If All You See…

By William Teach February 11, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an ocean that will rise hundreds of feet because you won’t buy local, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on more Hillary server issues.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Surprise: Solar Can Barely Survive Without Massive Subsidies

By William Teach February 11, 2016 – 10:22 am

Sure, sure, rich folks and people willing to spend tens of thousands can gain access to solar power, and, it would be great if companies could develop cost effective solar for home use. I’ve long advocated for this exact thing. But, it is nowhere near as of yet, and can barely survive without subsidies

Rooftop Solar Providers Face a Cloudier Future

Just two years ago, SolarCity and other rooftop solar providers were Wall Street darlings, and prospects for growth were flying high, as enthusiasm for solar power was seemingly boundless.

After all, they had built a better mousetrap, allowing the masses to install environmentally minded solar power systems at little or no cost to them and to reduce their electricity bills at the same time.

But in two years, the landscape has drastically shifted.

Nevada recently rolled back the generous support it gave rooftop solar systems; 20 other states are rethinking their policies, as well. And despite the extension of an important federal tax credit last year, losses by rooftop solar companies have accelerated.

SolarCity, the nation’s largest provider of rooftop systems, is but the most visible of a cluster of companies, built with the aid of government subsidies and utility incentives, now facing deep uncertainties, despite unflagging consumer interest and surging growth in renewable energy.

And right there, in black and white, is the problem: to repeat, without subsidies, it can barely survive. The current model is based on these subsidies, mostly originating from taxpayer funds. Take them away, and the system collapses. They are too reliant on government rules, regulations, and whims. It’s all based on a crony/government capitalism system, rather than a system based on consumer demand.

One day solar will get there. That day is not now.

Read: Surprise: Solar Can Barely Survive Without Massive Subsidies »

Posted in Energy | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Super-divisive President Moans About Partisanship

By William Teach February 11, 2016 – 8:27 am

Let’s not forget, this is a guy who, almost immediately upon winning the presidency and taking office, told John McCain, who he defeated, “I won”, and said pretty much the same thing to Congressional Republicans, who were in the minority at the time. That set the tone for the rest of his presidency, where he rarely reached across the aisle, and, when he did, he often demanded ridiculous things or reneged on deals. He’s turned everything into a partisan fight, sometimes even before Republicans had had a chance to respond. He’s referred to Tea Party members as “Teabaggers”, and attacked private citizens for daring to disagree. You have to know that the IRS targeting of Conservative groups originated somewhere within his administration. Anyhow, you know the score. Yet, we get this

(The Blaze) In a homecoming of sorts in front of the Illinois General Assembly where he once served, President Barack Obama called for healing the political divide — before going on to make a polarizing point.

“There is no doubt that America is better off today than when I took office,” Obama said, which prompted rousing applause from Democratic state lawmakers in the Capitol for about 20 seconds, while Republicans provided little response.

“See, I didn’t want this to be like a State of the Union speech where we have one side standing up and the other sitting down,” Obama said. “Come on guys, you know better than that.”

Then he should say things that people agree with. Notice that Obama’s own words in excoriating people who disagree with him create strife.

“This is an important part of the issue — we have an importation of our politics nationally on cable and talk radio and it seeps into everything,” Obama said.

See? It’s not his fault, it’s Everyone Else, especially those people, both left and right, as he complained about both Fox News and the Huffington Post, who dare express their views.

“When I hear either side talking about refusal to compromise as actual accomplishment, I’m not impressed,” Obama said.

Remember when he and the Dems compromised on the Stimulus and Obamacare? Oh, right. Remember all the times Obama has compromised? Quick, name one.

(AFP) “The tone of our politics hasn’t gotten better since I was inaugurated. In fact, it’s gotten worse,” Obama said.

“There is still this yawning gap between the magnitude of our challenges and the smallness of our politics.”

Someone needs to look in the mirror. One point he did make is that this is not something new, politics has always been divisive. On that, he’s correct

Obama also outlined measures that he said could ease the enmity, including to reduce the “corrosive influence of money in our politics”

“I don’t believe that money is speech. Or that political spending should have no limits,” he said, backing a constitutional amendment to that end.

Let’s not forget that he raised around $800 million dollars for his 2008 campaign, and reneged on his promise to take the taxpayer funded $75 million for the general election. His goal for 2012 was a billion dollars to spend. Yet, he wants to complain about money in politics?

After leaving Springfield, Obama is set to jet to California for a series of Democratic fundraisers, where it is normally good for business to take a few jabs at Republicans.

Huh. Think on that.

Read: Super-divisive President Moans About Partisanship »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Barry Obama | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Think Supreme Court’s EPA Power Plant Rules Hold Could Help Them Win Back Seats

By William Teach February 11, 2016 – 7:55 am

They do, they really do

(The Hill) The Supreme Court’s halting of the Obama administration’s chief climate rule is a new spark in the race for the Senate.

Democrats and greens, who have long hoped to make climate change a flashpoint in November’s elections, say the court’s 5-4 stay order putting a hold on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan gives them a chance to make a strong case to voters in their push to win back the Senate this fall.

Republicans and energy industry strategists say they’re equally enthusiastic to use the case — which hinges on whether the Obama administration exerted too much authority over carbon emissions — to make a point about executive overreach and its support among Democrats.

The Senate is especially important for climate regulations. If the Supreme Court blocks the rule — a prospect for which opponents are bullish after the stay order — legislation would likely be the only way to go about instituting a carbon reduction plan.

Democrats running in key Senate races next year said they were angered by the Court’s decision to preempt the rule this early.

They can be angered all the want. It will be very amusing to see them support an executive over-reach that will increase the cost of energy, increase the cost of living, and cost people jobs. That sounds like a winning campaign slogan, does it not? Besides, all the court did was delay implementation of Obama’s plan, not scuttle it, at least till the plan has its day in court, as 27 States are suing to kill the plan.

But Frank Maisano, an energy specialist at the law and lobbying firm Bracewell, was doubtful that any development with the climate rule could change the fact that climate change consistently ranks low in voters’ priorities.

“This tends to relegate to a lower position on the spectrum,” he said. “In the grand scheme of a political campaign, this is probably not going to be a factor.”

There is that. But, hey, let Democrats tilt at windmills. Let them chase the Snip. Let them explain how it’s an excellent idea to increase the power the of the federal government, especially the Executive, all to raise the cost of living for the middle and lower classes.

Meanwhile, the NY Times Editorial Board is having sour grapes over the court decision

The Supreme Court’s extraordinary decision on Tuesday to temporarily block the Obama administration’s effort to combat global warming by regulating emissions from power plants was deeply disturbing on two fronts.

There’s nothing extraordinary about any court putting a plan on hold until any suit on the plan has its full day in court.

It raised serious questions about America’s ability to deliver on Mr. Obama’s pledge in Paris in December to sharply reduce carbon emissions, and, inevitably, about its willingness to take a leadership role on the issue.

Except, most Americans couldn’t care less about this plan, especially if it will raise our costs and eliminate jobs. Furthermore, the plan came out months prior to Obama’s Paris pledge, and, that’s his pledge, not America’s. If the plans are so great, why did he not submit them to the duly elected legislators?

And with all the Republican-appointed justices lining up in a 5-to-4 vote to halt the regulation before a federal appeals court could rule on it, the court also reinforced the belief among many Americans that the court is knee-deep in the partisan politics it claims to stand above. While the court’s action was not a ruling on the merits of the case, it will delay efforts to comply with the regulation and sends an ominous signal that Mr. Obama’s initiative, known as the Clean Power Plan, could ultimately be overturned.

What the NY Times fails to do is explain why States should have to comply with this Executive order when they are suing to stop it. They also fail to explain why they’re OK with raising the cost of living for the middle and lower classes.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Democrats Think Supreme Court’s EPA Power Plant Rules Hold Could Help Them Win Back Seats »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Triumph The Insult Comic Dog Takes On Political Correctness

By William Teach February 10, 2016 – 5:20 pm

Some of these Special Snowflakes seem very uncomfortable, as Triumph discusses mircroaggressions and trigger warnings. It’s a long video, but, well worth it

Read: Triumph The Insult Comic Dog Takes On Political Correctness »

Posted in Like, Gnarly, Dude | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 10, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil energy sucking smartphone causing the seas to rise, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Doug Ross @ Journal, with a post highlight Iran expanding underground nuclear weapons complex.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Can You Guess How Much Of Obama’s Budget Goes To “Payments To Individuals”?

By William Teach February 10, 2016 – 10:30 am

Of course, Obama’s budget is going absolutely nowhere. The GOP isn’t even going to bother sending it to committee. Why would they? Everytime it has been given a vote it goes down in flames, with even the vast majority of Democrats voting against his budgets. In fact, when the GOP forces a vote on Obama’s budgets, Dems complain that it is a stunt. Harry Reid wouldn’t even allow a vote on some Obama budgets. I wonder why? (via The Lonely Conservative)

(Investors) Budget: What is the federal government’s most important function these days? Based on the Obama budget released today, it’s not defense, or roads, or education, or the environment. It’s cutting checks.

Buried deep in the president’s annual budget are a series of tables that few ever notice, but that are incredibly illuminating when it comes to understanding the size and scope of today’s federal government.

The table shows how much money the federal government spends on what budget officials describe as “payments to individuals.” Obama’s budget puts the figure for next year at a mind-boggling $2.9 trillion out of a $4.1 trillion budget.

In other words, more than 70% of federal spending amounts to taking money from one set of pockets, and depositing it in another.

This is a figure that has been going up up up. It was 50% in 1991, and 60% in 2008. Where’s it going?

Surprisingly little of this money, however, helps the poor. Housing assistance, food stamps, welfare programs, and Medicaid comprise just 25% of all the payments to individuals.

The rest goes to middle class programs like Social Security, student aid, Medicare benefits, federal employee pensions and the like.

Among the fastest growing spending categories under Obama are Medicaid, which climbed 91% since he took office, food stamps and other nutrition programs (up 78%), Social Security (up 61%), and student aid, which shot up 55%.

And, of course, Obamacare, which grew from $39 billion to $112 billion. Remember when it was going to pay for itself? As The Lonely Conservative notes, “This is how politicians get elected, by bankrupting future generations.” Nor can this be blamed solely on Democrats, as Republicans are more than willing to play the “give other people’s money away” game.

Read: Can You Guess How Much Of Obama’s Budget Goes To “Payments To Individuals”? »

Posted in Barry Obama, Government | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

Supreme Court Puts Temporary Block On Obama’s Power Plant Regulations

By William Teach February 10, 2016 – 8:10 am

Yet another Obama initiative put in place with his pen, an attempt to do an end run around the duly elected law making branch, knocked out by the court system

(Fox News) A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday abruptly halted President Obama’s controversial new power plant regulations, dealing a blow to the administration’s sweeping plan to address global warming.

In a 5-4 decision, the court halted enforcement of the plan until after legal challenges are resolved.

The surprising move is a victory for the coalition of 27 mostly Republican-led states and industry opponents that call the regulations “an unprecedented power grab.”

The plaintiffs wanted this hold because they would have been forced to comply with the draconian Obama regulations, which would have raised energy prices, raised the cost of living for citizens, and cost jobs, while waiting as this whole thing rolls through the courts.

To convince the high court to temporarily halt the plan, opponents had to convince the justices that there was a “fair prospect” the court might strike down the rule. The court also had to consider whether denying a stay would cause irreparable harm to the states and utility companies affected.

The 4 Leftist judges apparently couldn’t have cared less whether the rules would have hurt the states and citizens. It could easily take into 2017 for all the court hearings to take place, past when Obama is around. If a Republican wins the White House, that person could easily use his pen to cut the program.

Read: Supreme Court Puts Temporary Block On Obama’s Power Plant Regulations »

Posted in Barry Obama, Energy | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Takeaways From New Hampshire

By William Teach February 10, 2016 – 7:43 am

The numbers from New Hampshire

Trump 35%, Kasich 16%, Cruz 12%, Bush 11%, Rubio 11%, Cristie 7%, Fiorina 4%, Carson 2%. The win earned Trump 9 delegates and Kasich 3, with zero for the rest.

Sanders 60%, Clinton 38%. Somehow, this leads to 13 delegates for Sanders and 16 for Hillary. It’s due to the superdelegates, who can support whoever they want.

Politico’s Glenn Thrush provides 5 takeways, which starts with a brutal takedown of Hillary

Hillary is in real trouble. Will she panic? The Clinton team, hunkered down in a grubby Manchester Radisson saturated in booze and ill-kempt Morning Joe groupies, knew it was going to be a terrible, not-good night by mid-afternoon: The exit polls showed big turnout among young voters and, ominously for her, liberals who think Barack Obama isn’t liberal enough. It was a complete and humbling defeat: Sanders beat Clinton among all demographic groups – including all women, a remarkable rebuke eight years after she “found her voice” by tearing up at New Hampshire diner.

Clinton prides herself on hanging tough through adversity, and she’s got her share. How does she react? If history is any guide, she’ll freak out at first, then grudgingly make adjustments. But what are adjustments she can make when so many progressives think she’s so day-before-yesterday.

She lost women 55% to 44% to old white guy Sanders. She lost the youth vote badly.

On Monday, my colleague Annie Karni and I reported that the Bill and Hillary Clinton were pressuring campaign manager Robby Mook to enact strategic, “messaging” and staffing shifts that would take place if Sanders trounced the former secretary. Duh, that’s done. But the problem is, fundamentally, with the candidate herself: She’s a less limber, more tone-deaf politician than she was in 2008 (after years of experience in the Senate parrying a New York tabloid press corps that kept her sharp) and she has blown past staff suggestions that she simplify her message to match Sanders’ pound-one-nail anti-Wall Street mantra.

Surely, Hillary’s home-brew, insecure server and the sword of the FBI recommending indictment may have played a small part in her loss, but, with Democrats, not that much, since they really do not care whether their candidates (elected politicians, bureaucrats, unions, etc) have done anything legally wrong. It may have played into the notion of Hillary being untrustworthy, though. The problems with Hillary are the same as 2008: she’s cold, calculating, not particularly personable, and, for the liberal base, not liberal enough. She’s the Democratic Party’s version of “Establishment”.

Then we get to Trump

And he did so because of his most controversial ideas, including his temporary ban on Muslim immigration – not in spite of them — with almost half of New Hampshire exit-poll respondents saying they supported a position many of his fellow candidates have decried as xenophobic. The March state map is slightly more problematic for Trump, who is still locked in what looks like a long-term mano-a-mano with third-place finisher Ted Cruz. But South Carolina, with its defiant and conservative GOP base, seems poised to deliver another big win for the developer-turned-reality-star, and he’s certainly regained the momentum he lost wandering among the cornstalks.

I happened to catch a bit of MSNBC when I got home last night and was changing, and Chris Hayes, with his barely recognizable ratings, said this is a step towards fascism, while Rachel Maddow called Trump’s win “terrifying”. Some serious political discourse from TV’s version of Salon. But, really, Trump is often saying what people are thinking, and Republicans are tired of turning our country over to 3rd world people who are turning America into a sh*thole like where these people came from.

John Kasich got 16 percent! No candidate was a more natural fit for the cranky, look-me-in-the-eye, middle-road maple-sap Republicans here than the Ohio governor. He seemed like a native, holding over 100 town halls, and was so relaxed about the whole thing he took time off the trail during a Friday mini-blizzard to pelt reporters with snowballs.

As Thrush goes on to note, does this carry forward? Can he do anything in South Carolina? I’m betting the top 3 will be Trump, Cruz, and Rubio.

Another big loser was Ben Carson, who didn’t even stick around as the numbers were coming out. Jeb Bush came in 4th, yet, he spent roughly $36 million in New Hampshire, which equates to $1150 per vote, the most for anyone. Ted Cruz spent $900,000, $18 per vote. He came in 3rd. Trump spent around $40 per vote. Much like with Chris Christie, who spent a bit over $800 per vote, this is showing, so far, that it’s less about the money and more about the person, their history, and their ideas. This makes Bush and Christie big losers. How do they do in S.C.? We’ll see.

For Trump, this was a huge win. Can he carry forth in S.C.? Do his NY values play well in the South?

More losers are the leftist media. I already mentioned MSNBC’s meltdown. Here’s the Huffington Post’s

A Racist, Sexist Demagogue Just Won The New Hampshire Primary

In other words, a guy who won’t conform to leftist’s brand of PC. On the front page of the HuffPost we see

A TALE OF TWO PARTIES
Civility, Empathy, Compassionate Conservatism vs. Racist, Sexist, Xenophobic Demagoguery

Of course, they have nothing but kind words for the old, white socialist who trounced Hillary in all demographics, including women.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Takeaways From New Hampshire »

Posted in Elections | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 9, 2016 – 1:00 pm

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

The blog of the day is Powerline, with a post noting Jeb!’s new message to conservatives.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove