Weekly Address: Obama Really Wants Non-Americans To Have Jobs

By William Teach July 13, 2013 – 7:04 am

Of course, these current illegal aliens and potential immigrants (both temporary and permanent) should be careful, because Obama’s job’s policies for actual American citizens have been disasters

WEEKLY ADDRESS: Strengthening our Economy by Passing Bipartisan Immigration Reform

Hi, everybody. Two weeks ago, a large bipartisan majority of Senators voted to pass commonsense, comprehensive immigration reform – taking an important step towards fixing our broken immigration system once and for all.

100% of Democrats and only 14 Republicans is not a large bipartisan majority, but, then, we know Obama lives in a separate world from reality. He then goes on to yammer about how the bill was a compromise, no one got everything they wanted (which is why so many Democrats are complaining about the bill…oh, wait, they aren’t. The only complaints come about the border security provisions, which are, at best, really weak), and how our economy will be larger, when calculated in a vacuum. Well, that could happen if Obama resigned and someone who knew what they were doing assumed office.

Here in America, we’ve always been a nation of immigrants. That’s what’s kept our workforce dynamic, our businesses on the cutting edge, and our economy the strongest in the world. But under the current system, too many smart, hardworking immigrants are prevented from contributing to that success.

And under our current president, too many hardworking American citizens are prevented from contributing to that, well, in this economy, we can’t really call it a success, can we?

Immigration reform would make it easier for highly-skilled immigrants and those who study at our colleges and universities to start businesses and create jobs right here in America. Foreign companies would be more likely to invest here. The demand for goods and services would go up – creating more jobs for American workers. Every worker and business would be required to pay their fair share in taxes, reducing our deficit by nearly $850 billion over the next two decades. And since a large portion of those taxes go towards retirement programs that millions of Americans depend on, Social Security would actually get stronger over the long-term – adding two years to the life of the program’s trust fund.

If only it was easier for Americans to start businesses and create jobs, along with obtaining jobs, right here in America. But Obama/Democrat policies do everything they can to prevent that. Well, unless you want a low paying part time job, which seems to be the way the economy is headed. Why is Obama so gung ho to provide jobs for non-Americans, especially those who broke our immigration laws and either came illegally or blew off their visa requirements? Foreign companies will invest, regardless, but only based upon their ability to reap a profit. That’s hard in the Obamaeconomy, but has little to nothing to do with amnesty.

As far as Social Security, well, no one believes the amnestied illegals will be denied any benefits, meaning more people in the system who barely paid or paid nothing to the system reaping rewards.

This is coupled with a graphic released a few days ago that is absurd. It mentions that the labor force will decrease due to Baby Boomers retiring. Well, our labor force has shrunk due to the poor jobs market, with a historic number of people dropping out in despair. It assumes that wage increase for households will be $0 in 2033, but a couple hundred dollars by adding tens of millions of new workers, which is not the way it works. Of course, many of the things on the graphic could happen, once Obama is out of the way and the US has a competent President who understands the way business works.

But, still, why does an American President want jobs to go to illegals and non-citizens over Americans?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Weekly Address: Obama Really Wants Non-Americans To Have Jobs »

Posted in Barry Obama, Economy, Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

NASA Brings The FailWhale To The Arctic

By William Teach July 12, 2013 – 2:53 pm

Only problem with NASA’s propaganda is that there is actually sea ice in the photo. And that the Arctic is doing quite well. Warmists said the Arctic would be ice free this year. Guess not. Glad NASA could attend the Politburo propaganda school, though, instead of doing all things space.

(I’ll update later with a good embed, can’t force Twitter out of mobile version to get proper code. Updated)

Read: NASA Brings The FailWhale To The Arctic »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 12, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is snow that is created by hot conditions, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Gay Patriot, with a post on the Obamacare implosion.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Janet Napolitano Set To Resign Today?

By William Teach July 12, 2013 – 10:19 am

So says the LA Times

Janet Napolitano, the U.S. secretary of Homeland Security and former governor of Arizona, is being named as the next president of the University of California system, in an unusual choice that brings a national-level politician to a position usually held by an academic, the Times has learned. Her appointment also means the 10-campus system will be headed by a woman for the first time in its 145-year history.

I’m not going to get into the pros and cons of this. 1st, because this is California’s problem. 2nd, because I don’t care: Big Sis is the kind of person these young students vote for, now they can really live under her type of policies.

Reuters states (can’t embed tweet with Droid) that she will resign today. Can’t wait to see which ultra-extremist Obama will nominate to replace her. As DrewM notes, it won’t be anyone better. Any guesses?

Read: Janet Napolitano Set To Resign Today? »

Posted in Democrats | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

We’re Saved! CO2 Caused Climate Change Doesn’t Destroy Coffee

By William Teach July 12, 2013 – 8:06 am

How many stories over the past few years have hyperventilatingly (yes, I know, not a word) told us that coffee production was doooooomed due to “climate change”? Like this one from the hyper-partisan Huffington Post (via Tom Nelson)

The wild Arabica coffee plant, the parent of the bushes on coffee farms, could go extinct as soon as 2080, according to a study by researchers from the Kew Royal Botanic Gardens published in PLoS One on Wednesday.

To generate their predictions, the researchers used a computer to simulate the potential impact of climate change on the regions that are home to the wild coffee plant, in the mountains of East Africa. They found that by 2080, global warming was likely to reduce the number of “bioclimatically suitable localities” for wild coffee growth by between 65 and 100 percent. In other words, if their worst-case scenario comes true, there will be nowhere on earth for wild coffee to grow. In the long term, that spells almost certain extinction.

And it’s all your fault for refusing to buy a Chevy Volt, keeping your AC below 78, taking showers longer than 2 minutes, and using hair spray. Oh, look, computer models, which have worked oh so well in predicting this 15+ year pause, predicted drought where there is wet, told us kids wouldn’t know what snow looked like, and…well, did their computers actually predict anything correctly?

So, what’s the reality? Namely that there is so much coffee being produced that growers are considering growing less because the glut is reducing profits and they do not have the space to store it

(Bloomberg) Brazil is increasing competition among coffee sellers as farmers unload beans to clear storage space for the next harvest, judging that losses will be limited by translating dollar revenues into weaker reals. With global output exceeding demand for a fourth year, accelerating sales will drive prices down 11 percent to $1.08 a pound by Dec. 31, according to the median of 18 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg.

“The lower real will most certainly help exports, making Brazil a much more aggressive seller,” said Rasmus Wolthers, a trader at Wolthers & Associates, a brokerage in Santos, Brazil. “There’s a lot of coffee in Brazil, and there isn’t enough space to store it all, so producers will have to sell. I expect to see much more aggressive sales offers.”

Colombia, the second-biggest grower of arabica beans, increased exports by 32 percent in the first five months of the year after the peso weakened 7.1 percent against the dollar, according to the nation’s Federation of Coffee Growers. Sales from Peru, the third-largest producer in South America, fell 31 percent in the period as buyers turn to supplies from Brazil.

The glut has caused prices and the futures market for coffee to fall. But, you say, that’s just a few South American countries

Global coffee production, including robusta that accounts for 41 percent of supply, will exceed demand by 4.46 million bags in 2013-2014, from a 10 million-bag surplus a year earlier, according to the USDA. Inventories will reach a five-year high of 30.53 million bags, the USDA predicts.

Well, another Warmists meme bites the dust…not that they’ll ever admit they were wrong, they’ll simply ignore their previous prognostication and blame this on CO2 in another way.

BTW, Starbucks is mentioned in the story, noting that their costs have gone down and profits are up potentially 21%, partially due to the glut of coffee beans. Will they stop whining about “climate change”?

Read: We’re Saved! CO2 Caused Climate Change Doesn’t Destroy Coffee »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

NC House Passes Common Sense Abortion Bill

By William Teach July 12, 2013 – 7:12 am

Democrats are very, very, very unhappy that this occurred

(WRAL) The state House on Thursday approved a proposal to add regulations to the operations of North Carolina abortion clinics.

The House voted 74-41 in favor of the bill, which now returns to the Senate for a final vote before going to Gov. Pat McCrory. He pledged on the campaign trail last fall that he wouldn’t support more restrictions on abortions in the state.

The House changed the bill a tad to water down how clinics will be treated, due to complaints from Gov. McCrory

The House version calls for only relevant standards of surgery centers to apply to abortion clinics and requires that a physician be present for only the first dose of RU486 or other abortion drugs. Such drugs are usually administered in two to three doses, and the doctor wouldn’t need to see the patient for later doses under the House proposal.

Really, this whole thing has some basic restrictions on abortion on demand. It still doesn’t go far enough in terms of parental notification, but

Opponents argued during a vigorous three-hour debate that such changes were only cosmetic, and they said the legislation is intended to shut down abortion clinics by regulating them tightly. Similar laws in other states have forced clinics there to close.

“This is an anti-woman bill in disguise, a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” said Rep. Jean Farmer-Butterfield, D-Wilson.

Are there any restrictions that Democrats will abide? They whine about this being “political”, not about women’s safety. The rules haven’t been updated for 19 years. One GOP Rep. noted that animal shelters have stronger standards than abortion clinics.

Abortion clinics statewide have been cited 205 times over the past decade for health and safety violations, Stevens said, and several have been written up repeatedly for the same problems.

If this was a gun shop, Democrats would be pushing harsh measures.

Rep. Nathan Baskerville, D-Vance, took issue with the provision prohibiting local and county governments from providing abortion coverage to employees, calling it a “power grab.”

Now that’s funny, considering what national Democrats, including Mr. Obama, have done since 2009. And what Democrats were doing when they had the NC General Assembly. And what Dem governors, including the simply awful Bev Perdue, did.

Anyway, Allahpundit has a related post showing that Americans are for a ban on abortions above 20 weeks by a margin of 63-30. He also excerpts from a Weekly Standard story regarding an interview with Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, who refused to answer the question “Are there any legal limits you do support on abortion, Ms. Richards?” AllahP notes

She wouldn’t answer. That’s from John McCormack of the Standard, by the way, who’s well-practiced in asking national Democrats questions simple yes-or-no questions on whether there should be any limits whatsoever on killing babies in the womb and getting either semi-coherent evasions or stony silence in response. It’s the surest thing in journalism. The party’s run by abortion fanatics, so much so that they’d rather cop to their fanaticism through tacit acknowledgment than lie about it to look “mainstream.” He’ll be asking this question of other Dems for years to come. I’d bet cash money that he’ll never get a straight answer.

This same Party wants massive restrictions on things that they have no Constitutional business regulating, per both the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They want gun restrictions, they want to determine who is a “journalist”, they want to roll back religious freedom (via Obamacare), they want “climate change” legislation which limits freedom, etc and so on. Yet, when it comes to abortion, there is no restriction or regulation they’re willing to put up with.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: NC House Passes Common Sense Abortion Bill »

Posted in NC News | Comments Off on NC House Passes Common Sense Abortion Bill | Trackback URL

Warmists Claim “Climate Change” May Bring More Hurricanes

By William Teach July 11, 2013 – 3:40 pm

Back to this again

(Asbury Park Press) The world could see as many as 20 additional hurricanes and tropical storms each year by the end of the century because of climate change, according to a study out Monday.

“Could”, huh? So they have no idea, which means this isn’t science.

The study was in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), written by climate researcher Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

On average, about 90 tropical cyclones form each year around the world, Emanuel says.

Let’s go back to 2005: Warmists were saying that that was the new normal, that there would be lots and lots of tropical systems, and especially hurricanes, due to hotcoldwetdry. Almost immediately Mother Nature thumbed her nose at the Warmists and cut back on the number of tropical systems, especially landfalling ones. So, Warmists stated that there wouldn’t be more systems, but those that did occur would be stronger. That didn’t happen. The last major hurricane to strike the US was in October, 2005. There has also been only one barely-a-hurricane to strike the US since 2008. So, now Warmists are more towards claiming that there will be more in the far future.

And how’d they come to this conclusion?

Emanuel’s study used six newly upgraded global climate computer models to simulate future hurricane activity around the world. His study found that these killer storms will not only increase in intensity during the 21st century, as many previous studies had predicted, but will also increase in frequency in most locations.

Computer models. Sigh.

And notice that these New Climate Deniers are predicting both more systems and stronger systems.

Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry, who was not part of the study, warns, “The conclusions from this study rely on a large number of assumptions, many of which only have limited support from theory and observations and hence are associated with substantial uncertainties. Personally, I take studies that project future tropical cyclone activity from climate models with a grain of salt.”

Warmists won’t though: they think computer models are the Holy Grail, rather than actual scientific measurement.

Oh, and then there is this over at Junk Science: “Is MIT warmist Kerry Emanuel hiding his conflict of interest again?” This is specifically about the hurricane study.

Read: Warmists Claim “Climate Change” May Bring More Hurricanes »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | Comments Off on Warmists Claim “Climate Change” May Bring More Hurricanes | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 11, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled pump filling up an evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is protein wisdom, with a post on America’s Department of f’ing Justice.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Headlines You Never Want To Read

By William Teach July 11, 2013 – 12:48 pm

Not too mention not wanting the details in the story

Hamilton man arrested for having sex with pool raft

Read: Headlines You Never Want To Read »

Posted in Good Move Slick | Comments Off on Headlines You Never Want To Read | Trackback URL

D.C. Council Targets Wal-Mart With “Living Wage” Bill

By William Teach July 11, 2013 – 7:54 am

Wal-Mart has long been in the crosshairs of Democrats, mostly because Wal-Mart refuses to allow unionization, along with its employees constantly voting against unionization. They let that hatred override the fact that Wal-Mart employees lots and lots of people, many of whom move up within the company. The D.C. council is no exception

(Washington Post) D.C. lawmakers gave final approval Wednesday to a bill requiring some large retailers to pay their employees a 50 percent premium over the city’s minimum wage, a day after Wal-Mart warned that the law would jeopardize its plans in the city.

The retail giant had linked the future of at least three planned stores in the District to the proposal. But its ultimatum did not change any legislators’ minds. The 8 to 5 roll call matched the outcome of an earlier vote on the matter, taken before Wal-Mart’s warning.

“The question here is a living wage; it’s not whether Wal-Mart comes or stays,” said council member Vincent B. Orange (D-At Large), a lead backer of the legislation, who added that the city did not need to kowtow to threats. “We’re at a point where we don’t need retailers. Retailers need us.”

Wal-Mart had pretty much stated that they will not build any stores in D.C. if the council passed this legislation, which was meant to specifically target Wal-Mart. Said stores were going to be build in the poorest areas, ie, slums, of D.C. No other companies will be really required to provide the higher minimum wage

The D.C. Council bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger to pay their employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The city’s minimum wage is $8.25.

While the bill would apply to some other retailers — such as Home Depot, Costco and Macy’s — a grandfather period and an exception for those with unionized workforces made it clear that the bill targets Wal-Mart, which has said it would open six stores, employing up to 1,800 people.

This violates the equal treatment under the law provisions of city code, as well as federal code (the law must pass a congressional review period). As DrewM points out

At some point you’d think liberals would learn a basic fact: wages are a reflection of how much an employer has to pay to get workers of a certain level of quality. Wages are not charity handed out to enable workers to live at a certain level. You want to make more money? Great, make yourself more valuable to an employer. But that’s too hard for too many hardcore Democratic voters so they want the state to impose an acceptable wage level on employers unrelated to their actual worth.

Wal-Mart would have provided lots and lots of jobs, and since so many of their new stores are superstores with fresh produce, would have given these poor citizens access to better food at low prices. And jobs. Did I mention jobs? Democrats care more about their politics than people.

Read: D.C. Council Targets Wal-Mart With “Living Wage” Bill »

Posted in Democrats | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove