In “Squirrel!” Speech, Obama Urges End To Global War On Terrorism

By William Teach May 24, 2013 – 6:41 am

Not that he really it calls it that. If you remember, his administration changed it to “overseas contingency” early on. And while the NY Times says that this “was the most important statement on counterterrorism policy since the 2001 attacks, a momentous turning point in post-9/11 America”, there are two issues, the first being that Obama has expanded the use of attacks on Jihadis across the Middle East and North Africa more than President Bush ever did, and seems to revel in his power (why else would he personally pick targets?). And then there’s this

(Daily Caller) On Thursday, President Barack Obama urged an end to the war against terrorism, which legally began once Congress reacted to the jihadi attack on the Twin Towers.

“Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue” through the use of courts and police, he announced in a speech at the National Defense University.

“This war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands,” he said.

Our democracy (yes, yes, I know, a Constitutional Republic) also demands not violating the Constitution, not targeting certain groups with the IRS, not targeting the Press, not leaving our people to die in Benghazi, and so many other notions. But, as far as fighting Islamists

But the president can’t end the war on terrorism by himself, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said. The war “is being waged against us” by jihadis, Bolton told Fox News after the speech. “Obama thinks of terrorism like a souped-up version of robbing a local Starbucks,” he said. Bolton argues that jihadis are motivated by a coherent, established idea of holy war for Islam, which urges near-perpetual war against non-Muslim governments.

It may only take two to tango, but it takes only one to start a fight. Obama can choose not to fight, but Islamists do not have to participate in his little scheme. Surely Israel would prefer not to be a participant in the Islamist schemes, but have no choice but to fight back. Either that or surrender. No, we do not want to continuously fight these violent nutjobs fighting in the name of their religion. What else can we do?

However, can there be an end? Because you cannot defeat the idea that the hardcore Islamists push, particularly since this idea isn’t just about violence, but about pushing Sharia law and the hardcore interpretation of the Koran through peaceful methods, as well.

Mostly, though, this was a “squirrel” speech, designed to deflect attention away from the scandals racking his administration. He wants Gitmo closed, and threw a bit of Bush Blame (surprise) and “I can’t do this without Congress” out, his normal Blamestorming and refusal to take responsibility himself along with an unwillingness to do the hard work himself.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: In “Squirrel!” Speech, Obama Urges End To Global War On Terrorism »

Posted in Barry Obama, War On Terrorism | Comments Off on In “Squirrel!” Speech, Obama Urges End To Global War On Terrorism | Trackback URL

What Say To “Eco-Friendly” Psychiatry?

By William Teach May 23, 2013 – 3:00 pm

No, seriously. Apparently nutjob Warmists and envirowackos need mental health (via Climate Depot and Junk Science)

Eco-Psychiatry: Why We Need to Keep the Environment in Mind

If you’re thinking, “Aren’t I already dealing with a lot in my daily practice?” you are invited to spend the next few minutes listening to what Dr Steven Moffic has to say about how the environment may be affecting your patients and what impact ecologically-related syndromes might have on DSM-5.

You know about seasonal affective disorder (SAD), of course. But do you know about solastalgia? Nature deficiency disorder? Ecopsychotherapy?

Here—Dr Moffic briefly addresses these 4 issues. He also addressed eco-psychiatry along with a special surprise guest at the APA meeting as part of the Presidential Symposia on Envisioning a New Psychiatry: Radical Perspectives.

. What is eco-friendly psychiatry?
. Why is it unethical for psychiatrists to not be concerned with the ecology, such as climate change, noise, and toxins?
. Given the imminent launch of DSM-5, are there any ecologically-related syndromes that should be considered?
. How can psychiatrists practice in a manner that is respectful to the environment? (snip)

Some new syndromes are emerging. One is Nature Deficit Disorder, with a book of the same name, where children who stay indoors to play on computers are more distractible and miss the calming effect of nature, let alone coming to love nature. People who live near trees and parks have lower levels of cortisol. Without that location, it is important to take daily breaks in nature. In Australia, solastalgia has been coined—a kind of grief for the changes in one’s home environment (in contrast to the nostalgia of leaving home). We know of climate refugees with PTSD. There is good research data to indicate that warming in already warm areas is associated with more violence. Poor areas are usually effected the most. Given that one of our ethical principles is to address community needs, this is one.

We should probably ask Dr. McCoy, too

Oh, BTW, it’s the middle of May, and some areas of Britain just saw several inches of snow.

Read: What Say To “Eco-Friendly” Psychiatry? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Enviroweenies, Global Warming | Comments Off on What Say To “Eco-Friendly” Psychiatry? | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 23, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible CO2 infused beer which will cause the 6th great extinction, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Director Blue, with a post wondering if Doug Shulman committed perjury.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Summer Temperatures On A Cooling Trend For 2000 Years, Plus More Graphics

By William Teach May 23, 2013 – 10:08 am

However, Warmists will tell us that because Someone Else drove an SUV, the Earth will boil in 100 years, when everyone has forgotten the prognostications

(Ice Age Now) A new study of tree-ring data has concluded that not only has our climate often been noticeably hotter than today, temperatures have actually been on a falling trend for the past 2,000 years.

Measurements stretching back to 138 BC prove that the Earth is slowly cooling -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.

This study came out last summer, and includes this graphic

What we see is warming, cooling, warming, cooling, warming, a pattern of change occurring over 2000 years, which would be the same going back about 7,000 years.

This is part of posting more charts and graphs and data-sets, below the fold, and added to the Climate Change Data page

Read More »

Read: Summer Temperatures On A Cooling Trend For 2000 Years, Plus More Graphics »

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

Issa: Lois Lerner Waived Her 5th Amendment Rights

By William Teach May 23, 2013 – 9:05 am

As Orin Kerr points out, there is a lot of back and forth and varying opinions as to this matter, but not from Darrell Issa

(Politico) Lois Lerner might win the legal battle but she’s prolonging the political war.

Instead of simply taking the scorn of lawmakers for a day, repeatedly invoking the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination, and then moving on, she chose defiance.

And her bravado has prompted House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) to say she has waived her constitutional right to not comment.

Now, he plans to haul the director of the IRS’s tax-exempt department back to the committee for questioning.

“When I asked her her questions from the very beginning, I did so so she could assert her rights prior to any statement,” Issa told POLITICO. “She chose not to do so — so she waived.”

And well he should. As Judge Andrew Napolitano (who I’m no big fan of, being a somewhat 9/11 Truther) said on Fox News yesterday, Issa should go to a federal judge and get a subpoena to compel testimony along the lines of statement Lerner made at the beginning of her hearing time. I know Rush Limbaugh was a bit upset about letting her go (I heard the broadcast live while at the gym – yeah me!), but this is the wise choice. It allows time to go to a judge, and formulate questions specifically in tune with her statement.

Some think that there’s no way she comes back unless a deal is struck. Congress does have the power to compel people to come and testify, though, and if Issa thinks Lerner has something offer, he could drag her back, especially considering that she has testified previously.

Meanwhile, in the face of all the scandals, the Obama admin cries “squirrel”, stating that they’ve killed 4 Americans in drone strikes (all members of Al Qaeda, including Anwar al-Awlaki so good for Obama) and that Obama will “restrict” the use of drone strikes. Squirrel #2 is his bid to restart closing the detention facility at Club Gitmo, and having made a deal to send many of the vacationers to Yemen. Obama will give a Big Speech at today (I thought I heard at 930am, so, if that’s the case, he’ll deign to show up around 10am) about this.

Read: Issa: Lois Lerner Waived Her 5th Amendment Rights »

Posted in Constitution, Current Affairs | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Gang Of 8 Immigration Bill Will Supposedly Be Revenue Neutral

By William Teach May 23, 2013 – 8:35 am

These people think you’re stupid

(The Hill) Members of the Gang of Eight say their immigration reform bill will not add a dime to the nation’s deficit.

That anticipated Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score will defy conservative policy experts who recently claimed the measure would cost trillions of dollars.

The bill’s authors expect the CBO to release an estimate in early June showing it will be deficit neutral.

“If CBO comes back and says it doesn’t, then we’ll likely address the fees, the fines accordingly,” said Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a member of the gang.

The CBO is going to switch from its normal method of static scoring and will use a dynamic scoring method. Hey, remember when we were told that Obamacare would be revenue neutral? Then we found out it would tax more, spend more, and add to the deficit? That it isn’t deficit neutral and will also add significantly to the public costs? I wonder if the CBO score will highlight how the government, at the state and federal levels, will surely ignore the provision that stops these folks “coming out of the shadows” from receiving government benefits? Everyone with a working brain knows this will happen. Democrats know they will make this happen.

The budget office has announced it will depart from its usual practice and apply a dynamic scoring model to estimate the costs of the law over the next decade. This is good news for the Gang of Eight because the model will factor in the expected economic boost provided by millions of new legal workers. Projecting higher tax revenue from increased economic activity will produce a more favorable budgetary outlook.

Exactly how will this economic boost work? Especially if there are no jobs in this Obamaeconomy, where 7 million Americans have given up and dropped out of the jobs market. Where the employment to population count is in Jimmy Carter era numbers. It’s an employers market right now, and dumping millions of new potential workers into the marketplace will only make it worse.

Where is this economic boost? Will it be companies who shouldn’t be hiring illegals at below market wages now having to pay them a lot more? Companies hiring at lower and lower starting wages with so many workers around? Or will it be Government hiring vast amounts of new employees to administer this crapsandwich of a bill? It surely won’t be from people taking jobs teaching illegals English, because we know that provision won’t be enforced. It could be people making more and more signs, and forms for Obamacare, in other languages than English!

There can’t be higher tax revenues from people making less and more people sitting around not working.

We know that Democrats are very much against restricting illegals from receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit, having voted to leave it in the Shamnesty II bill.

And we can also see

(Washington Times) Less than 24 hours after senators powered their immigration bill through committee, the legislation came under fire in the House, where the former head of immigration enforcement testified that it has too many loopholes that could delay enforcement, let dangerous people in, and hamstring agents from fighting illegal immigration in the future.

Key House Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, signaled their worries over the Senate bill, saying they worried it repeated some of the mistakes of the last amnesty in 1986, which auditors said was rife with fraud and failed to follow through on promises of better enforcement.

“I cannot find any deadline by which the border is to be secured,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican, at a hearing called to poke holes in the Senate bill.

This whole bill is about getting as many people into positions where they are Democrat voters and dependent on the Government. Everything else is window dressing, no matter how it is position. I will say that it would be wise for the Republicans in the House should come out with their own competing bill that is tough, fair, gives most a legal status that is for work only but not a path to citizenship, doesn’t allow all the members of the families to come to the US legally, truly secures the border and tracks those coming on visas, and truly restricts the use of government services.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Gang Of 8 Immigration Bill Will Supposedly Be Revenue Neutral »

Posted in Idiot GOPer's, Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Gang Of 8 Immigration Bill Will Supposedly Be Revenue Neutral | Trackback URL

Oops: The Greek Yogurt Fad Creates Massive Amounts Of Fish Killing Acid Whey

By William Teach May 22, 2013 – 2:36 pm

No, this has nothing to do with “climate change”, but a real environmental issue

(Grist) Bad news, Fage fans and Chobani lovers (we’re gonna call you “Chobuccaneers”). All that Greek yogurt you’re eating is creating a toxic byproduct: gallons upon gallons upon gallons of acid whey.

This is the same whey that Miss Muffett so enjoyed. Apparently she was a fish-hating sociopath in addition to being an arachnophobe. Modern Farmer reports:

It’s a thin, runny waste product that can’t simply be dumped. Not only would that be illegal, but whey decomposition is toxic to the natural environment, robbing oxygen from streams and rivers. That could turn a waterway into what one expert calls a “dead sea,” destroying aquatic life over potentially large areas. Spills of cheese whey, a cousin of Greek yogurt whey, have killed tens of thousands of fish around the country in recent years.

They’re paying farmers to take it off their hands, but there’s only so much they can do with it. So, they’re looking at other methods, but they require massive filtration that still leaves a mess. All these methods can require lots of capital investment.

PS: this is why I get upset when Warmists put real environmental issues under the banner of “climate change”: we need to deal with things like the above on their own. Not that they did it in this case, but, environmental issues are real.

Read: Oops: The Greek Yogurt Fad Creates Massive Amounts Of Fish Killing Acid Whey »

Posted in Environment | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 22, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is a super wonderful bridge for trains, which Other People should use instead of fossil fuels for travel, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on the State Dept’s weapons program.

Read: If All You See… »

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

And…Lois Lerner Did Plead The 5th

By William Teach May 22, 2013 – 11:03 am

As pointed out yesterday, this was expected

(Fox News) The director of the IRS division that singled out conservative groups refused to answer questions Wednesday at a House hearing on the program, as a Democratic lawmaker warned there would be “hell to pay” if the agency stonewalls Congress on its investigation.

The IRS official, Lois Lerner, invoked the Fifth Amendment Wednesday as she declared she would not testify or answer questions on the advice of counsel.

“I will not answer any questions or testify about the subject matter of this committee’s meeting,” she said.

However, her statements prompted confusion in the hearing room, as she delivered a brief opening statement in which she claimed she had done nothing wrong. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said that given her other remarks, she may have “effectively waived” her rights.

She has every right to take the 5th, but, the thing about the 5th is that it is meant to protect citizens from self-incrimination, not so that people can immediately infer that there is no assumption of guilt. Though, people shouldn’t necessarily jump to the conclusion that the person did something wrong. While in a courtroom. In the justice system.

Ms. Lerner should also expect to be recalled to the Hill to testify (and probably take the 5th), and possibly face charges, both criminal and for contempt of Congress. A Blaze reader, Fellow_Citizen, makes an interesting point

Try this stunt when the IRS is investigating YOU. Your assets would be gone, your house and business would be gone, and you would be in jail.

Also, Issa brought the humor

Apparently the IRS provided some documents to Democrats, but not Republicans.

Oh, and apparently no heads are going to roll.

Read: And…Lois Lerner Did Plead The 5th »

Posted in Current Affairs | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Milbank: “Government Makes Criminals Of Reporters”

By William Teach May 22, 2013 – 9:10 am

It’s nice to see reporters and professional opinion writers employed by media outlets finally understanding the lawlessness of this administration. It’s a shame that it took a flagrant abuse of the 1st Amendment to some of their own, “which it seems is the only way these days to get the jaded, Obama loving media off their f***ing arses and back to doing actual reporting”. Here’s the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank

There are various reasons you might not care about the Obama administration’s spying on journalist James Rosen and labeling him a “co-conspirator and/or aider and abettor” in an espionage case.

Liberals may not be particularly bothered because the targeted journalist works for Fox News. Conservatives may not be concerned because of their antipathy toward the news media generally. And the general public certainly doesn’t have much patience for journalists’ whining.

On one point, Milbank shouldn’t conflate Conservative antipathy towards the news media as not caring: yes, we find them to be highly partisan and biased towards the Democrat/Liberal/Progressive side, but, first, those of us who blog or read blogs depend on them for material (just not always in the way they expect), and, more importantly, we want them to act as the watchdogs of the Government, as the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, along with discussion papers pre-Constitution/BORs, wanted them to be, and not just when Republicans are in charge. The American people depend upon the Press to do their jobs and expose wrong-doing. Anyhow

But here’s why you should care — and why this case, along with the administration’s broad snooping into Associated Press phone records, is more serious than the other supposed Obama administration scandals regarding Benghazi and the Internal Revenue Service. The Rosen affair is as flagrant an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush’s administration, and it uses technology to silence critics in a way Richard Nixon could only have dreamed of.

To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public — deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based. Guns? Privacy? Due process? Equal protection? If you can’t speak out, you can’t defend those rights, either.

And Mr. Milbank has a good point: if the DOJ is going to go after The Press in these manners, a Press which is given an extra exemption in the 1st Amendment, what about coming after you? The DOJ even went after the phone records of James Rosen’s parents. This should be chilling for all, whether you are left, middle, or right politically. As Milbank writes

If the administration is spying on reporters and accusing them of criminality just for asking questions — well, who knows what else this crowd is capable of doing?

That’s what we’ve been saying for a long time. Perhaps The Press will now decide to go full bore on investigation and asking questions, instead of just a few, like Sharyl Atckinson and Jake Tapper, instead of acting as White House employees.

Read: Milbank: “Government Makes Criminals Of Reporters” »

Posted in 1st Amendment, Current Affairs | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove