Sotomayor: A Study In Self-Imposed Liberal Idiocy

 

 

Sotomayor goes over another one of her own personal cliffs

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has denied a request to block part of the federal health care law that requires employee health-care plans to provide insurance coverage for the morning-after pill and similar emergency contraception pills.

 

"Emergency contraception pills". What the hell is that? Some bimbo  gets laid and wants her employer to cover her carelessness and stupidity the very next morning  - for free - because she might be pregnant?

That's not an emergency, that's a natural consequence of being careless.

And now our latest joke of a Supreme Court Justice decides that employers must provide this bimbo with a free "morning after pill" whenever she gets nervous about her possible motherhood status -  or face a $1.3 million daily fine.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HOBBY_LOBBY_BIRTH_CONTROL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-12-27-07-36-47

I could care less if Hobby Lobby claims it's against their religious views.  What I do care about is the government forcing an employer to pay for some bimbo's non-work-related private sex life mistakes.

Sotomayor is awash with lunatic liberal/progressive/socialist daydreams and lives in a universe where potentially fertilized bimbos are not supposed to face any consequences for their sex life errors. What the hell, if Sotomayor wants others to pick up the tab for this bimbos stupid mistakes, how about if that same bimbo goes out,  gets drunk and totals her car?

Why shouldn't her employer be required to pick up the tab for the consequences? Because it's beyond insane to even consider the employer having any responsibility over such an event. No different with someones sex life. 

Make a mistake? Pay the piper, live with the consequences. Do not expect someone else - anybody else - to automatically bail you out.

And for Sotomayor and others like her wanting to force someone to be responsible for the stupidity of others?

She should be disbarred and laughed out of town for the clown she is.

As an aside... Who came up with the completely insane idea of a $1.3 million dollar daily fine? No doubt some ultra-left sexually-loose feminist also living in Sotomayors no consequences, no responsibility universe.

What a crock.
 

Good Question

A Congressman recently asked a reporter on TV why it's OK for Obama to be protected by men with guns while at the same time it's not OK for our kids to be protected by men with guns. He made the point that Obama has no more a right to life than any child, and that's true.

School kids have the same right to life as Obama.  So do you and I.

The issue is who can carry a gun to defend that right to life. The government - and bureaucrats everywhere - say they can, but we can't. Not according to the Constitution which, last time I checked, is still the law of the and.

Why did we allow our police forces and federal agents to carry guns in the first place? To defend themselves against the bad guys. There is no other reason. None of them need guns - and will never need guns - to interact with law-abiding citizens. 

If a cop can carry a gun to protect himself from criminals, so can I. If a federal agent can carry a gun to protect the president from criminals, I can carry a gun to protect my family from criminals.

Police and federal agents are not some elevated or superior form of life that makes them better able to handle firearms. Any citizen is as capable of proper gun safety and use as any agent of officer.  They may not be as good a shot - because they don't spend endless hours on the target range - but the ability to carry and use a gun safely and wisely is not some super special gift only the police and the feds have.

Police and federal agents who are uncomfortable around - or fear - armed citizens have exactly the wrong mindset. They have convinced themselves with their own rah-rah propaganda and locker-room chit-chat that they are the only people on earth who should be allowed to handle firearms, that ordinary citizens are either too dumb or too incompetent to do so.They really need to get over that misconception, since an armed populace is their ultimate - and only - backup in times of great upheaval.  Ah, the National Guard, you say? And what is the National Guard, except for armed citizens? Or the army? Same thing. Only difference is that the National Guard or the Army may be given orders by misguided superiors contrary to the best interests of the general public.

There are many citizens who fear guns of any kind. They don't touch them, they don't handle them, they don't learn how to use them. Fine and dandy, that's their choice.  They wrongly assume the police will protect them. They can't seem to understand that the police don't show up until after a crime is committed.  Fine by me. That's their problem with how things really work, not mine.

The question remains a valid one... why should Obama be protected by men with guns when our children cannot?

Because he's president is no answer - There are plenty of people readily available that can do his job at least as good as he, and in many respects - better. Obama is totally expendable and replaceable - just like every other president we have had - and any one of those murdered kids could have become president.

Because a teacher or Hall Monitor(who is not afraid of guns) cannot be trained to use a weapon effectively?  That's just nonsense. 

So who has a higher "right" to protect their life than any of us citizens?

No one.

Forrest Gump Said It All...

"Stupid is as stupid does...

Obama and his lap dogs at the EPA are forcing down another  coal fired electrical plant, a really big one this time, 1,100 megawatts down the tubes.

That's not polluting smoke you see, it's steam. Try telling that

to a tree-hugging Gaia worshiper.

Last May the power company withdrew a plan to spend a billion dollars to retrofit the plant to use natural gas,  citing the dismal reality that it would raise the cost of electricity by at least 31 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/business/energy-environment/aep-has-plan-to-close-kentuckys-big-sandy-power-plant.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&ref=earth&adxnnlx=1356022671-R3+V/MQDlWUPchI8GlUJfA&

Not only is 1,100 Megawatts or power vanishing, but several hundred jobs also.

It is remarkably stupid to force the closures of all these plants without first providing replacement energy for those lost Gigawatts of power. You gotta give stupid credit, he's  one of those unicorn-riding greenies that actually believed solar and wind would to the trick, regardless of facts, math or reality.

Nobody is paying any attention at all to Germany.  They should.

Germany has long been the champion for renewable energy production, obtaining more than one fourth of its electricity from clean energy sources including wind, solar, and biomass. But while wind has traditionally been the dominant producer of clean electricity in Europe’s largest economy, the often cloudy northern European climate would not seem particularly conducive to the production of significant amounts of solar power.

 

However, solar energy, Germany’s second-largest source of clean energy,  jumped 50 percent in 2012.

 

WOWZERS! 50 %!

 

Those hotcoldwetdry  fanatics just love that sort of news. But they should read all the news, rather than just the part that makes them feel all warm and fuzzy.

 

That 50% jump in solar production was a "jump" from 4.1% to 6.2 % of the country's energy production. Wind production provided 8.6%, biomass 5.8% and hydropower 3.8% for a grand total from renewables a massive 24.4 percent of the nation's needed power.

 

The remaining paltry 75.6% of power comes from coal and nuclear. Remember that  Chancellor Angela Merkel is shutting down all their nuclear plants(sort of like stupid is with our coal plants), regardless of a few challenges that have popped up including a forthcoming tax aimed at paying for Germany’s move away from nuclear energy.

Additionally, subsidies for German solar companies run into the billions every year. Next year, a three-person family will have to pay up to an additional €175 ($220) to finance the construction of the renewable energy infrastructure. That's not a part of their actual energy costs, they still have to pay the electric bill. It's an  additional financial burden they face.
 

Another thing they're not talking about anywhere.... Germany has had to build new conventional power plants as reserve energy sources... because their wind and solar is not reliable.

Imagine that.

Solar produces zero watts at night, and wind produces zero watts on a calm day or night, and Germany has had many cold nights with no wind at all. So they STILL need enough conventional power sources to provides the entire nation's energy needs when it's dark and calm. So the German government is constructing more conventional plants. It's that or get hung on the nearest lampposts.

Even so, Chancellor Merkel said she remained committed to achieving the country’s goal of obtaining 40 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

It's not the countries goal. It's her goal....and the goal of a few very powerful individuals in the renewable business, cheered on by loonies who hate the modern world.


    

 

 

DOOMSDAY APPROACHING

Panic spreading!
Women screaming!
Children crying!
Grown men sobbing!
Dogs pooping!

Oh-oh... better get your wet suit out....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9730618/Mayan-apocalypse-panic-spreads-as-December-21-nears.html

We have all heard about the Mayan long-count calendar which ends its present cycle and starts a new round on December 21st, 2012.

Well, on the morning of December 21st, I'm going to put a rocking chair out on the back porch and watch the sunrise. I'll take a few beers and some chips out there with me, and then wait for the end of the world.

And then - come sundown - I'll go back into the house and watch as TV tells us how it was all just another silly little superstition believed only by the ignorant and simpleminded.

That's my prediction.

One must realize that this Mayan long-count calender has cycled through at least four(that we know of) complete cycles and the world is still here. That doesn't say much for the idea that this particular cycle end will usher in utter destruction.

However... If the Mayan long-count calendar is based on anything, it must be something astronomical, as in sky-watching and star gazing, something with a 5,000 year repeatable cycle.

That could be a meteor swarm, a humongous asteroid or comet, maybe the fabled "Nemesis", our supposed companion sun, any of them cruising in for another close encounter, causing a lot of earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.

Would the gummint tell us if they had spotted an incoming stellar nasty? Probably not, what with the expected panic of the herd and all that.

If there really is a big nasty something headed our way, I hope I'll be able to see it from my porch. Probably won't take any photographs tho... who would be around afterwards to see them?

So, for the uninformed and unconcerned amongst us, the way to spend the day is either ignore it all completely, or sit on the porch and watch the show(if any).

By the way:

If anybody wants to give away all their worldly possessions - money, gold, silver, jewelry, etc - before the end, let me know and I'll send you a shipping address.

I'll take really good care of it.

Promise.

What's The Problem?

Residents in a Newhall senior apartment complex are protesting an order from management to remove their beloved Christmas tree from the community room because, they were told, it's a religious symbol. On Tuesday, Tarzana-based JB Partners Group Inc. sent a memo to staff at The Willows senior apartment building demanding they take down Christmas trees and menorahs in communal areas.

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_22133907/seniors-decry-ban-christmas-tree-their-complex-newhall

Here's a photo of them and their tree:

A religious symbol? What sort of religious icon can be found

anywhere in this tree?

 

 

There are no crosses, no stars of David, no babies in mangers, no statuettes of Jesus on or off the cross, no statuettes of Mary, no photos of any religious place or individual.  Nothing. Zip.

To be realistic, it's just a tree with some decorations on it - lights, tinsel, bulbs, garlands, done up to increase the spirit of another officially approved government holiday.

Now - of course - to many, in their minds, its does represent  the religious aspect of Christmas.  To many others, it's just a decorated tree, often in the way, and sometimes a fire hazard.

For anyone to demand that it be removed because they claim it is an offensive religious symbol to them, well... let them point out anything on that tree that shows it to be such a symbol. It's just a tree with some decorations on it. If they could actually prove it to be a fire hazard, maybe then forcing those folks to take it down could carry some weight.

It takes a world class jerk to claim that a de facto holiday decoration - regardless of what it's called -  is unacceptable, then Grinch out and make such a fuss.

Santa is actually St. Nicholas. Maybe they should ban him also, even if his name tag doesn't identify him as such anymore.

Good grief, how much longer must we all put up with these endlessly disagreeable malcontents that don't like something or other? That tree is not hurting them in any way, shape or form. Just tell them to shut the hell up and go away. They can go get their jollies some other way.

Those folks in the photo have a Christmas tradition - religious or otherwise - that they have enjoyed all their lives, no doubt along with many memories of family, friends and good times. That tradition included a decorated tree.

It takes some real messed-up socially-deficient rejects to deny them that, particularly in their twilight years. Keep in mind these folks have been stuffed into an old folks home, most likely ignored or forgotten, and that tree is vital connection to remembering and enjoying days long gone.

Where's the harm?

What's the problem?

The problem is the few jerks in the home office who can't seem to connect the dots. These folks pay to live there.  These folks are where those home office idiots get their salary from.  Those home office Grinchs  should be supporting them, not spitting in their faces.

Granny Strikes Again

Dear Ole Granny posts another of her posters that shows only a small part of the actual picture;

100%. Yup... that sure is fantastic. Now why can't America do that?

OK... the poster asks us to share this information. Well and Good.. But I am adding a bit more information as to why those Icelanders managed to do all that.

First off, Iceland is pretty small, only 39,770 square miles. For comparison, the State of Virginia has 40,598 square miles, or  pretty much the same size as Iceland.

Iceland's population as of the 3rd quarter 2012 was 320,660. For comparison,  Virgina population as of 2012 is 8,001,024.

So. Iceland needs to provide energy for 320,660 people, while Virginia has to provide energy for 7,680,364 more folks.

Now, how many kilowatts of electrical power is used by Iceland residents compared to the average American, including Virginians?

The average Icelander uses 28, 213, 327 Kwh per year (2004)
The average American uses 13, 351,067 Kwh per year.(2004)

 http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_ele_pow_con_kwh_percap-power-consumption-kwh-per-capita

That's a bit surprising... Those green-loving Icelanders use more than twice as much electrical power per person as we power-hungry Americans do. Maybe it's because they need a lot more energy just to stay warm. But wait a minute...  about 87% of Iceland's population enjoys central heating piped in from geothermal energy plants and do not use electric furnaces or heaters.

Geothermal energy? That's heat generated underground by volcanic activity that creates steam, lots of it. Free steam. And Iceland is really just a huge volcano. Maybe they use all that electricity for light during those long winter nights.

Iceland generates most of it's electricity (about 30,000 GWh) from hydro power. That's where they build big dams across rivers, dams that block all those innocent fish from getting to their upstream spawning grounds. Iceland, being way up north, gets lots and lots of snow, which fills up lots of lakes that provide abundant water flow for those hydro power plants at the dams.

Bottom line: Iceland's 320,660 citizens are lucky as hell to have abundant free water and free steam to provide all their energy needs. That's how they managed to "totally convert to green energy".

So, how much free water and free steam do we have? If we had the same amount of totally green energy Iceland does, we could provide heating and electrical energy to just one American city about the size of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which has a population of  382,618, leaving only about 60,000 of those city dwellers  out in the cold and dark.

America is not a gigantic active volcano with which we can tap for limitless steam heat.  America does not have the river resources to build all the hydro power plants we would need. 

Keep in mind that the entire population of Iceland - every man, woman and child -  could visit New York and not fill up all the available hotel rooms, so when a population that small has managed to go totally green because they're living in top of a gigantic volcano does in no way mean the rest of us can do the same thing.

These ultra-far-left liberals have no sense of scale, so when one puts up a poster like the one above,  consider the source, and before you buy into any of it, check the facts. 

People who run on emotion rather than logic should not be allowed out into the public unescorted. They can not only damage themselves, they can cause great harm to others.