UN Wants Americans To Pony Up $1,300 A Year For “Climate Change” Fund

Isn’t it strange how the “solutions” always seem to revolve around redistributing Other People’s money? (via Junk Science through GWPF)

(Washington Examiner) Another proposal would spread the cost of investing in other countries throughout society. “We call for the fulfilment of all official development assistance commitments, including the commitments by many developed countries to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product for official development assistance to developing countries by 2015,” the draft says. The proposal would provide “a target of .015 to .020 percent of gross national product for official development assistance to least developed countries.” That plan would cost $1,325 for an American family of four, according to CFACT.

So a bunch of unelected, non-representative, and un-accountable bureaucrats have decided the want your money to stop AGW while flying off to the exotic vacations spot of Rio (can’t wait for the news reports about all the private jets taking up all the space at the airports). And serving meat, which is evil, as you know. I’m sure they will stuff themselves while the huge number of poor in Rio starve. Meanwhile, the poor in the 3rd world shitholes developing nations are once again being told that they must follow the dicates of the UN, and aren’t allowed to develop like the 1st world. Only barely viable power for them!

Read: UN Wants Americans To Pony Up $1,300 A Year For “Climate Change” Fund »

  AddThis Feed Button

If All You See…

…is a flooded world causing humans to grow gills, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Right Wing News.

Read: If All You See… »

  AddThis Feed Button

Shocker: California Looks To Use Cap And Trade Revenue For Non-climate Purposes

Is anyone surprised? Climate Realists have long said that one of the purposes in pushing “climate change” is to put more money in government hands. California is exposing that agenda (Tom Nelson)

And you thought the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32) was all about limiting greenhouse gas emissions, didn’t you? Think again.

There is a brewing fight in Sacramento over how to spend the gold expected to start pouring in when the Golden State starts its carbon cap and trade program. The original intent of AB32 was to use the proceeds from the carbon permit auctions to invest in technologies and programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Makes sense, right? (Snip)

California’s mega-millions winning ticket is Governor Brown’s 2012-2013 State Budget proposal to take 80% of the carbon tax revenue or about $500 million per year to reduce the budget deficit for the coming two years. The quarterly carbon credit auctions are expected to produce $660 million to $3 billion per year. The Governor’s budget assumes California will net $1 billion from such auctions to start. The $500 million of revenue take assumed in the first year proposed budget will be used to offset existing General Fund costs for current emissions regulation activities, and the remaining revenues will be used on new programs to reduce emissions.

So the Democrat governor is going to take the money raised by skyrocketing the cost of the citizens energy and goods to fix the idiotic spending hole the Democrat led government of California has dug itself instead of on “solving globull warming” and reducing GHGs. Realists have been saying for a long time that so much of the AGW legislation will create a slush fund for government spending. But, hey, who cares if the unemployment rate skyrockets because companies abandon CA.?

Read: Shocker: California Looks To Use Cap And Trade Revenue For Non-climate Purposes »

  AddThis Feed Button

Excitable Juan Williams: Killing The Mandate Will Harm Voter Trust Of Supreme Court

We last saw Juan Williams getting beaten like a rented mule by Michelle Malkin. He now has an article out proclaiming that if the Supreme Court rules against Obamacare they will damage the trust of the voters who, um, don’t vote for the Supreme Court in the first place

(The Hill)Every political strategist working the fall elections sees a game changer coming by the end of the month.

That’s when the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of President Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act.

The Democrats have a nuclear option in this political game if the high court throws out the healthcare law as unconstitutional.

That blowup-the-system button, not pushed since FDR’s attempt to stack the court with Democrats during the New Deal, is for Obama to use the bully pulpit of the White House, and the national stage of a presidential campaign, to launch a bitter attack on the current court as a corrupt tool of the Republican right wing.

It couldn’t possibly be that the high Court found that the health insurance Mandate was an unconstitutional power grab by the Federal Government. No, they have to be tools of the GOP.

It is a move that could energize Democrats and independents even as Republicans celebrate a major legal victory.

Must be nice to live in La La Land. The majority of Independents are against Obamacare as a whole, and the Mandate in particular, as are most Americans.

After oral arguments at the Supreme Court, he signaled his willingness to target the court’s conservative majority during the presidential campaign. Obama told reporters that if the court overturns “a duly constituted and passed law,” the justices will be guilty of “judicial activism.” With words that sounded like a threat he added: “I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

The hardball political fact is that attacking the court will help the president’s campaign and it will damage the court for years to come.

Ah. So if the court rules that the Mandate violates the Constitution and Obama attacks the court for daring to perform their Constitutional duty, it’s not Obama’s fault that the Court could be damaged, it’s the Court’s fault. Liberal logic.

The bottom line is that public confidence in the Supreme Court, after controversial and political decisions in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, is the most fragile it has been in a generation. And remember, the same polls have shown most Americans are not convinced the healthcare reform law is a good idea.

Liberals just can’t let go. Seriously, Bush v Gore? A decision that deemed that Florida cannot retroactively create election law, and had to abide by the existing laws.

The relevant point is that the court may do irreparable harm to its reputation with another highly political split between justices appointed by Democrats and justices appointed by Republicans. A 5-4 defeat of the healthcare law will erode trust in the justice system.

Well, then perhaps the Liberals on the Court should vote in accordance with the Constitution of the United States rather than what their political leanings tell them for a change.

Obamacare was passed using legislative shenanigans after 10 months of debate while the economy burned around our ears. It was unpopular then and just as unpopular now. It will raise prices and reduce service. Doctors are fleeing the healthcare system now and the law invests entirely too much power to the head of HHS. It interferes with the free market system and delves into what happens within the states in contradiction to the Commerce clause. It can destroy the contract system, since individuals and companies are being forced to enter into a contract, rather than voluntarily entering into a contract. It adds huge sums to the US debt and deficit. It’ll stifle medical device invention and raise costs along the way for existing devices. And it gives the Central Government too  much power over our individual health decisions.

If the Court rules against the Mandate, I’m of the opinion that the decision will bolster the opinion of the Court in the eyes average Americans who are tired of government mandates and expansions of power, and any attacks by Obama on the court will show the People that Obama only cares about his personal power rather than the Will of the People and the Constitution he swore to uphold.

More: The Lonely Conservative wonders what Juan has been smoking.

Prairie Weather is lost in La La Land with Juan.

Jammie Wearing Fool points out that Juan is not playing with a full deck.

Read: Excitable Juan Williams: Killing The Mandate Will Harm Voter Trust Of Supreme Court »

  AddThis Feed Button

Politico: Please Stop Investigating Elizabeth Warren’s BS Past

Barbara Lee (different Barbara Lee than the Senator) has penned an op-ed for The Politico entitled Fighting dirty against women. What’s dirty?

The debate swirling around Elizabeth Warren’s heritage is maddening. Not because it is a sideshow to pull focus from real issues in the Massachusetts Senate race and not because negative attacks are just politics as usual. It is maddening because Sen. Scott Brown’s campaign attack on Warren’s “honesty” is not about integrity at all. It’s about strategy.

We’ve researched voters’ attitudes toward female candidates and studied women in politics, so we know this is a well-worn campaign strategy to discredit and knock women off their political pedestals. It’s upsetting not only because it is a cheap shot, but also because it is a tactic that disguises political games as a genuine push for transparency.

The ridiculous attention given to the question of Warren’s bloodline is reminiscent of Alex Sink, Florida’s former chief financial officer, who ran a close race against now-Gov. Rick Scott in 2010. Sink looked at her cellphone during a TV debate, launching a frenzy of negative attention. It far outweighed her opponent’s entire record. Yet Scott had previous experience running a health care company that was charged with the largest Medicare fraud settlement in U.S. history.

The only problem is that it is about integrity. It’s not a cheap shot. From everything that we’ve seen, Warren has no documentation or proof that she has American Indian heritage, yet she has used that family lore to gain prestige amongst liberals and universities. But, Lee doesn’t want this discussed, because it’s mean or something.

Knowing women have an advantage in this, opponents try to knock them off their political pedestals by launching negative attacks early in their campaigns. South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley faced allegations of infidelity when she ran in 2010, and Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) combated accusations of attending a “secret fundraiser” with a political action committee called the Godless Americans. Cheap shots, indeed.

Yeah, they were cheap shots. And much like Elizabeth Warren’s story about being an American Indian, they were BS stories.

Question for Barbara Lee: where were you when Republican women were being slammed with BS allegations? The “attacks” on Warren pale in comparison to those used against Sarah Palin, for one.

This distraction from the important real issues that voters face is nothing new. It isn’t exclusively relegated to women candidates. They, however, often pay a steep price with voters when they fall off their perch. Because voters, especially women voters, expect a woman candidate to be different from typical politicians.

When a Democrat trots out the “distraction from the important issues line” you know they are losing, a stage 6 defense.

Instead of manufacturing phony drama about Warren’s ethnicity, Brown should stick to the facts and make his case about why voters should rehire him. Let’s break this pattern of hyperscrutiny of female candidates and focus on what matters — who the voters believe can best lead.

Interesting. Perhaps Ms. Lee could give that advice to Obama, who seems to want to avoid making a case about why voters should hire him.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Politico: Please Stop Investigating Elizabeth Warren’s BS Past »

  AddThis Feed Button

Top 10 Failed Warmist Predictions

From Bold Republic

Read: Top 10 Failed Warmist Predictions »

  AddThis Feed Button

Silly Campaign Tricks: Will Those Who Blasted Romney Blast Obama?

I linked to Proof Positive earlier in the Patriotic Pinup post regarding this story from the LA Times

Like buzzing flies drawn to the center of a room, two small planes with trailing banners circled in the blue sky above Mitt Romney as he kicked off a five-day tour of small-town America at a New Hampshire farm.

The unfriendly plane – “Romney’s Every Millionaire Counts Tour,” its banner screamed – seemed to be chasing the friendly one with a more mundane message: “Romney for President 2012.”

Round and round they went.

Let’s remember, many on the Left, and a few on the Right, had fits over Romney’s Bus taunting Obama supporters. The Mahablog, one of my favorite Lefty blogs, mentions me in a post entitled The Children Are Easily Amused

I realize most of us would look on the circling bus episode and think, “WTF?” It looks silly and desperate. But Josh Marshall nails this — what looks like a pointless, juvenile stunt to most people speaks to the very heart and soul of movement conservatism. Because, basically, all movement conservatism amounts to any more is a great acting-out of juvenile rebellion. And the children are eating it up.

At Outside The Beltway, Doug Mataconis had a fit over the bus issue

If you’ve spent any amount of time working on a political campaign, you’ll know that much of on-the-ground campaigning can often involve juvenile idiocy.

Waiting for Maha and Doug, among others, to call out Team Obama in 3..2…2…..2….2….

Read: Silly Campaign Tricks: Will Those Who Blasted Romney Blast Obama? »

  AddThis Feed Button

If All You See…

…is land that should be converted into a wind farm, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Camp Of Saints, especially since I swiped the photo from Bob.

Read: If All You See… »

  AddThis Feed Button

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup – Father’s Day Edition

Happy Sunday! Today is Father’s Day. Have you called your father today? Have you told him you love him? Have you done something good for him? Interestingly, Cracked has a great article that explains how not to ruin it for dear old dad. Do you really want to give him a good day? Do his chores for him. Mow the yard. Clean the garage. Let him just completely chill. Oh, and this pinup is by Greg Hildebrandt, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Ace Of Spades wonders who the best TV dad is, and picks Al Bundy
  2. The First Street Journal wonders if Obama is America’s Hugo Chavez
  3. Legal Insurrection wonders why they are called “reporters”
  4. Scared Monkeys features Sarah Palin mocking Obama
  5. Maggie’s Farm covers Obama’s policy of just ignoring laws
  6. The Blogmocracy highlights some CBS anti-Israel propaganda
  7. Conservative Commune discusses the great Butthurt Epidemic of 2012
  8. Fire Andrea Mitchell highlights liberals being “civil” to Republican presidents
  9. Gay Patriot wonders about the left desperately dissing W
  10. At Jammie Wearing Fools, we find out that illegals are thrilled that Obama finally did something for them
  11. Maggie’s Notebook points out that Mayor Bloomberg has been silent on all the swastikas showing up in Jewish areas of NYC
  12. Proof Positive covers campaign highjinks
  13. Reihl World View features the Vagina Monologues
  14. Rhymes With Right says David Brooks actually, for a change, has a good point
  15. And last, but not least, Sentry Journal discusses Conservatives sabotaging Conservatism
  16. One to grow on: Smitty (The Other McCain) discusses taxation

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 what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts

BTW, sorry for the messed up links in last week’s Pinup Post. For some reason, many of the links reverted back to older ones.

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 – Father’s Day Edition »

  AddThis Feed Button

UK To Give Up On On-shore Wind Power Subsidies By 2020

Why? Because they are unsightly, make lots of noise, cannot be depended on to produce power when it is not windy or too windy, what power they produce cannot be stored, and really, they only people who benefit are those that own and work for the companies that run them. The average citizen isn’t seeing a reduction in their power bill: they’re actually seeing their bills go up because they pay for the subsidies on their power bills

(UK Telegraph) David Cameron and George Osborne are to come down firmly on the side of those who object to payments currently worth £400 million a year to companies who produce onshore wind, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.

Despite opposition from the Liberal Democrats, who strongly support more renewable energy, the subsidy regime for onshore wind and solar panels is now firmly expected to be phased out by the end of the decade. (snip)

At present, householders pay for subsidies to renewable energy producers through an extra charge on household electricity bills. (snip)

Chris Heaton-Harris, the Tory MP who organised the letter to the Prime Minister on wind farms, said: “I struggle to see how anyone can argue for a policy that gives huge sums of money to big landowners and the big six energy companies, whilst at the same time it thwarts growth and forces tens of thousands into fuel poverty.

They are also looking to axe subsidies to solar farms. Tax breaks would most likely be kept, however.

Essentially, so much of what is being done now is building “green” energy for the sake of looking like governments are “doing something”, without any thought as to what this will do to costs (which always seem to go up in the Real World) or to the environment. These projects require huge swaths of land, creating an eyesore. They can displace the animals and such that live on the land. Wind farms kill huge numbers of birds, including those that are endangered.

Interestingly, Gaia theory guru James Lovelock has an interesting opinion on energy

Three years ago, he received a heating bill for the winter totalling £6,000. His age means he has to have the heating on full in his poorly insulted home and, with his disabled son, Tom, living in a house next door, his outgoings on fuel rocketed. Damp winters on the edge of Dartmoor were taking their toll, so in recent years he has overwintered in St Louis, his wife’s hometown in Missouri. The experience altered his attitude to the politics and economics of energy. Having already upset many environmentalists – for whom he is something of a guru – with his long-time support for nuclear power and his hatred of wind power (he has a picture of a wind turbine on the wall of his study to remind him how “ugly and useless they are”), he is now coming out in favour of “fracking”, the controversial technique for extracting natural gas from the ground. He argues that, while not perfect, it produces far less CO2 than burning coal: “Gas is almost a give-away in the US at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.”

So, the guy who came up with the Gaia theory supports nuclear power, despises wind farms, and has flipped and now supports fracking and natural gas. Why? The cold dead mackerel of reality smacked him in the face in the form of high energy prices. This is what happens to many Warmists when their beliefs actually start effecting their own lives.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: UK To Give Up On On-shore Wind Power Subsidies By 2020 »

  AddThis Feed Button

Bad Behavior has blocked 26302 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE