Schumer Bucks White House On Iran Legislation

Chuck Schumer will probably be the recipient of a Justice Department probe, ala Bob Menendez (not that Menendez may be totally innocent: question the timing)

(Politico) Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, one of Capitol Hill’s most influential voices in the Iran nuclear debate, is strongly endorsing passage of a law opposed by President Barack Obama that would give Congress an avenue to reject the White House-brokered framework unveiled last week.

The comments Monday by the Democratic leader-in-waiting illustrate the enormity of the task ahead for Obama and his team: While there’s no guarantee that Congress would ultimately reject an agreement with Iran, there’s an increasingly bipartisan consensus that Congress should at least have the ability to do so.

“This is a very serious issue that deserves careful consideration, and I expect to have a classified briefing in the near future. I strongly believe Congress should have the right to disapprove any agreement and I support the Corker bill which would allow that to occur,” Schumer said in an emailed statement to POLITICO.

Politico gives no reasoning for this from Schumer, beyond the need for Congress to have a say, and wondering how much this has to do with Schumer flexing his muscles, what with Harry Reid leaving at the end of his term. One also has to wonder how much this has to do with the huge support of the Jewish community in New York that he enjoys.

Within the Senate Democratic Caucus, a dozen senators have either co-sponsored Corker’s legislation or indicated they could support it. That would put the measure one vote shy of a veto-proof majority. On Monday, three more Democratic senators — Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Claire McCaskill of Missouri — left open the possibility of voting for it, according to aides. Their support, however, could hinge on whether Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), the new ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, is able to negotiate concessions that alleviate concerns the bill could derail any agreement.

It could be that Democrats are seeing how bad this deal with Iran is, and realizing that Obama is gone soon, while they’ll still be in office as Iran relishes the freedom and cash from the removal of sanctions, while still slowly working towards a nuclear weapon. And knowing that the deal is just kicking the can of Iran down the road

President Obama conceded Tuesday that the time it would take Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon could be cut “almost down to zero” after Year 13 of a possible deal.

Obama made the comments about Tehran’s so-called “breakout time” in an interview with NPR News that aired Tuesday morning. The president was attempting to answer the charge that the deal framework agreed upon by the U.S., Iran, and five other nations last week fails to eliminate the risk of Iran getting a nuclear weapon because it allows Tehran to keep enriching uranium.

Obama said that Iran would be capped for a decade at 300 kilograms of uranium — not enough to convert to a stockpile of weapons-grade material.

“What is a more relevant fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero,” Obama said.

He goes on to say “The option of a future president to take action if in fact they try to obtain a nuclear weapon is undiminished”, meaning, “hey, it’s someone else’s problem”. Obama is desperate to get a deal, any deal, and it doesn’t matter the terms. He could also care less about protecting Israel. Or the entire region. Or the interests of the United States. Just his short term legacy.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Schumer Bucks White House On Iran Legislation »

Al Gore’s Climate Reality Says Change Starts With You

One would expect some answers, would one not? Nope. Leads to a link to register for a web meeting. Which will surely be about spreading awareness. Wouldn’t want the little people doing more to actually live the life than Gore does, right?

Meanwhile

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/585168448960991232

Read: Al Gore’s Climate Reality Says Change Starts With You »

If All You See…

…is a horrible hot dog made out of evil meat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jammie Wearing Fools, with a post on the UVA rape story retraction.

Read: If All You See… »

Another Cult Of Climastrology Member Wants The Media To Ban Skeptic Discourse

Warmist Sylvie Stein attempts to paint a “let’s just be responsible” picture, but, at the end of the day, she’s just another in a long line of Cultists who prefer to shut down the voices of people who disagree with her cult

The Hill must do better on climate

I recently wrote an op-ed entitled “To the Media: Don’t Help the Merchants of Doubt.” In it, I asked the media to stop publishing factually inaccurate information on climate change, such as those made in a March 20 piece by climate denier William O’Keefe.

How did O’Keefe respond? By taking a classic page out of the “merchants of doubt” playbook. Throughout his piece, he attempts to make his fringe views appear credible by invoking bunk science: he cites discredited scientists like Dr. Willie Soon — who recently described his climate denial as “deliverables” produced in exchange for money from fossil fuel corporations— and his own organization — which, as we previously mentioned, Newsweek describes as a “central cog in the [climate change] denial machine.” Moreover, O’Keefe frames himself as the David to our Goliath — even while he’s bankrolled by the most profitable industry in the world.

By these own terms, all Warmist articles/opinion pieces should not be printed: their computer models have been an almost complete failure, as have their prognostications. Hence the reason Warmist are yammering about this and that happening 50-100 years down the road.

Our argument doesn’t pertain to deniers like O’Keefe, but to the media. We say to the editors of The Hill: We believe you can — and must — do better regarding the subject of climate.

Let’s break that down: it means that the CoC wants the media to refuse to publish anything by Skeptics.

But The Hill can look to several prominent media outlets that have already taken up this task. The Washington Post and The Guardian have both launched initiatives to put climate front and center in the past year. In October 2013, The Los Angeles Times letters editor Paul Thornton announced the newspaper would no longer publish letters to the editor that deny man-made climate change. Why?In Thornton’s words:

Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying “there’s no sign humans have caused climate change” is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.

What’s at stake if The Hill continues to publish factual inaccuracies on climate? The Hill’s credibility as a reliable news source, for one.

In other words, Warmists are watching, and heavily approve of censorship. But, they will come after media outlets who do not comply. The only difference, when it comes to tolerance, between Islamists and Warmists is that the Warmists do not resort to outright violence. Cultists lose virtually every debate, and see their cult dying out, hence, they need to attempt to shut down debate.

Read: Another Cult Of Climastrology Member Wants The Media To Ban Skeptic Discourse »

Good News: American Action Network Working Hard To Attack Conservatives

Is it any wonder that Conservatives do not trust the Establishment Republicans? They spend more time attacking Conservatives and defending squishy Republicans than fighting back against Democrats. Does anyone see this happening on the Left? Normally, Liberal groups may attack Democrats for not being Democrat/Liberal enough. Republican groups attack Conservatives for not being too squishy and Democrat Lite

The center-right fights back

The center-right is putting more money into the game — and taking fresh aim at the conservatives bent on dragging the House to the right.

The deep-pocketed American Action Network, which has raised over $104 million since 2011, will put $1.8 million toward ads in 76 districts touting members who stood up to right-wing pressure and supported the House leadership on the budget and bipartisan Medicare legislation.

The digital and television ads follow the group’s leap into last month’s contentious Department of Homeland Security funding debate, in which it spent $400,000 against fellow Republicans who refused to fund the agency in protest of President Barack Obama’s immigration actions. It followed with another $350,000 for TV ads in four districts to thank GOP lawmakers who backed the long-term funding deal in early March.

These ads are lauding Republicans for capitulating to Obama and his pseudo-amnesty program. And they’ve already started running

“They say it can’t be done, that Washington is broken, and nobody is listening. They say we’ll never balance America’s budget, that we can’t repeal Obamacare and nobody can reform Medicare to protect seniors and doctors or take on the big issues. But they aren’t talking about Congresswoman Renee Ellmers,” a narrator says in an ad set to run in Ellmers’ North Carolina district.

I’ve been hearing these commercials on radio for a month or so regarding Ellmers. Exactly what have these squishy Republicans done? They haven’t balanced the budget, haven’t repealed Ocare (or even scaled it back), and they certainly haven’t stood up to Obama government by executive fiat mode.

Brian Walsh, the group’s past president, said the decision to target conservative Republicans at odds with GOP leaders represented an “evolution” of the group’s desire to be the “reasonable voice” in Republican policy debates. The DHS ads prompted surprise and anger from conservatives at being targeted by fellow GOP-ers.

But Walsh, now at RedPrint Strategies, said that despite the criticism, the effort was clearly effective in turning the conversation from ideology to tactics over how best to stop Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

The reasonable voice, along with pushing the convo to “tactics”, have done exactly zip to stop Obama’s agenda.

Read: Good News: American Action Network Working Hard To Attack Conservatives »

Guy Who Stuffed Classified Material In His Pants Says Iran Deal Can’t Get Any Better

You remember Samuel “Sandy” Burgler, er, Berger, who stuffed classified material down his pants after removing it from the National Archives, material related to 9/11 and al Qaeda. He’s also the one who was in charge of national security when President Clinton gave North Korea food and fuel for ending their nuclear program in a similar deal. How’d that work out? He’s back, telling us that it’s a fantasy to think we can get a better deal with Iran

(Politico) Some are insisting on a “better deal” than the framework nuclear agreement reached with Iran on April 2. But the idea of a better deal is a chimera, an illusory option, and it should not lull us into thinking there is another agreement to be had if only we were to bear down harder. The present agreement, which depends on important pieces to be resolved by the end of June, can substantially reduce the ability of Iran to develop a nuclear weapon over the next ten years or more and also creates a dynamic that could be a game changer in the combustible Middle East

Yes, it would be a game changer. It would see Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, putting vast sums of cash in their coffers, which would certainly be used to increase their support for Middle East terrorism and increase the size of their military machine, all while supposedly suspending their nuclear weapons program for a mere 10 years.

Syria, Hezbollah hail nuclear deal with Iran

One has to wonder, if Iranian backed Syria and Hezbollah love this deal, it must really be good for Iran, eh?

…Putting aside what the Iranians might do in response to additional pressure—dig in deeper, speed up their program–and looking just at our side of the equation, the notion of a better deal is unachievable.

Here is why. According to critics, seeking a better deal starts with increasing sanctions on Iran. If tough sanctions brought them to the table, tougher sanctions will bring them to their knees. At some point their economy will be in tatters from the intensified sanctions, and they will be forced to return to the bargaining table and agree to better deal. With a closer look, however, this scenario unravels.

Well, sure, implementing tougher sanctions through the UN, particularly with Russia backing Iran, would be difficult. However, that’s not the point. Said point is that this deal is so weak, and has basically just kicked the can down the road a mere 10 years, all on a whisper of a promise to stop trying to make a nuclear weapon. We all know Iran is trustworthy, right? Team Obama capitulated on almost every goal they set for this “deal.”

Meanwhile, Team Obama is going to trot out scientists to attempt to sell this deal

The White House is calling in the geek squad to sell its Iran deal.

Skeptical members of Congress – and the general public – might not trust the administration when it says it will prevent the Islamic Republic from building a nuclear weapon. And they certainly don’t trust the Iranians. So the White House is asking them instead to put their faith in science

Will they give us the scientific odds on how quickly Iran will cheat and how much more cash they will put into their military and terrorist activities, once the sanctions are removed?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Guy Who Stuffed Classified Material In His Pants Says Iran Deal Can’t Get Any Better »

If All You See…

…is an Arctic that is melting away like has never ever ever happened ever before, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day on this baseball week is 90Ninety Miles From Tyranny, with a post on yet another upstanding illegal alien.

Go Dodgers! And, yeah, I know that someone photoshopped the heck out of the picture.

Read: If All You See… »

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

Happy Sunday! A gorgeous spring day is on tap in the great nation of America. Sun is shining, birds are singing, many people’s NCAA brackets are busted. This pinup is by Gil Elvgren, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Vox Popoli explains Sad Puppies and the Hugo Awards (I vote for Marko Kloos)
  2. Israel Matzav notes Iran’s increase support for Hamas
  3. The Daley Gator highlights a bad day for a carjacker
  4. Protein Wisdom discusses a wonderful use of taxpayer money in California
  5. Powerline wonders about the mystery of the sputtering economy
  6. Legal Insurrection highlights a wonderful use of Politfacts time, involving a sweater and Scott Walker
  7. Jihad Watch covers another appearance of the jihad flag at a Muslim Day parade
  8. House of Eratosthenes wonders why Liberals hate Walmart and love Apple
  9. Fire Andrea Mitchell notes Obama leaving 4 Americans behind in Iran
  10. Cold Fury notes there is only one way to go for SJWs
  11. Chicks On the Right has Peeps and .22
  12. Black and Right discusses the latest misleading study
  13. A View From The Beach covers whether black holes are real or not
  14. This ain’t Hell… has your Sunday feel good stories
  15. And last, but not lease, Nice Deb provides your Easter Hymn

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Say, “What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?”

This should make Warmists happy: an actual Republican voter (supposedly, being that the writer, Ronald Bailey, is a Libertarian) who joined their Cult Of Climastrology, and writes at the always squishy hotbed of libertarianism known as Reason

What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?

First, call it “anthropogenic global warming” again, and change your entire life to match your beliefs. That might go a ways to convincing me.

In 2005, I changed my mind about climate change: I concluded that the balance of the scientific evidence showed that man-made global warming could likely pose a significant problem for humanity by the end of this century. My new assessment did not please a number of my friends, some of whom made their disappointment clear. (snip)

So what evidence would convince you that man-made climate change is possibly real? Keep in mind that despite what progressive dimwits like Naomi Klein might assert, the scientific evidence does not mandate any particular program.

What about higher temperatures? Obviously, in order for there to be any man-made global warming, temperatures must be going up. Are they? Yes.

Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased from 280 parts per million in the late 18th century to around 400 ppm today. And the trend in average global surface temperatures has been increasing since the late 19th century. As I’ve reported before, all of the global temperature datasets, both the instrumental and satellite, find that the atmosphere has warmed since the 1950s.

Of course, what is going on here is belief that one causes the other, despite the history of the Holocene. Just because you wore your lucky socks the past few games and your favorite team one doesn’t mean wearing your lucky socks is real. What caused the previous warm periods, which were actually warmer than the current Modern Warm Period? Warmists will say “it was nature then, but it simply cannot be nature now, because shut up, you must be anti-science and believe in God.” As the saying goes, correlation is not causation. We could blame leaves turning and falling on the NHL and NBA, because the NHL and NBA start playing right about the time the leaves turn and fall. Several hundred years ago they blamed Bad Weather on witchcraft.

We also get

  • What about converging daytime and nighttime temperatures?
  • What about earlier spring and later fall seasons?
  • What about disappearing glaciers and Arctic sea ice?
  • What about warming oceans?

None of those are unreasonable during a Holocene warm period. Furthermore, none prove anthropogenic causation, at least not how the CoC portrays it, being mostly/solely caused by Mankind. There’s no doubt in my mind that Mankind does play a small roll, mostly through agriculture, landfills, pollution, the Urban Heat Island effect, and land use. Not too mention falsified data, smoothed data, manufactured data, data invented out of thin air, and garbage in garbage out computer models. The scientific evidence that says that CO2 from Mankind is causing the Modern Warm period is thin to non-existent, scientifically.

It might be that it is just so happens that natural climate variability has boosted global temperatures and the trends discussed above are occurring coincidentally at the same time the concentrations of carbon dioxide are 30 percent above their highest levels in the past 800,000 years. Correlation does not imply causation. The data cited (and uncited) do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that man-made climate change is real. However, in my best judgment the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the greenhouse gases produced by humanity are warming the climate and that it could be a significant issue later in this century. In the foregoing I have aimed to cite data, not model outputs. I have long been a critic of computer climate models.

There’s no “might” about it. If Warmists really believed, they’d modify their own behavior. Warmists will cite that as some sort of strawman, but, if you believe in something, you should do all you can to match your life to those beliefs.

To restate: The existence of man-made warming does not mandate any particular policies. So back to the headline question: If generally rising temperatures, decreasing diurnal temperature differences, melting glacial and sea ice, smaller snow extent, stronger rainstorms, and warming oceans are not enough to persuade you that man-made climate is occurring, what evidence would be?

In the comments at Reason, LC Bennet asks a better question

I propose that you are asking the wrong question and omitting the companion question. First, most skeptics and lukewarmers know that AGW is real so the better question, imo, is – What would persuade skeptics and lukewarmers that AGW is catastrophic? Second, given the many failures of the models, decline of extreme weather, greening of the planet, increase in crops, fewer cold-related deaths, increased standard of living and “The Pause” – What would persuade alarmists that AGW is not catastrophic?

Now that they have stopped denying the pause, climate scientists seem to be coalescing around the idea that the pause i(15-18 years and counting) is caused by natural variability and natural cycles that are suppressing the AGW warming trend. If true, wouldn’t it be plausible, even probable, that the warming of the 80s and 90s (18-20 years)was amplified by those same forces. If so, catastrophic (CAGW) human-caused warming seems even less likely. Mild warming – yes, catastrophic – unproven and leaning towards no. The truth is that climate science needs better data and more decades of observation to see if warming/cooling is actually a sine wave with a mild upward trend due to recovery from the Little Ice Age and CO2 emissions or an unprecedented linear warming caused by humans. Note: All those events you have listed as proof have happened before so they prove neither the claim to being catastrophic nor unprecedented.

I’d actually go with “what would persuade Warmists that AGW/climate change/climate disruption/etc is not mostly/solely caused by Mankind?

Read: Say, “What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?” »

Climate Change Is Totally Linked To Voter ID Laws Or Something

Apparently, the members of the Cult Of Climastrology are too stupid to obtain proper identification

If You Care About Climate Change, You Need to Care About Voter ID Laws

In late 2014, the Supreme Court gave the nod to Texas’ tough voter ID law, despite cries that it would unconstitutionally disenfranchise thousands of American voters who would otherwise be perfectly eligible to register and cast ballots. Voters in the state would be required to present Texan or federal identification to cast their ballots—and poll workers could be quite choosy about what they’d accept. That presented a problem for Lindsay Gonzales, a voter who only had an out of state driver’s license, and consequently would be cut out of the vote, like many Texans.

Voter ID laws are a pressing political issue, but as Brentin Mock at Grist notes, there’s another problem with them: They’re terrible for the climate. The very same population that’s most invested in action on climate change is the population that is getting the short end of the stick on such laws, leaving them unable to cast votes to make their opinions heard. Republican pushes to pass and protect voter ID laws are, along the way, limiting action on climate change, and in some cases that’s a deliberate decision. By pushing for the election of Republican lawmakers who aren’t interested in climate change action, lobbyists and supporters can avoid potential policy changes like increased fines for polluters and pressure to adopt more environmentally-friendly business practices.

If Warmists are too moronic to be able to obtain an ID, perhaps they’re too dopey to listen to on Hotcoldwetdry.

Low-income people are at a particular disadvantage with voter identification laws because they may lack the funds needed to procure the necessary documentation..

Of course, all the States that require voter ID have included measures to make sure that these people can obtain them for little to no cost.

Many are also racial minorities, as people of color are more likely to be poor.

That’s a rather racist attitude, wouldn’t you say?

Some immigrants, moreover, may have difficulty tracking down documents like birth certificates and translating them so they can be used to apply for American identification documents, even if they are in the United States legally and have taken citizenship in the U.S.

If they’ve gone through the citizenship process or are here legally, then they would have needed identification in the first place. Of course, what this is really pushing is getting illegals to vote, linking another issue into the mix.

In theory, fair elections could create a radical push for climate change action as politicians would be forced to respond to voter questions and to make good on campaign promises. Voter ID laws, however, are making it difficult to put that theory into action. Thanks to such laws, minority voters can’t hit the polls, and the status quo is upheld—no wonder the faces promoting voter ID tend to be conservative and white.

Gotta love that Warmists, typically part of the Far Left, have such a low opinion of minority (meaning Black) people.

Anyhow, what could be more fair than making sure that the person voting is eligible to vote and is the actual voter? This is just more confirmation that “climate change” is not about science, but about far left Progressive politics.

Read: Climate Change Is Totally Linked To Voter ID Laws Or Something »

Pirate's Cove