Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach February 2, 2014 – 10:03 am

Happy Sunday! Another great day in the Once and Future Nation of America. The Super Bowl will be played out, and feasting will commence. This pinup is by Gil Elvgren, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. protein wisdom discusses Obama’s weaponization of government
  2. The Lonely Conservative wonders how fracking opponents heat their own homes
  3. The Jawa Report notes Sandra Fluke contemplating running for Congress
  4. The People’s Cube features the new “Government” guitar series from Gibson
  5. Wizbang covers Obama violating US trademark law regarding MyRA
  6. The Daley Gator notes that Syria is dragging their feet on their chemical weapons
  7. Political Clown Parade discusses Obama using force to protect Americans
  8. Moonbattery covers raising the minimum wage
  9. Legal Insurrection notes that some lefties think it was racism, not snow, that paralyzed Atlanta
  10. Jammie Wearing Fools has another Obamacare “success” story
  11. Flopping Aces notes that Dems know they are in big trouble
  12. Fire Andrea Mitchell covers Mary Landrieu being in big trouble
  13. Director Blue points out that you can now panic on the economy
  14. Diogenes’ Middle Finger has giant, dog killing….slugs?
  15. And last, but not least, Cold Fury discusses what Liberals are fueled by

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Is Obama An “Imperial President”?

By William Teach February 2, 2014 – 8:18 am

There’s been quite a bit of discussion over Obama’s use of presidential authority: signing statements, executive orders, changing rules (many of which were established by his own administration), changing parts of laws, refusing to defend laws passed by the United States Congress, and generally just doing whatever he wants. The notion of Obama being an imperial president has grown particularly since the 2014 SOTU, wherein he specifically stated he would bypass Congress unless they Gave Him What He Wanted. But, how true is this notion? Well, remember that Liberals constantly complained about George W Bush, calling him a tyrant, a king, a fascist, a dictator

(Daily Caller) Could we be in the midst of an “imperial presidency”? That’s the question the Christian Science Monitor posed in a recent cover story.

It’s generally former President George W. Bush that gets hammered for overreaching his executive authority, but the CSM article lays out evidence showing that President Barack Obama has gone far beyond his predecessor.

While Bush and Obama have issued roughly the same number of executive orders in their first five years as president, the scope of Obama’s actions are more far-reaching than Bush’s.

“It’s really the character of the actions, and their subject,” Jonathan Turley, a constitutional scholar at George Washington University, told the CSM. “In my view, Obama has surpassed George W. Bush in the level of circumvention of Congress and the assertion of excessive presidential power. I don’t think it’s a close question.”

Let’s be clear: Conservatives were not happy with Bush’s expansion of government, including through the use of the powers of the office of President. Consider, though: Bush went to Congress for both Iraq and Afghanistan. He even went to the United Nations for Iraq. Regarding Afghanistan, few would have complained had he just sent military units to attack al Qaeda and the Taliban under the War Powers Act, post-9/11. Obama, on the other hand, unilaterally attacked Libya (with apparently no plan other than bomb bomb bomb) without even the courtesy of informing Congress. Heck, he was in another nation and didn’t bother calling Congressional leaders of either party. He’s also deployed US forces, both drones, air assets, and boots on the ground, to nations around Africa, the Mid East, and Asia. He certainly has the power to do that, yet he doesn’t seem to discuss this with Congress at all.

There is no doubt that the scope of executive authority was greatly expanded under Bush, especially with the passage of the Patriot Act. But Obama has not done away with any of Bush’s expansions of executive power — if anything Obama has continued to expand the power of his office.

Obviously, the Patriot Act was passed by Congress. Yet, Obama has expanded the power of the office after complained for years about Bush’s use of that power, particularly when he started running for POTUS. NSA, anyone? Has he attempted to roll back anything? No.

He’s changed the law on illegals, ordering “prosecutorial discretion” on young illegals. Refusing to defend laws like DOMA. Pushing federal funds for abortions despite legislation that says otherwise. Refusing to follow federal law on marijuana, as states expand what they will allow. All the rules and proclamations from the EPA. He’s effectively banned any new coal plants, and has made it so many, if not most or all, of existing plants will close. And so many others, that have a negative effect on American citizens

“Obama’s not interpreting the law; he’s changing the law. He’s changing deadlines that were the subject of intense legislative debate,” said Turley, who disclosed that he voted for Obama. “President Obama meets every definition of an imperial presidency. He is the president that Richard Nixon always wanted to be.”

That was in relation to Obamacare. Really, that could be expanded to cover quite a bit of his presidency. Orders on gun control, changes to Obamacare, and so many others. And now that he’s made his unilateral presidency official during the SOTU, expect more. Mr. Constitutional Scholar doesn’t seem too interested in actually working through the legislative process. Schmoozing, wheedling, working the phones, simply just reaching out, seem to be beyond Mr. Obama. The power of the office has gone to his head.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Is Obama An “Imperial President”? »

Posted in Barry Obama | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

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

By William Teach February 1, 2014 – 1:36 pm

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 »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers, Politics | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 1, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…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… »

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

Strange: Study Finds That Liberals Drink Lots More Alcohol

By William Teach February 1, 2014 – 10:51 am

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 »

Posted in Liberal World | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

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

By William Teach February 1, 2014 – 8:21 am

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” »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Barry Obama, Global Warming, Kerry | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Experts Proclamin Obamacare Will Be Impossible To Get Rid Of

By William Teach February 1, 2014 – 8:03 am

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 »

Posted in Healthcare | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

Harry Reid To Allow Votes On Changes To Obamacare

By William Teach January 31, 2014 – 5:38 pm

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 »

Posted in Democrats, Healthcare | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 31, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…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… »

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

Anonymous Republican Sees Racism In Immigration Opposition

By William Teach January 31, 2014 – 11:14 am

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 »

Posted in GOP, Idiot GOPer's, Illegal Immigration | 6 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove