If All You See…

…is water being wasted, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Are We Lumberjacks?

Read: If All You See… »

Dallas Tornadoes Blamed On…Climate Change

You just had to know that some Warmist was going to speed down this road, and the winner to the race line for stupidity is CNN’s Alexandra Steele

(The Daily Caller) On the Tuesday broadcast of “CNN Newsroom,” CNN meteorologist Alexandra Steele declared that tornadoes plowing through the Dallas-Fort Worth area were brought on by climate change.

Steele, formerly of The Weather Channel, also predicted that more extreme weather is on its way. “It really is [such a strange spring],” Steele said.

“That’s kind of the climate change we are seeing. You know, extremes are kind of ruling the roost and really what we are seeing, more become the norm.”

Because weather never happened before.

This global warming is really kind of a misnomer,” Steele said. “It’s global climate change. So the colds are colder and warms are warmer and severe is more severe.”

So, greenhouse gases which trap heat make it colder? These people are bat shit insane.

Doug Powers wonders if tornado alley will be renamed “climate change alley”.

Read: Dallas Tornadoes Blamed On…Climate Change »

Does Romney’s Triple Win Tuesday Signal The End To The GOP Primaries?

Many are saying “you betcha”, starting with Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post

That sound you hear? It’s the fat lady singing.

For the umpteenth time in the Republican presidential primary race, Mitt Romney defeated Rick Santorum in a major Midwestern swing state — a win that effectively forecloses any chance that the former Massachusetts governor might not be the GOP nominee in the fall.

Romney also took D.C. and Maryland. Santorum has vowed to stay in till at least the Pennsylvania primary. Newt is…well, no one really knows, because he has no embedded press coverage. Ron Paul is simply trying to hose the system. Romney has also started focusing primarily on Obama, not Santorum.

Then there is squishy Republican Jennifer Rubin

Romney is the undisputed choice of the Republican electorate. Exit polls in Maryland showed Romney winning among virtually all segments of the electorate, whether income, religious affiliation, geography, ideology or marital status. It was much the same in Wisconsin. For example, he won among Republicans by a 51 to 37 percent margin. He won among strong supporters of the Tea Party. In sum, he has established himself as the certain nominee.

The Politico’s Maggie Haberman

It’s now really almost over.

The hat trick of primaries in Wisconsin, Maryland and Washington, D.C., capped yet another no-drama evening in Mitt Romney’s march toward the GOP presidential nomination. Romney is now more than halfway toward the delegates he needs to win his party’s nod, and Rick Santorum lost his last shot at a big, momentum-changing Midwestern win.

It begs the question “are they right?” It also begs the question “can the Republican base get behind Romney?”

Obviously, many Conservatives are concerned about Romney. But, let’s consider, Conservatives weren’t too pleased with George Bush’s big spending and big government ways in 2004, either. But, it was a choice between a far left candidate who wanted to actively lose the Iraq war or Bush. Heck, John Kerry didn’t particularly excite the Democrat base: for them it was “anybody but Bush.” The election this year is even more important.

If the simple thought of defeating Obama is not enough to get behind Romney, if he does get the GOP nod, or at least pushing you to “anybody but Obama”, here are a few specific reasons

  • Obamacare: the GOP will need to regain the Senate and keep the House to repeal and replace, but, at least with a GOP president, Romney would not sign bills funding it. Furthermore, he would get to pick the head of HHS, and Obamacare gives the head massive powers, which could be used to roll back many portions
  • Courts: not only would this mean Obama would not be picking for lower court vacancies, there will probably be at least one, if not two, Supreme Court justices retiring in the next 4 years. One will probably be Ginsburg. As left as she is, do you want an Obama lefty?
  • Debt and deficit
  • Fixing the economy: Romney may be somewhat squishy as a Republican, but, he would do an excellent job, since he understands how jobs are created.
  • Stopping the class warfare
  • Stopping the Obama “green” economy, and moving America to a real energy plan.

Stop Obama Now provides a few more reasons. Romney may not be perfect, but, he’s what we have. Do we want four more years of Obama moving the country to the far left, despite the citizens being against it?

Read: Does Romney’s Triple Win Tuesday Signal The End To The GOP Primaries? »

Here We Go: “Being Uninsured Is A Mandate, Too”

It seems that, in Democrat World, the fact that the majority of American citizens are dead set against the individual mandate, and Obamacare, matters little, because Democrats know what is best for you stupid citizens, and you should be thanking them for forcing you to either purchase health insurance or pay a fine. Dem supporters have tried many different tactics in the wake of the Supreme Court hearing as we await their decision: comparing it to Bush v. Gore, calling a ruling that shoots the law down as “judicial activism”, saying it will destroy the court, going the scare route claiming it would be replaced with single payer, and even attacking the Court before the verdict is rendered. Now, here comes another from far left pundit Jennifer Granholm, who was a Democrat governor of Michigan, served on Obama’s transition team, and is now on Current TV

Granholm starts out with the typical story about someone not having insurance then being forced to pony up $3,000 for medical treatment, said treatment ending in the ER for pneumonia. Perhaps the person could have purchased insurance beforehand, which would have been the responsible thing to do and less than the $3k. Which will be mandatory with the Mandate. And the cost won’t be going down. Then we get

(Politico) A “health care mandate,” it seems, is in the eye of the beholder.

Carmelita has been mandated into the uninsured health care market, banished from “normal” care by a wholly unaffordable insurance system. She doesn’t have insurance, but believe me, she’s participating in commerce. She was forced, mandated to purchase emergency care or choose to risk her life. She doesn’t want that kind of health care coverage; like any rational person, she’d prefer to buy an affordable policy. But like tens of millions of others, she can’t afford it. The market for health care services is ubiquitous; the question is whether Congress mandates emergency-room market participation or a rational health insurance market system. The old system is no less a “mandate” than the Affordable Care Act.

Except, first, the “Affordable Care Act” won’t reduce costs. Second, Congress hasn’t passed a law mandating people get care. It’s a hell of a difference, but, you know, bat guano against the wall as a talking excuse and see if it sticks. The person in question could have gone to see a doctor at a health clinic for quite a bit less, too.

And let’s be honest about where the pre-“Obamacare” emergency-room mandate is coming from. That mandate comes from congressional acts, too — for example, the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which requires hospitals to treat anyone needing emergency care regardless of ability to pay. Indeed, Congress has enacted over the years a complex web of authorizing statutes and rules that regulate health care and allow insurance companies to price people out of the market.

So, it’s partly Congresses fault? And which Party was in charge when passing that 1986 law? That’s right, Democrats. It originated in the Democrat controlled House.

Carmelita is an unwilling conscript, a mandated gambler in the health care market. She doesn’t want to engage in the market in this fashion, but the system leaves her no choice. And to her, it’s amazing that justices with lifetime appointments who will never have to worry about health care personally, who themselves will never be forced economic bystanders to the health insurance market, are likely to decide this case based upon arcane legal theory — and not upon human reality.

Except, the point of the Court is to decide the constitutionality of the law, not to decide based on feelings. Perhaps if Democrats had decided to pass a law that focused on actually reducing the cost of health insurance, this wouldn’t be a problem. Instead, they decided that they were going to create a massive piece of legislation that creates even more costs and will increase costs, plus have monstrous unfunded liabilities. We are a nation of law, not a nation of people with squishy feelings that Someone Else should pay for. Though, we’re getting to the latter.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Here We Go: “Being Uninsured Is A Mandate, Too” »

Romney Gets A Kick Out Of Obama Blaming….Romney For High Gas Prices

Good grief, does Obama take responsibility for anything? Well, things that go well, which are few and far between. And George Bush policies that succeed, of course.

(Washington Post) Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney lashed out at President Obama here Tuesday by accusing him of deflecting blame for the nation’s rising gas prices and the slow economic recovery.

Romney said a television advertisement the Obama campaign began airing this week in six swing states linking Romney with big oil conglomerates amounted to the president blaming him for gas prices.

“The president put an ad out yesterday talking about gasoline prices and how high they are. And guess who he blamed? Me!” Romney said during a mid-day campaign stop at a sub shop here. “Maybe after I’m president I can take responsibility for things I might have done wrong. But this president doesn’t want to take responsibility for his mistakes.”

Romney accused Obama of “running as far away from Harry Truman’s dictum as possible. Harry Truman had the sign on his desk that said, ‘The buck stops here,’ but this president is always looking for somewhere else to point.”

Romney also said (I’m merging the story at CBS with the WP’s one to get the full quote)

“Maybe he’ll look for the party that had no power whatsoever for the first two years of his administration, maybe he’ll say, ‘Oh, it’s the Republicans.’ But, you know, he had a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate for his first two years. He gets full credit or blame for what’s happened to this economy and what’s happened to gasoline prices under his watch and what’s happened to our schools and what’s happened to our military forces — all these things are his responsibility while he’s president,” Romney said. “It’s time to have someone who will take responsibility, and if I’m president, I will not only get things right again, I’ll take responsibility for my errors.”

When Obama goes in the annals of history, it’ll be as the whiniest blamestorming president of all time. In my 45 years, I’ve never seen a grown man be this whiny, and certainly not any leader of a nation, nor one who can only blame. The guy is living embodiment of the antonym of “leader.”

Read: Romney Gets A Kick Out Of Obama Blaming….Romney For High Gas Prices »

Liberal World: Being Too Happy Is Bad

Apparently, liberals want us all to be as miserable as they are

(Washington Post) The happier you are, the better, right? Not necessarily. Studies show that there is a darker side to feeling good and that the pursuit of happiness can sometimes make you . . . well, less happy. Too much cheerfulness can make you gullible, selfish, less successful — and that’s only the tip of the iceberg.

Happiness does have benefits (beyond feeling good, of course). It can protect us from stroke and from the common cold, makes us more resistant to pain and even prolongs our lives. Yet, June Gruber, a professor of psychology at Yale University who has studied happiness, warns that it’s important to experience positive moods in moderation.

So, start being more a sad sack, like liberals!

She compares happiness to food: Although necessary and beneficial, too much food can cause problems; likewise, happiness can lead to bad outcomes. “Research indicates that very high levels of positive feelings predict risk-taking behaviors, excess alcohol and drug consumption, binge eating, and may lead us to neglect threats,” she says.

No need to come up with a drug for that, just become a liberal!

Included in the studies was one involving a group of American college freshmen who in 1976 claimed to be very cheerful. Surveyed again when they were in their late 30s, they earned, on average, almost $3,500 a year less than their slightly less cheerful peers. Why? Diener suggests that people who don’t experience much sadness or anxiety are rarely dissatisfied with their jobs and therefore feel less pressure to get more education or change careers.

So…..they’re happy with their jobs, despite making less money? I’m failing to see the problem. And there are people who are miserable in their jobs, but make more money? Wait, isn’t making money bad in Liberal World?

Anyhow, what kinds of miserable people study “happiness”?

Read: Liberal World: Being Too Happy Is Bad »

If All You See…

…is evil beer releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Doug Ross.

Read: If All You See… »

Oops: Yet Another Obama Solar DOE Project Goes Belly Up

The downside, other than the massive amounts of taxpayer funds wasted, is that these types of poor loans turn people off from what could be an otherwise smart move towards getting alternative energies to be competitive with fossil fuels

(Washington Post) A California solar energy company that was unable to meet a deadline for an Energy Department loan guarantee last year has sought bankruptcy protection in Delaware.

Solar Trust of America’s Chapter 11 filing on Monday listed assets between $1 million and $10 million, and liabilities between $50 million and $100 million.

Fox Nation finds a story from last year about how much taxpayers could be on the hook for

The U.S. Department of Energy has awarded a $2.1 billion loan guarantee to Solar Trust of America for a solar thermal power plant near Blythe, Calif.

The loan guarantee means the government will cover the debt Solar Power Trust of America will accrue to finance the project if it cannot pay it back to other borrowers.

Government, ie, the taxpayers.

  • The Lonely Conservative: President Obama has been out on the campaign trail saying the Republicans want to cut his investments in green companies. Well, of course they do! We can’t afford to keep dumping billions of dollars into failing companies.
  • PJ Tattler: Solar Trust. What a perfectly ironic name for this boondoggle.

Interestingly, Solar Trust actually turned down the $2.1 billion guarantee. Powerline

So the Obama administration’s proposed loan guarantee was so dumb that the prospective borrower decided not to take it! That tells you all you need to know about the Obama administration’s ability–actually, the ability of any administration–to execute an industrial policy that doesn’t fleece the taxpayers.

Don’t worry about massive layoffs, though, because Solar Trust employed a massive 9 people. Because green is creating jobs!

Read: Oops: Yet Another Obama Solar DOE Project Goes Belly Up »

Good News! Reno Wind Turbine That Cost $21,000 Saves $4!

I’ve always said that I’m supportive in moving towards alternative energy methods, but, when it comes to big wind farms, I’d have to admit that with each new #Fail story, I’ve moved to the “this is really idiot and should be stopped cause it’s madness” side (via Tom Nelson and The New Nostradamus of the North)

(Power Engineering) The electricity produced by NV Energy’s $46 million wind rebate program has fallen far short of expectations.

In a startling example, the city of Reno’s wind turbines — for which the city received more than $150,000 in rate-payer funded rebates — produced dramatically less electricity than the manufacturers of its turbines promised.

“These manufacturers, when they gave us the turbines, they said they were designed to be mounted on a parapet at this height, and that’s what we did,” said Jason Geddes, who runs the city of Reno’s renewable energy program. “But when we started getting actual wind flow patterns, we realized their claims were wrong.”

As first reported by the Reno Gazette-Journal , one turbine that cost the city $21,000 to install saved the city $4 on its energy bill. Overall, $416,000 worth of turbines have netted the city $2,800 in energy savings.

Of course, when we are talking about hooking up political cronies saving Gaia, cost should be no factor. There should be no cost/benefit ration. Or something like that.

Hamilton also believes equipment standards should be in place to minimize faulty turbines, some of which have fallen apart.

That’s happened both in Reno and in rural Nevada. Geddes said one of his turbines that was rated to 110 mph fell apart in a 105-mph gust.

A more catastrophic failure occurred on a farm in rural Nevada, when a large turbine spun apart only days after it was installed. No one was injured, largely because it was in a remote locale.

Well, at least they won’t be sitting there rusting. Besides, it’s Someone Else’s money: why should there be any concern? This will stop the seas from rising and swamping Nevada!

This is the folly of most “green” energy: it’s not ready for prime time, it rarely ever provides the savings it promises, not to mention coming up woefully short on providing actual power. And while Warmists tend to support in theory, there always seems to be at least one enviroweenie group that sues to block the construction. One of the only ones that is proven is hydro-electric, and these watermelons not only block the construction of more hydro-electric dams, but want existing ones torn down to save a fish.

And the above article provides the hard numbers to prove the folly of these projects.

Read: Good News! Reno Wind Turbine That Cost $21,000 Saves $4! »

Obama Weighs In On Possible Mandate Ruling With Typical Pomposity

It’s hard to believe this guy was ever a Constitutional teacher…..well, maybe the constitution of Russia or Venezuala. But, then, it’s hard to believe someone with so little real world experience who authored no legislation would be elected President

(Fox News) President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law — while repeatedly saying he’s “confident” it will be upheld.

The president spoke at length about the case at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress.

“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said.

Unprecedented would be creating a “right” to kill the unborn. But not overturning laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional, which is partly what the Supreme Court’s mandate is, per that pesky Constitution.

As to “a strong majority”, it passed by a whopping 10 votes on a party line vote in the Senate, thanks to what would be considered bribes out here in the private sector. The vote in the House was 219-212, the bare majority needed to pass, with 34 Democrats joining every Republican in voting against. Just because Congress votes in a law doesn’t make it Constitutional.

Red State points out

Look, I’m not here to debate the finer points of Marbury v. Madison with anyone, but the fact remains that since that decision was handed down over 200 years ago, it has not exactly been “unprecedented and extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by Congress (no matter the size of the majority). In fact, it happens all the time. That is the entire point of the doctrine of judicial review, first announced in Marbury and affirmed without serious challenge ever since.

The court has shot down many federal, state, and local laws many times. Consider from 1935, Schechter v. United States, in which “The court unanimously invalidated the National Industrial Recovery Act on the grounds that it delegated excessive authority to the president and regulated businesses that operated wholly within individual states.”

Anyhow, Obama continued on with his bloviations

“I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” Obama said, describing the law as “constitutional.”

Hard to believe this guy has even read the Constitution, much less taught the subject. But, then, for Liberals, the constitution is a living, breathing document which should be stretched and changed to fit the narrative.

“It must be nice living in a fantasy world where every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don’t is ‘activist,'” he said in a statement. “Many of us have been arguing for nearly three years that the federal government does not have the power to dictate individuals’ purchasing decisions. After a national debate on the subject, more than two-thirds of Americans agree that the Obamacare insurance mandate is unconstitutional.”

If Obama wants to campaign against the Supreme Court, if they invalidate, at a minimum, the Mandate, well, go for it, Champ. That won’t end well.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Obama Weighs In On Possible Mandate Ruling With Typical Pomposity »

Pirate's Cove