Veni Vidi Vici

Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Barack Obama’s health care law, according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation.

ObamaCare allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1.

For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.

There rich, I’m sure they can afford it. After all, they voted for Obama because of his Health Care and their Entitlements….

Younger smokers could be charged lower penalties under rules proposed last fall by the Obama administration. But older smokers could face a heavy hit on their household budgets at a time in life when smoking-related illnesses tend to emerge.

Workers covered on the job would be able to avoid tobacco penalties by joining smoking cessation programs, because employer plans operate under different rules. But experts say that option is not guaranteed to smokers trying to purchase coverage individually. (DC)

So what next after Smokers?
First they came for the smokers
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a smoker.
Then they came for the junk food
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a concerned
Then they came for the “fat” people,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t fat (I thought).
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Meat? Salt? Drinks? What won’t they stop at, in the name of “health care”?

Nothing. Why would they. It’s for your own good! and it makes them “feel” good.

We are from the Government and we are here to help you… 🙂

Obama: Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.

Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, are constants in our character.

But central authority to a liberal IS the answer to everything. And Entitlements are the answer to “fairness” and “equality” and “compassion” and success is bad (except when you fund their political campaigns so they can do even more “good” for themselves and thus for you…:) )
“In 1960, social-welfare programs accounted for less than a third of all federal spending. Today, it counts for nearly two-thirds of federal spending. Welfare spending is nearly twice as much as defense, justice and everything else Washington does combined.” Megyn Kelly
But if you cut anything other than Rich people’s loopholes and the Military you’re a heartless, racist, evil bastard who just want old people and kids to starve and die!! 🙂

Obama: The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries – we must claim its promise.

So if we have 15 more Solyndras that is better than one evil Keystone Pipeline. Oil is evil Oil companies, doubly so. So what if it’s cheaper and more efficient and everyone uses it now we don’t care.

So what if the technology is not there. It makes us feel superior.

So what if the Chinese kicked our asses on it.

So what if it Many , Many Times MORE expensive. So what. It’s Better for you. 🙂

It makes us feel better about ourselves. And you will too, or else!

California has been a leader in Renewable Energy production, in part due to federal and state level policies that provide incentives for producers of renewable power. However, a new report found that California’s Energy policies will raise state power rates and associated costs by nearly 33 percent.

The report by the free-market Pacific Research Institute specifically focuses on the additional costs imposed by a state mandate that requires 33 percent of its power come from renewable sources, like wind, solar and geothermal by 2020. PRI estimates that the California renewable portfolio standard will be an additional $5 billion in 2020.

The mandate represents an implicit 27 percent tax on power generation in the state due to the “the forced substitution of expensive power in place of cheaper electricity, particularly in terms of transmission, backup, and generation costs.”

“Moreover, this implicit tax to be imposed upon the California economy will grow each year as the size of the electricity market expands and the RPS requirement forces ever-greater amounts of high-cost power onto the market,” writes PRI senior fellow and report author Benjamin Zycher.

“This perverse effect inexorably will be reflected fully in rising rates paid by consumers, whether directly or indirectly,” Zycher continues.

The costs to California consumers in 2020 will rise by more than 13 percent as a result of the renewable fuel mandate. However, the report notes that even without the mandate, state power rates would rise by nearly 20 percent due to “various capital investments driven by both economic and regulatory factors,” and because of the state’s cap-and-trade program.

All of these policies taken together will cause power rates and costs to rise nearly 33 percent between now and 2020, according to the report.
California already suffers from high retail electricity rates relative to the rest of the country. PRI reports that retail rates in the Golden State are up to 131 percent higher than rates in the Pacific Northwest and 70 percent higher than rates in the Mountain region. In fact, California rates are 53 percent higher than the U.S. as a whole.

“This adverse effect is certain to worsen the other important disadvantages that various California public policies have created in terms of competitive dynamics with other states,” writes Zycher.

State residents are already being hit hard if they do not install solar devices onto their rooftops. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Californians who don’t have solar rooftop installations paid an extra $1.3 billion in yearly power bills.

“The higher costs to be borne by the California economy will not be offset even in part by economic benefits,” concludes Zycher. “That the rising costs to be imposed upon the private sector might engender greater political opposition to the RPS requirements may be a source of hope for policy reform.” (DC)

But don’t worry this won’t hurt the poor and the elderly…and imagine if you’re a smoker too! 🙂
And do you know where the majority of the electric Power from the Palo Verde NUCLEAR Power Station west of Phoenix goes to?
One Guess.
California. 🙂

Gotta love Liberals. Otherwise taking that line from Shakespeare about killing all the lawyers starts to come to  mind. (kidding…no need for Janet to send her goons to my door).

Sort of. 🙂

And lastly, remember when Liberal were insane to destroy Bush (for many reasons even today) over his “handling” of Katrina.

Well, did you know there are  Super storm Sandy victims that are still freezing this winter because of a lack of response by the Government?

But since they are predominately Liberals I’m sure they will give Obama and company a pass right?

It’s no big deal.

Not even a $2500 Debit Card… 🙂

The superstorm destroyed their homes — and the cold weather is playing havoc with their lives.

Sandy-ravaged homeowners have been driven to extremes as they try to survive in houses that are essentially construction sites.

“It’s colder here because of the water,” said Mary Lou Foley, a Breezy Point, Queens, resident who has spent the past week huddling under a slew of comforters and carrying a space heater from room to room.

“It’s 18 degrees in the city, but it feels like 5 because of the wind. It’s just too cold,” the 56-year-old said Thursday.

She has been staying here for the past month without heat, sleeping on a comforter on the floor but she has remained optimistic and says she is “happy.”

I bet if it were Bush Or even Romney,, she wouldn’t be. 🙂

Foley is one of the lucky ones because she has power in some parts of her partially rebuilt house, allowing her to use an electric heater.

But she can only plug in one at a time.

“If I plug in two heaters, I’m afraid I will blow a fuse. So I plug in one heater and try to stay close to it,” she said. “I have to do this until I have power restored.”

Construction crews are working as fast as they can in Sandy-afflicted areas like the Rockaways, but no one can slow down Mother Nature.

But someone has sure slowed down the “outrage”. 🙂
Where are the FEMA trailers that were demanded by the Left the last time?

“It’s freezing in my house,” the mom said. “I’m hearing a lot of horror stories from my neighbors. Their pipes are bursting. It’s that cold.”

Eddie Saman, 47, of New Dorp Beach in Staten Island, insulated his walls with donated blankets in a futile attempt to trap his radiator’s weak heat.

Where’s the outrage?

The Congress passed a relief bill, half of it was Pork for NASCAR, banks and other ‘constituents’ of importance.

Where’s the outrage?

Let’s be “fair” shall we. If you want government to run your life for you because you’re a moron, then you should demand they do a better job of it, just to be “fair” and “equal”… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Does it Matter?

Benghazi Update: Britons and all other westerners were told to leave the Libyan city of Benghazi on Thursday after diplomats received warning of an “imminent” terror threat in the wake of the Algerian hostage siege.

By the way, “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Brits? What difference at this point does it make? 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

A day after President Obama vowed an aggressive global war on global warming, Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman delivered a political hot potato to the White House in the form of state approval of a re-routed Keystone XL pipeline.

Given the pressing domestic need for a) more reliable sources of oil and b) thousands of long-delayed, good-paying jobs, you might think federal approval of the endeavor with our closest neighbor and best friend is a gimme.

Ah, but we are just three days past the middle of the 2,922-day Obama era. So, it’s much more complicated.

The 1,700-mile long pipeline is designed to carry 700,000 barrels a day of Canadian heavy crude oil from Alberta tar sands excavations to Gulf Coast refineries. The project would create thousands of construction jobs and reduce U.S. dependence on unreliable foreign oil sources, often cited by both American political parties as a good thing.

Heineman, a Republican, had rejected Trans-Canada’s original route through important aquifers and the state’s fragile Sand Hills region, a step the Obama crowd cited for its initial parallel rejection of the facility. A new study by the State Department, which must approve pipelines crossing international borders, isn’t due until late March at the earliest.

By that time, of course, the Obama administration will have a new secretary of State in the form of John Kerry. The about-to-be-former senator has fallen hook, line and sailboat for the global warming bunkum, making approval appear iffy.

Environmentalists, who plan a White House pipeline protest next month, claim the extraction and combustion of such oil volumes would contribute catastrophically to global warming.

Unfortunately for that argument, it’s not like a pipeline defeat will keep that oil in Canadian soil. It will just be exported through another pipeline to the West Coast for sale to China, while alienating the United States’ best neighbor, closest ally and largest trading partner.

Both Republican congressional leaders sought to add approval pressure on Obama Tuesday. Said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

“The President says he’s for an all-of-the-above approach to energy and now it’s time for him to live up to it. Nebraska has taken care of the issues the President raised when he denied the permit, so there’s no more room for excuses or delays and it should be expeditiously approved.”

Added House Speaker John Boehner:

“Nebraska’s approval of a new Keystone XL pipeline route means there is no bureaucratic excuse, hurdle, or catch President Obama can use to delay this project any further. He and he alone stands in the way of tens of thousands of new jobs and energy security.

“Every state along the proposed route supports this project, as does a bipartisan coalition in Congress and a majority of Americans. I recognize all the political pressure the president faces, but with our energy security at stake and many jobs in limbo, he should find a way to say yes.”

In his inaugural address Monday Obama gave numerous nods to his liberal base. “We will respond to the threat of climate change,” he said, “knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”

His full text and a complete C-SPAN video are available here.

But the Democrat, who has only 1,458 days left in office, also called for large-scale investments in the nation’s infrastructure to stimulate new jobs and rebuild the country after a decade of war-drained finances.

Although Obama has never appeared bothered by adding some $6 trillion so far to the national debt, now north of $16.3 trillion, the job-creating pipeline expenditures would be private.

So, do you think Obama will choose to come down in favor of his jobs vow or his environmental vow?

Given Obama’s long record of, shall we say, flexible vow-keeping, the answer is most likely, Yes. (IBD)

🙂

After all, he raised the payroll tax on everyone but it was the same as 2 years ago so he didn’t “increase” it.
🙂

So expect doublespeak and much gnashing of someone elses teeth and blaming someone else for it.
That is only if they can’t just ignore it all together.
What does it Matter? 🙂
Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert
 Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

 Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

I Spy Pie In the Sky With My Little Eye

First off, Just to let you all know- This blog will be down for a few days because I have something important that has be taken care of.

Now onto it…

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

The Liberal Meme: But opposition to the mandate also stems from the public’s failure to understand — or, alternatively, the administration’s failure to communicate — basic facts. (How many YEARS has this been the liberal line- after all you “have to pass it to know what’s in it”!!??)

And when you know you’ll jump for joy. And if you don’t you just don’t understand. 🙂

That’s why it’s just as unpopular (or more so) now as it was over 2 years ago when it passed!

“People don’t understand how the mandate works at all, and they don’t understand why it’s there,” Kaiser’s polling director, Mollyann Brodie, told me. Brodie suspects that it’s too late to change minds. “This law as a whole has really become a symbolic issue to people, and they really aren’t open to information,” she said.

Maybe, but the administration must keep trying — not only to sell the law’s goodies but to explain how the mandate makes them possible. Otherwise, they could end up winning the minds of the justices, yet losing the hearts of the people whose votes they need to keep the law in place.

The most compelling sentences in the Obama administration’s brief defending the constitutionality of the health care law come early on. “As a class,” the brief advises on page 7, “the uninsured consumed $116 billion of health care services in 2008.” (Ruth Marcus)

Yeah, and the CBO says it will cost twice as much as it was when it was sold by the Liberals and it hasn’t even “started” yet.

So I am inclined to believe her pie-in-the-sky Government can fix everything Liberalism…NOT!

ENERGY POLICY

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The administration’s new tax-reform proposal indicates a continued stubbornness to pick winners and losers in the marketplace — slashing, among others, broad-based provisions that benefit all industries such as accelerated depreciation, deductions for interest expense, LIFO for inventory accounting along with tax provisions for the oil and gas industry in order to finance tax breaks and permanent credits for expensive renewable energy.

It’s a disturbing plan after so many failed renewable energy gambles including Solyndra. A new report by a White House-appointed commission concluded that the U.S. could lose as much as $2.7 billion as a result of the loans offered to the renewable energy industry.

Meanwhile, consumers are losing. Gas prices aren’t showing any signs of decreasing. The president’s thumbs-down to the Keystone XL pipeline cost the U.S. thousands of new jobs, economic growth and energy price stabilization.

His 2012 budget calls for cutting outlays for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program to $3 billion, nearly $2 billion less than in the 2011 budget. This drastic cut will leave many homes in cold weather states suffering and is further evidence of misplaced priorities when it comes to the administration’s energy policies.

But they better vote for him anyways, because he’s going to kiss their government dependent asses… 🙂 Otherwise, they might be “racists” or just “mean”. 🙂

The president’s “promise of clean energy” comes with a high price tag. Data from the Department of Energy’s EIA show that new electric generating capacity using wind and solar power tends to be considerably more expensive than conventional, available and secure natural gas and coal resources.

And in a world of real tradeoffs, every dollar spent producing more expensive renewable energy is money that could be used for producing jobs and spurring economic growth. Indeed, there is a direct linkage between energy use and economic recovery, as in recent years each 1% increase in GDP has been accompanied by a 0.2% increase in energy use.

Simply put, it takes more power to turn on more light switches in more plants that employ more people.

The problem, of course, trickles down to consumers, as well. USA Today recently reported “households paid a record $1,419 on average for electricity in 2010, the fifth consecutive yearly increase above the inflation rate.” This “jump has added about $300 a year to what households pay for electricity. That’s the largest sustained increase since a run-up in electricity prices during the 1970s.”

Meanwhile, subsidizing renewables costs jobs and slows economic growth, burdening taxpayers by grabbing up a massive share of tax code subsidies.

In 2010, an estimated 76% of the $19.1 billion in federal tax incentives went to renewables for energy efficiency, conservation and alternative technology vehicle projects (while only 13% went to fossil fuels), according to the Congressional Research Service. Some renewable electricity enjoys negative tax rates: Solar thermal’s effective tax rate is -245% and wind power’s is -164%.

Yet the federal government continues pouring money on non-traditional energy sources, which is especially troubling since the wind, solar power, biofuel and ethanol industries do not meet the standard criteria used to justify taxpayer-funded subsidies for their deployment across the U.S. economy.

They are not “infant industries” or essential for U.S. economic and job growth, and they are unlikely to provide benefits commensurate with their costs. Addressing the huge U.S. federal budget deficit requires cutbacks in programs whose costs exceed their benefits.

There are much fairer policies available that do not force the government to pick winners and losers. Accelerated depreciation, Section 199, the foreign tax credit deduction and LIFO are examples of tax code provisions that are available to any industry and are not considered “subsidies.”

Perhaps even more frightening than the government’s current tax incentive structure and spending for renewables and alternative fuel vehicles is the potential for a national mandate (called a Clean Energy Standard) requiring electricity retailers to supply a specified share of their sales from clean energy sources.

This would have adverse economic impacts. A recent Department of Energy analysis shows that by 2035 the mandate will raise electricity prices by 20% to 27% and reduce GDP by $124 billion to $214 billion.

For those who support clean energy powering our nation’s economy, all is not lost: The issue is simply about responsibly looking away from the “promise of clean energy” and focusing on the reality of clean energy.

Government funding for basic research and development of renewables and conservation may be a better use of taxpayer dollars than the current suite of tax incentives and direct spending programs, for instance. Clearly, there are more efficient ways to meet our nation’s needs for today and tomorrow. (IBD)

But it won’t make Liberal “feel” good and be the soothing pie-in-the-sky warm fuzzy that they want it to be.

And if you disagree, well, you’re just “mean”.

MADDOW: So, President Obama in 1990 said that he wanted to move — wanted to work toward a world, country, that was less mean-spirited, and more generous. The right says that means he hates America. I think it sounds like I want a kinder and gentler America, which is what George H.W. Bush said.

LEWIS BLACK: That’s then. That language doesn’t apply anymore. That is a different Republican Party because we have moved on, there is a new Republican Party, and they seem to have — that language doesn’t work for them.

It’s a new Republican Party. It’s — there is a — it’s like — I mean, I think of it like if you were in the Communist Party, toe the line, here`s what they think, that`s the deal, screw him, that`s the deal, you can’t — are you going to use those words, or those words don`t work? Whatever words he uses, don’t work for them.

(and that doesn’t sound Like the Liberals wanting to control everything and everyone from birth to death at all!) 🙂

MADDOW: But do you think we’re at the point some were some — I mean, I feel like it’s not that weird. It wouldn’t be that much of a joke for a Republican candidate to come out and say, actually, we need a less gentle, meaner country. (Katie Pavlich)

Apparently wanting to balance the budget and limit burdensome debt for future generations is somehow “mean.”

It sucks being the grown-up in the room instead of the head-in-the-clouds, pie-in-the-sky Liberal whose hubris prevents them from not feeling vastly superior to other living beings doesn’t it? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

A Pipe Dream

“However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline,” he said, “they’re going to be a lot fewer than the jobs that are created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance.”-Obama Dec 8, 2011

Unemployment more important jobs. Unemployment and dependence creates jobs. 🙂

The great un-decider who wants someone to blame for his non-decision decisions is at it again.

In a decision that quickly re-ignited a fierce energy debate, the Obama administration on Wednesday rejected the controversial Keystone XL pipeline because the 60-day deadline imposed by Republicans did not allow adequate time to review an alternate route through an ecologically sensitive area in Nebraska.

It’s BS. They’ve been studying it for  3 years already!

He’s just playing his normal game with jobs. Where the jobs “saved or created” are credited to him, in service to him, or dependent on him.

But these were largely Union jobs, which is what so funny about this whole debacle.

But that’s the Republicans fault!!

Isn’t everything on the Left.

The boring meme of “they made me do it” is so tedious.

President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL oil pipeline sums up his presidency. When it comes down to well-paying new jobs and cheaper energy vs. his political base, guess which wins.

Because he is, after all, the most important man in the world and his re-election the only issue.

The 1,700-mile TransCanada Keystone crude oil pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast is a no-brainer. Canada’s oil sands are the largest source of crude oil outside the Middle East and the 700,000 barrels of black gold per day the pipeline would bring would mean hundreds of thousands of new jobs, lower gasoline prices, less U.S. dependence on Mideast oil and hundreds of millions of dollars in increased revenues for the states.

All those high-salaried jobs are why both Democratic-supporting labor unions and Republican-supporting business interests are pro-Keystone.

Yet, instead of supporting it in a spirit of bipartisanship, the “Great Uniter” had a State Department flunky announce his opposition on Wednesday.

Put more simply, the Obama administration hit back at Republicans by saying no because of their forcing him to decide on the project in just 60 days. Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail promptly painted the decision as a rejection of thousands of American jobs purely for political reasons.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, decried the news. “President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs and sell American energy security to the Chinese,” said Brendan Buck. “The president won’t stand up to his political base even to create American jobs. This is not the end of this fight.”

The Canadians have said that if we won’t approve the pipeline they’ll run it to Vancouver and sell it to the Chinese.

The White House has been trying to thread a needle between two segments of the Democratic base split over the pipeline: labor unions that support the project for the jobs it would bring, and environmentalists who oppose it for the adverse impacts that development of tar-sands oil could have on the environment.

So what you have is a PURELY POLITICAL Position.

The timing of the announcement was more surprising, since the administration had until Feb. 21 to decide. But a Wednesday announcement does make some political and economic sense. It allows Obama to go on offense before Thursday’s debate between Republican presidential candidates in South Carolina and before his own State of the Union address next Tuesday. It also comes before public anger could grow if gasoline prices continue their upward climb in the weeks ahead.

So when you here the meme that it was Republicans fault for the $4 a gallon gas this summer and that Armageddon is coming just remember who really started this mess because neither The Democrats nor The Media will remember it.

“This is the last day to own this issue on their terms,” said Kevin Book, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington-based energy consulting firm. “The administration gets to explain their choice before it gets explained for them.”

Obama fundraiser Wendy Abrams, for example, a well-heeled Chicago enviro-activist and Rahm Emanuel buddy whose family owns the country’s largest privately held medical equipment maker (ObamaCare anyone?), recently warned that the Keystone decision would show whether Obama “really wants to begin the transformation to building a renewable energy future.”

And after all, Obama’s Re-election is more important anything in the Liberal universe. Who gives a crap about jobs when only 1 job matters now.

And blaming the Republicans for YOUR OWN decisions is more important in the long run.

“Vote For Me– it’s The Republicans Fault!!”

“Vote for Me! the Other Guy is an Asshole!!”

“President Obama has taken steps to make us energy independent and create an economy that’s built to last,” the Obama campaign said on the Web page where the ad is hosted. It is already running in several swing-states, including Ohio and Pennsylvania.

<<Barf bag overload>>

The new ad is partly intended to shield Obama from criticism about his energy policies, which have curbed opportunities for oil companies, nudged up gas prices and heavily subsidized risky green-tech companies, including the failed Solyndra solar-tech company.

That purpose is highlighted in the ad’s first few words, which claims “secretive oil billionaires are attacking President Obama with ads fact-checkers say are not tethered to the facts.”

Those “secretive oil billionaires,” according to the campaign’s website, are David and Charles Koch — a pair of libertarian brothers who run an huge oil-services company and openly declare their opposition to Obama’s energy policies.

The Koch Brothers are the latest childish Satan-on-Earth obsession of the extreme left.

The campaign website began promoting the new ad on the same day Obama announced he would continue to freeze plans to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the United States.

Coincidence, I think not.

The Obama ad also touts a reduction in the nation’s energy imports. “For the first time in thirteen years,” it claims, “our dependence on foreign oil is below fifty percent.”

But that decline was a natural outgrowth of the nation’s economic recession, which has curbed energy consumption.

So we are using less because we can’t afford  to use it. That’s good! according to Obama so what we really need is to use even less and we’ll be fantastic!!

Instead of increase supply lower demand.

Break out the Horse and Buggy! Or worse a Chevy Volt!! 🙂

Environmental Protection Agency rules requiring expensive boutique blends of gasoline for different states during different seasons could be scrapped.

So could the law burdening oil refiners with a requirement to use a nonexistent product: “cellulosic ethanol.”

State laws requiring — we’re not making this up — that gas stations not charge too little per gallon could also be repealed. And, of course, we should drill, baby, drill into some of America’s own vast, untapped oil reserves.

But Obama insists on blaming Big Oil for big government’s failures. He had Attorney General Eric Holder establish an as-yet-to-be-heard-from task force last year to investigate, for the umpteenth time, price gouging by oil companies — about as easy as finding cellulosic ethanol in a switch grass haystack.

And Obama’s “Jobs Council” this week conceded that more oil “pipeline, transmission and distribution projects are necessary” and that until fossil fuels are replaced many years from now, “we need to be all in.”

But when we won’t take a treasure trove of oil from next door — forcing Canada to sell it to China instead — it proves the president is “all in” his green-left political base’s pocket.(IBD, Townhall and others)

And it’s the Republicans Fault!

So Vote Obama! It’s everyone else’s fault!

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

 Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

 

 

Unpopular Popularity

President Obama hugs an increasingly unpopular, vulgar, and lawless movement. The Hill reports that after President Obama was heckled by protesters at an event in New Hampshire, he said: 

“I appreciate you guys making your point; let me go ahead and make mine,” Obama said before continuing his speech. “I’ll listen to you, you listen to me, OK?”

A few minutes later, Obama acknowledged the Occupy protest movement again, saying: “You are the reason I ran for office.”

Shiftless, lazy, violent, anarchist squatters who expect you and me to support them because they are entitled to it.

Isn’t that a good enough reason to make sure we don’t have 4 more years??

And then there’s The Global Warming Fraud:

Almost exactly two years since damning email messages were released from Great Britain’s University of East Anglia showing a pattern of deception and collusion between scientists involved in spreading the global warming myth, a new batch of such correspondence has emerged that seems destined to get as little press coverage as the original ClimateGate scandal did in November 2009.

James Delingpole reported in Britian’s Telegraph Tuesday:

Breaking news: two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person – or persons – unknown. And as before, they show the “scientists” at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa – all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they’d like it to be.In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower ‘FOIA 2011′ (or “thief”, as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public.

The BBC is reporting that these email messages also come from UEA, and number around 5,000. The entire set is available at MegaUpload.

As you might imagine, climate realists across the globe are beginning to sift through these messages. Our friend Tom Nelson has already uncovered some whoppers:

<3066> Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run. […]

<2884> Wigley:
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]

<4923> Stott/MetO:

My most immediate concern is to whether to leave this statement [“probably the warmest of the last millennium”] in or whether I should remove it in the anticipation that by the time of the 4th Assessment Report we’ll have withdrawn this statement – Chris Folland at least seems to think this is possible.

<3062> Jones:

We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written […] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff. […]

<3373> Bradley:

I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”. […]

<4369> Cook:

I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.

Of course, the “Mike” and “Michael” being regularly disparaged by his peers is Michael Mann, the creator of the thoroughly-debunked Hockey Stick graph which so much of this myth is dependent on.

As physicist Lubos Motl notes, these messages “surely show that Michael Mann is a fraudster even according to most of his colleagues.”

Also for those not connecting the names, Jones is the infamous Phil Jones of UEA. Speaking of which:

<2440> Jones:

I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process

<2094> Briffa:

UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC task.

… <1577> Jones:

[FOI, temperature data]

Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.

Briffa of course is Keith Briffa, the man exposed to have manipulated tree ring data in order to assist Mann’s Hockey Stick charade.

As previously stated, realists from around the world are just starting to go through all these thousands of messages, and it will likely be days if not weeks before we know everything they contain.

Regardless, people that have been pushing back on this myth for years are beginning to weigh in.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Ok.), the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee issued the following statement Tuesday:

“Even before the Climategate emails were released in 2009, the so-called ‘consensus’ peddled by the IPCC was already shattered,” Senator Inhofe said. “Nevertheless, the Obama administration is moving full speed ahead to implement global warming regulations that will impose the largest tax increase in American history, significantly raise energy prices, and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs.

“Remember, the Obama EPA is basing these regulations on its endangerment finding, which relies on the flawed science of the IPCC. Now a recent report by the EPA Inspector General has revealed that EPA cut corners in the process leading up to the endangerment finding: it shows that EPA did not engage in the required record-keeping procedures or conduct an independent review of the science underpinning these costly regulations. If the first Climategate scandal – and the over one hundred errors in the IPCC science that were revealed in its wake – were not enough, the apparent release of the Climategate 2.0 emails is just one more reason to halt the Obama EPA’s job killing global warming agenda.

“The crisis of confidence in the IPCC translates into a crisis of confidence in the EPA’s endangerment finding. The IPCC science has already disintegrated under the weight of its own flaws, and I believe it will only be a matter of time before the endangerment finding follows suit. It’s time for the Obama administration to stop trying to resurrect policies that are all pain for no gain, and get to work on reviving our economy.”

The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Myron Ebell issued the following statement Tuesday:

“If there were any doubts remaining after reading the first Climategate e-mails, the new batch of e-mails that appeared on the web today make it clear that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an organized conspiracy dedicated to tricking the world into believing that global warming is a crisis that requires a drastic response,” said Myron Ebell, Director of CEI’s Center on Energy and Environment.

“Several of the new e-mails show that the scientists involved in doctoring the IPCC reports are very aware that the energy-rationing policies that their junk science is meant to support would cost trillions of dollars,” said Ebell.

And Climate Depot’s Marc Morano wrote Tuesday:

“It appears that Climategate 2.0 has arrived to drain what little life there was left in the man-made global warming movement.

“The new emails further expose the upper echelon of the UN IPCC as being more interested in crafting a careful narrative than following the evidence. The release of thousands of more emails is quite simply another victory for science.”

As this is just the beginning of this latest round of email messages from UEA, readers are advised to stay tuned to NewsBusters for regular updates as well as to see how the global warming-loving media are responding.

UPDATE

Tom Nelson has found some remarkable observations concerning these email messages from warmist David Appell:

On a second reading of the stolen UAE emails leaked today, and just reading the README file emails, these sound worse than I thought at first – their impact will be devastating…The original release of emails 2 years ago had a significant impact. My guess is that these are going to throw the science off-kilter for perhaps the rest of this decade, and may well lead some people to rethink how they are doing business (including certain journalists).

But don’t worry, the faithful don’t care, for proof denies faith and without faith they are nothing.

So here’s another way of looking at it:

Consider California’s new mandate. The state’s peak electricity demand is about 52,000 megawatts. Meeting the one-third target will require (if you oversimplify a bit) about 17,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity. Let’s assume that California will get half of that capacity from solar and half from wind. Most of its large-scale solar electricity production will presumably come from projects like the $2 billion Ivanpah solar plant, which is now under construction in the Mojave Desert in southern California. When completed, Ivanpah, which aims to provide 370 megawatts of solar generation capacity, will cover 3,600 acres — about five and a half square miles.

The math is simple: to have 8,500 megawatts of solar capacity, California would need at least 23 projects the size of Ivanpah, covering about 129 square miles, an area more than five times as large as Manhattan. While there’s plenty of land in the Mojave, projects as big as Ivanpah raise environmental concerns. In April, the federal Bureau of Land Management ordered a halt to construction on part of the facility out of concern for the desert tortoise, which is protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Wind energy projects require even more land. The Roscoe wind farm in Texas, which has a capacity of 781.5 megawatts, covers about 154 square miles. Again, the math is straightforward: to have 8,500 megawatts of wind generation capacity, California would likely need to set aside an area equivalent to more than 70 Manhattans. Apart from the impact on the environment itself, few if any people could live on the land because of the noise (and the infrasound, which is inaudible to most humans but potentially harmful) produced by the turbines.

Industrial solar and wind projects also require long swaths of land for power lines. Last year, despite opposition from environmental groups, San Diego Gas & Electric started construction on the 117-mile Sunrise Powerlink, which will carry electricity from solar, wind and geothermal projects located in Imperial County, Calif., to customers in and around San Diego. In January, environmental groups filed a federal lawsuit to prevent the $1.9 billion line from cutting through a nearby national forest.

Not all environmentalists ignore renewable energy’s land requirements. The Nature Conservancy has coined the term “energy sprawl” to describe it. Unfortunately, energy sprawl is only one of the ways that renewable energy makes heavy demands on natural resources.

Consider the massive quantities of steel required for wind projects. The production and transportation of steel are both expensive and energy-intensive, and installing a single wind turbine requires about 200 tons of it. Many turbines have capacities of 3 or 4 megawatts, so you can assume that each megawatt of wind capacity requires roughly 50 tons of steel. By contrast, a typical natural gas turbine can produce nearly 43 megawatts while weighing only 9 tons. Thus, each megawatt of capacity requires less than a quarter of a ton of steel.

Obviously these are ballpark figures, but however you crunch the numbers, the takeaway is the same: the amount of steel needed to generate a given amount of electricity from a wind turbine is greater by several orders of magnitude.

Such profligate use of resources is the antithesis of the environmental ideal. Nearly four decades ago, the economist E. F. Schumacher distilled the essence of environmental protection down to three words: “Small is beautiful.” In the rush to do something — anything — to deal with the intractable problem of greenhouse gas emissions, environmental groups and policy makers have determined that renewable energy is the answer. But in doing so they’ve tossed Schumacher’s dictum into the ditch.

All energy and power systems exact a toll. If we are to take Schumacher’s phrase to heart while also reducing the rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions, we must exploit the low-carbon energy sources — natural gas and, yes, nuclear — that have smaller footprints. (NY Times)

So a Liberal scheme turns out to be worse than the “cure”. Gee, that never happens.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell