SCOAMF Talks NBA During Toast In Senegal

By William Teach June 28, 2013 – 7:02 am

So, the man with the Largest Carbon Footprint In The World who just stated that he’s going to Do Something about reducing “carbon pollution” flies to Africa and gives a toast in Senegal, which includes this

Sadly, it appears as if he’s looking down to read his toast, and was still a stuttering fool. I counted 19 “ah’s” during that 50 second clip. Image if that was George W. Bush: how would the media treat him? Of course, despite making a few words up here and there, W was able to speak in clear English, having learned how Adults, leaders, and presidents should speak.

Everyone, from the media to talk radio to blogs, has taken note of the complete SCOAMFishness of Rachel Jeantel, the prosecutions “start witness” in the George Zimmerman trial, her inability to speak adult English (she’s a perfect example of today’s public school educational system), yet here’s a man who went to and graduated from some of the countries best and he’s the POTUS. Sad, isn’t it?

BTW, here are a bunch of nutjobs at the Democratic Underground “apologizing” to Rachel.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: SCOAMF Talks NBA During Toast In Senegal »

Posted in Barry Obama | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

The Life Of Julia, Amnesty Applicant

By William Teach June 27, 2013 – 7:53 pm

This is freaking hilarious, in a sad and true way, from the Center For Immigration Studies. Wish I could drop a photo of this, a spoof of Obama’s “Life Of Julia” neo-socialist government will take care of women-folk lunacy. Using Droid phone, I’ll see about adding one later.

Hah, figured out a way to get part of the first real slide downloaded, edited. Hope it is legible

Read: The Life Of Julia, Amnesty Applicant »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on The Life Of Julia, Amnesty Applicant | Trackback URL

Clean Energy Could Kill Off Endangered Killer Whales

By William Teach June 27, 2013 – 4:16 pm

I’m sure quite a few Warmists would be OK with this. They’re fine with wind turbines killing off endangered birds, as well as just killing off millions and millions of other birds

(Daily Caller) A new clean energy project could wipe out the killer whales off the coast of Washington State, according to an environmental group dedicated to protecting the mammals.

Washington State has decided to build a tidal energy pilot project in Admiralty Inlet in the waters of Puget Sound. It’s a plan that has pitted clean energy advocates against their animal-loving allies in the environmental movement.

While at least a dozen groups have urged federal regulators to thwart the state’s plans, some of the most vocal opponents are environmentalists who say the clean energy project threatens the endangered Southern Resident killer whale population.

The Orca Conservancy — the national nonprofit created to protect the killer whale and its habitat — has urged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) not to grant a license to the Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) in Washington State for its tidal pilot project.

The group fears that the 386 metric ton turbines and their accompanying noise would seriously harm the orca population which transits and forages in Admiralty Inlet, where the project would be located.

Of course, other enviro groups, and the Department of Energy, are blowing off the concerns of The Orca Conservancy. One of the things they say is that the turbines move so slowly that they’d just push the orcas away. Remember how groups said that wind turbines turned too slowly to harm birds?

The Orca Conservancy — joined by OrcaLab, Naked Whale Research, Fins and Fluke, and Voice of the Orcas — told FERC that the tidal turbines are smack in the middle of the migration and foraging areas of several “pods” of the whales.

The groups warned of turbine collisions resulting in “bruised, discolored, or lacerated animals.” Impacts from noise and vibration are also a concern, the groups wrote.

Many other environmental groups have made their objections known to the project. If this was some sort of oil drilling project, does anyone think that it would not be killed in a minute?

Read: Clean Energy Could Kill Off Endangered Killer Whales »

Posted in Energy, Environment | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

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
Pirate's Cove