Good News: Alameda County Passes Sales Tax Increase To Fund Illegal Alien Health Care

By William Teach June 4, 2014 – 9:02 am

I actually think this idea is sensational: it means more illegals will stream into Alameda County, California. I think most California counties should pass the same measures, so that illegals tend to go there, rather than to the states that are trying to stop the flow of illegals

(Reuters) Voters in California’s Alameda County passed a measure on Tuesday that is expected to raise $100 million a year for health clinics for illegal immigrants, who are excluded from state programs and the federal Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.

On May 23 a measure to include illegal immigrants in the state’s Medi-Cal program for the poor to residents who are undocumented stalled in the state senate, and immigration reform proposals have also stalled in U.S. Congress for the past year.

The measure extends a 0.5 percent sales tax to fund the clinics to 2034 from 2019.

“Our elected officials, our constituents, and our health authority see healthcare as a basic human right, to be provided regardless of immigration status,” Alex Briscoe, Director of the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency, said.

The sales tax in Alameda County, which includes Berkley and part of Oakland, is already 9% overall (a few incorporated cities have even higher tax rates). 7.5% is the state tax, 1.5% is Alameda’s tax. So, these liberal fools just voted to increase their county imposed tax by 33% to pay for illegals, who clog up their health systems, forcing citizens to wait longer and see emergency rooms and clinics close. Also, clog up their judicial system and jails. Commit crimes. Take positions at schools that could have gone to US citizens. Turn neighborhoods into slums. But, hey, this is what these fools want. I wonder when they will complain about not being able to afford stuff because of the taxes they pass? Because more illegals will head to Alameda County.

Meanwhile

(Fox News) President Obama on Monday described a surge in unaccompanied immigrant children caught trying to cross the Mexican border as an “urgent humanitarian situation,” as the White House asked Congress for an extra $1.4 billion in federal money to cope. Obama said the U.S. will temporarily house the children at two military bases.

In its new estimates, the government said as many as 60,000 children, mostly from Central America, could be caught this year trying to cross the Mexican border illegally, costing the U.S. more than $2.28 billion to house, feed and transport the children to shelters or reunite them with relatives already living in the United States. The new estimate is about $1.4 billion more than the government asked for in Obama’s budget request sent to Congress earlier this year.

This is what happens when the government coddles illegals instead of attempting to stop them. And lax policies will incent more illegals to come.

Read: Good News: Alameda County Passes Sales Tax Increase To Fund Illegal Alien Health Care »

Posted in Illegal Immigration, Liberal World | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Can You Guess What You’ll Need To Attend EPA “Climate Change” Hearings?

By William Teach June 4, 2014 – 8:26 am

The EPA apparently doesn’t want Black people to attend

(The Blaze) Democrats have argued for the past few years that voter ID laws are being used by Republicans to create obstacles to voting by minorities, the elderly and others.

But on Monday, the Obama administration said it would require anyone who wants to attend critical environmental hearings later this summer to show a photo ID. The rule raises the question of whether everyone will have a fair shot of attending these hearings, which have the potential to shape environmental policy for the next few decades.

The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday announced a proposed regulation aimed at curbing carbon emissions from power plants by 30 percent by 2030, and said it would hold four hearings on its controversial proposal in July.

The EPA said photo IDs would be needed to attend these hearings because they will be held in government buildings.

“Because these hearings are being held at U.S. government facilities, individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared to show valid picture identification to the security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room,” the regulation states. The rule doesn’t define what a valid ID is, but the term is generally understood to mean a passport, driver’s license, military or other form of government identification card.

Racism! Discrimination! An attempt to suppress our right to vote express our Free Speech rights!

The “government facilities” talking point is a cute one, and states under assault for passing ID requirements (remember, it’s only certain ones, typically those who tend to vote GOP or could be swing states that Dems rail against. They don’t bother with other states with voter ID laws) to vote should should simply have all votes at government facilities. Heck, in my area quite a few early voting places are government property. I usually end up going to a school in Knightdale to early vote. Let’s have all voting on government property.

Anyhow, racism! Discrimination!

I will say, I doubt any of the conspiracy talk about using this to deny Skeptics access is real. That would require competence on the part of the federal government. Besides, there are way too many of us to stop.

The EPA has other rules about how participants are supposed to behave during the hearings, including: ”No large signs will be allowed in the building, cameras may only be used outside of the building and demonstrations will not be allowed on federal property for security reasons.”

In other words, they do not want their words recorded by citizens, and, more importantly, they want to deny citizens their 1st Amendment Rights to protest peaceably and ask for redress of grievance.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Can You Guess What You’ll Need To Attend EPA “Climate Change” Hearings? »

Posted in Current Affairs, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Strange: A Liberal Really Hates Paying Taxes She Voted For

By William Teach June 3, 2014 – 6:20 pm

This goes perfectly with the notion of Someone Else

(MyStatesman) “I’m at the breaking point,” said Gretchen Gardner, an Austin artist who bought a 1930s bungalow in the Bouldin neighborhood just south of downtown in 1991 and has watched her property tax bill soar to $8,500 this year.

“It’s not because I don’t like paying taxes,” said Gardner, who attended both meetings. “I have voted for every park, every library, all the school improvements, for light rail, for anything that will make this city better. But now I can’t afford to live here anymore. I’ll protest my appraisal notice, but that’s not enough. Someone needs to step in and address the big picture.”

You have to love when liberal policies that liberals support beat liberals with the Carolina Reaper covered Cluebat Of Destiny. This reminds me of the lady who said she wholeheartedly supported Obamacare, she just didn’t think she would have to pay for it.

This comes via Mary Katherine Hamm, who writes

I’m really just bringing this to your attention for this quote alone. Voting and paying are different endeavors entirely. Often, when one has to pay for the things one has voted to fund, that decision becomes less flippant. This is a comment, less on the specifics of Texas’ or Austin’s tax system than the blaring disconnect between liberals in Austin who are voting for higher taxes and the actual paying of the taxes. Which, as it turns out, is painful, discouraging, and can be a detriment to the fabric of the city.

And they keep bringing their big government big tax policies from other areas they’ve ruined, as Grouchy Old Cripple notes.

BTW, this fits perfectly with the notion of Warmists not wanting to pay the price for their “climate change” prescriptions. But, then, most Warmists are Lefties, and have the same notions on taxes. They’re super-mega-awesome!!!! Until the same liberals have to pay for them.

Read: Strange: A Liberal Really Hates Paying Taxes She Voted For »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Liberal World | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 3, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil dog causing droughtflood, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on another great moment in zero tolerance

Read: If All You See… »

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

Oops: Washington Post Notices The Dearth Of Landfalling Major Hurricanes

By William Teach June 3, 2014 – 10:47 am

Also, that Sandy was not a hurricane at landfall (via Steven Goddard)

(Washington Post) The U.S. has been extraordinarily fortunate lately: we have not been witness to the fury of a major hurricane (category 3 or higher) landfall since October 2005 when Wilma hit southwest Florida as a Category 3 storm. (Other countries have not had such good fortune these past few years. )

Since the hyper-active 2005 season, the U.S. has had just six Category 1 and 2 hurricane landfalls: Humberto (TX), Ike (TX), Gustav (LA), Dolly (TX), Irene (NC), and Isaac (LA).  Sandy was not technically a hurricane at its NJ landfall, and if it were, it would have been a Category 1 storm.

They provide this handy dandy graphic

A couple points. First, technically, the WP is wrong. The US hasn’t quite hit the longest period on record, which stretched 3,316 days, from August 11, 1860 to September 8, 1869. Set your calendar for November 22nd, 2014, which will break the record. The WP writer, Brian McNoldy, started with 1900, rather than further back.

Second, Irene was not a hurricane during either US landfall. This was further noted by Warmist Kerry Emanual in the NY Times. Isaac was barely a hurricane at landfall, and it could be argued that the storm was below hurricane strength, which would mean that the last US landfalling hurricane was Ike in October 2008.

Brian does note something important:

…just a single landfall at a vulnerable location can be a major disaster.

Even during an inactive season, a single storm can leave its mark on history (think Andrew in 1992)

To add to that, even a tropical storm can do massive damage. Hurricane Sandy was a tropical storm when it rolled through the Raleigh area in 1996, and was very destructive. Sandy was extra-tropical at landfall, combining with a strong cold front. That said, the point of this exercise is to note that the Warmists hysteria after the big 2005 season, that the year was what the “new normal” would be, was a bunch of mule fritters. When activity dried up, Warmists claimed that there wouldn’t be as many storms, but they’d be more powerful. Along came Sandy, and they said that would be the new normal. Nope. And they’re also claiming that global warming/climate change (meaning man caused) reduces Atlantic hurricane activity by increasing wind shear, something they started heavily bringing up over the last few years.

In reality, it’s all/mostly part of the natural cycles.

Read: Oops: Washington Post Notices The Dearth Of Landfalling Major Hurricanes »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Telling High Schoolers No Short Shorts Is Body Shaming Or Something

By William Teach June 3, 2014 – 8:15 am

I’m sure almost every high school boy would agree that teenage high school girls should be allowed to wear extremely revealing clothing in school

(Global News) It all started when Grade 11 student Lindsey Stocker was singled out by Beaconsfield High School officials for the length of her shorts.

“I was in violation for showing my legs,” she said.

Last week, Stocker had decided to wear a pair of shorts, the length of which two vice-principals decided was unacceptable during a tour of the school.

This was determined during a “finger-length test,” where school officials apparently asked students to stand up with their arms at their sides. If the girls’ fingers hung past the length of their shorts, the shorts were considered too short for school.

“It was in front of my entire class,” Stocker said. “I felt attacked, it was humiliating.”

Now, if you look at the photo at the link, the shorts aren’t really that short. But, the rules are the rules. This is where it dives into idiocy

She said that she had been affected by the recent massacre in California, where 22-year-old Elliot Rodger opened fire on a group of students after publishing a manifesto, in which he laid out his plans to exact revenge for being rejected by women.

“He didn’t pull that out of nowhere… There are girls everyday, girls in my grade, that go through, not fun things.”

To link not being allowed to wear skimpy shorts to class to Rodgers is idiotic. She also trotted out the “rape culture” meme. All because the little snowflake was told to adhere to school policy.

https://twitter.com/RelatableQuote/statuses/470267238503956481

A couple points. First, it’s Canada. How hot can it be? Second, she knew the rules. Third, let’s face an uncomfortable truth: high school boys love seeing women wearing skimpy clothing. They are obsessed by sex. It doesn’t mean they’ll act on it, it doesn’t mean a girl who wears skimpy clothing is a “slut”, it’s not an invitation to rape. But, it damned sure is a distraction for boys (OK, really, any woman in skimpy/sexy/tight clothing is a distraction for men, age appropriate). Our eyes and brains are wired that way as part of evolution. Get over it.

Furthermore, another uncomfortable truth is that young women will wear this type of clothing to be noticed by boys! Shocking, eh? Again, it doesn’t mean they are looking for sexual contact (despite liberals pushing young women to be sexual creatures), nor to be raped. Does anyone actually think Lindsay didn’t want the boys to look at her legs?

Perhaps culture shouldn’t push young women to be hyper-sexual. There have always been dress codes. The purpose of being at school is to learn. This little special snowflake is “challenging the dress code”, because it is All About Her. Just like so many are being taught. Out of control narcissism.

I’m certainly dating myself, but we didn’t have these problems when I attended high school during the 1980’s. Nor even college.

One final observation: if it’s hot out, aren’t you supposed to wear loose fitting, lightweight, loose woven clothing? Yes. yes you are. In essence, Lindsay, and all the people “defending” her, are pissed off that she got caught breaking the rules, so are doing what they do best: changing the subject.

Read: Telling High Schoolers No Short Shorts Is Body Shaming Or Something »

Posted in Current Affairs | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama’s Climate Policy Thought: “Are we ready for battle?”

By William Teach June 3, 2014 – 7:47 am

As I noted yesterday, I’m not going to get to worked up when it comes to Obama’s climate change plan. There are many things we could discuss, such as

  • The EPA admitting that it will raise the cost of energy by 6.5% by 2020, regardless of any spin by Obama and EPA head Gina McCarthy
  • That the plan would seriously harm the poor and middle class
  • That the supposed health benefits from the regulations are really from other regulations already in place
  • That the regulations will hurt jobs and the economy. This should be no surprise to anyone, since that’s what has happened to the majority of countries that attempted all sorts of “climate change” regulations post-Kyoto, especially in Europe, which, unshockingly, is moving away from these types of regulations.
  • That the public does not want nor care about this
  • There being no statistically significant warming for 17 years and 9 months, which is half the satellite record, despite rising CO2 levels
  • That 95% of the climate models have failed

And much, much more. The little plan threw the news media and pundit class into a tizzy Monday. Comments on Twitter and stories via Yahoo News (the only ones I can read while at work) were brutal against Obama and the EPA over the plan. Let’s look at this Politico article to see what was going through the minds of Obama and his team

The EPA’s proposed carbon emissions standards rule released Monday is one of the most significant actions the federal government’s ever taken on climate change. If finalized next year and put in place, it would be one of Obama’s largest legacy achievements.

Making sure that it didn’t seem like a big deal or all about Obama was all part of Podesta’s plan.

Interviews with Podesta and other senior White House aides on Monday portrayed a White House that had been closely involved along every step of the way, from drafting the rule to the roll-out and messaging effort surrounding it.

Lap after lap that evening in mid-May, Podesta and McDonough talked the president though the proposed rule. He wanted to know how it squared with promises he had made in Copenhagen in 2009, would hold up against the inevitable court challenges and how they’d attempted to balance the concerns of business, labor, Democrats and green groups so that everyone walked away not too disappointed and excited enough.

Last week in the Oval Office, Obama signed off on the outreach and messaging strategy Podesta and climate adviser Dan Utech briefed him on. The president wanted all the groups they needed bought in. He wanted the White House to be ready with whatever rebuttals they’d need. And most of all, he wanted to minimize the prospects of this becoming yet another flashpoint.

“He wanted to know,” Podesta said Monday evening, relaxed after a successfully calm roll-out day, “‘Okay, how are we prepared for battle here?’”

Let me ask, if this plan is supposed to be so super-awesome for the American people, why do they need to be “prepared for battle”? Possibly because Dems from energy producing states want nothing to do with this plan? Let’s not forget that the climate change plans passed and initiated in Australia by the ruling Labor Party first saw Labor decimated in the Queensland 2012 elections, to the point that Labor had so few seats that they no longer were considered a recognized political party in the parliament. Labor was similarly blown out during the national elections in 2013. In both cases, the cause was the climate change legislation.

As I wrote Monday prior to the release of the 665 pages of rules

Essentially, this is no more than throwing a bone to the unhinged Warmists, and not much different from the “spreading awareness” campaigns Warmists have engaged in for 25 years. It will do little, and possibly never be initiated. If a Republican wins the White House, he/she can throw the rules out immediately. Lawsuits will surely be filed by the end of this year, and they will continue on easily through 2016. Funny how the rules do not have to be in place prior to Obama leaving the White House, eh?

This is Obama’s legacy: plans that are bad for American’s, and they know it. Hence, Obama wants nothing to do with actual implementation during his presidency.

From EPA Facts. No worries, though, because Team Obama is prepared for battle. At the end of the day, this will not be implemented. And Obama can say “hey, I tried”.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama’s Climate Policy Thought: “Are we ready for battle?” »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Barry Obama, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

It’s Now Raaaaacist To Wear A Coconut Bra And Grass Skirt

By William Teach June 2, 2014 – 9:21 pm

Is there anything that isn’t racist?

(Daily Caller) At the University of California, Irvine, the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity stands accused of anti-Pacific Islander racism because it recently hosted a charity fundraiser called the FIJI Islander party which featured students who dressed in coconut bras and grass skirts.

The Phi Gamma Delta fraternity has been commonly known by the moniker FIJI since 1894. It boasts over 120 active chapters.

As a result of the event, reports Campus Reform, administrators at UCI have compelled the fraternity and other Greek organizations into “ongoing discussions” about “offending others.”

“The administration and student affairs is using it as an opportunity to show to fraternities what cultural appropriation is and how they might be more sensitive, to be able to have their week of philanthropy that ends in a social event without,” UCI spokeswoman Cathy Lawhon told Campus Reform.

Apparently, Amendment 28 of the Bill Of Rights states “All citizens must refrain from engaging in behavior that shall offend anyone else, nor make comments that offend anyone else”.

Read: It’s Now Raaaaacist To Wear A Coconut Bra And Grass Skirt »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

“Climate Change” Is Totally Like A WMD

By William Teach June 2, 2014 – 3:27 pm

No, seriously, you guys!

Climate change as a weapon of mass destruction

When we speak of WMD, we usually think of weapons – nuclear, biological, or chemical – that are delivered in a moment, writes Tom Engelhardt. But what of climate change: a WMD on a long fuse, already lit and smoking …

Then we get some typical leftist whining about Iraq and WMD, going to

But what if he had? Who wanted to take that chance? Not Vice President Dick Cheney, certainly. Inside the Bush administration he propounded something that journalist Ron Suskind later dubbed the “one percent doctrine.”

Its essence was this: if there was even a 1% chance of an attack on the United States, especially involving weapons of mass destruction, it must be dealt with as if it were a 95%-100% certainty. (snip)

Now here’s a very real threat to think about

Of course, there was a weapon of mass destruction that could indeed do staggering damage to or someday simply drown New York City, Washington D.C., Miami, and other east coast cities.

And we’ll have

A cascade of catastrophes

Collapsing ice sheets: over 10ft of sea level rise

because

Climate change – a WMD with a long fuse

thanks to

The WMD is the entire fossil fuel supply and combustion system

which are

Weapons of Planetary Destruction

and it is a

crime of ‘terracide’

This system of destruction on a planetary scale, facilitated by most of the ruling and corporate elites on the planet, is becoming (to bring into play another category not usually used in connection with climate change) the ultimate ‘crime against humanity’ and, in fact, against most living things. It is becoming a ‘terracide’.

Got that? As so typical, Warmists blame That Guy, and refuse to see their own lifestyles and use of fossil fuels as contributing to the “terracide”. It’s so bad that

Read: “Climate Change” Is Totally Like A WMD »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach June 2, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is flooding rain that never happened before, all because Someone Else drove a fossil fueled vehicle, you might be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jammie Wearing Fools, with a post noting comments from vets who served with Bergdahl.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove