MSNBC Wonders If A White President Would Get Interrupted During Speech

By William Teach June 16, 2012 – 7:33 am

As you’re probably aware by now, The Daily Callers Neil Munro “interrupted” Obama by daring to ask him a question at the end of Obama’s statement announcing his new de facto immunity program (I’m not calling it amnesty, because the illegals in question are not being given citizenship. Yet). It was an ill timed question at the end of a speech in which the White House had announced that it would not take questions from the press, probably because Obama doesn’t do well with questions. The line “the private economy is doing fine” came about during a Q&A session. The rest of that session last week was pretty bad, too. It was ill time, because Obama runs on so long that sometimes people don’t know if he’s ended, especially since Obama sometimes pauses like he expects applause.

Anyhow, The Blaze watches MSNBC so the rest of us don’t have to deal with the insanity

MSNBC jumped at the opportunity to pull the race card after The Daily Caller‘s Neil Munro and President Obama got into a heated exchange during the president’s White House speech on immigration earlier today.

“This is just so unprecedented and outrageous, that you have to ask the question, would the right-wing be doing this if we had a white president there?“ MSNBC guest and Democratic strategist Julian Epstein asked on ”Bashir Live.”

“Well, you go ahead and answer that question Julian,” host Martin Bashir replied.

So he did.

“I think it’s a very important question because I think this is the first African-American president. We’ve never had a white president been told by the opposing party to shut up in the middle of a major address to the Congress. We’ve never had a president like this heckled so disrespectfully. We‘ve never had this otherness afforded to any other president and I think the right wing has some explaining to do because to me it’s patently obvious,” he said.

Video available at the link, if you can stomach the leftist tools pulling the race card yet again.

Was it rude? A bit. Disrespectful? Was the journalist trying to do his job by asking the POTUS questions? Yes. That’s what journalists do. And let’s not forget, the POTUS is not a god, not royalty. POTUS is just another citizen of the USA, and is supposed to be responsible to The People.

Many Lefties, like Talking Point Memo’s David Kurtz, are having fits, saying this is terrible. Or, like above, raaaaacist. They sure didn’t feel that way when Bush was interrupted. They laughed when someone threw a shoe at Bush. Back in 2009, American Power highlighted Democrats applauding their own obstructionism, interrupting Bush’s 2006 State of the Union speech. Interrupted by liberals during an Independence Day speech. Bush was interrupted many times by liberal protesters. Interestingly, none on the left complained about it. ABC News has a list of some other notable interruptions, and how presidents handled that.

Oh, look, here’s some more of those evil raaaaacist right wingers interrupting Obama during a speech

Weird how when it’s Occupy Wall Street interrupting he doesn’t get all snappy and petulant. And liberals don’t become all self righteous about it being rude and stuff.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: MSNBC Wonders If A White President Would Get Interrupted During Speech »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Barry Obama, Current Affairs, Democrats, Liberal World | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

What Are The Five Annoying Types Of Republicans?

By William Teach June 15, 2012 – 5:02 pm

I don’t link John Hawkins as much as I should since I’ve been crossposting at Right Wing News. Here’s a good one, where John offers up the Five annoying types of Republicans, over at Townhall. Those five are the sell outs, the purists, the appropriators (big spenders), bubbleheads, and compromisers. I’d suggest reading them all. Here’s the type that annoys me the most on the list

5) The Compromise Fetishists: There’s nothing wrong with compromise per se. Republicans should be willing to compromise with Democrats — if it’s on a bill that will make the country significantly better overall. How many bills are there fitting that description that have been passed in the last decade or so? Certainly no more than a handful — and none have been passed during the Obama Administration. That’s because “compromise” in D.C. usually starts with the idea that Democrats get 90% of what they want and then Republicans negotiate to see how badly they’re going to lose. Yet, we hear some Republicans lauding compromise like it’s a worthwhile goal in and of itself. A compromise on a bad bill isn’t a win. Did Republicans make a mistake by refusing to work with the Democrats on the stimulus or Obamacare? Should they have worked with Obama to raise taxes, pass comprehensive immigration reform, or to do another stimulus? Of course not! Half of stupid is still pretty stupid, stupid.

These are Republicans that can also be sell outs and anti-purists. They aren’t pure sell outs as positioned in the article, but they often spend lots of time going after Republicans and Conservatives (see Outside the Beltway). They aren’t necessarily performing as trained seals (see: Meghan McCain, John McCain, Kathleen Parker, Newt Gingrich, etc) in attempting to get liberals to love them, they just like going after Republicans who push Republican policy. And they tend to also get really upset when Conservatives push conservative notions, a kind of anti-purity, if you will.

Compromise for the sake of political expediency is an absurd notion, especially when Republicans get nothing out of it. See the times that Democrats have offer $3 in cuts at some unknown point down the road for every $1 in tax increases right now. Those cuts never happen.

Read: What Are The Five Annoying Types Of Republicans? »

Posted in GOP | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 15, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is a dog that is bad for Gaia sitting in a flooded world, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Finding Ponies.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Obama Admin. To Offer “Immunity” To Some Illegal Aliens

By William Teach June 15, 2012 – 10:28 am

I’m wondering if someone in the Obama administration could point to the legislation that the duly elected Legislative branch has passed that allows this

(AP) The Obama administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives. The election-year initiative addresses a top priority of an influential Latino electorate that has been vocal in its opposition to administration deportation policies.

Even the AP can’t stop themselves in pointing out that this is simply campaign year politics, rather than serious policy. What Democrats always forget when they essentially push some type of amnesty is that these people still can’t vote, and the other illegals that want these policies can’t vote, either. And those who came to the US and obtained their citizenship the proper way aren’t particularly keen on voting for those who give illegals a free pass.

The policy change, described to The Associated Press by two senior administration officials, will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation. It also bypasses Congress and partially achieves the goals of the so-called DREAM Act, a long-sought but never enacted plan to establish a path toward citizenship for young people who came to the United States illegally but who have attended college or served in the military.

Yes, most of these kids had no choice, their parents brought them. And, yes, perhaps we can make some accommodations for those who have worked to make themselves a valuable part of American society, rather than drains on our social safety net programs. But, we have a Legislative branch for a reason. The Executive Branch can’t simply make up the rules. Mr. I Was A Constitutional Professor doesn’t seem to understand the Constitution very well.

The work permits will be for two years, and have no renewal limit. So, while Americans are suffering 8%+ unemployment, Obama wants to offer jobs to illegals.

Michelle Malkin: “Putting politics above national security and the rule of law.”

Weasel Zippers: “Unbelievable abuse of power.”

Jammie Wearing Fool: “When all else fails, be sure to divide the nation even further.”

Evening update: I tried to add a few more thoughts and links earlier, but, for whatever reason, my Droid WordPress app was cutting off everything after the second excerpt, even though not a long post.

Anyhow, I find it interesting that approximately 24 hours after pivoting back to jobs and the economy for the umpteenth time PBO has shifted away from jobs and the economy, at least jobs for those who are currently eligible for the small pool of jobs. Giving illegals the ability to legally obtain jobs means, as mentioned above, that there will be more competition for the small amount of jobs available, knocking Americans out of the running. More competition can mean lower wages.

Rep. Steve King plans to sue the Obama administration, as the Daily Caller reports. I’ve also heard that he first plans on demanding an explanation from Team O as to the Constitutional and legal reasoning behind this “immunity” policy.

Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio somewhat agree with the new policy. Again, I don’t have a huge problem with the policy, America is a generous, welcoming nation. But, what happens then? Will we, and by we, I mean Democrats and squishy Republicans, say we now shouldn’t deport the parents? Will this create the impetus for more illegals to come, after they had been leaving the country because of the poor economy? Will they then be naturalized, and given the ability to vote, jumping ahead of those who applied for citizenship the legal way?

The Lonely Conservative also wonders if the ability to suddenly vote in November is next.

The problem I have is going around Congress, the duly appointed branch of government which is deemed with passing laws.

Just One Minute points out, per the LA Times, that an executive order is only in affect as long as Obama is president. So, if PBO is voted out come November, this executive order is null and void.

Finally, cruising all the Memeorandum links, I can’t find any liberals who seem to have a problem with the president legislating by executive order, while they had a huge problem with Bush using executive orders, even when within the law (which they mostly were). They typically freaked out, calling Bush’s use of EOs a gross abuse of power. Now? Not a peep.

Oh, and as many have pointed out, including Marco Rubio in the above link, this little power grab by Obama will make it harder to come to some sort of agreement on actual long term legislation.

Read: Obama Admin. To Offer “Immunity” To Some Illegal Aliens »

Posted in Barry Obama, Illegal Immigration | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Good Grief: Dallas Reboot Incorporates “Green”

By William Teach June 15, 2012 – 8:55 am

For those who watched the new Dallas reboot (I didn’t. Wasn’t interested in the first, not interested in this one), did you catch the underlying theme? No? Well, let Time Magazines Ecocentric explain it

In case you thought that the battle between big oil and alternative fuel had cooled down, Hollywood has proven that the debate is hot enough to inspire soap opera-style drama. The central conflicts in the new reboot of the TV show “Dallas,” which premiered Wednesday night on TNT, revolve around questions of clean energy.

The Ewing clan, as we know from the first version of the show (which aired from 1978 to 1991), made its money in the oil business. In this new version, writers have attempted to update the show by using clean energy as a catalyst for conflict among the family members. The main struggle lies between Christopher and John Ross. Christopher, the “good guy,” has abandoned drilling in favor of exploring alternative energy sources; his hopes lie in methane hydrates (frozen methane trapped on the ocean floor). John Ross, on the other hand, is a fracking fanatic. In typical big oil, bad guy fashion, he is a liar and cheater motivated purely by his greed. Much of the tension in the show will surely arise from John Ross’ desire to drill in Southfork, home to the Ewing family.

And there you have it: Dallas is all about evil fossil fuels versus super awesome green energy. I wonder if they realize that methane is a considerably more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Probably not. Facts and science tend to be lost on Warmists. But, the use of this method to create conflict will be sure to drive people to change the channel as they are constantly preached at.

Oh, and if you loved the movie The Avengers, Time makes sure to ruin it for you

“Dallas” is not the first Hollywood franchise to structure a plot around the question of clean energy. Just a month ago, the team of superheroes in The Avengers took on the villain Loki in a fight for the Tesseract, an energy source of unknown power. U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu referenced the Tesseract in a Facebook wall post that asked Congress to extend the renewable energy tax credits, comparing the battle for the Tesseract to the global competition for clean energy. Even though the team must return the Tesseract to its home planet at the end of the film, Tony Stark (a.k.a. Iron Man) succeeds in using the same technology that power his Iron Man suit to give his flagship skyscraper Stark Tower a self-sustaining energy supply.

Clean energy would be great, if many Warmists would stop blocking projects when they get beyond the paper stage and move to the construction phase. If someone did actually try and use something like the Tesseract, or build an energy source like Tony Stark did in the Ironman movies, environmentalists, the EPA, and an alphabet soup of federal agencies would be all over them with a raft of lawsuits and regulations.

Read: Good Grief: Dallas Reboot Incorporates “Green” »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Barking Moonbats, Energy, Enviroweenies | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Dana Milbank On Obama Speech: “Skip The Falsehoods, Mr. Obama”

By William Teach June 15, 2012 – 8:08 am

So, Thursday, Obama gave his big “rebooting” speech, which amounted to a hodge podge of every other speech he’s given over the last 5 years, including his election 2008 speeches. He offered nothing new, including his whining. Politicker has a selection of media tweets, which includes MSNBC’s Mike O’Brien begging Obama to stop after 20 minutes (yes, the speech was 54 minutes long, which is a long time to say nothing). Of course the NY Times editorial board, despite finding the speech “endless”, cheerleads the endless speech. Then there’s Leftist Dana Milbank at the Washington Post

I had high hopes for President Obama’s speech on the economy. But instead of going to Ohio on Thursday with a compelling plan for the future, the president gave Americans a falsehood wrapped in a fallacy.

Well, he was probably one of about 5 people who had high hopes for what was billed as a major speech that would contain no new policy plans. This was simply part of the Obama presidency pattern: When the going gets tough, Obama gives a speech. Which assigns Blame to everybody and anything but Obama. Throws a few well worn ideas that have already been shown to be losers out on the table telling Someone Else to actually do the hard work in implementing them while he runs off to yet another fundraiser.

The falsehood is that he has been serious about cutting government spending. The fallacy is that this election will be some sort of referendum that will break the logjam in Washington.

Milbank goes on to describe the fallacy, which ends with the notion that breaking the logjam requires compromise, not conquest. Remember, Obama set the table early on with his “I won” sayings, guaranteed to make sure that Republicans would refuse to work with him. There’s also the notion that yes, politics does often require compromise, however you don’t compromise when you know that the policies are destructive.

And that leads to the falsehood. Despite his claim that “both parties have laid out their policies on the table,” Obama has made no serious proposal to fix the runaway entitlement programs that threaten to swamp the government’s finances.

Milbank specifically targets Medicare, referring to Obama’s plan as “nonsensical.”

Instead, Obama’s speech was a rehash of earlier proposals — such as sending more Americans to community college and spending more on clean energy. Those plans for additional spending would be more credible if he had a plausible plan to reform entitlement spending, the biggest driver of future debt.

What’s the point in sending people to college if there are no jobs for them once they graduate? Clean energy is a worthy goal, yet pissing the money away on projects bound to fail, and, incidentally, funneling the money to campaign contributors, has turned people away from Obama’s version.

The GOP puts “President Zero’s Fantastic Nothing-Burger” into numbers

  • 0: New Ideas That Obama Offered For Struggling Americans.
  • 54: Minutes That Obama Spent Telling Us He Doesn’t Have Any Better Ideas Than Raising Taxes.
  • $154,236,273: Amount Added To National Debt During Obama’s Speech.
  • $1.9 Trillion: New Taxes Proposed By Obama That He Says Will Make Everything Better.

Whining isn’t cute from a 5 year old: it’s less attractive from a man who campaigned for the job of POTUS and not only will take no responsibility and refuses to put in the hard work, but refuses to offer any policy plans that work.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Dana Milbank On Obama Speech: “Skip The Falsehoods, Mr. Obama” »

Posted in Barry Obama, Economy, Elections | Comments Off on Dana Milbank On Obama Speech: “Skip The Falsehoods, Mr. Obama” | Trackback URL

Funny Stuff: Romney Campaign Bus Taunts Obamazombies

By William Teach June 14, 2012 – 3:43 pm

Team Obama probably thought the campaign was going to be the normal, where Democrats are allowed to do and say anything, and the Republican challenger had to sit there and take it. Yet, Team Romney has shown themselves to be highly agile this campaign season, responding with videos and such virtually before Obama has even gotten done with his bloviating.

Today, Obama was supposed to be giving a “reboot” speech which included absolutely nothing but his standard litany of complaints, for which Romney gave a “prebuttal” which included

Romney said the president was “delivering a speech on the economy … because he hasn’t delivered a recovery for the economy.”

He also mentioned that “talk is cheap” and predicted that Obama would make a lot of his standard excuses. Obama did. here’s where it gets funny, via Buzzfeed

Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s guerrilla tactics continued Thursday, as the campaign bus circled the venue where President Barack Obama will be speaking this afternoon.

As it passed the assembled throngs of supporters awaiting entry to the event at Cuyahoga Community College, the bus honked its horn dozens of times, before circling around to do it again. Obama supporters jeered and booed each time the bus passed the line outside of the security screening area.

Liberals weren’t happy with this, because they are the only ones who are allowed to be aggressive. No More Mister Nice Guy brings the irony, as it is whining about Team Romney not being nice. Excitable Josh Marshall says this is all about “anger management.” Excitable Doug Mataconis is whining about this being “stupid campaign tricks.” Oops. Doug is supposed to be on the GOP side. That’s the problem, many erstwhile Republicans expect the GOP candidate to just sit there and take it, and never dish it out.

Read: Funny Stuff: Romney Campaign Bus Taunts Obamazombies »

Posted in Barry Obama, Elections, Obamanuts, Romney | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 14, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is CO2 infused beer which will cause the seas to cover Florida (which is OK if they vote Republican), you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is American Perspective.

Read: If All You See… »

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

If It’s “Global Warming”, Why Do Some States Warm Faster Than Others?

By William Teach June 14, 2012 – 11:27 am

The NY Times ran a story yesterday meant to scare everyone and highlight the coming doom….sometime down the road when we’ll all have forgotten about this “climate change” hoax idiocy

If those New England seasons feel far warmer these days than they were 20 years ago, it’s because they are. So are Florida’s, Arizona’s, and Washington State’s.

A new interactive map released by the group Climate Central summarizes the average temperatures of each of the 48 contiguous United States for the last 100 years. By clicking across the country (try it on the map above), you can see that lately, temperatures have been trending up no matter where you live.

But if you look closely, the story is more complicated than a general upswing in temperatures. Some states are warming more quickly than others. And the rate at which they’re warming depends on what time span you’re looking at.

It begs the question “why do some warm faster than others?” Air pollution and deforestation are thrown in the mix, but really, no scientific answers are offered. Here’s the trend since the 1970’s

Everybody panic!!!!! Oh, wait, what’s this

Essentially, almost every state shows .2 degrees Fahrenheit or less warming since 1912. A good chunk show no warming. Are we really supposed to freak out and change our economies and lives, skyrocket our energy and food prices, install a cap and trade system, and give up even more of our money and freedom to the Central Government over point frigging 2 degrees warming over 100 years?

And let’s not forget that the trend has been mostly flatlined since the end of the last big El Nino year of 1998. Despite rising CO2.

Read: If It’s “Global Warming”, Why Do Some States Warm Faster Than Others? »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Nanny Bloomberg’s Fizzy Drink Ban Highlights Wider Difference In Political Beliefs

By William Teach June 14, 2012 – 9:14 am

Yesterday we learned, via the NY Post, that Nanny Bloomberg and his Board Of Health cohorts may look to regulate some other food and drink products along with restricting sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces (I wonder if it has occurred to Nanny B. that this would cause more plastic bottles to be discarded, many of them ending up in the oceans?). Movie popcorn, milk shakes, and even those crazy coffee drinks could end up being regulated. The Politico’s Tim Mak points out: Debate over government’s role fizzes around soda ban

Many Americans are having a hard time swallowing New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposed ban on the sale of big sodas – but it’s not just about the sugar.

The micro public health policy issue of restricting the sizes of some drinks — and the strong public reaction to it on both sides — has become a touchstone for the polarized and passionate debate over the proper role of government.

“We have very deep divisions in American society, so this [soda policy] reflects that — it’s about the role of government in American life, and the public is deeply divided on that,” said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. “It’s clear it taps into very deep emotions, because it got a very emotional reaction.”

“I don’t think anybody in Kansas cares what they do in New York, but the larger issue [of the role of government] is something they want to fight about,” pollster Scott Rasmussen, who has surveyed the soda issue nationally, told POLITICO.

As the story points out, a Reuters poll showed that 64 percent were against the ban while 36% supported the ban, while a Rasmussen poll showed the breakdown to be 65/24.

“The real reason this issue caught on is because this is exactly the dividing line that is splitting people. There are some that just think government has to do these things, and there are others that are saying ‘no, this is precisely not the role of government.’ It’s such a clear example – this is not a convoluted, long health care bill,” said Rasmussen, the president of polling firm Rasmussen Reports.

On the other hand, he said, “Among those who support it, there is a belief that government should be in charge of things like health, and this is a prudent measure. I don’t think that anyone disputes that large, sugary drinks are good for health. So there’s this sense that it’s part of the role of government.”

And that is the debate, what is the role of government in today’s society? Can government use the force of law to restrict the freedom to make a choice, even if it is a “bad” one? Is it governments business whether you or I choose to purchase a 20 ounce or larger soda or sweet tea? Can they restrict us from purchasing a large popcorn with butter at the movies? Can they apply the force of law to stop us from purchasing a large Frosty at Wendy’s? Or should it be our personal choice? For myself, I’ve started drinking more water (which is boring) while avoiding soda. That’s MY choice.

Interestingly, the same liberals who tend to believe Government should be able to regulate anything for which they get a burr in their bums, like large sugary drinks, are the same people who screech about “my body my choice!!!!!” when it comes to aborting a baby. These are the same people who think globull warming regulations are wonderful, as long as they apply to That Guy. Who think higher taxes are awesome, as long as they apply to That Guy. Liberals scream about privacy and liberty, yet they don’t seem to have an issue with Government regulating our lives to death.

Read: Nanny Bloomberg’s Fizzy Drink Ban Highlights Wider Difference In Political Beliefs »

Posted in Liberal World | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove