads stretch the time between diaper changes to make their limited resources last. 

Hmm, is the White House admitting Obama’s economy sucks? Sure seems like it. Of course, the solution to this is More Government! And, Obama’s going to talk about it

Tomorrow, the President is traveling to Texas to participate in SXSW, where he’ll talk about how we can use technology to solve the issues facing Americans today. Ahead of his trip, the White House is highlighting a cross-sector strategy to expand access to affordable diapers for America’s poorest families.

I’m doubting those in attendance will be concerned with diapers. But, fortunately, Obama has solved all other problems, so, he can pivot to diapers.

By the way, some Warmists claim disposable diapers are bad for climate change.

Read: Obama Super Concerned About The Diaper Divided »

If All You See…

…is an awesome greenspace that should be replaced with solar panels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Camp of the Saints, with a post on why he was wrong on Sarah Palin.

Shannon Elizabeth, who was in the terrifying Thir13en Ghosts.

Read: If All You See… »

Raw Story Very Upset That Anyone Would Dare Use Free Speech On ‘Climate Change’

What else is there to take away from this?

Fox pundit blows off ‘99.9% of scientists’: Denying climate change is ‘what the 1st Amendment is about’

Michael Warren, a writer for The Weekly Standard, argued to Fox News on Thursday that the Department of Justice would be wrong to pursue a racketeering case against ExxonMobil for denying climate change because the company had a free speech right to say whatever it wanted. (snip)

“They said that assertion — the 97 percent — comes from a handful of surveys, and abstract counting exercises that have contradicted by more reliable research,” the Fox News host (Heather Childers) explained. “So if the science is still in question, how could you take this to the level of breaking the law?”

“Even if 99.9 percent of all scientist agreed on this,” Warren opined, “the First Amendment protects your right to have a different opinion or to look at different evidence, and say something differently. I mean, that’s what the First Amendment is about.”

Well, can’t have Free Speech, right? In Warmist World, Wrongthink is not allowed, and must be banned. Free Speech? Pffft. Suspend the Constitution for this. Warmists tend to show their ugly little fascist sides quite often.

Let’s not forget, there is not 97% consensus. That paper has been thoroughly debunked.

Read: Raw Story Very Upset That Anyone Would Dare Use Free Speech On ‘Climate Change’ »

Obama Admits He Has World’s Largest Carbon Footprint

You might remember me referring to Obama as “Man with world’s largest carbon footprint” numerous times. Obama admits I’m correct

(Weekly Standard) President Obama once “ruefully” admitted to staff that he personally is the planet’s largest source of carbon emissions, according to an anecdote published in The Atlantic.

The brief aside was mentioned by author Jeffrey Goldberg in a passage about the burden of Obama’s worldwide travel arrangements.

With that, Obama stood up and said, “Okay, gotta go.” He headed out of his office and down the stairs, to the red carpet and the honor guard and the cluster of Malaysian officials waiting to greet him, and then to his armored limousine, flown to Kuala Lumpur ahead of him. (Early in his first term, still unaccustomed to the massive military operation it takes to move a president from one place to another, he noted ruefully to aides, “I have the world’s largest carbon footprint.”) (WT: emphasis mine)

You know what they say, the first step to fixing the problem is admitting to the problem. Of course, Obama failed to follow through on fixing his problem. He’ll still take a helicopter flight over to Andrews AFB to jump on his giant fossil fueled jumbo jet, accompanied by a backup jumbo jet and multiple fighter jets, for a cross country flight, which is followed by numerous movements of large fossil fueled vehicle convoys, all to give a short official speech followed by multiple fundraisers, maybe a party, maybe golf. And, sometimes, those fundraisers aren’t even in the same city as the speech, which necessitates another fossil fueled flight.

But, he does want to change your use of fossil fuels, hence we end up with things like his so-called Clean Power Plan. And he’s more than willing to give your money away to the United Nations to be spread to dictators via their Green Climate Fund. And reward his donors with taxpayer money for failed solar projects. This is the same guy who fought against put solar panels on the White House.

And, yes, much of the footprint is just a part of doing the job of President. But, he’s taken almost no steps to reduce that footprint in his own life and his presidential life. That is what’s called “hypocrisy”. It’s a “do as I say, not as I do” attitude. Which is prevalent throughout the Cult of Climastrology.

Read: Obama Admits He Has World’s Largest Carbon Footprint »

People Expecting Fight At GOP Debate Shocked When Civility Breaks Out

Who woulda thunk it?

(Yahoo) After an all-out brawl of a debate last week in Michigan, which featured Donald Trump at one point defending the size of his genitalia, the Republican presidential hopefuls adopted an unusual tone in the opening minutes of their latest head-to-head in here: civility.

In the first half hour of Thursday’s debate, Trump and his GOP rivals seemed to almost go out of their way to avoid attacking one another even as they debated heated topics like entitlement reform and immigration.

Rather than tangling and shooting barbs back and forth, the candidates avoided the previous rancor, laughing things off and allowing their opponents to speak for themselves. Who won the debate, though? The Hill breaks it down

Businessman Donald Trump One of the ironclad rules of political campaigns is that a front-runner gains from a debate that produces no game-changing moment.it down. For the winner

By that standard, Trump had by far the best night on Thursday. His rivals highlighted their differences with him, but there was little personal enmity. Trump maintained a calmer demeanor throughout and was never knocked off his stride

Senator Marco Rubio Perhaps wisely, he didn’t try to knock out Trump, or anyone else, with a single blow on Thursday night. Instead, he delivered a solid performance that will have reminded his supporters why they believe in him.

Politico has Rubio as the big winner, but, it’s a little too late. Also named was the Republican Party, which obtained a debate deep on substance for a change.

Cruz and Kasich were given a “mixed” rating. Cruz for being subdued while still going after the fact that Trump is not a Conservative and has supported many Democrats and Democrat positions (that’s a winner in my book). Kasich for being “competent but not memorable’. That sounds like a loser to me.

The losers? People who liked the all out brawl format and the Democrat Party, the latter for having no soundbites to latch on to.

But, now we’re going into the March 15th primaries, which will most likely leave only two standing, especially if Rubio fails to win Florida. Kasich seems to be in it for the long haul, regardless of how he does at the polls.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: People Expecting Fight At GOP Debate Shocked When Civility Breaks Out »

Appeals Court Deems Pro-life License Plates Legal

Of course, the pro-abortion crowd, like those at WRAL, deem this as anti-abortion, like that’s a bad thing

North Carolina drivers opposed to abortion will soon be able to display their view on the back of their cars.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that “Choose Life” license plates state lawmakers approved in 2011 are constitutional, reversing a decision the same court made two years ago.

The ACLU and other abortionistas had a right old snit over the plates, because some people dared to not only be pro life, but wanted to let people know it. They very much want license plates that give the other view. You know, the one about killing the unborn, mostly because the babies are an inconvenience to those who were to foolish to take proper precautions.

Read: Appeals Court Deems Pro-life License Plates Legal »

If All You See…

…are plants that will die from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Victory Girls Blog, with a post on faux empowerment.

Jenny Agutter, who’s had a very long career, and is still acting, and we can’t forget An American Werewolf In London and Child’s Play 2, among horror movies.

Read: If All You See… »

A Carbon Tax Should Be Placed On The Baltimore Sun

The Baltimore Sun has posted this “letter” from a reader

Thank you Sen. Ben Cardin and Rep. John Delaney for introducing “a resolution that calls for 50 percent of the nation’s energy production to come from renewable sources by 2030” (“Cardin, Delaney seek boost in renewable energy,” March 4). Given the science, we know we need to move at least that quickly in order to advert the worse of climate change.

Many who are against this resolution are rightly concerned about the economic impact of energy regulations on the coal industry. But rather than just say no, as has occurred way too often with partisan resolutions in Congress, I urge those who are concerned about regulations and economic transitions to investigate what economists are saying about a 100 percent revenue-neutral, border-corrected, carbon fee and dividend system. It would lead to fewer regulations since there is a price on carbon placed at the source of fossil fuels extraction, leading us to innovatively think about how to live with less fossil fuel. Since most of our regulations are about the pollutants that come with processing, shipping, piping and burning fossil fuels, with all the resulting pollution to land, water and air, a market signal to get off using fossil fuel would mean there will be less fossil fuel activities to regulate.

In the place of dirty fossil fuels, Americans will find ways to live comfortable lives with alternative energy sources, conservation, and using nature, such as with passive solar heating and cooling. Putting a price on carbon allows us to acknowledge the economic and social consequences that come with burning fossil fuels and use the market to drive our transition to cleaner sources of energy.

First, one must wonder whether letter writer Sabrina S. Fu has given up all use of fossil fuels and only uses alternative energy sources. We know the answer, and it’s surely “no”. Rarely does any member of the Cult of Climastrology practice what they preach. But, since the Baltimore Sun decided to publish this support for a carbon tax, let’s refer back to this post

Now, something interesting occurred to me: all the carbon taxes and such that the Credentialed Media calls for would not apply to the TV, Internet, and paper news business. This always applies to Other People. Yet, think of the vast amounts of energy, resources, and fossil fuels needed for the news sector to do their jobs. The Toronto Star Baltimore Sun needs vast amounts of fossil fuels to gather the news, then deliver their papers. They use vast amounts of paper, which comes from killing trees, to publish their paper. Think of all the energy needed to gather the news, produce the news, then disseminate it, both in dead tree edition and on the Internet. Think of all the resources needed to keep the reporters up and running, as well as the buildings and vehicles. This is all super-bad for climate change.

Hence, I suggest that any news organization that has recommended any sort of carbon tax and/or a cap and trade scheme be subject to

  • a carbon tax of $45 a metric ton of carbon pollution
  • a surcharge of 35 cents per liter/gallon of gasoline purchased by a news organization
  • a road tax of 2 cents per mile traveled for all employees during their work day and on company vehicles
  • a tax of $1 per pound of paper used to make newspapers
  • a requirement that all news organizations upgrade their buildings so that they are 100% LEED compliant
  • all helicopters used to gather news can only use biofuels
  • and none may raise the cost of their services/products

Those are very modest proposals, are they not? Reasonable, right? Surely, those who advocate for carbon taxes and/or cap and trade schemes would be willing to participate, right?

Read: A Carbon Tax Should Be Placed On The Baltimore Sun »

Justice Dept Refers “Climate Deniers” To FBI For Investigation

Wrongthing needs to be prosecuted

(CNS News) Attorney General Loretta Lynch acknowledged Wednesday that there have been discussions within the Department of Justice about possibly pursuing civil action against so-called climate change deniers.

“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Department operations.

This comes in regards to questions from climahypocrite Sheldon Whitehouse, a major league member of the Cult of Climastrology who refuses to give up his own use of fossil fuels, yet constantly rails against them.

In this case, I would assume that Whitehouse and Lynch were referring to Exxon/Shell, as those are the latest Enemies Of The State per Whitehouse and the CoC. Whitehouse complained about “climate denial apparatus that the fossil fuel industry has erected” without specifically naming the target.

Whitehouse further wanted to know if there had been any other civil cases referred by the DOJ to the FBI, which, in context of the line of questioning, was about ‘climate change’, to which Lynch said she would have to look into it. Can’t have Wrongthink, you know.

Of course, it would be great if this did create a trial, as it would be necessary to use real data, which would expose the reality of the falseness of the Cult of Climastrology. And it would be a high profile trial.

Read: Justice Dept Refers “Climate Deniers” To FBI For Investigation »

Clinton And Sanders Spar On Who Can Pander To Illegal Aliens The Most

Illegal aliens cannot vote. Not legally. And they shouldn’t be in the country to start with. But, this is the Democratic Party, which cares little for the rule of law when they can score political points and attempt to make new Democrat voters

(The Hill) Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton argued that Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) defense for his 2007 vote against immigration reform doesn’t square with reality as the two sparred during Wednesday’s Univision debate.

Sanders has said that he voted against that bill because its guest-worker program was akin to “modern slavery.”

But Clinton pushed back.

“I think it’s very hard to make the case that Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, me, La Raza, United Farm Workers, Dolores Huerta, leaders of the Hispanic community would have supported a bill that actually promoted modern slavery,” Clinton said.

All those people were putting illegal aliens ahead of everything else. That’s what Democrats do. This was during the “Shamnesty” debate, which would have pretty much legalized the illegals while pretending to secure the border. Sanders hit back at Hillary regarding her flipping and flopping on giving driver’s licenses to illegals

“When you talk about efforts to assist immigrants, Secretary Clinton prevailed upon the governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer — who wanted to do the right thing to provide driver’s licenses to those who are undocumented — she said, ‘Don’t do it,’ and New York still doesn’t do it,” Sanders said.

“I worked with officials and undocumented people in Vermont who do have the ability to get driver’s licenses.”

Sanders might have worried more about the meth and heroin problems in Vermont. Clinton decided to top that with a promise

“I do not have the same policy as the current administration does,” Clinton said. “I think it’s important that we move to a comprehensive immigration reform but at the same time stop the raids, stop the round-ups, stop the deporting of people who are living here doing their lives, doing their jobs.”

Ramos pressed her further at that point.

“I want to be very specific,” Ramos said. “So you’re telling us tonight that if you become president, you won’t deport children who are already here?”

“I will not,” Clinton replied.

“And that you will not deport immigrants who don’t have a criminal record?” Ramos asked.

“That’s what I’m telling you,” Clinton said.

Rule of law? Protecting the United States? Pffft. That’s so old school.

You do have to give moderator Jorge Ramos credit, he asked tough questions. He asked Hillary about Benghazi, and she called the families of those killed in Benghazi liars. He also asked her tough questions on her server, asking who authorized it being set up

RAMOS: Secretary Clinton, I want to disclose once again that my daughter Paula works for your campaign. And now I have a question about your emails. Your Republican opponents say that those emails have endangered our national security. When you were secretary of state, you wrote 104 emails in your private server that the government now says contain classified information according to The Washington Post analysis.

That goes against a memo that you personally sent to your employees in 2011 directing all of them to use official email, precisely because of security concerns. So it seems that you issued one set of rules for yourself and a different set of rules for the rest of the State Department.

So who specifically gave you permission to operate your email system as you did? Was it President Barack Obama? And would you drop out of the race if you get indicted?

Your daughter will soon be let go for some reason, Jorge. Hillary, of course, gave her standard answers

CLINTON: Well, Jorge, there’s a lot of questions in there. And I’m going to give the same answer I’ve been giving for many months. It wasn’t the best choice. I made a mistake. It was not prohibited. It was not in any way disallowed. And as I have said and as now has come out, my predecessors did the same thing and many other people in the government. But here’s the cut to the chase facts. I did not send or receive any emails marked classified at the time. What you are talking about is retroactive classification. And the reason that happens is when somebody asks or when you are asked to make information public, I asked all my emails to be made public. Then all the rest of the government gets to weigh in.

People go to jail for making mistakes. A young member of the Navy was prosecuted for taking a selfie on a US submarine and sending it to his girlfriend. Because things on a submarine are classified. And the server was prohibited. Her predecessors, as we’ve discussed numerous times, did not set up their own server, and, yes, using outside email was wrong. The markings do not matter, the fact that everything is born classified does. If things were retroactively deemed classified, well, that’s a good reason not to be using an insecure server under her private control.

The Democratic Party: where the rule of law goes to die.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Clinton And Sanders Spar On Who Can Pander To Illegal Aliens The Most »

Pirate's Cove