Sunday, May 6, 2012

A Primer On Energy

A Primer On Energy

by John Hinderaker in Energy Policy

Earlier today, the Institute for Energy Research released an excellent short piece on the basics of energy policy, titled Hard Facts: An Energy Primer. It is an excellent starting point for understanding America’s energy resources and the basics of a sound energy policy. The publication includes a number of illuminating graphics, like this one, which shows how America’s energy consumption has remained in check even as GDP has risen rapidly, with pollution, meanwhile, declining drastically:



It is remarkable how environmental doom-mongering has persisted over the decades, in the face of what should be obvious realities. (But then, Steve Hayward is the expert on that phenomenon.) You really should read the whole thing, but here are a few short excerpts:
The reality is that we have more combined oil, coal, and natural gas resources than any other country on the planet. We have enough energy resources to provide reliable and affordable energy for decades, even centuries to come. The only real question is whether we will have access to our abundant energy resources, not whether sufficient resources exist. … According to the Congressional Research Service, we have the most fossil fuel resources of any country on Earth, but most of these resources are off-limits due to federal policies.
***
Energy use per person in the United States fell 12 percent between 1979 and 2010 from 359 million BTUs to 317 million BTUs per person.
***
China’s CO2 emissions increased by 167 percent between 1999 and 2009, while CO2 emissions from the United States decreased by 4.4 percent over the same 10-year period.


Total federal subsidies in fiscal year 2007 were $24.34 per megawatt hour for solar-generated electricity and $23.37 per megawatt hour for wind, compared with $1.59 for nuclear, $0.67 for hydroelectric power, $0.44 for conventional coal, and $0.25 for natural gas and petroleum liquids. In fiscal year 2010, the subsidies were even higher. For solar power, they were $775.64 per megawatt hour, for wind $56.29, for nuclear $3.14, for hydroelectric power $0.82, for coal $0.64 and for natural gas and petroleum liquids $0.64.
Electricity costs around $100 per megawatt hour. Do the math.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/a-primer-on-energy.php

Occupy's Totalitarian Temptation

Yesterday morning, I sauntered into Madison Square Park before many others had arrived. The “Free University” was still setting itself up, and it was a forlorn sight. Lonely red balloons flew at various points around the fountains, and bored policemen sat on benches looking bemused and coordinating their patrols with the Park Service. Dotted around the place were “professors” without students, waiting expectantly under signs that read “Open-Access Teach-In” and “Free Yoga,” and trying to catch the eyes of unimpressed commuters in the hope that they might stop and engage. (Students, it appears, will be no earlier to the revolution than they are to their classes.) One man with some sports equipment — presumably the “(Meta-)Physical Education” teacher — stood in the rain waiting in vain for takers. But on the north side of the park, next to the statue of David Glasgow Farragut, a circle had formed — what seemed to be a roundtable on climate change. I wandered over and stood quietly on its edge.
“Naomi Klein went to the Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change,” the speaker was saying, “which must have been an unpleasant experience.” (Snickers greeted this addition.) “And what she discovered was that the conservatives get it. She wrote about it in The Nation.” He picked up a piece of paper and read aloud: “Here’s what she said they think:
. . . climate change is a Trojan horse designed to abolish capitalism and replace it with some kind of eco-socialism. As conference speaker Larry Bell succinctly puts it in his new book Climate of Corruption, climate change “has little to do with the state of the environment and much to do with shackling capitalism and transforming the American way of life in the interests of global wealth redistribution.”
The assembled Occupiers laughed nervously, and some nodded. “Yes!” smiled the speaker. “The Right gets it. They spread misinformation about the science, as they know that it means the end of how we’ve been living. And they’ll do anything to keep the system as it is.” At this, everyone nodded.

“So,” he continued. “What can we do?” The group had a brief conversation about the importance of educating Americans in scientific truth — which will, no doubt, have raised a few hackles among those intent on relitigating the Science Wars — and an agreement that everybody needs to stop driving cars, and then moved on to more important things.
“Well,” the speaker said, “I want to move on a bit. A lot of people live in the suburbs and they have a few cars and they live in houses that they probably bought in the 1980s. We need to morally exclude those who don’t recognize the problem, and let them know that they have no place in a future America.”

 This sounded a bit off to my ears, so I waited until they were finished and then asked one of the friendlier-looking participants a question: “I understand that you think these people in the suburbs can’t continue their lifestyles. Where will they live if not there?”
“Where will they live? In a community!” she replied.
“They do live in a community,” I said.
She laughed nervously. “A different community. One that we’d all design together.”
“Forgive me,” I said. “But you just described America. This is a community that we all designed together. How would yours differ?”
After a while, we established that what she actually meant was that people who shared her views would need to design the parameters of others’ lives — for the “common good,” of course. She was very nice — more Tom Friedman than Mussolini — and would surely be horrified if I were to buy her a copy of Liberal Fascism and suggest that people like her are exactly what the book is about. But neither her basic decency nor her naïveté can change the fact that she and her fellow panelists have succumbed to the totalitarian temptation, and adopted wholesale the seductive idea that the future is just too important to be left to individuals and free institutions and must thus be bent to the will of experts who happen to look very much like them.
This group, discovered early in the morning before the cameras and microphones had arrived and the day’s message had become filtered through them, summed up what I recognized last year in Zuccotti Park, and what you will find rather quickly if you peruse the various websites that Occupy has been running for its May Day events and beyond: The people involved in the movement have managed somehow to confuse their conception of the “public good” with the American “general will.” (Rousseau deserves some of the blame for this conflation, one suspects.) Thus, in the imaginations of the Occupiers, the American people — 99 percent of them, at least — serve as an enormous human Rorschach test, onto which the hopes and fears of a small minority of progressives are projected, and by which universal authority is claimed. It is a clever trick, but it is one that runs contrary to the American system of government and to the maintenance of a free and virtuous people.

 And it is one that, ultimately, requires government by an enlightened class at the expense of the best elements of both American democracy and republicanism.
Thankfully, such people root their convictions in some remarkable wishful thinking. All day yesterday, vast majorities of pedestrians walked directly through the hearts of the May Day protests without stopping. They went to work, they visited the bank, maybe they went to the movies or had lunch in a restaurant. In short, they did everything that they had been told not to.

 Yesterday’s “General Strike,” Occupy Wall Street claimed, was called against “a system that does not work for us.” But the “us” was presumptive. No doubt there are many in this country who would like to see change. But they will want a say in how such change comes about, and, as long as the Occupiers so widely and openly indulge the totalitarian temptation, and so long as they seek to impose from the outside their vision for utopia, Occupy Wall Street is destined to remain what it has always been: a group on the fringe.
— Charles C. W. Cooke is an editorial associate at National Review.

Obama's Fallon Appearance Violated Campaign Law

Obama's Fallon Appearance Violated Campaign Law

Last night, President Obama appeared on Jimmy Fallon’s unwatchable show to “slow-jam the news.” By this, Fallon meant that Obama would read a campaign speech about student loans, Fallon would utter a few lines to back him up every so often, and his lead band singer would warble in support of Obama’s propaganda.

Only one problem, aside from the fact that this was possibly the worst “comedy” segment in the history of mankind: it violated campaign finance law.

The equal time rule states that if a licensee permits a person “who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station.”

There are exceptions to the rule: appearances on (1) a bona fide newscast, (2) a bona fide news interview, (3) a bona fide news documentary, or (4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events.

Only the second provision could be construed as saving NBC from giving Mitt Romney equal time. But this was not a bona fide news interview. In fact, it wasn’t an interview at all – no questions were asked, no answers were given. It was literally Obama reading a campaign speech over a guitar, a horn, a keyboard, and some drums.

Not only was this appearance in violation of equal time law, it was clearly an in-kind contribution by NBC to the Obama campaign. As the Federal Elections Commission states, “A donation of services is … considered an in-kind contribution.” Under applicable law, contribution of broadcast time is considered such a service. This was a campaign commercial for Obama, and the Obama campaign was not charged for it. A minute of network time can cost up to a couple million dollars; this segment ran a full five minutes. There is no doubt that Obama was given millions of dollars of free advertising time, and the Romney campaign should invoke all available law to make that clear.

NBC should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Mitt Romney should be given equal time, and an equally sycophantic propaganda piece by Fallon. Obama should be ashamed of himself (though, of course, he has no capacity for shame).

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/04/25/Obama-Fallon-Appearance-Violated-Law

Saturday, May 5, 2012

An Indictment of the President's Touchdown Dance

An Indictment of the President's Touchdown Dance

By Hugh Hewitt

On Tuesday morning the Wall Street Journal carried a very unusual op-ed.
The author was a former Attorney General of the United States, Michael Mukasy, who had served on the federal bench for 18 years before taking on the top job in federal law enforcement. As a federal district court judge, Mukasey had presided over the trial of Omar Abdel Rahman, the “blind Sheik,” one of the original confederates of bin Laden, a vantage point from which the highly esteemed jurist became deeply acquainted with the intricacies of the jihadist network.

As AG, Mukasey took on a key leadership role in the war on terror, and he is widely respected across both sides of the political divide for his stewardship of that office.

Which is why his piece, titled “Obama and the bin Laden Bragging Rights,” was such a stunning and strong rebuke to the president and his political team. Mukasey is not a political figure, not a partisan figure, but a senor statesman, one of the “wise men.”

I interviewed the former AG on my radio show the afternoon after his piece was published, a little more than two hours before the president spoke to the American people from Afghanistan. The transcript of this interview is here, but there are some extraordinary parts to this conversation which should be highlighted, beginning with my question about the Journal essay:

HH: Why were you motivated to write this piece?
MM: Well, frankly, when I saw in the newspaper on Saturday that there was going to be this conscious attempt to exploit the bragging rights, and took a look at the statement that he had made at the time of the original announcement, and thought about the fact that he had compromised the intelligence value of that achievement by talking about seizing a trove of intelligence, and even disclosing that we had found out about the places where al Qaeda safe houses were located, there comes a point where really, it’s hard to restrain yourself. And I just sat down and I wrote it in something like a couple of hours. I was just, I was fairly upset
.


That upset led the former AG to focus on one oft-overlooked aspect of the decision to authorize the mission to kill bin Laden –that the president had arranged to be able to distance himself from failure:

HH: Now you also mentioned something that not many people have noted, that is that then-CIA director, now Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was given a memorandum that says the timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden, and if he is not there, to get out. What do you make of the Panetta memo? What was its purpose?
 
MM: Well, that’s a responsibility avoidance mechanism. That says that unless you encounter only the precise matters described to the President, and notice they’re not set forth in the memo, all that’s set forth is essentially unless you encounter the precise conditions described to the President. And the fact is you can never, in any operation, anticipate what’s going to happen. Once you’re in there, things start to happen that you don’t anticipate. But it says that unless you go ahead only on that basis, you’ve got to come back and get permission. That’s a way of saying that well, I didn’t approve whatever danger was encountered later on that caused us to fail. It’s a way of shirking responsibility.  
HH: Is it a CYA memo? 

MM: You want a one word answer? 
 
HH: Yes.  
MM: Yes.


I asked Mukasey about his description of the president’s trip earlier in the interview as an “overreach”:

HH: [I]s it so transparent, and actually “overreaching,” first word you used in our conversation, that it may actually backfire on him, politically? 

MM: Look, I can’t speak to who it’s going to work with. I know that people who are converts already will take it as his right. And people who are his opponents will automatically conclude that it’s something reprehensible. The question is about the people in the middle, and I think people in the middle have a sense of decency, and a sense of history, and can look back on leaders that we had, and understand that real leaders take less credit than they deserve, and more blame than they deserve. And this is not an example of that at all. 
 
Ponder those words for a second. They are very, very tough, and they come from a man who is very serious about the war on terror. He is also uniquely positioned to speak to one other aspect of the mission to get bin Laden: 

HH: Now in that room, the Situation Room, the famous photo appears alongside your Journal piece. Eric Holder isn’t there, the current Attorney General isn’t there. Did that surprise you when that photo first appeared? 
 
MM: Yes, it did, and I commented to a number of people that his absence seemed to me to be remarkable. 

HH: Why? 
 
MM: Because when an operation like that is carried out, one of the key elements has to do with the legality of it. Crossing a border…I mean, understand, I think it was justified, and I think that there should have been, and perhaps was, consultation with people of the Justice Department, and that the Attorney General would be taken into the President’s confidence sufficiently to have been in that room.


The conversation with Mukasey underscores the disquiet the president has engendered among many people with key past roles in the war on terror.
It summarizes the distaste for the credit-grabbing, self-absorbed posturing of the president.

And it calls attention to the two strangest aspects of the entire episode –the CYA memo and Eric Holder’s absence from the Situation Room.
The president has miscalculated, again.

Hugh Hewitt

Hugh Hewitt is host of a nationally syndicated radio talk show. Hugh Hewitt's new book is The War On The West.

Would Obama’s policies, if in place all along, have prevented us from finding bin Laden?

Would Obama’s policies, if in place all along, have prevented us from finding bin Laden?

by Paul Mirengoff in Intelligence, Obama administration, Terrorism

Jose Rodriguez is a 31-year veteran of the CIA. During the post-9/11 years, he served as chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center and later as head of the National Clandestine Service.

In today’s Washington Post, Rodriguez offers two useful reminders: (1) our high-fiving president probably would not have had the opportunity to take out Osama bin Laden last year but for “extraordinary work during the George W. Bush administration” and (2) Obama opposed key elements of that work.

According to Rodriguez, the initial breakthrough in finding bin Laden occurred when a captured terrorist revealed that bin Laden was relying on a lone courier to communicate with his organization. The captured terrorist also revealed the pseudonym of that courier. Armed with these revelations, the CIA eventually was able to discover the true identity of bin Laden’s courier, locate the courier, and, through him, track down bin Laden.

But the captured terrorist did not give up information about the courier voluntarily. He gave it up, after initially refusing to cooperate, under the duress of “enhanced interrogation techniques” (but not waterboarding). And he did so at a secret CIA prison, or “black site.”

Before becoming president, Obama criticized the use of enhanced interrogation techniques and black sites. On the second full day of his presidency, he banned such methods and ordered the black sites closed.

Would we have found bin Laden if the CIA had been forced to operate throughout the post 9/11 years under Obama’s restrictions? It’s a far more interesting question than whether Mitt Romney would have made the no-brainer decision to take out Public Enemy No. 1 once he was located.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/05/would-obamas-policies-if-in-place-all-along-have-have-prevented-us-from-finding-bin-laden.php

Friday, May 4, 2012

"Occupy" Movement Was Infiltrated By FBI Informant In Cleveland Bridge Bombing Probe

"Occupy" Movement Was Infiltrated By FBI Informant In Cleveland Bridge Bombing Probe

The federal probe that resulted last night in the arrest of five purported anarchists for allegedly plotting to bomb an Ohio bridge began last year at an Occupy Wall Street rally in Cleveland that was infiltrated by an informant who was directed to attend the event by his FBI handlers.

It was at the October 21 OWS event that the informant first met Douglas Wright, 26, who reportedly confided details of his group’s planned attacks “against corporate America and the financial system,” according to court filings.

Pictured above, Wright eventually served as the informant’s bridge to the four other men busted in the bombing plot--despite the fact that the quartet was “unsure” about the snitch for whom Wright vouched. Of the five men arrested, four were involved in the Occupy Cleveland movement, according to their Facebook profiles, a news story, and a federal criminal complaint.

Other highlights, as it were, from the U.S. District Court records include:

* As the alleged plotters batted around assorted attack ideas--like bombing a “Nazi/Klan headquarters” or blowing up a Federal Reserve bank--Wright joked that he would wear a suicide vest and blow himself up, “but advised he would have to be very drunk.”

* A local Justice Center was considered a good target, but a bombing there was rejected since the accused plotters believed “they would risk hurting inmates.”

* Wright suggested using Google Maps to figure out the area near the Cleveland-area bridge “where the bombs will be dropped and the get-away route."

* Defendant Brandon Baxter, 20, mused that if the plotters were caught, “they will all go to Guantanamo Bay” and not a “normal prison.”

* Baxter also “suggested getting tacks that they could throw out of the back of the car if they get in a chase.” This getaway tactic was last successfully used in a Batman episode from 1967.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/fbi/fbi-informant-infiltrated-occupy-movement-758348

Senate Votes to Abandon Budget Control Act

Senate Votes to Abandon Budget Control Act
by John Hinderaker in Federal Budget, Federal debt and deficit

Last summer, Republicans in Congress agreed to increase the federal debt limit in exchange for the Democrats’ pledge to cap future spending at agreed-upon levels. The compromise was embodied in the Budget Control Act; discretionary spending was to increase by no more than $7 billion in the current fiscal year. I wrote yesterday about the fact that the Democrats intended to violate the Budget Control Act by increasing deficit spending on the Post Office by $34 billion. The measure probably would have glided through the Senate without notice had Jeff Sessions not challenged it.

 Sessions insisted on a point of order, based on the fact that the spending bill violated the Budget Control Act. It required 60 votes to waive Sessions’ point of order and toss the BCA on the trash heap.

Today the Senate voted 62-37 to do exactly that. This means that the consideration that Republicans obtained in exchange for increasing the debt limit is gone. Moreover, some Republicans–I haven’t yet seen the list–voted with the Democrats today.

One principal lesson can be drawn from this experience. It happens all the time that Congressional leaders will trumpet a budget agreement that allegedly saves the taxpayers trillions of dollars–not now, of course, but in the “out years.” But the out years never come. Tax increases are rarely deferred to the out years; they take place now, when it counts. But spending cuts? Never today, always tomorrow.

Purported agreements about what federal spending will be years from now are utterly meaningless. Congressmen will make a deal, brag about the ostensible savings in the press, and then walk away from it the moment our backs are turned, as the Democrats (and a handful of Republicans) did today.

 A compliant press, always anxious to see federal spending skyrocket–Why? That’s a question for another day–will never blow the whistle. So I don’t want to hear about spending cuts in the out years, or, as in the present case, next year. Spending is either cut right now, or it isn’t cut at all.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/senate-votes-to-abandon-budget-control-act.php

Thursday, May 3, 2012

'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change



British environmental guru James Lovelock, seen on March 17, 2009 in Paris, admits he was "alarmist" about climate change in the past.
James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.
Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared.
He previously painted some of the direst visions of the effects of climate change. In 2006,in an article in the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, he wrote that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”
However, the professor admitted in a telephone interview with msnbc.com that he now thinks he had been “extrapolating too far."
The new book, due to be published next year, will be the third in a trilogy, following his earlier works, “Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth Is Fighting Back – and How We Can Still Save Humanity,” and “The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning: Enjoy It While You Can.”
The new book will discuss how humanity can change the way it acts in order to help regulate the Earth’s natural systems, performing a role similar to the harmonious one played by plants when they absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen.
Climate's 'usual tricks'

It will also reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expected.
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.
“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.
“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.
He pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.
In 2007, Time magazine named Lovelock as one of 13 leaders and visionaries in an article on “Heroes of the Environment,” which also included Gore, Mikhail Gorbachev and Robert Redford.
“Jim Lovelock has no university, no research institute, no students. His almost unparalleled influence in environmental science is based instead on a particular way of seeing things,” Oliver Morton, of the journal Nature wrote in Time. “Humble, stubborn, charming, visionary, proud and generous, his ideas about Gaia have started a change in the conception of biology that may serve as a vital complement to the revolution that brought us the structures of DNA and proteins and the genetic code.”
NYT: Most tie extreme weather to global warming, poll finds
Lovelock also won the U.K.’s Geological Society’s Wollaston Medal in 2006. In a posting on its website, the society said it was “rare to be able to say that the recipient has opened up a whole new field of Earth science study” – referring to the Gaia theory of the planet as single complex system.
However Lovelock, who works alone at his home in Devon, England, has fallen out with the green movement in the past, particularly after saying countries should build nuclear power stations to help reduce the greenhouse gas emissions caused by coal and oil.
'Perfect recipe' for wildfires as season starts early
Asked if he was now a climate skeptic, Lovelock told msnbc.com: “It depends what you mean by a skeptic. I’m not a denier.”
He said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in the global temperature, but added that the effect of the oceans was not well enough understood and could have a key role.
“It (the sea) could make all the difference between a hot age and an ice age,” he said.
He said he still thought that climate change was happening, but that its effects would be felt farther in the future than he previously thought.
“We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit,” Lovelock said.
'I made a mistake'

As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding.
Lovelock -- who has previously worked with NASA and discovered the presence of harmful chemicals (CFCs) in the atmosphere but not their effect on the ozone layer -- stressed that humanity should still “do our best to cut back on fossil fuel burning” and try to adapt to the coming changes.
Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the U.K.’s respected Met Office Hadley Centre, agreed Lovelock had been too alarmist with claims about people having to live in the Arctic by 2100.
And he also agreed with Lovelock that the rate of warming in recent years had been less than expected by the climate models.
However, Stott said this was a short-term trend that could be within the natural range of variation and it would need to continue for another 10 years or so before it could be considered evidence that something was missing from climate models.
US sees warmest March, and first quarter, on record
Stott said temperature records and other observations were “broadly speaking continuing to pan out” with what was expected.
He said there did need to be greater understanding of the effect of the oceans on the climate and added that air particles caused by pollution – which cool the Earth by reflecting the sun’s heat -- from rapidly developing countries like China could be having an effect.
On Lovelock, Stott said he had “a lot of respect” for him, saying “he’s had a lot of good ideas and interesting thoughts.”
“I like the fact he’s provocative and provokes people to think about these things,” Stott said.
Keya Chatterjee, international climate policy director of environmental campaign group WWF-US, said in a statement that it was "hard not to get overwhelmed and be defeatist" about the challenges facing the planet, but suggested alarmist talk did not help persuade people to act to reduce climate change.
"While the problem is becoming increasingly urgent, we’ve found that focusing on the most dire predictions does not resonate with the public, governments, or business. People tend to shut off when a problem does not seem solvable," she said.
"And that’s not the case with climate change because we can still avoid its worst impacts. We know that we already have all of the technologies needed to slow climate change down. We only lack the political will to go up against vested interests," she added.
States where green jobs are going gangbusters
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the leading body on the subject, the world’s average temperature has risen by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900. By 2100, it predicts it will rise by another 2 to 11.5 degrees, depending upon the levels of greenhouse gases emitted.
Asked to give its latest position on climate change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said in a statement that observations collected by satellites, sensors on land, in the air and seas “continue to show that the average global surface temperature is rising.”
The statement said “the impacts of a changing climate” were already being felt around the globe, with “more frequent extreme weather events of certain types (heat waves, heavy rain events); changes in precipitation patterns … longer growing seasons; shifts in the ranges of plant and animal species; sea level rise; and decreases in snow, glacier and Arctic sea ice coverage.”
NOAA reports its data in monthly U.S. and global climate reports and annual State of the Climate reports.
Its annual climate summary for 2011 said that the combined land and ocean surface temperature for the world was 0.92 degrees above the 20th century average of 57.0 degrees, making it the 35th consecutive year since 1976 that the yearly global temperature was above average.
“All 11 years of the 21st century so far (2001-2011) rank among the 13 warmest in the 132-year period of record. Only one year during the 20th century, 1998, was warmer than 2011,” it said.
In the interview, Lovelock said he would not take back a word of his seminal work “Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth,” published in 1979.
But of “Revenge of Gaia,” published in 2006, he said he had gone too far in describing what the warming Earth would see over the next century.
“I would be a little more cautious -- but then that would have spoilt the book,” he quipped.

President uses $180,000-an-HOUR Air Force One to fly to fundraisers

Is the taxpayer funding Obama's re-election campaign? Republican fury as President uses $180,000-an-HOUR Air Force One to fly to fundraisers
By Toby Harnden

President Barack Obama has already held more than twice as many re-election fundraising events than President George W. Bush did in his entire 2004 re-election campaign.
According to Mark Knoller of CBS News, unofficial keeper of presidential statistics, Obama has held 124 fundraisers - about one every three days - since he launched his re-election bid last April compared to the 57 Bush held to raise cash for his re-election bid eight years ago

Obama’s frenetic fundraising schedule had prompted the Republican National Committee (RNC) to lodge a formal complaint with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) about misuse of taxpayer money.
Undignified: President Obama returns to the White House from trips to North Carolina, Colorado and Iowa. He is being accused of wasting tax payers' money on fundraising trips
Undignified: President Obama returns to the White House from trips to North Carolina, Colorado and Iowa. He is being accused of wasting tax payers' money on fundraising trips
Obama speaks with a group of students at the University of Iowa: He is being accused of wasteful spending because he has held more than twice as many events than Bush did in 2004
Obama speaks with a group of students at the University of Iowa: He is being accused of wasteful spending because he has held more than twice as many events than Bush did in 2004

The Obama campaign dismissed the complaint as a ‘stunt’ and the White House said that it would follow the same rules as previous administrations and refund the appropriate amounts.
According to the Pentagon, the Boeing 747 that normally serves as Air Force One costs $179,750 an hour to operate.

RNC Chairman: Reince Priebus accused the Obama campaign of manufacturing a phony fight about student loans and then using Air Force One to hold what amounted to re-election rallies in swing states
RNC Chairman: Reince Priebus accused the Obama campaign of manufacturing a phony fight about student loans and then using Air Force One to hold what amounted to re-election rallies in swing states

In the complaint, Reince Priebus, RNC chairman, wrote: ‘Throughout his administration, but particularly in recent weeks, President Obama has been passing off campaign travel as "official events", thereby allowing taxpayers, rather than his campaign, to pay for his re-election efforts.'

John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives, today demanded that Barack Obama ‘pony up and reimburse the Treasury’ for what he said were are campaign trips to battleground states dressed up as presidential travel.

He accused the Obama campaign of manufacturing a phony fight about student loans and then using Air Force One to hold what amounted to re-election rallies in swing states.

‘Frankly, I think this is beneath the dignity of the White House … for the president to make a campaign issue about it and then travel to three battleground states,’ he said.

'This one does not pass the straight-face test. You know it, and I know it. It’s time for the Obama campaign to pony up and reimburse the Treasury.’

He added that ‘the president keeps trying to invent these kind of fake fights because he doesn’t have a record’ and ‘the emperor wears no clothes’.

Priebus said that the Obama campaign ‘has been cheating the American taxpayer by using taxpayer dollars to fund their general election efforts’ and had ‘held more campaign events in three-and-a-half years than any other president did in their full term’.
He pointed to Obama's current trip to North Carolina, Colorado, and Iowa, all key battleground states, to discuss extending lower interest rates on student loans as examples of this tax-payer funded campaign travel.
Bush with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger: Obama has held 124 fundraisers since he launched his re-election bid last April compared to the 57 Bush held to raise cash for his re-election bid eight years ago
Bush with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2004: Obama has held 124 fundraisers since he launched his re-election bid last April compared to the 57 Bush held to raise cash for his re-election bid eight years ago

‘One might imagine that if this were genuinely a government event he might have stopped in a non-battleground state like Texas or Vermont,' his complaint said.
Priebus told reporters: ‘This President and Air Force One seem to have a magic magnet that only seem to land in battleground states in this country.’

He added that a trip to Florida a fortnight ago, when an official speech was added to a day’s programme of fundraising, was suspect. ‘This speech was high on class warfare, slogans, and divisive campaign style rhetoric. It was low on substance that would benefit the populace at large.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2135763/This-does-pass-straight-face-test-Obama-accused-wasting-tax-payers-money-fund-raising-events-election.html

#Occupy May Day Fail

#Occupy May Day Fail

by John Hinderaker in The sick left

The Occupy movement chose the international Communist holiday, May Day, to try to bring the country to its knees. The effort was a complete fizzle. Demonstrations were few and far between, and achieved nothing beyond minor disruption, even in New York, where Occupiers had vowed to paralyze the city. The principal news story that emerged from the event was the arrest of five “anarchists” who plotted to blow up a bridge near Cleveland. The Cleveland Plain Dealer notes the anarchists’ close connection to the local Occupy movement:
Five men involved in Occupy Cleveland stand accused of plotting to blow up a bridge over Cuyahoga Valley National Park in Sagamore Hills. The organization itself has not been implicated, but the arrests prompted organizers to cancel their May Day protest and instead spend the day distancing themselves from what they characterized as a fringe element. …

Brandon Baxter, Anthony Hayne, Joshua Stafford, Connor Stevens and Douglas Wright are “self-described anarchists,” federal officials said Tuesday. And according to a half-dozen Occupy Cleveland leaders and supporters interviewed by The Plain Dealer, they found a home under the organization’s tent on downtown’s Public Square.
No surprise there. But CNN considered the would-be terrorists’ allegiance something of a mystery. Its “Overheard on CNN.com” feature posed the question, “Where do anarchists fall on political spectrum?”
One of the most talked-about stories on Tuesday was about five men arrested for allegedly conspiring to blow up a bridge about 15 miles south of Cleveland, according to court documents released Tuesday. Authorities say at least three of the men are self-proclaimed anarchists, and a lot of readers pondered what kinds of philosophies the men held and how they could be classified politically.

Are the men connected with the Occupy movement? Or with the tea party? Or neither?
The feature led off with photos of the five men who were arrested. Here they are:


Hmm. Occupiers or tea partiers? Hmm. It’s a puzzle, all right.

Well, not such a puzzle if you check their Facebook pages, which Jim Treacher did:






That last guy is pretty scary. The first one, as The Jawa Report pointed out, served as Occupy Cleveland’s spokesperson. In this context, though, I don’t think the statement of three of the anarchists that they are “employed” by Occupy Cleveland should be taken literally. I assume they meant that they are unemployed, and hanging out in tents.

The May Day story is mostly dog-not-barking news: the most notable fact is the almost complete indifference with which Occupy’s latest efforts were greeted. Occupy’s Robin Adelmann, who holds the group’s Cleveland permit, confessed:
Participation dwindled over the winter and activity slowed to a crawl.
“Lately it’s been very nonexistent,” Adelmann said. “The public is a bit bored with us.”
Ms. Adelmann is to be commended. Such self-knowledge is rare on the Left.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/05/occupy-may-day-fail.php

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Obama's Afghan trip: 14,000 miles for brief remarks lacking one crucial word

Obama's Afghan trip: 14,000 miles for brief remarks lacking one crucial word
Alex Wong / AFP / Getty Images
Alex Wong / AFP / Getty Images
As usual with this president, Obama's trip to and speech from Afghanistan had way more to do with politics than any real substance.

Seven thousand miles, one way, is a long journey to share war remarks with countrymen that he should have and could have shared back home many months ago. Despite the administration's best backgrounding sales efforts, the document he signed with Afghan President Hamid Karzai is a meaningless basic agreement to talk later about forging a real agreement.

Nothing was essentially changed by what the media lovingly called his "secret trip" to the war zone, which was simply unannounced for security reasons.

The remarks (Scroll down for the full text, as usual) were well-written, even with literary flourishes about a new dawn coming as the president spoke at 4 a.m. Afghan time. He wanted to avoid any sense of "Mission Accomplished." And at 11 minutes, blessedly brief for the Real Good Talker.

Here's what Obama got politically from this stagecraft: Bonus public attention focused on the Osama bin Laden assassination anniversary. Photos of troops clamoring for his fist bumps. An entire day focused on him, his words and non-stop talk of the 10-year war winding down.

An entire news day, one of only 189 precious ones left before Nov. 6, not focused on Solyndras, prostitution scandals, GSA parties, $5 trillion in new national debt, no federal budget for three years running, high unemployment, sluggish growth, legal crucifixions nor Mitt Romney.

Nevermind the Kabul explosions, killing at least six, a couple of hours after his brief visit.

While Obama earned attention for a 2002 anti-Iraq war speech, the Afghan conflict has always been the "good war" in his eyes. Obama denounced President Bush's Iraq troop surge that ultimately enabled Obama to claim he ended that war, But Obama ordered two of his own, larger troop surges into Afghanistan.

Back in the hand-to-hand primary combat with Hillary Clinton in 2007-08, Obama controversially said he would bomb Pakistan if necessary to rout al Qaeda leaders. He did and they were. Just last week Obama loosened the reins on human targets the CIA could vaporize with its drones in Yemen, now emerging as terrorists' favored haunting grounds.

In the end, conservatives gave Obama more war support than his own Democrats, which neutralizes one of the GOP's traditional strong suits of national security.
  
But something began happening more than a year ago. Maybe you didn't notice with all the parochial D.C. bickering. But Obama and chief strategist David Axelrod did. Support for the war, initially fueled by revenge over 9/11, was waning. It still is.

Last month an ABC News-Washington Post Poll found for the first time a majority of Republicans felt the Afghan war has not been worth the cost. They join a larger majority of two-thirds of Americans who say the same.

Now, someone could suggest that had the current commander-in-chief done something, anything in the way of leadership, to explain and sell his hardline, erase-al-Qaeda stand, public support would be stronger. Had Obama made even 10% of the pretend, cross-country effort he invested in selling his DOA Buffet Rule, more Americans might have been more patient.

But Obama didn't. In fact, Tuesday night's speech from Kabul emphasizing withdrawal was his first substantive statement in eleven (11!) months. Nothing to the nation from its leader on an ongoing war for nearly one year, while finding time for 124 campaign fundraiser speeches, more golf games and vacations.

Those poll numbers were still pretty persuasive for a president who struggles to reach 50% approval in an election year. As a result, contrary to the recommendations of generals, Obama launched a significant withdrawal last year, which continues this year and has all combat troops out by the end of next year.

One little-noticed provision of the agreement Obama and Karzai signed Tuesday, however, is that American troops will remain in Afghanistan for not one, not two, not even three more years. They will be there for 12 more years, until 2024, helping. So, John McCain was correct after all about lengthy U.S. troop stationings.

In his speech last night the president noted the more than a half-million Americans who've served in Afghanistan. But in remarks that Obama wanted focused on an optimistic end to the conflict, he failed to mention the 1,957 Americans who've died there since 2001, 68% of them during his presidency. And 93 in the last 122 days.

Nor, as it turns out, could the politically-inclined president of the United States find room anywhere among his 1,556 words for the seven letters that could make his surges and all those sacrifices seem more worthwhile: "victory."

http://news.investors.com/article/609958/201205020818/obama-visits-afghanistan-to-talk-troop-withdrawal-speech-text.htm?p=full

The “real Washington” — where income redistribution happens

The “real Washington” — where income redistribution happens

by Paul Mirengoff in Federal Budget

Robert Samuelson has a worthwhile take-down of the notion that Washington operates for the benefit of the rich, in defiance of the will of the people. That view has long seemed ridiculous to me. If it were valid, how would we explain the income tax structure, wherein the richest 10 percent pay 55 percent of the freight? How would we explain the corporate tax rate, which is the highest among developed nations? How would we explain the massive regulatory burden imposed on corporations?

How would we explain the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 or the Civil Rights Act Amendments of 1991, in which Congress, largely overriding the concerns of the business community, legislatively overturned Supreme Court interpretations of existing law with which the “civil rights community” disagreed? How would we explain the more recent “Lilly Ledbetter” Act, which performed the same task?

Washington lobbyists earn their money, to be sure. But they don’t do so by thwarting the will of the people. In my view, they do it mainly through “fixes” on matters as to which the public would be largely indifferent. On big ticket items of public concern, lobbyists generally just try to prevent the burdens imposed on their clients from over-running the bounds imposed by reality.

Samuelson persuasively argues that in “the real Washington,” benefits “go mainly to the poor and middle class, while politicians of both parties live in fear that they might offend ‘the will of the people’ – voters.” He notes that, since 1990, annual spending on programs conferring benefits on low-income Americans – such as Medicaid, Food Stamps, Pell grants, and the earned-income tax credit — has grown from $126 billion to $626 billion in inflation adjusted dollars. Similarly, federal spending per person in poverty (again in adjusted dollars) has grown from $516 dollars per year in 1960, to $4,300 in 1980, to $13,000 last year.

But the biggest income transfers are to the middle class, through Social Security and Medicare. When these programs are combined with all spending for the poor, the total is nearly $2.1 trillion, or 60 percent of 2011 non-interest federal spending.

Thus, the “real Washington” is, according to Samuelson, “is in the business of pleasing as many people as possible for as long as possible.” Unfortunately, we may be reaching the outer limits of what constitutes “as long as possible.”

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/the-real-washington-where-income-redistribution-happens.php

The Coming Medicare Calamity

The Coming Medicare Calamity

by Paul Mirengoff in Medicare

The Medicare Trustees released their annual report yesterday. Today, at a conference hosted by the American Enterprise Institute, Medicare’s chief actuary, Richard Foster, summarized the Trustees’ report.
 
The picture isn’t pretty. The report projects that the Medical Hospital Insurance trust fund will run out of assets in 2024. But, as Foster explained, even this dire projection is almost certainly too optimistic. That’s because the projections are based on changes to Medicare effectuated by the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that improve Medicare’s financial outlook, but that, in all likelihood “will not be viable in the long range.”
 
For one thing, current law would require a physician fee reduction of an estimated 30.9 percent on January 1, 2013. But this is, in Foster’s words, “an implausible expectation.”

Moreover, Obamacare calls for annual price updates for most categories of non-physician health services to be adjusted downward each year to correspond with the growth in economy-wide productivity. But, says Foster, “the best available evidence indicates that most health care providers cannot improve their productivity to this degree—or even approach such a level—as a result of the labor-intensive nature of these services.”
 
Consequently, “the prices paid by Medicare for health services are very likely to fall increasingly short of the costs of providing these services.” Indeed, “Medicare prices would be considerably below the current relative level of Medicaid prices, which have already led to access problems.”

Congress could noy tolerate this situation. According to Foster, well before we reached this point, “Congress would have to intervene to prevent the withdrawal of providers from the Medicare market and the severe problems with beneficiary access to care that would result.”
 
Congress would intervene by overriding the productivity adjustments, something it has done repeatedly in the case of physician payments. But these productivity adjustments are built into the Trustees’ projections. Without them, Medicare costs “will be substantially higher in the long range than those projected under current law.”

When we consider how frightening even the overly optimistic costs projected under current law are, there can be little doubt that, without drastic action, we are headed for a Medicare calamity. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has nothing to offer in the face of the impending calamity, other than engaging in demagoguery against those who attempting to head it off.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/the-coming-medicare-calamity.php

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Obama encounters blowback from the SEALS

Obama encounters blowback from the SEALS

by Paul Mirengoff in 2012 Presidential Election, Obama administration
President Obama’s campaign of self-congratulation over the killing of bin Laden isn’t sitting well with some present and former members of the Navy SEALs — the outfit that actually took out al Qaeda’s leader. Ryan Zinke, a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL had this to say:
The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call. I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice – it was a broader team effort. The President and his administration are positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition. It was predictable.
From this president, the least gracious, most lacking in class that I can recall, it certainly was predictable.
A current SEAL echoed Zinke’s view:
Obama wasn’t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because he speechwriters are smart. But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, “Come on, man!” It really didn’t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go.
That is almost certainly true. As Mitt Romney said today, even Jimmy Carter would have okayed this mission.
Chris Kyle, a former SEAL sniper with 160 confirmed and another 95 unconfirmed kills to his credit, was even less impressed with Obama:
He’s trying to say that Romney wouldn’t have made the same call? Anyone who is patriotic to this country would have made that exact call, Democrat or Republican. Obama is taking more credit than he is due. . . .
The operation itself was great and the nation felt immense pride. It was great that we did it. But bin Laden was just a figurehead. The war on terror continues. Taking him out didn’t really change anything as far as the war on terror is concerned and using it as a political attack is a cheap shot. In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.
I don’t know about that; it seems to me that Obama had to have made the call at some point. But when you take too much credit, you open the door to blowback that gives you too little.
Perhaps the most sensibly pragmatic take comes from Clint Bruce, who gave up the chance of an NFL career to serve as a SEAL officer before retiring as a lieutenant after nine years:
We were extremely surprised and discouraged by the publicity because it compromises the ability of those guys to operate. It’s a waste of time to speculate about who would and wouldn’t have made that decision. It was a symphony of opportunity and intelligence that allowed this administration to give the green light. We want to acknowledge that they made that decision.
Politicians should let the public know where they stand on national security but not in the play-by-play, detailed way that has been done recently. The intricacies of national security should not become part of stump speeches.
Obama, though, needs something for his stump speeches. And it can’t all be about how evil the Republicans are. The president needs to take credit for something. Other than the killing of bin Laden, nothing much springs to mind.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/obama-generates-blowback-from-the-seals.php

More blowback against our whiney, immodest, and shamelessly self-promoting president

More blowback against our whiney, immodest, and shamelessly self-promoting president

by Paul Mirengoff in 2012 Presidential Election, Obama administration

The blowback continues from President Obama’s overreaching attempt to turn the killing of Osama bin Laden into a weapon with which directly to attack Mitt Romney. First, some Navy SEALS, the outfit whose members risked their lives to kill bin Laden, took exception. Then, a key operative at the CIA, who helped secure intelligence that led us to bin Laden using practices opposed by Obama, balked.

Now former Attorney General Michael Mukasey has weighed in. Mukasey makes three important points. First, although Obama approved the killing of bin Laden, he attempted before hand to cover his rear end to an unseemly degree:

A recently disclosed memorandum from then-CIA Director Leon Panetta shows that the president’s celebrated derring-do in authorizing the operation included a responsibility-escape clause: "The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out." Which is to say, if the mission went wrong, the fault would be Adm. McRaven’s, not the president’s.
Second, Obama seemed to put his desire to gloat ahead of the nation’s intelligence needs. Immediately after the event, Obama publicly stated that a valuable trove of intelligence had been seized, including even the location of al Qaeda safe-houses. According to Mukasey, "that disclosure infuriated the intelligence community because it squandered the opportunity to exploit the intelligence that was the subject of the boast."

Third, Obama’s self-congratulation over this affair is unpresidential – it represents a radical departure from the self-effacing approach of past presidents who, unlike Obama, knew how to behave with class and dignity. Mukasey points to Abraham Lincoln. "On the night after Gen. Robert E. Lee’s surrender ended the Civil War, [Lincoln] delivered from the window of the White House a speech that mentioned his own achievements not at all, but instead looked forward to the difficulties of reconstruction and called for black suffrage. . . ."

Mukasey also cites George W. Bush. Following the capture of Saddam Hussein, Bush praised the members of the armed forces serving in Iraq, the intelligence analysts who found Saddam’s footprints, and the folks who actually carried out the operation. He used the word "I" only twice – when he concluded his remarks by saying, "Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them"

Obama must be feeling the heat of Romney’s candidacy. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be squandering good will by using the killing of bin Laden as a club this early in the campaign. In my view, Obama’s biggest asset in this election is not the bin Laden caper, but rather the fact that Americans still like the president. How much longer they will like this whiney, immodest, and shamelessly self-promoting man is open to question.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/05/more-blowback-against-our-whiney-immodest-and-shamelessly-self-promoting-president.php

On wanting America to fail—divine it ain’t

THE WAY I SEE IT by Don Polson   Red Bluff Daily News         5/01/2012

On wanting America to fail—divine it ain’t

 
The late Paul Harvey, whose folksy but incisive commentaries delivered over the radio airwaves for almost six decades, first as “Paul Harvey News and Comment,” then with “The Rest of the Story” in 1976, offered listeners far more memorable lessons than we can count. However, one was titled “If I were the Devil” and presented all the things Satan would likely do and say, to illustrate that his work and efforts to undermine and eliminate God from our American nation and its people were, in actuality, proceeding rather effectively.
 
In that spirit, I found a You Tube by a group called “FreeMarketAmerica.org” (http://freemarketamerica.org/) titled “If I wanted America to fail,” viewable for free at their web site. I took the time to transcribe excerpts from the narration so readers learn that when the enviro-liberalist on this page regales us with predictions of doom, gloom and demise unless we seek divinity by abandoning oil and coal, and by retaining President Obama in office, well, here’s “The rest of the story”:
 
“If I wanted America to fail; to follow, not lead; to suffer, not prosper; to despair, not dream: I'd start with energy. I'd cut off America's supply of cheap, abundant energy. I couldn't take it by force, so I'd make Americans feel guilty about using the energy that heats their homes, fuels their cars, runs their businesses and powers their economy. I'd make cheap energy expensive so that expensive energy would seem cheap; I'd empower unelected bureaucrats to all but outlaw America's most abundant sources of energy.
 
“If I wanted America to fail: I'd use their schools to teach one generation of Americans that their factories and their cars will cause a new ice age, and I'd muster a straight face so I could teach the next generation that they're causing global warming. When it's cold out, I'd call it climate change instead. I'd imply that America's cities and factories could run on wind power and wishes. I'd teach children how to ignore the hypocrisy of condemning logging, mining and farming while having roofs over their heads, heat in their homes and food on their tables.
 
“I would never teach children that the free market is the only force in human history to uplift the poor, establish the middle class and create lasting prosperity. Instead, I'd demonize prosperity itself, so they will not miss what they will never have.
 
“If I wanted America to fail: I would create countless new regulations and seldom cancel old ones. It'd be so complicated that only bureaucrats, lawyers and lobbyists could understand them; that way small businesses with big ideas wouldn't stand a chance, and I'd never have to worry about another Thomas Edison, Henry Ford or Steve Jobs.
 
“I would ridicule as flat-earthers those who urged them to lower costs by increasing supply. And when the evangelists of common sense try to remind people about the laws of supply and demand, I'd enlist a sympathetic media to drown them out.
 
“If I wanted America to fail: I would empower unaccountable bureaucracies seated in a distant capital to bully Americans out of their dreams and their property rights. I'd send federal agents to raid guitar factories for using the wrong kind of wood; I'd force homeowners to tear down their own homes built on their own land. I'd make it almost impossible for farmers to farm, loggers to log, miners to mine and builders to build. Because I don't believe in free markets, I'd invent false ones; I'd devise fictitious products, like carbon credits, and trade them in imaginary markets. I'd convince people that this would create jobs and be good for the economy.
 
“If I wanted America to fail: For every concern, I'd invent a crisis, and for every crisis, I'd invent a cause, like shutting down entire industries and killing tens of thousands of jobs in the name of saving spotted owls. And when everyone learned the stunning irony that the owls were victims of their larger cousins and not people, it would already be decades too late.
 
“If I wanted America to fail: I'd make it easier to stop commerce than to start it, easier to kill jobs than create them, more fashionable to resent success than to seek it. When industries seek to create jobs, I'd file lawsuits to stop them and then I'd make taxpayers pay for my lawyers.
 
“If I wanted America to fail: I would transform the environmental agenda from a document of conservation to an economic suicide pact; I'd concede entire industries to our economic rivals by imposing regulations that cost trillions. I'd celebrate those who preach environmental austerity in public while indulging a lavish lifestyle in private.
 
“If I wanted America to fail: I'd convince Americans that Europe has it right and that America has it wrong. I would prey on the goodness and the decency of ordinary Americans; I would only need to convince them that all of this is for the greater good.
 
“If I wanted America to fail, I...I suppose I wouldn't change a thing.”
 
The environmental agenda, particularly “climate change” fanaticism, has been infected by extremism—it's become an economic suicide pact that you don’t have to accept.

Oil Companies: 'Crucify Them' - Just As Romans Crucified Conquered Citizens

EPA Official's 'Philosophy' On Oil Companies: 'Crucify Them' - Just As Romans Crucified Conquered Citizens


Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) took to the Senate floor today to draw attention to a video of a top EPA official saying the EPA’s “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies - just as the Romans crucified random citizens in areas they conquered to ensure obedience.
Inhofe quoted a little-watched video from 2010 of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, admitting that EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies.

In the video, Administrator Armendariz says:

“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said:

“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.

“Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”

“It’s a deterrent factor,” Armendariz said, explaining that the EPA is following the Romans’ philosophy for subjugating conquered villages.

Soon after Armendariz touted the EPA’s “philosophy,” the EPA began smear campaigns against natural gas producers, Inhofe’s office noted in advance of today’s Senate speech:

“Not long after Administrator Armendariz made these comments in 2010, EPA targeted US natural gas producers in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming.

“In all three of these cases, EPA initially made headline-grabbing statements either insinuating or proclaiming outright that the use of hydraulic fracturing by American energy producers was the cause of water contamination, but in each case their comments were premature at best – and despite their most valiant efforts, they have been unable to find any sound scientific evidence to make this link.”

In his Senate speech, Sen. Inhofe said the video provides Americans with “a glimpse of the Obama administration’s true agenda.”

That agenda, Inhofe said, is to “incite fear” in the public with unsubstantiated claims and “intimidate” oil and gas companies with threats of unjustified fines and penalties – then, quietly backtrack once the public’s perception has been firmly jaded against oil and natural gas.

See more "Right Views, Right Now"



CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like NPR. CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like PBS.

Wouldn't Have Killed Bin Laden

Wouldn't Have Killed Bin Laden (Updated: Romney Responds)

At a press conference with the prime minister of Japan this afternoon, President Obama said that Americans haven't excessively celebrated the death of Osama bin Laden, and suggested that Mitt Romney would not have made the decision to kill the terrorist mastermind.



"I'd just recommend that everybody take a look at people's previous statements in terms of whether they thought it was appropriate to go into Pakistan and to take out bin Laden," Obama said, obviously taking a shot at Romney. "I assume that people meant what they said when they said it. And that's been at least my practice. I said that I would go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him--and I did. If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they would do something else, then I'd go ahead and let them explain it."

The president was visibly smirking as he made today's statement. It also mirrors a campaign ad the president released Friday, which likewise suggests that Romney wouldn't have killed bin Laden if he, as commander in chief, would have been in the same position.

The Japanese prime minister, for his part, said that the war on terror continues and did not end with the death of Osama bin Laden.

UPDATE: The Romney campaign responds with this statement from press secretary Andrea Saul: “It’s unfortunate that President Obama would prefer to use what was a good day for all Americans as a cheap political ploy. President Obama’s feckless foreign policy has emboldened our adversaries, weakened our allies, and threatens to break faith with our military. While the Obama administration has naively stated that ‘the war on terror is over,’ Gov. Romney has always understood we need a comprehensive plan to deal with the myriad of threats America faces.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-smirks-again-suggests-romney-wouldnt-have-killed-bin-laden_642246.html