Obama’s Unserious Budget Is Still Mostly About Creating A Fight

By William Teach February 3, 2015 – 4:30 pm

I’ve already mentioned several times that Obama’s proposed budget is primarily about creating a fight with not just Congressional Republicans, but all Republicans. More proof

(Politico) Obama is using the budget to challenge Republicans on middle-class issues, as well as national security funding. He made his budget pitch during a visit to the Department of Homeland Security, where he warned Republicans that they’ll undermine the nation’s security and hurt the federal workers who work at those agencies — including the Border Patrol, airport screeners, law enforcement officials, the Coast Guard and the Secret Service — if they don’t send him a “clean” funding bill that doesn’t try to block his immigration executive actions.

“Don’t jeopardize our national security over this disagreement,” Obama said. “These Americans aren’t just working to keep us safe – they have to take care of their own families. The notion that they would get caught up in a disagreement around policy that has nothing to do with them makes no sense.”

Obama said the sequestration cuts have been bad for economic growth and national security, and warned: “I’m not going to accept a budget that locks in sequestration going forward … I will not accept a budget that severs the vital link between our national security and our economic security.”

That kind of rhetoric from Obama, particularly the “I’m not going to accept…”, is language designed to create strife, not language designed to come to agreement.

Republicans wasted no time rejecting Obama’s budget. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called it “another top-down, backward-looking document that caters to powerful political bosses on the Left and never balances—ever.” House Speaker John Boehner said it “would impose new taxes and more spending without a responsible plan to honestly address the big challenges facing our country.”

And Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi and House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, in a joint statement, declared that “a proposal that never balances is not a serious plan for America’s fiscal future.”

Here’s what Republicans should do: don’t say anything about Obama’s proposed budget (which was on time for a first), other than that they will take a look at it in committee. Do not allow themselves to get into the partisan fight Obama desperately wants. And then, while they would be tempted to simply table the budget, instead, take it, tear it apart, keep the normal budget stuff, perhaps raising some and lowering others, along with ideas they can agree with, and strip out all the poison pills. Then put it up for a vote. If Obama and Democrats complain, simply say “hey, most of these ideas and funding measures are Obama’s idea. Is he complaining about his own ideas?” Turn it around.

But don’t get caught in the fight Obama wants. You can’t win. Not when he has the presidential bully pulpit and the majority of the U.S. media behind him.

Read: Obama’s Unserious Budget Is Still Mostly About Creating A Fight »

Posted in Barry Obama, GOP, Politics | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 3, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible carbon unfriendly dog causing the seas to rise, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Don Surber, with a post wondering what happened to the last $3 trillion.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Warmists Continue Meme Of Heat Causing More Snow

By William Teach February 3, 2015 – 10:19 am

You’ve heard and read this before, both here and at other sites. Originally, Warmists were proclaiming that snow would be a thing of the past, that school kids wouldn’t know what snow is. When that backfired, they changed and said that snow, especially big snow storms, would increase because of “climate change”. They’ve done the same thing with tropical storm activity and cold snaps. Because “science”, you know, whereby science has become feelings and political based

When global warming means more snow

Yes, this is by Climatologist Keven Trenberth. The same one who wrote in the Climategate emails “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

As (I assume he means “At”) first glance, asking whether global warming results in more snow may seem like a silly question because obviously, if it gets warm enough, there is no snow. Consequently, deniers of climate change have used recent snow dumps to cast doubt on a warming climate from human influences. Yet they could not be more wrong.

To understand the connection, we need to look at what conditions make for the heaviest snowfalls. Then, we can look at how climate change is affecting those conditions, especially temperatures in the atmosphere and oceans, during winters. Studying these factors reveals that there is a higher chance of heavy snow storms in North America but the length of the snow season is already shrinking due to global warming.

In other words, Trenberth is going to go through some extreme machinations to say that human caused global warming is causing it to be snowier now. He yammers on about “Goldilocks temperatures”, “more moisture” (debunked), and then we get to

The environment in which all storms form is now different than it was just 30 or 40 years ago because of global warming. Changes in atmospheric composition from human activities have increased carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases, with carbon dioxide level increasing by over 40 percent since about 1900 mainly from burning fossil fuels.

Interesting. It was quite snowy during the cooling of the 40’s through the late 70’s. It was also snowy during the previous pause. It was also snowy during the big warm period of the 1930’s. It was certainly snowy during the Little Ice Age and the last glacial age. Are we to assume that it was super warm during those periods which caused the snow and cold?

Oh, and what fossil fuels usage caused the snowy periods during the Little Ice Age, Dark Ages, other Holocene cool periods, the last glacial period, heck, Snowball Earth? This is a political argument from Trenberth and the Warmists designed to continue to prop up their anti-science beliefs.

Read: Warmists Continue Meme Of Heat Causing More Snow »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

ISIS Throws Another Gay Man From Roof, Stoned To Death When Survives

By William Teach February 3, 2015 – 7:18 am

Here’s your Religion of Peace

(UK Daily Mail) A man has reportedly been blindfolded and thrown off a tower block in Syria for ‘being gay’ before being stoned to death after surviving the fall.

New images have emerged appearing to show ISIS militants hurling the man off the seven-storey building in the town of Tal Abyad in Raqqa.

The man, who was supposedly being punished for having a ‘homosexual affair’, apparently survived the fall, but was stoned to death by a waiting crowd at the foot of the tower block.

Here’s what’s amazing to me: ISIS and the other hardcore Islamists are virulently anti-gay. Liberals, though, can barely, if ever, take it upon themselves to oppose the Islamists in any fashion. U.S. Conservatives, though, are continuously slammed as a whole for any opposition to gay marriage, which 99.9999% of the time is peaceful. Islamists throw them from roofs. Hang them. Stone them. Jail them. Yet, not a peep from Liberals who are supposedly pro-gay.

Why? Good question. Liberals seem to be mostly incapable of condemning the actions and beliefs of the Islamists; instead, they do all they can to protect the entire Muslim religion, using many strawman arguments. One of my favorite new ones is that the hardcore violent Islamists are only 1% of the entire Muslim population. If we’re saying that there are 1.6 billion Muslims, that means 16 million are violent jihadis.

Of course, there are plenty of opinion polls showing the number of Muslims whom approve of violent attacks. They may not perform them themselves, but they are A-OK with them. And like them. And want them to happen. Yet, Leftists here in the U.S. and throughout the 1st World go to great pains to not use any harsh words against Muslims, and even go so far as to say that groups like ISIS are “no Islamic”. The only reason I can think of is that Leftist’s have a kneejerk reaction to any issue those on the Right are concerned about, so, Leftists have to take a 99.99% opposite reaction. Or, perhaps, they are just scared to condemn a religion which tends to react in a violent manner to any criticism.

During the same month, ISIS – also known as Islamic State or ISIL – released a document on social media, explaining the rules of its ‘penal code’, which is being brutally enforced across ISIS-held territory in Syria and Iraq.

Entitled ‘Clarification [regarding] the Hudud’, the document contains a list of the punishments handed out for crimes committed in the Islamic State, in accordance with the extremist group’s radical interpretation of Shariah law.

All punishments are carried out after a ‘trial’ at an Islamic State court and, after the sentencing, the prisoner is taken into the centre of the town or city.

All forms of blasphemy against Islam are punished by execution, even if the accuser chooses to repent of their sins. Likewise, committing murder, spying, apostasy or sodomy is punished by immediate death.

Anyone found guilty of banditry, specifically murder and stealing, is put to death by crucifixion.

According to Islamic State’s reading of Shariah law, thieves have a hand cut off. It is unclear whether the victim can choose which hand is removed.

Flogging is another common punishment carried out under Islamic State.

According to the document, 80 lashes of the whip is given to anyone who drinks alcohol or is found guilty of committing slander. Normally the whipping is not carried out on bare skin.

The punishment of stoning, where heavy rocks are thrown or piled on top of the victim, is ordered for any married man or woman who has committed adultery.

A hundreds lashes and immediate exile is given to any man or woman who has sex outside of marriage.

I anticipate Leftists immediately attempting to turn this around and condemn Conservatives, perhaps using the talking point that Conservatives believe the same things, mostly in an attempt to deflect the subject matter away from hardcore Islam. This is what they do. They just can’t seem to find it in themselves to condemn a brutal, repressive, violent, regressive subsection of Islam, which continues to spread their hardcore religious beliefs throughout the world, turning more and more Muslims to their Islamist ways.

Leftists have apparently decided that they’d rather ignore the plight of gays and women within the Islamist world, that they’d rather protect the Islamists over the danger to women and gays.

Read: ISIS Throws Another Gay Man From Roof, Stoned To Death When Survives »

Posted in Liberal World, RoP | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Is Very Concerned Over Chris Christies Luxury Travel

By William Teach February 3, 2015 – 6:50 am

Alternate title: NY Times Totally Unconcerned About Barack Obama’s Luxury Travel On Public Credit Card

(NY Times) As Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey waited to depart on a trade mission to Israel in 2012, his entourage was delayed by a late arrival: Mr. Christie’s father, who had accidentally headed to the wrong airport.

A commercial flight might have left without him, but in this case, there was no rush. The private plane, on which Mr. Christie had his own bedroom, had been lent by Sheldon G. Adelson, the billionaire casino owner and supporter of Israel. At the time, he was opposing legislation then before the governor to legalize online gambling in New Jersey.

Mr. Christie loaded the plane with his wife, three of his four children, his mother-in-law, his father and stepmother, four staff members, his former law partner and a state trooper.

King Abdullah of Jordan picked up the tab for a Christie family weekend at the end of the trip. The governor and two staff members who accompanied him came back to New Jersey bubbling that they had celebrated with Bono, the lead singer of U2, at three parties, two at the king’s residence, the other a Champagne reception in the desert. But a small knot of aides fretted: The rooms in luxurious Kempinski hotels had cost about $30,000; what would happen if that became public?

So, let me ask: did this violate any ethics? Let’s also ask, where the taxpayers paying for this? Nope on both accounts. However, this has obviously unsettled the NY Times. He’s taken quite a few trips at the expense of other people, often foreign trips, often in an attempt to bring business to NJ. Jerry Jones paid for his trip to see the Cowboys play several times. The only mentions of taxpayer funded travel are about using car services rather than taxis and

State taxpayers paid for Mr. Christie, his wife and two aides to travel to the 2013 Super Bowl in New Orleans, as New Jersey prepared to host the 2014 game. Airfare for four passengers came to $8,146; Mr. Christie’s hotel for three nights cost $3,371.

And here comes the mention of Obama

Mr. Christie is hardly the first politician, in either party, whose embrace of luxury travel has prompted criticism. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for example, a potential Democratic candidate for president, is known for her dependence on private planes often paid for by others.

Oh, nope.

Notice, the majority of the complaint is about the use of private money for luxurious travel. It’s apparently OK in NY Times World to take luxurious travel at the expense of the American Public, otherwise they’d have to mention Barack Obama. Nancy Pelosi and most elected politicians play the same free luxury travel game whether it is paid for by billionaires or the tax payer. It doesn’t make it right, but, they all do it.

It is interesting that the Times chooses to take a shot at Christie over this, while completely ignoring Obama and his travel. That’s the point, and highlights what Conservatives mean by media bias.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Is Very Concerned Over Chris Christies Luxury Travel »

Posted in Wonky Media | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: “world could turn nearly uninhabitable within current lifetimes” From Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach February 2, 2015 – 4:06 pm

Doom

Abrupt Climate Change, Already?

There are some serious scientists who believe it is already here. If their analysis is correct, the world could turn nearly uninhabitable within current lifetimes.

And those serious scientists are looking at real data, right?

Nevertheless, it’s the scientists who base their opinion on first hand knowledge, “boots on the ground,” who are screaming the loudest. They do not let the “ computer models” override what they personally experience. In contrast, they see and feel the reality “in the field.”

So, we’ve blown by computer models and now look towards feelings based “science”. Good grief.

As it goes, the American public may be caught off guard, unprepared, and ill equipped to press its political establishment for appropriate action because abrupt climate change has a history of happening very, very quickly, within decades, not over hundreds of years.

Strange that Warmists aren’t actually living the carbon neutral life, eh? It’s always about some government solution that harms Other People.

There’s lots of hand wringing over the Arctic, and

According to John Nissen: “Sea ice could disappear at the end of summer as soon as next September.

Despite a general increase in Arctic sea ice over the last few years. And it still wouldn’t prove anthropogenic causation.

Read: Bummer: “world could turn nearly uninhabitable within current lifetimes” From Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 2, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible plastic water bottle causing desertification, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on home ownership rates.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Global Warming Created Snow Is Like Totally Bad For Animals

By William Teach February 2, 2015 – 10:21 am

Because animals never had to deal with winter before

Winter Storms Impact Connecticut Wildlife In Different Ways by Gregory B. Hladky

Bitter cold and heavy snowfall of the kind we’ve been experiencing lately is usually just an inconvenience for people. For Connecticut’s wildlife, these violent winter storms can be life or death events.

Deep snow can make finding food tough for animals and birds. Sustained frigid temperatures are often even more dangerous, according to state wildlife biologists. And most scientists agree that climate change is likely to bring us more volatile weather patterns, including frequent and harsher winter storms, creating new challenges for our wildlife.

Pretty much the rest of the article ignores the notion of Hotcoldwetdry, but, one has to wonder how these same birds and animals survived during the Little Ice Age, much less the last glacial age. As for the notion of heat creating “frequent and harsher winter storms”, these people are just nuts.

Read: Global Warming Created Snow Is Like Totally Bad For Animals »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Libyan Officials Were Very Concerned About Arms Transfers Ending Up In Hands Of Jihadis

By William Teach February 2, 2015 – 7:18 am

Here’s the Obama/Clinton “Smart Power” at work

(Washington Times) Libyan officials were deeply concerned in 2011, as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was trying to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power, that weapons were being funneled to NATO-backed rebels with ties to al Qaeda, fearing that well-armed insurgents could create a safe haven for terrorists, according to secret intelligence reports obtained by The Washington Times.

The reports included a 16-page list of weapons that Libyans supposedly tracked to the rebels from Western sources or their allies in the region. The memos were corroborated by a U.S. intelligence asset familiar with the documents as well as former top Gadhafi regime official Mohammed Ismael.

That report, which was prepared in English so it could be passed by a U.S. intelligence asset to key members of Congress, identified specific air and sea shipments observed by Libyan intelligence moving weapons to the rebels trying to unseat the Gadhafi regime.

“There is a close link between al Qaeda, Jihadi organizations, and the opposition in Libya,” the report warned.

In the documents and separately recorded conversations with U.S. emissaries, Libyan officials expressed particular concern that the weapons and training given the rebels would spread throughout the region, in particular turning the city of Benghazi into a future terrorist haven.

Even before Ghadafi was deposed, Islamic jihadis were known to be streaming into eastern Libya, turning the opposition from a legitimate movement into just another hardcore Islamic jihad push.

Mrs. Clinton, now considering a run for president, was the moving force inside the Obama administration to encourage U.S. military intervention to unseat Gadhafi in Libya. The latest documents and audio recordings are likely to give her Republican critics on Capitol Hill fresh ammunition to question whether she had an adequate plan and whether her efforts led to the tragedy in Benghazi a year later and the general lawlessness and chaos that have gripped Libya since.

She and Obama lived in their own bubble world. The question is, will information like this damage her with squishy Democrat voters and Independents during the general election, if she was to get the Democrat nomination?

Read: Surprise: Libyan Officials Were Very Concerned About Arms Transfers Ending Up In Hands Of Jihadis »

Posted in Barry Obama, Hillary Clinton, War On Terrorism | Comments Off on Surprise: Libyan Officials Were Very Concerned About Arms Transfers Ending Up In Hands Of Jihadis | Trackback URL

Obama Budget Pushes Overseas Corporate Profit Tax

By William Teach February 2, 2015 – 6:56 am

This makes it pretty darned clear that Obama is simply looking to pick a fight with not just Congressional Republicans, but all Republicans and conservatives. The only other option is that he is completely divorced from reality, that he’s a total political hack, that he’s still out of ideas, and has absolutely no idea that he and his Party go thumped during the midterms

(Fox News) President Obama will on Monday give Congress his $4 trillion spending plan for fiscal 2016 that includes a request for billions of dollars in much-needed public works projects — an idea that has bipartisan support but little backing for the proposed tax increases to fund such efforts.

Obama will propose a six-year, $478 billion public-works program for highway, bridge and transit upgrades, with half of it to be financed with a one-time, 14 percent tax on U.S. companies’ overseas profits.

The tax would be due immediately. Under current law, those profits are subject only to federal taxes if they are returned, or repatriated, to the U.S., where they face a top rate of 35 percent. Many companies avoid U.S. taxes on those earnings by simply leaving them overseas.

That idea is going absolutely nowhere. It will never ever pass. Even a goodly chunk of Democrats have to admit that this is a Bad Idea, one which could see even more companies move their main country registration to countries other than the U.S. prior to this “one time tax” kicking in. Especially since corporate leaders understand that if happens once, it can certainly happen again, to the point of being fully embedded in the law for every year (more on this in a moment).

But, really, this is most likely a poison pill, meant to create that aforementioned fight with the GOP, who will deem this as a non-starter, allowing Obama to demagogue the issue out on the campaign trail. The only other assumption is that Obama’s a fool.

The tax is part of a broader administration plan to cut corporate tax breaks and increase taxes on the country’s highest wage-earners to pay for projects to help the middle class.

Yet, what it would do would is, again, send more corporations headed to the door. Funny how Obama takes advantage of every tax break on the books to lower his own tax burden every year when he pays his own taxes, eh? As for infrastructure, what should generally be an easy notion to deal with becomes a massive fight, thanks to Obama’s intransigence.

Oh, wait, did the AP (it’s an AP article, posted at Fox News) mention something about the tax being one time?

At issue is how to get companies to bring back some of their foreign earnings to invest in the United States. The current 35 percent top tax rate for corporations in the United States, the highest among major economies, serves as a disincentive and many U.S. companies with overseas holdings simply keep their foreign earnings abroad and avoid the U.S. tax.

Under Obama’s plan, the top corporate tax rate for company profits earned in the U.S. would drop to 28 percent. While past foreign profits would be taxed immediately at the 14 percent rate, going forward new foreign profits would be taxed immediately at 19 percent, with companies getting a credit for foreign taxes paid.

This is a plan guaranteed to send companies running for the door to moving their registration to other countries.

What the GOP should do is simply put Obama’s budget up for a vote in both the House and Senate. Say “here it is. Vote”. Put Democrats on record. His past budgets have failed miserably.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama Budget Pushes Overseas Corporate Profit Tax »

Posted in Barry Obama | Comments Off on Obama Budget Pushes Overseas Corporate Profit Tax | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove