EPA Head Wants Climate Scientists To Speak Truth To Push Obama’s Agenda

The politicization of science continues

(CNS News) Gina McCarthy, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), asked scientists at a climate change conference on Thursday in Arlington, Va., to explain the science of climate change. (snip)

“I need you now more than ever to speak the truth,” McCarthy said. “I need you to stand up together with us and explain what the science is telling you.

“To tell people that science and technology improvements will allow us to take action moving forward that meets the needs of this president as he has charged EPA, which is to look at climate change as something where we can innovate and we can move forward to grow the economy, to grow jobs, to understand how we’re producing sustainable, livable communities,” McCarthy said.

Well, now, if you work for the EPA in any fashion, and its head is telling you to support the President in this manner, which way will your work take you?

Read: EPA Head Wants Climate Scientists To Speak Truth To Push Obama’s Agenda »

If All You See…

…is a wonderful spot to put up wind turbines and solar panels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on difficult victimization rules for political elections.

Read: If All You See… »

Strange: Study Finds That Liberals Drink Lots More Alcohol

This probably has something to do with all the studies that find, again and again and again, that liberals are less happy than Conservatives

(The Week) A sobering new study published by the Journal of Wine Economics — yes, there is a Journal of Wine Economics — finds that alcohol consumption in American states rises as the population’s politics becomes more liberal.

The study by Pavel Yakovlev and Walter P. Guessford of Duquesne University in Pennsylvania shows a direct correlation between political beliefs and the demand for alcohol. The study compares sales of alcoholic beverages against the political leanings of a state’s members of Congress, as ranked by liberal organizations Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) and the AFL-CIO Committee on Political Education (COPE).

The research reveals that states with more liberal representatives like Nevada tend to consume up to three times more alcohol per head than more politically conservative states like Arkansas and Utah: (WT – including Utah most likely skews the data a bit)

The study concludes:

In this study, we show that liberal ideology has a statistically significant positive association with the consumption of alcohol in the United States even after controlling for economic, demographic, and geographic differences across states.

The article author offers two reason, per the study (I must be missing them in the paper). There’s definitely a third, that liberals are miserable people. And a forth: Liberals have no self restraint. I bet y’all can come up with a few more.

Read: Strange: Study Finds That Liberals Drink Lots More Alcohol »

White House: Not So Fast On that Keystone XL Pipeline, Cause “Climate Change”

So, the President with a carbon footprint around 41K metric tons, and a Sec of State who constantly takes fossil fueled flights all over the world, and also owns several homes and multiple fossil fueled vehicles, are telling us to hold our horses on Keystone XL

(Fox News) A new environmental assessment from the State Department that raised no major environmental concerns on long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline isn’t the last step in deciding whether the pipeline can be built, the White House said late Friday.

The long-delayed pipeline got a major boost as it cleared a major hurdle toward approval, a serious blow to environmentalists’ hopes that President Obama will block the controversial project running more than 1,000 miles from Canada through the heart of the U.S.

The White House released a statement pushing back on the notion that the pipeline is now headed for speedy approval, saying Sec. of State John Kerry and other agency heads will “closely evaluate” the report in the coming weeks.

“The president has clearly stated that the project will be in the national interest only if it does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution,” White House spokesman Matt Lehrich said.

Amazing. Kerry’s own State Dept releases a report stating that Keystone will have negligible impacts on the environment, and, from that link

The department’s long-awaited environmental impact statement appears to indicate that the project could pass the criteria Mr. Obama set forth in a speech last summer when he said he would approve the 1,700-mile pipeline if it would not “significantly exacerbate” the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Although the pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada to the Gulf Coast, the report appears to indicate that if it were not built, carbon-heavy oil would still be extracted at the same rate from pristine Alberta forest and transported to refineries by rail instead.

One way or another, that oil will flow. Either the US can get it, or Canada will send it to China and other countries. Why would the American President and his SecState not want Americans to have inexpensive energy? Well, because they are far left hyper-partisans, for one thing. Also, massive climahypocrites.

(From Fox News link) “A decision on whether the project is in the national interest will be made only after careful consideration of the SEIS and other pertinent information, comments from the public, and views of other agency heads.”

In other words, Obama and Kerry will stonewall this for months, if not years. There’s no way they’ll approve it prior to the 2014 mid-terms, not wanting to keep the unhinged far left base from showing up to vote “D”.

Obama also said in a New York Times interview last year that there was “no evidence” the pipeline would be a “big jobs generator,” claiming it might create 2,000 jobs in the construction phase and far fewer permanent jobs.

Even if that were true, it would still be more permanent jobs than all his “green jobs” programs, quite a few which have gone bust, others which took the loans and created far, far fewer jobs than they initially stated.

Which is more important? Energy for Americans, which can help with reducing consumer costs, or the fake issue of “carbon pollution”, of which Obama and Kerry are in the top 1% of offenders?

Read: White House: Not So Fast On that Keystone XL Pipeline, Cause “Climate Change” »

Experts Proclamin Obamacare Will Be Impossible To Get Rid Of

Some said slavery would be impossible to get rid of. Same with other laws. Yet, we got rid of them. The web headline reads “Repealing health care law would mean higher costs”, while the Android app one reads “Health law locked in, experts say”

(USA Today) Republicans may not agree with President Obama’s State of the Union call to drop the idea of repealing the Affordable Care Act, but health experts say the law has taken such hold that it may be impossible to get rid of it.

The consequences of repeal, health care officials and industry analysts say, go beyond the fact that 9 million people would suddenly lose their insurance or that anyone with a pre-existing condition would either lose insurance or pay much higher premiums.

All consumers would take a huge financial hit, because health care costs would continue to rise, and insurers would probably recoup their losses by charging higher premiums.

Getting beyond the 9 million number, which has been beaten up by many fact checkers, the article mentions many cost savings portions of Obamacare that, supposedly, if they are done away with consumers will see their costs rise dramatically!!!!!!, dramatically, I say. Yet, the article never mentions that extra-large size deductibles which come with Ocare plans. Many of the Republican “replace” plans include market based solutions that would address those issues. Of course, many of the supposed cost savings are linked more towards rationing and government subsidies. If you read the ones in the story, one comes away with the notion that if that’s all there is to it, it won’t be that hard to fix. One is

Increased competition through federal and state health exchanges, which allow consumers to make direct comparisons of health plan costs and benefits.

Some exchanges feature just one or two companies. And consumers do not get the full details until they’ve provided The Government with all their personal data. Otherwise, they just get a brief overview and the costs.

It will be tough to repeal and replace Ocare. Any legislation will have to incorporate many of the popular ideas, such as not being able to be dropped because a person gets sick. And the plan will have to create a slow walk over at least several years where people are moved from the government option plans to other plans, without massive economic disruptions…or not, consider the massive market and consumer disruptions caused by Ocare, such as the 6+ million who lost their plans, with potentially tens of millions more coming in 2014 to early 2015.

But, nothing can truly happen unless the Republicans win the White House in 2016, and have control of the Senate and House. However, if a Republican does win the White House, he or she has quite a bit of power to change a lot of Obamacare, regardless of Congressional control. The ACA gives the heads of multiple Executive Branch agencies enormous latitude to create rules, particularly the head of HHS. The contraception/sterilization/abortifacient “mandate”? It could be whacked with the stroke of a pen, because it is a rule. The definition of part time could be changed. A good chunk of the tax rules can be deep-sixed. Calorie counts on vending machines and menus? Other insurance requirements? Gone. Change the rule on Congressional reimbursement for Exchange plans.

A Republican president can also rescind all the exemptions for all groups, companies, and unions who received them, who, strangely, were also big supporters of the law.

It won’t be easy, since nothing can truly be done till 2017. Do you know what else was hard? Sending men to the moon. Creating a nationwide interstate system. Building massive skyscrapers. Crossing the country in horse drawn wagons. Doing away with slavery. It takes American will and know how. And we can replace Obamacare with ideas and legislation that works for all Americans. There shouldn’t be losers.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Experts Proclamin Obamacare Will Be Impossible To Get Rid Of »

Harry Reid To Allow Votes On Changes To Obamacare

Hey, I thought that It’s. The. Law? CNN’s Dana Bash provides a fawning, softball interview with Dingy Harry (as written by Dan Merica)

In a nod to vulnerable Senate Democrats up for re-election in 2014, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that he will allow the Senate to vote on some Democratic proposals to change Obamacare.

In an exclusive interview with CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash, Reid said he is meeting with Democrats who have suggestions about altering Obamacare and hopes to bring their changes to the Senate floor for a vote.

“If there are things we can do to improve the bill, we should do it,” Reid told Bash during an interview in his office. “There’s a group of senators, 2014ers we call them, who are coming up with different proposals. I’m meeting with them some this week and individually.”

Reid would not specify certain changes he would make, telling Bash that while there are “five or six really substantive proposals,” one suggestion is to “lump them all together.”

What this is really about is giving vulnerable Senate Democrats, up for re-election in November, political cover. They’ll propose changes to Obamacare which are meant to look good to those voters who can go either way, and they’ll vote for these changes, but the changes will most likely fail in the Senate. Reid will stick some poison pills into the proposed legislation to make sure Republicans do not vote “yes” on the changes. The Dem Senators can go back to their states and say “hey, I tried, but those pesky Republicans blocked the legislation”, without mentioning that most of the other Dems voted “nay” nor the poison pills.

Asked if he believed Republicans would go along with Democratic-proposed changes to Obamacare, Reid said, “Republicans vote against everything. Of course they would vote against it.”

Again, that would be on purpose. Reid will make 100% sure that Republicans will not vote in favor. The compliant lapdog media will forget to highlight the poison pill, highlight the GOP as intransigent, and depict these vulnerable Dems, such as Kay Hagan, Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, and Mark Begich, as “moderates”.

Read: Harry Reid To Allow Votes On Changes To Obamacare »

If All You See…

…is an evil moo cow released horrid greenhouse gases causing terrible snow storms, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Right Wing News, with a post on stopping Boehner’s amnesty plan.

Read: If All You See… »

Anonymous Republican Sees Racism In Immigration Opposition

Throwing out the “R” word is simply a way to attempt to shut down debate

(Buzzfeed) For more than a year House Republican leaders have insisted the chamber would act on new immigration laws. And for more than a year, Republicans have done virtually nothing on the issue — despite intense pressure from activists, business groups, and the nation’s changing demographics.

As noted, most American’s find fixing immigration to be second to last on a list of priorities.

And although there are a variety of reasons for inaction, one Republican lawmaker recently offered a frank acknowledgement that for many House Republicans, there’s one issue at play that’s not often discussed: race.

“Part of it, I think — and I hate to say this, because these are my people — but I hate to say it, but it’s racial,” said the Southern Republican lawmaker, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “If you go to town halls people say things like, ‘These people have different cultural customs than we do.’ And that’s code for race.”

If this Republican doesn’t have the cajones to say it on the record, then he or she is a race-baiting coward.

Is there some racism/bigotry in not wanting to give 11-20 million  illegal aliens amnesty? A tiny, tiny bit. Let’s not forget that Democrats encoded racism and bigotry in their Party platforms, along with massive opposition to legal immigrants. Nowadays, they just patronize people along lines of race, nationality, religion, age, and sex.

Republican/Conservative opposition to amnesty and a “pathway to citizenship” is based on the rule of law. Why in the hell should we reward bad, and even lawless, behavior? Why should we cater to people who want to be in America but do not want to integrate, and often dislike America? This is not just illegals, but legals, as well.

Dan Riehl takes on the comments of, surprise, Lindsay Graham and John McCain, who soft-peddle the raaaaacism meme.

Byron York discusses the so-called “immigration triggers”, which will be about as weak as you would expect. The Lonely Conservative goes on to note that there is no reason for Republicans to trust Obama on immigration.

I’ve previously noted my plan, which creates a situation, for one, that would make illegals not want to come to the USA. The GOP plan would really say to illegals “sure, come in, we’ll hook you up in the future”.

Read: Anonymous Republican Sees Racism In Immigration Opposition »

Whew! Finally A Way To Talk To Polar-Vortexed Friends

And Grist is there to tell us how the freaking cold weather is all part of “climate change”, as they crosspost from Sightline Daily

How to talk to your polar-vortexed friends

Brrrr, it’s freezing. So much for global warming, huh?

We heard this kind of thing a lot during the early January cold snap when everyone was talking about the polar vortex (a.k.a. the jet stream) — along with claims far more outlandish and sensationalized. And we’re hearing it again this week as temps dropped and snow blanketed the East Coast. (snip)

So how do we tactfully clear up the misunderstandings and advance a productive conversation about climate change?

This should be a hoot

Start with the basics: Pollution from coal, oil, and gas is throwing the climate out of whack. We’re seeing extremes like drought, floods, heat waves — and even cold. Arctic warming may weaken the jet stream, causing cold air to wander farther south.

At which point any Warmist should be asked whether they have made sure they use no oil, coal, or gas in their lives. Expect quite a bit of hemming and hawing and equivocations and deflections.

Focus on trends: A single event does not a pattern make. Think of climate as personality and weather as mood. Global average temperatures are rising. While it may be unseasonably cold in North America, it’s unusually mild in Alaska and blazing hot in Australia. And the last decade was the hottest on record. Over time, the climate’s personality is shifting and it’s already making the weather moodier.

If only Warmists would remember the same thing as they blame every storm on “climate change”.

Say why it matters and what we can do: As always, it’s important to find common ground by explaining why it matters (this is where you talk about our responsibility to our kids) and balancing the bad news with reason for hope (this is where you talk about solutions that are ready to go). We shouldn’t let naysayers, or politics, or oil and coal profits stand in our way.

If it’s “for the kids”, why won’t Warmists make their own lives “carbon neutral”? Why are all their solutions based on far left Progressive dogma?

Read: Whew! Finally A Way To Talk To Polar-Vortexed Friends »

Obama’s Executive Action Power Play

During the 2014 SOTU Obama formalized his plan to essentially ignore the duly elected Legislative Branch and act through Executive Orders. This is very much what he has been doing for the entirety of his time in the presidential office, excepting for a few big pieces of legislation, like Obamacare and the failed Stimulus. He often side-stepped Congress even during his first two years, when both the Senate and House were controlled by Democrats.

(Politico) In an FDA office building in suburban Maryland, the bureaucrats gather over coffee to draft rules meant to squeeze the trans fat out of snack foods.

Four blocks from the White House, in an EPA conference room: more bureaucrats, more meetings, more drafting of rules, these aimed at forcing industrialists to spend billions cutting carbon to fend off global warming.

Congress? Who needs Congress?

Americans heard President Barack Obama declare this week that he intends to bypass the gridlocked Hill to get things done on his own. What they didn’t hear: just how far he’s actually pushing his executive authority.

An in-depth examination of the administration’s actions and plans, agency by agency, regulation by regulation, reveals an executive power play that’s broad and bold — and intensely ambitious. Far more than he let on in the State of the Union, the president has marshaled the tools of his office to advance policies, many unabashedly liberal, that push deep into everyday life for tens of millions of Americans.

That should give everyone, including Democrats/Obama supporters a case of the willys. What you have is a Chief Executive run amok, ignoring the Constitutional checks and balances. It should also concern people that Congress has given up so much of their duly constituted power to the Chief Executive. Consider Obamacare: despite being a 2000+ (legislatively) document, its specificity only went so far, and gave vast amounts of rule making authority to the President and his department heads, particularly the head of HHS. The contraception mandate? That came from rule making. It’s not in the text of the ACA.

He wants to change how power plants operate. And what we buy for lunch. How we travel to work. And how our kids learn math. How our gasoline is formulated. How we light our aquariums. (snip)

And it’s not Congress, but the executive branch, that’s on the verge of making Hershey’s reformulate its Reese’s Pieces. (Out, out, trans fat!) (snip)

Whether American guns can be sold abroad. How smokeless tobacco can be marketed. Which nonprofits can stage get-out-the-vote drives. What constitutes a single serving of potato chips.

And, perhaps, just how salty those chips should be.

So much of rule making is being driven by a micro-managing White House, rather than originating in the Federal agencies. These are rules that directly affect US citizens, and can affect our freedom, our choice, and our cost of living. These are the actions of a dictator-lite, someone who is drunk with power.

Not all of the executives actions are necessarily bad, nor intrusive. Many are done with the input of industry. But, then, if the White House comes calling, industry is going to tend to listen under duress.

To Republicans, however, he’s gone quite far enough.

They’ve called the president’s tactics abusive and arrogant, a brazen end run around the checks and balances built into the Constitution.

“This president’s use of executive power in areas where he has failed to build a necessary consensus for legislative action has been unprecedented,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “This disregard for the rule of law and lack of transparency sets a dangerous precedent.”

Part of the problem is Obama’s “leadership” style. In some big cases, he makes a speech, pushes a subject, then just expects Someone Else to do the work to get it passed in Congress. Yet, he often doesn’t bother reaching out to Congress, not even his own Party. He barely has talks with Republicans, mostly just immediately deeming them obstructionists and denigrating them. Why would he expect any cooperation when he acts in a hyper-partisan manner? He never learned the trick of reaching across the aisle. He barely had any comrades amongst Senate Democrats, much less any links to Congressional Republicans during his brief time in the US Senate.

Another part is that he is lazy. He doesn’t want to take the time to do the necessary work of the Office Of The President. Followed by that he seems to enjoy being a dictator-lite.

In his first term, his administration enacted 246 regulations classified as “economically significant,” meaning they carry an economic impact of more than $100 million. That’s considerably more than either George W. Bush or Bill Clinton enacted in either of their terms. The Obama administration has added another 54 economically significant regulations so far in his second term. Many are connected to the health care law or Dodd-Frank.

The Heritage Foundation slices the data another way. It looks at how many regulations are “prescriptive,” meaning they impose mandates on the private sector. Its tally: 131 “prescriptive” rules issued during Obama’s first term — and 31 added last year. By comparison, Bush issued 52 prescriptive rules during his first term, said Diane Katz, a research fellow at the foundation.

All these regulations and rules and executive actions affect real people, often in negative ways. Now that he has declared that he is unfettered during his last 3 years in office, expect more of this. Make sure to read the whole article at Politico. It’s an excellent bit of journalism by Stephanie Simon, the kind of article typically only done while a Republican is in office.

Read: Obama’s Executive Action Power Play »

Pirate's Cove