Obama To Unveil New Energy Cost Skyrocketing “Climate Change” Regulations

By William Teach August 2, 2015 – 7:40 am

Somehow, Mr. Barack “Largest Carbon Footprint In The World” Obama believes that slapping tons of new regulations on power plants will cause energy bills to decline, in the same manner he said that passing Obamacare would reduced medical costs

Obama to unveil ‘biggest step ever’ in climate fight

President Barack Obama will Monday unveil what he called the “biggest, most important step we’ve ever taken” to fight climate change, a sensitive issue central to his legacy.

The White House will release the final version of America’s Clean Power Plan, a set of environmental rules and regulations that will home in on the pollution from the nation’s power plants, setting limits on power-plant carbon emissions.

Laying out how climate change was a threat to the health, wellbeing and security of millions of Americans, and adding that time was of the essence, Obama said in a video released early Sunday: “Climate change is not a problem for another generation. Not anymore.”

Really? Here’s the photo run at the story

That’s just one of the dozen plus vehicles that accompany Obama around whenever he goes somewhere, a massive fossil fuels hog. If Obama is worried about “the kids”, perhaps he should start acting like it’s a crisis

“Power plants are the single biggest source of harmful carbon pollution that contributes to climate change,” added Obama, who made the battle against climate change a core promise of his 2008 election campaign.

“But until now there have been no federal limits to the amount of that pollution that those plants can dump into the air.”

That’s something that should be passed by the Legislative Branch. He had the chance when Democrats had full control of Congress during Obama’s first two years, yet didn’t bother. The big question is, has prior legislation given the Executive Branch the statutory authority to make these rules? Legislation is often so big and generalized, rather than focused and specific, that it might. You can bet lawsuits will be filed by the end of the week.

He added that without imposing limits, “existing power plants can still dump unlimited amounts of harmful carbon pollution into the air weekly.

“For the sake of our kids, for the health and safety of all Americans, that’s about to change.”

So, this same guy who’s super worried about “the kids” took a fossil fueled convoy to play golf, then jumped in a fossil fueled helicopter for a quick trip over to boarding his massive fossil fueled airplane. Notice that he’s wearing the same outfit as in the top photo.

Obama argued that the plans will lead to lower energy bills for everyday Americans and create jobs in the renewable energy sector.

Yeah. Sure they will. How often do huge, restrictive regulations like this cause consumer prices to ever decrease? Never. Getting beyond the massive spin from the White House, EPA, and Cult of Climastrology groups, those who live in the real world understand that power plant regulations tend to be all economic cost, no benefit, including absolutely no benefit in “stopping climate change”.

Let’s not forget that the Supreme Court just shot down the EPA’s 2012 power plant regulations, stating that they didn’t account the cost of regulations. What’s the over/under on these set to be announced regulations failing to consider costs?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama To Unveil New Energy Cost Skyrocketing “Climate Change” Regulations »

Posted in Barry Obama, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 1, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible rising sea, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on the anemic economic growth.

How could I not end jogging week with Bo?

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Surprise: Jeb Bush Starts Showing His Cult Of Climastrology Membership

By William Teach August 1, 2015 – 10:50 am

We’ve long known that Jeb Bush is a “climate change” believer, and, much like Newt Gingrich, is a fan of government solutions. He lets this slip a bit

(IBT) Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush said in an interview published Thursday that humans contribute to climate change. Bush, in a departure from recent comments, said that the United States should adapt and make changes to stop climate change, while keeping the country’s finances in mind.

“I think we have a responsibility to adapt to what the possibilities are without destroying our economy, without hollowing out our industrial core,” he said in an interview with Bloomberg BNA. “I think it’s appropriate to recognize this and invest in the proper research to find solutions over the long haul but not be alarmists about it.”

He goes on to equivocate a bit with not wanting to damage the economy, but what he’s really advocating are central government rules and regulations.

Read: Surprise: Jeb Bush Starts Showing His Cult Of Climastrology Membership »

Posted in Global Warming, GOP | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

French Official Reportedly Stated That Killing Iran Deal Would Lead To Better Deal

By William Teach August 1, 2015 – 7:36 am

Of course, almost any deal could be better than this turd sandwich

Top French Official Contradicts Kerry on Iran Deal

Secretary of State John Kerry has been painting an apocalyptic picture of what would happen if Congress killed the Iran nuclear deal. Among other things, he has warned that “our friends in this effort will desert us.” But the top national security official from one of those nations involved in the negotiations, France, has a totally different view: He told two senior U.S. lawmakers that he thinks a Congressional no vote might actually be helpful.

His analysis is already having an effect on how members of Congress, especially House Democrats, are thinking about the deal.

The French official, Jacques Audibert, is now the senior diplomatic adviser to President Francois Hollande. Before that, as the director general for political affairs in the Foreign Ministry from 2009 to 2014, he led the French diplomatic team in the discussions with Iran and the P5+1 group. Earlier this month, he met with Democrat Loretta Sanchez and Republican Mike Turner, both top members of the House Armed Services Committee, to discuss the Iran deal. The U.S. ambassador to France, Jane Hartley, was also in the room.

According to both lawmakers, Audibert expressed support for the deal overall, but also directly disputed Kerry’s claim that a Congressional rejection of the Iran deal would result in the worst of all worlds, the collapse of sanctions and Iran racing to the bomb without restrictions.

“He basically said, if Congress votes this down, there will be some saber-rattling and some chaos for a year or two, but in the end nothing will change and Iran will come back to the table to negotiate again and that would be to our advantage,” Sanchez told me in an interview. “He thought if the Congress voted it down, that we could get a better deal.”

This is followed by a blurb about the French embassy and Audibert denying the comments, but, the congress critters cited, as well as a few others, both Republican and Democrat, stand by their claim as to what Audibert said.

Audibert’s comments as recounted by the lawmakers are a direct rebuttal to Kerry, who in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations on July 24 said that if Congress voted down the deal, there would no chance to restart negotiations in search of a tougher pact. Kerry also said that Congressional rejection of the Iran deal would erode the U.S. credibility to strike any type of international agreement in the future. “Do you think the Ayatollah is going to come back to the table if Congress refuses this and negotiate again? Do you think that they’re going to sit there and other people in the world are going to say, hey, let’s go negotiate with the United States, they have 535 secretaries of State?” Kerry said. “I mean, please.”

That’s a rather Authoritarian comment, wouldn’t you say? Last time I checked, the Constitution enabled the election of citizens to represent the interests of the nation’s citizens.

That was retweeted by the White House and Josh Earnest (Press Secretary), among others.

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/627139635114823681

Every poll has the deal underwater. But, hey, good news, China is thrilled by this deal

As members of Congress debate whether to back the deal over Iran’s nuclear program, one source of support seems guaranteed — China. It’s one of the biggest winners in the agreement, with the lifting of sanctions as Iran pulls back key elements of its enrichment program set to allow Beijing to deepen its historic partnership with Tehran. While China is undoubtedly eyeing the potential economic benefits, Beijing also likely sees an opportunity to challenge U.S. influence in the Middle East.

Russia would likewise see more money and influence in the region. Syria and many terrorist groups would see more support from an Iran flush with cash. Iran would have more influence and control of the region. And could restart their nuclear program in just eight years. What, exactly, is the benefit for the interests of the United States, the nation Kerry and Obama are supposed to represent?

Read: French Official Reportedly Stated That Killing Iran Deal Would Lead To Better Deal »

Posted in Iran | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Very Liberal And Democratic Party Run Baltimore Ties 43 Year Old Murder Record

By William Teach August 1, 2015 – 7:10 am

Things are going swimmingly in yet another Democratic Party run city, and firing the chief of police has really helped, and #BlackLivesMatter or something

(AP) Baltimore reached a grim milestone on Friday, three months after riots erupted in response to the death of Freddie Gray in police custody: With 45 homicides in July, the city has seen more bloodshed in a single month than it has in 43 years.

Police reported three deaths — two men shot Thursday and one on Friday. The men died at local hospitals.

With their deaths, this year’s homicides reached 189, far outpacing the 119 killings by July’s end in 2014. Nonfatal shootings have soared to 366, compared to 200 by the same date last year. July’s total was the worst since the city recorded 45 killings in August 1972, according to The Baltimore Sun.

Last year, Baltimore recorded 208 homicides. Of those, 189 where Blacks, and mostly men. The numbers aren’t out for 2015, but, again, the vast majority of homicide victims in Democratic Party run Baltimore are Blacks, and mostly men. The Baltimore Sun also reminds us that the city had 275,000 more residents in 1972 than it does now. I suspect the city’s population will drop even more by the end of this year, as residents of all colors get the heck out.

Baltimore is not unique in its suffering; crimes are spiking in big cities around the country.

Who runs all these big cities around the country?

Crime experts and residents of Baltimore’s most dangerous neighborhoods cite a confluence of factors: mistrust of the police; generalized anger and hopelessness over a lack of opportunities for young black men; and competition among dealers of illegal drugs, bolstered by the looting of prescription pills from pharmacies during the riot.

Generalized anger and hopelessness. Lack of opportunity. Sounds like Liberalism is working wonders in this Democratic Party run city.

Let’s not forget that the gun laws in Baltimore, and Maryland, are among the strictest in the country, and is #7 in the nation for gun laws that “keep guns out of the hands of criminals”, per the Brady Campaign. How’s that working out in the generalized anger and hopelessness Democratic Party run city of Baltimore?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Very Liberal And Democratic Party Run Baltimore Ties 43 Year Old Murder Record »

Posted in Democrats | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Poor Little Snowflake Learns She Doesn’t Set JC Penney’s Dress Code

By William Teach July 31, 2015 – 4:16 pm

This is an interesting story that is trending, with lots and lots of articles out there, mostly saying how utterly horrible JCP is for sending this poor (feminist) girl home to change

(HuffPost) A former JCPenney employee has taken to Twitter to illustrate just how hypocritical dress codes for women can be.

“Boss sent me home for wearing ‘too revealing’ shorts that I bought from the store I work at in the career section,” Sylva Stoel tweeted on Friday. She included a photo of herself in a pair of red shorts that hit at about mid-thigh.

Associated tweet

https://twitter.com/queenfeminist/status/624618091935236096

The shorts would be acceptable, perhaps, at a surf shop, but JCP has a dress code, and it doesn’t include wearing shorts. They tightened their standards up in 2013, because customers couldn’t tell the difference between other customers and employees. Very few retail stores allow anyone to wear shorts. But, hey, feminism!

She said she quit the job, and is glad her experience is starting conversations about how women are treated in the workplace.

“Unfair dress codes affect millions of women, and it’s time to speak out against them,” she said.

It’s now “unfair” to require employees to wear appropriate attire, I guess. Hey, perhaps she could purchase her own store and allow employees to wear whatever they want. BTW, in quite a few workplaces, men have it much tighter than women. We have to have our shirts tucked in, we have to wear shoes and socks, rather than sockless shoes and sandals, and often have to wear ties. So, cry me a river.

This next tweet comes via Hello Giggles

https://twitter.com/queenfeminist/status/624625450938007553

So, is she saying Millennials are slobs with a poor work ethic?

“I could’ve lectured [my boss] on feminist theory with an emphasis on body-shaming, but I doubted that my speech would be appreciated,” Stoel told Mic. “So, I saved that bit for Twitter.”

Have fun getting a job when employers realize she will be a problem, and possibly a lawsuit, waiting to happen.

Read: Poor Little Snowflake Learns She Doesn’t Set JC Penney’s Dress Code »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 31, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a sea that will rise up hundreds of feet by 2100, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Patterico’s Pontifications, with a post on DWS not telling us the difference between a Democrat and a socialist.

Read: If All You See… »

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

There’s Like Totes No Room For Agnostics In Hotcoldwetdry Debate

By William Teach July 31, 2015 – 10:31 am

And it’s totally not a religions

(Business Insider) On a recent 14.5-hour flight from Los Angeles to Sydney, I had time to read the columnist Charles Krauthammer’s collection of essays, Things that Matter. It made for a disturbing flight.

I have enjoyed Krauthammer’s writing over the years, but there was something in his book that I found deeply troubling: his description of himself as an “agnostic” on climate change. He “believes instinctively that it can’t be very good to pump lots of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” and yet he “is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.”

The word that I found most galling was “agnostic” – not only because Krauthammer is a trained scientist, but also because the word was used repeatedly by former Australian Prime Minister John Howard when he addressed a group of climate-change deniers in London in late 2103. “Part of the problem with this debate,” Howard told the assembled skeptics, “is that to some of the zealots involved their cause has become a substitute religion.”

As Howard and Krauthammer should know, the subject of climate change is not a matter of religion, but of science. According to a 2013 survey of peer-reviewed publications on the subject, some 97% of scientists endorse the position that humans are causing global warming. Anyone familiar with the scientific process is aware that researchers are trained to disagree, to contest one another’s hypotheses and conclusions. A consensus of such magnitude is as close as we ever get to a recognized scientific fact.

First, using a completely debunked study to prop up your argument, a study refuted by even those whose papers where cited, is the work of a zealot.

Second, citing consensus is not science. In this case, it’s politics.

Third, it should be no surprise that much of the rest of the opinion piece focuses on more Big Government solutions.

Read: There’s Like Totes No Room For Agnostics In Hotcoldwetdry Debate »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

White House Stands Behind Planned Parenthood, Calling Video Makers “Extremists”

By William Teach July 31, 2015 – 7:21 am

The Obama White House has never been shy in demeaning political opponents in a personal manner, nor have they been shy in regards to blaming the messenger

(CNN) The White House on Thursday dismissed the latest video accusing Planned Parenthood of selling fetal organs and tissue, calling the group behind the sting “extremists on the right.”

“There’s ample reason to think that this is merely the tried and true tactic that we have seen from some extremists on the right to edit this video and selectively release an edited version of the video that grossly distorts the position of the person who is actually speaking on the video,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said. “And Planned Parenthood has indicated that’s what has occurred here.”

I don’t recall Team Obama decrying the heavily edited Romney 47% video. Do you? They also called the videos fraudulent. In other words, they know how bad this issue for abortion supporters.

This comes as the group responsible for the videos has released a 4th video, just as bad, if not worse, than the other three

After three shocking videos caught Planned Parenthood doctors discussing and arranging the sale of body parts of aborted babies, a fourth video has been released today catching a Planned Parenthood vice president discussing how to break or get around the law to sell aborted babies.

New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains’ Vice President and Medical Director, Dr. Savita Ginde, negotiating a fetal body parts deal, agreeing multiple times to illicit pricing per body part harvested, and suggesting ways to avoid legal consequences.

The Federalist notes 8 shocking moments. Of course, for many, this is a yawn moment, being more concerned with a lion

This week brought with it a strange convergence. The story of surreptitious Planned Parenthood videos that appeared to show a doctor haggling with potential buyers over prices for fetal body parts and the story of an American dentist killing Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe collided in an Internet frenzy of charges and countercharges over moral priorities.

Animal rights activists and anti-abortion advocates started criticizing each other for their misplaced outrage on social media. Then the debate moved onto a wider media stage.

Rush Limbaugh bemoaned the fact some would “cry over Cecil the lion but shrug off Planned Parenthood.” Conservative media watchers claimed major networks covered Cecil the lion more in one day than they covered the Planned Parenthood story in two weeks. Even presidential candidate Marco Rubio chimed in, criticizing what he considered to be a disproportionate Cecil vs. Planned Parenthood reaction.

I did the same thing on Twitter on Wednesday, and boy howdy did people deflect away. It’s not to say that the killing of Cecil wasn’t despicable: it was. But, it was one old lion. Here we have a federally funded organization harvesting unborn baby parts, seemingly illegally, for profit. The liberal media has spent vastly more time covering Cecil, and was quick to demonize Cecil killer, driving him into hiding. He’s received tons of death threats. Yet, they’ve barely covered Planned Parenthood, except in short bursts to provide cover.

The real extremists are those who would cover for Planned Parenthood no matter what.

Read: White House Stands Behind Planned Parenthood, Calling Video Makers “Extremists” »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

After Year Long Bombing Campaign, ISIS No Weaker

By William Teach July 31, 2015 – 7:01 am

The first problem with the bombing campaign is that it has been piecemeal, rather than a sustained, comprehensive assault. There has been some success, with ISIS losing some ground in Iraq and Syria, they’ve had to change some of their operational patterns, and plenty of ISIS members have gone to see if they really do get 72 virgins (which are probably their fellow Islamist brethren). The second, and much larger problem, is highlighted in the second paragraph

(AP) After billions of dollars spent and more than 10,000 extremist fighters killed, the Islamic State group is fundamentally no weaker than it was when the U.S.-led bombing campaign began a year ago, American intelligence agencies have concluded.

The military campaign has prevented Iraq’s collapse and put the Islamic State under increasing pressure in northern Syria, particularly squeezing its self-proclaimed capital in Raqqa. But intelligence analysts see the overall situation as a strategic stalemate: The Islamic State remains a well-funded extremist army able to replenish its ranks with foreign jihadis as quickly as the U.S. can eliminate them. Meanwhile, the group has expanded to other countries, including Libya, Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula and Afghanistan.

The assessments by the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and others appear to contradict the optimistic line taken by the Obama administration’s special envoy, retired Gen. John Allen, who told a forum in Aspen, Colorado, last week that “ISIS is losing” in Iraq and Syria. The intelligence was described by officials who would not be named because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.

The issue at hand is that extremist Islam continues to spread and grow, as more Muslims convert to the hardcore version. A hardcore version of Islam is being taught more and more in mosques and Islamic schools. It is being spread online through social media and blog posts. It worms its way into the lives of Muslims, slowly turning those who believe in peace towards a radical version, radicalizing them in thought, as pushed by the Muslim Brotherhood and a few other groups, followed by many turning to the violent version, as practiced by ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and other groups. This has been occurring heavily in places throughout the Middle East, Northern Africa, and Southern Asia. But, it has long ago spread to Europe, North America, and Australia, and seems to be accelerating.

One of the reasons that it continues to grow is that a chunk of the 1st World population is in complete denial as to the threat, and has decided that any criticism of radical Islam is a criticism of Islam as a whole. Which seems counterproductive, since radical Islam is a direct threat to what Liberals want to achieve themselves.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: After Year Long Bombing Campaign, ISIS No Weaker »

Posted in ISIS, RoP | 5 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove