If All You See…

By William Teach June 14, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil dog which sucks up all the resources of the world causing the oceans to boil, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Camp Of The Saints, with a post on the last days of the GOP.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Poltical Clown Parade Announces The Paul Revere Awards

By William Teach June 14, 2013 – 10:51 am

My good friend Curmudgeon over at Political Clown Parade notes the recent Coolest SOB in the Blogosphere contest (which I had completely forgotten about, so never tried to pimp my blog for votes)

I was disappointed that so many of the bloggers I know didn’t fare well in the voting process.  The sites listed below in alphabetical order are being presented the First Annual Paul Revere Award sponsored by Political Clown Parade.
I chose Paul Revere as the icon for the award because he was an American patriot who’s legendary “Midnight Ride” to warn the colonists of Massachusetts before the historic battles at Lexington and Concord played a vital role in America’s struggle to gain independence from Britain.

I’m proud to be a part of this group, most of whom I know here in the Blogosphere, and most of who I link to. I’ll be adding the rest to my sidebar and feedreader.

Read: Poltical Clown Parade Announces The Paul Revere Awards »

Posted in Weblogs | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Pandering To Keystone XL Foes, Obama Said To Soon Release His Climate Measures

By William Teach June 14, 2013 – 8:49 am

In other words, hold onto your wallets, as Obama speaks to people whom which he wants to provide open wallets

(Bloomberg) With his administration under pressure from environmentalists to reject the Keystone XL pipeline project, President Barack Obama plans to unveil a package of separate actions next month focused on curbing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

At closed-door fundraisers held over the past few weeks, the president has been telling Democratic party donors that he will unveil new climate proposals in July, according to people who have attended the events or been briefed.

Remember the days when US Presidents would make pronouncements to the press, members of Congress, especially their own party members, and to the American People? Welcome to the Permanent Campaign.

Obama’s promise frequently comes in response to pleas from donors to reject TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s proposed Keystone XL project, a $5.3 billion pipeline that would carry tar-sands oil from Canada to U.S. refineries. Opponents of the pipeline say it would increase greenhouse-gas emissions by encouraging use of the tar sands.

While Obama has not detailed the specifics of his plan to the donors, pipeline opponents anticipate the package will include a plan from the Environmental Protection Agency to issue final rules to limit greenhouse-gas emissions from new power plants. In April, the EPA delayed issuing the rule after the electric-power industry objected on legal and technical grounds. Since then, the agency has been rewriting the rule to address those concerns.

The White House plan may also include a standard for limits on existing power plants, something EPA officials have said they expect to propose in the next 18 months.

We will certainty have to wait for his rough outline, possibly written on a post-it note with no details. What we can expect are measures that raise the cost of energy, which will raise the price of everything else, raising the overall cost of living for all Americans, that will cause hardship for middle and lower class citizens.

And if you want to see how so much of this is pushed, meet Matthew S. Tejada, yet another environmental justice community organizer who was hired to be a bigshot at the EPA, after being one of the people who constantly sued the EPA.

What we will probably see, regarding Keystone XL, is Obama giving his hearty approval in public, but slapping so many restrictions and regulations to deal with hotcoldwetdry that it cannot be implemented correctly and in a cost effective manner.

Read: Pandering To Keystone XL Foes, Obama Said To Soon Release His Climate Measures »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Barry Obama, Energy, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Rubio: We Need The Illegals Legalized In Order To Pay For Border Security

By William Teach June 14, 2013 – 8:27 am

Byron York noted that Rubio stated that he should have been more artful in his comments to Univision, where he stated that the illegals would be legalized before any sort of border security. I wonder how he’ll walk this one back, via Byron

(Washington Examiner) Why is it necessary to legalize the roughly 11 million currently-illegal immigrants in the U.S. before newly enhanced border security and internal enforcement measures are in place? Sen. Marco Rubio, the leading Republican on the Senate’s Gang of Eight, says part of the reason is that the federal government can’t afford to secure the border on its own and needs financial help from the immigrants themselves, in the form of fines paid when they are legalized.

Rubio made the statement during a radio interview after he voted against an amendment from Republican Sen. Charles Grassley that would have put off legalization until after the border is secure — a position supported by majorities of voters across the political spectrum. Host Andrea Tantaros asked Rubio why he opposed something that was important “to so many in the Republican party?”

First he stated that “We cannot wait another four years with 11 million people living in this country illegally without knowing who they are or why they’re here” when noting that it would take at least 4 years to get enhanced border security in place. And then

But there was another reason. “We need to register them as soon as possible, not just to keep the problem from getting worse, but we’re going to require them to pay a fine, and that’s the money that we are going to use to pay for the border security,” Rubio explained. “If we don’t get that fine money from the people that have violated our immigration laws, then the American taxpayer is going to have to pay for border security.”

This is because Rubio seem disinclined to spend taxpayer money on apparently low level issues like securing and protecting the US southern border. He doesn’t want to borrow and spend the money. Peering into my crystal ball, once the illegals are given legal status, we’ll hear that we haven’t gotten enough money out of them to pay for border security, so, hey, we had a good idea, it didn’t work, so let’s get on with making them voting citizens for 2016.

Then there’s this, which has to be taken with a grain of salt, since the Daily Caller doesn’t say where Rubio made the statement

Sen. Marco Rubio stayed away from specific immigration reform policies during a talk Thursday, reiterating that America must be recognized as an exemplary nation that welcomes those seeking freedom they don’t have in their home countries.

“What we have is special,” Rubio said. “Every single human life is worthy of the protection of our values. Who else will do it if not us?”

The Florida Republican also appealed to America’s religious heritage, asserting that as the “salt of the earth,” the United States has a duty to be compassionate to the less-fortunate.

This is the same type of impassioned emotional plea that Democrats make, while also noting that it would be un-American to refuse to accept these people who broke our laws, continuously flouted out laws, drain our social services, demand that they be provided with goods and services, demand that everyone else speak Spanish and provide writings in Spanish, and, in some case, commit crime, including violent ones up to murder, against American citizens. Oh, and let’s not forget the fun one where Mexican illegals demand that the US Southwest be returned to Mexico, or turned into a new Hispanic nation separate from the US.

Morning update: yes, big grain of salt (actually, it is more a steaming pile of mule fritters from the DC), since what Rubio was talking about was getting involved in the Syrian conflict, not immigration. The DC misrepresented what Rubio stated.

Meanwhile, Paul Ryan wants to debate anyone who is calling the Gang of 8 bill “amnesty”. Perhaps he should debate the 2010 Marco Rubio.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Rubio: We Need The Illegals Legalized In Order To Pay For Border Security »

Posted in Idiot GOPer's, Illegal Immigration | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, What’s The Deal With “Compromise”?

By William Teach June 13, 2013 – 3:04 pm

Usually, one can count on The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza to be hyper partisan. Yet, this article, written with Sean Sullivan, makes a good point, that people do not really want compromise, despite polls slamming Congress for not compromising and all the yammering that people do. They tell us why

1. Everyone likes the idea of compromise — both in politics and in life more generally. We all like to think of ourselves as reasonable people who are always looking for the common-sense middle ground on a given issue and we want our politicians to reflect that approach. But, our desire for compromise goes out the window when it’s an issue that matters to us and/or where we are convinced we are right. Same goes for politics.

2. Compromise doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone. One man’s compromise is another’s concession. Detailing what a compromise might actually look like in, say, talks about a grand bargain on debt and spending, would send many compromise-seekers running away from the negotiating table.

3. Compromise isn’t rewarded politically. Remember that large majorities of the House — Democrats and Republicans — face only one real threat to their political careers: a challenge from their ideological left or right. Redistricting, the decennial line-drawing process in all 435 House districts, is one reason for such lopsided districts. Compromise is a dirty word in primaries where the electorate tends to be the most conservative (or most liberal) voters who prize philosophical convictions over pragmatic legislating. There is not only no incentive to compromise then but there is actually a disincentive to do so.

The second point is the biggest one: we do not all think of compromise as the same. We’ve seen this recently with gun control. There are things we can compromise on, things that would make sense and would not violate the 2nd Amendment. Yet, where is that middle point? Where is the point that each side will give something up? Consider abortion: few on either side will meet at any point.

I’m willing to meet Warmists on certain points, but not for hotcoldwetdry. We do need to expand alternatives and find other, cleaner forms of fuel. Their idea of compromise is to tax fossil fuels out of existence and to waste tons of money on companies that are bound to fail (but were good Democrat donors), as well implement massive regulations that control every aspect of Other People’s lives.

There is a 4th point to this, namely that when a compromise is made, one side, and, let’s be honest, it is typically the Democrats, take advantage of that and demand more more more, either during the negotiations or afterwards.

Read: Say, What’s The Deal With “Compromise”? »

Posted in Politics | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 13, 2013 – 1:00 pm

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

The blog of the day is American Power, with a post regarding Palestinian terrorist supporters urging Alicia Keys to not perform in Israel.

And thanks to JGlanton for finding this photo, saying we had to see the whole pretty lady.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Obama Slips Through Hotcoldwetdry Regulations In Policy Regarding Your Microwave

By William Teach June 13, 2013 – 11:17 am

As Erika Johnsen notes “Never underestimate the sneakiness when you’re dealing with The Most Transparent Administration Evah”

(Bloomberg) Buried in a little-noticed rule on microwave ovens is a change in the U.S. government’s accounting for carbon emissions that could have wide-ranging implications for everything from power plants to the Keystone XL pipeline.

The increase of the so-called social cost of carbon, to $38 a metric ton in 2015 from $23.80, adjusts the calculation the government uses to weigh costs and benefits of proposed regulations. The figure is meant to approximate losses from global warming such as flood damage and diminished crops.

With the change, government actions that lead to cuts in emissions — anything from new mileage standards to clean-energy loans — will appear more valuable in its cost-benefit analyses. On the flip side, environmentalists urge that it be used to judge projects that could lead to more carbon pollution, such as TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone pipeline or coal-mining by companies such as Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) on public lands, which would be viewed as more costly.

Even supporters questioned the way the administration slipped the policy out without first opening it for public comment. The change was buried in an afternoon announcement on May 31 about efficiency standards for microwave ovens, a rule not seen as groundbreaking.

So, they attempted to hide this from the public, did not open it to the public for comment, and will essentially raise the price of consumer goods artificially for a ginned up issue based on what can be charitably be called faulty science, despite no warming in 15+ years. And they want to monetize anything regarding The Weather, which will allow lawsuits to proceed easily against Keystone XL and others. Insurance claims from The Weather would appear to be greater. Warmists would be able to complain more. Just don’t ask them to live the life they want Everyone Else to be forced to live.

Read: Obama Slips Through Hotcoldwetdry Regulations In Policy Regarding Your Microwave »

Posted in Barry Obama, Carbon Credits, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Hooray! Spying On All Americans Stopped Halted Terrorist Threats

By William Teach June 13, 2013 – 9:05 am

So says the head of the NSA

(NY Times) The director of the National Security Agency told Congress on Wednesday that “dozens” of terrorism threats had been halted by the agency’s huge database of the logs of nearly every domestic phone call made by Americans, while a senator briefed on the program disclosed that the telephone records are destroyed after five years.

The director, Gen. Keith B. Alexander, who heads both the N.S.A. and United States Cyber Command, which runs the military’s offensive and defensive use of cyberweapons, told skeptical members of the Senate Appropriations Committee that his agency was doing exactly what Congress authorized after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

General Alexander said he welcomed debate over the legal justification for the program because “what we’re doing to protect American citizens here is the right thing.” He said the agency “takes great pride in protecting this nation and our civil liberties and privacy” under the oversight of Congress and the courts.

Citizens do not want “debate”, because debate rarely gets anywhere in stopping the massive intrusions of our privacy by Government (or virtually anything else): how’s that debate regarding “enhanced pat-downs” at airports working? The fact is that these programs should be targeted towards those who would look to harm the United States, not every citizen.

As a sidebar, I couldn’t care less if the NSA targets China, European countries, and others. That’s what they should be doing. And calls from certain nations, those that support terrorism or are know to have lots of terrorist groups, to the United States should be targeted. But, the NSA programs grew out of typical government response, where instead of targeting specifics, they go after everyone. Remember, profiling was stopped cold in the wake of 9/11. Grandma Wendy from Wichita had to be treated the same as Mohammed reciting Allahu Akbar.

Gallup has finally come out with their poll on the issue

More Americans disapprove (53%) than approve (37%) of the federal government agency program that as part of its efforts to investigate terrorism obtained records from U.S. telephone and Internet companies to “compile telephone call logs and Internet communications.”

Interestingly, 49% of Democrats approve while 40% disapprove. Replace the name Obama with Bush, McCain, or Romney, and I wonder what those numbers would be? But this is the 3rd out of 4 polls saying Americans are against this program the way it is run. CBS had it as 58-38 against. Rasmussen had it 59-26 among likely voters. The Washington Post-Pew poll had it 56-41 in favor of the program, but, as I pointed out yesterday, 50% + of the survey respondents had followed the NSA programs news coverage “not too closely/not closely at all.” So why should their opinions matter if they’re clueless?

Analysts can look at the domestic calling data only if there is a reason to suspect it is “actually related to Al Qaeda or to Iran,” Feinstein said, adding: “The vast majority of the records in the database are never accessed and are deleted after a period of five years. To look at or use the content of a call, a court warrant must be obtained.”

The problem here is that the American People have no assurances that the use of that data will be limited. Who would have thought that the IRS would target Conservative groups? Who would have thought that Romney donors would be targeted by the IRS? Who would have thought that the POTUS and his people would intentionally target private citizens who disagree with him with barbed criticism, a violation of the spirit of the 1st Amendment? Who would have thought that the Attorney General would say that, while hypothetical, it is legal to launch a drone strike on a US citizen on US soil? Who would have thought that the Obama admin and HHS would violate the 1st Amendment rights of religious organizations with Obamacare regulations?

What if they decide to use this data for other purposes? What assurances do we have that the usage will stay focused on terrorists and nations like Iran? We have none. What if they are used to track Conservative groups? What then, Liberals? What if a Republican president uses them to track your groups, Liberals? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. There needs to be an open posting of exactly how this data can be used, and enforced in law. Stopping terrorist attacks is great, but not at the loss of privacy by citizens who aren’t involved in the least.

Read: Hooray! Spying On All Americans Stopped Halted Terrorist Threats »

Posted in Constitution, Current Affairs, War On Terrorism | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Rubio Works To Stop Illegals From Getting Federal Benefits…Wait, What?

By William Teach June 13, 2013 – 8:33 am

How many times have you heard Marco Rubio’s commercial where he proclaims “And then they don’t qualify for any federal benefits. This is an important point. No federal benefits, no food stamps, no welfare, no Obamacare”? And said this in interviews. And written it. But, now he’s trying to get it in place? Because there are tons of loopholes

(Washington Examiner) Sen. Marco Rubio is preparing to offer an amendment to the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill he helped negotiate to strengthen provisions that would prevent former illegal immigrants from receiving federal benefits.

The Florida Republican is collaborating on this proposal with Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. Details of the amendment were not yet available. But Rubio said the measure would be designed to strengthen the principles of comprehensive reform legislation the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” authored, which included prohibiting millions of newly legalized immigrant residents from obtaining federal assistance — such as Obamacare subsidies — and burdening U.S. taxpayers.

Why would he be working to strengthen these provisions? He told us that the Shamnesty II legislation already restricts the immediately legalized illegals from obtaining federal benefits during the whole 13 year process. If they were in the bill, why toughen them? Probably because the Gang of Ocho bill doesn’t restrict at all. In fact, the Senate voted down a proposal to restrict illegals from receiving Obamacare benefits back in March. Heck, when it comes to illegals in some states, such as California, illegals are already receiving massive amounts of federal benefits: will Rubio take those away? Will the states? As the Save America Foundation points out

Once illegals gain provisional legal status, which is immediately, they’ll qualify for in-state tuition rates at public colleges, a subsidy funded by taxpayers (Sec. 2245D(d)). And even worse for fiscal conservatives, virtually all funding is classified “emergency” under the Statutory ‘Pay As You Go Act’ of 2010. Government Spending on food stamps, Head Start, welfare, housing subsidies, Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance and other benefits will expand, unlimited.

Everything he’s said about this scheme is a fraud.

Earlier this week, Rubio proposed an amendment to the Senate immigration bill to beef up a provision that requires former illegal immigrants to demonstrate English proficiency as a condition of advancing to permanent residency, and eventually, citizenship.

There again, his commercials told us they’d have to speak English. Perhaps he meant simply the phrase “Speak Spanish?” In fact, the original legislation required illegals to either demonstrate proficiency in English or show that they are enrolled in a class. The amendment would do away with the second part. But they wouldn’t have to demonstrate English for 10 years, when they are able to get their green card. Democrats and illegal shills think that this would be a “roadblock”.

Everything about this legislation is a lie, and every Republican supporting it should be primaried. Of course, that won’t matter, since once the illegals start being legalized, you can kiss the Republican party goodbye, essentially creating a one party system in the United States.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Rubio Works To Stop Illegals From Getting Federal Benefits…Wait, What? »

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

Nanny Bloomberg: NYC Doomed From “Climate Change”

By William Teach June 12, 2013 – 2:07 pm

Alternate headline: Guy with a pretty darned big carbon footprint who’s mayor of a city with a pretty darned big carbon footprint forgot to take his meds (via Watts Up With That?)

(NY Daily News) CLIMATE CHANGE is real — and it could turn the city into a flood-prone danger zone with summers as sweltering as the deep South’s in the not-too-distant future, according to an expert panel of scientists.

The panel, which Mayor Bloomberg tasked with studying weather patterns in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, predicts the greatest threats to Gotham will be catastrophic heat waves and frequent bouts of heavy rains for days on end.

The bad weather patterns should kick in as early as 2020, according to the findings released on Monday.

So, within 7 years, when most won’t remember the predictions.

In that year, the city will see an average temperature of 57 degrees — up from the current 54 — and 10% more rainfall.

Increases in rainfall tend to support cooling, not warming, when the Sun is less active, allowing the solar wind to strike the earth and create more cloud cover.

That rainfall will come with an alarming, nearly 1-foot rise in the already high sea level — which will likely increase the city’s flood risk.

A 12 inch rise in 7 years? Good luck with that. Anthony Watts features info on the sea rise at Battery Park, the same as I mentioned July 2012, where The Battery is seeing a rise of 2.77mm.

Here’s 3mm

Scared yet? It would take 100 years to hit 1 foot.

Anthony also notes info from Joe D’Aleo which plots temperature to population in NYC, making a strong case for the UHI.

When the infants of today are hitting their mid-life crises — around the middle of the century, in the 2050s — New York’s summers will be similar to the summers in sultry Birmingham, Ala., today.

That means an average of 39 to 52 days a year with temps over 90, the panel found. The current norm for the city is just 18 days over 90.

Steven Goddard notes

One hundred degree days are much less common than they used to be in New York. During the 1930s they occurred about once every 400 days, and now they occur about once every 900 days.

So, the panel is hysterical and unhinged? And, what do they want? Lots of government spending and bad weather prevention programs which restrict liberty and control companies. Surprise!

Oh, and reading the Washington Post after I had wrote this post I see that Excitable Dana Milbank has a piece entitle “Bloomberg’s race to protect NYC from climate change“, and is whininh about the threat for flooding in D.C. It might surprise the hell out of Dana to learn that D.C. was built on…wait for it…marshy land. The swamp thing is kinda a myth, but the area has always been prone to flooding. Dana forgets to mention the massive carbon footprint of Bloomberg and NYC.

Read: Nanny Bloomberg: NYC Doomed From “Climate Change” »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove