Friday, July 25, 2014

Except For U.S., Global Warming Compliance Is Cooling Down

President Obama, Al Gore, and many others such as billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer, would have us believe that we need to do more to fight global warming.  They like to claim that 97% of scientists "agree" that climate change is man-caused and needs to be controlled.  However, that theory is based on only 79 scientists who responded to an online poll in 2009.  However, when it comes to priorities Americans wants our government to tackle, climate change finds itself just one-up from the bottom:

With none of the doomsday predictions coming true, it is becoming increasing difficult for Americans and others around the world to believe that fighting global warming is worthwhile.

Just last week, Australia became the first industrialized country to dump its emission tax; and, South Korea seems poised to delay its 2015 implementation of their carbon taxation system.  Both of these countries may just be the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to cooling attitudes on global warming.  For example, earlier this year, the European Union signaled that it may relax its compliance with its own carbon reducing mandates.

So this begs the question.  Why is President Obama so hell-bent on controlling carbon when the rest of the world seems to be going in the opposite direction?  Controlling carbon is not a go-it-alone option.  Even if we reduced all of our emissions, the rest of the world would easily make up for it with their increased activity.  This is especially true when you look at the massively increasing carbon output of countries such as India and China as they attempt to become more affluent.

The simple fact is that many are no longer buying into the climate change hysteria and wildly predicted disasters that just aren't happening.  Apparently, the alarmists have never heard about "Chicken Little".  And, in this country, we have a President who is now siding with a minority by still treating climate change as a national priority.


The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' - Wall Street Journal:

Australia abolishes tax on carbon emissions:

S.Korean finmin says planned carbon market flawed, wants delay -paper:

Europe, Facing Economic Pain, May Ease Climate Rules:


Thursday, July 24, 2014

Harry Reid's Disingenuous Comments On The DC Court's Ruling On ObamaCare Subsidies

After two separate, but equal, federal courts ruled at odds with each other over the expansion of the ObamaCare subsidies to include those states that refused to establish their own exchanges, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid felt obliged to go to the microphones and admonish the DC court which had just ruled against the expansion.   Reid, arguing that the DC ruling was a partisan effort by two "activist" Republican judges, seemed to be blind to the fact that one could argue that the very same activism took place in the Virginia court where 3 Democrat Judges (Davis, Gregory, and Thacker) unanimously sided with the Obama Administration over the expansion of subsidies.

Reid also continued his admonishment by declaring that ObamaCare was lawfully passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court.  However, what he is completely ignoring is the fact that the the constitutionality or the legality of the ObamaCare law was never at issue in those two court rulings.  What is at issue is whether or not the IRS had the right to re-write the law and, thereby, expand subsidies to those 36 states who elected not to provide their own exchanges.  Section 36b of ObamaCare clearly mandates that, in order to receive a subsidy, you must enroll “through an Exchange established by the State under 1311.”  The words "established by the State" obviously doesn't imply any exchange established by the Federal government like "".  Otherwise, why even be so specific by using such wording?  And the reason for the IRS re-write is simple.  Too many states had refused to set up their own exchanges; leaving millions of the enrolled ineligible for subsidies.  In fact, only 14 actually did create their own exchanges. So, the Obama Administration knew the law would die on its own if millions avoided signing up for healthcare without those subsidies. Once again, it is the lawlessness of the Obama Administration that is really at issue here. 

Sadly, these opposing decisions by our courts does expose political activism in our judicial system.  If there wasn't, at least one of the 4 Democrat judges involved in these two decisions crossed party lines and would have ruled differently in what is an obvious wording intent of the law.  And, that activism is the very reason that Reid went "nuclear" in the Senate; thus, allowing federal judges and other political candidates to be appointed with a simple majority and not the previously required two-thirds vote.  This way Harry, with a majority control of the Senate, could load up our legal system with as many far-left, activist justices as he and the President could see fit. So, if Reid wants to make claims of political activism in our courts, he need only look in a mirror.


Video: Harry Reid Admonishes DC Court Decision:

The statutory text of Obamacare and the Halbig and King cases:

U.S. Appeals Courts Issue Conflicting Decisions On Obamacare Subsidies:

Judge Andre M. Davis:

Judge Roger L. Gregory:

Judge Stephanie Thacker:

Upholding ObamaCare—as Written An appeals court's remedial civics lesson: Laws mean what they say:

Why the Halbig Decision Should Be Taken Seriously:

Senate Nuclear Option:

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Three Reasons Why The Downing Of MH17 Will Go Unpunished

First of all, the Ukrainian government should be leading the charge against the separatists for the downing of the Malaysian airliner MH17.  However, their army is in no position to take any military action.  They can't even secure the crash site. While the separatists are receiving weapons and training from Russia, the Ukrainian army is receiving no such support from either NATO/Europe or the United States.  To date, the U.S. has only supplied peripheral support such as sleeping bags, some medical supplies, meals-ready-to-eat, and night vision goggles.  Obama will never supply weapons because he is, first and foremost, an anti-war President.  To supply the Ukraine, as silly as it seems, would be to promote war in that country.  This is the reason he hasn't provided the non-ISIS rebels with weapons in their fight against Bashar al-Assad.

Secondly, Europe and NATO won't act to assist the Ukrainian government because, to do so, might cause Putin to take economic action against Europe by cutting off oil and gas supplies.  Russia supplies nearly 40% of their natural gas and a third of its total oil requirements.

Finally, The United Nations and its Security Council are impotent in their ability to take action against either Russia or the Ukrainian separatists because Russia (Putin) has veto power and that power would effectively kill any resolutions or military actions that may be proposed by other members of the Council.

The bottom line is that Putin is in the catbird seat when it comes to the Ukraine.  He knows that Obama and the Europeans won't act against him and his goal of reconstituting the U.S.S.R.  Ultimately, he will annex the Ukraine; just as he was able to annex Crimea.  Unless, the world wakes up and takes decisive actions, his ambitions of a stronger and larger Russian superpower will resurface.

Russia in the European energy sector:

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

The Obama Administration "Surprised" Over The Border Crisis

When the news broke of mass numbers of unaccompanied children crossing the border, the response by officials at DHS and ICE were that they were "surprised" by the influx.  This first-we-heard-of-it tactic by the President and his people is getting a little tiring.  Remember the V.A. scandal.  The first they heard of it was when it was reported by CNN.  The same was true with the IRS scandal and Fast and Furious.

Now, with the border crisis raging, we are finding out that the Obama Administration knew for a least a year that there would be a massive influx of Central American children crossing the border.  Last January, they ran an ad seeking a contractor to handle the transportation of a very specific and calculated number of 65,000 unaccompanied children.  That amount seems to be right in sync with the projected numbers that we are now being given by the "surprised" Administration.  Then, just recently, we find out that, in August of last year, the Border Patrol built a makeshift processing and transportation center at Brownsville, Texas; specifically to handle unaccompanied children.  

This all begs the question: When is the most transparent Administration in the history of the United States going to start being transparent?


Question: If DHS Is “Surprised” At The Number Of Unaccompanied Minors Crossing The Border, Then Why Were They Looking For A Vendor To Support 65,000 Unaccompanied Minors In January ?…:

Stunning: DHS solicited bids for vendor to handle 65,000 unaccompanied minors -- IN JANUARY!:

White House says Obama only learned of VA wait-list scandal on TV (just like the IRS, Fast and Furious and reporter snooping scandals):

Obama aides were warned of brewing border crisis:

Monday, July 21, 2014

John Kerry Is Dispatched To Egypt To Secure Cease-Fire In Gaza


U.S. pushes for 'immediate' end to Gaza fighting as deaths mount: Secretary of State John Kerry, who was headed to Egypt, to push for an immediate cessation of hostilities:

What Border Does Harry Reid Think Is Secure?

In a recent impromptu press briefing, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said this: "without any equivocation the border is secure."

Of course, this begs the question as to why the immigration reform bill that has passed his Democrat-controlled Senate includes $30 billion to double the number of border agents and to add 700 miles of fencing to -- guess what -- secure the border.  Further, while still not approved by the House, the Senate's immigration bill was passed in June 2013. That was long before an estimated 50,000 unaccompanied children started pouring over the border last Fall; prompting Obama to ask for an additional $3.7 billion in order to tackle the current crisis. A crisis, by the way, that has literally turned our border agents into child care orderlies; leaving them no time to perform their real duties such as keeping us secure from illegally crossing drug smugglers and gang members. 

Either Harry is off his meds or he must be talking about some other border that we're not aware of.


Harry Reid declares border ‘secure’:

June 20, 2013: Senators reach deal on border security proposals:

Friday, July 18, 2014

Obama's Weekly Address Gets Pinocchio'ed..But How Many Americans Knew It?

In this week's address, President Obama decided to hammer the Republicans over John Boehner's decision to sue him for the lawless actions of using executive orders to delay and change current laws without any Congressional involvement, approval, or legislative action.

In that address, there was a line that was almost exclusively reported by the national media. The President stated that:
"So far this year, Republicans in Congress have blocked every serious idea to strengthen the middle class. Lifting the minimum wage, fair pay, student loan reform - they've said no to all of it..." 
So, as in the case of a CBS report and many others, most American's got the "news driven" notion that the President was speaking the truth when he blamed the Republican House for inaction; never once alluding to the fact that he was perhaps stretching the truth when he claimed that "every serious idea" was blocked.

However, one main stream media giant, the Washington Post, did take the time to admonish Obama by showing that many "helping-the-middle-class" laws were passed by the House and were either signed into law or left to languish in the Senate where Harry Reid selectively brought votes to the floor only when they gave political advantage to the Democrats. For Obama's lying, the Washington Post gave the President "3" big Pinocchios.

The problem is that this was only seen by those who took the time to read the Washington Post's online blog, or to watch Fox News to see the coverage of the "3 Pinocchio" story.  As a result, most Americans probably believe that the middle class is now worse off, thanks to the GOP.

The media is doing a disservice to this country by allowing Obama to lie in his weekly address and not publicly admonishing him for it.  The Boehner lawsuit is what is needed to, once again, allow us to,  maintain the division of powers and to stop the lawless actions of the President.  A fact that was so eloquently testified to by the eminent liberal law professor Jonathan Turley in a recent hearing before Congress.


CBS:  Obama to GOP: Instead of suing me, "do something":

Obama’s claim that the GOP has ‘blocked every serious idea’:

Jonathan Turley: Congress ‘Must Act’ Against Obama’s Overreach Or Face ‘Self-Destruction’: