If All You See…

By William Teach August 6, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrendous climate hating golf course, which should be replaced with lots of solar panels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on American pessimism.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Obama Mulls Ways To Force “Economic Patriotism” On Companies Looking To Bail On US Tax Rates

By William Teach August 6, 2014 – 8:29 am

Obviously, he’s looking for positive ways to get companies to stay, right?

(NY Times) The Obama administration is weighing plans to circumvent Congress and act on its own to curtail tax benefits for United States companies that relocate overseas to lower their tax bills, seeking to stanch a recent wave of so-called corporate inversions, Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew said on Tuesday.

Treasury Department officials are rushing to assemble an array of options that would essentially wipe out the economic incentive for the deals, Mr. Lew said. No final decision has been made.

“The question is, Can we do enough that it will materially change the economics of inversions so that companies will make different decisions?” Mr. Lew said in an interview. “The things we are looking at look to me like they could very materially change the economics of inversions.”

The action comes in the face of a recent increase in United States companies reaching deals to reorganize overseas, creating an explosive political issue that Mr. Obama has called a lack of “economic patriotism.”

Companies reorganize in nations that are tax friendly. They do this for two reasons. First is the 35% US tax rate, one of the highest in the developed world. Second, they want to avoid double taxation, where they are taxed on earnings in other countries. More and more companies are looking to do this

It would be the latest move by the Obama administration to use its authority to act where Congress will not. A provision in the president’s budget would have effectively banned inversions, and Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislation to halt or suspend them. Still, while some Republicans say they want to address the issue, there has been little bipartisan agreement on how to do so.

Would that be the budget that the Democrat Congress refused to even vote on? You can see the strong arm of Progressive fascism, where, instead of enacting positive ways to incent corporations to stay, they will be restricted. Obama has also been running around the country slamming companies for considering and actually going through with inversions. Because vinegar has always been the best method in catching flies, ya know!

The best way to stop them is to lower the tax rate, make it competitive with the other developed nations.

At least Obama isn’t considering “loyalty oaths” for companies. Yet.

Patterico notes

Just like the American people, Obama has no respect for the Constitution or for separation of powers, and he is going to do anything that he thinks will be popular, safe in the knowledge that nobody will do anything about it.

This is one of Obama’s craziest ideas, and that’s saying something. Taxation without representation, I remind the reader, was thought to be a legitimate reason to overthrow the government in revolutionary times.

One has to wonder, if corporate inversions are so bad (and they can harm American taxpayers and shareholders), has Obama even attempted to talk to Congress? Has he offered concrete legislative plans? Has he said “let’s meet and discuss”? Based on his history, the answer to all are “probably not”. He barely talks to people in his own party.

Read: Obama Mulls Ways To Force “Economic Patriotism” On Companies Looking To Bail On US Tax Rates »

Posted in Barry Obama, Economy | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, Will “Climate Change” Make Ebola Breakouts Worse?

By William Teach August 6, 2014 – 8:02 am

You had to know that someone was going to go down the road in wondering about “climate change” and Ebola, and the answer is yes and no and maybe and possibly and “hey, we’re going to make you think about it because Hotcoldwetdry is involved with everything, and why are you still driving a fossil fueled vehicle, you Gaia hater you!”

(Washington Post Weather Gang) The Ebola outbreak is “out of control” in parts of West Africa, says the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Could climate change hasten the spread of the deadly virus? Perhaps, but the linkages are complicated, according to limited scientific literature on the topic.

Complicated. Kinda like the climate itself, but, then, Warmists have declared that the religion, er, science, is settled, and their super awesome computer models are perfect, and any issues with reality mean real world data is wrong. Let’s jump to the conclusion regarding dry and wet conditions and Ebola

Given the mixed-bag forecast, it remains unclear whether we will see an increase or decrease in Ebola outbreaks from precipitation patterns alone. But given that periods of drought are expected to increase, and more water vapor is available for rainfall in a warmer atmosphere, one can imagine that the climate change-Ebola link is non-zero.

Got that? Non-zero. A way of saying “we’re dooooooomed!!!!” Let’s jump back a bit

Ebola is a disease caused by the Ebola virus. Scientists don’t currently know how the disease originates, nor how to cure it. They know the virus is transmitted via contact with an infected animal. It appears that in most cases, Ebola outbreaks begin when humans eat infected bush meat — wild animals like bats and monkeys – which is cooked and used for sustenance in regions where food is scarce.

But Climastrologers know that the link is there, and it’s all because you refuse to turn your A/C up a few degrees, use hairspray, and don’t line dry your laundry. And because they think it might possibly maybe have something to do with eating tainted meat

Further, the interplay between climate change and deforestation potentially positions humans closer to infected animals. As deforestation stuns the habitat, people are often left to hunt “survivor species,” like bats, which are one of the most common natural reservoir of the Ebola virus. Yale’s Environment 360 writes:

It’s like they have some sort of Hotcoldwetdry Tourettes, having to throw in “climate change” with real issues, in this case, deforestation.

Kris Ebi, an expert on climate change and health at the University of Washington, is concerned that climate change stresses on agriculture may force more people to eat bats and other animals that carry the disease.

“We already know climate change is weakening crop yields,” Ebi told Al-Jazeera America. “When there’s high food insecurity, how will people go about making sure that they have enough food for their families?”

I wonder what they did when the world was in the midst of one the Holocene cool periods, or the last glacial age? Changes in climate will always cause “food insecurity” somewhere, and better conditions elsewhere. At the end of the day, though, even the World Health Organization states that the link to bats, specifically fruit bats, is not 100%. They are considered a natural host, but, they just don’t know. In fact, as the article notes “Scientists don’t currently know how the disease originates, nor how to cure it.” But, Climastrologers are sure there is a link between Ebola and “climate change”.

BTW, the first known outbreak was in 1976, a time period when scientists and news outlets were freaking out of the possibility of a coming ice age.

But, Ebola and “climate change” are doom!

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Say, Will “Climate Change” Make Ebola Breakouts Worse? »

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

Big Government Really Concerned About School Bake Sales

By William Teach August 5, 2014 – 2:35 pm

When Conservatives discuss the federal government being too big and too powerful, too nannying and a continued overreach, this is a perfect example

At Chapman School in Nebraska, resourceful students hawk pizza and cookie dough to raise money for school supplies, field trips and an eighth-grade excursion to Washington. They peddle chocolate bars to help fund the yearbook.

But the sales won’t be so sweet starting this fall. Campus bake sales—a mainstay of school fundraisers—are going on a diet. A federal law that aims to curb childhood obesity means that, in dozens of states, bake sales must adhere to nutrition requirements that could replace cupcakes and brownies with fruit cups and granola bars.

The restrictions that took effect in July stem from the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act championed by first lady Michelle Obama and her “Let’s Move!” campaign. The law overhauled nutrition standards affecting more than 30 million children. Among the changes: fatty french fries were out, while baked sweet potato fries were deemed to be fine.

The law also required the U.S. Department of Agriculture to set standards for all food and beverages sold during the school day, which includes vending machines, snack carts and daytime fundraisers. It allowed for “infrequent” fundraisers, and states were allowed to decide how many bake sales they would have that didn’t meet nutrition standards. (snip)

Each state can mandate the number of daytime fundraisers held each year that buck the nutrition requirements. But so far, 32 states have opted to stay strictly in the healthy zone, according to a draft report from the School Nutrition Association, which said the final number could change before the school year begins.

It’s just too much of a pain for States to give the waivers. Not all of them are Blue states, either. Some Red states have decided it’s too much trouble.

Read: Big Government Really Concerned About School Bake Sales »

Posted in Government | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 5, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a golf course that uses too much water, which means climate change problems, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Black & Right, with a post on what some military members were ordered to do during Ramadan.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Physicians Say New EPA Rules Target The Poor

By William Teach August 5, 2014 – 10:44 am

Oh, come on, this shouldn’t matter, cause we’re trying to save the earth!!!!!!

Physicians For Civil Defense – New Climate Rules Unfairly Target The Poor

Last week’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hearings in Atlanta on rules intended to “dramatically cut emissions” from coal-fired electricity generating stations were as contentious as expected.

The new rules are claimed to try prevent long-term climate change, including hotter summers and more intense storms – but the US has already done that, American energy sector CO2 emissions are back at early 1990s levels and coal is at early 1980s level. Yet global emissions have not gone down because China, India and Mexico, all exempt from climate treaty efforts, offset the reduction in the U.S.

The most dramatic cuts from the new rules will come from shutting plants down because they cannot pay the enormous cost of meeting the new rules. It will be impossible for many plants to comply at all which makes the Obama administration’s solar power agenda more economically, though primarily by causing its competitors to skyrocket in cost. That hurts poor people the most.

“Environmentalist demonstrators will go home,” stated Jane Orient, M.D., president of Physicians for Civil Defense. “They will do nothing to help poor people in Georgia cope with their lowered standard of living.”

Coal generates about 39% of electricity nationwide—and more than 60% in Georgia. The Climate Reality Project, which favors any rules that hurt existing energy, offered free Ben and Jerry’s ice cream to demonstrators.

“Poor and unemployed people won’t be eating ice cream when their power gets cut off,” stated Jane Orient, M.D., president of Physicians for Civil Defense. “And when the price of energy goes up, the price of everything goes up.”

It won’t be just the poor, but the middle class which will suffer. The only people who won’t suffer are the very rich people who are heavily pushing Hotcoldwetdry. Warmists will tell you that the poor will suffer if Hotcoldwetdry occurs, but their very policy prescriptions will be the most damaging. Especially when we have an almost 18 year pause in warming.

Read: Physicians Say New EPA Rules Target The Poor »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Dem: Attack On Nancy Pelosi Was “Sexist”

By William Teach August 5, 2014 – 8:08 am

You know Democrats are in the wrong when they start throwing out words like racist, bigot, homophobe, sexist, and others

(The Hill) Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) is calling the attack during the immigration debate on House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) “sexist.”

On MSNBC’s “Politics Nation” late Monday, Schakowsky was asked to react to Rep. Tom Marino’s (R-Pa.) comments toward Pelosi in which he suggested she bore some of the blame for the border crisis.

“I would say that it’s sexist and that it was patronizing. ‘Do the research, Madam Leader.’ And he got exactly what he deserved. And then for him to claim, ‘I was the tough guy. I’m a street fighter.’ Really? On the floor of the House?” she said.

First of all, it wasn’t an “attack”: it was a legitimate policy debate, with Pelosi have a snit fit, going apoplectic, and breaking House rules to force a confrontation. Second, Pelosi didn’t do the research. Remember, this was the same lady who said we had to pass the bill (Ocare) to find out what is in it.

Pelosi has some pretty thin skin for someone who has been in politics for such a long time. Furthermore, Nancy Pelosi has shown a mean streak many, many times, along with being out in La La Land. Hey, remember the time she said she thought it was unAmerican to enforce immigration law? Or accused ICE of terrorizing illegal aliens? She’s the one who said that 500 million jobs would be lost if the Stimulus wasn’t passed. She and her party have referred to Republicans as jihadists, terrorists, and arsonists. She and her party attack Conservative women willy nilly. A Democrat strategist just attacked Mitch McConnell’s wife

A Democratic operative deleted her Twitter account Monday following a series of what some called racist remarks about Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao.

Chao, former U.S. Labor Secretary under President George W. Bush, is Asian.

Kathy Groob, who describes herself as an “advocate for women in politics,” sent a series of tweets related to Chao at a political event Saturday.

According to WKMS, Groob sent the tweets in response to comments McConnell made at the event, in which he referred to his wife as “the only Kentucky woman who served in a president’s cabinet.”

Was it racists? No. Sexist? Possibly. Was it a typical Democrat blankhole comment, intolerant? You betcha.

Read: Dem: Attack On Nancy Pelosi Was “Sexist” »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats, Queen Nancy | Comments Off on Dem: Attack On Nancy Pelosi Was “Sexist” | Trackback URL

Poll: Americans Support Israel Actions 42% To 38%

By William Teach August 5, 2014 – 7:23 am

What does this mean? That 38% are Israel haters

(Politico) A slim plurality of Americans believe Israel’s actions against Hamas are justified, a new poll says.

According to a Gallup poll released Tuesday, 42 percent of Americans say Israel’s actions against Hamas are justified, compared with 38 percent who say they are unjustified. (WT note: 21% have no opinion)

By contrast, only 14 percent of Americans believe that Hamas’ actions against Israel are justified, with 66 percent saying they are unjustified.

U.S. public opinion on the matter has barely moved from when Gallup last tracked the question 10 days ago.

So, 38% are idiots. I wonder how they would feel if it was, say, Canada lobbing missiles into the U.S. or people sneaking across the southern border….oh, right, these people already support that kind of lawless action. But, it’s no wonder so many feel Israel is unjustified in protecting itself when major (left leaning) media outlets print Palestinian/Hamas propaganda like this

(NY Times) In the eyes of an occupying power, the humanity of those under its thumb depends on the degree of their submission to, or collaboration with, the occupation. If the occupied population chooses to stand in the way of the occupier’s goals, then they are demonized, which allows the occupier the supposed moral excuse of confronting them with all possible means, no matter how harsh.

The Israeli occupation of Palestine is one of the only remaining settler-colonial occupations in the world today.

And it is not limited to East Jerusalem and the West Bank: Although Israel withdrew its settlers and army from Gaza in 2005, it is still recognized by the United Nations as an occupying power, due to its complete control of Gaza’s airspace, sea access and of almost all of its land borders. (snip)

There is now an extremist, racist ideological current in Israel that not only justifies the recent onslaught on the Gaza Strip, but actually encourages the use of enormous and disproportionate violence against civilians, which has led to the extermination of entire families. (snip)

If Israel wants to continue its occupation and hinder Palestinians’ path to freedom and independence, then it should be aware that the Palestinian people will continue to resist with all the means at their disposal. If Israel intends to end the occupation, then it will find that the Palestinians are more than ready for an agreement.

That op-ed was written by Ali Jarbawi, a political scientist at Birzeit University and a former minister of the Palestinian Authority. The Times even went so far as to translate it. Not once does it mention the violence and threats from groups like Hamas. No mention of the tunnels nor rocket fire. No mention of the violent terrorist attacks. This is much of what the American public sees, blame of Israel, little blame on Hamas.

At the Washington Post, David Ignatius attempts to put all the burden on Netanyahu for a long term peace, virtually excusing Hamas. While there have certainly been a few articles and opinion pieces in favor of Israel, most tend to slam Israel, to put the burden for peace on Israel, and excuse Hamas.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Poll: Americans Support Israel Actions 42% To 38% »

Posted in Israel, War On Terrorism, Wonky Media | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Special Feminist Snowflakes Really Psyched Over Unshaven Armpits

By William Teach August 4, 2014 – 6:34 pm

To go with other unshaven body parts

(London Evening Standard) It’s time for the arm-bush ambush. Summer is a time when most women unquestioningly invest a lot of time, money and pain in hair removal, but many of London’s young feminists are becoming part of a growing revival. While this year has been declared “the year of the bush” for our lower regions, many women think that particular forest is old territory. Recently, outspoken trendsetting ladies (and uh… Madonna) have started cultivating their underarm gardens.

Many will recoil in horror at the thought of a woman’s unshaven pit. However, at a time when the most admired female faces are unashamedly bold, such as Cara Delevingne’s, it isn’t surprising that it’s increasingly cool for women to do something different.

I stopped shaving my armpits last year after my friend Alexis Calvas, 22, who hadn’t shaved for months, told me she was forced to remove her underarm hair or be fired from a dance-teaching job. It made me wonder why I mindlessly conformed to this fabricated part of feeling feminine. After a few months of shyly growing, I began to realise that we weren’t the only women binning our razors.

Uh huh

The underground armpit hair trend is sprouting all over London, where carefree young women are proudly presenting natural fuzz, often (less naturally) dyed in all colours of the rainbow. This is partly thanks to social media, which has allowed women to share images and stories about their bodies. But armpit hair is even growing within the fashion industry.

Read: Special Feminist Snowflakes Really Psyched Over Unshaven Armpits »

Posted in Good Move Slick | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Oops: Fossil Fuels Hating Natue Conservancy Makes Oodles Of Money Off Fossil Fuels

By William Teach August 4, 2014 – 1:38 pm

Well, hey, they have no choice!

(NY Times) The nation’s largest environmental group is earning money from an oil well on land it controls in Texas, despite pledging a decade ago not to permit new oil and gas drilling on land supposedly set aside for conservation.

That revelation is contained in a forthcoming book about climate change by the writer and activist Naomi Klein, and the essential facts of the case were confirmed last week by the Nature Conservancy, the environmental group in question.

The Nature Conservancy — which says it helps protect about 20 million acres in the United States — argues that it has had no choice in the case of the well. Under the terms of a lease it signed years ago with an oil and gas company and later came to regret, the group says it had to permit the drilling of the well in 2007.

They could have sold the permit. They could have done terminated the lease. But, like so many “environmental” groups, they need the cold hard cash for their operations. Their investment policy makes it clear that they won’t invest in any company

  • That derive 5 percent or more of their revenue from the production of coal or oil sands (the highest emitting fossil fuels); or
  • That approve new coal-fired electric generating capacity, unless equipped with carbon capture and storage technology to mitigate CO2 emissions.

They say they will be divested of all that do not meet the criteria by 2014. But, as Klein noted in May 2013

What we know:
-Refused to answer any questions or to provide any details about its holdings or policies
-Financial statements reveal it has at least $22.8 million invested in the energy
sector
-Has relationships with fossil fuel companies including: BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell
Considering divestment?
-No comment

I can’t find one article that shows that the Nature Conservatory has divested. Of course, since they pretty much keep their holdings secret, it is hard to check.

This is not to say they are bad organization. They’ve done great work regarding real environmental issues. At the end of the day, though, the Nature Conservancy, like most environmental groups, are hypocrites when it comes to fossil fuels.

 

Read: Oops: Fossil Fuels Hating Natue Conservancy Makes Oodles Of Money Off Fossil Fuels »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | Comments Off on Oops: Fossil Fuels Hating Natue Conservancy Makes Oodles Of Money Off Fossil Fuels | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove