Unilateral President Says He’ll Go It Alone On Immigration

He’s got a pen. He’s got a phone. He refuses to use either of them to reach across the aisle. Instead, he demands that things be done his way, and his way only. Establishment Republicans would love to pass amnesty, er, a pathway to citizenship, but there is no trust that Obama will do anything to secure the border. So

(CBS News) After waiting more than a year for the House to take up an immigration overhaul passed by the Senate, President Obama is moving ahead with a series of executive-level actions he says will improve the system in the absence of any legislation from Congress.

The move was spurred by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, telling the president the House had no plans to vote on any immigration legislation this year, a White House official said.

“I would greatly prefer Congress actually do something. I take executive action only when we have a serious problem, a serious issue, and Congress chooses to do nothing.,” Mr. Obama said Monday in the Rose Garden of the White House. “And in this situation the failure of House Republicans to pass a darn bill is bad for security, its bad for our economy, and its bad for our future.”

I’m failing to find the this principle within the Constitution. As the song goes “if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice”. Republicans have chosen not to do anything, because they cannot trust Obama. And, perhaps some of them are actually listening to the majority of Republicans who’ve said “hell no!” to any pathway to citizenship. Obama forgets that Congress was elected to represent the constituents of their states and districts. But, dictators will be dictators.

Interestingly, though, he has told Eric Holder and DHS head Jeh Johnson to send all resources to the southern border (racism!!!!1!!!). Pretty much to clean up the mess Obama created

“Protecting public safety is and will remain a top priority, and we will continue to focus on removing those who have committed serious crimes from our interior, but we will redirect other resources to make sure we keep doing what it takes to keep our border secure,” the official said.

Well, hey, no problem, because the illegals are already here.

It is amusing how he says

“I don’t prefer taking administrative action,” he said in the Rose Garden on Monday. “I would greatly prefer Congress actually do something.”

Get your hip waders out, the BS is getting high.

“If House Republicans are really concerned about me taking too many executive actions, the best solution to that is passing bills. Pass a bill. Solve a problem. Don’t just say no on something that everybody agrees needs to be done,” the president said.

The House GOP should call him on this and pass a strict bill to secure the border and slap heavy penalties on those that hire illegals. Oh, and make coming across the border illegally, along with coming legally then not leaving, a criminal penalty.

Read: Unilateral President Says He’ll Go It Alone On Immigration »

Hobby Lobby Ruling Means Imposing Religion On Workers Or Something

The stupid keeps coming in from Leftists at an alarming expected rate. Let’s look at what the Paper Of Record has to say, via their Editorial Board

Limiting Rights: Imposing Religion on Workers

The Supreme Court’s deeply dismaying decision on Monday in the Hobby Lobby case swept aside accepted principles of corporate law and religious liberty to grant owners of closely held, for-profit companies an unprecedented right to impose their religious views on employees.

The NY Times imposes their views on politics on its employees. Companies impose their views on employees all the time. How many have gone to being smoke free workplaces? How many restrict employees from being drunk or under the influence? How many have a dress code? I fail to see how the company refusing to pay for abortifacients within their insurance plan is imposing religion, when the worker can purchase their own with their own money.

BTW, it’s interesting to note that the NY Times constantly wants to impose their views on the citizenry, via government law/rule/regulation. Ones like a carbon tax. Obamacare. The contraceptive mandate.

It was the first time the court has allowed commercial business owners to deny employees a federal benefit to which they are entitled by law based on the owners’ religious beliefs, and it was a radical departure from the court’s history of resisting claims for religious exemptions from neutral laws of general applicability when the exemptions would hurt other people.

Employees now have a federal benefit to abortions? That’s what the Times is stating. This mandate, as I’ve noted numerous times, is not required by law, instead, it is an invention by Team Obama to patronize their hardcore liberal “give me free stuff” base. Neutral law? Not one Republican voted for it, and the majority of Americans still despise Obamacare.

Mr. Alito’s ruling and a concurrence by Justice Anthony Kennedy portray the decision as a narrow one without broader application, like denying vaccine coverage or job discrimination. But that is not reassuring coming from justices who missed the point that denying women access to full health benefits is discrimination.

That “denying access” is the #1 stupid argument from liberals, as noted by Sean Davis. Discrimination is #2. The Times continues the stupid with a “debate” about

How Hobby Lobby Ruling Could Limit Access to Birth Control

You’re welcome to read it, the article is about as hysterical, and I don’t mean the funny type, as you would expect. Even crazier is that the article was written by a man. Liberal men sure seem concerned with women have abortifacients. Kinda like how the Editorial Board outnumbers women 11-7.

  • Think Progress tries to tell us that the ruling is actually bad for people of faith. Also, the sky is purple and rain is made of chocolate.
  • Eugene Robinson thinks the ruling is like segregation.
  • At The Daily Beast, the court has declared itself the high priest or something.
  • Jonathan Cohn says this means that all insurance should be in Government hands. You know, Single Payer.

And here’s a favorite

Corporations Are People, And They Have More Rights Than You

Ever since Citizens United, the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision allowing unlimited corporate and union spending on political issues, Americans have been debating whether, as Mitt Romney said, “Corporations are people, my friend.” Occupy Wall Street protestors decried the idea, late night comedians mocked it, and reform groups proposed amending the Constitution to eliminate it. Today, however, the Supreme Court endorsed corporate personhood — holding that business firms have rights to religious freedom under federal law. Not only do corporations have rights, their rights are stronger than yours.

The stupid, it burns. All the ruling did was reaffirm the 1st Amendment, which, as I wrote yesterday, makes no distinction between the Individual and corporations in terms of Rights, because the First is telling Government what it cannot do.

We can surely expect The Stupid to continue for quite some time. I expect it to last through Friday, where abortionistas will use Independence Day to push their liberal notions.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Hobby Lobby Ruling Means Imposing Religion On Workers Or Something »

Are Corporations People?

One of the whiny tropes from Leftists regarding the ruling for Sebelius v Hobby Lobby is that corporations are not people. One can find a gazillion (slightly more than a sh*tload) examples in blogs, Tweets, Facebook posts, op-eds, editorials, and so forth. So, are corporations people?

Remember back to the last general election when Mitt Romney said they are because they are made up of people. While somewhat correct, there is a more elegant, coherent, cogent response:

It doesn’t f***ing matter. The Constitution makes no references to a difference between individuals and companies, corporations, private entities, groups, or even government agencies.

Look at the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

See anything in the groundbreaking discourse creating any difference? A separation between the Individual and other entities? In fact, the closest one gets to discussing the Individual is the 4th, the right of people to be secure….., which, when applied to anything other than an individual would be closer to Mitt Romney’s point, because, obviously, entities have rights along the same lines. The government cannot just come in and seize whatever they want. Lord knows the government is trying hard to do just that, however, that’s a different discussion.

Also the 5th, which is about being held for a capital case. Can’t do that to a company, can you? You can do it to business owners, who can be held responsible.

At the end of the day it doesn’t matter if corporations are people, because the Constitution really doesn’t differentiate. The Constitution and first ten Amendments were about Governmental powers and restrictions on Government. Government may not prohibit the free practice of religion. Corporations have Rights just like Individuals.

Unsure if they have Rights? Just ask any Liberal/Progressive/Democrat what they would think if the federal government came in and told them their company could no longer provide press releases, could not petition the government, had to pony up 100% of the net profits with no ability to protest, no hearing, no legal preceeding. If the corporation was told they would be housing federal troops. If they were told they had no right to a trial by jury in big money suits. No right to cross-examine. Smacked with excessive fines, their companies tacken away from them. Had to publish what the government told them to? Would Lefties think corporations had Constitutional Rights then?

Is water wet?

Read: Are Corporations People? »

What If “Climate Change” Wasn’t Real?

Just to be clear, once again, for Warmists, the debate is not about a changing climate, it is about causation. Warmists say it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind, yet they won’t modify their own behavior to match their beliefs. Strange, eh? Anyhow, Tali Trigg has an interesting essay regarding “climate change” and true environmentalism

If Climate Change Was Not Real…

… there would be a lot of other environmental issues to deal with. This is no big revelation, but it’s a question I’ve been pondering recently: What is the state of the world, not counting climate change? Or rather, what if we managed to reduce CO2 emissions to necessary levels, what would our focus be on then?

Don’t get me wrong, climate change is real, and if you need a proper education on why it is, please see John Oliver’s excellent ribbing on the topic. Rather, what I am wondering here is: what are the pressing environmental issues left, once climate change is left outside the conversation?

There are two reasons for asking this question: first, perhaps climate change is side-lining other environmental issues that need urgent attention; second, perhaps there are synergies between “solving” climate change and the other issues.

Mr. Trigg notes that real environmental issues are being discussed less and less in the media.

What got me thinking about non-climate-change issues was an article in The Guardian newspaper on June 24th, showing results from a report that the global food supply might be in peril due to insecticides. This sounds like Silent Spring all over to me, and unfortunately it appears to be pretty much along those same lines. The End of Food? I hope not.

Le sigh. Getting beyond the notion of Silent Spring being a huge load of mule fritters, and responsible for millions and millions of deaths worldwide, this is one of my big pet issues with “climate change”, or whatever you want to call it today: Warmists fold all sorts of real environmental issues under the banner of their Warmist cult.

Read: What If “Climate Change” Wasn’t Real? »

If All You See…

…is the flag of the world’s worst carbon polluter, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Rhymes With Right, with a post on bigoted Democrats.

Yes, there is a theme this week.

Read: If All You See… »

SCOTUS Rules In Favor Of Hobby Lobby

Breaking news, no details yet, the Supreme Court had ruled 5-4, just like I predicted earlier (though not a hard prediction to make), in favor of religious freedom in Sebelius v Hobby Lobby.

Details to follow.

USA Today starts out with an interesting analysis

The Supreme Court advanced the cause of religious freedom Monday in the most closely watched case of its term, ruling that companies cannot be forced to offer insurance coverage for birth control methods they equate with abortion.

Damn, religious freedom, how about that?

In the end, the conservatives led by Justice Samuel Alito ruled that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects closely held for-profit corporations — those controlled by a limited number of shareholders — from the law’s so-called “contraception mandate.” But they stopped short of a sweeping assertion that corporations can practice religion in the same way individuals can under the Constitution.

So a very narrow opinion, based more on the Religious Restoration Act, and there were still 4 Justices that cared not a whit for neither the law nor the Constitution.

CBS News has the most bat guano crazy I’ve run across so far, not even making any attempt to run anything but a highly partisan piece. Fortunately, we’ll certainly see worse as the day goes on.

https://twitter.com/TPCarney/statuses/483609648147488768

That tweet may or may not work posting with Droid.

Jezebel has da crazy-insane

In a yet another ruling that indicates that we’d enjoy better legal protection if we just incorporated our reproductive organs and sent them to murder civilians in Iraq, the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations that are “closely held” cannot be required to provide contraceptive coverage. Which means that under certain circumstances, it’s officially okay, according to the highest court in the US, for a woman’s boss to determine what sort of pregnancy prevention methods she can obtain with her compensation package. This is the most Monday Monday to ever have Mondayed. And it’s not even 11 am.

By this definition, employees should be able to determine every aspect of what a company offers for compensation.

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/statuses/483654287868719104

More at Twitchy, which also has lots more insane Tweets from Lefties.

Read: SCOTUS Rules In Favor Of Hobby Lobby »

Has Canada Given Up On America In Respect To Keystone XL?

If they have, we shouldn’t be surprised. Canada has become more and more upset over the dithering by Team Obama, and has threatened many times that they will give up on the U.S. and send the tar sands oil elsewhere, particularly to China (via Anthony Watts)

(Breitbart) Claiming it could no longer abide the Obama administration’s five-year refusal to approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline designed to bring 830,000 barrels a day of much-needed Alberta shale oil to U.S. refineries, the Canadian government recently approved plans for a huge new pipeline and port project to ship that oil to Asia instead.

When completed, the $7.9 billion Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, approved by Canada’s federal government on June 17, will consist of an environmentally safe, 730-mile oil pipeline. It will be capable of moving 600,000 barrels a day of Alberta oil to the pacific coast town of Kitimat, British Columbia, where a new state-of-the-art super tanker port facility will be built to ship the oil to thirsty Asian ports.

Instead of getting the oil from super friendly Canada, the U.S. can continue to rely on nations like Venezuala, Saudi Arabia, and others which aren’t exactly the best neighbors. All the jobs will be gone, and much of the tar sands oil that the U.S. does get will come by fossil fueled trucks. They can also use trains. But the pipeline would have been the safest.

At the end of the day, Keystone XL was all about politics, rather than any true concerns. It became a rallying point for unhinged Warmists, who took lots of fossil fueled plane and automobile trips to protest the fossil fuels that would flow through the pipeline. How is it political? Do you hear Warmists complaining about other pipelines? Do you see them protesting? That’s right, the answer is “no”. Joe Romm’s sugar daddy George Soros funded Climate Progress has noted many times that there are other big pipeline projects being built, yet Warmists do not seem to care.

And now Canada is flipping Obama the bird, and the oil will go elsewhere. Thanks, PBO! Heck of a job you’re doing.

Read: Has Canada Given Up On America In Respect To Keystone XL? »

Today Is Decision Day For Hobby Lobby And Obamacare Contraception Mandate

How will the Supreme Court rule?

(Fox News) Supporters of the arts-and-crafts chain Hobby Lobby — the business at the center of one of this session’s most closely watched Supreme Court cases — are sounding a confident tone ahead of Monday’s expected decision in their case challenging ObamaCare’s so-called contraception mandate.

The court meets for a final time Monday to release decisions in its two remaining cases before the justices take off for the summer.

The most contentious is that brought by Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby and a furniture maker in Pennsylvania. The for-profit businesses have challenged the requirement in the Affordable Care Act that employers cover contraception for women at no extra charge among a range of preventive benefits in employee health plans. It is the first major challenge to ObamaCare to come before the court since the justices upheld the law’s individual requirement to buy health insurance two years ago.

What is often missed within all the noise is that Hobby Lobby wasn’t concerned about contraceptives, as they offer them within their health plans. What they have a problem with, primarily, is being compelled by regulatory statute to offer abortifacients, such as the Day After pill, which violates their Freedom Of Religion.

Liberal supporters of the “contraception mandate”, which is not actually part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but, rather, invented by HHS, have made their main complaint to be that companies are not people, therefore, no 1st Amendment protections, a truly dangerous position. I wonder how the liberals would feel if it was their company being told they had no free speech, no ability to ask for redress of grievance? We also hear from those on the Right that companies may not be people, but are made of people. While technically true, what gets missed is that the 1st Amendment makes no distinction between citizens and companies. It is telling government what they cannot do under any circumstances.

Of course, some news outlets, read “crazy liberals”, go a bit wonky ahead of the decision. Here’s Politico’s Stephanie Simon

Hobby Lobby aims for Obamacare win, Christian nation

The evangelical owners of Hobby Lobby made a fortune selling crafts supplies and made headlines fighting government-mandated birth control coverage. They’re also using their billions to sell the American public on the literal truth of Scripture — through a public school Bible curriculum, a huge museum around the corner from the Smithsonian and public forums on the faith of the Founding Fathers.

The Green family may be best known in secular circles for their lawsuit against Obamacare, a high-stakes — and highly political — case that could undercut the administration’s goal of setting minimum standards for health care coverage. By the end of this month, the Supreme Court will decide if the federal government can force the Greens to include methods of contraception they deem sinful as part of employees’ health insurance.

The pending Hobby Lobby ruling has thrust the Greens into the national spotlight, but the family’s mission is far bigger than a single court case. The Greens are spending hundreds of millions on a quiet but audacious bid to teach a wayward nation to trust, cherish — and heed — the Bible.

This is purely red meat for hardcore Leftists, a concern about a growing theocracy or something, rather than people who care deeply about their religious beliefs. This also attempts to put the decision in terms of pushing America towards being a theocracy, while, interestingly, Liberals never seem concerned about the real danger from Islamists pushing for a giant caliphate. Finally, if the Greens have been thrust into the national spotlight, a dubious claim, then that means that the liberal mantra about corporations not being people is completely off base.

Seriously, you have to read the entire article, a two pager, for the full effect about the concern over growing religion. Politico also notes the possibility that unions could take a major hit in Harris v Quinn. Wait, I thought “corporations aren’t people”, so, therefore, unions should not have the right to compel employee behavior?

The Hill is also a bit hysterical

The boundaries of religious freedom hang in the balance as the Supreme Court prepares to close out its term with a decision on the Affordable Care Act’s “birth control mandate.”

Monday’s ruling, the most closely watched of the season, decides round two for ObamaCare at the high court, and will be the second time that the justices will close their term with a ruling on President Obama’s signature law.

The stakes are high. A ruling against the administration could undermine the statute’s provision requiring companies to offer contraceptive services to workers as part of their insurance coverage.

It would peel away a significant portion of the mandate, potentially affecting preventive health coverage for millions of women, the government and backers of the law say.

Perhaps even more important, they contend, are the ramifications of a finding that corporations could be exempt from federal statutes on grounds that they have religious objections.

One of Liberals arguments is the “slippery slope”, whereby, for example, companies would reject offering certain medicines since they violate their religious conscious, which hasn’t happened so far. Interestingly, they miss the reverse, where an administration can force companies to violate their religious beliefs, and other 1st Amendment protections.

At the end of the day, the decision is about Government compelling a violation of religious beliefs. It will not take down Obamacare, since this was, as mentioned, not an actual part of the law, but a rule manufactured by the Obama administration out of thin air. Most companies couldn’t care less about offering contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization procedures, and simply pass the cost on to their employees. Some do, and the 1st Amendment is their protection.

I expect a 5-4 decision in favor of Hobby Lobby, with the Liberals on the Court voting against the Constitution they say they cherish.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Today Is Decision Day For Hobby Lobby And Obamacare Contraception Mandate »

Huge Ocean Whirpools Help Drive Weather And Climate

Look! Science! (via The Hockey Schtick)

Huge ‘whirlpools’ in the ocean are driving the weather

11:08 27 June 2014 by Michael Slezak New Scientist

Giant “whirlpools” in the ocean, up to 500 kilometres across, are driving the world’s climate on a scale previously unimagined. We just don’t know exactly how yet.

The bodies of swirling water, called mesoscale eddies, are 100 km to 500 km in diameter. They form when patches of water are destabilised by obstacles like islands. The eddies carry huge volumes of water and heat across the oceans, until they slowly stop spinning over days or months and reintegrate with the surrounding water.

The assumption was that they gradually diffused the heat they carried in all directions as they travelled, which would hardly do anything to the climate. Now, for the first time, the amount of water and heat they carry has been measured and it turns out the eddies have a big effect after all. (snip)

It’s not clear what this means for the weather, but it is likely to be significant. Some of the world’s biggest sources of climate variability, such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation, are powered by heat moving around the oceans, driven by wind and ocean currents. The eddies could have similar effects, says Qiu, and once we understand them it should help us create more accurate predictions of the regional effects of climate change.

As the Hockey Schtick notes

Amazing what climate scientists can discover about natural climate change by making measurements and observations instead of assuming what “the consensus” previously believed to be true. The junk output of climate models does not incorporate very important natural phenomena such as these newly discovered large eddies or ocean and atmospheric oscillations, which are the true drivers of weather and climate, not CO2.

Next up, Warmists will surely tell us that the whirpools have increased and have a bigger impact because of Mankind’s “carbon pollution” output.

Read: Huge Ocean Whirpools Help Drive Weather And Climate »

If All You See…

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle and the evil flag of a massive carbon polluting nation, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Climate Etc, with a post on whether Steven Goddard is right.

Read: If All You See… »

Pirate's Cove