January 17, 2012
Climate Change Hoax Has Apparently Become Part Of The Culture War
So says the Washington Posts Michael Gerson, who starts out calling Katharine Hayhoe, who had written the chapter in Newt Gingrich’s forthcoming book that ended up being whacked, a “moderate voice.” She’s anything but.
A theory about the role of carbon dioxide in climate patterns has joined abortion and gay marriage as a culture war controversy. Climate scientists are attacked as greenshirts and watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside). Skeptics are derided as flat-earthers. Reputations are assaulted and the e-mails of scientists hacked.
What explains the recent, bench-clearing climate brawl? A scientific debate has been sucked into a broader national argument about the role of government. Many political liberals have seized on climate disruption as an excuse for policies they supported long before climate science became compelling — greater federal regulation and mandated lifestyle changes. Conservatives have also tended to equate climate science with liberal policies and therefore reject both.
And, Boom! Gerson hits on the true support by liberals of anthropogenic global warming: power, higher taxes, and increased Central Government. Funny how liberals never consider what their support for these ideals would mean for their own lives, but, then, they always think that the “solutions” will always affect Someone Else.
No cause has been more effectively sabotaged by its political advocates. Climate scientists, in my experience, are generally careful, well-intentioned and confused to be at the center of a global controversy. Investigations of hacked e-mails have revealed evidence of frustration — and perhaps of fudging but not of fraud. It is their political defenders who often discredit their work through hyperbole and arrogance. As environmental writer Michael Shellenberger points out, “The rise in the number of Americans telling pollsters that news of global warming was being exaggerated began virtually concurrently with the release of Al Gore’s movie, ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’”
Yes, the emails do show frustration on the part of the “climate scientists”: frustration that they are continually being asked to show their work in the public domain, how they got to their answers, and what the raw data shows. They do not like that, so the emails also show arrogance, attempts to circumvent freedom of information requests, attempts to block papers that do not agree with their views, and that the science was politicized and manufactured, among others. Not fudging, but fraud.
Gerson keeps going for a bit about the sociology of the issue, before moving on to
But however interesting this sociology may be, it has nothing to do with the science at issue. Even if all environmentalists were socialists and secularists and insufferable and partisan to the core, it would not alter the reality of the Earth’s temperature.
Since the 1950s, global temperatures have increased about nine-tenths of a degree Celsius — the recent conclusion of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project — which coincides with a large increase in greenhouse gasses produced by humans.
Except, the BEST data also showed that 1/3 of the stations reported cooling. And, despite increases in atmospheric CO2, the last 15 years have been stagnant or cooling. But, we see the Warmist “scientific” Underwear Gnome style belief: temps went up, CO2 went up, Man releases CO2, therefore, it is all Mankind’s fault. Who cares if the oceans put out 16 times the amount of CO2 that Mankind does. It’s all mankind’s fault. So, YOU have to pay for this by driving unsafe motor vehicles while Liberal Elites take limos and private jets to exotic vacation spots for climate conferences.
But any rational approach requires some distance between science and ideology. The extraction and burning of dead plant matter is not a moral good — or the proper cause for a culture war.
But, the theory of anthropogenic global warming, er, climate change, um, climate extremes, climate weirding, extreme weather, whatever they’re calling it now, hasn’t been about science since Keeling did an investigation into CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa volcano observatory in Hawaii in the 1950’s and immediately declared that it was all mankind’s fault. I’ve written it ad nauseum, but, if the Warmists really believe in their “science”, they’d change their own behavior to match their rhetoric. Yet, other than perhaps changing a lightbulb and turning a light off, they don’t.
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.
Email This
Posted by William Teach at 8:53 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)
» Filed Under AGW hyposterics, Agenda based science, Collapsing Science, Delusional Dupes and DUmmies, Global Warming
Trackback URL:
Hooray! Obama Plans Yet Another Lazer Like Focus On Jobs And The Economy
We learn this in a The Hill article which suggests that liberals and leftists will not particularly like the Presidents proposed budget. Fortunately, the Democrat led Senate will never bother to pass it. Anyhow
Top White House officials are warning liberal and labor leaders to brace themselves for President Obama’s budget proposal.
Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council, sought in meetings last week to lift the left’s gloom about Washington’s crackdown on spending by promising that the president this year will focus on job creation rather than deficit cutting.
Obama staffers sought to present their budget plan as a glass half full. According to sources familiar with the briefings, they promised that the president will focus on jobs and the economy, instead of deficit-cutting, which dominated last year’s debate on Capitol Hill.
Unfortunately, every time Obama focuses on the economy and job, they both go downhill. Because the guy still has no clue how either work.
Senior administration officials fear a backlash from the left and are trying to prepare their allies to expect a disappointing budget, sources say.
So, the Left is going to be upset by reduced government spending? This should show up in a Republican commercial about “spending other people’s money”. I bet if they had to more of their own paychecks, for the 41% of Democrats who actually pay federal taxes, they’d be in favor of reducing the Central Government spending.
Back to jobs. SCOAMF’s election website, via their silly #attackwatch, links to a Talking Points Memo article which whines about Romney saying Obama has no jobs plan
Mitt Romney levels plenty of attacks at President Obama, but his claim in Monday night’s South Carolina debate that the White House “doesn’t have a jobs plan” is so blatantly misleading it really deserves a moment here.
President Obama has been pushing a bill called the American Jobs Act for months, a $447 billion package that includes billions in tax cuts, funding to prevent teacher layoffs, and investments in education and transportation infrastructure. You may remember it from the time he called a rare joint session of Congress in September to announce the legislation or from the many times the Senate debated its individual components throughout the rest of the year. By all indicators, it will play a central role in his re-election campaign. Disagree with it if you will, but it’s factually inaccurate to say he doesn’t have a plan.
Is Obama still pushing that diarrhea of a plan, which includes the same measures that failed in the Stimulus, and only save jobs in the public sector, along with helping out union jobs, mostly in the public sector? Giving people education, particularly college education, doesn’t actually create jobs, and creates depression among those who get their sheepskin in social studies and realize that they are only qualified to work as a burger flipper, if there are any burger flipper jobs around.
And, yeah, it should play a central role in his defeat campaign: the eventual GOP nominee should highlight that Obama’s plan would fail just like the Stimulus.
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.
Email This
Posted by William Teach at 8:20 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)
» Filed Under Barack Obama, Elections, News
Trackback URL:
January 16, 2012
We’ll be watching the debate
◼ South Carolina Republican Presidential Debate – brevardtimes.com
The first live South Carolina GOP Presidential Primary Debate with all five remaining candidates: Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich, will air on Fox News tonight at 9 p.m. E.S.T. (6 p.m. P.S.T.) ◼ Live Stream
Location: Myrtle Beach Convention Center in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Sponsor: Fox News and the South Carolina Republican Party
Email This
Posted by Rose at 8:17 pm | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)
» Filed Under Uncategorized
Trackback URL:
Occupy Wall Street Stealing From The Poor to Give to Themselves! (Coming Soon to Chicago?)
-By Warner Todd Huston
It is more common everyday. A man buys a house, the market collapses and suddenly his house is worth less than the mortgage, then he loses his job until, as a single father, he finds himself in foreclosure with no place to raise his two preteen daughters. It’s a case made for the Occupy Wall Street movement to swoop in and right wrongs, right? Maybe not because the OWSers in New York stole this poor guy’s home away from him in order to give it to one of their own members. Confused? Read on.
A Brooklyn man living in an apartment with his two daughters was alerted to the fact that his in-foreclosure-home had been broken into and occupied by Occupiers, as in Occupy Wall Street activists. When he rushed to his home he found a group of strangers that had broken into his home claiming to have “reclaimed” the house and given it to another family.
“They’re trying to take a house and say the bank is robbing the people because the mortgage is too high — so contact the owner!” fumed Wise Ahadzi, 28, who owns the home at 702 Vermont St. in East New York.
Apparently Ahadzi had bought the house in 2007 for the princely sum of $424,500 but during the housing bubble of 2009 the house ended up being worth only half that. Then, when he lost his job and got behind on the mortgage, the bank foreclosed on the property.
Enter — illegally, mind you — Occupy Wall Streeters who discovered the home in foreclosure and decided that they’d steal it away from “the bank” with the ostensible goal of helping the needy.
Ahadzi is rightfully indignant that they didn’t contact him so that they could help him retake possession of his own house. Ahadzi also asked why they didn’t try to help him and his two daughters to which the Occupiers claimed he “didn’t qualify” because he wasn’t in their group. “Why can’t you fight for me?,” he wondered.
So, who did they want to “give” the house to? An organizer for VOCAL-NY — a gay rights activist group. A fellow with a job and one that belongs to their own group, yet.
Worse, when Ahadzi got to his home he discovered that the Occupiers had taken all his personal belongings and shoved them in a pile in the basement and then began to tear out walls and “remodel” the place, spending, they claimed, over $9,000 in the effort.
This isn’t a lone incident, either. It is apparently an idea that the OWSers are going to try and push nation-wide. At a recent Chicago OWS rally, for instance, a purported Lutheran pastor preached an OWS sermon urging OWSers to do the same thing in the Windy City.
John Ruberry attended the speech and notes that Reverend Tom Gaulke told those assembled that they were going to repeat the New York efforts.
“We will be supporting a homeless family in reoccupying a vacant house,” the reverend claimed.
As Ruberry notes, this is called trespassing.
So, what have we learned form this? We’ve learned that OWS is not altruistic in anything they do even as they claim the mantle of Mother Theresa — well, Mother Theresa if she engaged in rapes, drug abuse, deaths, racism, anti-Semitism, property destruction and general lawlessness, anyway.
We’ve learned that, like any self-interested Wall Street Banker, the OWSers only want to enrich themselves and help their own members. They aren’t really interested in helping defend the poor and downtrodden. Just helping themselves.
Email This
Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 1:42 pm | Comments (0) | Trackback (1)
» Filed Under Anti-Capitalism, Communist Front groups, Crime, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Mobocracy, News, Occupy Wall Street, Property Rights, Rent-A-Mob, Socialism, class warfare, liberalism, social parasites
Trackback URL:
- Occupy Wall Street Stealing From The Poor to Give to Themselves … | Occupy Wall Street Info pinged this post.
Politico Notices That a GOP Win in November Could Mean The End of ObamaCare
Of course, since so many liberals and liberal companies have already received waivers, it wouldn’t mean all that much to themselves
(Politico) Think the Supreme Court is where the future of President Barack Obama’s health care law will be settled? Think again.
The real verdict on the future of Obama’s signature achievement will come in November — and the law’s supporters say a Republican sweep could pose a bigger threat to the law than the nine justices ever could.
The court is expected to hand down its decision at the end of its term in June. But most legal observers doubt that it will strike down the whole of the Affordable Care Act, even if it finds the mandate unconstitutional.
In contrast, the Republican candidates are all on record as promising to scrap the whole thing.
Yes, they are, though I think The Politico is underestimating what a SCOTUS decision against the ObamaCare mandate would mean, since there is no severability within the law.
While a Republican president wouldn’t be able to hand out waivers for states to get out of all of the health law’s requirements, as some of the presidential contenders suggest, he’d be able to direct the new Health and Human Services secretary to slow-walk pivotal programs, dramatically relax the regulations and possibly defund the law.
Why not? Perhaps the Republican could give a waiver to right handed people on January 20th, 2013, and left handed people on the 21st. Let’s not forget that the waivers Obama has handed out have a limited time-span of a few years. They aren’t permanent.
Front-runner Mitt Romney has pledged to repeal the law, and his policy aides are figuring out just how much dismantling could be done through the White House and HHS, without congressional action.
Now that’s a good idea. I’ve said time and time again that the GOP cannot simply focus on defeating Obama, but must retain the House and retake the Senate.
And it’s unknown whether the Senate or House will be controlled by Democrats, who could stop legislative efforts to repeal or defund the law. Even if they lose control of the Senate, Democrats may still have enough votes to be able to slow down or block efforts to repeal the law signed by Obama nearly two years ago.
Obviously, the media and Democrats will all of a sudden have no problem with the minority party being “obstructionist”.
For those who listen to talk radio, especially Hannity, we get a constant dose of “this being the most important election of our lifetime” every election cycle. In this case, that’s correct: doing away with a law that affects every single one of us along with 1/5th of the US economy is, as Joe Biden would say “a pretty big f**king deal.”
Any GOP president would not be able to do away with all the provisions, as the article points out. But, that person can certainly do away with the most burdensome parts, such as the mandate, and work with Congress to enact real world fixes that help actually lower health insurance costs while extending the possibility of obtaining health insurance to the 30-45 million who are without, which, if you remember, was the original point of health insurance overhaul, before it truly became a step down the road towards single payer.
That said, how does Obama run on his “signature achievement”? Democrats, including Obama, declined to discuss the law in the run up to the 2010 mid-terms. How can he run on the need to give so many waivers, excluding tens of millions of Americans? How does he run on ObamaCare when the majority of Americans are against the law? If the eventual GOP is smart, he’ll almost immediately attempt to engage Obama on these issues.
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.
Email This
Posted by William Teach at 7:54 am | Comments (0) | Trackback (1)
» Filed Under 10th Amendment, Anti-Capitalism, Barack Obama, Congress, Democrats, Elections, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, HHS, Healthcare, House, Mitt Romney, News, Obamacare, Politico, Republicans, Senate, Socialism, State Government, Supreme Court, Taxes, Unconstitutional
Trackback URL:
- A SCOTUS Ordered End To Health Insurance Mandates Means Big Trouble For GOP … – Forbes |Health Insurance pinged this post.
Huntsman To End Campaign, Endorse Romney
Well, this is a surprise, he ran such a great campaign, what with him following the tried and true primary season plan where the candidate panders to independents and moderates….what’s that? They are supposed to pander to the base? Well, darn. Well, at least he went and attacked President Obama….huh? He said in his running for president announcement he wouldn’t? Darn
(ABC News) Jon Huntsman will drop out of the Republican presidential race on Monday, a campaign spokesman told ABC News.
A source close to the Huntsman campaign said the former ambassador to China and Utah governor was “proud of the race that he ran” but “did not want to stand in the way” of rival Mitt Romney, the current front-runner for the Republican nomination.
Huntsman plans to endorse Romney at an 11 a.m. press conference Monday in Myrtle Beach, S.C.
Huntsman was running dead last in South Carolina with a whopping 3%. Dropping out won’t really change the dynamics of the primary in the least, though, according to the NY Times article
Yet late Sunday evening, a spokesman for Mr. Gingrich sought to portray the decision by Mr. Huntsman as a boon to him, saying in a statement, “We are one step closer to a bold Reagan conservative winning the G.O.P. nomination.”
Yeah, the funny part of that is that Huntsman was the most Conservative candidate in the race. But, as I’ve said, he never properly explained why he worked for Obama and how it could help if he became president, and, for those who could get by being Ambassador to China under Obama, you get to his belief in government regulation/legislation to deal with the climate change hoax. He never attempted to pander to the Conservative base, and pandering simply to independents is a prescription for low ratings and a loss. Huntsman ran an inept and absurd campaign, and his leaving the race will mean zip.
Email This
Posted by William Teach at 7:31 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)
» Filed Under Elections, Mitt Romney, News, Newt Gingrich, Polls, Primary, Republicans
Trackback URL:
January 15, 2012
Every Year Boondoggles Pile Up in California
-By Warner Todd Huston
The left-wing idea that it’s good for government to always wildly increase spending is dying a quick death these days. But this good sense has not made it to every state in the union yet — two disastrous states in particular; California and Illinois.
These two states have not learned the lesson about the ruinous government spending that is causing the country to teeter on the brink of bankruptcy.
Apparently, Illinois and California are vying for worst-state status. Moody’s Investment service, for instance, has rated Illinois the worst, but Standard & Poor’s says it’s California. But California has one thing that makes its fragile economic situation worse than Illinois. California’s penchant for economically ruinous ballot measures that create boondoggle programs that the taxpayers are forced to pay for is not rivaled by the common corruption endured by the citizens of Illinois.
The worst boondoggle currently forced on the people of California is the high-speed rail project that is already running billions over initial cost estimates even before the first foot of track is laid.
A damning new report from an independent panel assigned to monitor progress of California’s high-speed rail system shows just how bad this project has become. Moving forward with the project, they said, “represents an immense financial risk to the state of California.”
This report follows on the heels of recent revelations that the program’s projected costs have doubled to nearly $100 billion in just three short years since taxpayers were duped into approving the project.
A congressional oversight hearing was even held upon concerns surrounding the high-speed rail project and the news wasn’t good.
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearings revealed that some of the key funding plans expected to help the California High-Speed Rail Authority to complete the project aren’t likely to pass in Congress leaving the whole financial underpinnings of the project in doubt.
At least taxpayers can take solace in the fact that there is an independent panel to provide some external oversight of the spending on the massive high-speed rail project. This means that at least taxpayers have access to information that isn’t tainted by insider conflicts and the sort of self-interested, double-dealing that we’ve seen in so many other supposedly beneficial measures.
The same cannot be said for another ballot measure boondoggle — the so-called California Cancer Research Act — slated for the June ballot. This deeply flawed measure raises taxes on Californians by nearly $1 billion per year, creating huge new bureaucracies that are supposed to last in perpetuity without any real oversight. Californians are simply asked to place their trust in a panel of six political appointees that are supposed to administer the funds. Worse, this panel’s spending decisions are completely untouchable by the Legislature, the Governor and the State Auditor for 15 years, meaning California taxpayers have no recourse at all to prevent the exact kind of reckless spending that has crippled the state in other areas.
On top of all these flaws, this measure doesn’t even contain any guarantees that the money for the research will be spent in the state! That means Californians could be digging deeper into their pockets for spending that goes to firms and institutes outside their state.
Just like a family that’s gotten in over its head in a mortgage, California needs to stop spending and dramatically reduce expenditures. Saying no to boondoggles like high-speed rail and the California Cancer Research Act are good places to start.
Email This
Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 1:21 pm | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)
» Filed Under Anti-Capitalism, Democrats, Economy, Fiscal Responsibility, Fraud/misrepresentation, Government corruption, Government incompetence, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Government tyranny, News, State Government, Taxes, government waste, liberalism, pork spending, transparency/accountability
Trackback URL:
White House Supposedly Comes Out Against SOPA, House Shelves It
Saturday, the White House responded to two petitions asking that SOPA and PIPA be killed as legislation
Right now, Congress is debating a few pieces of legislation concerning the very real issue of online piracy, including the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the PROTECT IP Act, and the Online Protection and Digital ENforcement Act (OPEN). We want to take this opportunity to tell you what the Administration will support—and what we will not support. Any effective legislation should reflect a wide range of stakeholders, including everyone from content creators to the engineers that build and maintain the infrastructure of the Internet.
While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.
Well, that’s a pretty good response, eh? Then it gets kinda weasely
Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small.
But, what is lawful? There are competing laws that make excerpts legal or not. Every-time you read an excerpt here, at Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, The Other McCain, The Lonely Conservative, Weasel Zippers, and so on, we are breaking copyright law. Same with some videos. But, we are also covered by Fair Use law.
Across the globe, the openness of the Internet is increasingly central to innovation in business, government, and society and it must be protected. To minimize this risk, new legislation must be narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal activity.
OK, that’s a little better, but, is the White House saying that US law should be extended to cover things outside of the US? With respect, that’s kinda what SOPA and PIPA say, too.
Anyhow, the White House does definitively come out against DNS blocking, which was a major issue of concern with the legislation. Tina Korbe points out that Reddit plans a 12 hour blackout in protest of the legislation, and further goes on to say
To clarify, it’s not like the White House promised to veto or anything. Instead, the administration has said it will “not support parts of” SOPA and PIPA, which, technically, is not quite the same as “opposing” the bills. It could be the White House just wants to stay out of a fight that pits liberals (Hollywood, etc.) against liberals (Google, etc.). Nevertheless, it’s still helpful that the president doesn’t want to push very hard for SOPA and PIPA — because you can bet opponents will continue to push against them.
Any little bit helps in the fight against legislation which gives way to much power to the Central Government and its unelected and persistent bureaucrats.
Meanwhile
(The Hill) House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said early Saturday morning that Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) promised him the House will not vote on the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) unless there is consensus on the bill.
Well, it’s a start, and could mean that the legislation gets shelved permanently. Now the ball’s in Harry Reid’s court. He plans on a Senate vote in the next two weeks. I wouldn’t be surprised if we hear that he has postponed any vote within the next few days.
Huffington Post points out that “The Motion Picture Association of America Inc. (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have each released a response to the White House’s position on SOPA and PIPA.” All are in support of the current legislation.
But, as a DUmmy points out, let’s not forget that Obama was against NDAA and it’s indefinite detention provisions right up till he signed it.
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.
Email This
Posted by William Teach at 8:35 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Barack Obama, Congress, FCC, Government, House, Internet, News, Republicans, Senate, anti-Liberty/Freedom, harry reid
Trackback URL:
January 14, 2012
Are You a Conservative? Welcome to the Majority!
-By Warner Todd Huston
There has been a lot of lament by the far left in America that the Tea Party has somehow driven the Republican Party to conservative extremes. This, however, is untrue. The truth is, the American public has been trending toward conservative views for more than a decade before the Tea Party even came about.
According to Gallup, for the last three years more Americans have self-proclaimed themselves as conservatives than have claimed the moniker of moderate.
Political ideology in the U.S. held steady in 2011, with 40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives.
But think about this for a minute. This means that fully 75% of America is more conservative than the Democrat Party, a party that decades ago stopped being a party of centrism becoming instead a European-like, liberal party.
Gallup’s several decades of polling finds that “moderates” have been in slow decline since 1992 with Americans calling themselves “liberal” now only measuring at 21 percent. With this we see a nation that is not just center-right as many political pundits have for years claimed, but is actually trending conservative.
As to the Republican Party, it is dominated by conservatives by 71 percent, a number that has grown by nine percent since the year 2000. So it is no wonder that Republican politics has edged toward conservative ideas, its base is getting more conservative.
This all seems to bode ill for the sort of far left policies that President Obama and his comrades dearly love. In fact, one can see the progression of conservatism in America in many areas. Twenty years ago, for instance, liberals were full-throated in their criticism of the Second Amendment and aimed to ban not just handguns but all firearms. Today, with every state but one now offering some iteration of law authorizing concealed carry, anti-gun ideas are the last things Democrat politicians talk about openly. Abortion is also an issue that has trended toward the conservative point of view, though not nearly so quickly as gun issues.
Spending is also an issue that is trending toward conservative ideals. For the first time in well over 100 years the discussion in Congress is how to actually cut spending instead of merely how much to limit the growth of spending and voters are quite high on fiscal responsibility. Look at Wisconsin, for instance. 100 years ago, Wisconsin led the country in left-wing progressivism yet last year Wisconsin was among the first states in the union to vote in a Governor one of whose main promises was to scale back the undue power of government employee unions.
Certainly the country hasn’t gone far enough to the right to suit conservatives — just as the country was not far enough left in the 60s and 70s to suit liberals — but without question the United States has been drifting to the right for several decades.
So, conservatives, don’t feel self-conscious about being a conservative. After all, you are in the majority.
Email This
Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 1:48 pm | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)
» Filed Under 2nd Amendment, Abortion, Barack Obama, Conservatism, Conservatives, Democrats, Fiscal Responsibility, News, Polls, Republicans, Tea Party/Protests, Union Mafias/Thugs, liberalism, progressivism, public employee unions
Trackback URL:
Shocker! Heavily Liberal States Back ObamaCare
Well, all are heavily liberal other than one
(Washington Times) Eleven states and the District of Columbia are siding with the Obama administration in the legal battle over the constitutionality of the new health care law, as more than half the states prepare to challenge the law before the Supreme Court.
Attorneys general in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court on Friday supporting Congress‘ authority to pass the sweeping legislation, arguing that health care is a national concern because the industry constitutes nearly one-fifth of the U.S. economy.
Iowa is rather a shocker, especially with a Republican governor and House. However, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller is a…..Democrat. The others are no big surprise, and include, for the most part, the most expensive states to do business in, some of the worst economies in terms of debt, and some of the highest costs of living.
The attorneys general rejected a central argument made by the 26 states challenging the law — that Congress overstepped its authority by passing an “individual mandate” requiring Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a fine.
Instead, they emphasized a key argument made by the administration: that because Americans are legally entitled to health care — and everyone needs health care at some point in their life — Congress can mandate coverage to ensure others don’t have to pay for it.
An interesting argument, but, one that really has little to nothing to do with forcing people to purchase an item because they may possibly use it at some point. This would be the same as requiring every American to purchase a handgun and bullets because they might possibly have to use it at some point. Think these same Liberals would like a federal law like that, based loosely on the commerce clause?
And whether they are “legally entitled to health care” doesn’t follow that the Constitution gives the Central Government the power to only regulate commerce between the states, not what happens in states. The Commerce Clause is more of a key argument by the Obama administration.
Furthermore, the law doesn’t legally entitle people to purchase health insurance across state lines, so, there is no interstate commerce. This can all be moot, though, if Republicans realize that this election cycle isn’t simply about getting rid of Obama. Even if he is defeated, the GOP must retain the House and retake the Senate, otherwise, controlling the White House is moot.
It would all be moot, too, if the Democrats had decided to pass wise legislation that actually deals with the costs of health insurance, rather than a highly partisan piece of legislation which the majority of Americans are against.
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.
Email This
Posted by William Teach at 9:37 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)
» Filed Under 10th Amendment, Anti-Capitalism, Barack Obama, Congress, Democrats, DoJ, Fascism, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Government tyranny, HHS, Healthcare, House, News, Obamacare, Senate, Socialism, State Government, States Rights, Taxes, Unconstitutional, anti-Liberty/Freedom, liberalism, paternalism, social parasites
Trackback URL:
Good News! $6.5 Billion In Taxpayers Funds At Risk In “Green” Ventures
We just saw a Friday document dump from the White House, where they were fretting about the planned layoffs at Solyndra. This should bump the fretting up to Category 5 (and probably earn CBS’ Sharyl Attkisson another profanity laced tirade from White House personnel)
(CBS News) Solar panel maker Solyndra received a $528 million Energy Department loan in 2009 – and went bankrupt last year. The government’s risky investment strategy didn’t stop there, as a CBS News investigation has uncovered a pattern of cases of the government pouring your tax dollars into clean energy.
Take Beacon Power — a green energy storage company. We were surprised to learn exactly what the Energy Department knew before committing $43 million of your tax dollars.
Documents obtained by CBS News show Standard and Poor’s had confidentially given the project a dismal outlook of “CCC-plus.”
Asked whether he’d put his personal money into Beacon, economist Peter Morici replied, “Not on purpose.”
“It’s, it is a junk bond,” Morici said. “But it’s not even a good junk bond. It’s well below investment grade.”
Was the Energy Department investing tax dollars in something that’s not even a good junk bond? Morici says yes.
“This level of bond has about a 70 percent chance of failing in the long term,” he said.
Here’s where it gets even better
CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra.
In terms of the Central Government budget, $6.5 billion is chump change. For the 53% who do pay federal taxes, this is an obscene use of our hard earned money to prop up companies that are bound to fail in the name of making Obama’s politically motivated “green” energy initiative look good, at least in the short term, as well as hook up Democrat campaign donors and backers.
The long term shame here is that this type of malfeasance damages the future of clean energy. I believe that most of us can agree that these “alternative” energy sources are part of the future. They aren’t ready for prime time. Not yet. Not even close. Wasting taxpayer money on doomed and mostly worthless ventures will certainly erode any near term future investments in these types of companies, even ones that are probably going to be winners.
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.
Email This
Posted by William Teach at 9:12 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)
» Filed Under Alternative Energy, Anti-Capitalism, Barack Obama, CBS, Congress, Corporate welfare, Cronyism, DOE, Democrats, Energy, Fiscal Responsibility, Government corruption, Government incompetence, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Government tyranny, House, News, Taxes, bailouts, corporatism, government waste, pork spending, transparency/accountability
Trackback URL:
Obama Chic: Now Selling Campaign Gear for the One Percent
-By Warner Todd Huston
Obama? Why, he’s the middle class warrior, isn’t he? He’s the veritable man of the people, darn it. He has beer summits and he chows down on burgers and fries just like us reg’lar folks. Gone are the arugula days, the million-dollar vacations and secret Hollywood star-studded Halloween parties…. one out of three ain’t bad, anyway. On the other hand, perhaps all those claims of Obama’s middle class appeal are a bit of a show. If Obama’s new high-end, très chic campaign gear is any indication, he’s driving right for the vaunted One Percent.
With such famous haute couture designers as Vera Wang and Diane Von Furstenberg, team Obama is offering designer tote bags at $85, t-shirts with the hefty rice tag of $55, and a “Thakoon-designed silk scarf” that will set you back $95. With all that you’ve hardly got the sort of gear you might wear to a beer summit.
It’s all part of the Democrat Party’s “Runway To Win” campaign to raise cash for the cause.
As to the Republicans, t-shirts on Mitt Romney’s website cost no higher than $30, Newt’s t-shirts are only $20 — or you can get an embroidered polo for $40 — and Ron Paul charges even less offering his Ts for the low, low, dime-store prices of $17 and $18.
It is just a small thing, of course, but it tends to add to the long list of proof that Democrats speak out of both ends of their… well, their mouths. On one hand they pretend at being the party of the people, yet here they are catering to the one percent with campaign gear that most Americans could not justify paying for. It is just a piece with the whole picture of the elitist Democrat Party, to be sure.
The list of designers for this new Democrat-wear (and at these prices it’s a bit hard to even use the word democratic in the title) is filled with a who’s who of today’s hottest names in fashion: Tory Burch, Marc Jacobs, Beyonce & Tina Knowles, Derek Lam, Jack McCollough & Lazaro Hernandez, Tracy Reese, Narcisco Rodriguez, Rachel Roy, Thakoon Panichgul, Grace Tsao-Wu & Laura Kofoid, Diane Von Furstenberg, Marcus Wainwright & David Neville, Jason Wu, Altuzarra, Richard Blanch, Eddie Borgo, Georgina Chapman & Keren Craig, Sean Combs, Prabal Gurung, Monique Pean, Russell Simmons and Vera Wang.
Email This
Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 1:06 am | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)
» Filed Under Barack Obama, Campaign contributions, Democrats, Elections, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, News, elitism
Trackback URL:
January 13, 2012
Book Proclaims Obama Didn’t Want To Take Pictures With Soldiers In Baghdad
A little red meat for a Friday morning. In the book “The Operators”, this passage appears, via Buzz Feed
After the talk, out of earshot from the soldiers and diplomats, he starts to complain. He starts to act very un-Obamalike, according to a U.S. embassy official who helped organize the trip in Baghdad.
He’s asked to go out to take a few more pictures with soldiers and embassy staffers. He’s asked to sign copies of his book. “He didn’t want to take pictures with any more soldiers; he was complaining about it,” a State Department official tells me. “Look, I was excited to meet him. I wanted to like him. Let’s just say the scales fell from my eyes after I did. These are people over here who’ve been fighting the war, or working every day for the war effort, and he didn’t want to take f*cking pictures with them?”
True? Not true? Exaggerated? I’ll give Obama a bit of the benefit, since we weren’t there. But, like Ron Paul and his newsletters (donations from neo-Nazi white supremacists, hanging with Truthers, etc), the appearance can be more important than the truth. Is Ron Paul a racist? Maybe. Maybe not. But, there is the appearance of being a racist, hating Jews, hating Israel, being a Truther and conspiracy nut. And with Obama, there is already the appearance of not being particularly pro-military, and being part of a political Party that is not exactly pro-military. There is also the appearance that with Obama, it is all about Obama. No other president speaks more about himself than Obama.
Email This
Posted by William Teach at 8:21 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)
» Filed Under Barack Obama, Iraq, News, military
Trackback URL:
Romney Attacked For…Wait, Speaking French?
Well, this is a strange one
(Politico) A new Web ad from Newt Gingrich’s campaign, “The French Connection,” stresses the similarities between Mitt Romney and John Kerry, tying the two Massachusetts politicians together with the fact that both of them speak French.
“Just like John Kerry, he speaks French, too,” the ad’s narrator says of Romney, showing an often-circulated clip of Romney speaking about the 2002 Winter Olympics in French.
As Allahpundit points out, times have changed a bit, and we’re kinda friends with the French again. We even just fought a war in Libya with them. He also wonders whether Newt, being a smart guy and all, can speak other languages himself. A brief perusal of Google finds no mention of him speaking anything other than English. But, this is a silly line of attack, one which attempts to paint Romney as an elitist. Well, yeah, we already know that. Most folks who run for the Presidency tend to be elitists. Furthermore, I predict that South Carolina voters will not react well to the ad, as it appears to be a simplistic attack which attempts to make a play on the voters being hicks and rubes. Camp Gingrich’s “Bain bomb” is not working, why should this one be any better?
If Newt wants to get back in this race, he is going to have to abandon the negative attacks and get back to his core messaging, which was about the dangers of Big Centralized Government and the Obama agenda, highlighting what Newt wants to do. He rose on his positive messaging, and dropped like a stone with the negative.
Meanwhile, CSPAN is having a wee bit of a problem with prank calls about Romney’s……penis. Head on over to Mediate for some morning toilet humor.
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.
Email This
Posted by William Teach at 8:00 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)
» Filed Under Elections, Mitt Romney, News, Newt Gingrich, Politics As Usual, Republicans, Video
Trackback URL:
January 12, 2012
Jews who don’t know a Nazi symbol when they see one???
This is a complete absurdity. New York Jews sure should keep away from India. Symbols like the one above are plastered up everywhere in India.
On the Nazi symbol the arms face forward. Above you see that they face backward, which is the way they usually (though not always) face in Asia. They are a common Asian good luck symbol.
And this might be an occasion to note that the Nazis did NOT call their symbol a swastika. They called it a “Hakenkreuz” (hooked cross). It was only purblind Anglo-Saxons who confused it with the Asian symbol known in India as a “swastik”.
And why did the Nazis choose that symbol? Because one of their American predecessors (a “Progressive”) said it was two entwined letters “S”. And why “S”? For socialism, of course! The Hakenkreuz is a symbol of socialism!
I might as well straighten out all the confusions about this so I will also mention that the swastik associated with the Indian elephant god (Ganesha) goes the same way as the Nazi symbol. Don’t ask me why but Ganesha devotees were doing it that way long before Hitler came along.
I in fact have on my wall a copper swastik with a Ganesha figure in the middle of it but I guess I had better not take it with me if ever I go to New York again. People who can’t see which way the arms are facing above probably would not be able to see the Ganesha figure in the middle of my swastik either!
The owner of a Brooklyn jewelry store criticized for selling swastika earrings will reportedly stop selling the controversial item.
New York City Councilman Steve Levin, D-Brooklyn, visited Bejeweled in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, on Wednesday and met with owner Young Sook Kim, who agreed to remove them from the shelves, the Daily News reports.
A day earlier, politicians and advocates told FoxNews.com that the earrings were the latest example of anti-Semitism in New York and New Jersey. Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer demanded that the store immediately stop selling them.
“Let me be clear — a swastika is not a fashion statement,” Stringer said in a statement to FoxNews.com. “It is the most hateful symbol in our culture, and an insult to any civilized person.”
But the store’s manager defended the $5.99 earrings, saying the swastika is a symbol of eternity in Tibetan Buddhism, not just a symbol popularized by Nazi Germany. “It’s not a Nazi symbol,” Kim told FoxNews.com on Wednesday. “I don’t know what’s the problem. My earrings are coming from India as a Buddhist symbol.”
Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here
Email This
Posted by JonJayRay at 9:54 pm | Comments (2) | Trackbacks (0)
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Government incompetence, History, News, Socialism, State Government, religion
Trackback URL:
