If All You See…

By William Teach June 27, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is a sea that might possibly rise up and cover all the land, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Gay Patriot, with a few thoughts on the SCOTUS decisions.

Read: If All You See… »

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

On SCOTUS DOMA Decision, What Of Other “Inequality”

By William Teach June 27, 2013 – 11:02 am

Consider

(Washington Post) Writing for the 5-to-4 majority in the DOMA case, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy argued that the federal law’s “avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the states.” Congress went out of its way to devalue certain marriages that states had chosen to recognize in their capacity as arbiters of what marriage can be within their own borders. The discrimination’s “unusual character” led the majority to conclude that its “principal purpose” was to “impose inequality” and that it offended the Fifth Amendment’s requirement that all Americans deserve due process of law.

“Impose inequality”. “Separate status”. There was also discussion of “discrimination” and “equal protection under the law”. Well, if that’s the case, particularly in terms of taxation and federal benefits

  • doesn’t that mean that the federal tax system imposes inequality, since some pay a higher tax percentage per the tax brackets than others?
  • doesn’t that meant that any tax breaks/incentives for married people are discriminatory towards citizens who are single?
  • doesn’t that mean that affirmative action imposes inequality?
  • how about tax credits for hybrids/EVs? People who purchase non-hybrid/EVs do not get the same tax break. Discriminatory.
  • Credits for having children? Why should childless people be penalized?
  • Home ownership tax credit? Why should people who purchase homes get special treatment, when those who rent/lease often pay more than if they had a mortgage?
  • Why should companies with 50 or more employees be treated differently than those with under 50 per Obamacare, vis a vis the fines/taxes?
  • Men are intentionally discriminated against per federal affirmative action laws
  • Women do not have to register for Selective Service
  • Men are treated more harshly under the legal system
  • Men are 20% more likely to die from prostate cancer vs women with breast cancer, yet federal funding for the latter is 4 times higher than the former
  • Men pay twice what women pay into Social Security yet women receive 50% more in payments than men
  • Smokers are forced to pay a higher rate of taxes per product
  • Bigamy and polygamy are still illegal. Why does government law discriminate against multiple people that love each other?

You could probably add lots and lots to that list. If there’s supposed to be equal protection under the law, no discrimination, no separate status, then why does the federal government discriminate?

Read: On SCOTUS DOMA Decision, What Of Other “Inequality” »

Posted in Musings | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

White House Releases Its Scareathon State By State “Climate Change” Report

By William Teach June 27, 2013 – 9:06 am

The best is the one from Hawaii, which notes (via Watts Up With That?)

The US Department of Agriculture designated 31 counties in Hawaii as primary natural disaster areas due to damages and losses from drought in 2012.

Hawaii has 5 counties. One would think that a president who was raised there might know that. But, then, he thinks there are 58 States.

Anyhow, from the White House blog, apparently written by a 14 year old (see the photo)

On Tuesday, President Obama laid out his comprehensive plan to cut carbon pollution, prepare our country for the impacts of climate change, and lead global efforts to fight it.

We aren’t talking about “carbon”, we’re discussing CO2, so, they start with unscientific mumbo jumbo, and CO2 is not a pollutant.

Climate change impacts — ranging from more frequent and severe storms, floods, heat waves, and wildfires, to increased risk of asthma attacks and longer allergy seasons – are already affecting our security, our economy, and our communities.  In 2012 alone, the cost of weather disasters exceeded $110 billion in the United States, and climate change will only increase the frequency and intensity of these events. Today, we already set limits for arsenic, mercury and lead, but we impose no limits on how much carbon pollution our power plants release– despite the fact carbon pollution is one of the largest drivers of climate change.

Because none of those things ever happened before, but, hey, if we’re worried about mercury poisoning, then we should ban compact florescent lighbulbs.

As the President explained yesterday, we have a moral obligation to leave our children a planet that’s not polluted or damaged, and by taking an all-of-the-above approach to develop homegrown energy and steady, responsible steps to cut carbon pollution, we can begin to slow the effects of climate change so we leave a cleaner, more stable environment for future generations. The President’s plan is a comprehensive approach to cutting the pollution that causes climate change and threatens public health, setting us on a path to make our communities healthier, safer, and more resilient.

CO2 will not pollute anything, it’s a trace gas necessary for life. Obama was never able to scientifically link the warming since the end of the Little Ice Ace, or since 1979, to Mankind, except through “consensus”, which is not science. That’s part of the top 5 lies he told.

Anyhow, Anthony Watts takes a look at his home state of California, I’m taking a look at North Carolina

Recent incidents provide a reminder of the impacts to our public health and costs due to extreme weather in North Carolina. Although we cannot say that climate change is responsible for any individual event, climate change is already increasing our risks from these events.

North Carolina experienced seven billion dollar weather events in 2011 and 2012, including Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy.

Seventy one percent of North Carolina’s coastline is at high or very high vulnerability to sea level rise.

In North Carolina, there were over 10,100 hospital admissions for asthma in 2011, with an average charge of over $13,600 for each stay.

That’s the best they can do? Neither Irene nor Sandy were hurricanes when they made landfall. And the Outer Banks has been experiencing tropical systems for thousands of years.

Of course the coast is vulnerable to sea rise. Because it is low level and, you know, at the sea.

Asthma? Can the White House prove the link between AGW and asthma?

Sea level rise, dangerous storm surges and intense hurricanes already pose serious threats to coastal cities in the Southeast, and climate change will intensify these impacts. The Southeast experienced two billion dollar extreme weather events in 2012. Decreased water availability is very likely to affect the region’s economy as well as its natural systems. By the end of this century, much of the Southeast will experience more than 100 days above 90°F, which in the absence of adaptive actions is expected to lead to more heat stress related illness and deaths, decreased agricultural production, and negative impacts on fish and wildlife. Warmer temperatures accelerate formation of smog in urban areas, exacerbating respiratory problems such as asthma.

Still waiting for the proof that this is anthropogenic, and, certainly, PBO missed that there has been a pause in warming. But, he wants to implement draconian and costly policies that will raise the cost of living and reduce the availability of inexpensive energy. And then Obama flies off to Africa on a trip that will put out more “carbon pollution” than many African nations put out in a year.

Read: White House Releases Its Scareathon State By State “Climate Change” Report »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Barry Obama, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Several Liberal Groups Enraged Over Border Control Provisions

By William Teach June 27, 2013 – 8:31 am

Liberal and pro-amnesty groups must surely know that the border control provisions in the Democrat Schumer-Rubio amnesty bill will, for the most part, be ignored, especially by the current far-left administration. Just like happened when the last amnesty was passed. Just like with much of the border control legislation passed in 2006 (which was also watered-down by Congress). And surely they understand that if this legislation passes, there’s not a chance in hell that a Republican president will be elected in 2016, with Conservatives sitting at home. But, what we do know is that they want to keep the train of illegals crossing the border

(USA Today) A “border surge” plan approved by the Senate on Wednesday to attract conservatives worried about border security has enraged liberal groups, with one even withdrawing its support for the bill.

Presente.org of Berkeley, Calif., has supported the Senate bill that allows the nation’s 11 million unauthorized immigrants to get U.S. citizenship. But it says the bill has been tainted by the proposed flood of Border Patrol agents to secure the southwest border.

The group said the added presence of thousands more Border Patrol agents, fencing and surveillance technology will militarize border communities and make the legal, cross-border traffic even harder to maintain.

They state that they cannot support this bill with the (mule fritters) border control provisions “in good conscience”. Presente is yet another far left progressive organization based on open borders, linked to union groups, MoveOn, and many others. Their statement, which was the basis of the USA Today article opening, is even worse then the paper positions

As advocates for immigrant rights, we cannot, in good conscience, lend our credibility and support to a bill that will not legalize 11 million people and leave millions out of a pathway to citizenship, a promise that has been the foundation for our support to begin with. At the same time, we cannot support a bill that is also guaranteed to increase death and destruction in immigrant life through increased militarization of the border.

Recent reports, including a study of the legislation by the Congressional Budget Office, make clear that, as designed, S. 744 will deny the possibility of securing citizenship and legal status to many. Millions of immigrants will be left vulnerable and in fear of deportation for the rest of their lives.

The legislation as amended by Corker-Hoeven, and even the original, would deny certain illegals the ability to obtain legal status. Illegals like gangbangers (unless they “renounce” their affiliation), those which have at least 2 DUIs on record and commit another after the day the legislation is enacted, murderers, rapists, and any illegal with a felony on their record, along with others, including those which cross the border after the bill is signed into law. Presente.org does like this. Even though the Secretary of DHS can effectively waive much of the language barring legalization. Presente wants all illegals legalized. Period. Regardless as to what kind of people they might be.

MoveOn.org called the amendment “disappointing” because it “wastes billions of taxpayer dollars” while making the road to citizenship even more difficult for the nation’s unauthorized immigrants. 18 Million Rising, an advocacy group for Asian and Pacific Islanders in the USA, said the billions of dollars spent on the “militarization” of the border are better spent on infrastructure, education and social services.

Strange, MoveOn didn’t seem to have a problem with the $850 billion wasted on Stimulus. And they don’t seem to understand that if they are “unauthorized” they should not be in the United States. But, I can see that leftist groups have come up with their talking points regarding border control, ie, “militarization”. Thanks, John McCain.

CREDO Action is also against the bill due to the border control provisions. Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform which opposes any amnesty, notes that

..the groups are laying the groundwork for cutting back on the enforcement provisions in the bill after it becomes law. He said “from the moment the president’s signature is dry on the bill” the groups would lobby to get the administration and Congress to scale back the border security portions of the bill.

This will be a repeat of 1986 if passed, then we’ll have to deal with the same thing in 20 years. The rule of law is dead.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Surprise: Several Liberal Groups Enraged Over Border Control Provisions »

Posted in Current Affairs, Illegal Immigration | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Boehner To Refuse To Bring Gang Of 8 Amnesty Bill Up For Vote?

By William Teach June 26, 2013 – 4:10 pm

That’s what Jonathon Strong reports (via Allahpundit)

Allahpundit also notes that a new Rasmussen poll has immigration being considered Very Important for the 2014 midterms by 51% of poll respondents, and 32% find it somewhat important. I suspect that the jump in people caring about the issue has more to do with Conservatives and others stating that any Republican who votes for the Rubio-Schumer amnesty bill will get no money and no support.

Boehner may very well push different types of immigration legislation, like actually securing the border, implementing biometric immigration controls, and means to drive the illegals out.

I’d say he should also start making noise about all the jobs plans that the House has passed and the Senate has refused to take a vote on, but we all know that the MSM will simply ignore what he has to say. And while you and I, who pay attention, will know, the average American won’t take the time to find out.

And then there’s Marco Rubio (D-Fla)

But he said he told them that he would go to Washington to “fight to stop what is bad for America,” and that what we have now is, in fact, hurting America. ”I simply wasn’t going to leave it to Democrats alone to try to figure out how to fix it.”

“I got involved because I knew that if conservatives didn’t get involved in shaping this legislation, it would not have any border security reforms our nation desperately needs,” Rubio said.

Yeah, that’s worked out really well, chump. Do I even need to go through the list of how bad this is in so many ways?

Read: Boehner To Refuse To Bring Gang Of 8 Amnesty Bill Up For Vote? »

Posted in GOP, Illegal Immigration | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 26, 2013 – 1:00 pm

… are wonderful trees sucking carbon pollution from the atmosphere that should be torn down to create a solar farm, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the (hump) day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on the trash left behind from Obama’s hotcoldwetdry speech.

Read: If All You See… »

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

OMG, SCOTUS Strikes Down Bill Clinton’s DOMA!!!!!!!1!!!!

By William Teach June 26, 2013 – 10:43 am

Yesterday, progressives were going bat guano insane over the Supreme Court’s decision on one portion of the Voting Rights Act. Today, they are going…bat guano insane over the DOMA decision, based on their headlines

Many of those articles go on to point out that, nope, only a portion was shot down. Some, like that last link to the Washington Post, position it as having the whole law shot down (just to be clear, I’m not a big fan of DOMA). Here’s the USA Today, which also features a disingenuous headline

Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

A divided Supreme Court gave a major boost to gay and lesbian rights on Wednesday, striking down a key section of a federal law that denied federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

The justices declared unconstitutional part of the 17-year-old Defense of Marriage Act, a law that has denied federal benefits to married gays and lesbians in a dozen states, from Maine to Washington, and the District of Columbia.

In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, said the federal law unconstitutionally denied equal treatment to gay and lesbian couples. “DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled of recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty,” Kennedy wrote.

“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment,” Kennedy wrote.

But Kennedy was careful to say that the court’s conclusion about the Defense of Marriage Act was “confined to those lawful marriages” performed in states that already recognize same-sex marriage.

As to the other parts of DOMA, such as defining marriage as between a man and a woman and that the powers of recognizing marriage are left to the states, they are left in tact. This simply means that people who are legally married in the States that allow it cannot be denied federal benefits. This is equal protection under the law, as SCOTUS blog’s Kevin Russell notes

To be clear: Windsor does not establish a constitutional right to same sex marriage. It was important to the outcome that the couple in the case was legally married under state law. The equal protection violation arose from Congress’s disrespecting that decision by New York to allow the marriage.

Hot Air has more on what went on with California’s prop 8.

Read: OMG, SCOTUS Strikes Down Bill Clinton’s DOMA!!!!!!!1!!!! »

Posted in Current Affairs | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Man With Giant Carbon Footprint Squees Over Speech Given By Man With With Biggest CFP In World

By William Teach June 26, 2013 – 9:07 am

If you guessed that the first was Al Gore, and he’s congratulating Obama for making a speech, you get a cookie. No beer. It contains CO2

(Al’s Journal) This was a terrific and historic speech, by far the best address on climate by any president ever.

I applaud the new measures announced by President Barack Obama this afternoon to help solve the climate crisis – particularly the decision to limit global warming pollution from existing as well as new power plants.

Like Obama, Gore is a 1%er who cares not a whit that these executive actions will cause real harm to middle and lower class Americans. John Kerry (another 1%er) told poor Indians that fighting hotcoldwet dry was more important than fighting poverty. Gore and Obama seem to agree with this notion.

This action – if followed by skillful and thorough execution of the plan – has the potential to fundamentally alter the course of our nation’s energy infrastructure development and help to promote a sustainable future. On the international front, this action will bolster U.S. credibility and moral authority in negotiations with other countries.

Meanwhile, many nations are moving away from all this silliness where they slap up solar and wind farms, because they haven’t been able to supply the necessary power as they suffered through the 4th harsh winter out of the past 5. Al doesn’t care about citizens, he cares about his money train.

As President Obama said today, history will judge the present generation by our success or failure in meeting and surmounting this existential challenge.

History will laugh at the unhinged madness of people like Gore and Obama who push their anti-science politics on people. Global temperatures have gone up a measly, and statistically insignificant, 0.14F since 1997, per the UK Met Office. And just 0.28F since 1990.

And last time I checked, denigrating people who do not believe in anthropogenic “climate change” and believing that we need to Do Something is highly un-presidential and shows a profound inability to lead. But let’s stick with that denigrating thing, because we already know Obama has never been and is still not a leader.

(Climate Depot) “President Obama is still parading his ignorance on climate science, linking bad weather to “global warming”, claiming a mythical 97% consensus, and implying that his executive actions can alter the globe’s temperature and lessen extreme weather events. The President has descended into the realm of medieval witchcraft by claiming he can combat global temperature rises and weather patterns through administrative action. Let the battle begin.”

Obama’s speech was purely political, a way he could institute more Big Government, more taxation, and more control of the economy. There was no science involved. The Arctic is at a 10 year high. Tornadoes and hurricane strikes are at record lows. The US climate is flipping from drought to wet, usually a sign of decreased solar activity (more cosmic rays strike the Earth, creating more clouds). And….it doesn’t matter, “climate change” is not about science, but an extension of the Progressive (nice fascists) political agenda.

The last people we should be listening to are those with “carbon footprints” that are many, many times larger than the average American’s. No one has done a calculation for Gore, but it is whoppingly big. Obama’s is at least 41,000 metric tons. The average American’s is 19 metric tons. I’ll listen to anyone who practices what they preach. Few Warmists do.

Read: Man With Giant Carbon Footprint Squees Over Speech Given By Man With With Biggest CFP In World »

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

North Carolina Moves Ahead With Voter ID Bill After SCOTUS Ruling

By William Teach June 26, 2013 – 8:29 am

I forget who wrote the Tweet yesterday, they come so quick, but it went something like “If they can drive down to the polling place, they can drive down to get an ID”

(WRAL) Voter identification legislation in North Carolina will pick up steam again now that the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down part of the Voting Rights Act, a key General Assembly leader said Tuesday.

A bill requiring voters to present one of several forms of state-issued photo ID starting in 2016 cleared the House two months ago, but it’s been sitting since in the Senate Rules Committee to wait for a ruling by the justices in an Alabama case, according to Sen. Tom Apodaca, R-Henderson, the committee chairman. He said a bill will now be rolled out in the Senate next week.

The ruling essentially means a voter ID or other election legislation approved in this year’s session probably won’t have to receive advance approval by U.S. Justice Department attorneys or a federal court before such measures can be carried out.

Texas and other states will now move ahead with their plans to require ID, something that the vast majority of citizens have or can purchase for a small amount. NC’s bill may reduce early voting as well as eliminate Sunday voting and same-day registration. One would think that the integrity of our election process might be important to Democrats, too, based on all their talking points, yet, they are most certainly against any attempts to make sure that the person who is voting is actually eligible. For Southern states like my home state of North Carolina, this is much about making sure illegal and legal aliens do not vote. Along with the shenanigans Democrats like to pull.

What the SCOTUS decision said is that the small part of the Voting Rights Act which required that certain states obtain “pre-clearance” from the federal Department Of Justice (which has become a heavily politicized agency) for any voting changes within certain state counties be changed. It did not strike it down. Pre-clearance made a lot of sense back in the days it was passed, as Democrat run government looked to stop Blacks from voting, and the DOJ was able to deal with the states and counties which were the biggest offenders (and run by Democrats). In 2013 it makes no sense, especially since the last time it was re-authorized in 2006 they used 40 year old data. Times have changed. If there are states, counties, and localities that look use racism/bigotry to block minorities or other groups from voting legally, then the DOJ can jump in. But modern data is needed.

This ruling has obviously turned Democrats into start raving barking moonbats, and make them remember the days when things weren’t good….during Democrat rule

The Rev. William Barber, president of the North Carolina chapter of the (Democrat) NAACP, one of the plaintiffs that sued over the 2011 maps, urged Congress to redo the formula so that areas of the country with a history of racial discrimination will still be monitored closely.

“Clearly, the avalanche of attacks we are seeing leveled at voting rights and the intense attempts at voter suppression in state houses around the country remain a constant reminder of the constitutional and moral necessity for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,” Barber wrote in an email.

Of course the article spends more time quoting those who are against voter ID, the liberals at the station are certainly against it as well. And they, like hyper-agitator William Barber never acknowledge that Democrats were the ones instituting harsh measures to stop Blacks and other minorities from voting.

Anyhow, the NY Times is in full apoplexy, but fails to understand that this is 2013, not 1965. The President is in full uproar, whining as he usually does, demanding that Congress Do Something, without specifying what they should do. Jonathan S. Tobin points out that Democrats are living in the past (and aren’t very bright). Bloomberg notes that Jim Crow (a Democrat policy) is dead, let’s go by the Constitution.

(WSJ) “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder, “Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.” The Constitution requires that the federal government treat states equally, and the Voting Rights Act’s selective restrictions were only warranted under extraordinary circumstances. “Current burdens,” Justice Roberts wrote, quoting a previous case, must be justified by “current needs.”

Democrats would prefer to live in the past, ginning up racism (which they themselves were the leaders of said racism) where it doesn’t exist in order to continue the money train and whip up a frenzy. And they say Republicans live in the past. Sheesh!

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: North Carolina Moves Ahead With Voter ID Bill After SCOTUS Ruling »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, Election Fraud | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Washington Free Beacon Infiltrates The Alabaster Nutroots Nations

By William Teach June 25, 2013 – 7:24 pm

Unsurprisingly, lots of alcohol was required. Make sure to read just how moonbat the Netroots Nation gathering was. Mostly professional activists, very few of the grassroots and left-side bloggers. And white. Very, very white. The kind of white that the Tea Party is always accused of being. Anyhow, it was this nutty

Netroots organizers go to great pains to overcome the pasty patriarchy. They don’t allow panels with only white males, according to one blog. Netroots also included several gender-neutral bathrooms and gave attendees tips on transgender etiquette.

“Please do not assume anyone’s gender, even people you may have met in the past,” advises the Netroots official program. “A person’s external appearance may not match their internal gender identity. Pay attention to a person’s purposeful gender expression.”

Read: Washington Free Beacon Infiltrates The Alabaster Nutroots Nations »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | Comments Off on Washington Free Beacon Infiltrates The Alabaster Nutroots Nations | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove