If All You See…

By William Teach April 10, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is an ocean that will rise up and cause islands to tip over, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Public Secrets, with a post on Obamacare being too complex per an Obamacare designer.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Dems Heart Taxes

By William Teach April 10, 2013 – 10:02 am

They do, they really, really do!

(Washington Post) A clear majority of Americans have an unfavorable view of the federal income tax system, according to new Washington Post-ABC News polling. But, in a somewhat remarkable finding, a majority of Democrats view the tax system in a positive light while Republicans and Independents carry the exact opposite view.

I’m not sure why that is remarkable. Democrats love taxes. What’s missing, though, is that Democrats love taxes on Other People.

Fifty-three percent of self-identified Democrats in the Post-ABC survey view the income tax system favorably while 43 percent see it unfavorably. That’s a stark contrast to the 66 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of independents who have an unfavorable opinion of the tax system.

The WP’s Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan attempt to explain this

Part of the answer may well be that Democrats are broadly supportive of the idea that government can and should collect taxes in order to provide services for the American public while Republicans and independents are more skeptical about giving money to the federal government to spend.

Let’s fix that, shall we?

Part of the answer may well be that Democrats are broadly supportive of the idea that government can and should collect taxes in order to provide free services and free stuff for themselves paid for by Other People while Republicans and independents are more skeptical about giving money to the federal government to spend on bullshit programs like shrimp on a treadmill, Florida beauty school tuition, road signs touting stimulus funds at work, turtle tunnels, Solyndra, and others to the tune of boatloads of money.

If Democrats like the tax system and the way the money, forcibly taken by the government, so much, they should be willing to send more of their own money to the IRS. At all income levels, Democrats won’t. It’s always about Someone Else having their taxes increased.

Read: Dems Heart Taxes »

Posted in Taxation | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Here We Go: “Climate Change” To Shift Red Wine Production Very Far To The North

By William Teach April 10, 2013 – 8:25 am

Facts: a .08C increase in global temperatures since 1997. A miniscule .28F from 1990-2012. Varying data collections which show warming has paused anywhere from 15-19 years. Warmists who think this is all so dire that they refuse to give up their own fossil fueled lifestyles and refuse to go carbon neutral. Their cult is dying around them. Their attempts at science are continuously beaten by real science. What to do? More scary prognostications!

(Sydney Morning Herald) In 50 years, wines from Bordeaux and Tuscany will be insipid. Instead, we’ll all be drinking Montana merlots and Chinese clarets.

That, at any rate, is the implication of a paper published online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which estimates that anywhere from 19 to 73 per cent of the land suitable for wine-growing in today’s major wine regions will be lost to climate change by 2050. (The wide variance reflects the great uncertainty in climate prediction models.) As vineyards in Spain, Italy, and southern France wither, colder regions that are inhospitable today will be poised to take their place as the new grands crus.

If your prediction models predict a variance of 19 to 73 percent, your models stink and are based on wishful thinking, not science. We’re still waiting for the Warmists to tell us exactly what the optimum temperature for the Earth should be. Furthermore, Warmists are like Flat Earthers, in that they expect everything to always stay the same.

There’s just one catch, according to the study. Many of those new wine regions coincide with important habitat for species such as the gray wolf, the pronghorn, the grizzly bear, and in China’s case, the panda.

The most promising new region of all, according to lead author Lee Hannah of the non-profit organisation Conservation International, may be the area north of Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. That would put it directly in the path of a conservation initiative designed to connect Yellowstone to the Yukon. It’s that very type of wildlife corridor that scientists say may be needed to allow animals such as grizzly bears to respond to climate change themselves. “Vineyards would be a major impediment to this connectivity,” Hannah writes in a blog post about the study. “They provide poor habitat for wildlife, and would probably have to be fenced to avoid bears snacking on the grapes.”

And, there we go, the New Climate Deniers have linked “climate change” with conservation in an attempt to ramp up the scary prognostications from a 6 to a 9. During the previous warm period they were growing wine, good ones, in England. During the Little Ice Age wine grape production moved further south. But, seriously, all the way up to Wyoming and Montana? This is hysteria and cultish behavior, not science. The Carbon Sense Coalition pulls a great quote from H.L. Menken which perfectly encapsulates the New Climate Deniers

“The essence of science is that it is always willing to abandon a given idea, however fundamental it may seem to be, for a better one; the essence of theology is that it holds its truths to be eternal and immutable.”

Warmists are never willing to abandon their ideas: they’re only willing to stretch them so that no matter what happens, it is the fault of Mankind.

Read: Here We Go: “Climate Change” To Shift Red Wine Production Very Far To The North »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Unveils His “Take it Or Leave It” $3.77 Trillion Budget

By William Teach April 10, 2013 – 7:52 am

Said budget has managed to annoy both Democrats and Republicans

(Washington Post) President Obama plans Wednesday to unveil a $3.77 trillion spending plan that proposes modest new investments in infrastructure and education, major new taxes for the wealthy and significant reforms aimed at reducing the cost of Social Security and Medicare.

As Washington barrels toward another potential showdown over the federal debt limit later this summer, administration officials said the blueprint lays down the president’s bottom-line offer for getting federal borrowing under control.

“We don’t view this budget as a starting point in the negotiations. This is an offer where the president came more than halfway toward the Republicans,” a senior administration official told reporters Tuesday, speaking on condition of anonymity to detail the forthcoming document.

So, Pharaoh Obama is saying “here it is. I won’t negotiate on it. Pass it. Period. So let it be written, so let it be done.” Republicans aren’t keen on it, based on the pre-release information, as it increases spending, taxes, and deficits. The GOP says they already did tax increases during the previous deal, and won’t allow more taxes now. Obama’s budget imposes the “Buffett Rule”, requiring the uber-rich to pay at least 30% of their earnings (no mention of whether this is aimed at just “income” or includes all earnings, such as with capital gains) which will not take into account any charitable giving.

Liberals are upset over the supposed reductions in safety net programs, SSI, Medicare, Veterans Affairs, etc. The Chained CPI notion has really got the Dems panties in a bunch.

While seeking to reduce borrowing, the budget plan also proposes new spending to pump up the sluggish economy. The blueprint includes $50 billion for infrastructure projects, $1 billion for 15 new institutes to promote innovation in manufacturing and $8 billion for community-college programs that prepare students for existing jobs.

So, more pork barrel spending on infrastructure that should have been fixed through the Stimulus. Money to hook up Obama donors while he picks and chooses winners and losers. Money to train people for jobs that are not available in the Obama Economy.

The cost of those investments, officials said, would be covered through new taxes, including a $3 million cap on the value of individual retirements accounts and higher taxes on investment income earned as “carried interest.” Obama is also proposing to raise taxes on tobacco products to pay for a dramatic expansion of pre-school programs for low-income 4-year-olds.

All people will do is move the money that would have gone into IRAs elsewhere, which could take that money out of the US economy. When you’re talking about quite a few IRAs, yes, the money is meant to be shielded from the government taxing it, but it ends up being used for lots and lots of investments, including home and business loans, venture capital, mutual funds, stocks, and other means that help the private economy and other Americans.

Anyone want to place a bet on whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Dem) will even bring it up for a vote? I’m betting “no way in hell”. It’s a more serious budget than Obama has proposed previously, but it’s a loser from the get go.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Obama Unveils His “Take it Or Leave It” $3.77 Trillion Budget »

Posted in Barry Obama, Economy, Taxation | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Obama Energy Secretary Nominee Wants To Skyrocket Your Energy Costs

By William Teach April 9, 2013 – 4:25 pm

Sound familiar? The Soros funded monkeys at Joe Romm’s Climate Progress are thrilled by this notion (at least as it pertains to Other People)

Tuesday is the confirmation hearing date for Energy Secretary nominee Ernest Moniz. The MIT professor will face the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee (webcast here starts at 10 am ET). (snip)

Moniz is exceedingly knowledgeable about carbon issues. Just last year told the Switch Energy Project he supports a carbon price that would substantially increase electricity costs:

“If we start really squeezing down on carbon dioxide over the next few decades, well, that could double; it could eventually triple…. I think inevitably if we squeeze down on carbon, we squeeze up on the cost, it brings along with it a push toward efficiency; it brings along with it a push towards clean technologies in a conventional pollution sense; it brings along with it a push towards security. Because after all, the security issues revolve around carbon-bearing fuels.”

Romm, the writer of the above post, fails to mention that this will cause serious financial hardship for middle and lower income Americans. Leftists/Warmists could care less about harming (Other) people, because they have a narrow rigid fascistic dogma to enact.

Read: Good News: Obama Energy Secretary Nominee Wants To Skyrocket Your Energy Costs »

Posted in Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Stimulus Recipient Flabeg Solar Shuts Down

By William Teach April 9, 2013 – 1:54 pm

Anyone surprised? No?

(CNS News) A Pittsburgh, Pa. solar energy company has shut its doors four years after receiving nearly $10.2 million in tax credits from the Obama Administration as part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.

Flabeg Solar U.S. Corp., a $30 million solar plant located near the Pittsburgh International Airport, opened its doors in 2009 and was said to provide 300 jobs. Now, just four years later, the plant has shut down and laid off more than 60 workers. In addition to this, 10 of its former employees have petitioned a federal judge for severance pay after they lost their jobs last month, according to PA Independent.

Robert Lampl, the attorney for Flabeg, said the company would probably seek Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection from the workers who are suing over their severance pay.

Now, liberals will say “hey, it was only $10 million dollars!” Only in leftist world is $10 million chump change.

Read: Stimulus Recipient Flabeg Solar Shuts Down »

Posted in Barry Obama, Democrats, Energy | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 9, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is a fridge with a planet killing ice maker, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on Obama’s supposed budget cuts.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Dem Julian Castro Really Wants Amnesty Done

By William Teach April 9, 2013 – 12:04 pm

So, Julian Castro is a very far left Democrat who has worked for the racist Hispanic group La Raza United, which his mother helped found. Said group wants parts of the Southwest split off to be an exclusionary nation. And now he writes

(Politico) Members of Congress have returned to our nation’s capital after a two-week break for the Easter holiday. And now that they’re all back, they should immediately address one of the most pressing issues facing our country: the need for responsible and comprehensive immigration reform.

As the grandson of an immigrant orphan from Mexico who found opportunity in this great country, and as mayor of our nation’s seventh-largest city – a community that looks like the Texas and America of tomorrow – I’m constantly reminded that immigration is more than a political issue. It’s who we are. (Snip)

To fix our broken immigration system in a responsible way, we must do at least three things. We need to further strengthen border security, we need to streamline the legal immigration process so law-abiding companies can get the workers they need in today’s global economy, and we need to create a path to citizenship to bring the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country out of the shadows and into the full light of the American Dream.

In other words, amnesty for people who laugh at the laws of the United States and come here illegally. And those elected officials who likewise ignore The Law.

But, hey, I actually know of a way that these illegals could become legal US residents: they could go back to wherever the hell they came from and then apply for work visas or citizenship. And they can take this racist mayor with them.

The only thing that’s broken is the politics, where the law is ignored.

Read: Dem Julian Castro Really Wants Amnesty Done »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Oh Oh: There’s A War On Women In Obama’s “Green” Economy

By William Teach April 9, 2013 – 9:21 am

While they do get paid a bit more in the “green” economy, a much lower percentage are working in the “green” economy. Supposedly, there are 3.4 million “green” jobs (school bus drivers, scrap metal workers, employee at a bike shop, and, yes, even an oil industry lobbyist) out there, but….

(Climate Progress) ….the green sector offers new opportunities for good-paying jobs across the U.S. and raises the question: Are women benefitting from the transition to a green economy as much as men?

A new study suggests not, finding that women hold just three out of ten green jobs in the U.S. and are making less than men in the green sector. In the report “Quality Employment for Women in the Green Economy,” the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) provides estimates of the number of green jobs held by women within each state, industry and occupation using data gathered from surveys (BLS Green Goods and Services Survey and U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2008-2010), state reports and a 2011 report on green jobs (Brookings study). Several of the key findings from the report include:

  • Women are underrepresented in the green economy, holding just 29.5 percent of green jobs compared to 48 percent of the total U.S. workforce
  • The distribution of jobs in the green economy is more concentrated in industries that typically employ more men than women, including manufacturing, construction, transportation, warehousing and utilities
  • Women’s share of green jobs is expected to stay low since the occupations that are projected to see the most growth are traditionally held by men (heating and air conditioning technicians, carpenters and electricians)

Their incomes are a bit higher and the income gap is smaller in the “green” sector versus the private sector, but, overall, the “green” economy is inherently sexist. Good job, Obama!

I should probably stop there, but, there is a lot of interesting information in that Brooking study. For one thing, the “clean economy”, as they term it, only has 2.7 million workers, not the 3.4 million that has been cited for years (one would think that number might grow at some point). One of the top sectors is “regulation and compliance” (141,890 jobs). They are terming “public transportation” as a “clean job”, even though a good chunk relies on fossil fuels. We also learn that all these types of jobs were created initially under Bush 41, Bill Clinton, and Bush 43. None for Obama.

And, once again, let me point out that there is nothing wrong with “clean” jobs and the “green” economy. We should look to being more environmentally friendly (not talking about CO2, but, we could do with reducing Methane and a few other greenhouse gases that are much more potent than CO2). Look towards eventually replacing oil, both for fuel and lubrication, with products that work (unlike using corn for fuel). Less land, sea, and air pollution (again, not talking about CO2). My problem with the way Obama does it is that he uses taxpayer money to reward campaign contributors and push certain programs, regardless of whether they have any chance of succeeding, plus the way he pushes it for “climate change”. He had a chance to really push it and get both sides involved, but, he had to get hyper-political, as usual.

Oh, and I blame Obama for the green economy being sexist.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Oh Oh: There’s A War On Women In Obama’s “Green” Economy »

Posted in Barry Obama, Economy, Energy, Environment | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmist Links Capitalism And Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach April 8, 2013 – 3:04 pm

Is anyone surprised that a Warmists dislikes capitalism (for others, of course. They want money and stuff for themselves). In the Grist article, entitled How capitalism stacks the deck on disaster, New Climate Denier Steve Fraser tells us all about the Evils of Wall Street, the insurance industry, and capitalism while discussing Superstorm Sandy and other natural disasters (which, of course, he says aren’t natural). It’s full of typical Warmist/Progressive complaints, blaming fossil fuels while avoiding blaming all the Warmists who buy fossil fueled vehicles, lots and lots of ginned up racism, class envy, etc, and ends thusly

More Sandys are surely headed our way, more climate-driven disasters of all sorts than we can now fully imagine. And rest assured, they will be no more “natural” than the Chicago fire, the Johnstown flood, or the San Francisco earthquake. More than fire itself what we need to deal with now is the power of the finance, insurance, and real estate — or FIRE — sector whose leading corporations now effectively run our economy. Without doing that, the “nature” these interests have helped create will punish us all while providing a ghoulish boondoggle for a few.

So, we apparently need to Do Something about these industries, probably something like nationalizing them. Strange that the author forgot to tell us what we are Supposed To Do, surely because these far left Progressives don’t like to usually give away what their true goals are.

Read: Warmist Links Capitalism And Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove