Suddenly, When It Comes To GMO Labeling, NY Times Editorial Board Loves States Rights

By William Teach February 25, 2016 – 8:07 am

The NY Times is typically very much pro-federal government dominance, and against any State using their 10th Amendment Right. Remember, the Times, both in the news section and the opinion pages, was totally against California’s Prop 8 (gay marriage ban) and Arizona’s illegal alien crackdown law, among others. They’ve been very supportive of the food labeling component of Obamacare, and utterly against the 27 States who are suing the Obama administration and the EPA over the power plant rule. But, finally, finally, the NY Times Editorial Board finds a State Right they can agree with

A Bad Effort in Congress to Thwart States on Food Labels

The Senate could soon join the House to try to make it harder for consumers to know what is in their food by prohibiting state governments from requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods. This is a bad idea that lawmakers and the Obama administration should oppose.

In July, Vermont will become the first state to require the labeling of genetically modified food. Many food companies and farm groups say such laws are problematic because they could dissuade consumers from buying foods that federal regulators and many scientists say pose no risk to human health. But that is an unfounded fear and states should be free to require labels if they want to.

The Senate Agriculture Committee is considering a bill by its chairman, Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, that would prohibit state labeling laws. The committee is likely to approve it, primarily with Republican votes. The House passed a similar bill last summer along party lines.

I wonder if the NYTEB would be OK if the GOP run House and Senate were considering bill’s that would allow States to opt out of the Ocare food labeling requirement, or the contraception mandate. I’m thinking the answer would be a collective freak out from the EB.

Usually, Republicans in Congress are eager to give states more power to set policy in areas like environmental protection, health care and social services when they think that legislatures and governors will weaken regulations or cut spending to help the poor. In this case, however, they want to take power away from states that want to impose new rules that their residents support. The only thing these lawmakers seem to favor consistently is protecting corporate interests.

Usually, leading Leftists like the NYTEB are eager to remove power from the States and give it to the federal government. Why the sudden change of heart in this one instance? Most likely it is due to the collective freakout from Leftists over genetically modified foods. You can bet the ranch on the EB taking the side of the federal government if a Democrat Congress or the Obama administration was attempting to force companies nationwide to provide GMO labeling and States were attempting to block this.

Just too be clear, States should have the ability to require GMO labeling if they want, in my opinion. But, I’m consistent in my belief in the 10th Amendment.

Read: Suddenly, When It Comes To GMO Labeling, NY Times Editorial Board Loves States Rights »

Posted in States Rights, Wonky Media | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Media Very Much Wants To Know If Donald Trump Can Be Stopped

By William Teach February 25, 2016 – 7:45 am

I’ll repeat yet again that Trump is not my candidate, and my opposition to Trump has increased over the last month. I’m certainly not at a point where there’s no way I couldn’t vote for him. Many elections are a choice between a bad choice and a really, really bad choice. I’d rather have a guy who calls himself a Republican than Sanders or Hillary. You’d at least get some of what you want, as opposed to getting lots of what you do not want, and, if a President Trump started going Left, well, Republicans could primary him at the end of his first term. All that said, it’s interesting how many articles have been published wondering if Trump can be stopped, most of which are thinly veiled opinion pieces. Here’s the Washington Post

Can Donald Trump be stopped?

Donald Trump has taken firm control of the race for the Republican presidential nomination with his third straight victory, in Nevada. To deny him that role, strategists say, his leading rivals must quickly change the trajectory of the race and then dig in for what could be a long battle that could go all the way to the GOP convention in Cleveland.

It’s all about other Republicans stopping Trump. Have you seen articles like that regarding Clinton or Sanders? But, it gets better, once we look at the Washington Post Editorial Board

GOP leaders, you must do everything in your power to stop Trump

THE UNTHINKABLE is starting to look like the inevitable: Absent an extraordinary effort from people who understand the menace he represents, Donald Trump is likely to be the presidential nominee of the Republican Party. At this stage, even an extraordinary effort might fall short. But history will not look kindly on GOP leaders who fail to do everything in their power to prevent a bullying demagogue from becoming their standard-bearer.

Huh. So, we have the uber-leftists WPEB, who haven’t yet met a Republican that they would even consider endorsing for President, telling the Republican Party, which they continuously bash, that they have to stop Trump. Again, Trump’s not my guy, but, I will abide by the process. The WPEB wants to thwart the process.

Nor are they alone. The Boston Globe Editorial Board also got involved in the Stop Trump Bus

The editorial asks registered voters who are unenrolled with either major party to take a Republican ballot and vote for Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a Trump opponent the Globe has previously endorsed, in an effort to counter the large margin of victory predicted for Trump in Massachusetts.

Not too be outdone by anyone, Danielle Allen wrote an opinion piece saying that stopping Trump is akin to stopping Hitler back in the 1930’s. Then we have Walter Shapiro, a confirmed Leftist who has worked for Democrats as far back as Jimmy Carter, writing that Republican Leaders Must Stop Trump

Dear President George W. Bush, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Gov. Mitt Romney:

I am writing you in your role as the de facto leaders of your party. Gentleman, the Republic is in peril. Donald Trump poses a mortal danger not just to the Republican Party, but also to the American democratic experiment itself.

Huh. So, a danger to the American democratic experiment itself! I do find it interesting that a leftist considers our Democracy system an experiment, after it has been in place for over 200 years.

We could continue on and on with these types of opinion pieces and editorials from Lefties, who would probably be writing the same thing if Cruz or Rubio, or even John Kasich, were the front runner. I’m willing to listen to someone like Charles C.W. Cook, who headlines his article It’s Time for an Anti-Trump Manhattan Project. At least he’s a Conservative interested in seeing Conservative policies succeed. But, here’s one that ultimately takes the cake, written by Haroon Moghul at The Islamic Monthly

There’s Only One Way To Stop Trump, and You Won’t Like It

The piece goes on to state that none of the others running can stop Trump, who’s a total Islamophobe, a bully, and makes Haroon “afraid for my personal security as an American of color who chooses to be Muslim.” He has little trust that either Sanders or Clinton can defeat Trump. So, what to do?

Option one is for President Barack Obama to suspend the Constitution and stay on as president for life, or at least until Trump becomes too old and decrepit to take office. What’s a hobbled Supreme Court going to do? Trump himself is fond of arguing that there is no consensus on what certain amendments mean, perhaps there is really just no consensus on what the whole Constitution means. But I don’t think this is exciting enough. If we’re going to sabotage our democratic experiment to save it, we have to make sure Republicans are on board, and America generally. We need to think big. I want fighter jet flyovers, Beyoncé performing something, Kanye’s tweeted decline, a giant American flag the size of Canada and tens of thousands of fans — I mean citizens — screaming “USA!” I want power, glory, and, well …

I want empire.

Quite frankly, it’s hard to determine whether this is satire or real.

More: Don Surber also notes the editorial from the Washington Post EB, calling it bizarre and desperate.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Media Very Much Wants To Know If Donald Trump Can Be Stopped »

Posted in GOP | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

New Paper Shows 21st Century Warming Slowdown Is Quite Real

By William Teach February 24, 2016 – 5:11 pm

Warmists have continuously trotted out Excuses as to why the 21st Century temps had slowed/paused, while at the same time claiming there was no pause/slowdown. Remember when Michael “Hockey Schtick” Mann crowed about the paper that came out last year saying It Never Happened?

Just out in Science is a new article by Tom Karl of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center and colleagues driving another stake through the heart of the supposed “hiatus” or “pause,” i.e. what I like to call the “Faux Pause.”

I expect this article will be attacked by climate change deniers who are unhappy to see the demise of a narrative they helped frame, a narrative that arguably took hold due in part to the “seepage” of contrarian framing into mainstream climate science discourse.

Well, as Reason’s Ronald Bailey notes

Mann is now a co-author on the new study that pulls that stake out:

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.

That last bit in italics was written by Mann. Bailey excerpts this bit from Nature News

The latest salvo in an ongoing row over global-warming trends claims that warming has indeed slowed down this century.

An apparent slowing in the rise of global temperatures at the beginning of the twenty-first century, which is not explained by climate models, was referred to as a “hiatus” or a “pause” when first observed several years ago. Climate-change sceptics have used this as evidence that global warming has stopped. But in June last year, a study in Science claimed that the hiatus was just an artefact which vanishes when biases in temperature data are corrected.

Now a prominent group of researchers is countering that claim, arguing in Nature Climate Change that even after correcting these biases the slowdown was real.

“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. “We can’t ignore it.”

Fyfe uses the term “slowdown” rather than “hiatus” and stresses that it does not in any way undermine global-warming theory.

I love that last bit. The argument over warming is not about warming, it is over causation. Even a slowing blows out the global warming hypothesis, which states that Mankind’s release of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, has caused global temperatures to go up, and they have the computer models to prove it! And that’s about all they have to prove it. It’s all based on those computer models. The problem for the Warmists is that the real temperatures are not complying with those models. In most scientific endeavors, if the data did not match the models, if the outcomes failed to match the hypothesis, they’d admit that the models and hypothesis were wrong. With the Cult of Climastrology, they change the data, the facts, to match.

Of course, one of the things the study attempts to do is go back to one of their old Excuses, namely that the oceans ate their warming, and we get this from Mann

“The temporary slowdown in no way implies that human-caused warming has ceased or slowed down,” Mann said. “It was temporarily masked by natural factors.”

Got that? Warming is only caused by Mankind, but, nature can mask it. Are you surprised that I refer to this as a Cult? And you can bet they will use this paper to continue pushing that cult.

Read: New Paper Shows 21st Century Warming Slowdown Is Quite Real »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 24, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is the rising oceans coughing up mass amounts of seaweed which could only be killed by carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Climate Etc, with a post wondering if sea rise is accelerating.

It’s hump day, and that’s Emmanuelle Vaugier, Canadian hotty.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Beef And Cheese Consumption Must Be Drastically Reduced To Stop Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach February 24, 2016 – 10:23 am

I wonder if Warmists will comply in their own lives

(Canada Journal) Europeans need to eat less beef and consume less dairy products in order to reach the EU’s climate goals, according to a new study by Swedish researchers.

“Reductions, by 50 percent or more, in ruminant meat (beef and mutton) consumption are, most likely, unavoidable if the EU targets are to be met,” according to the findings published in the Food Policy journal.

Chicken and pig is supposedly OK. Until it isn’t, of course.

Dairy products are also problematic, according to the study. Producing 1 kilogram of protein from dairy results in emissions four times greater than for an equivalent amount of poultry.

“EU and US consumption of cheese and other dairy products is among the highest in the world. If we were to replace some of the dairy with vegetable products, such as oat milk, we would have a better chance of meeting our climate targets,” Wirsenius said.

Here’s the question: how do they Make This Happen? So far, most Warmists refuse to give up their own consumption of beef and dairy. What is the mechanism necessary to force people to drastically reduce their intake of beef and dairy? I know you know the answer.

Read: Beef And Cheese Consumption Must Be Drastically Reduced To Stop Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Poll: Number One Reaction To Hillary Is “Dishonest/Liar/Don’t Trust Her/Poor Character”

By William Teach February 24, 2016 – 8:16 am

Hillary Clinton should be thanking her lucky stars that her only competition for the Democratic nomination is Bernie Sanders

(Breitbart) According to the latest poll conducted by Gallup, the most common responses to Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) are “liar” and “socialist.”

Fifty-one percent of voters had a negative reaction to Clinton, in keeping with Gallup’s tracking of her overall unfavorability rating.

Forty percent of initial reactions to Clinton are negative, ranging from “liar” to “thief”:

Well, that’s not good. From the Gallup link

Overall, 29% of Americans offer a positive observation about Clinton while 51% express something negative. The rest have either a neutral comment or no opinion. This loosely fits with her overall image among national adults as measured on Gallup tracking, which is 42% favorable and 51% unfavorable.

She is dishonest. She is a liar. She put America’s national security at risk, and put real lives at risk, with her illegal homebrew server.

Right now, she’s out there whining about why there’s one standard for her and another for everyone else regarding her speeches to Wall Street. Well, as Bernie responded, he’s never given paid speeches where he kept the money. For one thing, that’s illegal. For another, it’s Hillary who’s making a big deal of taking on Wall Street. Republicans aren’t. And she’s the one who raked in quite a bit of cash giving speeches to Wall Street companies.

And her next concern will be her former and current aides being questioned under oath about their role in setting up that illegal server. As John Sexton notes

The problem for Clinton is that, if the judge grants this request, the depositions will drag on through election day. And that means the story itself will drag on even if the FBI does not recommend the DOJ pursue prosecution for mishandling of classified material.

Hillary and her peeps can blame this all on the vast right wing conspiracy all they want, but, few are buying it. Even Democrats have to know that this is a big problem. But, who else do they have?

Read: Poll: Number One Reaction To Hillary Is “Dishonest/Liar/Don’t Trust Her/Poor Character” »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post: Trump Won Nevada On Anger

By William Teach February 24, 2016 – 7:52 am

The Nevada caucuses are over, and Donald Trump took it handily, garnering 45.9% of the vote, which gives him another 12 delegates. Rubio was at 23.9%, while Ted Cruz had 21.4%, and each receives 5 delegates. The Washington Post’s Phillip Bump knows why Trump keeps winning: anger

How Donald Trump dominated Nevada, in one word: Anger

Donald Trump won New Hampshire, a moderate Northeastern state that prides itself on its sober analysis of the candidates at hand. Donald Trump won South Carolina, a conservative Southern state with a number of religious voters. Donald Trump has now won Nevada, a Western state with its own eclectic mix of Republican voting groups.

Trump won them all. According to preliminary entrance poll data reported by CNN, he won every age group and every education group and both genders — and even every racial and ethnic group. About 1 in 10 Nevada Republicans were Hispanic. More than 4 in 10 of them backed Donald Trump (according to entrance polls with a notably large margin of error).

What’s the theme here? What’s the thing that’s turned Donald Trump from the never-gonna-happen outsider of last June into the how-can-he-be-stopped candidate of February?

Nevada offers one hint: Anger.

Bump is actually on to something

Nevada Republicans are mad at the government. This probably isn’t too much of a surprise, given that it’s also the home of the family of Cliven Bundy, but it’s still remarkable how much angrier it is than previous states. Voters were mad.

And voters didn’t want a politician to address that anger. Six in 10 Nevada Republicans said that they were looking for the next president to be someone from “outside politics.” That’s 6 in 10 of a “huge” turnout, by the way. And 70 percent of them voted for Donald Trump.

Yes, voters are angry. Republicans are angry over the way Obama has stepped on, to put it nicely, the Constitution and the nation. They’re angry about the lousy economy. Sure, unemployment is low (once you look beyond the huge numbers of people who dropped out of the jobs market in despair), but wages are way down. No one complains about the fight for $15 folks being angry. The media didn’t complain about Occupy Wall Street being angry. We have this horrible Iran deal. Obama’s throwing out executive orders like candy. Obamacare is still around. And so much more, but, here’s the kicker: they’re mad that the elected Republicans really haven’t done much to stop Obama and the Democrats. They refuse to really fight back. They won’t use the power of the purse. A lot of the the fight seems to emanate from the States, such as the lawsuit against Obama’s climate change power plant regulations. The federally elected Republicans make lots of promises to get elected, then try to just get along.

Let’s not forget that Obama was all about anger in 2008. His voters were angry over Iraq, angry over the economy meltdown (which was global, BTW). He tapped into that anger, and pushed “hope and change”. He talked in lofty goals, and made all the angry Democrats and independents, and even some squishy Republicans believe in him. They cared little for his record, or that he is a far, far left Progressive. They just bought into what Obama was peddling.

Right now, the  anger over the past 7 years of Obama and Establishment GOP idiocy is on display, and Trump has tapped into it. And, what’s wrong with anger? Should citizens not be angry over the state of the nation?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post: Trump Won Nevada On Anger »

Posted in Elections | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Get Children To Sing Little Ditty About Not Needing No CO2

By William Teach February 23, 2016 – 2:26 pm

It sure seems like child abuse to teach children that they are doomed and brainwash them (via Climate Depot, which has lots of videos)

Children “Astronauts” Awarded by Bonn and UN for Climate Song

The Mayor of Bonn and the UN awarded a group of young pupils a prize for best childrens’s global climate change song today for a performance that helped build awareness and commitment among young people in the run up to the Paris Climate Change Conference. Their catchy winning song was “Climate Astronauts”!

The children from Gottfried Kinkel Primary School in Bonn, Germany, took home the award for best children’s song in the 2015 Global Youth Music Contest, which was organized by the International Association for the Advancement of Innovative Approaches to Global Challenges, in cooperation with UNESCO and the United Nations Climate Change secretariat.

Let’s look at some of the lyrics

We are astronauts, and we can see
We are astronauts, what’s good for you
We are astronauts, no plastic bags
We are astronauts, don’t waste the food
We are astronauts, turn out the lights
We are astronauts, in the night
We are astronauts, don’t need no cars
We are astronauts, we go by bike

We are climate, climate astronauts
We are climate, climate astronauts

So, no cars, eh? I wonder how much they would whine if their parents refused to drive them to a play date? But, really, you know this had to be written by adults, and look at the first two lines “we can see…what’s good for you.” Seems eerily reminiscent of what I’ve been telling you about Warmists, who are part of the overall Progressive movement: this is nice fascism, meaning that The Government knows what is best for you, and will force you to comply. Free will? Not so much in Warmist World.

Other lines include We don’t need no CO2 and don’t need no bath, along with we go by feet. You can bet these little brainwashed rug rats will want their own fossil fueled vehicle the minute they can legally drive.

Read: Warmists Get Children To Sing Little Ditty About Not Needing No CO2 »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 23, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a sea that rose a horrendous 5.5 inches during the 20th Century, showing our doom, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on how the Obama admin is helping non-citizens vote.

Grace Park was born in L.A., but lived in Canada from when she was 22 months old, so, still Canadian.

Read: If All You See… »

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

After 7 Years In Office, Obama Finally To Offer Plan On Closing Gitmo

By William Teach February 23, 2016 – 10:00 am

Obama’s first act as POTUS was to sign an Executive Order to find a way to close Guantanamo Bay detention facility. What happened after that is that Obama learned that just because the Emperor makes a statement doesn’t mean everyone else in government will jump to make it happen. And, when Obama failed to provide a rational plan to close Gitmo, instead focusing on lots of other things, like fundraising, vacations, golf, parties, and denigrating the opposition, it wasn’t going to happen. Furthermore, his attempted shenanigans in trying to prosecute some jihadis, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in a civilian court around the corner from the former site of the World Trade Center, made people leery of his ultimate goals. Now, he will reportedly try again

(Fox News) President Obama is expected to detail his plan Tuesday to begin the shutdown of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, in a last-ditch effort to make good on a 2008 campaign promise.

Obama will speak at 10:30 a.m. Tuesday morning from the Roosevelt Room, the White House announced, saying the topic would be Guantanamo Bay but giving no further details.

Obama’s address comes as the plan to shut down the controversial facility and transfer the remaining detainees to a holding center in the United States will be delivered to Congress.

Interestingly, none of the plans include building a detention facility or using an existing one anywhere near Chicago.

The U.S. officials say the plan considers 13 different locations in the U.S., including seven existing prison facilities in Colorado, South Carolina and Kansas, as well as six other locations on current military bases. They say the plan doesn’t recommend a preferred site and the cost estimates are meant to provide a starting point for a conversation with Congress.

Nothing in any deep Democratic states. Huh. The GOP should totally troll Obama by authorizing the construction of a facility in Chicago, near Obama’s home in the toney Hyde Park area. It is currently illegal for the military to transfer any detainee to US soil, per two laws Obama signed, and, despite Obama whining that those laws were unconstitutional (despite signing them), the military says it will comply with the law.

So, expect Obama to show up around 10:40-10:50.

Read: After 7 Years In Office, Obama Finally To Offer Plan On Closing Gitmo »

Posted in Barry Obama, War On Terrorism | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove