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

‘Climate Change’ Could Last 10,000 Years Or Something

By William Teach February 9, 2016 – 11:26 am

The latest dire prognostication from the Cult of Climastrology

Climate change likely to extend for next 10,000 years

The damaging climate consequences of carbon emissions will grow and persist for millennia without a dramatic new global energy strategy, a new study has warned.

Rising global temperatures, ice field and glacial melting and rising sea levels are among the climatic changes that could ultimately lead to the submergence of coastal areas that are home to 1.3 billion people today, researchers said.

“What our analysis shows is that this era of global warming will be as big as the end of the Ice Age. And what we are seeing is a massive departure from the environmental stability civilisation has enjoyed during the last 10,000 years of its development,” said Jeremy Shakun from Boston College in US.

Of course, in reality, the last 10k years have seen a back and forth between warm and cool periods. Say, what caused the end of the last glacial age? Oh, right, Warmists say that was natural last time, but the current warm period must be mostly/solely mankind’s fault. Yet, the disciples of Al Gore refuse to act like it’s a crisis in their own lives.

The study claims it will cause 25 meters of sea rise. That’s 82 feet. Which is also quite less than occurred as the last ice age ended. Naturally. Doesn’t quite give a time frame. And tiny if you look at a 10k time frame.

Anyhow, you’re probably thinking “is this based on models?”

For the study, an international team of researchers generated new scenarios for temperature rise, glacial melting, sea-level rise and coastal flooding based on state-of-the-art climate and ice sheet models.

Of course it is. Funny how all their models predict doom based on what they input, eh? But, yeah, they’re predicting that this warm period will last 10,000 years.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Could Last 10,000 Years Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Echoes Vulgar Slur Towards Cruz, Cruz Hits Back

By William Teach February 9, 2016 – 8:26 am

One of the great things about Donald Trump’s campaign is that he’s willing to say things that most politicians never will, and say them in ways that politicians never will. He also understands that that one of the top rules in deal with Social Justice Warriors is to hit them back twice as hard. That said, there are times when he goes overboard. Like this one

(Buzzfeed) Donald Trump faux-admonished and then repeated a woman who called Ted Cruz a “pussy” at a rally here on Monday night.

Trump was criticizing Cruz for, in his view, failing to offer unequivocal support for waterboarding in the debate on Saturday night. Trump then interrupted what he was saying to point out what a woman in the crowd had shouted.

“She just said a terrible thing,” Trump said. “You know what she said? Shout it out because I don’t want to — OK, you’re not allowed to say, and I never expect to hear that from you again. She said — I never expect to hear that from you again! — she said he’s a pussy. That’s terrible. Terrible,” Trump said, throwing up his hands.

That’s a word I never thought I would see in a headline in a major news source. The Hill features that word in its headline. A few Trumpbots in the audience started chanting the word. That said, the Cruz campaign had a nice little rejoinder

Cruz’s Communications Director responded on Twitter by saying that Trump is, “turning the campaign into the latest episode of a reality show but let’s not forget who whipped who in Iowa.”

https://twitter.com/rickwtyler/status/696889779279925248

And we’ll see who whips who in New Hampshire.

Read: Trump Echoes Vulgar Slur Towards Cruz, Cruz Hits Back »

Posted in GOP | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama To Request An Additional $5 Billion For Cybersecurity Overhaul

By William Teach February 9, 2016 – 8:05 am

How many times have Executive Office agencies been hacked? You had the massive Officer of Personnel Management hack last year. The FBI just announced it was the recipient of a massive hack. Many other agencies have been hacked. Many others have successfully fought off hacks. This is a true common sense offering from Mr. Obama

(Washington Post) President Obama is seeking a 35 percent hike in cybersecurity funding in his final budget to boost the capability of the federal government to defend itself against cyberattacks.

The proposed $19 billion request, which represents one of the largest increases ever sought in this area, comes as Congress and the public have witnessed an alarming series of intrusions in recent years against targets ranging from Target and Sony to the Pentagon and the Office of Personnel Management.

The proposal, which will be announced Tuesday morning with the president’s 2017 budget request, is part of a larger package of initiatives the White House is calling the cybersecurity national action plan. (snip)

The money would go toward replacing aging — in some cases decades-old — computer systems with new machines and software, hiring additional skilled personnel, and increasing capabilities at the Pentagon’s Cyber Command and the FBI as well as in civilian agencies such as OPM and the Department of Veterans Affairs, officials said.

Overall, it is not $19 billion more, it amounts to a $5 billion increase in current funding, not $19 billion, as the Washington Post makes it seem. It has $3.1 billion for updating those computer systems and hiring a federal cybersecurity chief. $62 million will go towards offering training to teach cybersecurity, with loan forgiveness offered to those who join the federal government.

The plan itself is the most basic of basics, as explained at Wired.

ENABLE TWO-FACTOR AUTHENTICATION. Update your systems. Maybe get someone who knows what they’re doing to handle your security needs. It’s all the standard advice you’d give a tech novice. It also happens to be the foundation of President Obama’s new Cybersecurity National Action Plan, a long-overdue, comprehensive approach to keeping our country’s digital corridors safe.

That said, Wired doesn’t find it to be a bad plan, because you need to have the most basic of basics in place. The software and hardware do need a vast upgrade. For goodness sake, many still use Windows XP, which Microsoft stopped supporting in 2014. The plan does call for doling out the money in portions, rather than lump sums, in order to make sure it is used correctly and that targets are being hit on time.

Here’s two problems, though. From Wired we learn

It’s an initiative that has noble ambitions but few details attached, especially when it comes to cyberattack response.

From the Washington Post, which really caught my attention

The cyber plan, for instance, calls for the creation of a commission to make recommendations on actions to enhance national cybersecurity over the next decade. It calls for a campaign to urge more people to adopt anti-hacking techniques such as “two-factor” authentication, which combines a password with a fingerprint or a text message code.

Lack of details. A commission to study the problem. One would think that there would be some actual detail when asking for $5 billion more. One would think that there would be more than a few base ideas in dealing with the issue. This is typical Obama: make a big recommendation without concrete plans, expecting others to deal with it. I doubt Congress will have any objection to this, though, they might want a few more details rather than a sticky note. A final big question revolves on how Obama will roll this out: will he take it seriously, or will it just be another time where he “blasts” Congress, attempting to create a fight with Republicans, as he so often does?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama To Request An Additional $5 Billion For Cybersecurity Overhaul »

Posted in Barry Obama, Web/Tech | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

NOAA Is Worried About Beer Threats From ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach February 8, 2016 – 4:15 pm

Another day, another dire prediction from disciples of the Cult of Climastrology. It’s not even unique one, as Warmists have tried this schtick regarding beer for years and years, and it has yet to come to pass. In fact, beer in some form has been around since around 12,000 years ago, and production of it has gone through multiple cool and warm periods during the Holocene, and some of those warm periods were warmer than today. Beer similar to today’s dates back around 5,000 years ago, and we still have warm periods. But, hey, the CoC needs to continue to attempt to scare people, which they do every few months

(EcoWatch) As any beer lover knows, hops are a key ingredient in beer. But now, climate change poses a threat to hops production, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (snip)

But many worry how the industry will fare in the future. Most growers were able to adapt to last year’s water shortages by relying more heavily on groundwater supplies and other sources, George said. So, Yakima Valley hops growers were able to “beat the 2015 summer heat,” NOAA said, but they may not be as lucky in the future. (snip)

Climate models  project last year’s unusual warmth will be the “new normal” in the decades to come, Guillaume Mauger, a research scientist with the University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group, told NOAA. And while total precipitation isn’t expected to change much, more and more winter precipitation will fall as rain rather than snow, decreasing snowpack and threatening the area’s water supply. (snip)

It was already bad enough that climate change will diminish worldwide supplies of chocolate, wine and coffee. Now, beer too.

Read: NOAA Is Worried About Beer Threats From ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 13 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove