Good Grief: “Climate Change To Make Fargo As Hot As Phoenix”

By William Teach April 30, 2014 – 8:14 am

Warmists just need their fix of saying incredibly insane things, much like crack addicts need a hit on a constant basis. Here’s Nation Editor-at-Large Chris Hayes (no one watches his MSNBC show) yammering on during a radio interview

Climate Change Will Make Fargo as Hot as Phoenix

“Are you the unluckiest reporter in America today?” WNYC’s Brian Lehrer asked Nation Editor-at-Large Chris Hayes on Monday morning. Hayes laughed. The day before, the third episode of Years of Living Dangerously had aired on Showtime, in which Republican Congressman Michael Grimm admitted, in an interview with Hayes, the existence of man-made climate change. The following morning, Hayes woke up to news that Grimm had been taken into federal custody for alleged fraudulent business practices. “Well, we got a Republican convert on climate change,” Hayes joked, “too bad he got indicted the next day.” Fraud or not, Grimm’s change of heart is a positive step for Republicans, who continue to diminish the severity of the climate crisis. “If we continue doing what we’re all collectively doing on this planet,” Hayes told Lehrer, “we will get to a point where Fargo is like Phoenix.” Which is to say, climate change doesn’t care whether conservatives believe it exists, it’s going to destroy the planet if we don’t act.

Really?

The top is Fargo, the bottom is Phoenix. Those are the average temperatures, via Weatherspark.com. Fargo would have to jump up pretty far to be like Phoenix, temperature wise. “Climate change” is not going to destroy the planet. It didn’t during the much warmer Medieval Warm Period, nor during all the time when it was much, much hotter.

Of course, Hayes is also the kind of climakook who compares fossil fuels usage to slavery.

Read: Good Grief: “Climate Change To Make Fargo As Hot As Phoenix” »

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

New Benghazi Emails Show White House Collusion To Blame Video

By William Teach April 30, 2014 – 7:51 am

I’m not sure that this is quite the bombshell some are positioning it to be: let’s not forget that the US embassy in Egypt was apologizing for the video just hours before it was attacked and burned on September 11, 2012. However, it is quite damning

(Fox News) Newly released emails on the Benghazi terror attack suggest a senior White House aide played a central role in preparing former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice for her controversial Sunday show appearances — where she wrongly blamed protests over an Internet video.

More than 100 pages of documents were released to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Among them was a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.

The Rhodes email, with the subject line: “RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET,” was sent to a dozen members of the administration’s inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Press Secretary Jay Carney.

In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere.

The email lists the following two goals, among others:

“To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

“To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”

The video was simply an excuse for violent protests from hardcore Islamists. I’ve noted several times the large number of al Qaeda and Taliban styled posters, flags, and headbands present at the “protests”, which even occurred in Sydney, Australia, London, and Belgium. In Libya, though, they were concerned with the fallout of Obama’s policies, which left the country a mess, with hardcore Islamists moving in and taking over the northeastern part of the country, to the point that most media outlets avoided the area and the Brits had pulled out.

(The Blaze) Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer on Tuesday said the American people have the “smoking document” that proves the Obama administration took part in a cover up in the aftermath of the deadly Benghazi terrorist attacks.

“It is in conflict with what we’ve been told, with what Jay Carney has been saying,” Krauthammer said of the revelations. “And that is, their story has always been this stuff call came from the CIA, from intelligence so it was completely clean.”

Krauthammer noted that former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell testified that he had never brought up the video as a possible motivator for the Benghazi attacks.

“We now have the smoking document, which is the White House saying: ‘We’re pushing the video because we don’t want to blame it on the failure of our policies,’” he added. “This undermines the whole narrative, therefore they have to invent the video. So I think this is extremely important.”

Let’s also no forget that making the narrative about a stupid video that almost no one had seen, rather than hardcore Islamist terrorism, allowed Obama to hit the campaign trail immediately after September 11.

And we still don’t know what Obama was doing during the hours the attacks in Benghazi were occurring.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: New Benghazi Emails Show White House Collusion To Blame Video »

Posted in Barry Obama, War On Terrorism | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

That NC Gay Marriage Lawsuit Is Either “Incompetence Or Stupidity”

By William Teach April 29, 2014 – 6:58 pm

The NY Times is really pumped up over the lawsuit filed by a bunch of (fake) religious leaders here in North Carolina I mentioned Monday. Other lefties, like NPR and Slate are also thrilled. There’s something they missed within the pesky laws of NC, as National Review’s Matthew J. Frank notes. The suit deals with the “religious” leaders, who fail to follow the Bible, believing that they can get in legal trouble for performing a gay marriage

The denomination argues that a North Carolina law criminalizing the religious solemnization of weddings without a state-issued marriage license violates the First Amendment. Mr. Clark said that North Carolina allows clergy members to bless same-sex couples married in other states, but otherwise bars them from performing “religious blessings and marriage rites” for same-sex couples, and that “if they perform a religious blessing ceremony of a same-sex couple in their church, they are subject to prosecution and civil judgments.”

But

These claims are patently false.  The complaint itself, immediately after the last line above, quotes the relevant statutory language, but the authors of the complaint evidently do not understand it:

a. North Carolina General Statute § 51-6 states: “Solemnization without license unlawful. No minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State shall perform a ceremony of marriage between a man and woman, or shall declare them to be husband and wife, until there is delivered to that person a license for the marriage of the said persons, signed by the register of deeds of the county in which the marriage license was issued or by a lawful deputy or assistant.”

b. North Carolina General Statute § 51-7 states: “Every minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State, who marries any couple without a license being first delivered to that person, as required by law, or after the expiration of such license, or who fails to return such license to the register of deeds within 10 days after any marriage celebrated by virtue thereof, with the certificate appended thereto duly filled up and signed, shall forfeit and pay two hundred dollars ($200.00) to any person who sues therefore, and shall also be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.”

These two provisions must be read together, in the context of the state’s decision to recognize marriages only between a man and a woman.  § 51-6 requires authorized persons to act only on valid marriage licenses, if they are going to “declare” a couple “husband and wife” for civil legal purposes.  § 51-7 further tells these authorized persons that they are answerable in any case where they do not first get the license, or fail to act on it before it expires, or fail to return it properly finished to the register of deeds in ten days.

These non-Bible following religious leaders can marry gays to their hearts content. They just cannot file any marriage licenses, and no gay marriages will be recognized by the North Carolina government. As Heritage also notes, the law does not violate religious liberty, because they can perform a church service. It just won’t be recognized.

If they don’t like it, I-95 and I-85 go north and south. I-40 heads west. There are also a vast number of roads that head out of NC and towards the liberal states that allow gay marriage. States which liberals have ultimately ruined, hence they move out to ruin our states.

Read: That NC Gay Marriage Lawsuit Is Either “Incompetence Or Stupidity” »

Posted in NC News | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 29, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful carbon friendly bike, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on Donald Sterling and the slippery slope towards totalitarianism.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Your Pets Are Mucho Evil For Climate Change

By William Teach April 29, 2014 – 11:48 am

This has been mentioned before, but like every idea for the crackhead cult of climate change, they keep going to the same well again and again

A modest proposal: reduce pets for a sustainable future

With the world’s resources under increasing pressure, Erik Assadourian argues that pet ownership needs a drastic rethink. Could sharing and repurposing pets be the way forward?

Seriously, sharing pets? And Warmists get upset when we call them wackos?

As our pets increasingly adopt the consumer habits of their owners, it’s clear that no matter how “green” this industry becomes, it will never become sustainable. But even if we severely restrict what pet products can be sold, and even if we stop overfeeding our increasingly overweight pet populations – 53% of dogs and 58% of cats are overweight or obese in the US, according to the Association for Pet Obesity Prevention – can pets be part of a sustainable future? (snip)

At the same time, marketing of pets and pet products should be tightly regulated (or banned outright), and polluting veterinarian services like chemotherapy should be reserved only for service animals. Sorry, but if Bangladeshis (and much of the world’s population) cannot afford advanced healthcare, should Fido? Not in a world of limited resources.

Isn’t it interesting that the solutions always revolve around more Government?

So fast forward to a climate disrupted future, which the new IPCC report suggests is coming faster than we thought. Where do pets fit in? When climate change disrupts grain supplies, shoots food prices through the roof and also eviscerates the global consumer economy, pets may be abandoned in droves, as families suddenly can no longer afford their upkeep. We’ve seen this happen in times of economic crises, hence the large feral dog population in Detroit today. But perhaps at that point the pet issue will solve itself – as these packs of dogs become a bridge food for the hungry unemployed masses.

And, now we get the recommendation to eat the pets.

Imagine, for example, if the pet culture shifted away from owning one or more pets per household to more of a “time-share” or Zipcar model? Reserving a play date with your favorite Golden Retriever once a week would reduce pet ownership — and the resulting economic and environmental costs — dramatically as people felt comfortable occasionally playing with a shared pet instead of owning one. … [A] few services that promote pet sharing among pet lovers do already exist, like the online pet sharing platform, Pets to Share.

These people are just nuts.

Read: Bummer: Your Pets Are Mucho Evil For Climate Change »

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

On Obamacare Repeal: In Defense Of Rand Paul And Cathy McMorris-Rodgers

By William Teach April 29, 2014 – 9:38 am

There’s been quite a few verbal barbs aimed at Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, the #4 Republican in the House, over comments about reforming Obamacare rather than repealing it. Allahpundit writes

Interestingly, it’s Cathy McMorris-Rodgers’s comments about “reforming” rather than repealing the O-Care exchanges that drew most of the blog chatter this weekend, not Rand’s equally eyebrow-raising remarks at Harvard on Friday. Is that because McMorris-Rodgers is guilty of a double heresy, having forecast a new amnesty push this summer too? Or is it because Paul’s conservative bona fides are still in good standing whereas no one trusts the House leadership on anything anymore, starting with ObamaCare? Whatever the reason, McMorris-Rodgers issued a statement this morning aimed at the gullible optimists among us insisting that she’s on Team Repeal all the way. Whew.

Noting The Hill article mentioned in the excerpt (eyebrow-raising remarks0

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) admitted Friday it’s “difficult to turn the clock back” on ObamaCare, but proposed making the law voluntary as a possible fix for consumers.

“I think it’s going to be difficult to turn the clock back. People get assumed and accustomed to receiving things, particularly things that they get for free,” he told a crowd of students at Harvard’s Institute of Politics on Friday.

Paul’s comments echo those of other Republicans who have admitted it will be difficult to fully repeal the law after some of its more popular provisions took effect.

Paul goes on to offer some advice on reforming, how things might go, what can be done. Now, let’s be honest. Can Obamacare be repealed? Well, yes. Should it be repealed at this point? No. Not straight repealed. That boat sailed with Mitt Romney’s loss and the failure to retake the Senate in 2012. Even then, it might have been difficult to simply repeal. The loss of the White House in 2012 was the most damaging, as the enormous amount of latitude within the PPACA would have allowed a President Romney to slow or stop so much of the damage.

Consider the “contraception mandate”: that was wholly a creation of Team Obama. It doesn’t appear within the text of the law. Establishing 30 hours as full time? Again, that was done by Team Obama. By the end of 2012 there were already 20K pages of rules and regulations regarding Obamacare, added to the 2,000+ pages of the PPACA. The tentacles of the Act were already insinuating themselves with not just the health insurance and health care industries, but many other sectors of the economy.

Heck, don’t forget that Obamacare also changed the student loan system, essentially taking the private sector out of most student loans, in order to keep the interest rates high (in the 6% range, despite the US borrowing at about 2.4%) with the profit fed back into Obamacare. And, let’s face it, to make students more beholden to Government.

Obamacare has already changed so many things in so many ways. Now that the Exchanges have started and people are obtaining health insurance through those Exchanges (albeit, most signups are due to losing their insurance due to Obamacare), simply repealing wouldn’t just be difficult, but reckless. I know people are thinking “hey, we repealed Prohibition, why not Ocare?” Comparatively, that repeal was simple. Alcohol banned, alcohol not banned. Hey, we also “repealed” slavery. The fallout from that lasted a long time, and, realistically, slavery wasn’t as intrusive on lives as Ocare. Not that many people really owned slaves. Though much of the South’s economy relied upon slaves.

Obamacare has caused massive amounts of uncertainty within the private sector. It’s even caused problems with municipal governments. Now, there’s always some uncertainty within the economy, and especially the private sector. That’s business. Government should not make it worse. Simply repealing Ocare will further cause uncertainty. What needs to be done is that it is slowly replaced with wise legislation. Things like the Exchanges and subsidies can’t simply be dumped. It will be hard work to replace all the bad parts of Ocare with good ideas, things that work for everyone. There should be no losers, just winners.

Read: On Obamacare Repeal: In Defense Of Rand Paul And Cathy McMorris-Rodgers »

Posted in GOP, Healthcare | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Ted Cruz Calls On John Kerry To Resign Over Israel “Apartheid” Remarks

By William Teach April 29, 2014 – 9:11 am

Of course, does it really matter? Obama would just replace Kerry with another far left incompetent. And someone else who doesn’t like Israel

(The Blaze) In a scathing speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate on Monday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) called for Secretary of State John Kerry’s resignation over his alleged comments comparing Israel’s policy to the “abhorrent apartheid policies of South Africa.”

“The fact that Secretary Kerry sees nothing wrong with making a statement comparing Israel’s policy to the abhorrent apartheid policies of South Africa,” Cruz said, “and doing so on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, demonstrates a shocking lack of sensitivity to the incendiary and damaging nature of his rhetoric.”

“Mr. President, sadly, it is my belief that Secretary Kerry has proven himself unsuitable for the position he holds. And therefore, before any further harm is done to our national security interests and to our critical alliance with the nation of Israel, John Kerry should offer President Obama his resignation and the president should accept it,” he added. “Mr. President, I would suggest the absence of a quorum.”

After getting beat up over his remarks, Kerry sort-of apologized Monday

For more than thirty years in the United States Senate, I didn’t just speak words in support of Israel, I walked the walk when it came time to vote and when it came time to fight. As Secretary of State, I have spent countless hours working with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Justice Minister Livni because I believe in the kind of future that Israel not only wants, but Israel deserves. I want to see a two state solution that results in a secure Jewish state and a prosperous Palestinian state, and I’ve actually worked for it.

I will not allow my commitment to Israel to be questioned by anyone, particularly for partisan, political purposes, so I want to be crystal clear about what I believe and what I don’t believe.

So don’t question him, you haters!!!!!!!!!!! In all fairness, Kerry has mostly voted in favor of Israel over the years. However, people change, and there are reports that Kerry is behind many EU boycotts of Israel, among other issues

First, Israel is a vibrant democracy and I do not believe, nor have I ever stated, publicly or privately, that Israel is an apartheid state or that it intends to become one. Anyone who knows anything about me knows that without a shred of doubt.

Except for when he said ““A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the only real alternative. Because a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second-class citizens — or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state.” The tape doesn’t lie, John.

Second, I have been around long enough to also know the power of words to create a misimpression, even when unintentional, and if I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two state solution. In the long term, a unitary, binational state cannot be the democratic Jewish state that Israel deserves or the prosperous state with full rights that the Palestinian people deserve. That’s what I said, and it’s also what Prime Minister Netanyahu has said. While Justice Minister Livni, former Prime Ministers Barak and Ohlmert have all invoked the specter of apartheid to underscore the dangers of a unitary state for the future, it is a word best left out of the debate here at home.

Wow, nice apology. What is it with Liberals that they can’t simply say “I was wrong. I’m sorry”? Paul Mirengoff notes

Kerry has always been prone to over-the-top expression and imagery. If he hadn’t compared American servicemen in Vietnam to “the Army of Genghis Khan,” he might have been elected president.

But Kerry craved attention when he returned from Vietnam and he still thirsts for it. Above all, I believe, he wants that Nobel Peace Prize. As he feels it slipping away, his rhetoric becomes increasingly desperate.

He’s also working for an administration that doesn’t seem to like our allies that much, and a president who doesn’t seem to care for Israel.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Ted Cruz Calls On John Kerry To Resign Over Israel “Apartheid” Remarks »

Posted in Israel, Kerry | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

NC Clergy File Unique Suit To Allow Gay Marriage

By William Teach April 28, 2014 – 6:28 pm

Here’s a new one in the fight to force gay marriage to be accepted

(News And Observer) A coalition of clergy members filed a federal lawsuit Monday challenging North Carolina’s constitutional ban on gay marriage, saying it violated their religious freedom.

The clergy members said that they’d like to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies in their congregations, but that they can’t because of the “unjust law.”

“North Carolina’s marriage laws are a direct affront to freedom of religion,” said the Rev. J. Bennett Guess, executive minister with the Cleveland-based United Church of Christ, which is a plaintiff in the lawsuit. “We feel that it is important that any person that comes into community life of a United Church of Christ congregation be afforded equal pastoral care and equal opportunity to religious services that clergy provide.”

Interestingly, they’re positioning this as a 1st Amendment freedom of religion case. It’s a unique take. I wonder what God thinks of these pastors and such blowing off their belief in the Bible, which states that marriage is between a man and a woman?

Isn’t it also interesting that liberals deny religious beliefs as relevant until they need to use them to push their far left beliefs?

The ACLU also filed a new lawsuit on behalf of three other lesbian couples struggling with health conditions made more difficult because they lack legal recognition of their marriages performed in other states, said ACLU staff attorney Elizabeth Gill.

Here’s an idea: don’t move to a state that doesn’t allow gay marriage. Of course, they most likely moved in order to cause problems.

But NC Values Coalition executive director Tami Fitzgerald, who helped lead a coalition of Christian and conservative groups supporting the state’s 2012 constitutional amendment, said the lawsuit is an attempt to void the will of voters who backed traditional marriage. Six in 10 voters backed changing North Carolina’s constitution.

“This is sadly, and predictably, the ‘lawsuit of the week’ filed by those who want to impose same-sex marriage on North Carolina,” Fitzgerald said. “Moreover, it’s both ironic and sad that an entire religious denomination and its clergy who purport holding to Christian teachings on marriage would look to the courts to justify their errant beliefs.”

Sadly, these supposed Christians do not seem to be adhering to Christianity.

Read: NC Clergy File Unique Suit To Allow Gay Marriage »

Posted in Liberal World, NC News | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

We’re Saved! Tom Steyer Takes Fossil Fueled Flight To See Tar Sands

By William Teach April 28, 2014 – 2:01 pm

A bit of a reminder, uber-rich guy Tom Steyer is a big opponent of Keystone XL, and a massive Warmist. He’s pledged $100 million for the Democrats to win in 2014 to fight “climate change”. Funny how certain 1%ers are OK with Dems, eh? Anyhow, Climate Progress notes what he’s up to

Of all the places in the world, the First Nations community of Fort Chip is not the first place one might envision a California billionaire. It is quite remote. The only thing visible from the settlement’s shore is lake Athabasca, rock solid and snow-covered, surrounded by coniferous trees. Getting there can only happen by plane, save two months a year when it is also accessible by ice road. It’s pretty cold, too.

But Steyer was there on business. Broadly, he was in Alberta to see the tar sands, the most integral ingredient of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that he famously opposes. Specifically, he was there to meet with First Nations leaders in Fort Chipewyan, who claim their community has been ravaged by tar sands pollution.

“They’re clearly being out-resourced,” Steyer said at this end of his two-day trip, which was organized by his political organization, NextGen Climate Action. NextGen invited ThinkProgress on the trip. (snip)

Because he has been so outspoken about Keystone XL’s proposed construction, Steyer also said he came to Fort McMurray to see tar sands development for himself — to understand how it really works. He began his trip with a drive around what his itinerary named the “tar sands loop,” focused on a monstrous refinery operated by SynCrude Canada Ltd. He drove around huge frozen lakes of mining and refining byproducts — “tailings ponds” — distinguishable from regular lakes only by orange scarecrows that prevent animals from touching the waste. He was guided by ACFN Chief Allan Adam, and Calgary-based ecologist Petr Komers.

I wonder, wow’d he get there?

He then chartered an 8-seater Cessna to fly over numerous refineries and mining sites, while Chief Adam described what each one did. During the flight, the enormous white smokestacks from SynCrude’s refinery were ever-present, reminiscent of Mordor’s Mount Doom.

Interesting. Love all the use of fossil fuels to fight against fossil fuels. And Warmists wonder why we call them hypocrites.

Read: We’re Saved! Tom Steyer Takes Fossil Fueled Flight To See Tar Sands »

Posted in Climahypocrites | Comments Off on We’re Saved! Tom Steyer Takes Fossil Fueled Flight To See Tar Sands | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 28, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is wasting non-renewable water to wash the pollen, made worse from climate change, off an evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is This ain’t Hell…, with a post on a moonbat with 10 reasons to not vote for veterans.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove