Good Grief: Chelsea Clinton Bummed That Her Great-Grandmother Didn’t Have Access To Planned Parenthood

By William Teach June 21, 2013 – 10:35 am

As The Lonely Conservative points out, Chelsea is apparently not the brightest tool in the shed

(Life News) From the stage at the recent Women Deliver conference, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s daughter Chelsea revealed that her much-admired maternal grandmother was the child of unwed teenage parents who “did not have access to services that are so crucial that Planned Parenthood helps provide.”

Chelsea’s grandmother was born of an unintended pregnancy. And new research shows that her family is not alone in treasuring a person who – if Planned Parenthood had been successful – would not have been born.

Read: Good Grief: Chelsea Clinton Bummed That Her Great-Grandmother Didn’t Have Access To Planned Parenthood »

Posted in Democrats, Liberal World | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

National Research Council Pushes Carbon Tax

By William Teach June 21, 2013 – 9:29 am

This is the same NRC that has pushed to create one sided “climate change” education standards, despite there being a 15+ year pause in warming, which the models haven’t predicted, and even fail when the models are applied in hind-sight. Oh, and the NRC relies on public grant money. They have a vested interest in keeping the money train rolling

(Politico) A federal report is endorsing a carbon tax as a far better method to combat climate change than the current web of energy tax provisions.

Despite spending billions of dollars on energy subsidies, the federal government’s Tax Code has done little overall to cut greenhouse gas emissions, according to a National Research Council report out Thursday, which concludes that a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system would be much more effective.

“In order to meet ambitious climate-change objectives, a different approach that targets GHG emissions directly through taxes or tradable allowances will be both necessary and more efficient,” the report concludes.

First, the tax code is not meant to be a means to modify behavior. Second, it’s completely unsurprising that The Government has wasted what is really tens of billions of dollars dealing with Hotcoldwetdry, because most of the projects seem to be linked to scratching the backs of big campaign donors. Third, carbon tax programs around the world have failed. And if California is any indication, we would simply see the money that was supposed to be used for Bad Weather prevention programs used for everything else but the Bad Weather prevention programs.

Fourth, has anyone else noticed that most, if not all, of the policy prescriptions from Warmists tend to model themselves around far left Progressive doctrine, such as increasing taxation and reducing liberty?

That conclusion is far from surprising; the prospect of a carbon tax swirled heavily in Washington recently, even drawing interest from conservative groups such as the American Enterprise Institute. And many economists have said a carbon tax would be the most efficient way to address emissions.

Poltico writer Alex Guillen makes it seem as if the AEI supports a “carbon tax”, but the only interest was in debating the merits, which is what adults do, rather than fools who proclaim “the science is settled!!!!!” Their conclusion was that it would be a Bad Idea for quite a few reasons, one of which is that any carbon tax would be regressive, and seriously burden the middle and lower classes. So, it seems that a carbon tax is good for the 1%ers, but no one else. They would be up for one if income taxes were reduced across the board, or even eliminated. Same with government regulations.

“Although it may seem obvious that subsidizing biofuels should reduce CO2 emissions because they rely on renewable resources rather than fossil fuels, many studies we reviewed found the opposite,” the report says. “As structured, the biofuels tax credits encouraged the consumption of motor fuels because they lower prices, and this effect appears to offset any reduction in the GHG intensity of motor fuels that occurs because of the incentives to blend biofuels with gasoline.”

Actually, it shouldn’t be obvious, because most of the biofuels actually put out more CO2, while needing more water and land to produce them, while costing more and being less powerful. But what the NRC wants is super-duper high gas prices. I bet those who work for the NRC haven’t given up their own fossil fueled travel.

Contributors to the report include David Hawkins, the Natural Resources Defense Council’s director of climate programs; Yale University economics professor William Nordhaus; and Drew Shindell of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Ah. So the main contributors are all far far left Warmists. Color me surprised.

Read: National Research Council Pushes Carbon Tax »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | Comments Off on National Research Council Pushes Carbon Tax | Trackback URL

Could There Be 70 Votes For Gang Of 8 Amnesty Bill?

By William Teach June 21, 2013 – 8:43 am

This whole thing is designed to push squishy Republicans over into the “OK, we’ll give them legal status immediately but you promise to Do Something later about the border so we’ll vote yes” category

(Politico) The Senate Gang of Eight edged closer to supermajority support on its immigration bill with Thursday’s breakthrough agreement on border security and other measures meant to attract wavering Republican senators.

Negotiators said as many as 15 GOP senators who were on the fence will now be inclined to vote for the landmark bill that revamps the U.S. immigration system and gives a pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented residents due to the agreement drafted by Republican Sens. Bob Corker of Tennessee and John Hoeven of North Dakota.

If that happens, the immigration reform bill crafted by the Gang of Eight would be much closer to reaching 70 senators in its favor, which some Gang members have wanted, and leaders say such a broad bipartisan majority could inject serious momentum into the immigration debate as it moves into the GOP-controlled House.

What does the Corker-Hoeven amendment supposedly do?

Corker and Hoeven’s plan includes a package of five conditions — or triggers — that will have to be met before current undocumented immigrants can ultimately obtain green cards.

The administration would have to get a comprehensive border security plan in place, hire an additional 20,000 border patrol agents, complete a 700-mile fence along the border, get an E-Verify system up and running and create an electronic entry-exit system at air and sea ports of entry.

They aren’t triggers, they’re supposed conditions, a plan to create a plan. Let’s not forget that the original legislation which required the 700 mile border fence was quickly watered down. The electronic entry-exit system is already mandated by law, and is much watered down from the biometric data system Republicans wanted.

Isn’t E-verify already up and running? Why yes, yes it is! As the E-verify website points out, it is federal law that employers make sure their potential hires are legally eligible to work in the US.

However, the Corker-Hoeven amendment exists simply through talking points, it has not actually been submitted on paper for people to read. It’s not available on Corker’s website, however, Corker notes

Ten years after enactment, the senators’ measure requires all five of the following conditions to be met before LPR, or a Green Card status, could be granted:

Consider: all the illegals will have had legal status for ten years. Does anyone actually think that Democrats, and some squishy Republicans, will deny them their green cards at that point if the measures aren’t met? Does anyone actually think that the Government will even remember what the conditions are 10 years after enactment? Provided they haven’t been watered down or done away with?

Here’s what FAIR has to say regarding the amendment

“The amendment offered by Senators Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.) offers promises of future border enforcement, while guaranteeing amnesty for illegal aliens immediately. Illegal aliens would gain irrevocable Registered Provisional Immigrant status whether or not the border enforcement promises in the amendment are ever kept.

“The amendment does nothing to address the significant problem of people who overstay visas and, in fact, weakens existing laws requiring the collection of biometric data on all people departing the United States via air, sea and land ports. Moreover, by Sen. Corker’s own admission, the amendment he is offering fails to address concerns about interior enforcement of immigration laws.

“The Corker-Hoeven amendment includes no metrics to measure if the taxpayers’ money is being spent effectively and that our borders actually are secure. Moreover, while Congress is making lofty promises about a fence and Border Patrol agents now, there is ample time for Congress to de-fund all of these promises, leaving Americans with only the amnesty.

“The Corker-Hoeven amendment is nothing more than a fig leaf designed to convince the American people that our immigration laws will be enforced in the future in exchange for granting amnesty to illegal aliens now. There is little in this amendment that should give the American people confidence that a new surge of illegal immigration will not occur over the next decade.

“The American people have been deceived too many times to believe the empty rhetoric of those who falsely claim that this legislation is tough on enforcement. It simply isn’t, and there is little reason to believe that even the watered-down enforcement promised by the Corker-Hoeven amendment will be delivered.

“The Corker-Hoeven amendment simply puts some very expensive lipstick on a pig. S.744 will deliver amnesty to the people who broke our laws, it will deliver huge increases in foreign labor for business interests, but it will do nothing to protect the interests and security of the American people.”

At this point, we can’t even apply Reagan’s “trust by verify” notion.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Could There Be 70 Votes For Gang Of 8 Amnesty Bill? »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Could There Be 70 Votes For Gang Of 8 Amnesty Bill? | Trackback URL

Did NSA Spying Actually Stop NYSE Plot?

By William Teach June 20, 2013 – 3:55 pm

Put this one down to a case of “just wondering”, but, hey, it’s not like The Government would ever lie about something, right?

(Wired)  Did the government really disrupt a bomb plot targeting the New York Stock Exchange?

The FBI deputy director said that today in a Spygate hearing where the government for the first time said the secret spy techniques publicly disclosed two weeks ago had halted some 50 terror attacks in 20 countries.

Sean Joyce, the bureau’s deputy director, identified Khalid Ouazzani as the culprit. “Ouazzani had been providing information and support to this plot,” Joyce testified to the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

According to interviews and court records, the 2008 plot failed, not because the authorities broke it up, but because the alleged attackers decided against it.

The Kansas City man’s attorney today said that Joyce’s comments were news to him. Among other things, his client pleaded guilty in 2010 to providing money — $23,000 in “material support” to Al-Qaida. He also pleaded to a count of money laundering and bank fraud, and is set for sentencing next month.

“Khalid Ouazzani was not involved in any plot to bomb the New York Stock Exchange,” Robin Fowler, the defendant’s defense attorney, said in a telephone interview.

We’ll obviously take the word of Ouazzani and his lawyer with a grain of salt, but, interestingly, he wasn’t actually charged with being involved in a terrorist plot. Techdirt noticed this same article, and also notes

As NSA apologists in the government seek to defend the NSA surveillance program, they keep talking about how critical it was to stopping “more than 50” terrorist operations. However, every time they’ve described any, the details have shown that the surveillance programs often had little to do with uncovering the plot, and were clearly not a key component of stopping anything. We already discussed the NYC subway bombing plot, which was discovered through other means. The other story initially raised, concerning David Headly was similarly found to be on shaky ground as well.

Interestingly, it was the current Obama supporters who were freaking out over the Bush administration keeping an eye on potential Islamist groups, along with proclaiming that Bush and Cheney themselves were listening to our calls and reading our emails. Yet, the program itself started late in the Bush time, and was significantly expanded during the Obama years. I have no problem with them obtaining warrants to surveille specific individuals and groups, and even getting blanket warrants to surveille non-citizens. Hoovering up all the meta-data of law abiding citizens is wrong.

Read: Did NSA Spying Actually Stop NYSE Plot? »

Posted in War On Terrorism | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 20, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is a flooded drought world because someone charged their Chevy Volt using dirty power from coal plants, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Sister Toldjah, with a post on a Connecticut firearms maker moving to South Carolina.

Read: If All You See… »

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

NC School Superintendent Wants Teachers Excluded From Paying Income Tax

By William Teach June 20, 2013 – 1:00 pm

In other words, she wants teachers to not pay their “fair share”

(Raleigh N&O) Legislators rejected a suggestion from the elected state schools chief that the state exempt teachers from personal income taxes.

June Atkinson, the state Superintendent of Public Instruction, told News & Observer editorial writers and reporters Monday that teachers should be exempt, but said she would not have made the suggestion if teachers were going to receive raises next year. The tax break for traditional K-12 and charter teachers would cost about $300 million, she said. The state Department of Public Instruction chief fiscal officer put the cost at $250 million.

The suggestion from Atkinson, who is a Demcocrat, as the N&O finally gets around to telling us, went over like a lead balloon.

Atkinson and other education leaders have been frustrated by low teacher salaries. State Board of Education Chairman Bill Cobey, a Republican, said last week that one of his top priorities is increasing teacher pay. The state’s starting salary for teachers is $30,800 a year. Teachers without advanced degrees or certification from the National Board of Professional Teacher Standards must have 15 years experience before they clear $40,000 on the state salary schedule.

Two points: first, blame Democrats, who have controlled the the Governors mansion and the General Assembly for the most part over the last 50 years, and the teacher’s unions for negotiating the contracts. 2nd, if teachers were able to get raises based on performance and merit, they might make more. Third, if the teachers do not like the salaries (working 9 months a year, awesome pensions, excellent health plans) they can do (or attempt to do) what so many other citizens do: look for a new job. No one forced them into teaching. Lots of others make the same money or less. They have no right to use the North Carolina citizens as their ATM.

4th, perhaps teachers could show that they are more interested in education rather than indoctrination. They could work to stop the crazies and Marxists and America haters and such, in the teaching ranks, in administration, and in the union leadership. Most teachers are surely good people (I know many, considering I went to ECU, which turns out lots of teachers), but are overshadowed by the wackos.

Still, they do not deserve to be excluded from paying income tax.

Read: NC School Superintendent Wants Teachers Excluded From Paying Income Tax »

Posted in Democrats, NC News, Taxation | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Readying Emission Limit Plan To Deal With Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach June 20, 2013 – 8:21 am

Alternate headline: Obama readying plan to artificially raise your electricity costs and the costs of everything else by executive fiat

(NY Times) President Obama is preparing regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, senior officials said Wednesday. The move would be the most consequential climate policy step he could take and one likely to provoke legal challenges from Republicans and some industries.

Citizens might object, too, as they see their cost of living spike. And perhaps some rolling brownouts, too boot.

Electric power plants are the largest single source of global warming pollution in the country, responsible for nearly 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. With sweeping climate legislation effectively dead in Congress, the decision on existing power plants — which a 2007 Supreme Court decision gave to the executive branch — has been among the most closely watched of Mr. Obama’s second term.

That’s funny, I thought the biggest source was fossil fueled travel? That’s what Warmists always say. PS: CO2 is not a pollutant, it’s a trace gas necessary for life on Earth. Oh, and agriculture and landfills release way more GHGs than power plants, in the form of methane. The oceans themselves release sixteen times more CO2 than Mankind. But, hey, someone is really enthused by The Cult Of Gore.

The administration has already begun steps to restrict climate-altering emissions from any newly built power plants, but imposing carbon standards on the existing utility fleet would be vastly more costly and contentious.

Ya think? But, hey, why would a 1%er like Obama care about you peons? I’m not even going to get into his unhinged climate pronouncements during his Berlin speech yesterday.

Republicans criticize Mr. Obama’s climate policy as government overreach that is holding back the economy. Some Democrats, including those hawkish about climate action, also worry that tough new standards on power plants could slow job growth and raise energy costs, particularly in places like the industrial Midwest that depend on cheap power from coal.

But administration officials signaled that Mr. Obama had decided the risks from climate change outweighed the potential economic and political costs from taking steps to address it.

In other words, Obama is giving the middle and lower classes the middle finger as we suffer through this terrible and stagnant economic recovery, and do not need our energy prices artificially increased to go with all the other cost of living increases imposed on us by Obama and the Democrats.

Read: Obama Readying Emission Limit Plan To Deal With Hotcoldwetdry »

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

Senators Closing In On Super Duper Mega-Awesome Bipartisan Border Security Compromise

By William Teach June 20, 2013 – 8:01 am

….that’s all really a load of mule fritters, but the Associated Press writers make it seem like they’re closing in on one of the most historic pieces of legislation ever!

(WRAL) White House-backed immigration legislation is gaining momentum in the Senate, where key lawmakers say they are closing in on a bipartisan compromise to spend tens of billions of dollars stiffening the bill’s border security requirements without delaying legalization for millions living in the country unlawfully.

“This is a key moment in the effort to pass this bill. This is sort of the defining 24 to 36 hours,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Wednesday night after a day of private talks.

Pretty highfalutin language, wouldn’t you say? (and how often does one get the chance to use the word “highfalutin”?) In reality, more and more Republicans are turning away from this crapsandwich of a bill, not that many were on board in the first place, but there were those who said “I’ll listen, let’s see what is proposed” who are now saying “hell no.” They know that this is bad for the GOP, bad for the country, and will end up simply being a way to turn the illegals into new Democrat voters quickly.

Under the emerging compromise, the government would grant legal status to immigrants living in the United States unlawfully at the same time the additional security was being put into place. Green cards, which signify permanent residency status, would be withheld until the security steps were complete.

Officials described a so-called border surge that envisions doubling the size of the Border Patrol with 20,000 new agents, constructing hundreds of miles of additional fencing along the border with Mexico and purchasing new surveillance drones to track would-be illegal border crossers. The cost of the additional agents alone was put at $30 billion over a decade.

First of all, there is already a law requiring that a border fence be constructed along 700 miles of the US-Mexico border. The immigration bill compromise would simply say “hey, finish it”. Supposedly. Because an amendment to do just that has already been voted down. The US government is already supposed to be increasing the size of the Border Patrol (the rank and file are against illegal immigration). Drones? Great, we can watch them come across in real time. Perhaps the drone can play soothing desert crossing music for them. Yet, this matters not, because the federal government is great at ignoring the laws they pass when the laws are inconvenient. And, more than likely, this will end up more in the way of giving green cards once there is a plan to Do Something about the border (which I still maintain is not the best plan to force the illegals to leave and stop coming). The bill gives the head of DHS enormous latitude to do whatever he/she wants, much like with Obamacare, rather than making the law black and white.

Here’s another interesting part of the article

It was unclear what other portions of the legislation might be changed. There is pressure from some Republicans to make sure no federal benefits go to immigrants who are in the country illegally, at least until they become citizens.

Hasn’t Marco Rubio (D-Fla) been running around the country, going on TV and radio, appearing in commercials, telling everyone, especially speaking to Conservatives, that “no illegal will get no federal benefits, period”? He wrote a big op ed in the Wall Street Journal which stated they wouldn’t. And here’s Rubio on his own Senate page

No Federal Benefits: Undocumented immigrants will not be eligible for federal benefits.  This legislation contains a partial repeal of ObamaCare to bar undocumented immigrants from receiving its benefits.  Once they are eligible to apply for permanent residence, this bill strengthens current “public charge” law that stipulates no immigrant can obtain a green card if they can’t prove they can support themselves and won’t become government dependents – by verifying that they are earning at least 25 percent above the poverty level and are gainfully employed.  They will have to do verify this more than once, at different parts of the process.  Current law, which we do not change, also bars permanent residents from receiving federal benefits for the first five years of that status.

If that’s the case, Marco, then why is there a need for pressure from Republicans to make sure that none of these illegals get federal benefits?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Senators Closing In On Super Duper Mega-Awesome Bipartisan Border Security Compromise »

Posted in Idiot GOPer's, Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

What Say To “Grand Theft Climate”?

By William Teach June 19, 2013 – 3:49 pm

Today’s unhinged Warmist story comes to us via the UK Guardian, in an article which mentions a violent video game from PETA and then suggests the creation of games “to accurately teach about science”

In Grand Theft Climate, you play a climate scientist who, after years of harassment, public attacks and scorn, and political interference and suppression, finally snaps and takes matters into his own hands. Much like the Grand Theft Auto games for which it is named, Grand Theft Climate is an open-world “sandbox” game that the player can explore at will.

The purpose of the game is to defend the environment and punish those who are callously contributing to climate change. Pull people out of cars, but rather than steal them, switch the engine off then throw the keys off a bridge. Plant trees in public areas under cover of darkness. Catch people putting organic waste into recycling bins, fish it out, and then force them to eat it. See people riding bikes or jogging and reward them with money or sandwiches. Break into heavy polluting factories and mess all their files up.

Grand Theft Climate allows you to do all the things climate scientists would never do but probably think about a lot.

Via Tom Nelson.

Read: What Say To “Grand Theft Climate”? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Barking Moonbats, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 19, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil dog and an evil fridge causing the seas to rise up and erase the US East coast all the way to the mountains, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is American Power, with a post on Hispanic assimilation.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove