Author: papundits

The Patriot Post Digest

The Foundation

“If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy.” –Thomas Jefferson

Government & Politics

When Reconciliation Doesn’t Mean Getting Along

Reconciliation is still the buzzword on Capitol Hill as Democrat “leaders” Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi try to figure out how to ram ObamaCare down our throats. Not that they see it that way; as House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer put it, “That’s not ramming something through with a majority. It is doing what democracy calls for.” Well, this isn’t a democracy, it’s a republic: and the Founders set it up that way for a reason.

Accompanied by his teleprompter, Barack Obama began a renewed push for a vote on the health care bill by Easter when he met a group of people wearing lab coats in the Rose Garden on Wednesday (and he accused Rep. Eric Cantor of using a “prop” by bringing the 2,400-page bill itself to last week’s health care summit).   …    Obama claimed that “new and improved” legislation “incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans.” As we said Tuesday, however, the problem isn’t whether the bill is “bipartisan.” A few Republican ideas sprinkled in won’t fix it. The problem, at its core, is that a plan for Congress to take over one-sixth of the U.S. economy is unconstitutional.

In the face of all evidence, the teleprompter continued, “I don’t believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America.” Huh? Giving government bureaucrats control over health care in America is precisely what Obama is proposing to do.

For all the talk about reconciliation in the Senate, the House vote may be the more important one. The Associated Press reports, “The House passed health overhaul legislation by a narrow 220-215 vote in November, but since then several Democrats have defected or left the House. To avoid a filibuster in the Senate that Democrats can’t defeat, Obama is now pushing the House to approve the Senate’s version of the bill, along with a package of changes to fix elements of the Senate bill that House Democrats don’t like, including a special Medicaid deal for Nebraska and a tax on high-value insurance plans that is opposed by organized labor.”

If Pelosi is able to strong-arm the Senate bill through the House with a bare majority, Senate reconciliation becomes moot. With three vacancies, Democrats need just 217 votes for passage, and there are a handful of Democrats who voted “no” in November who now say they’re undecided. On the other hand, 12 pro-life Democrats, led by Bart Stupak of Michigan, say they’re prepared to switch sides and scuttle ObamaCare if sufficient protections against abortion funding aren’t put in place. The Senate bill doesn’t meet their benchmark.

Never underestimate this president’s lack of shame, though — or his penchant for Chicago-style politics. For example, Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) voted against ObamaCare in November, but he is now “undecided.” So on Wednesday, Obama nominated Jim’s brother Scott to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Offering jobs for playing the White House way is nothing new, and Scott Matheson is, to be fair, a well-credentialed nominee. However, even the appearance of selling judgeships for health care votes would give pause to a more honorable president.

As for leftist sentiment, perhaps MSNBC host Ed Schultz best summed it up this week, saying, “[S]mall government has never gotten anybody any health care.”

“The Republicans have a choice,” Schultz declared. “Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way. … We have people in need and they need to be helped.”

Memo to Ed: If government would get out of the way, those people might be able to help themselves, as our Founders intended. Democrats aren’t about to let that happen because it really isn’t about helping those in need.

Video of the Week

Barack Obama didn’t always think ramming through health care “reform” with reconciliation was a good idea. In fact, he once preached against it. See the video

This Week’s ‘Braying Jenny’ Award

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) recently explained what “bipartisanship” means, along with claiming Democrat camaraderie with the Tea Party:

The health care bill “can be bipartisan even though the votes might not be bipartisan. Because [Republicans] have made their imprint on this,” she said.

Meanwhile, she also claimed that Democrats “share some of the views of the Tea Partiers in terms of the role of special interests in Washington.” Good luck with that outreach, Nan.

News From the Swamp: Rangel’s Time Is Up

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) temporarily stepped down as Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee this week after being admonished in an ethics report for accepting corporation-financed trips to the Caribbean in 2007 and 2008. Rangel laid down the gavel only after Republicans threatened to force a formal vote calling for his removal. It wasn’t the first time GOP House members have tried to get him to step aside for his numerous ethical lapses, but it was the first time that such a move had gained Democrat support.

After the report’s release late last week, Rangel initially refused to step down, claiming he had no knowledge that the trips were out of line. That’s a stretch. Nancy Pelosi noted in an interview that Rangel’s actions weren’t “something that jeopardized our country in any way.” Apparently she doesn’t think that ethically challenged and possibly illegal behavior by elected public officials is a harmful thing, at least not when Democrats do it. She had become Speaker in large part for her call to end the “culture of corruption” in Republican-controlled Washington. When it comes to extending that promise to her own party, her “principles” are checked at the door.

Rangel still believes that he will return to the chairmanship of Ways and Means, but his troubles are not over. He still faces ethics inquiries into unpaid taxes on vacation property, fundraising efforts, and his use of rent-stabilized apartments in his Harlem district for government purposes.

Bunning’s Rise and Fall

If Democrats pass a bill but then refuse to be bound by its conditions, was it ever really passed? Apparently, only one senator had the fortitude to say “yes.” Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) drew national media attention and bipartisan attacks from his colleagues this week by daring to call Democrats on their bluff of passing a pay-as-you-go (pay-go) policy — allegedly requiring that new discretionary spending be offset by spending cuts or tax increases — and then summarily ignoring it.

At issue was the 30-day extension of unemployment and health benefits — measures which will add $10 billion to the nearly $1.6 trillion federal deficit. For days, Bunning held up a vote on the measure, noting that Democrats need to live up to their pay-go promise. He even offered a solution (which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rejected) of using $10 billion of the $500-plus billion in unspent stimu-less funds to offset the measure.

Against the backdrop of our astronomical deficit, $10 billion is, sad to say, a drop in the bucket. But it’s not the first drop. Unfortunately, a deal reached Tuesday night convinced Bunning to let the $10 billion bill come to a vote, and it passed 78-19. Yet the process illustrates that — surprise! — Democrats don’t care a whit what they say about controlling spending. Until they’re held accountable, their votes will be as meaningless and empty as their promises.

New & Notable Legislation

On Thursday, the House passed a $35 billion “jobs” bill by a 217-201 vote. It combined the Senate’s $15 billion bill (passed last week) with $20 billion in federal highway programs, and Democrats reluctantly amended the measure to conform to pay-as-you-go budget rules. The U.S. economy shed another 36,000 jobs in February with headline unemployment holding steady at 9.7 percent. But no worries — federal government payroll increased by 7,000 jobs.

Reps. Mike Pence (R-IN) and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) have proposed a constitutional amendment that would limit spending by the federal government. “With our nation facing a fiscal crisis, it is time to fundamentally change the way Washington spends the taxpayers’ money,” Pence said. The amendment would limit spending to one-fifth of U.S. economic output — the post-World War II average — unless two-thirds of each chamber of Congress determines otherwise, or waive the provision under a declaration of war.

Speaking of money, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) introduced legislation that would place Ronald Reagan on the $50 bill in honor of the Gipper’s 100th birthday next year. His image would replace that of President Ulysses S. Grant, the Union army’s general-in-chief whose administration was one of the most corrupt in our nation’s history. Naturally, many Democrats are opposed. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) cried, “There is no way. There’s absolutely no way. Our currency ought to be something that unites us.” We suppose Sherman has a point. Grant did “unify” the nation — by leading a marauding army through several of its states. He’s right up there with Gen. William T. Sherman in stirring feelings of “unity” down here in the South. Reagan, on the other hand, won two presidential elections by landslide, taking 44 and 49 states, respectively. He also rescued our economy and restored our nation’s dignity after the Carter years, and he led our nation to victory in the Cold War, freeing hundreds of millions of people from communist oppression without firing a single shot. Now that’s unity.

National Security

Patriot (Act) Games

With a magician’s sleight of hand, Democrats have managed to keep all eyes on the health care bill while diverting attention from their standard odious conduct. Last Thursday they quietly reauthorized The Patriot Act (officially, Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001), a law Left-o-crats publicly and loudly condemned during the Bush 43 administration. His Hope-&-Changeness signed the reauthorization bill after the House voted 315-97 to extend the measure.

Three primary sections of the Act remain, including court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on a suspect’s multiple phones; court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations; and surveillance operations conducted against a “lone wolf,” defined as a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism whose link to a recognized terrorist group is not clearly established.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a prime mover in getting The Patriot Act reauthorized, said, “The Patriot Act is a bipartisan bill that has helped save countless lives by equipping our national security community with the tools it needs to keep America safe.” Sessions highlighted the Ft. Hood massacre and the attempted Christmas Day bombing as vivid reminders of the threat The Patriot Act was intended to counter, and he called for a full, long-term reauthorization of the law.

In their typical hypocritical fashion, Democrats managed to show their contempt for America’s front-line homeland security forces, targeting the Central Intelligence Agency by introducing a criminal measure into the bill that bans “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.” Of course, “Degrading” isn’t defined and could mean virtually anything the Demo-gogues want it to. In any case, the provision levies a 15-year imprisonment term on any interrogator who violates it.

Also, “waterboarding” — the highly effective, if controversial, method of obtaining life-saving, time-critical information from terrorist detainees, is specifically proscribed (though not defined), independent of the fact that it is not “torture” under any reasonable interpretation of either international or U.S. law. That Democrats pushed to pass this legislation only now, even though the opportunity existed from the moment The Chosen One was sworn in, is an implicit admission that waterboarding was not illegal under U.S. law when used by the Bush administration. The Demos’ low-key approach betrays their need to keep another “inconvenient truth” under wraps.

Finally, House Democrats introduced a host of new restrictions in the reauthorization, as well. These include: “Exploiting the phobias of the individual,” whatever that phrase means; stress positions or threatened use of force to maintain stress positions; deprivation of food, water or sleep; use of military working dogs to intimidate (but not attack) the individual; exposure to “excessive cold” or “cramped confinement,” though neither of these terms is defined; “prolonged” isolation (no, “prolonged” isn’t defined, naturally); and “placing hoods or sacks over the head of the individual.”

Given the Demos’ newly inserted language, we’re surprised — and relieved, at least for the time being — that they didn’t mandate the “lawyering up” of detainees subject to The Patriot Act. As with the presumed-D.O.A. healthcare bill, however, we’ve learned not to count our blessings before they’re hatched, because when it comes to truly foolhardy schemes, the Democrats hatch only the best.

Civilian Trials on Trial

“President Obama’s advisers are nearing a recommendation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, be prosecuted in a military tribunal, administration officials said, a step that would reverse Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s plan to try him in civilian court in New York City,” The Washington Post reports. The administration has taken considerable heat for Holder’s November announcement ever since and appears ready for a change of course.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) proposed legislation to prevent the administration from trying KSM and other terrorists in any American community. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has led a similar charge in the Senate, though as part of a compromise to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Naturally, the ACLU is on the terrorists’ side. “If this stunning reversal comes to pass, President Obama will deal a death blow to his own Justice Department, not to mention American values,” said ACLU attorney Anthony Romero.

According to the Post, “Privately, administration officials are bracing for the ire of disappointed liberals and even some government lawyers should the administration back away from promises to use civilian courts to adjudicate the cases of some of the 188 detainees who remain at Guantanamo.” Not disappointed government lawyers! Where will the madness end?

Last week, we noted that the Department of Justice employs as many as nine lawyers who previously worked defending terrorists. Thanks to Fox News, we now know who they are. Presumably, they’re the ones who would be disappointed.

Lockerbie Bomber Getting Better

While the Democrats push to socialize the American medical system, there is relevant news abroad. When the Scottish government released Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi — a.k.a. the Lockerbie bomber — last year, it was because he ostensibly had only three months to live. Megrahi blew up Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. “But six months later,” reports London’s Daily Mail, “al-Megrahi is still living — and doing it in the lap of luxury.”

Though cancer had set in while he was under the British socialized health system, apparently, the treatment Megrahi has received since returning from Libya has put the cancer into remission. According to the Daily Mail, “the British cancer specialist who gave the three-month prognosis was forced to defend his prediction. He insisted that Megrahi remained gravely ill and was not expected to live much longer.”

That reminds us of another British comedy, “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” in which a collector of dead bodies makes his rounds during The Plague, calling, “Bring out your dead.” A second man carries a supposedly dead elderly man to the cart, only to have the old man protest, “I’m not dead … I’m getting better.” After arguing over whether he’s really dead (“he will be soon, he’s very ill,” says the second man), they club the poor sap over the head and toss him onto the cart anyway. That’s pretty close to the way the British system actually works. The Lockerbie bomber, after continuing “treatment” under that system, should now be resting comfortably in a British morgue, not running around Scot free.

Business & Economy

GDP, Jobs and Blizzards

When the Commerce Department in January reported a 5.7 percent growth in GDP in the fourth quarter of 2009, Barack Obama crowed that the news “affirms our progress and the swift and aggressive actions that made it possible.” He may wish to retract that statement.

According to the Associated Press, while the economy actually showed a 5.9 percent growth rate, it isn’t expected to last. The National Association for Business Economics forecasts a 3 percent growth rate or similar in the first three quarters of 2010, and PNC Financial Services Group Chief Economist Stuart Hoffman labeled the recent spike “a one-hit wonder.” The reason is that the driving force behind the growth wasn’t consumers but businesses needing to restock inventory previously depleted to save dollars. In fact, manufacturing accounted for about two-thirds of the growth. Meanwhile, consumer spending grew at just 1.7 percent, significantly below the 2.8 percent rate of the previous quarter, and headline unemployment remains high at 9.7 percent of those seeking work.

Ever the fact-innovators, however, Democrats have found a new scapegoat for the dismal job numbers: winter storms. Yes, indeed, White House Economic Advisor Larry Summers noted, “The blizzards that affected much of the country during the last month are likely to distort the statistics. So it’s going to be very important … to look past whatever the next figures are to gauge the underlying trends.” In other words, ignore the numbers and draw whatever conclusions are most convenient — which is what the White House has been doing for the past 13 months.

Regulatory Commissars: Foreclosure Overhaul Proposed

Barack Obama’s most recent economic policy trial balloon is a moratorium on foreclosures. Under the proposal, a lender could not foreclose on a homeowner until the loan was 60 days in default, and the borrower was screened for the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). Mr. President, those steps are already being pursued because lenders desire payment, not properties.

Leftists have no tolerance for federalism. To a Democrat, the state capital is AA Minor League, while Washington is the Majors. But lending and remedies for loan default are state-level issues, and therein should reside the authority to modify the law and its implementation procedure.

As it is, foreclosure doesn’t typically begin until a loan is 90 days past due — four unpaid installments. When a loan default occurs (first missed payment), the lender initiates a series of past-due notices. If payments are not then remitted, a demand acceleration letter is sent. If the loan is backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or is an FHLB fixed-rate loan, the demand acceleration letter cannot be sent until the borrower is 60 days past due. Along with the demand letter, a counseling letter is sent, notifying the borrower of the availability of financial counseling. Upon receiving these letters, the borrower has another 30 days to take some form of action, be it bringing the loan current, contacting the lender to make a modified payment plan, or contacting an attorney to initiate a bankruptcy filing. Finally, when the loan is 90 days past due, provided that all of the required notices have been sent, foreclosure can be initiated.

We noticed that Obama’s trial balloon didn’t include any regulatory relief for lenders trying to work with troubled borrowers. Rather, we suspect that lenders will continue to take the brunt of Obama’s “misconceptions” about lending practices. He apparently believes that lenders love to foreclose on borrowers, which is nonsense. By definition, a foreclosure means that something has gone terribly wrong. Despite his claim to be “an ardent believer in the free market,” Obama’s actions speak far more loudly. To him, government is always the solution.

Around the Nation: Public Debt Bombs

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once observed, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” One facet of that problem has arrived in the form of unfunded liabilities for public “servant” benefits. According to the Pew Center, a $1 trillion gap exists between $3.35 trillion in pension, health care and other retirement benefits promised to current and retired state employees as of fiscal year 2008 and the $2.35 trillion available to pay them. That’s $1 trillion in unfunded liabilities that must be resolved through higher taxes in concert with drastic benefit reductions.

Not without irony, President Obama’s adopted home state of Illinois is in the worst shape of all, managing to fund only 54 percent of those benefits while carrying an astounding unfunded liability of more than $54 billion.

Similar data from the crucibles of democracy also show a strong correlation between states with concentrations of liberals and a state’s budgetary health. The five states in the worst financial shape are all bastions of leftist policies — California, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey and New York. Each shares strong appetites for public sector unions and pricey social programs. Illinois, again, is in the worst financial condition, with per-capita debt of $1,877 and unfunded pensions of $17,230. Moody’s rates Illinois’ general obligation just ahead of dead-last California. On the other side of the equation, three of the top five fiscally healthiest states are conservative states (Utah, Nebraska and Texas), while the other two (New Hampshire and Virginia) are swing states.

Considering the unchecked acceleration of the federal government’s looming fiscal Armageddon, voters must ask themselves this November if they wish to call the tune and deal with the issue before debt becomes uncontrollable. Allowing this current crop of suicidal spenders two additional years is an unacceptable alternative.

Culture & Policy

Climate Change This Week: Gore Comes Out of Winter Hibernation

In the wake of the recent irrefutable counterattack on climate change “science,” one would think that those who have forecasted the end of civilization would be running for the hills, or — at the very least — quietly dropping their phony claims and stepping aside in light of, well, the inconvenient truth. But leave it to Al Gore to make even more excuses for years of incompetence and dishonesty, and leave it to the New York Times to provide him a platform from which to pontificate.

And pontificate he did, in a weekend op-ed worthy of Michael Moore in terms of pure, unadulterated horse pucky. The former vice president once again wailed that we will face an “unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.” He should just come clean and tell us what he really means: redistributing the wealth, from our pockets to his.

Gore also valiantly defended those of his brethren exposed in the Climategate scandal, referring to the UK’s University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit e-mails as “stolen.” (As if that somehow justifies the corrupt content therein.) He further claimed the abused scientists involved had succumbed to the pressure of climate skeptics, blatantly ignoring that for years other scientists who questioned climate change found themselves either silenced or blacklisted.

He even went so far as to blame the U.S. Senate, by way of stalling the Obama administration’s cap-n-tax scheme, for other world leaders’ lack of commitment at the Copenhagen Summit. China, Gore confides conspiratorially, was really gung-ho about limiting its carbon emissions until the big, bad U.S. decided to take the low road.

The government Gore and others like him envision is a danger to our Essential Liberty. Preserving a government that encourages both a free market and free thinkers can mean not only the difference between prosperity and ruin, but literally between life and death. We need only to compare the recent earthquakes in Chile and Haiti to tell us this. The earthquake in Chile registered 8.8 on the Richter Scale, which was hundreds of times more powerful than the one that struck Haiti, but due in part to Chile’s superior infrastructure and wealth, only 708 people were killed, as opposed to more than 220,000 in the third-world Caribbean nation. Thankfully, more people are starting to realize that we cannot take our prosperity and our way of life for granted, and that includes vigorously confronting opportunistic charlatans like Al Gore.

In related news, the University of Tennessee is giving Gore an honorary doctoral degree because, gushed Chancellor Jimmy G. Cheek, “his work has quite literally changed our planet for the better.” Both the publisher and managing editor of The Patriot Post hold advanced degrees from the University of Tennessee and, accordingly, have submitted protests. (Our editors did actual research for their degrees.)

This Week’s ‘Al-pha Jackass’ Award

“From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption. After all has been said and so little done, the truth about the climate crisis — inconvenient as ever — must still be faced.” –Gore, the populist potentate of eco-theology

The “rule of law” is certainly not an “instrument of human redemption,” nor is it what Gore is advocating.

Village Academic Curriculum: A 360-Degree Turnaround

It’s no secret that America’s schools are failing to educate, and a succession of presidents have attempted to address the issue through the federal government with little to show for it. Barack Obama became the latest to step into the realm of education reform by putting $900 million in taxpayer money on the line, promising our most troubled school districts “turnaround” grants if they could come up with a model plan to bring their schools up to snuff.

Under the new proposal, districts have a number of different models from which to choose, among them the “turnaround” model where the principal and half the staff are replaced, the “restart” model of closing and reopening a school under charter-style management, and the “closure” model where kids are simply uprooted to different schools within the district. Districts will compete against others in their state for a share of the grant money.

Since most of these schools happen to be in large city districts (read: pockets of heavily Democrat voters) one could argue this is simply a payoff, throwing money at a problem that money itself doesn’t address. Many of these models can thus be readily compared to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

One thing missing from the proposal is the concept of school choice for long-suffering parents, akin to the DC voucher program. Since education unions look at vouchers the way Superman eyes kryptonite, it’s a sure bet that any such suggestions will be a no-go for securing the federal dollars. Our hunch is that while a number of new cushy administrative jobs will come from this program, few competent high school graduates will be saved or created under this federal boondoggle.

To Keep and Bear Arms

Three people were shot during a gun battle involving alleged burglars in Harris County, Texas. During the late morning hours on Feb. 19, two armed suspects forced their way through a homeowner’s front door. Fortunately, the homeowner was also armed. Shots were exchanged and the homeowner was struck, but one of the suspects was killed. The other suspect, a juvenile, attempted to find refuge at a neighbor’s house. That neighbor said, “He told me that he had gotten shot and to call his mother. I thought he was just crazy.”

Police soon arrived and the youth was taken to the hospital. The condition of the homeowner remains unknown. According to another neighbor, this is the same area that had recently been hit by several robberies. It is still unclear whether those recent crimes were related.

And Last…

The television show “America’s Most Wanted” will mark its 1,000th episode this weekend on Fox. Since its inception, the show has assisted in the capture of more than 1,100 fugitives, as well as reunited 43 missing children with their families. Perhaps this success is why Barack Obama has decided to sit for an interview with host John Walsh for the episode. At first, this interview seemed rather odd, if only because Walsh rarely interviews suspects, but then we remembered that Obama always does interviews before big TV events. Besides, he’s trying to garner votes for health care and by golly, if he needs law enforcement assistance to get it done, so be it. Indeed, the nation would be well served if Mr. Walsh posted pictures of Capitol Hill’s “Most Wanted.” We suspect, come November, many of those Beltway troublemakers will be brought to justice.

Read more excellent articles at The Patriot Post

Filed under: Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama), Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, News and Views, Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Tagged: Annie, Bart Stupak, Obamacare, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT), Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY), The Patriot Post

By Alan Caruba

What was that most homeowners and apartment dwellers most feared in the recent record-breaking blizzard that hit the northeast?

The answer is losing electricity and that is why the news of the event was always filled with reports of what towns had lost electricity due to downed tree limbs. This was followed by news of how quickly the utilities were making repairs.

Simply stated, when you lose electricity, you lose light and warmth, and you are instantly back to the dark ages before magical power flowed into your home through outlets throughout your house or apartment. No power leaves people searching for flashlights or, if they have planned for it, firing up a generator.

That is why energy is so critical, not just to our everyday lives, but to the future of the nation. It is, in many respects, life itself.

On March 4, yet another environmental organization, this one called Natural Capitalism Solutions, will hold a teleconference, the purpose of which is to demonstrate “how utilities can benefit financially by shifting power generation from existing coal-burning plants to a combination of efficiency and renewable energy technologies.”

Let’s put this in context. Currently, coal-burning plants provide just over half of all the electricity generated in the nation. Coal is abundant and cheap. Wind and solar energy is neither. It is expensive by almost comparison and, worse, it is unreliable. Unlike the other energy sources, it provides few jobs.

Under the cold conditions of recent winter events, some wind turbines simply froze and ceased to function. In more temperate conditions, there is always the likelihood that the wind will not blow, thus necessitating the constant maintenance of back-up facilities that require coal or natural gas. This raises the obvious question, why bother with wind?

Solar energy is subject to the same inconveniences if the sun is obscured by cloud cover and must constantly be monitored to remove dust on the panels that interferes with efficiency.

So-called renewable or clean energy currently represents about one percent of all the energy produced nationwide. If it weren’t for massive amounts of government cash and subsidies, there would be little or no renewable energy.

The U.S. is home to huge reserves of coal. It is often called the Saudi Arabia of coal. The same applies to oil. For all the talk of “energy independence”, the U.S. through its energy policies has been embarked since around the 1970s on something I call energy suicide.

If there is one thing the Greens truly hate it is the fuels we use to maintain our economy and our lifestyle. High on the list is coal, but it is essential to understand that the Greens are at war with oil and nuclear power as well. While fifty-five nuclear plants are being built worldwide, the U.S. lags behind the rest of the world thanks to the opposition of the Greens.

The purpose of cap-and-trade legislation, the next horror the Obama administration wants to foists on us, is to make the use of coal very expensive by claiming that it generates so much “greenhouse gas” that global warming is always just around the corner. This is no global warming and those greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, vital to all life on Earth as plant food.

Nevertheless, reports are seeping out of the festering wound we call Congress that thirteen U.S. Senators are urging the Majority Leader and the authors of cap-and-trade “to specifically grant the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired plants.”

Without legitimate scientific justification, EPA should not be able regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but that is not likely to stop it from trying since real science or facts of any kind have rarely deterred its destructive agenda.

This is just another example of the Greens incessant and relentless attack on a major source of America’s vital source of life, its electrical power, and a major fuel source to generate it.

To return to the teleconference, those charged with the management of utilities would have to be mentally impaired or stupid beyond belief to give serious consideration to wind or solar power.

It will be argued that those advocating this idiocy are naïve or just seeking energy alternatives for whatever noble notions they claim to have, but there is no such thing as “natural” capitalism. There is just capitalism and, the last time I checked, it operates on the basis of profit achieved in the most cost efficient and productive way to be competitive in the interest of its investors, its employees, and its consumers.

I think those in Congress and involved in the mind-boggling matrix of thousands of Green groups are engaged in doing as much harm as they can, as swiftly as they can, to the American economy and our future as a nation.

(c) Alan Caruba, 2010

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at Warning Signs. A business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

Read more thought provoking articles at Warning Signs

Filed under: America (USA), Blundering Bureaucrats, Climate Alarmists, Climate Change, Conniving Politicians, Democrats, Environment, Environmental activists, Fanatics, Fear-mongering, Fraud/Waste, Global Warming, Infrastructure Problems, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Political Prostitutes, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Public Opinion, Spine Donor Politicians Tagged: Alan Caruba, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions, Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Gas, Climate Change Hypocrisy, Climate Change Religion, Coal Fired Power Generation, Environmental protection Agency (EPA), Global Warming Alarmism, Global Warming Hype, Nuclear power Generation, Renewable Power Plants, Tony, U.S. Electrical Power Consumption, Warning Signs

By Nick Loris

Lost in President Obama’s rhetoric that the science is settled on climate change, the president is willing to shut down Yucca Mountain without scientific justification. Today, the Department of Energy (DOE) filed to withdraw the application for the geologic repository Yucca Mountain that was supposed to begin collecting used fuel in 1998. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 set January 31, 1998, as the deadline for the federal government to begin disposing of used fuel. More than a decade after the deadline, the government has still not settled on a policy for how to do it. The DOE established a blue ribbon commission to explore alternatives to long-term waste storage. The government’s ineptitude to begin proper nuclear waste management should be a reason to remove government responsibilities, not remove Yucca from consideration.

On numerous occasions (not Yucca specific) President Obama emphasized the importance of objective, transparent science, stressing that politics should not trump sound science.

President Obama in an Executive Memorandum on March 9, 2009:

Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration on a wide range of issues, including improvement of public health, protection of the environment, increased efficiency in the use of energy and other resources, mitigation of the threat of climate change, and protection of national security.

The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions. Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions. “

President Obama in a ceremony the same night: “Promoting science isn’t just about providing resources — it is also about protecting free and open inquiry.”

President Obama after announcing his top science advisors December 8, 2008:

Because the truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources — it’s about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.”

It’s time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America’s place as the world leader in science and technology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient.”

The issues surrounding opening Yucca Mountain are purely politically and not one bit technical. Yucca Mountain is the most studied geologic nuclear materials repository in the world. Studies have found that the Yucca repository could safely hold 120,000 tons of waste.

So we should listen to the science, except when it’s inconvenient to well-connected political leaders. If politicians eager to shut down Yucca Mountain are so confident that the science is on their side, why not allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to finish its license review? After, all, it’s the NRC’s responsibility to determine the technical feasibility of Yucca – even if it has been studied countless times.

Contributing Author Nick Loris writes at The Heritage Foundation and he is a Research Assistant at The Heritage Foundation’s Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.

Read more informative articles at Heritage – The Foundry

Filed under: 111th Congress, America (USA), Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama), Blundering Bureaucrats, Conniving Politicians, Democrats, Fear-mongering, Infrastructure Problems, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Political Prostitutes, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Spine Donor Politicians Tagged: Department Of Energy (DOE), Heritage – The Foundry, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Nuclear Waste, Nuclear Waste Disposal, Obama Obfuscation, President Obama, Tony, Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Facility

By Glenn Foden

Sad, but some of our fellow countrymen are actually buying this.

Glenn Foden contributes cartoons at NewsBusters and does editorial cartoon work for CNSNews as well as the Business and Media Institute and the Culture and Media Institute.

See and Read more Quality Material at NewsBusters

Filed under: 111th Congress, America (USA), Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama), Cartoons, Conniving Politicians, Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Humor, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Political Prostitutes, Politically Correct, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Public Opinion, Satire, Spine Donor Politicians Tagged: Glenn Foden, NewsBusters, Political Cartoons, Political Humor, Political Satire, Tony

So how much shorter will the weekend now be? Hmmmm. In any case, have a good one.

Read More Dry Bones by Yaakov Kirschen

Filed under: Cartoons, Disaster, Humor Tagged: Chile Earthquake, Dry Bones, Tony

By Andrew Bolt

Professor Fouad Ajami marvels at what has been wrought in Iraq, facing another general election on March 7:

The American project in Iraq has midwifed that rarest of creatures in the Greater Middle East: a government that emerges out of the consent of the governed. We should trust the Iraqis with their own history. That means letting their electoral process play out against the background of the Arab dynasties and autocracies, and of the Iranian theocracy next door that made a mockery out of its own national elections…

Of all that has been said about Iraq since the time that country became an American burden, nothing equals the stark formulation once offered by a diplomat not given to grandstanding and rhetorical flourishes. Said former U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker: “In the end, what we leave behind and how we leave will be more important than how we came.”

We can already see the outline of what our labor has created: a representative government, a binational state of Arabs and Kurds, and a country that does not bend to the will of one man or one ruling clan.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Filed under: America (USA), Democracy, Iraq, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Middle East, Politics, Propaganda, Public Opinion Tagged: Andrew Bolt, Iraq, Iraq Democracy, Iraq Elections, Tony

By Mark Alexander

“The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” –James Madison

James Madison’s words regarding the “ultimate authority” for defending liberty (Federalist No. 46) ring as true today as in 1787, when he penned them.

Likewise, so do the words of his appointee to the Supreme Court, Justice Joseph Story, who wrote in his 1833 “Commentaries on the Constitution,” “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

In recent decades, the “enterprises of ambition” and “usurpation and arbitrary power” among Leftist politicians and their corrupt judicial lap dogs have become malignant, eating away at our Essential Liberty and our constitutional Rule of Law.   …    This has never been more so than since the charlatan Barack Hussein Obama duped 67 million Americans into seating him in the executive branch.

Now more than ever, armed Patriots must stand ready, in the words of Patrick Henry, to “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.”

In June 2008, the Supreme Court, by a narrow 5-4 vote (Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Kennedy), reaffirmed, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the people’s inherent right to keep and bear arms is plainly enumerated in our Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment ensures an individual right, that DC could not ban handguns, and that operable guns may be maintained in the homes of law-abiding DC residents.

This was an important decision affirming the plain language of our Second Amendment and its proscription against government infringement on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

However, Heller pertained to a federal district, and while our Bill of Rights has primacy over state and municipal firearm restrictions, a Supreme Court case to give judicial precedent to that primacy has yet to be decided.

In his dissenting opinion in Heller, 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens expressed concern that the case “may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table,” should “the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home.”

One might only hope!

This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in McDonald v. Chicago, the next test case for the Second Amendment, which will determine if Chicago’s onerous gun restrictions are in violation of the Constitution’s plain language prohibition of such regulations by states and municipalities.

Otis McDonald, the 76-year-old plaintiff in this case, is challenging Chicago regulations that make it unlawful for him to keep a handgun in his home for self-defense.

My colleague Dave Hardy, a scholar of constitutional law, particularly the Second Amendment, summarized the arguments as follows: “McDonald v. Chicago illustrated the dichotomy between a government of laws and a government of men. One wing of the Court (perhaps the majority) looked to the essential enumeration of the right to arms; the other seemed to argue that since they, as powerful individuals, did not care for the right, or thought it was one of the Framers’ bad ideas, they could disregard it.”

That is an apt summary of how all cases are handled by the federal judiciary.

Typical of Leftmedia summations, The New York Times opined, “At least five justices appeared poised to expand the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms.”

Expand?

Only the most uninformed opinion would suggest that asserting the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in Chicago is an expansion of the Second Amendment’s scope. But considering the source…

Mr. McDonald’s lawyers insist that the 14th Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause (“no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”) is grounds for overturning Chicago’s gun restrictions, and those of other states and municipalities across the our great nation.

Unfortunately, trying to establish a 14th Amendment precedent in and of itself undermines the authority of our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

Recall that there was great debate among our Founders concerning the need for any Bill of Rights. It was argued that such a specific enumeration of rights was redundant and unnecessary to the Constitution and that listed (and unlisted) rights might then be construed as malleable rather than unalienable, as amendable rather than “endowed by our Creator” as noted in the Constitution’s supreme guidance, the Declaration of Independence.”

To that end, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 84, “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. … For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?“

Madison prevailed, however, and for clarity he introduced a preamble to the Bill of Rights: “The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution…”

In other words, the Bill of Rights was enumerated to ensure against encroachment on our inherent rights. Read in context, the Bill of Rights is both an affirmation of innate individual rights (as noted by Thomas Jefferson: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time…”), and a clear delineation of constraints upon the central government.

Note that the Second Amendment is unique in the Bill of Rights in that it expressly asserts the “right to keep and bear arms” is “necessary,” more so than just important, to a “free state.”

But as feared by those who argued such rights should not be recorded, the “despotic branch,” as Jefferson presciently dubbed the judiciary, has endeavored to limit those enumerated rights by way of convoluted and fraudulent precedents.

Likewise, citing the 14th Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause suggests the Second Amendment was and remains amendable. That, of course, is an egregious affront to Essential Liberty — but that’s the way the game is played today.

Currently, 41 states issue concealed handgun carry permits, or don’t require them at all, for law-abiding citizens. Seven other states allow local municipalities to determine gun restrictions; Illinois and Wisconsin do not even allow that option.

Much of the debate about the need to infringe upon the right to bear arms is framed in terms of safety. Gun-control advocates argue that more guns equal more crime. Those advocating for more lenient gun laws argue that more guns equal less crime. Only one of these diametrically opposed views can be true.

While the latter group is factually and demonstrably correct, basing Second Amendment arguments on the issue of safety is as fallacious as attempting to assert the 14th Amendment argument.

In an editorial this week, the conservative Washington Times opined, “The year after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and gun-lock requirements, the capital city’s murder rate plummeted 25 percent. The high court should keep that in mind…”

No, they should not.

After all, violence is a cultural problem, not a gun problem, and certainly not a Second Amendment problem.

What each member of the Supreme Court must only keep in mind is the plain language of the Constitution, the Second Amendment and the First Principle of his or her oath: “To support and defend our Constitution,” as should everyone who has taken that oath.

Accordingly, the High Court should find that the gun restrictions in Chicago, and by extension, those in any other state, are in direct violation of the inherent rights of the people “to keep and bear arms.”

Read more excellent articles at The Patriot Post

Filed under: 111th Congress, Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama), Bill of Rights, Conniving Politicians, Constitution, Courts, Demo-gogues, Democrats, Judicial Branch, Liberals, Liberty, Marxists, News and Views, Political Prostitutes, Politicians for the Destruction of America, Second (2nd) Amendment, Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) Tagged: Annie, The Patriot Post

By Alan Caruba

The author and conservative icon, Ayn Rand, wrote that “The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default; by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.”

The subject of evil is an ancient one and all the great religions grapple with it, seek to identify it, to codify behavior against it, and to offer solace when one suffers from it.

I am by training a journalist, not a philosopher, so I tend to come at the subject of evil by noting what others have to say about it.

Edmund Burke (1729-1797), a British statesman, gained immortality when he wrote, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” He, like you, lived in turbulent times, but a study of history reveals that there has never been anything other than turbulent times for nations that have acquired the status of empire or for those ground under the heel of some despot.

Evil is a hothouse flower that blooms everywhere and all the time.

Evil flourishes best in times when money loses its value and chaos threatens. It can be argued that the steps taken at the end of the Bush term helped stabilize the financial crisis. It was largely brought about by a combination of government social justice programs like Fannie Mae and the natural greed of Wall Street. Only lately have we heard economists argue that enterprises deemed “too big to fail” should have been allowed to fail.

What make our present times so volatile are unemployment rates comparable to that of the 1930s during the Great Depression. I have news for you. We are in a new Great Depression. The foreclosures and failed businesses unable to secure banking lines of credit are the results of the same governmental errors that were intended to end the 1930s Depression and which are being repeated today. Just as it was then, the massive government spending only exacerbates the situation.

Stepping into the vacuum of anger and anguish in order to exploit it, we are witnessing the effort and intention to transform our economic system. It bespeaks a quest for power and the worst future imaginable by an administration determined to ignore the wishes of the majority of Americans.

I refer specifically to the Obama administration’s and Democrat controlled Congress’s manic focus on Medicare “reform” at a time when the only focus government should have is the relief of the taxpayer and the provision of incentives for businesses, large and small. The only cure for a Depression is jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

A recent Wall Street Journal editorial titled “Abuse of Power” said, “A string of electoral defeats and the great unpopularity of Obamacare can’t stop Democrats from their self-appointed rendezvous with liberal destiny—ramming a bill through Congress on a narrow partisan vote.”

“What we are about to witness is an extraordinary abuse of traditional Senate rules to pass a bill merely because they think it’s good for the rest of us, and because they fear their chance to build a European welfare state may never come again.”

This “progressive” intent to change American society and its healthcare system, to expand a federal government so bloated it is already incapable of functioning effectively, and to impose a socialism whose two main pieces of legislation, Social Security and Medicare, are broke, is simply evil.

The evil is particularly evident in the words and actions of Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who has actually urged Democrats in the House to drink the Obamacare Kool-Aid even if it means they will be defeated for election in November! As with all communists, ideology trumps common sense every time.

I think there is the potential for a significant difference between the peaceful gathering of nearly a million Americans in Washington, D.C. on September 12th of last year to protest Obamacare and the planned march in September of this year. If the crowd was angry last year—and it was—this year they well could go looking for Congressional Democrats like angry villagers in pursuit of Frankenstein.

We would do well to remember that the Boston Massacre on March 5, 1770 in which British soldiers fired on civilians. It led to the Boston Tea Party in 1773. After that, the Revolution was firmly set in motion.

Justifiably angry Americans are not going to be in a mood to allow Congress and the White House to continue the mad spending calculated to be closing in on a national debt of $17 trillion.

Americans will not peacefully accept the government takeover of the healthcare sector; one sixth of the nation’s economy.

Americans are not happy that the government and auto union now own General Motors.

Americans will no longer wait forever for our vast domestic reserves of oil to be opened for our use. Drill here and drill now will be heard. The same is true for Obama’s and the Greens’ war on coal and nuclear power.

Americans who came before us hung cattle rustlers as a warning to others, fought a Civil War to preserve the Union, fought the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese Empire in Asia at the same time, and then faced off with the Soviet Union for nearly a half century until it collapsed. After 9/11 we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to degrade al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the despot, Saddam Hussein.

The coming midterm elections will, it is hoped, remove the “progressives” from Congress. The brakes on the Obama Express need to be applied because that train is taking America off the cliff.

If that doesn’t happen, there are lots of Americans today, many that have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, who will not peacefully surrender to evil.

(c) Alan Caruba, 2010

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at Warning Signs. A business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

Read more thought provoking articles at Warning Signs

Filed under: 111th Congress, America (USA), Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama), Blundering Bureaucrats, Conniving Politicians, Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Political Prostitutes, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Public Opinion, Spine Donor Politicians Tagged: Alan Caruba, Health Care Reform Bill, Obamacare, ObamaCare Catastrophe, Tony, Warning Signs

By William Warren

See more Cartoons by William Warren, and Great Articles at NetRight Nation Blog

Filed under: America (USA), Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama), Cartoons, Humor, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Politics, Power Hungry, Satire Tagged: NetRight Nation Blog, Obama Physical, Political Cartoons, Political Humor, Political Satire, President Obama, Tony, William Warren

From The Endive – The News Leader of the Known Universe

The city of Topeka, Kansas was obliterated Wednesday following a dramatic accident involving a Toyota and a Ford Pinto.

“It was horrifying,” said eyewitness and survivor Sharon Horne, “A white Camry suddenly sped up and rear-ended a green Pinto, sending it crashing into the side of a 1984 Chevy pickup. The last thing I remember seeing after that was a wall of flames, and then the concussive force of the explosion knocked me out.”

The accident was incredibly complex. Other eyewitnesses confirmed that the Toyota was trying to outmaneuver a Chevy Cobalt that had lost steering control. The fuel in the Pinto’s gas tank didn’t ignite until sparks and fire from a nearby Pontiac Fiero came a little too close as the wreck careened by.

The Chevy truck ended up in the Pinto’s line of fire after it swerved to avoid a Ford Explorer that had flipped onto its side while trying to pull out of the way.

Things were further complicated when the concussive force of the explosion set off all the airbags in any Honda within a four-mile radius, causing a chain reaction crash that laid waste to ten city blocks.

The fire was stoked further when a Ford Escape’s cruise control switch caught fire coincidentally, right next to a 1987 Ford F-150 whose ignition switch burst spontaneously into flames.

“We warned people this would happen over and over,” said Steve Dweebs, a scientist who talks like he knows everything, “Statistically speaking, if every recalled vehicle were to meet in one city at one time and an unforeseen element were introduced, a collision would occur that would produce a shock wave large enough to obliterate Topeka.”

That unforeseen element, according to Dweebs, was the introduction of five Pontiac Aztecs. While the Aztec was never the subject of a recall, the presence of five of the ugliest vehicles ever produced was distracting enough to set off the chain reaction of events.

“I just wanted to add that I was totally right,” said Dweebs, who is probably just now realizing we changed his last name to “Dweebs” just for this article.

President Obama was quick to pledge his support to rebuilding efforts.

“We will rebuild Topeka,” said Obama, “And the new Topeka will have much safer cars. Cars that have been hastily built new from the ground up, managed by a government committee, and built by the few people who GM didn’t lay off. We’re pretty sure they’ll be safe.”

Read more Satire at The Endive

Filed under: America (USA), Humor, Images, Satire Tagged: Satire, The Endive, Tony, Toyota Recall

By Nick Loris

As the national average of gasoline creeps to three dollars a gallon, economists are warning that high gas prices in the United States could slow the economic recovery. Other countries’ economies are recovering more quickly and increased production and activity is putting upward pressure on oil prices. That coupled with a relatively weak US dollar spells trouble for American drivers. Throw in carbon dioxide cuts and gasoline prices could reach unprecedented levels:

To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon. To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving must simply increase, according to a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010.”

If you think it’s out of the question, it’s not. Members of Congress are working with oil companies now to levy a carbon fee on the transportation sector: “Key senators are weighing a request from Big Oil to levy a carbon fee on the industry rather than wrap it into a sweeping cap-and-trade system that covers most of the U.S. economy. If accepted, the approach — supported by ConocoPhillips, BP America and Exxon Mobil Corp. — could rearrange the politics of the Senate climate debate and potentially open up votes that may not be there otherwise.”

Such an approach would do nothing but cause more economic pain for American households. Higher gas prices lower employment, income, and spending, and Americans will have to dip into their savings to pay for higher gas prices. Heritage economist Karen Campbell details these effects in her paper, “How Rising Gas Prices Hurt American Households.”

Furthermore, a carbon fee would do very little to reduce CO2 emissions. As Senior Policy Analyst Ben Lieberman points out, gasoline prices have already reached these levels in Western Europe where nations have made commitments to cut CO2, yet we are outperforming them in terms of emissions reductions.

Higher fuel prices adversely affect just about every aspect of the economy. Food prices, for instance, will increase as it costs more to harvest, manufacture and transport food. And as the price of airline tickets rise, people will travel less. It may be easier to support these policies when public transportation is readily available – although the cost of public transportation will rise as well. However, many parts of the country do not have access to public transportation and have to drive a significant distance just to get to a grocery store.

Indeed, the rural, poorer areas will be hit hardest by a spike in gasoline prices as residents in these areas spend a larger percentage of their income on fuel. When gasoline prices passed the $4-per-gallon mark, Fred Rozell, pricing director at a fuel analysis firm said, “This crisis really impacts those who are at the economic margins of society, mostly in the rural areas and particularly parts of the Southeast. These are people who have to decide between food and transportation.” This map provided by the New York Times shows the percentage of income spent on gasoline throughout the country.

A targeted approach to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will give us the same results as a cap and trade system: Lots of economic pain for negligible reductions in emissions.

Contributing Author Nick Loris writes at The Heritage Foundation and he is a Research Assistant at The Heritage Foundation’s Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.

Read more informative articles at Heritage – The Foundry

Filed under: 111th Congress, America (USA), Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama), Blundering Bureaucrats, Climate Alarmists, Climate Change, Conniving Politicians, Democrats, Environment, Environmental activists, Fanatics, Fear-mongering, Fraud/Waste, Global Warming, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Political Prostitutes, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Public Opinion, Spine Donor Politicians Tagged: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions, Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Gas, Climate Change Religion, Climate Change Scaremongering, Gasoline Prices, Global Warming Hype, Global Warming Madness, Heritage – The Foundry, Tony

The Patriot Post Chronicle

The Foundation

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.” –Justice Joseph Story

Editorial Exegesis

“The year after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and gun-lock requirements, the capital city’s murder rate plummeted 25 percent. The high court should keep that in mind … as it hears oral arguments about a Chicago handgun ban. Gun controllers screamed to high heaven that impending disaster would follow the court’s decision to junk some of the district’s gun controls. One of those screaming the loudest was Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, who incorrectly predicted more gun freedom would lead to more death and Wild West shootouts. Instead, in Washington, murder rates rose when the handgun ban was in effect and fell once the regulations were removed. Chicago’s 1982 ban faired no better. The forthcoming third edition of ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ shows that in the 17 years after a ban on new handguns went into effect, there were only two years when Chicago’s murder rate was as low as it was in 1982. The Windy City’s murder rate fell relative to America’s other 50 largest cities before the ban and rose relative to them afterward. …    That increase in murder rates isn’t surprising. Every time gun bans have been tried anywhere, murder rates have risen. Whether one looks at Ireland, Jamaica or England and Wales, the experience has been the same. Not only did murder rates fail to decline as promised, but the rates actually increased following gun bans. In general, gun-control laws disarm law-abiding citizens — not criminals who don’t care about the law. The lesson is that freedom and safety go hand in hand.” –The Washington Times

Upright

“[Those] who run Washington, and their intellectual supporters, believe they have superior wisdom and greater intelligence than the masses. They believe they have been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the rest of us. Like any other tyrant, they have what they consider good reasons for restricting the freedom of others.” –economist Walter E. Williams

“In the Democrat leadership, we are not dealing with conventional politicians for whom the goal of being reelected is paramount and will rein in their radicalism. They want socialized medicine and all it entails about government control even more than they want to win elections. After all, if the party of government transforms the relationship between the citizen and the state, its power over our lives will be vast even in those cycles when it is not in the majority. This is about power, and there is more to power than winning elections, especially if you’ve calculated that your opposition does not have the gumption to dismantle your ballooning welfare state.” –columnist Andy McCarthy

“One of the biggest reasons for higher medical costs is that somebody else is paying those costs, whether an insurance company or the government. What is the politicians’ answer? To have more costs paid by insurance companies and the government. … [H]aving someone else pay for medical care virtually guarantees that a lot more of it will be used. Nothing would lower costs more than having each patient pay those costs. And nothing is less likely to happen.” –economist Thomas Sowell

“While Barack Obama was making his latest pitch for a brand new, even more unsustainable entitlement at the health care ’summit,’ thousands of Greeks took to the streets to riot. An enterprising cable network might have shown the two scenes on a continuous split-screen – because they’re part of the same story. It’s just that Greece is a little further along in the plot: They’re at the point where the canoe is about to plunge over the falls. America is further upstream and can still pull for shore, but has decided, instead, that what it needs to do is catch up with the Greek canoe.” –columnist Mark Steyn

“Too many Americans now believe that the checks they receive every month from the unemployment office — like the checks they get from the welfare office, from Medicare, from Social Security — are inalienable rights. They are not.” –columnist Ben Shapiro

Insight

“Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing.” –American essayist, philosopher and poet Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

“The freedom now desired by many is not freedom to do and dare but freedom from care and worry.” –American writer and historian James Truslow Adams (1878-1949)

Dezinformatsia

Apologists for ramming ObamaCare through: “What [Barack Obama] really wanted to do [with the health care summit] was convince the American people, and more importantly wavering Democrats in Congress, that the Republicans are the ‘Party of No.’ They won’t compromise and he now has no choice but to move ahead with Democrats alone.” –CBS’s Chip Reid

“What the Democrats have to do now is pass the bill. Put back the public option, since it’s their bill, and pass it…. The president has to drop his George B. McClellan mask and become Ulysses Grant. Be ruthless.” –ABC’s Sam Donaldson

“The Democrats in the White House who are pushing for this [reconciliation] strategy, pushing for passage, say that once this does pass, the country will get it. Democrats will be unified. They’ll get a huge benefit.” –ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on ObamaCare

Arrogance: “President Obama is so much smarter and a better communicator than members of Congress in either party. The contrast, side by side, is almost ridiculous….” –The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait

No spin? “One man’s stand. A single Senator stops the whole Congress, denying thousands of people unemployment benefits. We confront him to ask why.” –ABC’s Diane Sawyer on Sen. Jim Bunning’s (R-KY) hold on an extension of unemployment benefits to force Democrats to figure out how to pay for them under “pay-go” rules

Gut buster: “I think no one knows my politics.” –ABC News left anchor Diane Sawyer

This week’s “Leftmedia Buster” Award: “[T]here’s a good reason to stay pessimistic about deficits as far as the eye can see. It’s called the ‘news’ media. Legislators who want to get re-elected will clearly want to avoid any spending decision that will create bad national publicity, and our news media, the manufacturers of bad national publicity, will send crying victims down the assembly line at the slightest thought of a social spending cut or freeze. Exhibit A is Sen. Jim Bunning.” –L. Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center

Newspulper Headlines:

We Blame Global Warming: “11.3 Million Homeowners Underwater on Mortgage” –Marketwatch.com

We Blame George W. Bush: “Desserts to Blame for Obama’s Higher Cholesterol” –Associated Press

That’ll Teach Her: “UAH Shooting Suspect Amy Bishop Suspended Without Pay, Will Be Fired” –Huntsville (AL) Times

What About the 13th Amendment?: “Students Are Sold on Double-Decker Bus” –St. Louis Post-Dispatch

That’s What All the Blinged-Out, Floor-Wrecking Breakdancers Say: “Blinged-Out, Floor-Wrecking Breakdancer: ‘I’m Innocent’” –RentedSpaces.com

Vultures Help Woman Rid Home of Boy Scouts — Now That Would Be News: “Boy Scouts Help Woman Rid Home of Vultures” –Associated Press

Bottom Stories of the Day: “Gore: World to End, Fox News to Blame” –NewsBusters.org

(Thanks to The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto)

The Demo-gogues

The meaning of bipartisan: “Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. Republicans have left their imprint.” –House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

Oh please: “We share some of the views of the Tea Partiers in terms of the role of special interest in Washington, DC, as — it just has to stop. And that’s why I’ve fought the special interest, whether it’s on energy, whether it’s on health insurance, whether it’s on pharmaceuticals and the rest.” –Nancy Pelosi, leader of the Demo Culture of Corruption

More arrogance: “When the public sees what is in this bill … when we show them what the priorities are and what it’s been boiled down to, what it means to them sitting around their kitchen table rather than us sitting around a table at Blair House, the response will be positive.” –Nancy Pelosi on the dumb rubes that don’t want ObamaCare

Hardly working: “It’s easy being vice president — you don’t have to do anything.” –Vice President Joe Biden (Considering the man holding the post, that’s a good thing.)

Tell that to your boss: “I served on the budget committee in the Senate, and I remember as vividly as if it were yesterday when we had a hearing in which Alan Greenspan came and justified increasing spending and cutting taxes, saying that we didn’t really need to pay down the debt — outrageous in my view.” –Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Keen Sense of the Obvious: “We can’t control nature.” –Barack Obama on climate change — just kidding — on the earthquake in Chile

Village Idiots

Look in the mirror: “[The Republican Party holds] untenable positions based on emotion and anger.” –former DNC Chief Howard “The Scream” Dean (“What can one say but YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!” –Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto)

More hot air: “[T]he scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes. What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged.” –Al Gore in a New York Times op-ed

“From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption. After all has been said and so little done, the truth about the climate crisis — inconvenient as ever — must still be faced.” –Gore, the populist potentate of eco-theology (The “rule of law” is certainly not an “instrument of human redemption,” nor is it what Gore is advocating.)

Doom, he says: “I’m willing to engage or indulge real ideas, but if we don’t do something [about global warming], we’re all going to die! What’s it going to take, a big f—ing disaster with all kinds of people dying? We need to change our priorities fast.” –”Avatar” director James Cameron

That’s racist! “The white right is trying to set Barack up to be assassinated… There are Christians praying for God to kill Obama.” –Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan

Short Cuts

Editor’s Note: In yesterday’s Humor broadcast, we made an error in the spelling of Marine Corps by overcompensating for Barack Obama’s recent mispronunciation — we deleted an extra letter. We regret the error.

“President Obama hosted lawmakers Thursday saying he wanted bipartisan input on health care reform. Nobody’s mind was changed. At the summit’s end he threatened to go with the nuclear option, showing he’s tougher on Republicans than he is on Iran.” –comedian Argus Hamilton

“The best that can be said for those like Senators Nelson and Landrieu is that they held out until Obama and Reid met their price. By now, I can’t even recall what it took to make Joe Lieberman say ‘Uncle!’ But it just goes to prove that when politicians like these three refer to themselves as moderate Democrats, we should recognize that it’s similar to the distinction made in a related field when call girls insist they’re not streetwalkers. It’s the same profession; only the prices differ.” –columnist Burt Prelutsky

“The longest week I ever spent was the six hours I spent watching Thursday’s health-care summit.” –columnist Jonah Goldberg

“We are repeatedly being told that we need to have a government-controlled medical care system, because other countries have it — as if our policies on something as serious as medical care should be based on the principle of monkey see, monkey do.” –economist Thomas Sowell

“Consider the oddity of those drug commercials on television. Fifteen seconds of the purported therapeutic effort, followed by about 45 seconds of a rapidly muttered list of horrific possible side effects. When the ad is over, I can’t remember a thing about what the pill is supposed to do, except perhaps cause nausea, liver damage, projectile vomiting, a nasty rash, a four-hour erection, and sudden death. Sudden death is my favorite because there is something comical about it being a side effect. What exactly is the main effect in that case? Relief from abdominal bloating?” –columnist Charles Krauthammer

Read more informative articles at The Patriot Post

Filed under: Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama), Conniving Politicians, Constitution, Demo-gogues, Democrats, Liberals, Marxists, News and Views, Political Prostitutes, Politicians for the Destruction of America, Second (2nd) Amendment Tagged: Annie, The Patriot Post

National Center for Public Policy Research –   Press Release: March 3, 2010

Washington, DC: Mychal Massie, chairman of the Project 21 black leadership network, is condemning President Barack Obama’s decision to urge Senate leaders to employ controversial reconciliation rules to force a government takeover of health care.

“The people have spoken, and they have said no to Obama’s radical brand of health care reform,” said Project 21’s Massie. “Putting his seal of approval on usurping regular Senate procedure showcases not just an extraordinary arrogance and a willingness to abuse legislative power, but it also unambiguously indicates his contempt and disregard for the will of the American people.”

In an address from the White House today, Obama expressed a willingness to work with Republicans to pass health care reform. But Obama also suggested that the Senate leadership might instead employ reconciliation rules to limit debate and lower the vote threshold normally needed to pass legislation in that chamber. This would allow the plan’s more unpopular provisions to be enacted.   …  

“During the judicial battles of the Bush years, when there was talk of the employing the ‘nuclear option’ to overcome filibusters, there was great respect among liberals for Senate the procedure of cloture,” noted Massie. “Ultimately, conservative legislators agreed with them and the option was never used. Now, with the shoe on the other foot, liberals are quick to do the very thing that once horrified them. They are refusing to hear the pleas from their colleagues and the American people to scrap their plan and start over.”

Massie continued: “The question to be answered is why are these senators willing to risk their careers and Obama his legacy to force such a miserable piece of legislation? Trying to obfuscate and confuse the use of reconciliation to pass a fundamental overhaul of such a substantial portion of the American economy is dishonest on a level likely never before imagined in the history of the legislative branch. Misrepresenting it as cost-cutting is morally opprobrious and fraudulent. But this is apparently not out of character for those determined to make a free citizenry dependent upon government from cradle to the grave.”

In a February 25 Wall Street Journal commentary, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) called the use of reconciliation to pass Obamacare “a total affront to the legislative process.” He noted that the process had previously been used only for incremental budget issues or those with wide bipartisan support.

Project 21, established in 1992, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org), a non-profit foundation established in 1982 and funded primarily from the gifts of over 100,000 recent individual donors.

Filed under: 111th Congress, Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama), Conniving Politicians, Demo-gogues, Democrats, Liberals, Marxists, News and Views, Political Prostitutes, Politicians for the Destruction of America Tagged: Al, National Center for Public Policy Research, ObamaCare Catastrophe

By Nancy Morgan

TonyfromOz prefaces …

See my further Comments at the end of this post.

Inquiring minds want to know: Is Obama trying to bankrupt America? One short year ago, asking this this question would have guaranteed my inclusion among the ranks of right-wing nuts and/or conspiracy theorists. Today, it is a serious question being asked by Neal Boortz, Rush Limbaugh and many other leadng conservatives. Here’s why.

In the summer of 2008, as John McCain and Barack Obama were campaigning for president, a series of economic events (started by Sen. Schumer) resulted in shifting the focus of the presidential campaign off the Iraq war, and on to the economy. These events ultimately resulted in Barack Obama’s election as President.

June 26, 2008: Democrat Chuck Schumer leaked a memo questioning the solvency of IndyMac bank. This memo precipitated a run on IndyMac which led to its failure. Federal regulators pointedly cited U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., in explaining the bank’s failure. “The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York.”

This event, coupled with the Lehman Brothers collapse in September, marked the beginning of the current economic meltdown and provided the ammunition for massive government intervention in the private market.

July 12, 2008: The federal government takes control of the $32 billion IndyMac Bank. *

Sept. 6, 2008: Fannie Mae begins its downward spiral, which will end with a crash in November. This crash was avoidable, as the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were identified in June of 2006, when 15 Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee introduced legislation to address the problem. Democrats, led by Barney Frank, killed the reform efforts.

Sept. 15, 2008: Obama and McCain are virtually tied in their race for the presidency. Out of no-where, in the space of less than 2 hours, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the U.S. to the tune of $550 billion. Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania said that if authorities had not closed the banks, $5.5 trillion would have been withdrawn from US banks, which would have caused the collapse of the US  within 24 hours.

This seminal event marked the ascendancy of Obama’s candidacy, and eventually resulted in his election as president.

Its no secret that Obama is a member of the far left. And he has staffed his administration with fellow ideologues. Leftists, like former Green Czar Van Jones, who states he is an “advocate for a socialist utopia.” Who believes that capitalism is “oppression and exploitation.”

People like Ron Blume, who was appointed to reinvigorate the manufacturing base, who states, “We know the free market is nonsense.”

Any economist can tell you that raising taxes, increasing debt, printing money and unbridled spending is not the way to handle a recession. So either Obama is ignorant of this, or he willfully chooses to ignore the lessons of history. Or he is adopting a strategy outlined by Cloward-Pivens: Overwhelm the system until it fails, and then replace it.

Based on Obama’s actions to date, reasonable people must allow for the possibility that the change Obama promised may include destroying the free market economic system in order to replace it with an economy regulated by government entities.

Spending America into bankruptcy might just be our president’s way of leveling the global playing field. By bringing Americas to its knees. Based on Obama’s actions, and the actions of his appointees, its time to seriously consider if destroying our economy is Obama’s goal.

*Portions of this article were taken from A Contrived Crisis? Feb. 23, 2009

TonyfromOz adds …..

In February of last year, and again in March, I dissected the Kanjorski CSPAN interview that was all the rage at the time. Because of the huge monetary figures involved, people missed on the most important facts that did emerge from that interview, that being the actual dates of the attack. Some may think that is incidental, but people have incorrectly attributed the date to the 15th of September, a possible misinterpretation of what Kanjorski actually did say. People then assumed that was the day of the attack, without actually listening to what he said, and then referring to a Calendar for that month.

Those two posts are at the following Links, and I urge you all to read them, as people have concentrated on what was said at the 2.20 mark of the video, and not what he said immediately prior to that at the 2.07 mark of the video. Some may say it is perhaps incidental, but should not people be asking questions in respect of this.

First Post in February.

Second Post in March.

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com and she lives in South Carolina.

Read more from Nancy Morgan at Right Bias

Filed under: 111th Congress, America (USA), Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama), Blundering Bureaucrats, Conniving Politicians, Demo-gogues, Democrats, economy, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Political Prostitutes, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Public Opinion, Spine Donor Politicians Tagged: Financial Crisis, Financial Meltdown, November Bank Raid, Obama Monetary Policy, Obama-Forced Bankruptcy, Right Bias (Nancy Morgan), Tony

By Alan Caruba

I have been wondering of late why the Democrats in Congress are so lame. It is astonishing because, having taken back control of Congress in 2006 and increased it in 2008, you would think they would have been passing laws like crazy, but all they have managed to do is borrow and spend money in a fashion that makes the Republicans under Bush look stingy by comparison.

My thoughts were prompted by the fact that one of my Senators, Frank Lautenberg, is 86 years old and the word is that he plans to run for reelection. That’s just bizarre. Of course, West Virginia still has him beat. Robert C. Bryd is older! He has been there since 1959. Let’s put in it in the context of my life, I am 72 and graduated university in the Class of 1959!

If Lautenberg runs for office again and wins, he would be 92 if he lives long enough to finish the term.

Lautenberg had served in the Senate from 1982 until 2001 when he retired. When the Democrat candidate, Robert Torricelli, ran into some serious ethical problems and bailed, Lautenberg was hastily put on the ballot and has served since 2003. He is your basic brain-dead Democrat who votes the party line.

Aside from those two geezers, the Senate is a virtual old folk’s home with people like Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii who took office in 1963; Carl Levin of Michigan, elected initially in 1979; and the youngster, Tom Harkin, elected in 1985. Senators serve six year terms.

Unless they are, in the words of the former Governor of Louisiana, Edwin Edwards, “Caught in bed with a dead hooker or a live boy”, Senators pretty much can stay on so long as they can raise a couple of million prior to their next election. Harry Reid, the Majority Leader was first elected to the Senate in 1987. The average age in the Senate is 63.

The House of Representatives is more lively because the term is only two years. The average age is 57. While there are only a hundred Senators, there are 435 members of the House. They are led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi who hails from the Peoples Republic of California, a state that is currently flirting with total bankruptcy and default. Pelosi is some poor child’s grandmother, so she is no spring chicken. Hailing from San Francisco, she is in a “safe” district.

The President, Barack Obama, is 49 years old which, by the averages of Congress, is young. Indeed, he, John Kennedy and Bill Clinton were the youngest men to be elected to the office though Obama prefers to be compared with Lincoln and FDR.

Most of the members of Congress spent much of their childhood and adolescence between the 1950s and 1970s. Many were the Baby Boomers who, it is generally agreed, were a generation of spoiled brats. They were followed thereafter by the “Me” generation who were even worse. Most became lawyers.

A few like John McCain, served in the Vietnam War with distinction, others were like John Kerry who parlayed four months active duty followed by anti-war slanders of his fellow soldiers into a political career spent largely following Teddy Kennedy around like a circus attendant behind a parade of elephants.

So it may have something to do with the sheer demographics of age that has something to do with the vast number of Congress critters who give evidence of being astonishingly ill equipped to be responsible for the fate of the republic.

The most distinguishing factor is that younger members of Congress seem to understand what constituents feel and want, but the older ones appear to take a less charitable view, having fed at the trough so long they can barely lift their snout to vote. Hence, the term “pork.”

Those that are qualified stand out conspicuously from the crowd. Republicans distinguished themselves in the Barack Obama Medicare Reform Talkathon by audaciously presenting facts to counter his vague “trust me” responses. One year into his first and last term, nobody trusts Obama

The unity of the Republicans in Congress these days will be recorded as one of the great political miracles since the Contract with America in 1994 that gained them control after forty years of being spat upon by Democrats for some four decades until then.

The Obamacare mess has generated the mass hiring of every lobbyist in Washington, D.C., assigning a dozen or so to each member of Congress in the huge tug-of-war by the pharmaceutical industry, the insurance industry, the unions, and anyone else who has a dog in the fight…which is just about everyone.

Many of the members of Congress are millionaires or became millionaires after a few terms. Being worshipped and treated like gods has inflated their egos beyond a healthy boundary of sanity.

The result, at this moment in history, are a large number of men and women who should have retired long ago and who are too busy raising money for the next election to have much time left over to actually read legislation before voting on it.

If you look too closely at Congress, it can make you queasy.

(c) Alan Caruba, 2010

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at Warning Signs. A business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

Read more thought provoking articles at Warning Signs

Filed under: 111th Congress, America (USA), Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama), Blundering Bureaucrats, Conniving Politicians, Demo-gogues, Democracy, Democrats, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Political Prostitutes, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Public Opinion, Spine Donor Politicians Tagged: Alan Caruba, Democrat Congress Control, Democrat Majority, Democrat Tactics, Tony, Warning Signs

By William Warren

See more Cartoons by William Warren, and Great Articles at NetRight Nation Blog

Filed under: 111th Congress, America (USA), Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama), Blundering Bureaucrats, Cartoons, Conniving Politicians, Democrats, Humor, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Medicine, Political Prostitutes, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Public Opinion, Satire, Spine Donor Politicians Tagged: Beer Summit, Health Care Reform Package, Healthcare Summit, NetRight Nation Blog, Obamacare, ObamaCare Catastrophe, Political Cartoons, Political Humor, Political Sat, President Obama, Tony, William Warren

See more videos at the NewsBusted video channel

See and Read more Quality Material at NewsBusters

Filed under: 111th Congress, America (USA), Conniving Politicians, Humor, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Political Prostitutes, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Public Opinion, Satire, Spine Donor Politicians, Video Tagged: NewsBusted, NewsBusters, Political Comment, Political Humor, Political Satire, Tony

By Andrew Bolt

Of all the lame excuses to unite anti-whalers and warming worriers:

A century of commercial whaling has released around 100 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — that’s equivalent to burning more than 50,000 square miles of temperate forest or 128,000 large sport-utility vehicles driving for 100 years.

Those are the findings of a study by U.S. scientists from the Gulf of Maine Research Institute unveiled by Andrew Pershing from the University of Maine at the Ocean Sciences meeting this week…

When a whale dies of natural causes, its body sinks to the seabed, transporting the carbon stored in it to the deep sea, away from the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Harpooning one, however, can release the carbon directly into the atmosphere, thus intensifying climate change…

Whales, which Pershing says are the “forests of the ocean,” store carbon in their bodes and the gas can be released when they are killed.

Climategate gives this news a brisk fisking.

UPDATE

The inescapable conclusion from this study is that dead elephants should be thrown into the sea.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Filed under: America (USA), Climate Alarmists, Climate Change, Environment, Environmental activists, Fanatics, Fraud/Waste, Global Warming, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Public Opinion Tagged: Andrew Bolt, Climate Change Hypocrisy, Climate Change Religion, Commercial Whaling, Global Warming Alarmism, Global Warming Hype, Global Warming Madness, Tony

By Alan Caruba

Think about this. Any nation that cannot rebuild the Twin Towers nearly nine years after they were destroyed has lost its ability to function rationally and effectively.

We have been a military presence in Afghanistan since 2001 following 9/11. That’s two years longer than when we were in Vietnam.

Afghanistan has a long history of defying great powers that have invaded. The former Soviet Union could not prevail there and just about every other empire from Great Britain to the armies of Alexander the Great pretty well experienced defeat.

What kind of logic puts more U.S. troops in Afghanistan at the same time announcing their withdrawal date? The enemy need only wait for us to leave. What firefights occur are a kind of Taliban show-and-tell to demonstrate they can engage us.

What kind of war is it when U.S. troops cannot shoot at the enemy who has just been shooting at them because they leave their weapons behind and take a hike? These are the most bizarre rules of engagement I have ever heard.

The Pentagon and our military have become so politically correct they feel compelled to issue a public apology for civilians killed in the fog of war. Yes, it’s tragic, but it’s just as tragic when this nation sends its troops to fight a no-win war.

More than 300 U.S. soldiers have died in Afghanistan since May 15, 2009 when President Obama sent more troops.

For a President who won the 2008 election campaigning against the Iraq war and denying the success of “the surge”, the latest increase in troop strength reeks of politics, not strategy. Taking credit for the military success and troop withdrawal in Iraq, as Vice President Joe Biden recently did, is obscene.

I received an email from the father of Specialist Trevor Johnson, United States Army Reserve, 737th Transportation Company, who sent me a copy of a letter his son had airmailed and emailed to three legislators from Washington State. He is stationed in Afghanistan at Kandahar Air Force base. He wrote to ask why his unit had to wait around until April to be rotated home even though their mission is done. None of his Congress critters responded to his inquiry.

Spc. Johnson needs to review the lessons about chain-of-command, but I suspect he has already spoken his piece to his commanding officers at this point. There is something very American about a low-echelon soldier feeling that he has the right to question what he regards as a situation that wastes manpower and money.

In November 2008, I wrote that “Afghanistan looks and smells like Vietnam. It is the classic wrong war in the wrong place.” I still think that. I think the minute U.S. troops leave, Afghanistan will return to being in a constant state of conflict between its various tribal factions and probably not terribly happy to welcome Taliban who are not native Afghans.

The notion that we can turn Afghanistan into a democracy is ludicrous. It is an Islamic state and the two do not mix. For the same reason, it’s anybody’s guess if Iraq can retain its democratic government secured with the blood and treasure of America.

Why am I skeptical? Because it is the Middle East!

Protecting major sources of oil that America and the West require to function is a sensible and a strategic necessity. That is primarily why the U.S. and allied nations invaded Iraq—twice! Getting Iraq’s oil fields up and going is important, but the U.S. has more domestic reserves of oil, offshore and onshore, than the Middle East.

Here’s a real strategic necessity. Permitting oil companies access to our domestic oil and to build new refineries. Then we would not have to fight in the Middle East every few years.

I think we’re in Afghanistan because the current administration fears the U.S. being perceived as weak and vulnerable. Given a spate of UN treaties that would commit us to reduce our nuclear arms and otherwise surrender our national sovereignty, that’s the only conclusion our enemies could make.

Add to that a President whose naivety, whose disinterest in foreign affairs, and whose inexperience renders him ill-equipped to deal with a world filled with bad people and you have the potential for serious miscalculations.

Then, too, there is the general level of distraction among Americans watching their financial system wheeze and gasp in an effort to regain some strength. That recovery, however, is hobbled by the government’s constant borrowing and spending that got us to this point.

We have U.S. troops stationed in 148 countries and 11 territories. It is unhealthy for any nation to be in a constant state of war because you end up with more enemies than friends.

(c) Alan Caruba, 2010

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at Warning Signs. A business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

Read more thought provoking articles at Warning Signs

Filed under: 111th Congress, Afghanistan, America (USA), Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama), Blundering Bureaucrats, Conniving Politicians, Democrats, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Middle East, Military, Political Prostitutes, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Public Opinion, Spine Donor Politicians Tagged: Afghanistan Military Committment, Alan Caruba, Middle East Policy, Obama Afghanistan Policy, Tony, War In Afghanistan, Warning Signs

By Sammy Benoit

The Global Warming Hoax is not Al Gore’s first attempt at defrauding the American Public. Most of the time Gore’s stories are things that he needn’t lie about, but he is making an attempt to shore up what must be a poor self image.

“During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet” Gore said when asked to cite accomplishments that separate him from another Democratic presidential hopeful, former Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey, during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN on March 9, 1999. Gore supported technological advances related to the advancement of the Internet, but to say that HE took the initiative in creating the Internet is a bit much. (Sources: Transcript http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/18390.html )

At a Sept. 22  2000 press conference, Gore stated “I’ve been a part of the discussions on the strategic reserve since the days when it was first established.” However, President Ford established the Strategic Petroleum Reserves when he signed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) on December 22, 1975 — two years before Al Gore became a congressman (Source: Washington Post, Sept. 24 2000)

Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

“These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.” However, the climatologist whose work Gore was relying upon dropped the former vice president in the water with an icy blast. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr. Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.” (Times of London 12/15/09)

Then of course there is the biggest Gore Hoax of all, his cash cow–Global Warming. Why is the inventor of the internet constantly lying about almost everything. Henry Miller writes in Forbes that Al Gore must have a personality disorder, specifically Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

He’s a phony–and a shameless one at that. In his op-ed, he refers to “tobacco companies block[ing] constraints on the marketing of cigarettes for four decades after science confirmed the link of cigarettes to diseases of the lung and the heart.” Well, that is true, and it is consistent with his impassioned address in 1996 to the Democratic Party convention, in which he vowed to fight the tobacco industry to his last breath because 12 years earlier his sister had died from lung cancer. But in 1988, while campaigning for the nomination for president, Gore had been telling tobacco farmers (in a Southern accent much thicker than it ever had been in Washington) that he was practically one of them, that he had tenderly held the young plants in his own two hands, that he had their interests at heart and so on. And his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, which offers an exaggerated, one-sided and often inaccurate view of global warming, is more propaganda than documentary.

There may be a medical explanation for what makes Al Gore tick. On the basis of his actions and writings over many years my guess is Gore suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The criteria for this diagnosis, as described in the psychiatrist’s bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, include a ” pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts,” as indicated by these manifestations:

*** “A grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).” Gore regularly demonstrates his grandiosity. Who can forget his notorious claim that he had been instrumental in creating the Internet? But far more serious and complex are Gore’s delusions about issues of technology and environmentalism, such as his repeated endorsement of anti-technology tracts and criticism of technological advances while a congressman, senator and vice president. His writings generally place science and technology at odds with “the natural world” and, by inference, with the well-being and progress of mankind.

*** “Preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love; believes that he or she is ’special’ and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).” These sorts of fantasies run riot in Gore’s book Earth in the Balance, in which he assumes that he and a small number of other elites have divined the solutions to the world’s problems and the bold and dramatic measures that await the education and enlightenment of the public. When he was vice president, Gore and his staff of true believers attempted to purge the federal government of any dissension or challenge to his view of policy, in a way reminiscent of the worst paranoid excesses of the Nixon administration. Vexed by people who weren’t sufficiently “special,” Gore simply got rid of them.

*** “Requires excessive admiration.” With the exception of the period since his defeat in the 2000 presidential election, Gore has for nearly his whole adult life been a politician who surrounded himself with sycophants–need one say more?

*** “Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others … shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.” While a senator, Gore was notorious for his rudeness and insolence. A favorite trick during hearings was to pose a question and, as the witness began to answer, commence a whispered conversation with another committee member or staffer. If the witness paused to make sure the senator did not miss the response, Gore would instruct him to continue, then resume his private conversation, leaving no ambiguity: Not only is your testimony unimportant, but I won’t even pay you the courtesy of pretending to listen to it. Gore once accused his political enemies of possessing “an extra chromosome,” a remark that infuriated families of persons with Down Syndrome, which is caused by the presence of an extra chromosome.

Gore’s patronizing and overwrought Earth in the Balance provides numerous illustrations of many of these diagnostic criteria, offering disturbing insights into its disturbed author. In it, Gore trashes the empirical nature of science for disconnecting man from nature: “But for the separation of science and religion,” he laments, “we might not be pumping so much gaseous chemical waste into the atmosphere and threatening the destruction of the earth’s climate balance.” But for the separation of science and religion, we would still be burdened with the notion that the sun and the planets revolve around the Earth…

You know, Miller makes some good points. Rather than trying to save the world (and make a few billion at the same time) maybe Gore should save himself. Come on Al, drop the global warming hoax and find a good shrink.  I bet you can find one on that internet you invented.

Read more Great Posts at The Lid

Filed under: Airhead Celebrities, America (USA), Climate Alarmists, Climate Change, Conniving Politicians, Environment, Environmental activists, Fanatics, Fear-mongering, Fraud/Waste, Global Warming, Imbecile Celebrities, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Political Prostitutes, Power Hungry, Propaganda, Pseudo-Journalism, Public Opinion, Spine Donor Politicians Tagged: Al Gore, Al Gore’s Pseudo-Documentary, Climate Change Fraud, Climate Change Religion, Global Warming Alarmism, Global Warming Hype, The Lid, Tony