House passes clean DHS bill

John_BoehnerThe House of Representatives voted 257-167 on Tuesday to pass a bill funding the Department of Homeland Security through Sept. 30, finally giving up the fight against defunding Barack Obama’s executive orders on immigration:

Most House Republicans voted against the measure because it leaves out language blocking President Obama’s executive actions on immigration. The bill passed with Democratic support.

House Speaker John Boehner told lawmakers Tuesday that even though Congress will not block Obama through its spending authority, a court-ordered injunction against President Obama’s directive will delay implementation.

“I believe this decision, considering where we are, is the right one for this team, and the right one for this country,” Boehner told Republicans in a closed-door meeting on Tuesday, according to a witness. “The good news is that the president’s executive action has been stopped, for now. This matter will continue to be litigated in the courts, where we have our best chance of winning this fight.”

The bill passed the Senate last month, and will now move to Obama’s desk to receive his signature.

House Republicans propose alternative to Obamacare subsidies

Paul_Ryan_by_Gage_SkidmoreWhereas Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) proposed temporarily extending Obamacare’s subsidies in an op-ed for the Washington Post on Sunday, Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), and John Kline (R-Minn.) proposed an “off-ramp from Obamacare” in an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal on Monday.

At issue is, of course, the forthcoming ruling on King v. Burwell, which threatens to strip Obamacare subsidies from millions of enrollees in state-run exchanges. While the representatives believe the Supreme Court should “tell the IRS to enforce the law as written—not as the administration wishes it had been written,” they also want to provide an alternative to customers who rely on subsidies to afford health care. This alternative, or “off-ramp,” would “[end] Washington mandates and [give] choice back to states, individuals and families”:

First, make coverage more affordable. Any state that uses our off-ramp would be able to opt out of ObamaCare’s insurance mandates. These coverage requirements are driving up costs, so eliminating them would empower individuals and families to choose from a wider range of plans that fit their personal needs and budgets. Our proposal will also allow participating states to opt out of ObamaCare’s burdensome individual and employer mandates, allowing Americans to purchase the coverage they want.

They also propose introducing tax credits:

Second, help people buy coverage. Right now, those who get insurance through their employer get a lot of help from the tax code, while some people who buy insurance on their own, including potentially the millions of Americans the IRS put at risk, get no help at all. So we would offer those in the affected states a tax credit to buy insurance.

The credit would be “advanceable”—that is, you would get it when you needed it; you wouldn’t have to wait for tax season. It also would be “refundable”—that is, you would get the full amount no matter the size of your tax bill. And would adjust the size of the credit for age; the elderly, who face higher coverage costs, would get more support.

Overall, they vow their proposed plan would return health care choice to the people. Ultimately, that’s exactly what Republicans — and most Americans — want in health care reform. But with Obama in office change is unlikely to happen.

Netanyahu addresses Congress; Left freaks out on Twitter


On Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned a joint session of Congress that Barack Obama’s desired nuclear deal with Iran “is a bad deal, it’s a very bad deal — we’re better off without it.”

That seems like commonsense — at least to Republicans. Progressives, on the other hand, apparently don’t like it very much when a Jew says they’re wrong.

[Read more…]

Hillary Clinton email scandal breaks just in time for 2016

Hillary_Clinton_speaking_at_Families_USAMere hours after the Wall Street Journal broke the story that Hillary Clinton plans to announce her presidential candidacy in April, the New York Times reported that Clinton never used an official government email address during her tenure as Secretary of State, instead opting to conduct all official State Department business under a personal email account.

That’s not the issue, however. The issue is that her aides failed to preserve any of those emails on department servers, which is required under the Federal Records Act:

Her use of a personal email address was discovered during the House Select Committee on Benghazi’s investigation into the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya.

Attempting to comply with federal recordkeeping requirements, the State Department requested the emails; Clinton’s advisers turned over 55,000 pages of her personal emails to the department only two months ago, after reviewing tens of thousands of pages of them.

It is unclear how many emails were not given to the State Department.

Furthermore, federal law mandates letters and emails written and received by federal officials — which are considered government records — be retained so that they can later be found by congressional committees, historians and journalists.

The National Archives and Records Administration also required any emails sent or received from personal accounts during her time in office be preserved as part of the State Department’s records.

Clinton and her aides did not comply with this requirement.

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, didn’t have an answer for why she chose to use a personal email account to conduct State Department business. While Clinton had “every expectation” that emails she sent to other State Department officials’ government accounts would be retained, Merrill essentially shrugged his shoulders about all the missing correspondences with foreign leaders, private sector employees, and government employees outside the State Department.

What difference does it make, right?

TUESDAY GUEST POST: The Great Temperature Hoax

What happens when the facts don’t fit your theory?

 “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.” Ronald Coase, UK economist

If you are the Green Lobby and you have invested heavily in the theory of man-made global warming, you do the only logical thing: you change the facts.

It’s well established Al Gore cherry picked data for his Triumph ofpolar-bear-facepalm the Will for the Birkenstock set, An Inconvenient Truth.

But now, thanks to a lone scientist who peeked behind the curtain, we’re finding out that not only do the warmists shade the facts but they change them to suit their needs.

The latest sign of this academic fraud was unearthed by Paul Homewood, a lone blogger at Not a lot of people know that.

Homewood saw the headlines about 2014 being the warmest year on record. He decided to check the figures produced by NASA.

He was drawn to what looked like an impressive temperature spike in the hinterlands of Paraguay where a massive surface area was covered by a scant three weather stations.

When he checked the data it showed record temperatures at all three stations.

But when he compared it to the raw data, it showed the reading, used to declare 2014 the hottest year ever, had been raised by as much as 2 degrees Celsius.

You might be wondering what is the difference between raw data and the data NASA so gleefully reported.

Well, science intervened.

NASA scientists decided the raw data, otherwise known as the actual readings, were flawed. So they created an adjustment designed to fix those flaws.

Lo and behold, these three rural stations in Paraguay now had recorded a whopping 1.5 degree Celsius temperature increase for the last half century, nearly twice what the rest of the globe saw.

In other words, while no one was looking, climate scientists decided to massage the data which didn’t fit their global warming theory and present these new facts as support for their conjectures.

Instead of losing the argument, they decided to just give us new facts.

If you think this scientific fraud extends to just three stations in Paraguay, you’d be wrong.

Homewood has found similar adjustments made for recording stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E).

Thanks to these climate scientists, a devastating cooling trend which nearly destroyed Iceland’s economy in the 1970s magically disappeared.

If these were just academic debates, then scientists could argue and come to a conclusion.

But these are not just academic debates. These temperature readings are being used to force real world changes that could cost us billions.

Not only that but these climate scientists in their vigor to propagate their theory are ignoring reality.

Homewood looked at the Arctic because he was interested in the shrinking sea ice pack. You’ve seen the images of polar bears perched precariously on shrinking ice sheets I’m sure.

The Green Lobby says its man-made global warming and they flaunt their “science” to prove it. But in fact, the sea ice shrinking can be explained simply by a shift in warm water currents in the Atlantic which happens every 75 years. Last time this occurred, Arctic sea ice receded even further than it has today.

But no one will pay for climate scientists to go to fabulous conferences in tropical settings if its changing currents and not smokestacks that are stranding polar bears. (Actually, polar bears are having a great time making more polar bears and their numbers are higher than for many years.)

Changing facts to prove a theory isn’t science. And its time the Green Lobby get off their high horse and face the fact that their precious theory has some major credibility problems.

The irony here is that NASA should have used satellite data, not “global” surface thermometer data. Thermometers cannot measure global averages but satellites can. Their instruments measure almost all of the lower atmosphere daily. Whereas on Earth, thermometer can be hundreds or thousands of miles apart.

NASA should have known that we know that they know that.

Kent Kellar is senior editor at Conservative Republican News