Sunday, November 3, 2013

Obama Deploys Another Squirrel: Obama Glo-bull Warming 2.0

Michelle Obama's Mirror ^ | 11-3-2013 | MOTUS

Okay which one of you guessed global warming is the next squirrel?


Cleverly disguised as an “Executive Order” Big Guy, with the stroke of a pen, “dicktates” the following:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to prepare the Nation for the impacts of climate change by undertaking actions to enhance climate preparedness and resilience, it is hereby ordered as follows: …


Hehe; that’s really a good one! “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution” - since Article I Section I unambiguously states that the President doesn’t have the power to order that state and local building codes be changed to address “climate impacts” and that infrastructure  projects be “made more resilient.”

Even the Brits are laughing at us.

Obama's plan would be put in place through executive order, bypassing Congress, which has stalemated over climate legislation in recent years.

Butt as I understand it, as long as everyone just looks the other way – “oh look a squirrel!” – Barry will be able to dictate things that, up till now, only Congress could dictate: what kind of  light bulbs you can use to illuminate your Congressionally mandated low volume toilet.

outhouse detectorNew mandated low-volume toilets illuminated exclusively with solar powered lights

Pretty funny, huh?

“The impacts of climate change — including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies and public health across the nation,” the presidential order said. “The federal government must build on recent progress and pursue new strategies to improve the nation’s preparedness and resilience.”

Hey wait; I thought Barry promised to make the oceans recede!?


Well, maybe his new task force is how he intends to do that:

The White House is also setting up a task force of state and local leaders (All Democrats, aside from the Republican governor from the U.S. territory of Guamto offer advice to the federal government.

Screenshot Studio capture #1455Oh good! Moonbeam made the team!

Goodness, I don’t think this is very timely since it now looks like we may be moving into another mini-ice age.

First the bad news:

Lockwood thinks there is now a 25 per cent chance of a repetition of the last grand minimum, the late 17th century Maunder Minimum, when there were no sunspots for 70 years.(snip)

The Maunder Minimum coincided with the worst European winters of the little ice age, a period lasting centuries when several regions around the globe experienced unusual cooling.

…and now the good news:

But Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to bring on a new little ice age. Human-induced global warming, he says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles.


The precise extent to which solar cycles influence global temperatures is still debated, including whether the recent decline may have helped cause the current hiatus in the pace of global warming.

Hmmm. Funny,isn’t it, how natural solar system activity can explain a decrease in global warming, butt not an acceleration?

solarflarepicWow! That could have a “chilling” effect!

Anyway, all you need to know is that Big Guy is shouldering the awesome responsibility of imposing the accepted precepts of global warming including the the rationing of CO2 on all you little people who are too stupid or too selfish to do the right thing without being coerced into it. Just like with Obamacare:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to prepare the Nation for the mandatory use of new, green, low-flow toilets, I order the following:

849315_1The operative instruction: light a match

Posted from: Michelle Obama’s Mirror 

Group's advice to GOP: Ditch the 'truce' strategy, stand firm on social issues!

One News Now ^ | 11/1/13 | Chad Groening

A conservative, nonprofit group based in America's capital is suggesting a new election game plan that challenges Republicans who don't want to talk about issues like abortion and homosexual "marriage."
The group American Principles in Action (APIA) believes three social institutions must be protected to ensure a thriving society: religious liberty, the integrity of marriage and the family, and the sanctity of human life. Toward that end, APIA suggests Republican candidates must not call a "truce" on social issues, but should consider them an asset for the party. That strategy is part of an analysis entitled "Six Steps to Success for the GOP in 2014 and Beyond."
Maggie Gallagher, co-author of the report and a senior fellow for APIA, cites the campaign of Virginia gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli as an example. Cuccinelli was asked by a reporter if he would promote the pro-life cause as governor.
"His response was to say I will not use the political capital of the governor's office to push on the life issues even though I'm pro-life," Gallagher recalls. "And the first thing that does is it demoralizes everyone in the base. They never see him as a strong pro-life champion because he's walking away from it in the campaign."
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Four Legal Arguments Why ObamaCare is Bad Law & Ought be Overturned

CFP ^ | 11/3/2013 | Kelley O'Donnell

1. Unpopular: It Violates Declaration’s Government by “Consent of the People”
2. Sold by Lies: An Utterly Misleading Campaign for a Passed Law is Illegal
3. Doctrine of Impossibility: Agreements Impossible to Fulfill are Null & Void
4. Public Policy Against Waste: ObamaCare Will Destroy Economy

Conclusion: An Unjust Law is No Law at All

(See full article for details)

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

"Did you hear about the Obama administration scandal?

Bob: "Did you hear about the Obama administration scandal?
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean SEAL Team 6?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean the State Dept. lying about Benghazi?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean voter fraud?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean the military not getting their votes counted?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean that 3 or 4 of Obama's GAY friends were mysteriously MURDERED
when they came forward with claims he was gay too?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails and everything else?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean the drones in our own country without the benefit of the
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Giving 123 Technologies $300 Million and right after it declared
bankruptcy and was sold to the Chinese?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean the president arming the Muslim Brotherhood?"
Bob: "No the other one:.
Jim: "The IRS targeting conservatives?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The DOJ spying on the press?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Sebelius shaking down health insurance executives?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Giving SOLYNDRA $500 MILLION DOLLARS and 3 months later they declared
bankruptcy and then the Chinese bought it?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The president's ordering the release of nearly 10,000 illegal
immigrants from jails and prisons, and falsely blaming the sequester?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The president's threat to impose gun control by Executive Order in
order to bypass Congress?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The president's repeated violation of the law requiring him to submit
a budget no later than the first Monday in February?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The 2012 vote where 115% of all registered voters in some counties
voted 100% for Obama?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The president's unconstitutional recess appointments in an attempt to
circumvent the Senate's advise-and-consent role?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The State Department interfering with an Inspector General
investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Clinton, the IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "I give up! ... Oh wait, I think I got it! You mean that 65 million
low-information voters who don't pay taxes and get free stuff from taxpayers
and stuck us again with the most pandering, corrupt administration in
American history?

The 10 Commandments of Government not Zero Hedge ^ | November 2, 2013 | Doug Ross

  1. Generally speaking, government always grows -- it never shrinks -- whether times are good or bad.
  2. In each area it purports to "assist", government attempts to replace individual decision-making with central planning.
  3. In order to implement its grand central plans and solidify its power, government must take from one citizen to give to another; this is, in effect, lawful theft.
  4. No matter how many times central planning fails, the self-appointed masterminds in government assert that "this time is different" and that with only a few tweaks and more money, their delusional plans will succeed.
  5. Because it uses funds confiscated from taxpayers, self-restraint is no obstacle to government's ambitions.
  6. Its fundamental misunderstanding of human nature notwithstanding, government must claim to grant "rights", which require it steal the labors of one citizen to give to another (such as food, shelter, employment, and health care).
  7. No matter how widespread the harm it causes, government will never provide an honest and historical accounting -- a report card -- of its failures.
  8. As more individuals and families are harmed by the failures of central planning, government must find suitable scapegoats, must lie to do so, and therefore must also repress dissent.
  9. In order to build its network of redistribution and grow a culture of dependency on its services, government must inevitably undermine the family unit, religion, and the notion of God-given rights in order to cow, bribe, or intimidate its citizens.
  10. As government grows ever more powerful, it must also become increasingly oppressive through compulsion and force. To do otherwise would mean government must shrink, and this it cannot do.

How Ted Cruz Won the Shutdown Drama

American Thinker ^ | November 3, 2013 |

.......Skeptics ask: What was achieved by Ted Cruz with his 21-hour filibuster against ObamaCare on the floor of the U.S. Senate? What did Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives accomplish by trying to delay or defund ObamaCare?
To start with, Obama's nice-guy mask slipped, letting average voters see Obama's snarl. Talk show host Roger Hedgecock started calling the President "Barack Obey-Me" due to his arrogant behavior. The mask slipped because Republicans knocked it aside. Obama's shutdown "theater of the absurd" revealed a vindictive, petty tyrant in conflict with his political image, carefully created for superficial "hope and change" voters.
Second, Ted Cruz made it very clear that the ObamaCare disaster is the Democrats' baby. Sen. Cruz, Sen. Mike Lee, and other Republicans succeeded in sharply separating the Republican Party from then-looming disasters, now upon us. So now Democrats own this mess lock, stock, and barrel. Failing to distance the Grand Old Party from ObamaCare on the eve of its disastrous roll-out would have been foolish.
Third, the strategy of conservative Republicans always incorporated a "Second Act" that must follow whenever ObamaCare inevitably fell apart. Cruz anticipated that the American people would realize eventually: "Holy Cow! Those Republicans were right!" In fact, Cruz seized on a perfect opportunity, like a tennis ball hanging in mid-air in perfect position for a tennis pro to smash it effortlessly over the net. But the impacts are still in the process of unfolding.
.......However, it is absurd to view the situation as only a snapshot, viewing only one limited moment in time. A war is not won in a single skirmish. Cruz's critics narrowly view the shutdown as only one single event, not as part of an overall strategy......
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Bridge May Ice In Cold Weather

Political Realities ^ | 11/03/13 | LD Jackson

Personal Responsibility

It's odd, the places from which I draw inspiration for my writings. I was driving with my wife yesterday, looking for a black powder rifle to buy, and happened to come across a road sign. It is a sign I have seen countless times before, but it struck me for some reason yesterday. It was a warning a few hundred yards before I crossed a bridge, making sure I understood that the bridge may ice in cold weather.

I have nothing against such signs and they do serve the purpose to make sure drivers are warned about the possible dangers of the road conditions in cold weather. My first reaction when I read the sign, however, was duh, of course the bridge may ice in cold weather. Anyone with a brain knows that. From there, my thoughts started wondering in a different direction.

I used to work in a manufacturing plant where we assembled floor cleaning equipment. Floor scrubbers, polishers, sanders, steam cleaners, etc. If it had something to do with a floor, we probably built it. The assembly line had several different stations where different sections of the equipment was assembled and shoved down the line to the next station. One of the jobs performed by the last station on the line was to place warning labels on the machine. These warning labels were to make sure that anyone operating the machine knew what could happen, should they become entangled in the single or dual brushes turning at 2400 RPMs. There were also warnings to make sure the operator knew of the dangers of an electrical short, should the power cord become torn and expose open electrical wires. The machines that operated on batteries had warnings about the dangers of battery acid and what could happen, were the machine to get loose from the operator. Serious injury could result.

I often laughed openly at this warnings, wondering aloud just how silly they were. I was told by the higher-ups in the company that they were required by their legal department, to prevent frivolous lawsuits from being brought against the company. Looking back on that, prompted by the road sign yesterday, I started thinking about the different warning labels we see today. They come in all different shapes and sizes.

Our mattresses contain warning labels, Open the hood of any new car or truck and you will see a warning label, telling someone of the dangers of a hot engine. Open the operating manual of a cell phone and you have to read several pages of warnings, in more than one language, before you get to the actual operation of your device. A knife will contain a warning that the blade may be sharp. It's beyond ridiculous.

As a society, have we descended into a place where we have to be told of every danger that may present itself in our daily lives? Surely, anyone who has used a knife before knows it may be sharp. That's the purpose of having a knife, to cut things with a sharp object. Are we to the point that we have to be warned of that? If so, how have we moved to that place. I would contend it is because the idea of personal responsibility is almost non-existent, either in our country, or in the world itself. No one wants to be responsible for the actions they take.

Remember the lawsuit that was brought against McDonald's because their coffee was too hot? They had to pay an undisclosed amount of money because Stella Liebeck wasn't careful when opening the cup of coffee she had just purchased. The jury found that the coffee was defective because it was served too hot. No personal responsibility was taken by Liebeck because of her carelessness when removing the top of the cup to add her cream and sugar.

This is just one example. It could be used for the basis of a post about lawsuits that should have never been filed, but that's another topic. My point is that no one wants to take personal responsibility for their actions. The lawyers who make up the legal departments of businesses know this. Thus, they require the warning labels to make sure consumers are aware that the product they are about to use, sleep on, etc., could possible cause harm or bodily damage in some shape, form, or fashion.

Going back to the road sign that prompted me on this path of thought, anyone who has driven any in cold weather knows that bridges will always be icy before the surface of the road. It's the laws of nature. Having the warning signs is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, they serves the purpose of warning drivers who may be distracted or otherwise not paying attention to their surroundings. I am in no way advocating for the removal of such signs, but I do believe it is indicative of our society that we have to be warned that a bridge may ice in cold weather.

Look around you. There are warning signs and labels everywhere you look. Who knew we were all in such peril? I'm surprised our forefathers made it past the Declaration of Independence without a warning that it could cause serious bodily harm.

Buck Ofama

Up to me?


I Can't Wait

Force Feeding

Rearranging The Deck Chairs

Plan "C"



Tell me more...

It's Alive...sort of!

What's Math?

You Own It!

Keep Playing

The Plan

Health care plans ending for 26K New Mexicans

AP via Miami Herald ^ | Saturday, 11.02.13 | BARRY MASSEY 

The Miami Herald

Nearly 26,000 New Mexicans are having health plans terminated at the end of the year because the insurance policies fail to provide expanded benefits and other coverage mandated by a federal health care law, according to insurance industry officials.State Insurance Superintendent John Franchini estimates most of those individual policyholders will pay an average of 35 percent more for new coverage, but will have plans with more health care benefits.
He said individuals can buy new coverage directly from a private insurer if they don't want to shop through a federally operated health insurance exchange, which has been hobbled by computer glitches.
"We all have to adapt now because the exchanges aren't working, but it doesn't mean we can't get what we need," said Franchini.
Presbyterian Health Plan has sent letters to its 23,000 individual policyholders notifying them that their policies will not be renewed and outlining options for buying new health plans, said Todd Sandman, senior vice president of strategy and customer engagement.
Lovelace Health Plan has notified 2,900 individuals their plans are being discontinued, said Marlene Baca, the company's chief programs officer.
Under the Affordable Health Care Act, policies starting next year must provide certain core benefits, such as coverage for maternity care as well as mental health and substance abuse. Franchini said many individuals don't buy those benefits in their current policies, which allows people to hold down monthly premiums.
"Under the Affordable Care Act, you can't use those old thin benefits anymore," he said.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico offered its 28,000 individual insurance policyholders...

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Some Crazy Ideas on Health Reform ^ | November 3, 2013 | Derek Hunter

I’ve written a lot lately about the failures of Obamacare, as has everyone else – and justifiably so. Although the law’s troubles are legion and seem to grow hourly, there are only so many ways to make jokes about the fact that when Cousin Oliver joined the cast of the Brady Bunch there were more kids on that show than people who successfully enrolled in the first day.
So rather than be one of a million voices pointing out the problems, this week I thought I’d offer some solutions.
By way of background, I spent 2 1/2 years at the Heritage Foundation working on health policy, so I know a thing or two about it. I’ve tried to forget as much as possible – it’s every bit as boring as it sounds. But some things you just can’t shake.
That said, this isn’t a policy paper, it’s more of an idea board. While progressives whine and lie about GOP “sabotage” of Obamacare and otherwise attempt to deflect from their disastrous conceptual failure, I’m going to throw some things at that idea board and hope a few stick.
Reset the Market
Health insurance has been tied to employment since the administration of FDR. With wages frozen, companies had to offer other things to attract workers. The tax code was changed to allow them to offer health coverage without it being taxed as income. Those who purchase insurance in the individual market have to spend money they’ve already paid tax on to buy it. So you end up with two groups of people getting the same thing – one being taxed on it, the other not.
This was fine when people held one job in the local factory for 30 years. But with so many now self-employed or working for companies too small to offer coverage, this has to be reset. The government should “level the playing field” and allow individuals to spend their own money, pre-tax, on health insurance.
Roughly a quarter of the uninsured in this country have incomes above $50,000. They’re uninsured by choice. It could be they feel bulletproof, but it also could be they simply don’t want to spend the money on it. This would encourage some to buy insurance. But if they did not, it would be on them, not society. (More on this later.)
Health Savings Accounts
How much does an X-ray cost? A hip replacement? A blood test? Odds are you don’t know because, if you have insurance, you’ve probably never paid for one.
A health savings account, coupled with a high-deductible catastrophic insurance plan, would make consumers become not only price sensitive, but price aware for the first time. It would allow people to save tax-free exclusively for their health expenses, or even allow their employer to contribute. Then, they could roll over that money every year and pass it on to their families when they die. If people depend on their own health care savings for medical expenses, they will become price-sensitive.
And that price sensitivity would introduce real competition into health care. The cost of Lasik eye surgery has decreased dramatically precisely because it isn’t covered by most insurance and, therefore, doctors must compete for patients. Imagine that on a nationwide scale.
Tort Reform
Most people don’t understand it and it won’t win any votes (trial lawyers, the biggest beneficiaries of our current system, are massive donors to Democrats) but it is crucial to controlling costs.
Doctors live in fear of being sued. We’ve all seen the ads on TV featuring a voiceover asking, “Have you or anyone you love been hurt by a doctor? Call us. It won’t cost you a dime unless we collect.” These shysters and the mentality they breed cause doctors to practice defensive medicine, which drives up costs.
This is a bigger societal problem than can be addressed with one law. But it is a good place to start.
Society has conflated “adverse outcomes” with malice. Where malice or negligence exist, sue away. But sometimes, treatments don’t work. No medical professional can treat against that. But society now equates something not working how we’d hope with “someone is to blame,” which becomes “someone must pay.”
A new market should be created – adverse event insurance. Since something not going how people had hoped has seeped into our collective psyche as malpractice, which it is not, companies should offer insurance against adverse events. It would function like flight insurance used to – purchase it before a procedure at a low price, and it pays out if something non-malice-or-negligence-related happens. Since most procedures are successful, the cost and pay-out rate would be exceedingly low (on the order of $10 for $25,000 coverage of a hernia surgery, more complicated procedures more).
True malpractice should still face court action and severe penalties, but a “losers pay” system should be enacted for those who file genuinely frivolous lawsuits. And the loser who should pay should be the lawyers – they know when they are filing cases they shouldn’t, and they’ll stop if it threatens their wallets.
Personal Responsibility
Sadly, this is probably the most controversial point, even given the money in play on tort reform. Personal responsibility is passé and discouraged by our current culture, from the president on down. But it has to happen.
No mandates, only consequences
I’m not saying we let people die on the streets. I’m saying we treat people who choose to risk it, not buy insurance and lose. If that means bankruptcy, it means bankruptcy.
Adults have to be held responsible for their choices, or lack thereof. Losing what they have accumulated is a small price to pay for surviving. It also will encourage, but not mandate, people to buy some kind of insurance.
Neither political party, writ large, is interested in real personal responsibility, but it’s desperately needed in the health insurance market. Without it you get Obamacare.
These are just a few ideas, ideas progressives will no doubt find crazy, which makes me like them all the more. But these could move us in a direction we haven’t gone for a long time – toward a freer market in health care.

Man's Best Friend

A real woman