Worms Turned Into “Climate Change” Saviors?

This article is noted more for blowing up the Warmist notion that Mankind is mostly/solely responsible for every weather event and change in temperature

(New Scentist) Is the earthworm turning into a global warming saviour? Earlier this year, the animals were cast as key contributors to climate change, but they may have been falsely accused.

A fifth of carbon dioxide emissions come from soils, and earthworms play a central role. They churn up soil, encouraging breakdown of organic matter to produce CO2. They also drive subterranean processes that both lock up and release carbon.

New Scientist isn’t exactly a “skeptic” site. In fact, they are “climate change” cheerleaders. Two points: first, if the science on earthworms can change, why not the notions on anthropogenic “climate change”?

Second, they just said 1/5th of CO2 output comes from the soil. Most of that will be natural. That means that mankind can’t be mostly/solely responsible right off the bat, as Warmists proposition. Heck, the oceans themselves release 16x more CO2 than mankind.

And Warmists still won’t practice what they preach.

Read: Worms Turned Into “Climate Change” Saviors? »

Bummer: Only One In Eight Swing State Voters Back Amnesty

Wait, wait, we aren’t supposed to call it amnesty, because allowing illegals to live here illegally is “de facto amnesty“, according to Marco “John McCain Lite” Rubio. The thing is, as soon as this budget fight concludes, Democrats, and some Republicans, are most likely going to turn back to “comprehensive immigration reform”

(Daily Caller) Only one out of every eight swing-voters strongly back an amnesty for illegals immigrants, according to a new poll by President Barack Obama’s 2012 polling firm.

The poll, which was funded by NBC and Esquire magazine, was intended to highlight the political views of non-partisan American voters.

This middle non-partisan bloc comprises 51 percent of all voters, according to two polling firms who conducted the survey, released Oct. 15. The firms were Obama’s Benenson Strategy Group, and Public Opinion Strategies, which was the primary polling firm for GOP candidate Gov. Mitt Romney.

Just 12 percent of these middle-bloc respondents strongly support “providing illegal immigrants with a path to citizenship even though they have broken the rules,” according to a summary printed by Esquire.

Thirty-eight percent of the middle-bloc strongly oppose the amnesty, creating a political minefield for the politicians who need to woo swing-voters.

Well, that’s a kick in the pants for the “pathway to citizenship for people who are here illegally” crowd, wouldn’t you say? 20% more “somewhat support” said pathway, while 16% say they “somewhat oppose”. How about we just kick out the majority of these folks who blow off our laws and sovereignty, especially since so many don’t even bother to learn English and integrate? And do this

More: if anyone thinks I might be overdoing it in regards to an immediate push for amnesty, Obama has vowed to push the day after the shutdown deal is reached.

Read: Bummer: Only One In Eight Swing State Voters Back Amnesty »

Fact Checker: Three Pinocchio’s For Factually True Statements On Obamacare

Facts are apparently false. Here’s the Washington Post’s fact checker, Glenn Kessler, giving it the old college try to protect the “Affordable” Care Act, something many, many liberals, and ultra squishy “Republicans” who spend more time bashing Republicans than Democrats, have tried before

“The president has exempted over 1,200 groups, including members of Congress, from the health care law.” – Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), in an interview on CNN, Oct. 15, 2013

That’s the fact checked statement, and here’s what Kessler writes

The first part of Scalise’s statement refers to one-year waivers that the Department of Health and Human Services granted to 1,231 companies regarding the law’s restrictions of annual benefit caps.

Yep, you read that correctly. He is referring to a one-year waiver regarding one, relatively small aspect of the law.

Apparently, that’s supposed to be incorrect, despite “over 1,200” companies being given waivers. For the companies, that’s a short term proposition, but, they were, in fact, given an waiver. A bit of a stretch in the language, welcome to Politics 101.

Now we get to the typical spin

As for Congress being exempted, this is also incorrect.

As a result of an amendment offered by Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the Affordable Care Act includes a provision that would require members of Congress (and their personal staffs) to get their insurance on the Obamacare exchanges.

OK, so, The Law, or, as Liberals and squishy Republicans put it “It’s The Law”, requires that Congress and their personal staffs go through the Exchanges. Is that so hard to understand? Apparently so

But there was an unexpected wrinkle: the exchanges are intended for people who currently do not get employer-provided insurance, whereas lawmakers and their staffs previously had about 70 percent of their insurance premiums underwritten by the federal government through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

For lawmakers and their staffs, the loss of employer contributions would have amounted to an unintended pay cut of between $5,000 to $10,000. Under pressure from Congress, the Office of Personnel Management proposed a rule in August, which was finalized in September, saying the federal government could still contribute to health-care premiums.

The final rule would keep the subsidy in place only for members of Congress and affected staff who enroll in a Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) plan available in the District of Columbia. Such plans most commonly will be aimed at employees of businesses with fewer than 50 workers, but perhaps the theory is that each lawmaker and his or her staff constitute a small business. In any case, lawmakers and their staffs are not eligible for the tax credits that other Americans using the exchanges might qualify for.

They also tend to make quite a bit more than the Average American, so wouldn’t be eligible in most cases.

Bell argued that “under the OPM rule, approximately 16,000 congressional employees will obtain their health insurance through the SHOP exchanges, 320 times more than the amount supposedly allowed under the law.” He said this “is clearly an exemption from the ACA for Congress by the Obama Administration.” He cited a dictionary definition of exemption: “freedom from being required to do something that others are required to do.”

But as we noted, the exchanges were not intended for people already with employer-provided insurance. So it’s already a rather unusual situation. Costs have been imposed on lawmakers and their staffs that did not previously exist, and OPM’s rule appears intended to solve that problem — instead of “exempting” them from the health care law.

Regardless, It’s The Law mandated they purchase through the Exchanges, just like so many millions of Americans must do. Especially those who are losing their health insurance plans because of Obamacare. Lawmakers are supposed to feel the pain. The OPM rule makes sure they don’t. They’re exempted from the pain. It matters zero that they already have “employer provided insurance”. The law says “hit the exchanges”. Period

Furthermore, the law itself included a waiver from the law for leadership staffs, which include some of the same people who wrote this mule fritters bill. This payment is also illegal. OPM has zero authority to provide payment.

Break it down: Are Congress members and their staffs getting insurance on the individual exchange, and are they having to pay for it themselves just as the law intended? No. Kessler gives Scalise 3 Pinocchio’s out of 4, for what is technically correct. I’ll give his spin 3 Donkeys

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Fact Checker: Three Pinocchio’s For Factually True Statements On Obamacare »

Even The AP Notices That Government Might Be Too Big

A random act of journalism…I hope the writer, Nancy Benac, is prepared for the typical despicable discourse liberals will throw her way

(WRAL) The lingering federal shutdown is transforming a musty debate over the role of government in America into a coast-to-coast, prime-time reality show.

With landmarks closed, paychecks delayed and workers furloughed, Americans are drawing dueling lessons from the rippling effects of the partial shutdown: The disruptions show that the feds are way too involved in people’s lives or that the government does a lot of vital things that people take for granted.

There’s a messaging war underway to see which viewpoint will prevail. But any shift in public opinion also may well hinge on how much, or how little, people are personally affected as the shutdown drags on.

And that last part is the crux of the matter: so many people say the federal government is too big, does too much (something I mentioned Monday), but only as it effects Other People. The trillion-armed octopus known as the federal government has its tentacles in so many things that any cutbacks or changes effects quite a few Americans. We see state programs that are funded by Los Federales. Home mortgages. Student loans. Inspections of this and that. This program, that program. Things that should be done at the state, county, or local level receive federal backing. A federal shutdown should have a minimal impact on the lives of Americans. Yet, we see these sob stories left and right.

Republican analyst Rich Galen said people who started out disliking the federal government are likely to look at the shutdown’s effects and say, “See, the world is still spinning on its axis, even with these shutdowns and those 800,000 people furloughed. Apparently we don’t need them. They’re not critical.”

But Galen added that every type of government spending “has a champion, and these are services that we are demanding.”

“When it’s your house that’s underwater or your house that got blown over by a tornado, boy, do you want FEMA there,” referring to the federal disaster relief agency.

Bingo. Why is FEMA providing money to rebuild? If yours or my home burned down because of a lightning strike, would the feds give us money? No. We’d have to use our insurance. This goes to so many things. Where does it end?

 

Read: Even The AP Notices That Government Might Be Too Big »

If All You See…

…is warmth created snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Sunshine Hours, with a post on northern hemisphere winter doom.

Read: If All You See… »

Bummer: “Climate Change” Silencing The Sounds Of Nature

All because you purchased a plastic bottle of water, you Gaia hater you

(Accuweather, which should probably deal with simply the weather, rather than activism) Climate change has brought once lively and loud habitats to utter silence as their inhabitants of birds, frogs and insects have either vanished or drastically changed their migration patterns.

A relatively new study known as biophony, or the signature of collective sounds that occur in any given habitat at any given time, has provided scientific evidence to show that the sounds of nature have been altered by both global warming and human endeavors.

Warmists are the ultra-flat earthers, not wanting to see anything ever change.

While soundscape research has not been fully developed, hypotheses for the causes of these changes have been formed.

“My hunch from my work is that it has a lot to do with global warming,” Krause said. “Springtime is occurring almost two weeks earlier than it was even 20 years ago.”

Nature changes. And Mankind will change things through deforestation, habitat destruction, and real pollutants. But, not “climate change”. It was warmer during many of the previous warm periods during the Holocene. It may get warmer during this period, it may not. If Warmists really believed what they are saying, they’d modify their own behavior. Since most won’t make more than token changes, we have all the statistical evidence we need to call the issue mule fritters.

Read: Bummer: “Climate Change” Silencing The Sounds Of Nature »

Shutdown Theater: Squirrels Simply Love Michelle Obama’s Garden

Can we really call it Michelle Obama’s garden, when she isn’t the one who actually does any work?

(Daily Mail) While neither Republicans or Democrats are winning in the government shutdown, there is one group that’s having a field day: the White House squirrels.

The government shutdown coincided with the White House garden’s harvest season, and since much of the staff that tends to the garden has been furloughed the crop has gotten out of control.

The staff that were allowed to stay are only allowed to water the plants. Triming, fetrilizing, transplanting, mowing and harvesting are all off limits.

Gotta love that. Perfect encapsulation of Government. They can only water. So, the squirrels gorge.

Which begs the question: why the heck doesn’t Michelle O get out and do it herself? Actual work instead of a photo op. She could drag the kids out for some exercise. And Barack, since he doesn’t seem to be doing any actual work that helps the country. Seriously, we have to pay people to deal with Michelle’s garden? The very definition of government waste.

Read: Shutdown Theater: Squirrels Simply Love Michelle Obama’s Garden »

Why’s Obamacare Website So Glitchy? For One Thing, They Don’t Want You To Know The Costs

Essentially, those running healthcare.gov mandated planned incompetence

(Forbes) A growing consensus of IT experts, outside and inside the government, have figured out a principal reason why the website for Obamacare’s federally-sponsored insurance exchange is crashing. Healthcare.gov forces you to create an account and enter detailed personal information before you can start shopping. This, in turn, creates a massive traffic bottleneck, as the government verifies your information and decides whether or not you’re eligible for subsidies. HHS bureaucrats knew this would make the website run more slowly. But they were more afraid that letting people see the underlying cost of Obamacare’s insurance plans would scare people away.

“Healthcare.gov was initially going to include an option to browse before registering,” report Christopher Weaver and Louise Radnofsky in the Wall Street Journal. “But that tool was delayed, people familiar with the situation said.” Why was it delayed? “An HHS spokeswoman said the agency wanted to ensure that users were aware of their eligibility for subsidies that could help pay for coverage, before they started seeing the prices of policies.” (Emphasis added.)

As you know if you’ve been following this space, Obamacare’s bevy of mandates, regulations, taxes, and fees drives up the cost of the insurance plans that are offered under the law’s public exchanges. A Manhattan Institute analysis I helped conduct found that, on average, the cheapest plan offered in a given state, under Obamacare, will be 99 percent more expensive for men, and 62 percent more expensive for women, than the cheapest plan offered under the old system. And those disparities are even wider for healthy people.

That raises an obvious question. If 50 million people are uninsured today, mainly because insurance is too expensive, why is it better to make coverage even costlier?

Why indeed? Well, there’s that pesky individual mandate. Of course, it’s less than actually obtaining insurance through the “Affordable” Care Act. But we shouldn’t be surprised that Team Obama looked to obfuscate the true costs of the insurance. This is what “the most transparent administration ever” looks like.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Why’s Obamacare Website So Glitchy? For One Thing, They Don’t Want You To Know The Costs »

Surprise: Obamacare #Failsite Used Just One Non-Competitive Bid

I’m sure you’re really, really shocked to learn this info about healthcare.gov (via Ace)

(Washington Examiner) Federal officials considered only one firm to design the Obamacare health insurance exchange website that has performed abysmally since its Oct. 1 debut.

Rather than open the contracting process to a competitive public solicitation with multiple bidders, officials in the Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare and Medicaid accepted a sole bidder, CGI Federal, the U.S. subsidiary of a Canadian company with an uneven record of IT pricing and contract performance.

CMS officials are tight-lipped about why CGI was chosen or how it happened. They also refuse to say if other firms competed with CGI, or if there was ever a public solicitation for building Healthcare.gov, the backbone of Obamacare’s problem-plagued web portal.

Remember when Liberals whine about Halliburton? Which was (and still is) one of the only companies in the world that can do what they do? And was at least an American company?

(Washington Times) “I will finally end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all,” he thundered to a Grand Rapids, Mich., audience on Oct. 2, 2008. “The days of sweetheart deals for Halliburton will be over when I’m in the White House.” After becoming president, Mr. Obama continued the attack and promised on March 4 to “end unnecessary no-bid and cost-plus contracts. … In some cases, contracts are awarded without competition. … And that’s completely unacceptable.”

Weird, eh?

Read: Surprise: Obamacare #Failsite Used Just One Non-Competitive Bid »

If All You See…

…is an evil bad weather creating plastic bottle of water, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Victory Girls, with a post on how CNN treated the Million Vets March.

Read: If All You See… »

Pirate's Cove