FYI, Obamacare Made Another Foray Into Federal Court Today

By William Teach May 8, 2014 – 2:01 pm

There are actually quite a few lawsuits pending in regards to Obamacare. And the minute someone is hit with the individual mandate tax they will have standing to sue, which is a little discussed provision of the ruling by John Roberts. Here’s another

(Christian Science Monitor) Senate majority leader Harry Reid violated the Constitution in his maneuverings to pass Obamacare, a conservative legal fund argues. The case will go before a federal panel of judges Thursday.

Rather than attacking the individual mandate or the so-called contraceptive mandate, this lawsuit challenges a legislative maneuver used by Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada to pass the bill five years ago.

The little-noticed legal battle is being waged by a conservative public interest law group, the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF). It seeks to enforce a constitutional command: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”

This goes to the origination clause, and how Harry Reid took a shell bill from the House, stripped it all out, and replace it. The article has more detail.

Anyhow, it was argued this morning before a Washington federal appeals court

It is unclear how receptive the appeals court panel will be to the PLF challenge. One of the three appeals court judges assigned to the case was appointed by Bill Clinton, the other two were appointed by President Obama.

Does that disturb anyone else? I know it disturbed quite a few in the comments at the article. Should they not be making determinations based on the actual text of the Constitution? Liberals, think hard, because you know you’d be complaining if Conservative judged failed to follow the text/law and ruled against you.

Read: FYI, Obamacare Made Another Foray Into Federal Court Today »

Posted in Constitution, Healthcare | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 8, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is the possibility of sexual relations which could lead to more children, which are bad for climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on the House voting to hold Lois Lerner in contempt.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Hooray, 5 Things You Can Do About Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach May 8, 2014 – 12:35 pm

Because climate change is here. Now. Or something

(CNN) Climate change isn’t something in the far-off future: It’s a potentially disastrous reality that’s already starting to have effects that are expected to worsen, experts say.

Longer summers and heavier rainfalls are some of the impacts Americans are already seeing, according to the National Climate Assessment. We should expect more flooding, wildfires and drought.

Is this a press release from the White House? Well, really, there’s not that much separation between the Obama WH and most news outlets. Anyhow, CNN helpfully offers 5 things you can do at home…unlike CNN, which uses vast amounts of electricity and fossil fuels to produce their network, which, according to Warmists are Bad Things for “climate change”

  1. Become informed – obviously, CNN is only pushing one way, towards the Warmists cult
  2. Make changes at home – most of these are simply common sense energy saving methods, tried and true, which have nothing to do with “climate change”
  3. Be greener at the office – same as the previous
  4. Reduce emissions in transit – the real solution is for Believers to give up fossil fueled travel. Of course, that would interfere with living a modern lifestyle. I love the part about telling people to fly at night and pack lighter in order to reduce the carbon footprint. These people are nuts.
  5. Get involved and educate others about the big picture – spreading awareness! Become a Climate Change missionary! Spread the cult!

Notice that none of the solutions require Warmists to truly change their lives to match their beliefs

Bottom line: Most of the public will never read the full National Climate Assessment, Shepherd said. But if you arm yourself with correct information, you can make informed choices that could affect your community and the planet at large.

Yes, this is an actual article from a major news outlet, which reads like a release from the far left Think Progress.

Read: Hooray, 5 Things You Can Do About Hotcoldwetdry »

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

Crazy Old Man Blames Koch Brothers As Main Cause Of Climate Change

By William Teach May 8, 2014 – 10:00 am

Is there some mechanism by which a sitting federal elected official can be forced to take a mental health assessment? Because Harry Reid is in desperate need (via The Lonely Conservative)

(Politico) Charles and David Koch are one of the “main causes” of climate change, charged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the Senate floor.

“While the Koch brothers admit to not being experts on the matter, these billionaire oil tycoons are certainly experts at contributing to climate change. That’s what they do very well. They are one of the main causes of this. Not a cause, one of the main causes,” Reid said.

Hmm, that’s funny, because Senator Reid, Democrat, is not an expert, either. The Washington Free Beacon does a little fact check on Reid’s bloviating, and finds it insane.

Psychosis is a serious mental disorder characterized by thinking and emotions that are so impaired, that they indicate that the person experiencing them has lost contact with reality.

People who are psychotic have false thoughts (delusions) and/or see or hear things that are not there (hallucinations). These are referred to as “positive” symptoms; “negative” symptoms like loss of motivation and social withdrawal can also occur.

This guy is yours, Dems and Nevada residents.

Read: Crazy Old Man Blames Koch Brothers As Main Cause Of Climate Change »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

D.C. Looks To Tax Insurers To Pay For Obamacare

By William Teach May 8, 2014 – 7:43 am

Remember Reagan’s saying about government?

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

When it comes to Obamacare, it seems more like

Government’s view of the health insurance/care could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, regulate it. If it keeps moving, subsidize it. And if it stops moving, tax it.

Yup

(Daily Caller) Washington, D.C. will tax all insurers selling policies to district residents to fund the city’s Obamacare exchange.

The plan was proposed by DC Health Link, D.C.’s exchange. The city’s health care law marketplace was allotted $133 million in federal grants to launch, but along with all the state marketplaces, was expected to be soon be sustainable on its own via a flat tax placed on each insurance plan sold through the marketplace.

When taxing those buying insurance didn’t turn out to be as lucrative as Congress had hoped, D.C., along with several other states, began to look at taxing those selling insurance instead.

The Obamacare exchange has a 2015 budget of $28.8 million and hopes to fill its coffers by collecting another fee from insurers.

The plan will tax all insurers an extra 1%. This includes those insurers who declined to participate in Obamacare. Insurance companies wonder about the legality of taxing those who did not participate, but, hey, this is the era of Obama: the law is what Liberals feel it is.

Anyhow, insurers are already being taxed out the ying yang thanks to Ocare. And they pass those taxes on to consumers. They wouldn’t do that with the new tax, right?

Obamacare’s insurer tax will likely be passed onto customers in the form of higher premiums, however. The health insurance tax alone is expected to raise premiums by $101 on average this year alone, according to a March study from the free-market think tank American Action Forum.

Wait, I thought this was supposed to be the Affordable Care Act? Isn’t it right there in the name?

I do have to wonder where the D.C. Exchange has the statutory authority to implement a new tax. Oh, wait, that’s right, the Era Of Obama, where law means nothing.

Read: D.C. Looks To Tax Insurers To Pay For Obamacare »

Posted in Healthcare, Taxation | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post: NC Senate Race Most Important In Country

By William Teach May 8, 2014 – 7:26 am

The front page of the Washington Post by Dan Baltz says the race for the Senate seat currently occupied by Kay Hagan is the most important in 2014. The individual page says it sets the stage for the 2016 presidential election. Maybe, maybe not. Either way, or no way, it certainly highlights the difference between the GOP and the insane Democrats

North Carolina is this year’s ground zero in American politics. There are other highly competitive races around the country, but no contest so neatly captures all the conflicting currents of ideology, money, demographics and political tactics as the one between Sen. Kay Hagan (D) and her newly nominated Republican challenger, Thom Tillis.

Tillis, the speaker of the North Carolina House, more than survived his first battle as a Senate candidate. Facing a primary challenge Tuesday from both an opponent backed by tea party activists and another by some in the party’s evangelical wing, he cruised past the 40 percent mark he needed to avoid a runoff — with considerable help from the GOP establishment.

One of the killers of the Tea Party candidates and others vs “establishment” Republicans is what CAC called the Baskin Robbins problem. In essence, there are too many choices, so the big backed candidate, in this case the supposed “establishment” pick, wins. Tillis achieved 46% of the primary vote, which means 54% voted for someone else. Of course, many of us voted who we thought was the best candidate. That’s why I voted for Tillis, and back him. I like his policies, I mostly like where he has pushed the NC General Assembly. I trust him, as much as someone can trust a politician. Some say he will be an amnesty proponent. All I need to do is look across the Neuse River to the 2nd District rep, Renee Ellmer, who had been a Tea Party favorite, who is also a big amnesty supporter. Tillis is making noise about no amnesty, upholding the law. He was disappointed in NC gov Pat McCrory over his attempt to relax rules for illegals. Anyhow

For the next six months, Tillis and Hagan will square off in a state that was the scene of fiercely contested presidential elections in 2008 and 2012 that produced a split decision, and where a conservative shift in its state politics will be every bit as central to the debate as will President Obama and his national record.

In a year in which each party considers turning out its base as critical to success, both sides have plenty of fodder to work with. Republicans will run against Hagan by linking her to an unpopular president, trashing the Affordable Care Act as big-government overreach and portraying her as a generally ineffective legislator. Democrats will attempt to connect Tillis to a series of new laws in North Carolina that provoked a strong backlash and generated “Moral Monday” protests in the state capital by Democratic interest groups. And they will tie Tillis to the billionaire Koch brothers, who have shown that they are prepared to spend down their fortune to help defeat the incumbent.

OK, so Team Tillis will link Kay to Obama and the failure policies of Obama and the Democrats, along with the majority unpopular Obamacare. Team Kay will rely upon loony people (who are welcome to be loony as they use their first amendment rights) and the silly “Koch brothers” meme. Most people have no idea who these supposed boogeymen are, and attacking private citizens engaged in First Amendment rights won’t play all that well with anyone but those who plan to vote Kay anyhow. Which, of course, is the point, turning out the base. Team Tillis’ method will turn out the base, along with the causal Republican voters and those who could vote either way.

With Tillis as the Republican nominee, North Carolina’s Senate race offers perhaps the best laboratory in the country for a test of whether voters think the new Republican Party has shifted too far to the right or it stands for a smaller-government agenda that has a broader appeal than Democrats believe.

Despite the tortured phrasing in an attempt to paint the GOP as “extreme”, there might be some truth to that. Of course, Baltz, like other Dems, is upset about the restrictions on abortion providers, ie, holding them accountable for reasonable medical standards. Voter ID. Not engaging in the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.

All of this could become a trial run for the national debate in the 2016 presidential campaign — a choice between the record of the Obama administration and the record of Republican governors and legislatures in states where the GOP has unified control.

Remember, it is in the States where the GOP has been making big inroads, opposing the insane federal government policies. In 2010 and 2012, the GOP won control of quite a few governorships and general assemblies. In NC, the GOP took control of both the House and the Senate for the first time in over 100 years. They now also have the governor’s mansion (though McCrory is a somewhat squishy Republican). Baltz is 100% right on one thing, this will be a costly and highly visible election, pitting those who are tired of the hardcore liberal agenda against all the carpetbaggers who have ruined their own states and moved away from the damage, then bring the same insane policies to NC.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post: NC Senate Race Most Important In Country »

Posted in Democrats, GOP, NC News | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

People Whine That U Of Utah’s Fight Song Lyrics Are Sexist

By William Teach May 7, 2014 – 3:56 pm

First World Problems

(ABC 6) After more than a century of singing “I’m a Utah Man,” some say it’s time to update the University of Utah’s 1904 fight song.

Proposals to adjust such lyrics as “I’m a Utah man” and “our coeds are the fairest” have spiked emotions on campus in recent weeks.

Critics say the lyrics are sexist. Others contend that the current refrain honors tradition and has sentimental value for classes of alumni. Similar debates have popped up at schools across the country.

At the University of Utah, President David Pershing is asking the Office of Student Affairs to put together a committee that will weigh changes to the song, “Utah Man” after student government leaders and a faculty body passed resolutions urging the changes.

Is it actually sexist? Let’s see the first bit

I am a Utah man, sir, and I live across the green.
Our gang, it is the jolliest that you have ever seen.
Our coeds are the fairest and each one’s a shining star.
Our yell, you hear it ringing through the mountains near and far.

It is a bit heavy on the “I’m a Utah man”, but, seriously, calling Utah women the fairest, a freaking complement, is now sexist? First World Problem, and part of what Robert D. Raiford calls “The United States Of The Offended”.

Also, one has to wonder how many actually know the lyrics. Or really care. They hear some music during games. Does anyone sing the lyrics? Anyhow, people need to lighten up, but, then, First World Problem, where some people have to have little freakouts.

Read: People Whine That U Of Utah’s Fight Song Lyrics Are Sexist »

Posted in Good Move Slick | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, Why Aren’t Businesses Caring About “Climate Change”?

By William Teach May 7, 2014 – 1:38 pm

Good question

(CBC) It seems a strange disconnect. If climate change is really causing economic havoc, as outlined in a new blue ribbon Congressionally mandated report from the United States. why is business so insouciant?

That’s not the way markets are supposed to work. According to the theory, if there is a problem that needs to be solved, markets move to fix those problems. When that theory holds true, it’s one of the wonderful and useful things about market capitalism.

Boom, there’s your answer. Business doesn’t seem to think there’s a problem. They don’t see a loss in revenue. They see weather. Well, obviously, all these businesses are wrong, because doom!

So if the entire productive capacity of the United States — and by extension Canada — is suffering damage due to climate change, why isn’t business onside when it comes to efforts to try and minimize it?

Three potential reasons come to mind.

  1. Short Term Thinking
  2. Vested Interests

And here’s my favorite

Climate change futures

As for reason number three, there is something self-fulfilling about it, but it may be that business leaders have begun to honestly believe the widespread propaganda of climate change denial. Perhaps they are truly convinced that the vast majority of scientists, save those paid by the Scientific American donors mentioned above, are all wrong.

See? Businesses have Wrong Thoughts. Of course, it’s so obvious! Or, business may not care that weather changes. They adapt. They see a cult.

Read: Say, Why Aren’t Businesses Caring About “Climate Change”? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 7, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is lots of horrible CO2 infused beer, causing cold and snow from warming, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Black and Right, with a despicable tweet from Donna Brazile.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Obama’s Heavily Political National Climate Assessment Can’t Quite Figure Out Sea Rise

By William Teach May 7, 2014 – 8:05 am

I supposed I’m obligated to mention something about the NCA, since I blog so darned much about “climate change”. Let’s look at sea rise

(CNS News) The National Climate Assessment released today by the White House says that as a result of climate change the sea level could rise 8 inches, 11 inches, 4 feet or 6.6 feet by the year 2100, but that a rise of less than 8 inches or more than 6.6 feet is “considered implausible.”

“Scientists are working to narrow the range of sea level rise pro­jections for this century,” said the report.

“Recent projections show that for even the lowest emissions scenarios, thermal expansion of ocean waters and the melting of small mountain glaciers will re­sult in 11 inches of sea level rise by 2100, even without any contribution from the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica,” it said.

Talk about hedging one’s bets. And, if there is a rise of 11 inches, that would be well within the statistical average for a warm period. In fact, it would be somewhat on the low side. During the 20th Century, the sea rise was completely average for the last 7000 years of the Holocene, after the tremendous sea rise post-glacial age (technically, the Earth is still in a glacial age, as there are glaciers and ice at the poles, but that’s quibbling). And Antarctica is not melting. Most of it is cooling.

But, you know, science is now apparently taking a bunch of numbers and throwing them at the wall. In effect, they really don’t know, so they’re just glancing in their crystal balls and looking to scare people. Here’s The Weather Channel founder John Coleman

This 600 page litany of doom and gloom has received extensive coverage by the panting anchors of the national media who feel important when tell their audience that “the sky is falling.” Horrible pictures of storms, floods, drought and heat waves leaped out of the TV sets as the New York and Washington DC headquartered media was particularly excited to tell us how the huge increases in floods and storms was the worst in that part of the nation.

If you accept the picture painted by this report, the weather was just right, steady and nice in the historic past but because our industrialized society has powered its heating and air conditioning, its transportation by train, plane, cars and trucks, generated it’s electric power to run our lights, computers, television and smart phones with fossil fuels it has triggered this nightmare of awful storms, droughts and heat waves.

I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk. The only good news is that I least where I am and on the channels and websites I saw I was not further insulted by fawning TV Weathercasters visiting the White House and interviewing the President. I best I can tell, on a national level, that turned out to be a non-event (thank goodness).

Marc Morano

“This report is a misdirection. Obama has entered his 2nd term lame duck status and with climate executive orders he does not need Congress to “do something” about global warming.

“This report is contrary to peer-reviewed studies and observations. By every measure, so called extreme weather is showing no trend or declining trends on 50-100 year timescales. Droughts, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes are not increasing due to man-made global warming.

“Why does the report now call ‘global warming’ a new name, so-called ‘climate disruption’? Simple answer: Due to earth’s failure to warm — no global warming for nearly 18 years – another name was necessary to attempt to gin up fear. Now every storm is offered up as some sort of ‘proof’ of global warming.

Judith Curry

While there is some useful analysis in the report, it is hidden behind a false premise that any change in the 20th century has been caused by AGW.  Worse yet is the spin being put on this by the Obama administration.  The Washington Post asks the following question: Does National Climate Assessment lack necessary nuance? In a word, YES.

The failure to imagine future extreme events and climate scenarios, other than those that are driven by CO2 emissions and simulated by deficient climate models, has the potential to increase our vulnerability to future climate surprises (see my recent presentation on this Generating possibility distributions of scenarios for regional climate change).  As an example, the Report highlights the shrinking of winter ice in the Great Lakes:  presently, in May, Lake Superior is 30% cover by ice, which is apparently unprecedented in the historical record.

Ms. Curry has also noted some tweets yesterday by Roger Pielke, Jr, who isn’t exactly a pure skeptic

  • “There has been no universal trend in the overall extent of drought across the continental U.S. since 1900″
  •  “Other trends in severe storms, including the intensity & frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain”
  • “lack of any clear trend in landfall frequency along the U.S. eastern and Gulf coasts”
  • “when averaging over the entire contiguous U.S., there is no overall trend in flood magnitudes”

The report stops short of delving deep into serious blame of hurricanes on “climate change”, which is smart, considering there have been no landfalling major hurricanes here in the U.S. since October 2005, the second longest period on record going back to the Civil War period. We will break that record if there are no major hurricane landfalls this season. Furthermore, only 1 hurricane has made landfall as a hurricane since 2008, and it could be argued that Isaac was not at actual hurricane strength at landfall. Irene and Sandy were not hurricanes at landfall.

As far as there being more tropical systems, they are somewhat uncertain, but stop short of recognizing that the satellite era, along with better air and sea transportation, has allowed scientists, weathermen, the news media, and the general public see more occurring, something that could not be done previously. For the most part, tropical systems were recognized when they approached shore. One that formed way out in the Atlantic then died was never seen.

Anthony Watts saw an advance copy and pulled this quote, among others

Winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity since the 1950s, and their tracks have shifted northward over the United States., Other trends in severe storms, including the intensity and frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain and are being studied intensively. There has been a sizable upward trend in the number of storms causing large financial and other losses. However, there are societal contributions to this trend, such as increases in population and wealth.

So, yes, Obama’s politicized scary story NCA blames more winter storms on warming.

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/463772526569848832

And then Obama flew a bunch of meteorologists to the White House on fossil fueled flights to make a political statement, then took a fossil fueled trip across the country to fundraisers. Because fossil fuels are evil.

Read: Obama’s Heavily Political National Climate Assessment Can’t Quite Figure Out Sea Rise »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Barry Obama, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove