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

Good Grief: Guardian Attempts To Blame Titanic Sinking On “Climate Change”

By William Teach April 28, 2014 – 10:19 am

Perhaps, instead of referring to climate change believers as being part of a cult, we should consider them to be like drug addicts. They have this need, like crack addicts jones for crack, to blame everything on “climate change”. Case in point, here’s Kate Ravilious at the UK Guardian (via Watts Up With That?)

But in fact the catastrophe may have been set in motion by a warm, wet year over Greenland in 1908, resulting in greater snow accumulation. Writing in the journal Weather, Grant Bigg and David Wilton of Sheffield University explain how the snow soaked through cracks in the ice sheet, encouraging excess iceberg calving over the following few years. Soberingly, global warming has increased iceberg hazard greatly in recent decades, making years like 1912 more the norm than the exception.

Kate’s point is not to note that warming happens, just like during the multiple warm periods during the Holocene. Oh, no. Her point is to Blame Mankind and gin up fear. But, there’s a wee bit of a problem, as Watts points out from this Accuweather article, noting that 1912 was, in fact, an average iceberg year. 1912 was also one of the coldest winters on record. Warmists have this need, this compulsion, this craving to link everything to “climate change”.

Read: Good Grief: Guardian Attempts To Blame Titanic Sinking On “Climate Change” »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | Comments Off on Good Grief: Guardian Attempts To Blame Titanic Sinking On “Climate Change” | Trackback URL

DHS Head Jeh Johnson Wants Immigration To Respect Sanctity Of Family

By William Teach April 28, 2014 – 8:29 am

When I mention that it is not the immigration system that is broken, but the politicians, this is what I’m referring to

(CNS News) Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, asked by President Obama to review U.S. deportation policy in the face of congressional inaction, says he is “looking for ways to more effectively enforce and administer our immigration laws.”

“Immigration laws or any other law needs to comport with American values. One of those American values is respect for human dignity. I also believe one of those American values is respect for the sanctity of the family unit,” Johnson said in an interview that aired Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

“None of what I can do, however, is a substitute for action by Congress. We have an immigration system in this country that is not working. Comprehensive immigration reform would fix it. This is something we need to do. I’m confident that it will happen.”

It is the job of Obama and Johnson to simply enforce existing law. Period. What they mean by “more effectively enforce and administer” is to pick and choose who gets deported. All should be deported. Period. People made a choice to come to America illegally or overstay their visas. A main American value is being a Nation Of Law, not a Nation Of Men, meaning follow the law, not your feelings and whims

One of the founding principles of the US is that it is to be a nation of laws, not men. The flaws of the European history of power emanating from royalty and then passing down to the nobility and, via personal preferment, to court courtiers was all too real to the founders. (it’s a good essay in full, even though kinda whiny about Bush and Republicans)

Parents who are illegals made the choice to bring their kids and/or birth them in the U.S., creating anchor babies. They are welcome to bring them back to their home countries. These illegals don’t seem to care about our American values. They so often refuse to attempt to be a part of America. So many do not speak English, and demand that we speak their language, particularly Spanish. They steal social security numbers, causing hardship to Americans. They demand we educate them, provide them with social services, gum up our emergency rooms, even causing ERs to close. They jam up our prison system with their crimes. They put our citizens in danger with their gangs. So many tell us they do not like America, and then they demand that we give them stuff, including citizenship. Illegals have no one but themselves to blame.

As far as Obama and Johnson go, follow the law. Period. You are not royalty, nobility, nor courtiers.

Read: DHS Head Jeh Johnson Wants Immigration To Respect Sanctity Of Family »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Dionne: You Gun Owners Are Supremacists

By William Teach April 28, 2014 – 8:08 am

Climate change believers (who are typically hypocrites, but that’s a separate story) refer to non-believers as “deniers”, in an attempt to equate non-belief in climate change to denial of the Holocaust (interestingly, so many of these same climate change believers hate Israel). Along comes E.J. Dionne, referring to gun owners as gun supremacists, in what could be an attempt to make people thing of white supremacists, racists, etc

E.J. Dionne: The gun supremacists’ folly

Have we gone stark raving mad?

The question is brought to mind by the gun law signed last week in Georgia by Gov. Nathan Deal. You might have thought that since the United States couldn’t possibly have more permissive firearms laws than it does now, nothing more could be done to coddle the gun lobby and tip the balance of our statutes away from law enforcement. Alas, you would be wrong.

On one hand, I’ll agree that the Georgia law might go a bit too far. I would have liked to see it coupled with a training requirement to reinforce proper usage, existing law, and responsibility. That said, I’m not sure what Dionne means by “permissive”. He and his ilk have done all they can to muddy the waters for law abiding citizens. Want to express your open carry right, in states and cities that allow it? Good luck with that. The rules and laws are so intricate that it makes it difficult to open carry. Same with concealed carry. There are so many places that they cannot be possessed that gun owners have to plan a trip across town with exacting detail, otherwise they are in violation of the law.

You might not have thought that the inability of people to pack while praying was a big problem. Georgia’s political leaders think otherwise, so the new law allows people to carry guns in their houses of worship. True, congregations can set their own rules, but some pastors wonder about the confusion this provision will create, and those who would keep their sanctuaries gun-free may worry about being branded as liberal elitists. Maybe the Georgia legislature will help them by requiring a rewrite of the Scriptures. “Blessed are the peacemakers” can become “Blessed are the gun owners.”

You will also be able to tote weapons into bars and their parking facilities if the bar grants you permission. I can’t wait to see the next beer ad depicting a gunfight over who pays for the next round.

The vast majority of gun owners, particularly those who carry, take their responsibility seriously. The government restrictions were put in to lawfully restrict the ability to carry, which didn’t affect the criminals who would carry regardless. I suspect lots of businesses will restrict gun possession, which is fine. Their choice. I wouldn’t hold it against them.

Oh yes, and while conservatives claim to hate the centralization of power, this law wipes out a series of local gun regulations. The gun supremacists just don’t trust those pesky local elected officials.

Nice strawman. Of course, it’s the centralized power of the federal government in violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments, much less the designated powers outlined in the Constitution, that we are concerned with. And when hyper-liberal municipalities enact laws that make it difficult to impossible to express our 2nd Amendment Rights, the 1st Amendment allows citizens to petition for redress of grievance. Besides, according to Federalism, States have supremacy over municipalities.

Nothing better reveals the utter irrationality of our politics for the whole world to see than this madness about guns — and no issue better demonstrates how deeply divided our nation is by region, ideology and party.

Know what? Stay in your liberal states. You Lefties destroy your own states in multiple ways, including leaving your own citizens unarmed while coddling criminals who do not care about gun laws. Stay there. Deal with it. Don’t bring your Big Government gun hating culture to our states and cities. You broke it, you stay and deal with it.

The program for the NRA’s annual convention, held over the weekend in Indianapolis, listed sessions on “Survival Mindset: Are You Prepared?”; “Creating a Constitutionally Centered Estate Plan”; and “Refuse to be a Victim.”

How dare you “refuse to be a victim”!!!!!!

Party on, guys. I can’t wait for you to figure out the ways in which even Georgia’s law is too restrictive. In the meantime, the nation’s unarmed majority might ponder how badly we have failed in asserting our own rights.

If you want to assert your own rights, go ahead and try to change the 2nd Amendment. You have no right to force law abiding citizens to disarm. I guess, though, that the unarmed majority think it’s their right to be victims. Funny how so much crime occurs in areas with heavy gun restrictions and in “gun free zones”, wouldn’t you say?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Dionne: You Gun Owners Are Supremacists »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Barking Moonbats | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove