Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Annual emissions from Keystone pipeline would be one-tenth of what’s produced by … cow farts!

Hotair.com ^ | 5/5/2014 | alphapundit
I was torn between posting this animal-themed instant classic from WaPo and the news today about scientists reverse-engineering aging in mice by using young blood. But then I remembered an ironclad rule of blogging: When in doubt, go with the news story that involves farting. Besides, we cover stuff about elderly vampirism of the young all the time. Given the “creative” uses to which infant tissue is already put, it’s too depressing to spitball where a “young blood” industry might lead. So let’s stick with cow farts. I’m not even going to quote from WaPo’s story. Just eyeball this graph they made to grasp how high the stakes are environmentally in killing off a few thousand jobs to protect the tar sands.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...

'Green' Power Line On Track As Obama Blocks Keystone

investors.com ^ | 5/5/2014 | STEPHEN MOORE
Only a few weeks after President Obama's controversial decision to delay the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, the Obama administration is expected in the next several weeks to approve a 500-mile green energy transmission line project running through Arizona and New Mexico that his own Defense Department says may pose "an unacceptable risk to national security." The multibillion-dollar electric power line project, financed by a group called SunZia, would connect wind power facilities in eastern New Mexico to the electric grid and supply power to Arizona and California.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...

Steny Hoyer urges Dems to oppose Lois Lerner contempt

By LAUREN FRENCH

House Democratic leaders are urging their members to vote against holding former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner in contempt, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer said on Monday.
The Maryland Democrat said leadership would oppose the contempt vote, which is scheduled to reach the House floor this week, on grounds that it is “political messaging.” Lerner, who retired from the IRS last fall, was responsible for the agency division that targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny as they sought a tax exemption. She has repeatedly refused to answer questions from House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa’s panel, prompting the contempt vote. "We’re going to express our opposition certainly to the Lerner [vote],” Hoyer said. Speaker John Boehner has previously said Lerner would face a contempt vote as long as she refused to testify and Republicans are hoping a court will determine that she waived her Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate after giving a short speech before the Oversight Committee last May. Hoyer said he predicts any court will side with Lerner. “People want to read the Constitution right up until the time it makes them uncomfortable with providing people with the rights that they don’t think they ought to have,” he said. “I think if it passes, the courts will sustain Ms. Lerner’s claim of Fifth Amendment privileges.”

California Economy Threatened by Texas from Panama Canal Expansion

American Uncensored News Network ^ | June 5, 2013 | Jonathon Moseley
California will take another hit right in the struggling economy starting April 2015. Instead of loading and unloading at California ports, many international cargo ships and oil tankers will start accessing the booming Texas economy. Texas is flourishing under Rick Perry’s Republican policies. A dramatic expansion of the Panama Canal will give more choices to massive, new cargo ships. The Panama Canal has been at maximum capacity, with more ships transiting the Isthmus of Panama than the canal was designed to handle. But more importantly, changes in the shipping industry are in play. Massive new megaships are transforming the industry. Those ships currently have no choice but to load and unload in California. This development could shift a slice of a market valued annually in the trillions of dollars away from California toward Texas and other ports on the East Coast of the United States. One ocean port can generate billions of dollars in state and local tax revenues. The Port of Los Angeles alone generates 919,000 regional jobs and $39.1 billion in wages and tax revenues each year. Los Angeles ports handle about 40% of all the container traffic in the United States. There are a total of 3 million employees in industries related to port operations. Studies project Los Angeles ports will lose between 1% and 25% compared to existing levels of trade. Greater Los Angeles has remained highly prosperous despite decades of left-wing regulations and governmental policies burdening the California economy. Trade through California ports of entry has helped keep California afloat financially. Ocean-going shipping is the cheapest mode for transporting freight by far. Therefore, shortening the distance that freight travels over land can dramatically affect the overall expense of importing or exporting products.
(Excerpt) Read more at aun-tv.com ...

According to liberals

2v2xv1l.jpg

Common Core

mcajiu.jpg

Cry Babies!

Cry-Babies-600-wLogo.jpg

The only pipeline

24lnccy.gif

Two Redskins!

hillary_clinton_elizabeth_warren_caption

Let me be clear...

10177948_383890278418463_787870683274624

WAPO Poll

wu2s9c.jpg

The correct approach

vpd8ur.png

There will be costs?

34xi78m.jpg

Grazing Fees

191330.jpg

Ok, I'm leaving!

25klxrr.jpg

WTF, OVER?

351sgi8.gif

No Experience

191281.jpg

Shovel-Ready

10253842_383272668480224_759408986798420

Tell me one thing...

191278.jpg

1 to 75

191325.jpg

Why We're No Longer Number One

Townhall.com ^ | May 6, 2014 | Ron Paul
Last week World Bank economists predicted that China would soon displace the United States as the world's largest economy. The fact that this one-time economic basket case is now positioned to surpass the US is one more sign of the damage done to American prosperity by welfare, warfare, corporatism, and fiat money. Some commentators have predicted that China's reign as the world's largest economy would not last long. This may be true. While China has made great strides since adopting free-market reforms in the 1970s, China is still run by an authoritarian government whose economic policies distort the market in order to benefit state-favored industries. These state-favored businesses are often controlled by politically-powerful individuals. What many of these commentators fail to notice is that the American government pursues many of the same flawed policies as the Chinese. For example, because of the increase in regulations, subsidies, and bailouts, many American businesses are putting more resources into manipulating the political process than producing goods and services desired by consumers. Many big businesses even lobby Congress and the federal bureaucracy for new regulations on their industries. They do this because big business can more easily absorb the costs of complying with the new regulations that force their smaller competitors out of business. China is regularly criticized by American protectionists for subsidizing its export industries. However, the US government does the same thing via programs such as the Export-Import Bank. China is also criticized for manipulating the value of its currency to make its exports more attractive to foreign consumers. This may well be true, but China is hardly unique in this respect. Throughout its history, the Federal Reserve has manipulated both the domestic and international economy, often working in partnership with foreign central banks. The Federal Reserve's inflationary policies benefit big banks, politically-connected businesses, and big-spending politicians at the expense of the American people. Anyone interested in helping improve the American people's economic situation should focus on changing America's monetary policy, not China's. Ironically, many of the same politicians who denounce China's monetary policy benefit from Chinese purchases of America's debt. If China stopped making large purchases of US debt, the Federal Reserve would be forced to monetize even more debt, thus risking hyperinflation. So the best thing Congress could do to make it more difficult for China to manipulate the global economy is cut federal spending. One advantage China has over the US is that the Chinese government does not waste money on a hyper-interventionist foreign policy. The United States government spent approximately $752 billion on the military in fiscal year 2013. In contrast, China spent approximately $188 billion. While China may be increasing its military spending, it has a long way to go to catch up to the United States. It is difficult to see how the American people, other than those who run or work for the military-industrial complex, benefit from this spending. Military spending, like all government spending, hampers private sector growth by taking resources away from investors, entrepreneurs, and consumers while contributing significantly to the national debt. In contrast, a return to the policy of peace and free trade would allow those resources to be used by entrepreneurs to create new businesses and new jobs. News that China is soon to surpass the United States as the largest economy in the world is a stark reminder of how the American people are harmed by the welfare-warfare state, crony capitalism, and fiat currency. The only way to avoid continuing collapse is to finally reject an interventionist foreign policy, stop bailing out and subsidizing politically powerful industries, and restore a free market in money.

Obama's Phony Ambivalence on Keystone

Townhall.com ^ | May 6, 2014 | David Limbaugh
Don't trouble yourself trying to figure out whether President Obama is more political than ideological. He's an expert at straddling both and getting his way without compromise. Analysts have long debated whether partisan Obama would prevail over ideological Obama in his decision to approve or reject the Keystone XL pipeline, but in the end, it may be a false choice, as both could win under the overarching dominance of Saul Alinsky-Obama. Keystone XL is intended to carry crude oil from Alberta to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. Environmentalists have long opposed construction of the pipeline, arguing it would do great damage to the Sandhills region of Nebraska. Supporters have contended that the project would have little, if any, negative environmental impact, is critically important for U.S. energy independence and would be a great boon to the economy and create thousands of jobs. Many believed that Obama's eventual approval of the pipeline was inevitable and that he was just delaying the decision to get past the 2012 elections, after which he could safely withdraw his opposition without worrying about further wrath from environmental absolutists. But since the elections, Obama has continued to obstruct the pipeline. He is still doing so as we are approaching mid-2014 even though the State Department found in January that the project would not have a significant effect on global warming; Obama has always insisted that the pipeline's alleged impact on global warming is his primary concern. Many people, including no less a supporter of Keystone than Texas Gov. Rick Perry, predicted Obama would ultimately have to approve the project because, according to Perry, "there is no defending not opening the XL pipeline." Perry continued: "I don't know why he's going to wait for two or three months to do it, but at the end of the day, it is too important to America. It's too important to the security of this country. It's too important to job creation." Though Perry's optimism and bullishness on America are wholly appealing to me, it appears you just can't count on Obama to follow impenetrable logic or to do the obviously right thing for America. In April, Obama once again kicked the can down the road, postponing indefinitely a final decision on the construction of the project. His shamelessly subservient State Department announced that it would give the other federal agencies "additional time" to provide their input. Some may interpret Obama's decision to further stonewall the project as another example of his "leading from behind," but I disagree. It has always been and remains a mistake to misinterpret Obama's incompetence and lack of engagement concerning many aspects of his executive duties as evidence of his indecisiveness. When it comes to his overall direction -- his overwhelming dedication to fundamentally transforming the nation -- there is no vacillation, no equivocation, no lack of direction. He is hellbent on using "climate change" as an excuse to further sabotage America's free market system. Obama adviser John Podesta, his "point man on climate policy," said recently that "taking action on climate is one of the most important goals in the president's second term. He feels a profound and urgent obligation to get as much done as he can before he leaves office." According to Rolling Stone, Obama is determined "to use his presidential powers to effectively hasten the phase-out of dirty coal from America's energy system." He directed the Environmental Protection Agency to develop new rules to limit carbon pollution from power plants. So, Obama has opted for his ideology in favor of partisan politics after all, you ask? No, not quite, because he obviously believes that his two goals are mutually beneficial. He must do everything he can to elect as many Democrats as possible because they (and the disgraceful liberal media) are the ones who enable him to advance his agenda. Obama was not about to disappoint the richest Democratic donors, who, at the time Obama's State Department announced its further postponement, were getting ready for their annual meeting of the Democracy Alliance, a confab of wealthy liberals who share Obama's commitment to destroy America's founding principles. So though on the surface it may have appeared to some that Obama had thrown overboard some of his red-state Democratic senators up for re-election, it just so happens that many liberal activists, including San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer, were promising to leverage their super PACs to support beleaguered Democratic candidates. Indeed, Steyer reportedly pledged to spend $100 million to help Democrats in November, and his driving passion is to kill Keystone. So with Obama, you don't have to wonder whether he'll finally yield to his ideology, his party or corrupt money. Why should he when he figures he can have all three? Fortunately for us, however, he is probably figuring wrong, as he'll find out in November.

Liberals: Exempt from Scrutiny - as long as you say the right things!

National Review ^ | May 6, 2014 | Victor Davis Hanson
It doesn’t matter if you belong to the 0.1 percent as long as you say the right things. The qualifications of a Tommy “Dude” Vietor or Ben Rhodes that placed them in the Situation Room during Obama-administration crises were not years of distinguished public service, military service, prior elected office, a string of impressive publications, an academic career, previous diplomatic postings, or any of the usual criteria that have placed others at the nerve center of America in times of crisis. Their trajectory was based on yeoman partisan PR work, and largely on being young, hip, and well connected politically. I don’t think either of these operatives has a particular worldview or competency that would promote the interests of the United States. But they do talk well, know the right people, and are hip. Again, they have no real expertise or even ideology other than that. Al Gore is said to be our leading green activist, and the Steyer brothers the most preeminent green political donors. But do they really believe in reducing carbon emissions to cool down the planet? Not really. The latter made much of their fortune in the sort of high-stakes speculations that the Left supposedly despises. Many of their financial payoffs derived from promoting coal burning abroad, of the sort most liberals wish to stop..... [HUGE SNIP] ....So, in medieval fashion, liberalism serves as a powerful psychological crutch: You can be noble in the abstract to assuage worries of not being so at all in the concrete. It adds a hip flourish to the otherwise mundane pursuit of power, lucre, and influence that plays out on the golf course, at the Malibu party, in front-row seats at NBA games, or in the tony Martha’s Vineyard summer home. About three decades ago, sipping a fine wine at a Napa bed and breakfast, or getting the right Italian-granite and teak flooring, became a force multiplier of being loudly liberal. If a liberal has a really nice Chevy Chase estate or Upper West Side brownstone or Tahoe summer home, it is important to sound all the more liberal. Or maybe it is just the opposite: You cannot sound credibly liberal unless you first have the correct liberal address and square footage. The joke is on us. Having lots of stuff and lots of money, while deriding the system that provides it, is perverse, but perverse in a postmodern sense: You fools love the free market, where you didn’t do too well; we whose parents or selves did very well in it don’t like it all that much. How postmodern — like guffawing that lots of smoke came out of that Gulfstream ride, or lecturing about inequality from Rancho Mirage or the back nine at Augusta.............." Full text

Jay Z’s bling from ‘whites are devils’ group!

NYPost ^
Black people are the fathers and mothers of civilization, white men are the devil, the Christian god is nothing more than a ghost and only a small percentage of people understand the world. These are just some of the ­beliefs behind the bling — the gaudy Five Percent Nation ­medallions worn by Jay Z and Carmelo Anthony. Last week, all eyes at the Barclays Center weren’t on Jay Z’s better half, Beyoncé — but on the coaster-size golden pendant swinging from the rapper’s neck as the couple sat courtside. Asked once if the group’s symbol — an eight-pointed star with the number 7 in the middle — held any meaning for him, the rapper shrugged, “A little bit.” So what exactly do Five Percenters believe? “The rationale is that the black man is God and created the universe, and is physically stronger and intellectually stronger and more righteous naturally,” says Michael Muhammad Knight, an author of two books on the radical group.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...