Judge Rules Against Possum Drop, Brings Irony

By William Teach November 13, 2012 – 1:34 pm

Unintentional, and hilarious, irony

(Raleigh N&O) A Wake County judge has ordered a halt to the annual Opossum Drop in the mountain community of Brasstown, a victory for animal rights groups who called lowering the marsupial in a tinsel-covered box on New Year’s Eve is inhumane.

See, all sorts of animal rights whiners have gone whiny whiner over slowly lowering a possum on New Years. Here’s where it gets funny

“WRC should therefore have instructed Logan to immediately release the opossum into the wild where the opossum had been captured, or kill it,” Morrison wrote in his order.

Heh! I bet the possum would prefer the cushy life of getting fed, blazing around, and having to be in a box once a year to being killed.

The story also illustrates the idiocy of government overreach, since the judge ruled the way he did due to the store owner not having the “right permits” to keep a possum. Silly.

Read: Judge Rules Against Possum Drop, Brings Irony »

Posted in Enviroweenies, NC News | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 13, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…are some wonderful carrots surely grown organically in a wonderful low emissions socialist nation, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Camp Of The Saints, with a post on marching fascism

Read: If All You See… »

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

McMorris-Rodgers Pushing “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”

By William Teach November 13, 2012 – 11:06 am

Cathy McMorris-Rodgers is an up and coming star in the GOP. She’s the fourth leading Republican in the House. She was the person I hoped Romney would pick. Alas, she seems to be moving toward the amnesty viewpoint

(The Hill) Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) on Sunday said the GOP didn’t need to adopt “more moderate” positions, but rather needed to become “more modern” by being better inclusive of women and minorities.

“I don’t think it’s about the Republican Party needing to become more moderate. I really believe it’s the Republican Party becoming more modern,” said McMorris Rodgers, during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

In other words, she’s talking about pandering. Over the past 6 years or so, the GOP has moved away from the ultra-pandering campaign mode, since that involves promising that the Government will Do Something, which always involves money that the nation can’t afford. The problem is that the GOP view of “hey, we need some fiscal responsibility and we want to empower you” is competing against the Democrat nation of “here’s free stuff.” If I tell you “I’ll give you $25 to mow my yard so you can buy food” but my neighbor says “I’ll simply give you $15 to buy food”, which do you choose? Well, the majority of American voters chose the latter. How do you compete with the free stuff campaign?

“Whether it’s Hispanics, whether it’s women, whether it’s young people, the Republican Party has to make it a priority to take our values, to take our vision to every corner of this country,” she said.

Vision is good. But, that’s not what she means

Former Commerce Secretary and the head of GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s Hispanic Steering Committee Carlos Gutierrez said he “would lay the blame squarely on the far right wing” for driving away minority voters.

Former Utah governor and one-time presidential candidate Jon Huntsman said his party had “no vision,” adding it “needs to decide whether it wants to win or lose.”

But all three said the GOP should forge ahead with immigration reform to win support from Hispanic groups.

So, she’s joining the squishy “let’s give people who broke the law” amnesty crowd. It won’t earn the GOP any votes. But, it looks like the GOP is looking for some sort of excuse.

Sadly, it looks like Ed Morrissey is also buying into the immigration reform argument, with the hope of border security being included. Even if passed that way, the border control would never materialize.

Michelle Malkin, on the other hand, is completely un-amused by the return of Shamnesty talk and GOP squishyness.

It comes down to “are we a nation of law or a nation of men?”

Read: McMorris-Rodgers Pushing “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” »

Posted in GOP, Idiot GOPer's, Illegal Immigration | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Socialist Mayor Proposes Banning All Classic And “Old Bangers” From Paris

By William Teach November 13, 2012 – 8:25 am

Would it surprise you that this is mostly about the climate change hoax?

(Telegraph) Under proposals presented to the city council on Monday, Socialist mayor Bertrand Delanoë intends to outlaw by September 2014 the use of cars and utility vehicles more than 17 years old and lorries or buses more than 18 years old.

Motorcycles built before 2004 will also be forbidden, as the mayor said they were the “most polluting and noisiest”.

The “old banger” ban will apply to all vehicles inside the A86 motorway that surrounds the French capital.

Hooray, we’re saved!

The plan would “exclude the poorest people from driving in the capital” and turn Paris into an “island for the rich”, he told Le Parisien newspaper.

You know, those poor people who rely on older cars. So, what to do?

The Socialists insisted they would introduce “social” measures to help families and businesses update vehicles, including state subsidies to scrap old cars for new ones – a move experts dubbed unrealistic given the huge cost of such a measure at a time of austerity.

Why, yes, they’ll offer more money they don’t have. Sound familiar? They also propose a whole range of taxes and fees. Why?

They are part of a plan to turn Paris into a Low Emission Zone, cutting emissions by 30 per cent by 2015. Failure to comply with European air pollution norms could see Brussels slap a 100 million-euro fine on France in 2016.

Certainly, all those vehicles, especially the older ones and those that run on diesel, provide quite a bit of actual air pollution, such as NO2, ozone, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which create smog, and particulate matter. But, this is aimed at reducing CO2 which has been so devastating that there has been no change in the world temperature over the last 16 years.

I find it interesting how Warmist doctrine always seems to resemble Big Government fascism and nanny statism, with the requisite taxes, fees, control, and give backs.

Read: Socialist Mayor Proposes Banning All Classic And “Old Bangers” From Paris »

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

ObamaCare Still Has Plenty Of Legal Challenges In The Works

By William Teach November 13, 2012 – 8:01 am

Many people got on John Boehner’s case for saying that Obamacare is now “the law of the land.” Unfortunately, he’s right. With the loss of the race for the White House, and no control of the Senate, there is now way for the GOP to repeal it, or even water it down and/or limit its damage. At least at this time. If, say, the GOP manages to win the Senate and White House in 2016, it will be darned hard to repeal and replace a law that involves 1/6th of the U.S. economy. That said, there are still plenty of legal challenges to the law

(Politico) The Supreme Court gave its definitive ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act in June.

Actually, no. The ruling kicked the can down the road to hear legal challenges on the Mandate till 2014, when people will be actually affected by the tax.

But that hasn’t stopped three other legal challenges to core provisions of Obamacare — including the mandates and subsidies — that could unravel big parts of the law if they succeed.

One case challenges whether people can get subsidies for health insurance in states that don’t run their own insurance exchanges. Another puts forth a new legal argument against the constitutionality of the individual and employer mandates. And the third argues that the law isn’t valid because it originated in the Senate, and the Constitution says tax legislation needs to start in the House.

There’s also a barrage of lawsuits against the administration’s contraception coverage requirement, which wouldn’t derail the overall legislation but would keep the public focused on a controversial aspect of the law.

Of course, the ultimate challenge will be when the law truly starts affecting and harming people. When companies start dropping their insurance plans. When costs go up due to the massive bureaucracy necessary to run this polished turd of a law. When doctors refuse to accept the insurance offered through the exchanges, along with dropping Medicare and Medicaid coverage en masse. When the Central Government restricts procedures, medicines, and cause rationing.

And while the lawyers fight it out, the cases continue to be political irritants and a way to keep the antagonism to the law burning hot.

How dare you pesky American citizens fight against your masters!!!!!!

The subsidies, in the form of tax credits, are available only through these exchanges. But the law was based on the assumption that most states would run the exchanges with the federal government as a backup. Yet at this point, only 13 states and Washington seem likely to run their own exchanges, although a few undecided states could tip that way. The rest will either let the feds run them or will create so-called partnership exchanges with the Department Health and Human Services and the states divvying up responsibilities.

Oklahoma — building its case on an argument made by the Cato Institute and Case Western Reserve University Law professor Jonathan Adler — argues that the subsidies can be administered only through the state exchanges, not federal ones.

This is a big one, because, no matter the intent of the whole 2,700 page law, the specifics in the law made no provision for the Federal government to administer the subsidies. Oops.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: ObamaCare Still Has Plenty Of Legal Challenges In The Works »

Posted in Healthcare | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Puppy Vs Doorstop

By William Teach November 12, 2012 – 5:08 pm

Because you probably need some cheering up

Read: Puppy Vs Doorstop »

Posted in Like, Gnarly, Dude | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Defense Dept: “No Credible Threat Pre-Benghazi”

By William Teach November 12, 2012 – 2:32 pm

Here’s a new, and disturbing, spin

(UPI) A Defense Department official, speaking on background, provided a timeline of the U.S. military response to the deadly consulate attack.

“I would note … that there was no specific or credible threat that we knew of on the day that the attacks … occurred in Benghazi,” the official said.

Perhaps we do need to enforce the sequestration, and do away with some of the dead wood and non-combat military members warming chairs. Because others sure were worried

The International Committee of the Red Cross pulled its staff out of Benghazi and the State Department issued travel warnings for the region ahead of the attacks, however.

News outlets around the world were discussing the increasing danger in Benghazi and the surrounding area to Westerners from Islamic jihadis. Many of them were pulling their operations out of Benghazi. And we knew there were jihadis streaming in to eastern Libya and Benghazi during the civil war when the U.S. was bombing. Oh, and then there is this

(CNN) Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri again referenced the Benghazi, Libya, attack in an audio tape posted on jihadist websites last week, in remarks that, like all his statements, were immediately carefully scrutinized by counter-terrorism analysts searching for clues about the terrorist network’s operations.

Al-Zawahiri had called for Americans to be targeted in Libya the day before the diplomatic mission was attacked, leading to speculation that al Qaeda’s leadership in Pakistan had some sort of role or influence in the attack.

So, the day before the attack you have al Qaeda’s leader calling for attacks. Humph. You had Ambassador Stevens and many others screaming for more security. And, it was, you know, September 11th. Oh, and that whole thing about tons of people showing up with al Qaeda and Taliban style flags and headbands. The group that was supposed to provide security taking pictures of the American buildings. And it was September 11th. Now, if this had occurred in say, June, that might be a different story. Islamists love using certain dates to plan attacks. 9/11 is the big one.

Read: Obama Defense Dept: “No Credible Threat Pre-Benghazi” »

Posted in RoP, War On Terrorism | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 12, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is the sea being saved by the carbon limiting efforts of progressive paradise France, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Flopping Aces, with a post on the Obama lemmings.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Excitable Juan Williams: Brokeifornia’s New Election Rules Are Super Awesome

By William Teach November 12, 2012 – 8:50 am

In case you didn’t hear, the brokeyest broke state in the Union has new election rules. On one hand, Juan Williams has some interesting point about them. On the flip side, ugh

(The Hill) Polarization and gridlock have paralyzed Congress. But now, a bright ray of hope for ending those twin curses is emerging from election results in California.

The optimism begins with changes in the system for electing lawmakers in the Golden State, home to the largest congressional biggest delegation.

In 2010, a diverse group of the state’s biggest political stakeholders — including the California Chamber of Commerce, the AARP and then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger — united to support a ballot proposition creating a bipartisan commission that redrew the geographic lines for California’s congressional districts.

Hey, bipartisan! Sweet…but

Out of California’s 53 House races, seven incumbents lost their seats as they ran in more diverse districts — in which candidates had to appeal to more diverse neighborhoods and political groups.

So, they were gerrymandered in order to create more Democrat friendly districts. Two Republicans are in 50-50 races right now. Here’s where it gets more interesting

The proposition also changed the rules for the general election.

The old system pitted the winners of the party’s primaries against each other. The new system provides for the two candidates with the most votes in an open congressional primary to move on to the general election — even if they belong to the same party.

On one hand, this is a good way to clean out the incumbents. As Juan noted, 7 lost their seats (it should be noted that 2 incumbents lost in newly created districts and were competing against another incumbent, in both cases Democrat). However, under the new rules there were 6 districts where only Democrats were on the ballot and 2 where only Republicans were on the ballot. Let’s look at a few

  • In the 31st, there were 4 Democrats and 2 Republicans for the primary. It ended up R vs R. So, no Dem competing in the General
  • In the 35th, 2 Dems and one Green. The Green was not on the General election ballot
  • In the 30th, 3 R’s, 3 D’s, and one Green. The General ballot featured 2 Democrats.
  • The 8th, 10 R’s, 2 D’s, one Independent. The General ballot featured 2 Republicans

Granted, in all of these the chance of the other party (or 3rd Party) winning the district was mostly zip. However, should the people of Brokeifornia not have the chance to vote for a different party on the ballot during the General Election? This limits democracy.

Under this new system, the 24/7 news cycle and partisan bloggers, which encourage the loudest and most extreme voices, are not as able to define the race and control the outcome.

How dare you darned news folks and jammie wearing bloggers push your opinions!!!!!!1!!!!

The bottom line is that voters have more choice among candidates competing for the middle ground, not to be a champion of one political extreme.

Exactly how is limiting the number of people on a ballot creating more choice? How is shutting out competing parties “more choice”?

This also applies to the State legislature races, in which featured 19 same party races. None of the state or House races have seemed to “create more moderates”, as was the intention.

Read: Excitable Juan Williams: Brokeifornia’s New Election Rules Are Super Awesome »

Posted in Elections | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

White House Inundated With Secession Petitions

By William Teach November 12, 2012 – 8:03 am

If you’ll remember, Team Obama created a website, using White House resources and it’s URL, as a “new way to petition the Obama Administration to take action on a range of important issues facing our country.” They “created We the People because we want to hear from you. If a petition gets enough support, White House staff will review it, ensure it’s sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response.” In actuality, it seems to be more of a way to to scrape email addresses and names to soft pedal how super duper great Team Obama is and send subtly veiled campaign messages. There have been some interesting ones, quite a few having to do with far left issues, such as making marijuana legal (these crop up a lot, then disappear down the memory hole), and, oh, here’s a fun one

outlaw offending prophets of major religions

The petition mentions Jesus, Moses, and Mohammed, but, we all know it’s about protecting Islam.

So, are there other fun petitions? Why, yes there are, thank you for asking!

(Daily Caller) How would Old Glory look with 30 stars instead of 50? As far-fetched as it may sound, the White House might soon be forced by its own rules to examine the question.

On Nov.7, the day after President Barack Obama was re-elected, the White House’s website received a petition asking the administration to allow Louisiana to secede.

If 25,000 people sign the petition by Dec. 7, it will “require a response” from the Obama administration, according to published rules of the White House’s online “We the People” program.

“Michael E” from the New Orleans suburb of Slidell penned the initial proposal — the website doesn’t provide last names — in which he asked the Obama administration to “[p]eacefully grant the State of Louisiana to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government.”

His entire petition consisted of excerpts from the Declaration of Independence.

Micah H from Texas also created a petition for Texas to secede. Oh, and

…states with secession-related petitions pending on the White House website now include Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina and Tennessee.

Three states – Georgia, Missouri and South Carolina are each represented by two competing petitions.

Most of the petitions simply copy much of Louisiana’s petition. It will be interesting to see if any get the required 25K signatures which would lead to an administration response, which would be interesting, as well. Most previous responses tend to say “look at what we’ve proposed, we told Someone Else to handle it, then ran off to campaign, vacation, and play golf.”

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: White House Inundated With Secession Petitions »

Posted in 1st Amendment, Current Affairs | 12 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove