Good News: Government Information On US Citizens Can Now Be Held For 5 Years

By William Teach March 23, 2012 – 8:55 am

Remember the good old days in the years immediately post-9/11, when Democrats freaked out over the government gathering information, which captured some data on US citizens? Remember the insanity over listening to international calls, despite still needing a warrant if it was determined that a US citizen was on the line? Back in 2007, Obama said this

The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.

And this

Every democracy is tested when it is faced with a serious threat. As a nation we have to find the right balance between privacy and security, between executive authority to face threats and uncontrolled power. What protects us are the procedures we put in place to protect that balance, namely judicial warrants and congressional review. These are concrete safeguards to make sure surveillance hasn’t gone too far.

And this

Americans fought a revolution in part over the right to be free from unreasonable searches, to ensure that our government couldn’t come knocking in the middle of the night for no reason. We need to find a way forward to make sure that we [stop] terrorists while protecting the privacy and liberty of innocent Americans.

And much more, when he was attempting to slam President Bush. How times change

The Obama administration has approved guidelines that allow counterterrorism officials to lengthen the period of time they retain information about U.S. residents, even if they have no known connection to terrorism.

The changes allow the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), the intelligence community’s clearinghouse for terrorism data, to keep information for up to five years. Previously, the center was required to promptly destroy — generally within 180 days — any information about U.S. citizens or residents unless a connection to terrorism was evident.

The new guidelines, which were approved Thursday by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., have been in the works for more than a year, officials said.

Why? Robert S. Litt, the general counsel in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the NCTC, says

The old guidelines were“very limiting,” Litt said. “On Day One, you may look at something and think that it has nothing to do with terrorism. Then six months later, all of a sudden, it becomes relevant.”

Meanwhile, they’ll be holding information on US citizens for 5 years. Civil liberties groups are not particularly happy with this. The ACLU gave a wishy washy response. Had this been the Bush DOJ, they would have gone ballistic.

On the bright side, reading the comments, both Republicans and Democrats are upset about this.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Good News: Government Information On US Citizens Can Now Be Held For 5 Years »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs, Democrats | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

DOJ Argues No Severability With ObamaCare Mandate

By William Teach March 23, 2012 – 8:30 am

With Obamacare, the 100% Democrats who wrote this intrusive and hated law forgot to put severability within, and there has been much discussion, even within court cases, that if the mandate to purchase health insurance or pay a fine/tax goes down, so does the whole bill. The DOJ accidentally makes a mistake in arguing that there is no severability

(Politico) No broccoli? Then no dessert.

That’s the scenario the Obama administration is presenting to the Supreme Court on health reform’s individual mandate. If you want to get rid of the hated mandate, the administration is telling the justices, you also have to get rid of the most popular part: coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.

The Justice Department argues that without the mandate, there is no way to keep the law’s requirements that insurance companies accept all applicants regardless of their medical history and cannot charge more to sicker and older patients. That’s because without the mandate, there won’t be enough healthy people paying health insurance premiums to cover the costs of the sick people. And insurers could raise everyone’s premiums sky-high to pay for those costs.

It’s a legal high-wire act that could have substantial consequences for the White House in an election year: If they lose the mandate, they’ll most likely lose one of the law’s greatest selling points, too.

A couple points on that. First of all, those “greatest selling points” were put in there simply to reduce the stink from the overall bill. They allow supporters and those who voted for it to say “hey, see, there’s some stuff in there that you do like. Now eat your Kopi Luwak.” It’s like putting salad dressing on broccoli for those of us who hate it. Makes it slightly more palatable, but, still gross.

Second, the DOJ arguing that if you lose the mandate, you lose other parts, creates a situation that states that if the mandate goes down, so does the rest of the bill.

Third, it shows just how desperate the Obama DOJ is in making their argument. They’ve run through multiple versions of defense, and haven’t been able to find any that are actually popular. The question being, do they argue this in front of the Supreme Court, or is this simply partisan politics from the country’s top law enforcement agency?

Finally, there’s an easy way to add sick people into the pools without drastically increasing costs: make them nationwide. Then you have a much larger pool of healthy people to offset the sick people. The GOP has been arguing this from the beginning. Furthermore, mandating that insurance companies have to charge the same thing to sick people and/or people with a history of sickness is a problem the legislation created itself. There’s a reason they would typically have coverage cost a lot more or be denied. If you are a bad driver, you’re auto insurance goes up, and perhaps gets to the point where no one will cover you.

Had ObamaCare gone a different way, creating some sort of nationwide pool, the sick could have been covered easily, albeit at a higher rate. This law needs to be done away with, then we can craft common sense legislation that actually works.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: DOJ Argues No Severability With ObamaCare Mandate »

Posted in Healthcare | Comments Off on DOJ Argues No Severability With ObamaCare Mandate | Trackback URL

Good Grief: Obama Attempts To Include Republicans In Blame For Solyndra

By William Teach March 22, 2012 – 2:06 pm

No, seriously, he really tries this

(Fox News) While making his push for solar, Obama explained to a reporter for National Public Radio that the blame for Solyndra was bipartisan and not the fault of the Obama Democrats “per se.”

“Congress, Democrats and Republicans, put together a loan guarantee program because they understood historically that when you get new industries, it’s easy to get money for new startups,” Obama said. “But if you want to take them to scale, often there is a lot of risk involved and what the loan guarantee program was designed to do was to help start-up companies get to scale.”

Except, as usual, Obama has his facts 100% wrong

The 2009 stimulus package that provided the funding for a loan of $527 million for Solyndra, which subsequently defaulted, got zero Republican votes in the House and three Republican votes in the Senate — Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and former Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, who switched parties two months after the vote. There was no Republican input on the structuring of the energy loan program and the specific loan to Solyndra was a Democratic job from start to finish.

Even ABC News’ Devin Dwyer calls BS on this, reiterating the above paragraph, and adding

During a May 2010 visit to Solyndra, Obama explicitly credited the Recovery Act with supporting the company’s early success.

The man is shameless.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Good Grief: Obama Attempts To Include Republicans In Blame For Solyndra »

Posted in Barry Obama | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 22, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful form of non-fossil fueled transportation, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Jawa Report.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Seas Could Rise Blah Blah Blah

By William Teach March 22, 2012 – 11:50 am

They can’t help themselves

(Green Biz) [Editor’s Note: Today is World Water Day. In addition to this article by Robert Kropp of SocialFunds, also see the post by GreenOrder’s Simon Lim on how energy companies manage their water footprints.]

Since 1880, average sea levels have increased by more than eight inches, most if not all of which can be attributed to the impacts of climate change. According to Climate Central, in a report entitled Surging Seas, unchecked climate change is likely to make things much worse, and soon.

Eight inches since 1880 is pretty much…..below average sea rise. The average sea rise per century since the massive sea rise brought on by the end of the last glacial period, around 7,000 years ago, is 6 inches per century. Now we have 8 inches in 130 years? During a warm period? Remember, the average comes from a period that includes oscillation between warm and cool periods. But, hey, it “could” get worse

The study projects that sea levels could rise as much as an additional eight inches by 2030. Furthermore, “The rate of rise is accelerating,” Climate Central reports. “Scientists expect 20 to 80 more inches this century.”

One effect of rising sea levels is likely to be massive migration by populations in low-lying areas. The Center for International Earth Science Information Network has estimated that there could be as many as 700 million climate refugees by 2050. And CIESIN states, “Sea-level rise appears to be the impact most certain to result in displacement and resettlement.”

And by 2030 and 2050, these dire predictions will have been forgotten. But, give them public money to study this, and just accept massive fascistic restrictions on your life, OK?

Read: Bummer: Seas Could Rise Blah Blah Blah »

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

Obama Not Too Excited To Celebrate Two Year Anniversary Of ObamaCare

By William Teach March 22, 2012 – 10:14 am

He hasn’t been too excited to discuss it in public, either, mostly mentioning it during fundraisers with the 1%, who can already afford really good insurance plans. He rather failed to discuss it during the State Of The Union. He avoided the subject during the run up to the 2010 midterms. He must really be proud of his signature legislation, signed March 23, 2010

(The Hill) President Obama will not mark the two-year anniversary of his signing of the healthcare law — which takes place days before the Supreme Court offers a decision on the constitutionality of his signature legislative achievement.

Senior administration officials said on Tuesday that Obama will not be offering a vigorous public defense of the law, holding events or even making public remarks in the lead-up to the Supreme Court case.

Obama will instead leave arguments to the Justice Department, which begins defending the law on Monday.  Likewise, Obama is not expected to hold an event around the two-year anniversary on Friday, said officials who labeled it a faux milestone and off the radar of most Americans.

Off the radar, eh? Except for all the news stories and discussion of the upcoming SCOTUS hearing and pending decision. And that a majority of Americans are still against the travesty of a law. There are demonstrations planned in at least 100 cities nationwide for Friday.

“If the president is so proud of his signature policy initiative he should own it and continue campaigning on it,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus. “Instead, the White House is attempting to distance themselves from the president’s namesake because it’s clear Americans believe ObamaCare is making healthcare worse instead of better.”

Certainly, there are some popular notions within Obamacare, yet, people understand that the way the law is structured will do little to bring down costs, and, in fact, drive costs up. They understand that it means more government interference in their lives through health mandates. They understand that even if they like their plan, they won’t be able to keep it, because companies are essentially incentivized to dump their plans, leaving people with the choice of going through government approved exchanges, rather than searching out what they want. And they do not like being told to purchase a product or pay a fine/tax.

“This president believes that federal bureaucrats can do a better job than you can deciding what should be in your insurance policy, and ultimately what kind of care you should receive,” Romney said on Sunday.

And those same bureaucrats will have no accountability to The People. It’s not easy dealing with the federal bureaucracy now, think it will get better? Try dealing with a recalcitrant insurance company, and then triple that.

“This president believes that federal bureaucrats can do a better job than you can deciding what should be in your insurance policy, and ultimately what kind of care you should receive,” Romney said on Sunday.

Read: Obama Not Too Excited To Celebrate Two Year Anniversary Of ObamaCare »

Posted in Barry Obama, Healthcare | Comments Off on Obama Not Too Excited To Celebrate Two Year Anniversary Of ObamaCare | Trackback URL

Majority In North Carolina Support Marriage Amendment

By William Teach March 22, 2012 – 9:42 am

One of the questions surrounding this is “will the poll numbers translate over to the vote?”

(WRAL) A proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage in North Carolina as being between one man and one woman has broad support among voters statewide, according to a new WRAL News poll.

Amendment One, which would effectively bar any same-sex union in the state, will appear on the May 8 primary ballot.

SurveyUSA polled 1,001 likely voters across North Carolina between last Friday and Tuesday and found that 58 percent support the referendum. Thirty-six percent of voters oppose it, and 6 percent remain undecided.

Gay marriage is already against state law, but this would enshrine it in the Constitution. It would also ban civil unions, in a pre-emptive shot in case a Democrat takeover of the General Assembly would chose to make civil unions legal. Civil unions are currently not legal in North Carolina. The text of the proposed amendment, which would be part of Article 14, section 6

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

The amendment will not stop private parties from entering into contracts, such as with companies providing benefits to domestic partners, nor with wills, trusts, and powers of attorney. Nor will it affect domestic violence laws, in this case, when you have same sex partners living together (more on the subject here).

Of course, outside groups are pouring into NC to oppose this. The California Democratic Party plans on making calls. I hope they understand the time difference when they do. And, if you’ll remember, (NMP) Obama chimed in on the subject last week

“While the president does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples,” campaign spokesman Cameron French said in the statement. “That’s what the North Carolina ballot initiative would do – it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples – and that’s why the president does not support it.”

Except, it won’t deny rights and benefits, except marriage itself. Let’s not forget, Obama opposes gay marriage himself. Though he does support civil unions. Not that many States actually have civil unions. North Carolina does not.

To be honest, I’m not sure which way I’ll vote. I’ve always maintained that, when pushed, I’m against same sex marriage, but for civil unions. This is America, the land of freedom. One of our founding principles is “if it doesn’t harm someone else, then it’s no one else’s business.” I could care less if someone is gay. Doesn’t affect my life. I also maintain that marriage is primarily a religious institution, and it should be left to the religious institutions if they want to perform a same sex marriage. But, two points: first, marriage is not always performed by a religious leader. A justice of the peace can perform one, for instance, as can a judge. So, not just enshrined in religion. Second, the law forbids certain marriages already: there cannot be a marriage amongst more than two people. People can’t marry dogs. One cannot marry a tree. Yes, people do that. It is a long Hindu tradition, one which is illegal in the USA.

I do not like that it stops all civil unions. But, then, as mentioned, NC doesn’t have civil unions. Nor do most states. Because of the freedom aspect of America, I have a problem with this. I see no reason why same sex partners should be denied the rights and benefits of partnership under the law.

To steal from Allahpundit, exit question: “do you think I should vote for or against the Amendment, and why?”

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Majority In North Carolina Support Marriage Amendment »

Posted in Current Affairs, NC News | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Realize They Have To Bait And Switch To Sell Their Failed Cult

By William Teach March 21, 2012 – 5:27 pm

Of course, this is called “rebranding.” Just like the Law of Thermodynamics was rebranded. Same with Gravity. Otherwise, people wouldn’t have bought in

(Politico) Shhhh! Don’t talk about global warming!

There’s been a change in climate for Washington’s greenhouse gang, and they’ve come to this conclusion: To win, they have to talk about other topics, like gas prices and kids choking on pollutants.

More than two years since Democrats’ cap-and-trade plan died in Congress, the strategic shift represents a reluctant acknowledgment from environmentalists that they’ve lost ground by tackling global warming head-on. Their best bet now lies in a bit of a bait and switch: Help elect global warming fighters by basing campaigns on kitchen-table issues.

That’s why they switched from global warming to phrases like climate change, extreme climate change, abrupt climate change, and are pushing “extreme weather” now, attempting to state that every weather event is caused by Someone Else driving a fossil fueled conveyance. They’ve also tried “biodiversity”, “sustainability”, and “buy local.”

“I think climate change is more difficult to explain,” Cani said. “When we’re talking about the immediate effects of some of these policies and some of these issues that will lead to climate change, they’re very serious too. We think that when we’re talking about [health] issues … we’re still talking about climate change,” he added. They “might not be using that word or that phrase.”

True. It’s rather difficult to explain how below average temperatures and massive snow is caused by greenhouse gases which trap heat. And how a trace gas necessary for life on earth is a pollutant which will kills us all. And why the leaders of this movement tend to be the worst “carbon offenders”, and that their disciples tend to take no real actions within their own lives.

Read: Warmists Realize They Have To Bait And Switch To Sell Their Failed Cult »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach March 21, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…are awesome Gaia compliant bikes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Junk Science.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

AP Tries The “More Supply Doesn’t Decrease Price” Trick

By William Teach March 21, 2012 – 10:43 am

Statistics can tell you anything you want

(WRAL) It’s the political cure-all for high gas prices: Drill here, drill now. But more U.S. drilling has not changed how deeply the gas pump drills into your wallet, math and history show.

A statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production by The Associated Press shows no statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump.

You’re welcome to read the whole thing, but, it comes down to the AP wanting to defend Obama, pure and simple. What’s missing is that supply has to outstrip demand to bring prices down. It hasn’t. Even with more domestic drilling on private land, as we’ve seen, the demand still outweighs supply. Said statistics are mostly based on world supply and demand, which fluctuates. Were America to make a concerted effort to massively increase our own supply, our domestic prices would change, much like in the other big producer countries, where prices are much lower.

The AP also forgets to get around to telling us what, exactly, drives prices.

Read: AP Tries The “More Supply Doesn’t Decrease Price” Trick »

Posted in Energy, Journalistic Malpractice | 7 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove