It’s that time of the year to celebrate a day that some of us stop actually counting, and just say “yes, it’s my birthday.” Pirate dance!
BTW, if any of you have some extra change lying around, perhaps you can pay for me to go off on vacation for half of August.
Read: Birthday Time! »
…is an awesome carbon free bicycle, which Everyone Else should be forced to ride, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Joshuapundit, with a post on Lois Lerner attempting to hide emails.
Read: If All You See… »
Serendipitously, almost the same percent are all for forcefully shutting down debate
(Rasmussen) Voters strongly believe the debate about global warming is not over yet and reject the decision by some news organizations to ban comments from those who deny that global warming is a problem.
Only 20% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Sixty-three percent (63%) disagree and say the debate about global warming is not over. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.) (snip)
The BBC has announced a new policy banning comments from those who deny global warming, a policy already practiced by the Los Angeles Times and several other media organizations. But 60% of voters oppose the decision by some news organizations to ban global warming skeptics. Only 19% favor such a ban, while slightly more (21%) are undecided.
It should also disturb people that 21% aren’t sure whether or not to ban discussion.
@jpodhoretz What percentage would you say? Not all, sounds like more than 75%. His off prompter moments really reveal his true character.
— Paul Dykstra (@Padman4321) July 9, 2014
Uniting Americans since 2008. MT @ZekeJMiller Obama on GOP: "I don't think they're all terrible people. I think they love their families."
— Full Professor BT (@back_ttys) July 9, 2014
Is it any wonder I say this guy is Not My President? More at Twitchy.
What else do they have? Well, there is the tired ol’ War On Womens. But, they want to avoid Obamacare (again). Can’t run on the stale economy. They have a president who acts more like a dictator. So, Race Card it is!
(The Hill) Democrats are injecting race into the 2014 midterm elections amid fears that a drop-off in minority voters could severely cost them at the polls this fall.
Democratic leaders in Congress and administration officials have suggested GOP opposition to policies ranging from immigration reform to ObamaCare are, at least partly, motivated by race.
More broadly, they’ve suggested conservative Tea Party criticism of President Obama is based on the fact that he is black.
Democrats reject charges that the rhetoric is a concerted political calculation on their part as they try to retain their Senate majority and make gains in the House.
“You turn out voters by demonstrating your past performance and what you’re promising to do for a constituent in the future,†said Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. “I don’t call that race-baiting. I call that a political platform.â€
In other words, this is all Democrats have. A platform of pitting Blacks against Whites, stirring up racial animosity. That said, one commenter has a good point
The problem is that their race-baiting is effective, the minorities will continue to vote for Democrats even as they sink deeper into poverty, even as the administration tries to legalize millions of low skilled illegal immigrant workers into a country that already has extremely high unemployment in the black community. Because, you know, it’s all the Republicans’ fault.
But, if you talk about race relations and you’re a Republican, then you are a h8er and a racist.
One of the things Democrats will pimp will be voter ID as being raaaaacist. Strangely, Democrats do not notice that claiming that Blacks are too stupid to earn a few bucks to purchase an ID is kinda racist.
Read: Democrats To Play Tattered Old Race Card For Midterms »
Everyone should have seen this coming, as Obama is Blaming Republicans for the results of Obama’s foolish, to put it mildly, border/immigration policies
(WRAL) Faced with a potentially awkward scene at the Texas-Mexico border, President Barack Obama sought to recast the political debate over a flood of young migrants as a question of Republican willingness to tackle the problem, not his decision to skip a chance to view the crisis first-hand.
Obama turned to one of his chief critics, Texas’ Republican Gov. Rick Perry, to try to make his point.
Following a meeting with Perry in Dallas Wednesday, the president suggested there was little daylight between Perry’s calls for additional assistance at the border and the nearly $4 billion request Obama sent to Congress this week. He also made a public appeal for Perry, a potential GOP presidential candidate in 2016, to wield his influence with Texas’ Republican-heavy congressional delegation and press them to back the emergency spending package.
“The only question at this point is why wouldn’t the Texas delegation or any of the other Republicans who are concerned about this not want to put this on a fast track and get this on my desk so I can sign it and we can start getting to work?” Obama said. He argued that opposition to the urgent spending request would be part of a pattern of obstructionism from Republicans who have also resisted moving forward on a comprehensive immigration bill.
The problem is that there is little detail in how Obama plans to use the requested money, something that Senators like Ted Cruz and John Cornyn have pointed out. Furthermore, how can they trust Obama due to his conduct so far? They can’t. This “humanitarian crisis” is solely the responsibility of Mr. Obama. A good chunk of the children have disappeared into the country, as they failed to appear in court.
But the border crisis has given Republicans fresh fodder to challenge that approach. GOP lawmakers have blamed Obama’s 2012 decision to defer deportations for some young people in the U.S. illegally for fueling rumors in Central America that unaccompanied minors who arrive at the border would be allowed to stay.
Obama forgets that Republicans were elected, also, and represent citizens who are against Obama’s illegal immigration plans.
“I’m not interested in photo ops,” Obama said Wednesday. “I’m interested in solving a problem.”
https://twitter.com/MattConnelly/statuses/487013387956920320
More at Ace of Spades.
As for solving a problem, he won’t even visit the border, and we can all see that this is going to shape up the same way most do: Obama shifting to campaign mode, Blaming, Smearing, Insulting, and going all Stompy Foot because he can’t get his way. If Obama’s willing to play this game simply over his unwillingness to visit the border, he can’t be trusted to deal with the big issues.
One Representative has called Obama aloof and detached, stating that it is bizarre the way Obama is handling this. That same rep, Democrat Henry Cueller (Tx), has claimed that the White House called and told him to stop criticizing President Thin Skin.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Trackback URL
Most people go to the beach and have a good time, enjoying the sun, sea, sand, and great seafood. Not a Warmist
A day at the beach reminds why action on climate change comes so slowly
A couple of weekends ago, I spent a pleasant two days in Cape May. (snip)
Jersey Shore towns are not just tourist spots. For so many, they are home, laden with generational meaning, or at the very least, a seasonal home that features heavily in a family’s narrative of who it is. .
This point came up often last summer when WHYY held its Ready for Next Time? community forums about how to rebuild the Shore post-Sandy.
A key topic was climate change and sea-level rise, which threaten to obliterate huge chunks of the Shore by the end of the century, or sooner. (snip)
“Of course, this is what should be done, what makes the most sense for the long haul,” said one surfer/contractor from Long Beach Island. “Everyone in this room knows that. But we also know it’ll never happen until it’s too late. There’s too much politics, too much money riding on the way the Shore is now.”
These were thoughtful folks, not fact-averse climate change deniers. (snip)
We can’t keep ducking the hard, emotional work that climate change demands of us. But we shouldn’t pretend that this work is easy for the people with the most to lose in the short term.
Say, how did the writer, Chris Satullo, get to Cape May, when he lives in the Philly area?
Read: A Warmist Goes To The Beach And Worries About “Climate Change” »
…is a wonderful bike causing the seas to stop rising, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Camp of the Saints, with a post on post-America.
Read: If All You See… »
You’ve heard about the last violence fest in uber-liberal Chicago, right?
(CBS News) At least 14 people were killed and 58 others were wounded in shootings across Chicago over the long holiday weekend, from Thursday evening through early Monday morning.
There were also six police-involved shootings, two of them involving teens who were killed.
Some, like MSDNC and ABC, report that there were 82 shootings. Chicago’s top cop, Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, blames this on lax federal and state gun laws
“The illogical nature of what’s happening here — that government can intercede and prevent this from happening is overwhelming. And I refuse to think otherwise in a great country like America that we can continue to allow this to happen — not just on a state, but on a federal level.”
McCarthy, reciting the criminal histories of several of the suspects in this weekend’s violence, noted gang members face tougher consequences for losing their guns from their gangs than from authorities.
Uh huh. Because we all know that gang members really care heavily about federal and state laws in general, much less gun laws. And Chicago already has some of the nations most draconian gun laws already, laws that pretty much affect law abiding citizens. But, hey, McCarthy is wrong, according to Warmists
Hot summers make for a bloody Chicago
(skip a few paragraphs)
In a city so infamously beset by violence that it’s earned the nickname Chiraq, the general trend has been that murders become more frequent in warmer weather. In 2012, there were 500 murders in Chicago, and many attributed the jaw-dropping figure — the highest in the country — to an unseasonably warm spring and unbearably hot summer. It wasn’t hyperbole: I was there, and I didn’t fully comprehend the meaning of “stifling heat†until July 2012.
When I read about the tragic events of this weekend, I started thinking about a great piece that my colleague Brentin Mock wrote for Grist last week:
When we think of heat-related deaths, we envision elderly people with heart problems who can’t manage under extreme temperatures. But Lee’s film also shows how heat exacerbates underlying tensions and anxieties in our communities, especially those where racial, cultural, and class differences are apparent … Do the Right Thing’s suspense builds as the temperature rises. The destruction at the movie’s conclusion is an apt metaphor for what will happen as the Earth’s temperature rises under climate change, enflaming communities’ socioeconomic problems in the process.
Got that? Warming is making this Bad. And, yes, small scale violence occurs when it is warmer. Studies bear this out. (interestingly, studies also bear out that war and general strife are more prevalent during cool periods). Yet, there have been more than enough murders, acts of violence, and gun violence which occurred during the winter in places like Chicago. The city has reached 200 homicides this year. There were 25 in March, 21 in February, and 23 in January. Certainly less than the 43 in May and 36 in June. And there have been 21 in July already. But, what about the 40 in December, 2013? Not exactly warm. Quite a few of them seem to be in the same areas of Chicago. Quite a few seem to involve gang members.
Instead of worrying about “climate change”, and, of course, they are trying to blame the fictional man-caused climate change, there should be a focus on the types of people involved in the majority of violence. You can’t stop it all, but blaming “climate change” is simply idiotic beyond belief. Furthermore, gun laws focus on law abiding citizens, quite a few who want guns to protect themselves from the criminals that gun laws ignore.
Read: All That Murderous Violence In Chicago? Yeah, “Climate Change” »
Trackback URL
This has made Obamacare supporters Very Concerned
(CBS News) The Supreme Court last week chipped away at one part of the Affordable Care Act, but its ruling in the Hobby Lobby contraception case left most of Obamacare intact. Other court cases, however, are making their way through the court system in an attempt to deliver a more fatal blow to the controversial law.
The Hobby Lobby ruling means nothing in the overall scheme of Obamacare. Even if another case comes along which completely scuttles the “contraception mandate”, it wouldn’t affect Obamacare in the least, since it was an administrative rule, not a requirement of the PPACA.
As early as this week, a three-judge panel from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to hand down a ruling on whether the federal government can give subsidies to Obamacare recipients in states with federally-run health care exchanges. If the appeals court rules in favor of the law’s opponents, it could cripple the law. More than half of the states rely on federally-run marketplaces, and were subsidies not available in those states, Obamacare could be too costly for many customers.
The case, Halbig v. Burwell, rests on how the court system interprets a poorly-worded sentence in the Affordable Care Act.
Section 1311 of the law says the federal government will give subsidies to eligible consumers who buy insurance from an exchange “established by the State.” The Halbig suit — and three other similar cases — argue that, consequently, subsidies aren’t available to customers in the 34 Obamacare exchanges that were established by the federal government.
At the end of the day, this case, originally Halbig v. Sebelius before she jumped ship, seems to rest on intent, at least in the realm of legal arguments and the court precedings. That is the Government argument. However, the actual text of Obamacare is very specific: there can only be subsidies to citizens who sign up through an Exchange established by a State.
Steven Schwinn, a professor at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago, agreed that the legal basis for the challenge focuses intently on one poorly-drafted phrase.
“So much of the language of the act makes clear the congressional intent was to extend subsidies to federal exchanges,” he said. “When you look beyond one sentence… I think the picture is quite clear what’s going on in the Affordable Care Act.”
Yet, that is not what the law states. Perhaps the 100% Democrat written law should have had a little more attention paid to, prior to the votes of which no Republicans voted in the affirmative for its passage. Several of the judges had quite a bit of skepticism during the oral arguments for the “intent” argument. If the Government loses the decision, this could be on a fast track to Supreme Court review.
There are also plenty of other lawsuits flying around regarding Obamacare. And, let’s not forget, the ruling regarding the individual mandate comes in to play the minute someone is hit with the fine/fee/tax. When John Roberts sided with the Liberals, that door was opened.
Read: Ruling On Obamacare Subsidies Could Come As Early As This Week »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.