Oops: 82% Favor Voter Identification

By William Teach April 16, 2012 – 4:12 pm

So much for that narrative

(Rasmussen) Eighty-two percent (82%) believe all voters should be required to prove their identity before being allowed to vote. Only 14% oppose such a requirement.

Just 21% think laws requiring photo identification at the polls discriminate against some voters. Seventy-three percent (73%) disagree and feel that such laws do not discriminate.

So, the vast majority favor voter ID, and do not find it discriminatory. Humph.

Most voters across partisan lines express confidence in election results, but Democrats are more confident than the others. A plurality (49%) of voters in President Obama’s party consider voter fraud a serious problem in America today, but that compares to 84% of Republicans and 58% of voters not affiliated with either of the major parties.

Of course Democrats don’t think voter fraud is a big deal: it is one of the core ways they use to win elections. Of course, when elections do not go their way, they scream and gnash their teeth, saying “we need to Do Something”, but, when people try to do something, they always say “no.”

Most of this is behind the paywall, thanks to Ann Althouse for paying!

Now, off to the residential gym, where I have to show an ID….well, I have to use my scan card, which required an ID to get.

Read: Oops: 82% Favor Voter Identification »

Posted in Democrats, Election Fraud | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 16, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is water being wasted to wash an evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jihad Watch.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Just In Time For Grilling Season, Warmists Say To Cut Your Meat Intake

By William Teach April 16, 2012 – 11:44 am

Of course, what they mean by meat intake, is that you need to be forced to do this in one fashion or another. They’ll use regulation, raising the price of meat, and awareness and shaming campaigns, but, won’t voluntarily reduce their own meat consumption

(Red Orbit) A proposed reduction in the world’s carbon emissions set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) can only be met if the developed world cuts down meat consumption by 50 percent per person, according to new research from a Massachusetts-based climate initiative organization.

Scientists from the Woods Hole Research Center (WHRC), located in Falmouth, Mass., found in a new study that the world needs to not only cut meat consumption by 50 percent, but to also cut emissions by an equal amount by 2050, if we are to reduce the most dangerous of greenhouse gases (nitrous oxide – N2O) in our atmosphere.

N2O is the third highest contributor of climate change behind carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4); however, it is considered much more potent due to the fact it is an essential element in food production, meaning it cannot be controlled quite as easily as CO2 and CH4.

One of the top offenders of potent nitrous oxide is fertilizer used to grow crops in the agricultural industry. But because farming is much needed to feed the world’s growing population, which is projected to reach 9 billion by mid-century, it will be a difficult challenge to try to reduce the carbon footprint farming leaves on the world’s climate.

This story is making the rounds through both the legacy liberal media and Warmist blogs, but, interestingly, none of them are saying “I’ll help out by reducing my meat consumption.”

Davidson said such changes are dependent “not only on education about diet, but also on prices of meat. Some agricultural economists think that the price of meat is going to go way up, so that per capita consumption will go down, but those are highly uncertain projections.”

So, they are going to nag you to death. And find ways to raise your prices.

(PS: I know the graphic is about methane, not NO2)

Oh, and it is already a BS study, since the #1 greenhouse gas is water vapor.

Read: Just In Time For Grilling Season, Warmists Say To Cut Your Meat Intake »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

David Axelrod Endorses Mitt Romney

By William Teach April 16, 2012 – 8:19 am

Mitt already has the endorsements of people like George H.W. Bush, Marco Rubio, Jan Brewer, Darrel Issa, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush, Jeff Foxworthy, and Cindy Crawford, among many, many others. And now he has the all important Obama adviser endorsement (via Twitchy)

“The choice in this election is between an economy that produces a growing middle-class and that gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead and an economy that continues down the road we’re on.”

The road we’re on is one of stagnation, high unemployment, the inability to get summer jobs, poor consumer confidence, low real wages, low disposable income, massive deficits, massive debt, and rising energy and consumer prices that outstrip individual earnings. Guess who’s president now, and been in office since January 20, 2009? Which Party has held the Senate since 2007? Which Party held the House from 2007 till 2010, and, along with the Senate and Obama, enacted the failed economic policies? Which Party spent $800 billion dollars on a Stimulus in which the jobs weren’t so *ha ha ha* shovel ready? Which party has wasted billions and billions of dollars on “green” energy projects which have so far failed?

The obvious choice is clear to Axelrod: vote Mitt Romeny 2012!

Read: David Axelrod Endorses Mitt Romney »

Posted in Democrats, Elections, GOP, Romney | Comments Off on David Axelrod Endorses Mitt Romney | Trackback URL

Dueling Tax Plans: GOP Small Business Tax Break Vs. Buffett Rule

By William Teach April 16, 2012 – 7:56 am

One party pushes class warfare while the other pushes for job creation

(Politico) With the glare of the public spotlight trained on Tax Day, Congress is readying for a political fight with dueling tax votes this week that will define each party’s priorities in this election year.

In one corner are Republicans, who are touting a tax cut to help boost the bottom line for small businesses. In another corner are Democrats who want to make sure the wealthy are paying their fair share — as a matter of tax fairness and to relieve the burden on the middle class.

Neither bill has a clear path to President Barack Obama’s desk. But Republicans and Democrats alike are confident their respective measures will create a clear distinction for the public on where each party stands.

“I couldn’t think of a more direct contrast with the Democrats believing that you ought to raise taxes,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told POLITICO, comparing the “Buffett rule” with his own tax cut designed for small businesses.

The Senate moves first with a procedural vote Monday on the Buffett rule, which would ensure that millionaires pay an effective 30 percent tax rate on their income. The House follows suit Thursday with a vote on the small business tax cut, which would allow qualifying companies to take a 20 percent tax break that Republican lawmakers say will spur more hiring and investment.

This does create a clear distinction: Republicans are looking for ways to use the tax code to spur small business, creating jobs and wealth. Democrats are using the Buffett Rule to ……. well, something, because the revenue it will supposedly raise is only about $4 billion a year, not exactly chump change to most people, but, miniscule in terms of Central Government spending. It’s all about fairness or something, which, in real terms, is simply a way to fire up Obama’s unhinged base who really hate that others make more money than themselves, and instinctively feel that these rich people stole the money off the work of the little people. Leftists really, for the most part, do not like private sector success.

The Buffett rule is named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who disclosed in 2011 that he was paying a tax rate of 17.4 percent — far lower than the rates paid by staffers in his Omaha, Neb., office, which averaged around 36 percent.

If his staffers were paying 36%, Buffett should fire them for being fools. Have they never heard of deductions? Furthermore, the top federal rate for the 2010 tax year was 35% on income of $373,650 and above: did they actually pay a higher percent?

Meanwhile, House Republicans are prepping their small-business tax cut vote that will come later this week. The $46 billion, one-year tax cut would apply to all businesses with fewer than 500 employees, and the tax break would benefit 22 million small businesses, according to Cantor’s office.

This break, which would help small businesses, passed out of committee on a strictly party line vote, and it appears like the Democrats will vote against the bill, because it might possibly help out some rich person. Because we all know that poor people own businesses.

Usually squishy Jennifer Rubin has a good point

But let’s take a step back. Where in this is a plan to accelerate growth and job creation? How does creating a sort of new minimum tax for 4,000 taxpayers assist in the recovery? Maybe that is why Obama and Axelrod spend so much time on gimmicks and phony “fairness” arguments. They haven’t got a clue how to create an economic environment in which investors, employers and consumer will all benefit.

All of Obama and the Dems plans have so far failed. Hope and Change morphed into Despair and Stagnation.

Meanwhile, download your 1040 Buffett Rule tax forms. Oh, and the Buffett Rule depends upon the “Bush tax cuts” expiring in full, meaning the middle and lower classes would pay higher tax rates.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Dueling Tax Plans: GOP Small Business Tax Break Vs. Buffett Rule »

Posted in Democrats, Economy, GOP, Taxation | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Apparently, Australopithecus Killed Gaia By Taking Unncessary Fossil Fueled Flights

By William Teach April 15, 2012 – 4:27 pm

Climate change (hoax) scientists predict the future by looking at the past, forget a pivotal question

(MSNBC) To figure out what is likely to happen to Earth’s climate this century, scientists are looking 3 million years into the past.

They have concluded that the most revealing slice of time is the Pliocene Epoch, a warm, wet period between 3.15 million and 2.85 million years ago, when the world probably looked and felt much as it does now. Global temperatures and the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were similar to today’s climate, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Knowing more about the Pliocene is useful for climate modelers around the world who create sophisticated computer programs to simulate what global warming could bring to Earth.

OK, once you’re done busting a gut laughing at the “computer model” mumbo jumbo, I wonder if all these “climate scientists” can explain just what caused the CO2 and climate to be “similar” to today? You know, I simply assumed they would forget about this

But recreating ancient climate conditions has also given fuel to those who question human-caused global warming. In the Pliocene Epoch, there were no humans to spur carbon dioxide emissions, so the similarity in carbon dioxide levels between then and now points to natural causes, they say.

And that is all they will mention. No “hey, perhaps the Realists are right”.

The mid-Pliocene was about as warm as climate models predict it will be by 2100, or about 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) above current global mean temperatures, the Geological Survey said.

So, it was actually warmer than it is today, and the comparison is being made on the basis of reading a crystal ball? OK.

Read: Apparently, Australopithecus Killed Gaia By Taking Unncessary Fossil Fueled Flights »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is driftwood that should NEVER be used for a beach bonfire, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The New Nostradamus Of The North.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach April 15, 2012 – 10:34 am

If all you see is an awesome mode of transportation that…..oops, sorry, wrong meme. Happy Sunday! Another fantastic day in America. The sun is shining, skinks are sunning themselves on the back deck, the mocking bird is…well, mocking other birds. And frogs. Car alarms. This pinup is by I have not a clue, with a wee bit of help.

BTW, can you believe I’ve kept this meme going for 7 years now? The first patriotic pinup post was April 3, 2005. Other than the Watcher’s Council, I can’t think of a weekly post in the ‘sphere that has lasted longer. Except Glenn Reynolds writing “heh” and “indeed”.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Wake Up America discusses Ann Romney’s work experience
  2. Don Surber catches the AP wondering if Zimmerman has too many rights
  3. Fire Andrea Mitchell highlights what Obama told Solyndra in emails
  4. Jammie Wearing Fools has Dick Cheney on Obama
  5. Legal Insurrection wonders what’s left of the Zimmerman racist narrative
  6. Maggie’s Notebook exposes more wasted Stimulus money
  7. Moonbattery exposes  a liberal version of the American dream
  8. Patterico’s Pontifications says, yes, 2012 will be a referendum on Obama
  9. Raised On Hoecakes wonders how much it costs the government to move a plant
  10. The Lonely Conservative covers Debbie Downer’s new look
  11. The POH Diaries wonders if Angela Corey will be the next Mike Nifong
  12. No Frakking Consensus discusses eco-narcissists
  13. The All American Blogger exposes a “moderate” Democrat
  14. The First Street Journal has an open letter to Hilary Rosen
  15. And last, but not least, Real Science highlights what a “stable” climate looks like

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

The posts do take a long time, so, if you want to send me your links for Rule 5 babeage or links, use ye olde email in the header bar (remove the NOSPAM part). Preferably, create the html link so I can copy and paste how you want it to read.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Pre-Surrenders On Immigration Reform, May Try Next Year

By William Teach April 15, 2012 – 8:52 am

It’d be hard work to try this year, but, it’s easy work to say he’ll try it if re-elected

(Univision News) Addressing the sensitive topic of immigration reform, Obama blamed Republicans for the lack of progress on reform legislation and pledged he would “try” to bring up the issue in the first year of a second term.

“I can promise that I will try to do it in the first year of my second term,” he said. “I want to try this year.

Nothing’s stopping you from sending some legislation over to Congress, Champ. Or getting a Democrat in Congress, particularly the Democrat controlled Senate, from introducing legislation. But, this isn’t the first time he’s whined about the issue in virtually the same way, and he forgot that Republicans recently brought up immigration reform. He continues, via The Hill

The challenge we’ve got on immigration reform is very simple. I’ve got a majority of Democrats who are prepared to vote for it, and I’ve got no Republicans who are prepared to vote for it. …

“So what we need is a change either of Congress or we need Republicans to change their mind, and I think this has to be an important debate during – throughout the country. …

“And so I’m just going to keep on pushing as hard as I can, and what I’m going to be encouraging is the Latino community continue to ask every member of Congress where they stand on these issues, but the one thing that I think everybody needs to understand is that this is something I care deeply about. It’s personal to me, and I will do everything that I can to try to get it done. But ultimately I’m going to need Congress to help me.”

As Tina Korbe translates: “I’m President Obama and I’m ineffective. I can’t do what I want to do. My hands are tied.” To add to that: “Being POTUS is hard work, and I’m going to tell everyone else to work hard, while I hit the golf course, campaign, and take vacations.”

If he needs Congress to work with him, the first step would be to stop insulting…..Congress! Instead of being divisive, he could perhaps take a page from George Bush’s book and reach across the aisle. Clinton tried, as did Bush 41, Reagan, and most other presidents. Obama simply expects to pull a Pharaoh Ramses II, because He Knows Better Than Everyone Else. Fore!

As Tina further points out, this is yet another example of Obama’s complete lack of leadership skills

Why — if the president really wants to accomplish immigration reform — would he predict gridlock before he even proposes his preferred immigration policy? That’s no way to inspire those who disagree with him to work with him. I thought it was a sign of leadership to be able to obtain buy-in and inspire consensus. In fact, I seem to remember that Obama once ran for president on his ability to do just that.

Obama further went on to whine at Mitt Romney

“We now have a Republican nominee who said that the Arizona laws are a model for the country; that — and these are laws that potentially would allow someone to be stopped and picked up and asked where their citizenship papers are based on an assumption,” he said.

He calls this “very troubling.” You know what he should find troubling? The failure of the United States government to secure the borders so that people aren’t illegally crossing over, along with failing to deport people who overstay their visas. He should find it very troubling illegals are wasting large sums of taxpayer money by using social services. He should find it troubling that many of the Hispanic illegals refuse to learn English, and demand that everyone else speak Spanish. He should find it very troubling that people from countries with a history of radical Islam are crossing the borders illegally.

He should also find it troubling that people have to show their papers to enter the White House and campaign events.

When it comes to illegal immigration, why do Democrats rarely worry about stopping them? They always seem to want to legalize them, and quickly. The only reason Dems care about the issue is that they want to quickly make new Democrat voters.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Obama Pre-Surrenders On Immigration Reform, May Try Next Year »

Posted in Barry Obama, Illegal Immigration | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, How’d Obama’s “Green” Jobs Program Work Out?

By William Teach April 14, 2012 – 1:21 pm

Yet another report that confirms the reality that Obama’s green jobs push was an utter failure (via The Lonely Conservative)

(al Reuters) Three weeks ago, President Barack Obama stood in front of a sea of gleaming solar panels in Boulder City, Nevada, to celebrate his administration’s efforts to promote “green energy.”

Stretching row upon row into the desert, the Copper Mountain Solar Project not far from Las Vegas provided an impressive backdrop for the president.

I think we can guess which government funded solar company will be the next to file for bankruptcy.

Built on public land, the facility is the largest of its kind in the United States. Its 1 million solar panels provide enough energy to power 17,000 homes.

And it employs just 10 people.

According to the Las Vegas Sun, that number is actually 5 jobs.

Three years after Obama launched a push to build a job-creating “green” economy, the White House can say that more than 1 million drafty homes have been retrofitted to lower heating and cooling costs, while energy generation from renewable sources such as wind and solar has nearly doubled since 2008.

Well, they can say that, but, can they prove that? Or, do they simply add in the numbers for people who were going to retrofit their homes anyhow, like, say, with a fixer-uper?

But the millions of “green jobs” Obama promised have been slow to sprout, disappointing many who had hoped that the $90 billion earmarked for clean-energy efforts in the recession-fighting federal stimulus package would ease unemployment – still above 8 percent in March.

A $500 million job-training program has so far helped fewer than 20,000 people find work, far short of its goal.

What’s the point in training people to do jobs that don’t exist?

But, don’t forget, in the fossil fuel industry, they are creating huge numbers of jobs. Just look to North Dakota.

Read: Say, How’d Obama’s “Green” Jobs Program Work Out? »

Posted in Barry Obama, Economy, Enviroweenies | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove