This ain’t Hell On U.S. Vs Alvarez

By William Teach February 23, 2012 – 9:11 am

I’d usually provide a link in the sidebar “Quick Links” widget, but, this is a big issue, namely, people being able to wear military medals they didn’t earn, ie, Stolen Valor. Head over to This ain’t Hell for some in-depth reporting from the Supreme Court.

Read: This ain’t Hell On U.S. Vs Alvarez »

Posted in Blogroll | Comments Off on This ain’t Hell On U.S. Vs Alvarez | Trackback URL

Warmist DeSmog Blog Deems Heartland Doc “Authentic”, Fail To Consult Dan Rather

By William Teach February 23, 2012 – 8:29 am

Megan MCardle has the perfect quote

“When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths–including lying–to advance their worldview, I’d say one of the movement’s top priorities should be not proving them right”

And they will go to any lengths to protect their religion

A line-by-line evaluation of the Climate Strategy memo, which the Heartland Institute has repeatedly denounced as a “fake” shows no “obvious and gross misstatements of fact,” as Heartland has alleged. On the contrary, the Climate Strategy document is corroborated by Heartland’s own material and/or by its allies and employees.

It should be interesting when they have to prove this in a court of law, which seems to be the direction Heartland is moving.

It also uses phrases, language and, in many cases, whole sentences that were taken directly from Heartland’s own material. Only someone who had previous access to all of that material could have prepared the Climate Strategy in its current form.

Except, it’s rather easy to go Heartland’s website and put together a document, coble together some phrases, and provide a document. Just ask Lucy Ramirez and Bill Burkett. How’s Dan Rather doing after saying the document was “real”?

In all the circumstances – taking into account Peter Gleick’s explanation of the origin of the Heartland documents, and in direct contradiction of Heartland’s stated position – DeSmogBlog has concluded that the Climate Strategy memo is authentic.

They then go on to try and “prove” the document is real. And fail. As MCardle stated in a previous post

It was probably not written by anyone who had intimate familiarity with Heartland’s operations, because it made clear errors about the Koch donations–the amount, and the implied purpose.  It also hashed the figures for a sizable program, and may have made other errors that I haven’t identified.

The time zones and other things seem to have been changed. The Koch donation was for health care, not globull warming. There are massive run on sentences. The style is different from the other documents, both in the dump and docs on different subjects from Heartland. My favorite paragraph is this one

Heartland plays an important role in climate communications, especially through our in-house experts (e.g., Taylor) through his Forbes blog and related high profile outlets, our conferences, and through coordination with external networks (such as WUWT and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts). Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow highprofile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out. Efforts might also include cultivating more neutral voices with big audiences (such as Revkin at DotEarth/NYTimes, who has a well-known antipathy for some of the more extreme AGW communicators such as Rornm, Trenberth, and Hansen) or Curry (who has become popular with our supporters). AVe have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data. Finally, we will consider expanding these efforts further, or developing new ones, if funding can be obtained.

It’s a Warmist’s wet dream, basically saying that there is tons of coordination being driven, when, in reality, Realists see a big story somewhere, like at WUWT, Climate Depot, Tom Nelson, Junk Science, or others, and post it up.

Then there is the phrase that has bothered me from the get-go: “anti-climate.” Has anyone seen a Climate Realist say they are “anti-climate”? I thought not. And Realists actually look forward to the Warmist voices, and continually challenge them to debates, which the warmists are too chicken-sh*t to accept.

Of course, most of the Warmists are accepting DeSmog’s “analysis” as fact, as a way of confirming their biases, as a way of saying “see? Those damned deniers hate science, and look at their coordination!” A bit like calling the kettle black.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Warmist DeSmog Blog Deems Heartland Doc “Authentic”, Fail To Consult Dan Rather »

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

Six Takeaways From The Arizona Debate

By William Teach February 23, 2012 – 7:59 am

Whew! Last nights debate, the 220th one during this primary season….what? It was only number 20? Seems like 220. Anyhow, it came and went, and Politico’s Maggie Haberham breaks it down with six takeaways

1. Rick Santorum didn’t get it done

The evening could have been Santorum’s moment to move the needle in his favor, and he simply couldn’t make it happen.

The former Pennsylvania senator, who has been an agile debater with a surprising ability to take the fight to Romney in past debates, seemed nervous, tired and uncomfortable at the outset. The seating dynamic, with the four hopefuls at a table, nearly bumping elbows, may have played a part in that.

I only saw a small bit of it (was working), and he did seem a bit tired. His body language was a bit off. At one point, after he attempted to skewer Romney, Santorum was leaning way back in his chair as Romney skewered him. Perhaps Mitt needed a Certs? It was almost a “whatever, dude” moment, like a kid being scolded by his dad. Not quite as bad as Ron Paul wearing his big brothers ill fitting suit, though.

2. Mitt Romney won

It wasn’t a knockout, and it was far from Romney’s best performance of the year. But the former Massachusetts governor did what he needed to do, on a night that was far from stellar for his rivals.

Romney was buoyed, as he was in the Florida debates, by a crowd that favored him — a product of a favorable state, or smart campaign advance work, or both. Either way, he was cheered on repeatedly, and it worked for him.

The crowd did seem to be with him. So did the CNN moderator, in the few questions I heard.

3. Santorum and Romney really don’t like each other

On this, who cares?

4. Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul were basically non-factors

With the exception, of course, of how they worked to ding the other candidates. This was most pronounced in the case of Paul, whose “bromance” with Romney is now an openly-discussed fact of the 2012 campaign, including by the Texas congressman himself.

Again, I only heard a short bit, but Gingrich gave an excellent, though off question, response regarding government over-reach and the problems with the federal bureaucracy. Paul was his usual “America is a nation of warmongers, and illegal wars, and, why doesn’t anyone take me seriously?”

5. Some issues will last long after the debate

6. The likely season finale went out with a whimper, not a bang

From what I’ve read about the rest of the debate, the questions asked missed quite a bit. Illegal immigration was addressed a bit, but, what about housing? That’s a huge issue in Arizona. The questions were designed to get the candidates fighting, rather than lay out their own positions, and even to keep them off of mention the horrific job Obama has done as president, comparable to Sun Microsystems Jonathan Schwartz.

What’s your take?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Six Takeaways From The Arizona Debate »

Posted in Elections, GOP | Comments Off on Six Takeaways From The Arizona Debate | Trackback URL

Obama To Blame Others For Rising Gas Prices Thursday

By William Teach February 22, 2012 – 5:38 pm

While attempting to toot his own horn

(Bloomberg) President Barack Obama will try to head off the political impact of rising gasoline prices as Republicans vow to make the price at the pump an issue in the 2012 election campaign.

Obama plans events this week focusing on his administration’s efforts to expand domestic exploration and development of alternative energy sources to combat cyclical spikes in gas prices.

He’s going to blame China, Iran, speculators, people who fail yo properly inflate their tires and get tune ups, anybody but himself.

The White House press secretary, Jay Carney, came to his daily press briefing armed with statistics about domestic exploration and said Obama favors various forms of energy, including higher fuel-efficiency standards, nuclear reactor development and alternative energy research.

He will discuss the steps his administration has taken to increase domestic production of oil and natural gas, raise fuel efficiency standards and promote new construction of nuclear facilities, officials said.

How’s that worked so far? Much like the unemployment rate, the US has had sustained high gas and energy prices throughout Obama’s time as emperor, er, president. And the rates continue to rise.

This will be a purely political speech, one in which Obama ducks all responsibility, and one in which he provides no true solutions. The phrase you’ll be hearing in your head is “suck it up, buttercup. Buy a Volt.” Because energy just magically appears from unicorn farts in Obama World. And one in which the taxpayers pay for his gas for the 17 car motorcades and unnecessary fossil fueled flights to campaign events and vacation spots.

Read: Obama To Blame Others For Rising Gas Prices Thursday »

Posted in Barry Obama, Energy | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a field that should be full of wind turbines, you might just be a Warmist

Read: If All You See… »

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

Half A Million German Families Sit In Dark Due To High Energy Prices

By William Teach February 22, 2012 – 11:08 am

This is the result of pushing “green” energy when it is not ready for prime-time

(GWPF, translated from Die Walt) Many households in Germany are no longer able to pay their electricity bills. As a result, around half a million households are sitting in the dark.

The sharp price increases for electricity and gas is leading to serious payment problems for more and more consumers – even to dark apartments. Because of unpaid bills an estimated 600,000 households in Germany had their power cut off in 2010, said the consumer watch dog Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen which is based in Düsseldorf. This estimate is based on a survey of local energy providers in Germany’s most populous state.

“Price increases of around 15 percent for electricity and gas in the past two years have made energy for many households unaffordable”, said CEO Klaus Mueller. The increasing fuel poverty is alarming. What is more, ever tighter household budgets and regularly lacking competence in keeping personal finances in check are turning claims arising from unpaid energy bills quickly into an insurmountable cost trap.

Three-quarters of the 58 companies that responded to questions from the NRW consumer group reported growing problems related to energy debt and power outages. In 2010, the surveyed utilities in North Rhine-Westphalia alone sent out three million reminders for unpaid electricity bill. They issued 340,000 blocking threats and cut off power to 62,000 customers.

According to extrapolations by consumer protection groups, power has been cut off to about 120,000 households in NRW alone and to about 600,000 households nationwide. The estimates of the energy companies are consistent with the experience of the consumer advocates. A spokeswoman from the NRW consumer watch dog added that their consumer advice increasingly focuses on the question of how to comply with payment obligations towards energy suppliers.

What could be driving up power costs? Well, many factors, including the simple cost of living, and, with the world wide economy still in the crapper, this leads to less disposable income. But, Germany had been one of the best position, due to their recession policies putting Germany on a better path than most of Europe, the US, and the rest of the 1st world nations. However, Germany, like so many EU nations, had been pushing “green” energy, which is much more expensive though it provides less power, while moving away from traditional power, including nuclear.

In fact, just a few days ago No Tricks Zone highlighted a report that shows that the German model is 1) driving up electricity and energy rates for consumers and 2) making the power supply unreliable, among others. Power companies are also leaving for greener pastures where the power supply is more reliable.

Read: Half A Million German Families Sit In Dark Due To High Energy Prices »

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

Tax Law Provision Could Keep Supreme Court From Making Obamacare Decision Till 2015

By William Teach February 22, 2012 – 8:49 am

Perhaps this is one of the reasons Team Obama is arguing that the mandate is a tax

(USA Today) Next month’s challenge to the Obama-sponsored health care law could affect the care available to most Americans, alter the balance of power between Washington and the states and remain a flash point through this presidential campaign.

Yet there is a path the Supreme Court could take when it hears the case that could delay for years any resolution of a main point of contention.

The core of the law is a requirement that most people buy health insurance by 2014 or face a tax penalty. But looming over the case is a federal policy that restricts the timing of lawsuits connected to the assessment and collection of “any tax.”

On the first day of their historic session March 26-28, the justices will consider that policy and address whether people who challenge the insurance requirement must first pay the disputed tax and seek a refund before bringing a lawsuit. If the answer is yes, the legal fight over a key part of the law could be delayed, possibly until 2015.

SCOTUS announced Tuesday that they would allow an extra 30 minutes to debate this issue, based on the Anti-Injunction Act. Any SCOTUS ruling could very well be based on how the complainants argue, since they will also say that the mandate is, in fact, in violation of the Commerce Clause, and they may well argue that the AIA is itself a constitutional violation.

But, think about this: with the mandate, Americans would be assessed a “tax” for simply being an American who did not purchase something, in this case, health insurance. With the AIA, Team Obama would be arguing that Obamacare can’t be challenged because the tax has not been assessed. They basically want it both ways.

The plaintiffs can also argue that Team Obama have argued that the mandate is both a tax and a penalty (using the Commerce Clause, despite there being no power to do this based on that pesky old Constitution). And the lawyers for the plaintiffs are on top of it

“The individual mandate is a free-standing legal requirement obligating virtually every American to obtain health insurance,” lawyer Michael Carvin, representing the NFIB, told the court. He says Long wrongly argues that the “penalty” for not buying insurance can be characterized as a “tax.”

Paul Clement, representing the state challengers, similarly argues that the court should address the constitutional merits of the mandate. The Anti-Injunction Act does not apply “for the most basic reason of all,” he told the court. “The challenge here is to the mandate, and not the penalty that enforces it.”

The AIA stance has only won in one court so far, so, we’ll have to see how it does at the Supreme Court.

Ace has more, based on this Freedom Works article.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Tax Law Provision Could Keep Supreme Court From Making Obamacare Decision Till 2015 »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs, Healthcare, Taxation | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Obama To Propose 28% Corporate Tax Rate, Go After Oil And Gas Companies

By William Teach February 22, 2012 – 8:06 am

If you remember, Obama announced as part of his campaign style budget that he was going to push for corporate taxes in line with peer nations, which would have put the rate at about 20%. Well, his love of high taxes didn’t quite allow him to get there

(Washington Post) President Obama on Wednesday plans to propose a major overhaul of the nation’s corporate tax code, an election-year gambit that is likely to draw a contrast over a key policy issue with the Republicans vying to replace him.

Obama will propose lowering the nation’s tax rate to 28 percent. At the same time, however, he will seek to increase the amount of revenues raised overall through corporate taxation by eliminating numerous deductions and loopholes that save companies tens of billions of dollars a year on their tax bills, according to a senior administration official.

Perhaps Obama should talk with his buddy and adviser, Jeffrey Immelt, head of General Electric, about GE paying virtually no taxes in 2010. Now, removing some deductions and loopholes is not necessarily a bad thing: the “Bush tax cuts” actually removed many, one reason why the tax burden shifted to those evil rich people who donate so much to Obama’s campaign chest. That said, if the idea is simply to find a way to make corporations pay more taxes directly to the Central Government, those same corporations will work harder to find ways to avoid paying taxes, regardless of which way their leaders lean politically. The proof is in the details, and whether Obama actually goes further than simply announcing he wants a lower corporate tax rate, and submits some sort of legislation to Congress.

In his proposed rewrite, Obama will target oil and gas companies for tax hikes while promising special breaks for manufacturing companies, according to a senior administration official.

That one sentence shows what this is really all about, going after oil and gas companies while hooking up unions, companies that tend to donate Democrat, and, I’m sure “green” energy will be included. Democrats, including Obama, have long wanted to removed tax breaks for oil and gas, because they’re, well, Evil in Liberal World. Announcing the removal allows Obama to play class warrior, and, if said breaks were actually removed, he could then claim that the gas price rise is a result of oil and gas companies being big meanies, rather than his own absurd energy policies.

“We are going to propose a broad reform that will lower rates, broaden the base and eliminate and wipe out a very substantial fraction, dozens and dozens and dozens of special tax preferences for businesses,” Geithner said in congressional testimony last week. “We’re doing that because we think there’s a compelling economic case for doing that.”

Obama’s plan to raise additional tax revenue through corporate tax reform is notable because officials had previously suggested that they were hoping that corporate tax reform would neither add to, nor subtract from, annual budget deficits.

So, we can see that the idea is simply to create a situation where corporations are paying more tax directly to the Central Government, rather then reducing the rate which would incent companies to spend more of the money they keep, spreading it around to workers and through the economy. Typical.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Obama To Propose 28% Corporate Tax Rate, Go After Oil And Gas Companies »

Posted in Barry Obama, Taxation | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Shocking News: Higher Tax Rate In Britain Results In Lower Tax Revenue

By William Teach February 21, 2012 – 9:51 pm

It’s the height of Liberal/leftist/progressive fashion to try and tax those evil rich people to make up for idiotic government spending, and also because in Liberal World rich people are simply evil and….well, you’ve heard the story before. So, what happens when government tries it?

(Telegraph) The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period.

Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate. The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad.

The self-assessment returns from January, when most income tax is paid by the better-off, have been eagerly awaited by the Treasury and government ministers as they provide the first evidence of the success, or failure, of the 50p rate. It is the first year following the introduction of the 50p rate which had been expected to boost tax revenues from self-assessment by more than £1 billion.

Although the official statistics do not disclose how much money was paid at the 50p rate of tax, the figures indicate that it is falling short of the money the levy was expected to raise.

The obvious answer is to then play with the tax code and regulations and laws to stop the “manoeuvering” (don’t you just love the Brits and their spelling?), instead of incenting them to put more of their money back into the economy, which then flows around, helping citizens, and eventually ends up in the Treasury in higher amounts.

And, while we don’t have any figures, I think we can all guess that high earning liberals were the most guilty of manoeuvering to avoid the higher rate.

Read: Shocking News: Higher Tax Rate In Britain Results In Lower Tax Revenue »

Posted in Europe, Taxation | Comments Off on Shocking News: Higher Tax Rate In Britain Results In Lower Tax Revenue | Trackback URL

Grist Really Excited Over The Ultimate Warmist Apartment

By William Teach February 21, 2012 – 3:48 pm

I’m sure they’ve all rushed out move in

(Grist) If you’re like me, you watch this video and think “my house is 10 times as big as this apartment and only slightly more functional,” and then curse the day you moved to the suburbs.

If you’re like me, you wonder why the hell someone would pay for it, but, then…

This is the smallest studio apartment you can build in California, by law — 160 square feet — and it includes a bevy of space-saving measures.

…you realize they pay way, way, way to much for living space in the People’s Republic Of California. Of course, this is the kind of living space Warmists want Everyone Else to live in. That is, when they aren’t pushing homes more reminiscent of 1499. Video below the fold

According to the guy who uploaded the video at the Youtube page, “This first development breaking ground in March in SOMA (south of market area) will be rental units, starting at $1,595 month. Sounds high for the size though the average rent for a studio in SOMA is $2063.”

Read: Grist Really Excited Over The Ultimate Warmist Apartment »

Posted in Enviroweenies | 6 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove