CNN: Even Evil Guys Like Rush Deserve Their Free Speech Rights

By William Teach March 13, 2012 – 6:52 am

Think I’m kidding about the evil part? Alas, no

(CNN) Editor’s note: Marc J. Randazza is a Las Vegas based First Amendment attorney. He is licensed to practice in Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts and Nevada. He is the editor of the law blog, The Legal Satyricon.

I despise Rush Limbaugh. I despise almost everything I have ever heard him say. I wish that he were no longer on the air. That is why I write today to defend him against those who call for him to be silenced.

Far too frequently, Americans find offense in another’s art, music or other expression, and then they call for censorship. This is intolerable. (snip)

The First Amendment requires neither tact nor politeness. It requires that we permit all views to set up stalls in the marketplace of ideas, and we let that marketplace decide which ideas prevail.

Mr. Randazza has a point, and he’s mostly referring to the piece written by 3 babes…whoops, seeeeexist, one of whom is a traitor, to get the FCC to revoke Limbaugh’s broadcast license, previously published at CNN. If you want to fight against Rush’s ideas as private citizens/groups, OK. But, hey, you can also change the channel. Or, you can debate like adults.

It is a terrifying prospect that the government might review the political and social positions of a broadcaster when deciding who gets access to the airwaves. Should the government censor books that it finds to be unpopular or offensive?

And, liberals, what comes around goes around. If you start down this road, where will it lead, and will the same happen to your folks?

I despise Limbaugh not because he uttered one or two nasty words, but because his views are truly evil. I debate those who agree with him. I place my ideas into the marketplace, and I believe that ideas like mine will win out.

See? Evil! LOL.

If you don’t stand up for Limbaugh’s liberty today, someone may come for yours tomorrow. Discredit him, but don’t silence him.

Most Conservatives think MSNBC, CNN, the NY Times, Washington Post, etc, are, by Randazza’s POV, evil, yet, we do not try to silence them: we either tune them out or debate them. I’ve searched, but, I can’t find the link, unfortunately, which showed that Conservative blogs linked the NY Times way, way, way more than Liberal blogs. Because we’re calling out the liberal media’s most important newspaper, debating their viewpoint. Don’t like Rush? Turn him off, or debate his ideas, tell us why yours are better.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: CNN: Even Evil Guys Like Rush Deserve Their Free Speech Rights »

Posted in 1st Amendment, Liberal World, Wonky Media | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Progress Whines Over Conservatives Making Fun Of $50 Lightbulb

By William Teach March 12, 2012 – 2:37 pm

I do thank Think Progress’ Brad Johnson for throwing a little traffic my way, though. Anyhow, he’s unhappy with the Washington Post story from the other day about the $50 LED bulbs, and moves on to say that hey, they really will save people a boatload of money in the long run. More on that later. First

(Climate Progress) Whoriskey’s attack on the innovative, money-saving light bulb was promoted by the Drudge Report and picked up by right-wing blogs as further evidence that American clean-tech innovation is an Obama boondoggle. At Michelle Malkin‘s blog, Doug Powers complains about the “$10 million in prize money taxpayers are on the hook for in order to pay a company to create light bulbs people either can’t afford or won’t want.” Gateway Pundit screams: “It’s an Obama World… Gas Reaches $5 a Gallon & “Green” Light Bulbs Cost You $50 Each.” “The same people who can afford to drive a Volt (and have the limo pick them up when it runs out of charge) will be the ones purchasing this idiocy,” Pirate’s Cove blathers. American Enterprise Institute scholar Kenneth Green blasted the “Ludicrous Prize” as one of “epic energy-failures.” At Ricochet, George W. Bush speechwriter Troy Senik asks, “What lost? A bulb powered by the hoofbeats of unicorns?”

Blathers. I like that. Anyhow, according to Brad, the LED bulb will cost $80, including the purchase, over 10 years, while Thomas Edison’s bulb would cost $210 over 10 years, including purchases. That assumes that the LED would even last 10 years. Will they? Who knows. They haven’t been tested in the real world.

For my part, I’ve said I support better bulbs that save money. And, I actually support government contests to promote innovation. I did when I was a warmist, and I do now. But, come on, this is a big company, Phillips, getting $10 million for creating a bulb that is not affordable. It may save money, supposedly, in the long run, but $50 is a deal breaker. Even $25 is over the top. Especially if a person doesn’t know what kind of light they will put out, which has been a big problem with CFLs.

But, Warmists should put their money where their mouths are, and start purchasing the expensive bulbs.

Read: Climate Progress Whines Over Conservatives Making Fun Of $50 Lightbulb »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a flooded world, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Conservative Commune.

Read: If All You See… »

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

You Charged Your Phone, Therefore, Wisconsin Is Dooooomed!

By William Teach March 12, 2012 – 11:09 am

Has anyone told the Troglopundit that his state is doomed?

(The Badger Herald) Climate change might have been a controversial political issue for some time, but there isn’t much of a controversy anymore. To those who still doubt the “existence of climate change” —there was no winter in Wisconsin this year. In the words of a true climate change non-believer, Bill O’Reilly, “You can’t explain that!” The mildness of this winter didn’t just make weather a greater cause for small-talk than it normally is, but also broke every record in the weather almanac archives. If mean temperature between November and February were plotted from year to year, 2011-2012 would look like a singularity. To doubt global climate change, given the body of evidence that exists today, is to doubt inductive reasoning —which is the foundation for empirical science.

Know how the author knows? Because he wore a polar bear suit, and was sweating, so he knows exactly what a polar bear feels like. During one warm winter. After multiple cold and snowy winters. Which is certainly caused my man-induced climate change. I blame you. Because blaming natural processes and variation would simply be stupid.

Read: You Charged Your Phone, Therefore, Wisconsin Is Dooooomed! »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

HHS Ruler With Unfettered Power Tells Us Why ObamaCare Is Grrrrrr-reat!

By William Teach March 12, 2012 – 7:47 am

I wonder if Kathleen Sebelius has considered that she won’t always be the head of Health and Human Services, and that a Republican President could put a Republican in place who will have the same unfettered power to change everything up. Anyhow, she pens an op-ed for the Politico, telling us why the legislation that a clear majority of Americans want repealed is super awesome, in light of it going before the Supreme Court in two weeks

When the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the Affordable Care Act later this month, it will not be the first to consider its constitutionality.

Congress carefully weighed its authority in writing the law. And a majority of lower-court judges who have ruled on it, including some of the leading conservatives on the bench, have agreed that it’s constitutional. In fact, it was Reagan appointee Laurence Silberman who declared last year that challenges to the law have no support “in either the text of the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent.”

“Carefully weighed?” The Speaker of the House at the time, Nancy Pelosi, told us we had to pass it so we’d know what was in it. The majority, if not all, of Democrats failed to read it before voting for it. Some even bragged about it. Americans were dead set against it. Sure, some of the provisions are popular, but the overall bill offended Americans, who wanted, and still want, common-sense solutions, such as nationwide pooling, reduced government mandates on coverage types, and less government red tape, not overbearing government intervention and mandates.

Now, many recommended preventive services are free for those with Medicare and private coverage. Last year, 32.5 million people with Medicare and up to 54 million Americans with private coverage got at least one free preventive service thanks to the law, a huge step forward for America’s health.

So, Someone Else bears the cost. Who? That money has to come from somewhere.

It’s not surprising that the law’s opponents, having lost in Congress and watched their policy case vanish, have taken to the courts to try to undo these new benefits and protections. We saw similar challenges to laws that created Social Security and established civil rights protections. Those challenges ultimately failed, and so will this one. And that’s great news for the American people.

It’s “great news” that the opinion of the American People is being blown off? One study showed that ObamaCare helped cost Democrats the house. The Republican controlled House passed anti-ObamaCare legislation multiple times, which was then either defeated (barely) or blown off in the Democrat controlled Senate. Apparently, though, The People are just mean for bringing their griefs before the courts. It’s OK when Democrats do it, but not 26 states and multiple business interests.

Kathy fails to even mention the insurance mandate, which is the main thrust of the suits. I wonder why?

Read: HHS Ruler With Unfettered Power Tells Us Why ObamaCare Is Grrrrrr-reat! »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, Healthcare | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Walter B. Jones Submits Obama Impeachment Bill To Congress Over Syria Remarks

By William Teach March 12, 2012 – 6:59 am

Don’t get too excited one way or the other: it calls for impeachment if the Obama admin. seeks international/NATO permission to attack Syria before coming to Congress

(WND) Let the president be duly warned.

Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”

This is in response to Defense Secratary Leon Panetta telling Jeff Session

“Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].”

Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution.

And, before someone gets all worked up and says “hey, Bush went to the United Nations and got Resolution 1441, which he then submitted to Congress….oh, crap, I just blew out my Liberal talking point about Iraq being an illegal war….”, here’s the text of the H. Con. Res. 107

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

All it’s saying is that a president must come to Congress and get authorization prior to launching an attack. Which sets up an interesting showdown with the war powers act, which gives the President 90 days to launch an attack. Which some have claimed is unconstitutional from the get go. Which presidents of both parties have used. Except Bush. Who sought Congressional approval for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The resolution misses the mark in that it avoids the topic of seeking permission from the “international community” and blowing off Congress, such as was done for weeks regarding Libya.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Walter B. Jones Submits Obama Impeachment Bill To Congress Over Syria Remarks »

Posted in Barry Obama, Constitution, GOP | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Really Excited To Play Climate Change (Hoax) Games That “Could Change The Future”

By William Teach March 11, 2012 – 3:10 pm

Really, really excited. After first discussing how so many young people play games, Soros funded Climate Progress tells us

Looking at the climate change challenge there are a number of games and interactive tools to broaden our understanding of the dynamics involved. Climate Interactive, for one, has led the development of the role-playing game World Climate, which simulates the UN climate change negotiations and is being adopted from middle school all the way up to executive management-level classrooms. Many are recognizing the power of games and everyone from government agencies to NGOs to a group of teenagers is trying to launch a game to help address climate change. Below are some of the climate and sustainability-related games we’ve found. Let us know if you’ve found others.

The climahypocrites then go on to list 19 games, such as

2. Fate of the World: A PC game that challenges players to solve the crises facing the Earth from natural disasters and climate change to political uprisings and international relations.

3. CEO2: A game that puts players at the head of a company in one of four industries. The player must then make decisions to reduce the CO2 and maintain (and increase) the company’s value.

4. VGas: Users build a house and select the best furnishing and lifestyle choices to have the lowest carbon footprint.

Oh, and hey, how about

9. Logicity: A game that challenges players to reduce their carbon footprints by making decisions in a virtual city.

Interestingly, all the games are virtual, and not one of them actually revolves around reducing their own CO2 footprints in the Real World. Hence, Climahypocrites.

Read: Warmists Really Excited To Play Climate Change (Hoax) Games That “Could Change The Future” »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 11, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…are evil cows putting out greenhouse gases, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is American Power.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach March 11, 2012 – 9:49 am

Happy Sunday! Another fine day in America, a good day to head outside and give the old fossil fuel burner a good wash. This pinup is by Greg Hildebrandt, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. The POH Diaries highlight feminazi’s wanting to pull 1st Amendment rights from Rush
  2. Villainous Company is not happy about the Right endorsing the left’s victim narrative
  3. Doug Powers discusses #OccupyYourCouch
  4. The Lonely Conservative has today’s Obama #Fail Chart of the day
  5. Wild Thing points out that the Obama campaign is getting even more taxpayer funded airplanes
  6. Sister Toldjah declares war
  7. Scared Monkeys covers some #FailWalking
  8. Bummer: Doug Mataconis is being forced to defend Rush
  9. Maggie’s Notebook has a compendium of Dem pigs and sluts
  10. Jammie Wearing Fools has some #Irony regarding Buffett and taxes
  11. Gay Patriot points out that civility could be difficult for Liberals
  12. And So It Goes In Shreveport points out that “babe” is now a bad word
  13. Watts Up With That? has a big post on Lord Monkton, must read
  14. Grist has a newly discovered shark species
  15. And last, but not least, say a little prayer for Zilla.
  16. And one to grow on: One of The Other McCain’s favorite people was raided by the FBI

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

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 | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Team Obama Really Excited To Treat Women As An Uninformed Voter Block

By William Teach March 11, 2012 – 9:04 am

Whether or not this contraceptive/abortifacient mandate rule was intentionally passed to shift the focus from Obama’s pathetic record on the economy, deficits, debt, energy prices, wasting money, etc, that has been the upshot, with his buddies in the MFM falling right in line, such as this front page NY Times article: Obama Plans Big Effort to Build Support Among Women

President Obama’s re-election campaign is beginning an intensified effort this week to build support among women, using the debate over the new health care law to amplify an appeal that already appears to be benefiting from partisan clashes over birth control and abortion.

On Monday, mailings will go out to one million women in more than a dozen battleground states in three separate versions for mothers, young women and older women, campaign and party officials said.

What’s the message, that women aren’t capable of earning the small amounts of money necessary to purchase contraceptives, or at least ponying up the copay amounts? Or that they’re too stupid to adequately monitor their own health insurance/care? Or is it simply that they’re women, and need a strong Central Government to run their lives? Rather an anti-woman’s empowerment message, eh?

An effort called “Nurses for Obama” will begin on Wednesday, with nurses nationwide enlisted to be advocates for the health care law in their communities. And a new Web site will include links to video testimonials about the health care overhaul signed by Mr. Obama in 2010, including from a former critic who subsequently was found to have breast cancer.

Through the month, ending with what the campaign’s headquarters has designated a “Women’s Week of Action,” campaign field offices will organize phone banks, campus activities, house parties and media events featuring local residents helped by the law, officials say.

For all their talking of empowerment and being their own woman, liberal women sure do seem to like being treated as incapable of using their own thoughts and taking care of themselves, and instead expect to be treated as morons and a voting block, taken care of by a man, or, well, if we’re talking liberal men, a metrosexual.

Mr. Obama closed with the health care law and cited the same points that his campaign is highlighting: an end to insurance company caps on lifetime coverage, mandated coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, the ability of young adults to stay on their parents’ policies until age 26, and for preventive services like contraception. “So when you see politicians who are trying to take us back to the days when this care was more expensive and harder to get for women — and I know you’re seeing some of that here in Texas — you just remember we can’t let them get away with it,” he said.

Contraception was harder to get before ObamaCare? Really? I guess it wasn’t available everywhere from pharmacies, Planned Parenthood, gas stations, nightclubs, grocery stores, the Internet, all over. What he is telling women is that $9 a month for birth control pills is too expensive for women to afford, so, they should have Everyone Else share in the cost. It’s an anti-women talking point, and, while it will work in the short term, in the long term it is sure to backfire. Yes, Liberal women will be on board, but, despite the GOP losing some “centrist” women for the moment, most aren’t so dumb that they will fall for this line for long. Many will not make the mistake they made in 2008, when they fell for a snake oil salesman.

And, just as amazingly, Obama is actually talking about ObamaCare, something he, and most Democrats, have avoided like the plague (sadly, I can’t write “Black Plague”, pretty much the worst ever, because that might be considered raaaaacist). How long will this last? Depends on the economy. If you were Obama, which would you rather talk about: the law that gives people stuff (without discussing all the pesky problems over fines and government involvement) or $4 gas?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Team Obama Really Excited To Treat Women As An Uninformed Voter Block »

Posted in Barry Obama, Elections, Healthcare | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove