The Nation Declares Typhoon Haiyan Caused By “Climate Change”

Of course, they don’t put “climate change” in quotation marks like I do

Yes, Typhoon Haiyan Was Caused by Climate Change

This article is a joint publication of TheNation.com and Foreign Policy In Focus.

It seems these days that whenever Mother Nature wants to send an urgent message to humankind, it sends it via the Philippines. This year the messenger was Haiyan, known in the Philippines as Yolanda.

For the second year in a row, the world’s strongest typhoon barreled through the Philippines, Yolanda following on the footsteps steps of Pablo, a k a Bopha, in 2012. And for the third year in a row, a destructive storm deviated from the usual path taken by typhoons, striking communities that had not learned to live with these fearsome weather events because they were seldom hit by them in the past. Sendong in December 2011 and Bopha last year sliced Mindanao horizontally, while Yolanda drove through the Visayas, also in a horizontal direction.

That it was climate change creating the super typhoons that were taking weird directions was a message from Nature not just to Filipinos but to the whole world, whose attention was transfixed on the televised digital images of a massive, angry cyclone bearing down, then sweeping across the central Philippines on its way to the Asian mainland. The message that Nature was sending via Yolanda–which packed winds stronger than Superstorm Sandy, which hit New Jersey and New York last October, and Hurricane Katrina, which devastated New Orleans in 2005–was especially meant for the governments of the world that are assembling in Warsaw for the annual global climate change negotiations (COP 19), beginning on November 11.

Obviously, bad weather never happened before the combustion engine using fossil fuels. And weather that did occur was completely predictable and reliable.

Is it a coincidence, ask some people who are not exactly religious, that both Pablo and Yolanda arrived at the time of the global climate negotiations? Pablo smashed into Mindanao during the last stages of the Conference of Parties (COP 18), in Doha last year.

Why does the word “witchcraft” scroll through my brain? Also, anthropomorphizing the storms and the mostly natural weather of the Earth.

Anyhow, the majority of deadly cyclones occurred when CO2 was at the safe level of 350ppm or less. It was completely predictable that Warmists would go off the reservation over Haiyan/Yolanda, and they’ll probably pimp this meme for months, just like with Sandy (which wasn’t a hurricane at landfall, and was made worse by a big cold-front).

Read: The Nation Declares Typhoon Haiyan Caused By “Climate Change” »

Say, What Defines Success For Obamacare?

That’s something The Politico’s David Nather asks

Democrats have a general idea of what it would take to put the Obamacare rollout back on track. Fix the damn website, they say, and most of the other problems will take care of themselves.

But will they? The problem is that neither the administration or the House and Senate yoked to it can describe a threshold for when the public will view the health law as on the way to recovery.

What does the moment of success look like? Democrats aren’t quite sure – which makes party faithful up for re-election in 2014 increasingly nervous and makes the White House’s ability to set realistic expectations exceedingly difficult.

Most Democrats insist that the main path to recovery is as easy as fixing the website. That’s the line even from the Senate Democrats who bent Obama’s ear at the White House last week about the rollout. They just can’t give any concrete suggestions on what else it would take — which is why most of them sound like the old Saturday Night Live “fix it” guy: “Identify a problem, FIX IT. Identify another problem, FIX IT!”

Democrats and Team Obama think that fixing the website will enable the Unicorn Of Awesomeness to run free, and then the “Affordable” Care Act will be a rousing success. Yet, the website, working correctly or not, is simply the portal to people obtaining Government Approved health insurance. In order to be successful, it would

  • make sure that the majority of the 30-45 million Americans without insurance obtained insurance, like was used as a talking point prior to passage
  • Is revenue neutral, as Democrats stated
  • Is providing quality health care
  • Bends the curve down on rising health insurance and care costs
  • Doesn’t get in the way of decisions between you and your doctor (death panels, government mandates)
  • Are those who are sicker making up the vast number of enrollees
  • Lowers premiums up to $2500 for families, as Obama and other Dems repeatedly stated
  • Makes it easy and inexpensive for those with pre-existing conditions to obtain affordable coverage
  • Companies aren’t dumping their health insurance plans
  • Companies aren’t shifting people to part-time work
  • You aren’t losing your doctor
  • You aren’t losing the plan you like

Well, since many of those have already been broken, it’s exactly the success Conservatives said it would be. For Progressives, the #1 measure is “how much power has government taken for themselves when it comes to people’s health decisions?” Also, “how much closer to single payer are we?” Of course, most of these folks didn’t think that the law would effect themselves. Surprise!

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports that the initial numbers should show 40k-50k enrollments. The Washington Post is saying 40,0000. Sarah Kliff, who has mostly been on the cheerleader side, wonders who counts as an enrollee

When the Obama administration releases health law enrollment figures later this week, though, it will use a more expansive definition. It will count people who have purchased a plan as well as  those who have a plan sitting in their online shopping cart but have not yet paid.

“In the data that will be released this week, ‘enrollment’ will measure people who have filled out an application and selected a qualified health plan in the marketplace,” said an administration official, who requested anonymity to frankly describe the methodology.

So, if you are cruising Best Buy’s website and “add to shopping cart to see price”, according to Team Obama that would mean you purchased that product. Even if you haven’t paid for it. If you download a free preview of a book from Amazon, that means you bought the book. Though you haven’t paid a dime. If you are on Rotten Tomatoes and say that you want to see this movie, the studio can report you as having seen it, though you haven’t paid.

I suspect the actual paid enrollments are so low that they don’t dare release the numbers.

Read: Say, What Defines Success For Obamacare? »

Cary, NC Resident Charged With Attempt To Aid Syrian Terrorist Group

Remember, this is just an isolated incident, it’s not part of a wider problem

(News and Observer) A Cary man is facing a federal charge that he attempted to aid a foreign terrorist organization, according to a criminal complaint filed by the FBI in federal court last week.

Basit Javed Sheikh of Cary is suspected by the FBI of trying to provide support to the Nusra Front that is fighting in Syria’s civil war. His father, Javed Sheikh, said on Monday there “is no truth in that,” referring to the federal allegations.

But a federal grand jury in Raleigh believed there was enough evidence to indict Basit Sheikh to stand trial for the charges. He was being held by Wake County authorities on Monday, according to county records.

Law enforcement intercepted Basit Sheikh on Nov. 2 at Raleigh-Durham International Airport, an FBI affidavit states. He had told a confidential FBI source that he wanted to join the jihad, or holy struggle, in Syria, according to an agent’s affidavit. He said in August that he had secured a job “with a brigade in logistics, managing medical supplies,” the document states.

Cary is on the other side of Raleigh, where I live.

He’s also a “legal permanent resident” of the US. Why do we even have that class? Should there not be 3 classes, short term visitors, temporary workers (Sheikh supposedly worked at the post office, but there are no records of that) who need to leave after a few years, depending on the work visa length, and citizens/those trying for citizenship? Why would we want people who are permanent residents but want no part of becoming a US citizen? Anyhow, back to the story

Thomas Walker, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, which includes Wake County, stressed Monday that “this is an indictment for an individual for individual conduct, and should in no way be seen as a charge against anyone else.”

Khalilah Sabra, director of Immigration and Civil Rights at the Muslim American Public Affairs Council, confirmed Monday that federal agents had reached out to Muslims in the Triangle to try to foster a new mutual understanding, and to talk about the U.S. State Department’s list of suspected terror groups.

“From what I understand about the most recent case, it is an isolated incident,” Sabra said Monday.

While it is certainly true that the indictment is for This Guy, the inclusion of those two quote is purposeful, meant to propagate the “lone wolf” meme, the “hey, really, this is just some single crazy guy,” that it has nothing to do with the fact that the majority of terrorist attacks around the world and people arrested on terrorism charges are practitioners of the Religion Of Peace.

That’s not to say that all, or even most, Muslims are terrorists/attempted terrorists, that they that all give aid and comfort to the hard cores groups, but that there are more than enough to say “yeah, there’s a problem”. If the media see one guy or gal carrying a rebel flag, well, then, that means that the entire Tea Party/Conservative/Republican movement is raaaaacist. The entire group is indicted for the actions or speech of a few or one.

The photo comes via The Jawa Report, which found it on a November 2 Facebook post. Make sure to read what else Rusty writes.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Cary, NC Resident Charged With Attempt To Aid Syrian Terrorist Group »

Debbie Downer: Dems Are Going To Like Totally Run On Obamacare!

In all fairness, you wouldn’t expect her to say “I expect most Democrats, especially those Senators who are vulnerable, to run as far from this legislation as they can”

(Red Alert Politics) Obamacare is going to be an asset for Democrats in the 2014 midterm elections, according to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).

The Florida Democrat appeared on CNN‘s State of the Union on Sunday, where host Candy Crowley questioned the Congresswoman about how the Affordable Care Act influenced the gubernatorial election in Virginia.

“I think, actually Candy, that Democratic candidates will be able to run on Obamacare as an advantage, leading into the 2014 election,” she closed.

I really hope Democrats do run on it, it would make the GOPs job easier. Though I expect they won’t, and will have some cute changing the topic type talking points readily available when we get into the 2014 silly season.

BTW, people are talking about the GOP offering an Obamacare fix, re. the “If you like your plan you can keep it” legislation. It’s not so much a fix as a partial repeal, at least of the rules which were devised by Team Obama and HHS. I still think they shouldn’t have offered anything to fix the mess at all, but, politics is what it is, and the GOP has to be seen as Doing Something, plus it would put Democrats on the hook with their vote.

The Lonely Conservative points out: “Oh, and many of those who lost their policies live in swing states where Senate Democrats are up for election.” One would be Kay Hagan here in my home state of North Carolina (also known as The Best Carolina). The local news outlets are doing all the can to either avoid mentioning her support of the ACA or protecting her.

Read: Debbie Downer: Dems Are Going To Like Totally Run On Obamacare! »

Best High School Football Trick Play Ever?

I’m not so sure. Was the running back moving at the snap of the ball? That would be a false start in the NFL and college, and from reading HS rules, the same. Either way, the D was totally punked.

Read: Best High School Football Trick Play Ever? »

If All You See…

…is a field that could use some solar panels to offset the carbon footprint of the American flag, you might just be a Warmist

If all you see is the American Flag protected by our veterans, you might just be celebrating Veteran’s Day. The Blog of the day is Maggie’s Notebook, with a post on Veteran’s Day.

Read: If All You See… »

Hooray, COP19 Starts In Warsaw Today!

Today is the day when tens of thousands of Warmists from around the world representing individuals, groups, and governments, with a smattering of actual scientists (who are Believers, since the UN IPCC doesn’t want any of those icky folks who might disagree around), take fossil fueled flights and fossil fueled vehicles arrive in Warsaw

(Al Jazeera-I’m using AJ as it amuses me that a news outlet funded by oil is yammering on about this subject) World nations have launched a new round of talks in Warsaw to pave the way for a 2015 deal to cut climate-altering greenhouse-gas emissions.

The 12-day United Nations Climate Change Conference began on Monday in Poland’s capital amid a slew of warnings about a potentially disastrous rise in greenhouse-gas emissions.

Though no major decisions are expected at the conference, the level of progress could be an indicator of the world’s chances of reaching a deal in 2015, which is the new landmark year in the UN-led process after a 2009 summit in Copenhagen ended in discord.

Climate change is “very, very scary stuff. And evidence is accumulating weekly, monthly as to how dangerous this will be. So there is a huge urgency that we get on with this,” said Andrew Steer, the head of the World Resources Institute in Washington.

I wonder how many private jets have been flown into Warsaw so that all these Warmists can complain about fossil fuels? But, you know, Hotcoldwetdry is very scary stuff, say the modern version of practitioners of witchcraft.

I like the fact that they don’t really expect to get much done. I nice, calm working vacation, which is paid for by taxpayers in many cases.

“Global greenhouse gas emissions need to peak this decade, and get to zero net emissions by the second half of this century,” UN climate chief Christiana Figueres said on Thursday.

Funny. How many GHGs were put in the atmosphere just to get people to COP19, much less the gathering and getting them home?

Interesting. So the lead Philippines negotiator took a fossil fueled flight almost halfway around the world to go on a hunger strike over fossil fuels?

(Reuters) The Warsaw meeting will also seek ways to raise aid to help developing nations cope with climate change. They have been promised $100-billion a year by 2020, from $10-billion a year from 2010-12.

Strange, seems like this is some sort of redistributive scheme, negotiated and pushed by people who have pretty darned big “carbon footprints”.

Alas, no big Gore Effect for Warsaw, however, the daily highs and lows will be at to a few degrees below the historical norms for the next 10 days.

Read: Hooray, COP19 Starts In Warsaw Today! »

DaleyGator’s Top 25 Blogs Now

Doug at The Daley Gator has his list of his top 25 blogs right now, and he was awesome to include Pirate’s Cove. Most of the blogs on the list are ones I have on my feedreader, as well. Go check it out!

I was going to wait till the IAYS post, but, nah, giving Doug some Rule 5 early

Read: DaleyGator’s Top 25 Blogs Now »

Immigration Debate Can Learn From History Or Something

Team Obama, Democrats, and their sheeple followers are itching to ramp up the push for “comprehensive” immigration reform. The White House and all their peeps have sent out a few tweets here and there. Obama had John “Amnesty” McCain over for tea to discuss the issue last week (interestingly, there are no articles as to what happened, just that it would happen). Here’s a humorous one I ran across while reading the Devils and Giants articles at NJ.com by Tom Deignan, but it might as well be written by Any Feelings Based Liberal

Immigration debate can learn from history: Opinion

All of the noise over the Affordable Care Act has made it easy to forget that immigration reform was also supposed to be a top priority in Washington this fall. Hoping to revive this debate before the congressional calendar runs out, President Obama met with business bigwigs last week and has a scheduled meeting with Republican leaders this week.

Let’s hope folks on both sides of this issue not only get moving, but also take a moment to crack open a history book. Because while there are certainly distinctions between past and present immigrant waves, even a cursory look at 19th century immigration undermines some of the myths and assumptions that continue to stall this debate.

Take, for example, the line often peddled by anti-immigrant activists: that the foreign-born of yesteryear were all legal and “played by the rules.” The fact is, crime, sloth and disorder were rampant in 19th century immigrant neighborhoods, thanks mainly to discrimination and severe competition at the bottom of the economic ladder. Just last month, Newark-based Benedictine Monk the Rev. Augustine Curley delivered a lecture at Seton Hall on anti-Irish rioting in 1850s Newark.

Um, that’s an argument I’ve never heard before (oh, and we’re not “anti-immigrant”, we’re against most illegals). But, consider, these legal and illegal folks brought crime, sloth, and disorder. That’s a hell of a recommendation to give today’s illegals a “pathway to citizenship”, wouldn’t you say?

Meanwhile, it may be true that past immigrants weren’t welfare moochers, but that’s only because there was no welfare from Washington upon which to mooch. Immigrants were actually more than willing to accept handouts from charitable religious groups or to swap their votes for assistance from political machines.

Hmm, so if we look at the past, we can expect the current crop of illegals to look to be on the dole and prostitute themselves politically?

Also, somehow, we’re supposed to believe that all these illegals, who have been pandered to for decades by liberals and super squishy Republicans will become Conservatives and vote GOP sometime in the future.

In the end, the contributions of 19th century immigrants and their offspring helped make the 20th century “The American Century.” Unless President Obama and Republican leaders get moving, we might not be able to say the same about the 21st century.

That was a time when America had a much smaller population and plenty of room to grow. Plenty of jobs to fill. But this is all the type of feelings based argument wrapped around some facts we can expect to hear against shortly, mostly as a way to deflect from the travesty that is Obamacare. Many of these immigrants came from Old Europe and China. Now they often come from 3rd World hellholes and want to live here, but not be citizens. They want the US to adopt their standards, rather than conforming to US standards. We have millions out of work, yet the allies of these illegals want to legalize them. They want these folks moved onto the public dole to create more Democrat voters, regardless of how it can hurt America and Americans.

The 19th century was a different time. Adding all these low wage workers will create a glut on the market, restricting wage increases, even deflating them. The price of goods and services can also be driven up. And housing.

How many of these illegals have tried to integrate? How many send money earned here to their home nations, depriving the American economy? How many knowingly broke our immigration laws, either by crossing the border or overstaying their visa? How many demand that America conform to them and take care of them?

Read: Immigration Debate Can Learn From History Or Something »

NY Times: The ACA Losers Will Be Happy They’re Paying More When They Lose Their Jobs

Over at the NY Post, Michael Goodwin argues that the NY Times’ cheerleading for Obamacare harms the nation, noting that watchdogs became lapdogs. The NY Times continues its lapdog status as the Editorial Board comes out with yet another absurd piece

The debate over the effect the Affordable Care Act will have on individuals and families who buy their own policies has mostly been waged in anecdotes. Supporters of the law point to grateful individuals who were previously unable to get insurance or paid exorbitant premiums but found affordable coverage on the new health insurance exchanges. Critics counter with frustrated people who liked their old policies but will now be forced to buy a more comprehensive policy and pay a higher premium for it.

As it turns out, there are estimates of how many people might fall into one category or the other. Up to seven million people may be able to get health policies without paying any premium at all. Some four million people may have to pay more for new (and better) policies, not all of whom will necessarily be upset at getting better coverage at a competitive rate.

Of course, the problem there is that the administrations own mid-range estimate is that 93 million Americans will lose their insurance plans. A goodly chunk of them are folks working for companies that will replace the plans with more expensive ones. Others will say “forget it” and simply pay the fine when the employer mandate starts in 2015, which the Obama admin cynically pushed off past the 2014 mid-terms. Anyhow, 4 million people having to pay much more for (better) policies that they do not need isn’t exactly a vote of confidence, but, hey, the NY Times bigwigs who do not have to suffer under the same costs are cool with it.

Individuals facing higher premiums are understandably distressed. But there is no getting around the fact that health reform changes the status quo — including requiring insurance companies to provide essential health benefits that were not previously covered and to take on people who were rejected before because of their health.

Except, many people do not need maternity care. Men do not need gynecological coverage, and women do not need (generally) prostate coverage. Men do not need breast exam coverage. Not everyone needs substance abuse coverage. I don’t do drugs. I rarely drink. I’m not concerned about nor do I want to pay for it. But, all that extra coverage which people do not need pays for everyone else who does, and who are sicker. Oh, and to provide free contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients, a mandate which was created by Team Obama through rules, as it was never part of the mandates in the ACA.

Those who will pay more should take comfort in the knowledge that should they lose their jobs or face financial hardships or a medical crisis their previous policies would not have adequately covered, they would benefit from a health care safety net that offers federal subsidies and comprehensive coverage.

If you lose your job or have financial hardships, how are you going to pay your premiums? If you’re not paying your premiums, is the NY Times Editorial Board suggesting that you cannot be dropped? As far as “adequate coverage”, that’s a meme popping up within not just the Times, but far left Obamanuts. Why is it their job to decide what is considered “adequate”? Maybe that should be left up to the consumer.

Furthermore, why should there be any losers with this type of law? Shouldn’t the idea be to help everyone, not punish people?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: NY Times: The ACA Losers Will Be Happy They’re Paying More When They Lose Their Jobs »

Pirate's Cove