This is just to funny to leave alone.
MGC
Friday, October 2, 2009
Barry O Gets Bitch Slapped In Denmark
Today the Olympic Committee told Barry O what they thought of Chicago as the next Olympic site.That's what happens when you listen to the money grubbing marxists around you Barry.Nothing but embarrasement.
Now the thing about someone like Barry O with his huge ego doesn't like being told NO. Someone will have to pay for this Euro-Insult and it just might be the American people. Now he has all the time in the world to bully the Dems in Congress to get all those bills passed and punish the American people for America being so awful he couldn't get the Olympics here.
Do we believe that no one in the world noticed this fiasco? I don't think people like Putin,AchmedYabadabadoo, The Nork midget have any doubt now what kind of moron we have in The White House.
MGC
Now the thing about someone like Barry O with his huge ego doesn't like being told NO. Someone will have to pay for this Euro-Insult and it just might be the American people. Now he has all the time in the world to bully the Dems in Congress to get all those bills passed and punish the American people for America being so awful he couldn't get the Olympics here.
Do we believe that no one in the world noticed this fiasco? I don't think people like Putin,AchmedYabadabadoo, The Nork midget have any doubt now what kind of moron we have in The White House.
MGC
The Morning Bell
The Morning Bell
FRIDAY, OCT 2, 2000
The Obama Jobs Gap Grows Again
Another month, another 263,000 jobs lost under the Obama administration. According to Bureau of Labor and Statistics data released this morning, the United States economy has lost 3.6 million net jobs since President Barack Obama was sworn into office and the unemployment rate has risen from 7.6 % to 9.8%. It was not supposed to be this way. The experts in the Obama administration promised the American people that the President’s $787 billion stimulus package would create 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. According to the Obama administration’s expert plan, the stimulus was supposed to create or save enough jobs that the unemployment rate would only be 7.8% by this time. Instead unemployment rose last month and is now at a 26-year record high of 9.8%.
Recent Entries
Guest Blogger: Rep. Connie Mack (R-FL) on the Free Trade Agreement with Panama
Secretary of Defense Gates Backpedaling on Afghanistan
How Much Sexual Assault Will Be Tolerated?
Empower Patients First Act: Another Serious Conservative Health Plan
Honor the Free Chinese: Light the Empire State Building Red and Blue on October 10
When the Obama administration first unveiled their stimulus plan in November they claimed it would create 2.5 million jobs by the end of 2010. At the time BLS reported that U.S. economy employed about 136.1 million jobs. But by January that number fell to 134.6 million jobs. Not so coincidentally, the Obama administration upped the job-creating magic of the stimulus to 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. Putting these numbers together, we can create an objective standard to judge both the President and his stimulus by: 136.1 million plus 2.5 million equals 138.6 million; and 134.6 million plus 4 million equals 138.6 million. So the objective, Obama administration created, BLS data verifiable, jobs accountability number is 138.6 million. Today’s BLS report shows that President Obama is 7.6 million jobs short of his promise to the American people.
To close the Obama Jobs Gap, the U.S. economy would have to go through the greatest 16-month average increase in employment in modern American history. During the peak of the Reagan boom in December of 1984, the U.S. economy added 373,000 jobs a month. Obama would need to create 477,000 jobs a month. That is not going to happen.
So what went wrong? Simply put, Obama’s experts relied on some fundamentally unsound assumptions and now our nation is paying the price in lost jobs and record deficits. Harvard economics professor Robert Barro and his student Charles Redlick released some preliminary conclusions of a study, yesterday, showing that the theoretical foundation of President Obama’s stimulus, the belief that government spending creates a “multiplier effect” that expands the gross domestic product by more than the government spending itself, is not supported by existing empirical evidence.
The Federal government can stimulate the economy in the short term, not by shuffling demand across the economy through wasteful deficit spending, but by improving incentives and the general economic environment. Individuals and businesses across the nation already see tremendous opportunities for starting new businesses, for investment, for hiring new workers, for expanding into new markets. However many are holding back due to existing excessive tax and regulatory burdens. Instead of making this situation better, the Obama administration and Congress seem intent on making it worse by enacting new taxes and regulations on energy and passing health care legislation that will tax businesses for creating jobs and encourage lower wages. It is exceedingly clear that President Obama is going to fall short of his jobs promise, the only question now is how large the Obama Jobs Gap will be.
FRIDAY, OCT 2, 2000
The Obama Jobs Gap Grows Again
Another month, another 263,000 jobs lost under the Obama administration. According to Bureau of Labor and Statistics data released this morning, the United States economy has lost 3.6 million net jobs since President Barack Obama was sworn into office and the unemployment rate has risen from 7.6 % to 9.8%. It was not supposed to be this way. The experts in the Obama administration promised the American people that the President’s $787 billion stimulus package would create 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. According to the Obama administration’s expert plan, the stimulus was supposed to create or save enough jobs that the unemployment rate would only be 7.8% by this time. Instead unemployment rose last month and is now at a 26-year record high of 9.8%.
Recent Entries
Guest Blogger: Rep. Connie Mack (R-FL) on the Free Trade Agreement with Panama
Secretary of Defense Gates Backpedaling on Afghanistan
How Much Sexual Assault Will Be Tolerated?
Empower Patients First Act: Another Serious Conservative Health Plan
Honor the Free Chinese: Light the Empire State Building Red and Blue on October 10
When the Obama administration first unveiled their stimulus plan in November they claimed it would create 2.5 million jobs by the end of 2010. At the time BLS reported that U.S. economy employed about 136.1 million jobs. But by January that number fell to 134.6 million jobs. Not so coincidentally, the Obama administration upped the job-creating magic of the stimulus to 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. Putting these numbers together, we can create an objective standard to judge both the President and his stimulus by: 136.1 million plus 2.5 million equals 138.6 million; and 134.6 million plus 4 million equals 138.6 million. So the objective, Obama administration created, BLS data verifiable, jobs accountability number is 138.6 million. Today’s BLS report shows that President Obama is 7.6 million jobs short of his promise to the American people.
To close the Obama Jobs Gap, the U.S. economy would have to go through the greatest 16-month average increase in employment in modern American history. During the peak of the Reagan boom in December of 1984, the U.S. economy added 373,000 jobs a month. Obama would need to create 477,000 jobs a month. That is not going to happen.
So what went wrong? Simply put, Obama’s experts relied on some fundamentally unsound assumptions and now our nation is paying the price in lost jobs and record deficits. Harvard economics professor Robert Barro and his student Charles Redlick released some preliminary conclusions of a study, yesterday, showing that the theoretical foundation of President Obama’s stimulus, the belief that government spending creates a “multiplier effect” that expands the gross domestic product by more than the government spending itself, is not supported by existing empirical evidence.
The Federal government can stimulate the economy in the short term, not by shuffling demand across the economy through wasteful deficit spending, but by improving incentives and the general economic environment. Individuals and businesses across the nation already see tremendous opportunities for starting new businesses, for investment, for hiring new workers, for expanding into new markets. However many are holding back due to existing excessive tax and regulatory burdens. Instead of making this situation better, the Obama administration and Congress seem intent on making it worse by enacting new taxes and regulations on energy and passing health care legislation that will tax businesses for creating jobs and encourage lower wages. It is exceedingly clear that President Obama is going to fall short of his jobs promise, the only question now is how large the Obama Jobs Gap will be.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
carter talks race and obama
I know what this dufus said back on 9-15-09. Does he really think that no one remembers? Or that the entire nation ( Libs excluded ) misunderstood him?
MGC
Cap And Trade Calamities
A Pollution Reduction Bill?
Waxman-Markey proposes a new national tax of historic proportions
Related Links
Boxer-Kerry Unveil Their Energy Tax Bill: Incomplete But Still Very Harmful
Not Everyone Won the Cap and Trade Lobbying Battle
Heritage's Research on the Cap and Trade Global Warming Bill
Well, that depends on what your definition of pollution is.
As the Senators Boxer and Kerry unveil their cap and trade bill, John Kerry’s recent pitch to the American public is yet another example of how mainstream environmentalists have sought to change the definition of pollution. As Kerry explained last week, the bill is not a “‘cap and trade’ proposal but a ‘pollution reduction’ bill. I don’t know what ‘cap and trade’ means. I don't think the average American does,’ Kerry said. ‘This is not a cap-and-trade bill, it’s a pollution reduction bill.’” To make this point clear, in the summary of the bill, Kerry and Boxer removed the phrase “cap and trade” and replaced it with “Pollution Reduction and Investment.”
Kerry’s statement points to the recent shift in environmental rhetoric which is less concerned about pollution being linked to smog and toxins in the air and water, and more concerned with what they believe to be the biggest problem: carbon. This new-found definition of pollution has permeated environmental rhetoric and has been heavily employed by the Obama administration. In his speech to the UN last week, Obama mentioned the disastrous consequences that will ensue from “greenhouse gas pollution” and “carbon pollution.” Furthermore, after the Waxman-Markey bill was passed in the House, Obama praised the effort saying that we have seen our reliance on fossil fuels “pollute the air we breathe and endanger our planet” and argued that “There is no longer a debate about whether carbon pollution is placing our planet in jeopardy. It’s happening.”
No longer a debate? Contrary to Obama’s statements, there is a very vigorous debate among scientists as to whether Co2—an invisible component of the human respiratory cycle—can be classified as a pollutant. What is abundantly clear is that the Senate climate change bill is less interested in pollution that is visible or proven to be harmful to human health and almost completely focused on a new-found definition of “carbon pollution.” This is most apparent in the opening sentence of the bill, which repeats the opening of the Waxman-Markey bill: “To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution, and transition to a clean energy economy.” The bill includes four titles that tackle greenhouse gas “pollution” and pushes for a 20 percent reduction in carbon emission by 2020, compared to the 17 percent reduction in the House bill.
With most of the emphasis being on Co2 and with very little being on proven harmful pollutants, Kerry’s claim that the bill is a “pollution reduction” bill is highly dubious; but there is no doubt that it is a cap and trade bill that will cause massive damage to the economy. As the United States begins to recover from a recession, is the country going to sacrifice the economy for these sudden amendments to the dictionary? Let’s hope not.
Waxman-Markey proposes a new national tax of historic proportions
Related Links
Boxer-Kerry Unveil Their Energy Tax Bill: Incomplete But Still Very Harmful
Not Everyone Won the Cap and Trade Lobbying Battle
Heritage's Research on the Cap and Trade Global Warming Bill
Well, that depends on what your definition of pollution is.
As the Senators Boxer and Kerry unveil their cap and trade bill, John Kerry’s recent pitch to the American public is yet another example of how mainstream environmentalists have sought to change the definition of pollution. As Kerry explained last week, the bill is not a “‘cap and trade’ proposal but a ‘pollution reduction’ bill. I don’t know what ‘cap and trade’ means. I don't think the average American does,’ Kerry said. ‘This is not a cap-and-trade bill, it’s a pollution reduction bill.’” To make this point clear, in the summary of the bill, Kerry and Boxer removed the phrase “cap and trade” and replaced it with “Pollution Reduction and Investment.”
Kerry’s statement points to the recent shift in environmental rhetoric which is less concerned about pollution being linked to smog and toxins in the air and water, and more concerned with what they believe to be the biggest problem: carbon. This new-found definition of pollution has permeated environmental rhetoric and has been heavily employed by the Obama administration. In his speech to the UN last week, Obama mentioned the disastrous consequences that will ensue from “greenhouse gas pollution” and “carbon pollution.” Furthermore, after the Waxman-Markey bill was passed in the House, Obama praised the effort saying that we have seen our reliance on fossil fuels “pollute the air we breathe and endanger our planet” and argued that “There is no longer a debate about whether carbon pollution is placing our planet in jeopardy. It’s happening.”
No longer a debate? Contrary to Obama’s statements, there is a very vigorous debate among scientists as to whether Co2—an invisible component of the human respiratory cycle—can be classified as a pollutant. What is abundantly clear is that the Senate climate change bill is less interested in pollution that is visible or proven to be harmful to human health and almost completely focused on a new-found definition of “carbon pollution.” This is most apparent in the opening sentence of the bill, which repeats the opening of the Waxman-Markey bill: “To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution, and transition to a clean energy economy.” The bill includes four titles that tackle greenhouse gas “pollution” and pushes for a 20 percent reduction in carbon emission by 2020, compared to the 17 percent reduction in the House bill.
With most of the emphasis being on Co2 and with very little being on proven harmful pollutants, Kerry’s claim that the bill is a “pollution reduction” bill is highly dubious; but there is no doubt that it is a cap and trade bill that will cause massive damage to the economy. As the United States begins to recover from a recession, is the country going to sacrifice the economy for these sudden amendments to the dictionary? Let’s hope not.
The Heritage Foundation
The Morning Bell
THURSDAY, OCT 1, 2009
The Obama Czar State Is About To Kill The Economy
Last week, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced an amendment to the Interior Department appropriations bill that would have withheld federal funds for some 18 “czars” appointed by the Obama administration and not confirmed by the Senate. “There is no careful Senate examination of their character and qualifications. And we are speaking here of some of the most senior positions within our government,” Collins told USA Today.
Recent Entries
Guest Blogger: Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) on Energy Security
Congress Gives Itself A Raise
DC School Reform Rally: When Parents Choose, Kids Win
What Next? Empire State Building Honors Communist Anniversary
Outside the Beltway: Illegal Adventures in Babysitting
Senate Democrats went on to kill Collins’ amendment using a procedural tactic which “deeply disappointed” Collins. It is a shame the Collins amendment was not allowed a vote. But Senate oversight is no solution to the proliferation of czars under the Obama administration. The problem is much more fundamental to our Constitutional system and far predates President Barack Obama.
Yesterday the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule that would regulate greenhouse gas emissions from hundreds of power plants and large industrial facilities across the country. The EPA claims it has the authority to issue these regulations pursuant to the 1970 Clean Air Act which authorizes the EPA to regulate any source that emits more than 250 tons of a recognized “pollutant” each year. The problem is, the Clean Air Act was never intended to regulate carbon emissions so the 250 ton threshold would inflict job killing regulations on millions of small businesses nationwide. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis has estimated that if the EPA regulated carbon objectively under the law, the economy would suffer annual job losses exceeding 800,000 for several years and a cumulative GDP loss of $7 trillion by 2029
But EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says she has a solution to this problem. “We know the corner coffee shop is no place to look for meaningful carbon reductions,” said Jackson. This rule would not cover “every cow and Dunkin’ Donuts.” So Jackson has written the new rule to apply to only sources that emit at least 250,000 tons of greenhouse gas a year. But is that legal? Former EPA official Jeff Holmstead tells the Associated Press: “Normally, it takes an act of Congress to change the words of a statute enacted by Congress, and many of us are very curious to see EPA’s legal justification for today’s proposal.”
And that is the true danger behind a Czar State: the undermining of our Constitution and the rule of law in favor of an unconstitutional rule of experts. Boston University Law School professor Gary Lawson explains:
Many administrative agencies have authority over matters that are far removed from any of the enumerations in the Constitution. Typically, those agencies have power to promulgate rules under statutory mandates that are literally meaningless, such as mandates to set clean air standards “requisite to protect the public health”; to award broadcast licenses “if public convenience, interest, or necessity will be served thereby”; or to purchase real estate mortgages “the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability.” The agencies also often adjudicate matters under their statutes with only limited court review.
That would be exactly the sort of thing that the Constitution of 1788 is specifically designed to forbid–about as clearly unconstitutional as a title of nobility or a 28-year-old President. And that, of course, precisely describes the typical modern administrative agency in America.
The most egregious violation of this principle was the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act which granted the Secretary of the Treasury unchecked power to do whatever he wanted without any meaningful checks. The result was a schizophrenic management of the Troubled Asset Relief Program which undermined the rule of law, destroyed market confidence, and led to the nationalization of America’s largest automobile manufacturer. Did anyone in Congress believe they were voting for the government takeover of General Motors last September? No. Did anyone in Congress believe they were voting to allow the EPA the authority to regulate carbon emissions from Dunkin Donuts in 1970? No. Such are the evils of the Czar State.
The Washington Post consistently calls for legislation to tackle global warming instead of using the Clean Air Act as the Obama administration is moving to do. But the legislation introduced by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is no better at containing the EPA’s power than the Stabilization Act was at containing Treasury’s. According to the Post, Kerry-Boxer:
The measure also calls for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to set regulations overseeing the carbon trading market, though it does not specify what those rules would look like.. …And the bill does not spell out how those rebates would be distributed, just as it leaves open the question of how the federal government would allocate carbon allowances to ease the transition to a low-carbon economy.
In other words, Kerry-Boxer turns the fate of our economy over to the “experts” in the Obama Czar State with no chance for Americans to limit their power. 800,000 jobs lost a year. Cumulative GDP loss of $7 trillion by 2029. The harm caused by the destruction of the separation of powers just got a lot less theoretical.
THURSDAY, OCT 1, 2009
The Obama Czar State Is About To Kill The Economy
Last week, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced an amendment to the Interior Department appropriations bill that would have withheld federal funds for some 18 “czars” appointed by the Obama administration and not confirmed by the Senate. “There is no careful Senate examination of their character and qualifications. And we are speaking here of some of the most senior positions within our government,” Collins told USA Today.
Recent Entries
Guest Blogger: Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) on Energy Security
Congress Gives Itself A Raise
DC School Reform Rally: When Parents Choose, Kids Win
What Next? Empire State Building Honors Communist Anniversary
Outside the Beltway: Illegal Adventures in Babysitting
Senate Democrats went on to kill Collins’ amendment using a procedural tactic which “deeply disappointed” Collins. It is a shame the Collins amendment was not allowed a vote. But Senate oversight is no solution to the proliferation of czars under the Obama administration. The problem is much more fundamental to our Constitutional system and far predates President Barack Obama.
Yesterday the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule that would regulate greenhouse gas emissions from hundreds of power plants and large industrial facilities across the country. The EPA claims it has the authority to issue these regulations pursuant to the 1970 Clean Air Act which authorizes the EPA to regulate any source that emits more than 250 tons of a recognized “pollutant” each year. The problem is, the Clean Air Act was never intended to regulate carbon emissions so the 250 ton threshold would inflict job killing regulations on millions of small businesses nationwide. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis has estimated that if the EPA regulated carbon objectively under the law, the economy would suffer annual job losses exceeding 800,000 for several years and a cumulative GDP loss of $7 trillion by 2029
But EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says she has a solution to this problem. “We know the corner coffee shop is no place to look for meaningful carbon reductions,” said Jackson. This rule would not cover “every cow and Dunkin’ Donuts.” So Jackson has written the new rule to apply to only sources that emit at least 250,000 tons of greenhouse gas a year. But is that legal? Former EPA official Jeff Holmstead tells the Associated Press: “Normally, it takes an act of Congress to change the words of a statute enacted by Congress, and many of us are very curious to see EPA’s legal justification for today’s proposal.”
And that is the true danger behind a Czar State: the undermining of our Constitution and the rule of law in favor of an unconstitutional rule of experts. Boston University Law School professor Gary Lawson explains:
Many administrative agencies have authority over matters that are far removed from any of the enumerations in the Constitution. Typically, those agencies have power to promulgate rules under statutory mandates that are literally meaningless, such as mandates to set clean air standards “requisite to protect the public health”; to award broadcast licenses “if public convenience, interest, or necessity will be served thereby”; or to purchase real estate mortgages “the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability.” The agencies also often adjudicate matters under their statutes with only limited court review.
That would be exactly the sort of thing that the Constitution of 1788 is specifically designed to forbid–about as clearly unconstitutional as a title of nobility or a 28-year-old President. And that, of course, precisely describes the typical modern administrative agency in America.
The most egregious violation of this principle was the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act which granted the Secretary of the Treasury unchecked power to do whatever he wanted without any meaningful checks. The result was a schizophrenic management of the Troubled Asset Relief Program which undermined the rule of law, destroyed market confidence, and led to the nationalization of America’s largest automobile manufacturer. Did anyone in Congress believe they were voting for the government takeover of General Motors last September? No. Did anyone in Congress believe they were voting to allow the EPA the authority to regulate carbon emissions from Dunkin Donuts in 1970? No. Such are the evils of the Czar State.
The Washington Post consistently calls for legislation to tackle global warming instead of using the Clean Air Act as the Obama administration is moving to do. But the legislation introduced by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is no better at containing the EPA’s power than the Stabilization Act was at containing Treasury’s. According to the Post, Kerry-Boxer:
The measure also calls for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to set regulations overseeing the carbon trading market, though it does not specify what those rules would look like.. …And the bill does not spell out how those rebates would be distributed, just as it leaves open the question of how the federal government would allocate carbon allowances to ease the transition to a low-carbon economy.
In other words, Kerry-Boxer turns the fate of our economy over to the “experts” in the Obama Czar State with no chance for Americans to limit their power. 800,000 jobs lost a year. Cumulative GDP loss of $7 trillion by 2029. The harm caused by the destruction of the separation of powers just got a lot less theoretical.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Gun Case Puts Focus on Sotomayor & Future Nominees
September 30, 2009
Gun Case Puts Focus on Sotomayor & Future Nominees
CFJ Executive Director Curt Levey on the Supreme Court’s decision today to review the Chicago gun case:
“With the Supreme Court now set to decide in McDonald v. Chicago whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local gun laws, the focus is on the Court’s newest Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, and on President Obama’s future picks for the Court.
“Gun owners were alarmed by Sotomayor’s nomination to the Court, because of her ‘extreme anti-gun philosophy’ and record on the Second Circuit, in the words of former NRA president Sandy Froman. At her Senate hearing this summer, Sotomayor defended that record by saying that her hands were tied by old Supreme Court precedent. Now that she’s on the High Court, her hands are no longer tied. She will have a lot of explaining to do if she decides in McDonald that the right to keep and bear arms is the only significant right in the Bill of Rights that doesn’t apply to the states. Such a decision would indicate that she was not serious when she promised the Senate that she would put the rule of law above ideology.
“Today’s announcement ensures that gun owners will continue to play a big role in Supreme Court confirmations, just as they did this summer. The Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as an individual right, moved the battle over gun rights from the legislatures to the courts. That set the stage for gun owners to enter the judicial wars. The decision to review McDonald puts the future of gun rights back squarely in the Supreme Court, reinforcing the conviction among gun owners that their fate is now in the hands of judges and that their continued involvement in the judicial confirmation process is vital.
“Whatever the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald, it will further focus the Second Amendment community on the needs for constitutionalist judges. Heller was limited to federal gun laws and the District of Columbia, but most of the laws that worry gun owners are at the state and local level. If the McDonald decision recognizes an individual Second Amendment right at that level, the number of gun rights cases – and thus the importance of the judges issue to gun owners – will explode. Should the Supreme Court rule the other way in McDonald, the anger of gun owners will be a force to reckon with every time there’s a Supreme Court nomination.”
This article comes from The Commitee For Justice Blog
Gun Case Puts Focus on Sotomayor & Future Nominees
CFJ Executive Director Curt Levey on the Supreme Court’s decision today to review the Chicago gun case:
“With the Supreme Court now set to decide in McDonald v. Chicago whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local gun laws, the focus is on the Court’s newest Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, and on President Obama’s future picks for the Court.
“Gun owners were alarmed by Sotomayor’s nomination to the Court, because of her ‘extreme anti-gun philosophy’ and record on the Second Circuit, in the words of former NRA president Sandy Froman. At her Senate hearing this summer, Sotomayor defended that record by saying that her hands were tied by old Supreme Court precedent. Now that she’s on the High Court, her hands are no longer tied. She will have a lot of explaining to do if she decides in McDonald that the right to keep and bear arms is the only significant right in the Bill of Rights that doesn’t apply to the states. Such a decision would indicate that she was not serious when she promised the Senate that she would put the rule of law above ideology.
“Today’s announcement ensures that gun owners will continue to play a big role in Supreme Court confirmations, just as they did this summer. The Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as an individual right, moved the battle over gun rights from the legislatures to the courts. That set the stage for gun owners to enter the judicial wars. The decision to review McDonald puts the future of gun rights back squarely in the Supreme Court, reinforcing the conviction among gun owners that their fate is now in the hands of judges and that their continued involvement in the judicial confirmation process is vital.
“Whatever the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald, it will further focus the Second Amendment community on the needs for constitutionalist judges. Heller was limited to federal gun laws and the District of Columbia, but most of the laws that worry gun owners are at the state and local level. If the McDonald decision recognizes an individual Second Amendment right at that level, the number of gun rights cases – and thus the importance of the judges issue to gun owners – will explode. Should the Supreme Court rule the other way in McDonald, the anger of gun owners will be a force to reckon with every time there’s a Supreme Court nomination.”
This article comes from The Commitee For Justice Blog
A-HOLE OF THE WEEK
The way things are going in our great country I have decided to start a new weekly picture line up. It might be only one picture it might be more. As can be seen from the title It should be good.
MGC
Alan Grayson Dem-Florida
MGC
From The Heritage Foundation
Iran Conducts More Missile Tests, New Nuclear Site Found
On Monday, Iran once again defied the world and test-fired its longest-range ballistic missile, the Sejil-2. The Sejil-2 is capable of carrying a warhead 1,200 miles, putting American military bases in the Persian Gulf, Israel and southeastern Europe at risk. According to the Iranian state-run news agency, Fars, the tests were part of a planned military exercise, but Iran is clearly looking to send a message to the world. After the missile test launch, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard air force commander said, "We will give a fully decisive, crushing and destructive response to anyone who poses a threat to the existence, independence and freedom of the ruling system and our values."
Missile Defense News
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) on Canceled Missile Defense Shields
Iran’s Second Nuclear Site
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) on Friends and Enemies of Freedom
European Officials Love Missile Abandonment
These tests are even more disturbing considering that last week it was revealed that Iran had lied once again about its nuclear program. U.S. intelligence revealed information about a secret nuclear facility that Iran withheld from its report to the United Nation's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). After the nuclear site was exposed, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised to allow IAEA inspectors into the new nuclear enrichment facility.
Under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran is supposed to disclose all of its nuclear enrichment facilities. However, Iran has routinely violated U.N. directives in the past– this recent revelation of a second nuclear facility built in secret for years is a case in point– and there is little reason to believe that its behavior will suddenly improve.
The missile test and the nuclear facility discovery came just days before Iranian negotiators are meeting with members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany about the Iranian nuclear program. The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. and Western Allies are looking to target Iran with new financial sanctions.
Last week at the G-20 Summit, world leaders unleashed stern condemnation of Iran’s behavior, calling on Iran to cooperate and live up to its international commitments. As of yet, shaming seems a futile strategy for dealing with a state that does not play by the rules. A Wall Street Journal opinion column revealed that it was France’s President Nicholas Sarkozy, and not President Obama, who called for harsher measures against Iran, saying:
"I support America's 'extended hand.' But what have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community? Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges. And last but not least, it has resulted in a statement by Iranian leaders calling for wiping off the map a Member of the United Nations. What are we to do? What conclusions are we to draw? At a certain moment hard facts will force us to make decisions."
Clearly, President Obama must face reality: Iran is not a distant, ambiguous threat. Rhetoric and posturing are not enough to protect the American people. Tomorrow when U.S. officials and other representatives of the U.N. Security Council meet with Iranian officials in Geneva, the world will be watching to see if the Obama Administration is willing to get tough with the rogue state to ensure a secure future.
On Monday, Iran once again defied the world and test-fired its longest-range ballistic missile, the Sejil-2. The Sejil-2 is capable of carrying a warhead 1,200 miles, putting American military bases in the Persian Gulf, Israel and southeastern Europe at risk. According to the Iranian state-run news agency, Fars, the tests were part of a planned military exercise, but Iran is clearly looking to send a message to the world. After the missile test launch, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard air force commander said, "We will give a fully decisive, crushing and destructive response to anyone who poses a threat to the existence, independence and freedom of the ruling system and our values."
Missile Defense News
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) on Canceled Missile Defense Shields
Iran’s Second Nuclear Site
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) on Friends and Enemies of Freedom
European Officials Love Missile Abandonment
These tests are even more disturbing considering that last week it was revealed that Iran had lied once again about its nuclear program. U.S. intelligence revealed information about a secret nuclear facility that Iran withheld from its report to the United Nation's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). After the nuclear site was exposed, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised to allow IAEA inspectors into the new nuclear enrichment facility.
Under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran is supposed to disclose all of its nuclear enrichment facilities. However, Iran has routinely violated U.N. directives in the past– this recent revelation of a second nuclear facility built in secret for years is a case in point– and there is little reason to believe that its behavior will suddenly improve.
The missile test and the nuclear facility discovery came just days before Iranian negotiators are meeting with members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany about the Iranian nuclear program. The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. and Western Allies are looking to target Iran with new financial sanctions.
Last week at the G-20 Summit, world leaders unleashed stern condemnation of Iran’s behavior, calling on Iran to cooperate and live up to its international commitments. As of yet, shaming seems a futile strategy for dealing with a state that does not play by the rules. A Wall Street Journal opinion column revealed that it was France’s President Nicholas Sarkozy, and not President Obama, who called for harsher measures against Iran, saying:
"I support America's 'extended hand.' But what have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community? Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges. And last but not least, it has resulted in a statement by Iranian leaders calling for wiping off the map a Member of the United Nations. What are we to do? What conclusions are we to draw? At a certain moment hard facts will force us to make decisions."
Clearly, President Obama must face reality: Iran is not a distant, ambiguous threat. Rhetoric and posturing are not enough to protect the American people. Tomorrow when U.S. officials and other representatives of the U.N. Security Council meet with Iranian officials in Geneva, the world will be watching to see if the Obama Administration is willing to get tough with the rogue state to ensure a secure future.
The Morning Bell
The Morning Bell
WEDNESDAY, SEPT 30, 2009
Government-run Health Care By Next Thursday?
The Washington Post front page blares today: “Prospects for Public Option Dim in Senate.” Don’t believe it. Yes, the Senate Finance Committee did vote down two amendments that each would have added a government-run insurance plan to the committee’s health care bill. But two key Democratic Senators who voted against Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s (D-WV) public plan, Sens. Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Tom Carper (D-DE), voted for Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) version.
Recent Entries
Hollywood’s Selective Values: Where is the Liberal Outrage?
In the Green Room: Virginia Walden Ford on Sept. 30th DC School Choice Rally
Bad Dreams, the French Sting and the World’s Nuclear Realities
“A Failure of Leadership” in Confronting Terrorism
If Obamacare Is So Great…
According to an independent analysis of Senate Democrat public statements on the public option, that raises the number of Democrats on record supporting a public option from 47 to 49. Moreover, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), chairmen of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, told the liberal “Bill Press Radio Show” yesterday that Democrats “comfortably” have the remaining votes to reach 51 and pass a public plan once the debate moves to the House floor.
But what about Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus’ (D-MT) claim yesterday that, “No one has been able to show me how we can count up to 60 votes with a public option.” That may be true, but it is also irrelevant. The question is not whether Democrats can muster 60 votes to pass Obamacare; they only need 51 votes to do that. The only time the number 60 will be relevant is when the Senate votes on whether to end debate and vote on the final bill. This is a separate question. We can see Senators from red states like Ben Nelson (D-NE), Blanch Lincoln (D-AR), and Kent Conrad (D-ND) voting against an amendment creating a public option. But voting with Republicans against their party and against their President to support a Republican filibuster? That would take a lot of courage. It would guarantee that these Democrats would face fierce opposition from their leftist bases back home. Just ask the left’s new whip for the public option, Michael Moore. Speaking to women’s groups and unions in Washington, DC, yesterday, Moore warned:
To the Democrats in Congress who don’t quite get it: I want to offer a personal pledge. I – and a lot of other people – have every intention of removing you from Congress in the next election if you stand in the way of health care legislation that the people want. That is not a hollow or idle threat. We will come to your district and we will work against you, first in the primary and, if we have to, in the general election.
Moore is, of course, the perfect spokesman for the public option. He is in Washington promoting his new film “Capitalism: A Love Story” in which Moore argues that “Capitalism is an evil, and you can’t regulate evil.” A more succinct summation of theory behind the public option does not exist. While supporters of the plan, including the White House, insist that the purpose of the public option is to bring “choice and competition” to the health care, nothing could be further from the truth. As Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Anthony Weiner (D-NY) Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein, and Noble Prize winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman have all candidly admitted, the public option is nothing more than a Trojan horse for a single-payer, government-run health care system. Moore even told Rolling Stone magazine this summer:
If a true public option is enacted — and Obama knows this — it will eventually bring about a single payer system, because the profit-making insurance companies won’t be able to compete with a government run plan and make the profits they want to make.
So just how close are we to being inflicted with the Obama/Moore dream of anti-capitalist, competition-free, government-run health care? Closer than many realize. Multiple sources on the Hill have told The Foundry that as early as next week, the Senate could be debating Obamacare. Senate Majority Leader Reid has stated an intention to take the HELP Committee product and merge it with the Senate Finance Committee markup that is expected to be over by this Thursday or Friday. Their plan is to proceed to a House passed non-health care bill to provide a shell of legislation to give Obamacare a ride to the House and then straight to the President’s desk.
WEDNESDAY, SEPT 30, 2009
Government-run Health Care By Next Thursday?
The Washington Post front page blares today: “Prospects for Public Option Dim in Senate.” Don’t believe it. Yes, the Senate Finance Committee did vote down two amendments that each would have added a government-run insurance plan to the committee’s health care bill. But two key Democratic Senators who voted against Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s (D-WV) public plan, Sens. Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Tom Carper (D-DE), voted for Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) version.
Recent Entries
Hollywood’s Selective Values: Where is the Liberal Outrage?
In the Green Room: Virginia Walden Ford on Sept. 30th DC School Choice Rally
Bad Dreams, the French Sting and the World’s Nuclear Realities
“A Failure of Leadership” in Confronting Terrorism
If Obamacare Is So Great…
According to an independent analysis of Senate Democrat public statements on the public option, that raises the number of Democrats on record supporting a public option from 47 to 49. Moreover, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), chairmen of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, told the liberal “Bill Press Radio Show” yesterday that Democrats “comfortably” have the remaining votes to reach 51 and pass a public plan once the debate moves to the House floor.
But what about Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus’ (D-MT) claim yesterday that, “No one has been able to show me how we can count up to 60 votes with a public option.” That may be true, but it is also irrelevant. The question is not whether Democrats can muster 60 votes to pass Obamacare; they only need 51 votes to do that. The only time the number 60 will be relevant is when the Senate votes on whether to end debate and vote on the final bill. This is a separate question. We can see Senators from red states like Ben Nelson (D-NE), Blanch Lincoln (D-AR), and Kent Conrad (D-ND) voting against an amendment creating a public option. But voting with Republicans against their party and against their President to support a Republican filibuster? That would take a lot of courage. It would guarantee that these Democrats would face fierce opposition from their leftist bases back home. Just ask the left’s new whip for the public option, Michael Moore. Speaking to women’s groups and unions in Washington, DC, yesterday, Moore warned:
To the Democrats in Congress who don’t quite get it: I want to offer a personal pledge. I – and a lot of other people – have every intention of removing you from Congress in the next election if you stand in the way of health care legislation that the people want. That is not a hollow or idle threat. We will come to your district and we will work against you, first in the primary and, if we have to, in the general election.
Moore is, of course, the perfect spokesman for the public option. He is in Washington promoting his new film “Capitalism: A Love Story” in which Moore argues that “Capitalism is an evil, and you can’t regulate evil.” A more succinct summation of theory behind the public option does not exist. While supporters of the plan, including the White House, insist that the purpose of the public option is to bring “choice and competition” to the health care, nothing could be further from the truth. As Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Anthony Weiner (D-NY) Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein, and Noble Prize winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman have all candidly admitted, the public option is nothing more than a Trojan horse for a single-payer, government-run health care system. Moore even told Rolling Stone magazine this summer:
If a true public option is enacted — and Obama knows this — it will eventually bring about a single payer system, because the profit-making insurance companies won’t be able to compete with a government run plan and make the profits they want to make.
So just how close are we to being inflicted with the Obama/Moore dream of anti-capitalist, competition-free, government-run health care? Closer than many realize. Multiple sources on the Hill have told The Foundry that as early as next week, the Senate could be debating Obamacare. Senate Majority Leader Reid has stated an intention to take the HELP Committee product and merge it with the Senate Finance Committee markup that is expected to be over by this Thursday or Friday. Their plan is to proceed to a House passed non-health care bill to provide a shell of legislation to give Obamacare a ride to the House and then straight to the President’s desk.
GOP LEADER ALERT 9-30-09
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 30, 2009
PERMALINK
CONTACT: Michael Steel, Antonia Ferrier, Kevin Smith - (202) 225-4000
Boehner Statement on Carter Resolution to Remove Rep. Rangel as Ways & Means Chairman
WASHINGTON, DC – House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement after Rep. John Carter (R-TX) announced his intention to offer a privileged resolution next week to force a vote on removing Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) as Chairman of the Ways & Means Committee, pending completion of the Ethics Committee investigation that is now in its second year:
“Working families across America are struggling in today’s economy, and they need to have confidence that the individual in charge of the House’s tax-writing panel is following the laws the committee is charged with crafting and overseeing. It is improper for Rep. Rangel to remain in a position with such vast power and influence while serious questions about his official conduct continue to multiply and go unanswered. Several weeks ago I wrote a letter to Rep. Rangel asking him to step aside while the Ethics Committee conducts its investigation. He has not done so, and his fellow Democrats have voted to protect him every step of the way.
“When Democrats took the majority, Speaker Pelosi promised the most ‘open and ethical’ Congress in history. Given the nature and severity of the charges against Rep. Rangel, I would urge all my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, to do the right thing and support the Carter resolution next week.”
PERMALINK
CONTACT: Michael Steel, Antonia Ferrier, Kevin Smith - (202) 225-4000
Boehner Statement on Carter Resolution to Remove Rep. Rangel as Ways & Means Chairman
WASHINGTON, DC – House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement after Rep. John Carter (R-TX) announced his intention to offer a privileged resolution next week to force a vote on removing Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) as Chairman of the Ways & Means Committee, pending completion of the Ethics Committee investigation that is now in its second year:
“Working families across America are struggling in today’s economy, and they need to have confidence that the individual in charge of the House’s tax-writing panel is following the laws the committee is charged with crafting and overseeing. It is improper for Rep. Rangel to remain in a position with such vast power and influence while serious questions about his official conduct continue to multiply and go unanswered. Several weeks ago I wrote a letter to Rep. Rangel asking him to step aside while the Ethics Committee conducts its investigation. He has not done so, and his fellow Democrats have voted to protect him every step of the way.
“When Democrats took the majority, Speaker Pelosi promised the most ‘open and ethical’ Congress in history. Given the nature and severity of the charges against Rep. Rangel, I would urge all my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, to do the right thing and support the Carter resolution next week.”
The Good The Bad The Ugly
I found the whole show interesting But in one segment Glenn is interviewing a guest about the Islamonazi Achmed Yabadabadoo. When the guest stated that Yabadabadoo admitted to being in direct contact with the Messiah ( And I don't mean Barry O ) The look on Glenn's face mirrored my own and my sons who was also watching the show.
All we can hope for is that Yabadabadoo's Messiah tells him to take a leap off of a very tall building before the whack job gets a chance to try out his shiny new nuclear missiles.
Thanks to Patriots Network for the full show video
MGC
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Red Stars (Soviet Union -era Pioneer Song)
I grew up seeing images of young Russians,Chicoms, Norks and East Germans to mention a few singing and spouting poetry about the joys of communism and it's leaders. And it disturbs me greatly to see that the Marxists have infiltrated the American school system to such an extent that they feel it is just fine to post school children singing praise to Barry O. If indeed we can vote these people out of office in the years to come I think the Republicans will need to focus on rebuiling the education system.
MGC
Monday, September 28, 2009
GOP LEADER ALERT 9-28-09
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 28, 2009
PERMALINK
CONTACT: Michael Steel, Antonia Ferrier, Kevin Smith - (202) 225-4000
Boehner & Rogers Join GOP Governors in Speaking Out Against Unfunded Mandates in Democratic Health Care Scheme
WASHINGTON, DC – House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), Leader Boehner's liaison to the nation's governors, today echoed a growing number of state leaders in warning about the devastating fiscal impact the health care bills proposed by Congressional Democrats would have on both states and future generations of Americans.
“Health care reform that wreaks fiscal havoc on states and piles debt on our children and grandchildren is not reform at all," Boehner said. “President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid need to scrap this costly government takeover of health care and start over on a responsible health care reform plan our nation can afford.”
In recent days, letters sounding the alarm about the congressional bills' impact on states have been sent to the Capitol Hill by GOP governors such as Haley Barbour (MS), Mitch Daniels (IN), Dave Heineman (NE), and Rick Perry (TX).
“State budgets around the country are feeling the squeeze of tough economic times. Unfortunately, after passing a $1,700 per family national energy tax, Democratic leaders in Washington are now trying to ram through a $1 trillion massive federal expansion into health care that will create yet another unfunded mandate on states by permanently expanding Medicaid,” said Rogers. “This is yet another example of how out of touch Washington has become and why Congress needs to start over on common-sense, affordable, free market health care solutions.”
Boehner, Rogers and Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) have launched the GOP State Solutions project, an effort to increase policy coordination among reform-minded Republican state leaders and Members of Congress and highlight the better solutions being offered by Republicans at all levels of government. In July, through the GOP State Solutions project, Boehner and Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) co-authored a report entitled "Capital Malpractice" warning that the health care bills moving through the Democratic-controlled Congress with President Obama's support would have a devastating impact on states.
An article in the Sept. 27 Wall Street Journal echoes a key point made in the Boehner-Pawlenty report, describing the proposal offered by Senate Democrats as "the mother – and father and crazy uncle – of unfunded mandates" on states. "One reason [the Senate Democrat bill] allegedly 'pays for itself' over 10 years is because it would break all 50 state budgets by permanently expanding Medicaid, the joint state-federal program for the poor," the WSJ notes. "State budgets would explode – by $37 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office – because they would no longer be allowed to set eligibility in line with their own decisions about taxes and spending."
PERMALINK
CONTACT: Michael Steel, Antonia Ferrier, Kevin Smith - (202) 225-4000
Boehner & Rogers Join GOP Governors in Speaking Out Against Unfunded Mandates in Democratic Health Care Scheme
WASHINGTON, DC – House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), Leader Boehner's liaison to the nation's governors, today echoed a growing number of state leaders in warning about the devastating fiscal impact the health care bills proposed by Congressional Democrats would have on both states and future generations of Americans.
“Health care reform that wreaks fiscal havoc on states and piles debt on our children and grandchildren is not reform at all," Boehner said. “President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid need to scrap this costly government takeover of health care and start over on a responsible health care reform plan our nation can afford.”
In recent days, letters sounding the alarm about the congressional bills' impact on states have been sent to the Capitol Hill by GOP governors such as Haley Barbour (MS), Mitch Daniels (IN), Dave Heineman (NE), and Rick Perry (TX).
“State budgets around the country are feeling the squeeze of tough economic times. Unfortunately, after passing a $1,700 per family national energy tax, Democratic leaders in Washington are now trying to ram through a $1 trillion massive federal expansion into health care that will create yet another unfunded mandate on states by permanently expanding Medicaid,” said Rogers. “This is yet another example of how out of touch Washington has become and why Congress needs to start over on common-sense, affordable, free market health care solutions.”
Boehner, Rogers and Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) have launched the GOP State Solutions project, an effort to increase policy coordination among reform-minded Republican state leaders and Members of Congress and highlight the better solutions being offered by Republicans at all levels of government. In July, through the GOP State Solutions project, Boehner and Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) co-authored a report entitled "Capital Malpractice" warning that the health care bills moving through the Democratic-controlled Congress with President Obama's support would have a devastating impact on states.
An article in the Sept. 27 Wall Street Journal echoes a key point made in the Boehner-Pawlenty report, describing the proposal offered by Senate Democrats as "the mother – and father and crazy uncle – of unfunded mandates" on states. "One reason [the Senate Democrat bill] allegedly 'pays for itself' over 10 years is because it would break all 50 state budgets by permanently expanding Medicaid, the joint state-federal program for the poor," the WSJ notes. "State budgets would explode – by $37 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office – because they would no longer be allowed to set eligibility in line with their own decisions about taxes and spending."
The Heritage Foundation
Energy & Environment Update
Advancing freedom and prosperity by unleashing free enterprise, protecting America's energy interests, and advancing free global energy markets.
Recent Updates
If You're Paul Krugman, It's Easy Lying About Cap and Trade
Spanish & Solar: A Model to Follow or a Cautionary Tale?
Liberal Senators Dodge Tough Climate Votes
Since Americans are Teenagers, They Won’t Understand Greenhouse Gases
The Math on Chinese Emissions
Panel of Experts See No Stimulus from Cap and Trade
Featured Research
The American Conservation and Clean Energy Independence Act: A Bipartisan Pro-Energy Bill
By Ben Lieberman
It is rare these days to see a congressional bill that is both bipartisan and worthwhile. This is even more true for a controversial and polarizing topic like energy. But the American Conservation and Clean Energy Independence Act (H.R. 2227) is one such bill. Its measures to increase America's offshore oil and natural gas production more than make up for the bill's shortcomings.
Unlike the leading competing bill, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2009 (H.R. 3534), which offers nothing but lower domestic energy supplies and higher prices, this is a pro-energy measure that deserves serious consideration.
>> Click here to read Ben Lieberman's full report
For information on cap and trade, visit Heritage's Rapid Response page, which features research, commentary, blog posts, charts and additional policy resources.
Global Warming on the Hill
After dodging tough climate-related votes last week, liberal Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) plan to introduce their global warming legislation on Wednesday. While details have yet to emerge, it promises to be closely modeled after the House-passed legislation that would have resulted in 1.9 million fewer jobs in 2012.
Last week, Senator Kerry tried a new rhetorical formulation to describe their legislation. He said, “I don't know what ‘cap and trade’ means. I don't think the average American does. This is not a cap-and-trade bill, it's a pollution reduction bill.” Observers should realize that any policy that seeks to cap or tax carbon emissions will result in fewer jobs, higher energy costs and a less dynamic economy.
About The Heritage Foundation
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
Advancing freedom and prosperity by unleashing free enterprise, protecting America's energy interests, and advancing free global energy markets.
Recent Updates
If You're Paul Krugman, It's Easy Lying About Cap and Trade
Spanish & Solar: A Model to Follow or a Cautionary Tale?
Liberal Senators Dodge Tough Climate Votes
Since Americans are Teenagers, They Won’t Understand Greenhouse Gases
The Math on Chinese Emissions
Panel of Experts See No Stimulus from Cap and Trade
Featured Research
The American Conservation and Clean Energy Independence Act: A Bipartisan Pro-Energy Bill
By Ben Lieberman
It is rare these days to see a congressional bill that is both bipartisan and worthwhile. This is even more true for a controversial and polarizing topic like energy. But the American Conservation and Clean Energy Independence Act (H.R. 2227) is one such bill. Its measures to increase America's offshore oil and natural gas production more than make up for the bill's shortcomings.
Unlike the leading competing bill, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2009 (H.R. 3534), which offers nothing but lower domestic energy supplies and higher prices, this is a pro-energy measure that deserves serious consideration.
>> Click here to read Ben Lieberman's full report
For information on cap and trade, visit Heritage's Rapid Response page, which features research, commentary, blog posts, charts and additional policy resources.
Global Warming on the Hill
After dodging tough climate-related votes last week, liberal Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) plan to introduce their global warming legislation on Wednesday. While details have yet to emerge, it promises to be closely modeled after the House-passed legislation that would have resulted in 1.9 million fewer jobs in 2012.
Last week, Senator Kerry tried a new rhetorical formulation to describe their legislation. He said, “I don't know what ‘cap and trade’ means. I don't think the average American does. This is not a cap-and-trade bill, it's a pollution reduction bill.” Observers should realize that any policy that seeks to cap or tax carbon emissions will result in fewer jobs, higher energy costs and a less dynamic economy.
About The Heritage Foundation
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
The Morning Bell
The Morning Bell
MONDAY, SEPT 28, 2009
Obama Must Lead On Afghanistan
On March 27th, President Barack Obama followed through on one of his core campaign promises and announced a New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan that included sending an additional 21,000 troops to the region. Speaking from the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Obama explained:
Recent Entries
How the Baucus Bill Kills Jobs
Seven Things to Note on Iran
Video: Fix Our $43 Trillion Entitlement Problem First
If You’re Paul Krugman, It’s Easy Lying About Cap and Trade
Feds Target Yard Sales
“Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban — or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged — that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can. …But this is not simply an American problem — far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in London and Bali were tied to al Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and in Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it, too, is likely to have ties to al Qaeda’s leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake.”
So according to President Obama, victory against the Taliban in Afghanistan is not only essential for the security of the United States, but for “the safety of people around the world.” We couldn’t agree more, which is why it is so alarming to learn that President Obama is considering a different strategy advocated by Vice President Joe Biden. Just as Biden opposed the successful surge in Iraq, Biden now opposes a surge in Afghanistan, instead favoring withdrawing most U.S. troops leaving only special forces and predator drones to strike al Qaeda cells. Biden was wrong about Iraq and he is wrong about Afghanistan. Heritage fellow James Phillips explains:
The war in Afghanistan cannot be effectively waged merely with air power, predator drones, and special forces. In the late 1990s, the Clinton Administration hurled cruise missiles at easily replaceable al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, but this “chuck and duck” strategy failed to blunt the al-Qaeda threat. The Bush Administration’s minimalist approach to Afghanistan in 2001 was a contributing factor that allowed Osama bin Laden to escape from his mountain redoubt at Tora Bora. Afterwards, Washington opted to focus narrowly on counterterrorism goals in Afghanistan–rather than counterinsurgency operations–in order to free up military assets for the war in Iraq. This allowed the Taliban to regroup across the border in Pakistan and make a violent resurgence. The “small footprint” strategy also failed in Iraq, before it was abandoned in favor of General Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy, backed by the surge of American troops, in early 2007.
Despite this record of failure, some stubbornly continue to support an “offshore” strategy for landlocked Afghanistan today. But half-measures–the hallmark of the “small footprint” strategy–will not work. Precise intelligence is needed to use smart bombs smartly. Yet few Afghans would risk their lives to provide such intelligence unless they are assured of protection against the Taliban’s ruthless retaliation.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates seconded this analysis this Sunday telling ABC News’ This Week:
I think that most people who — the people that I’ve talked to in the Pentagon who are the experts on counter-terrorism essentially say that counter-terrorism is only possible if you have the kind of intelligence that allows you to target the terrorists. And the only way you get that intelligence is by being on the ground — getting information from people like the Afghans or, in the case of Iraq, the Iraqis.
And so you can’t do this from — from a distance or remotely, in the view of virtually all of the experts that I’ve talked to.
The security of the United States and the “safety of people around the world” depend on President Obama ignoring Biden and listening to Gates on this particular point. But listening to Gates will not be enough. The American people are unsure about which strategy to pursue in Afghanistan. According to Gallup, 41% of Americans favor withdrawing troops from the country while 41% favor increasing troop levels. Gallup’s Frank Newport adds: “The data indicate that Republicans do seem willing to support Obama should he make a decision to increase U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan. On the other hand, Democrats seem willing to oppose Obama in this case.”
If anybody can convince liberals to support victory in Afghanistan it is President Obama. Health care is important. But so is national security. According to the Washington Post, Obama has scheduled at least five meetings with his national security team over the next two weeks to reexamine the strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. When this review is completed, the President should announce his decision in a nationally televised speech. He should explain to the American people what is at stake in Afghanistan, why it is necessary to make continued sacrifices to defeat distant enemies there, and why the war is not only necessary, but winnable. President Obama’s March troop surge has not even been implemented yet. The President needs to win over his own party in Washington before U.S. forces can defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.
MONDAY, SEPT 28, 2009
Obama Must Lead On Afghanistan
On March 27th, President Barack Obama followed through on one of his core campaign promises and announced a New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan that included sending an additional 21,000 troops to the region. Speaking from the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Obama explained:
Recent Entries
How the Baucus Bill Kills Jobs
Seven Things to Note on Iran
Video: Fix Our $43 Trillion Entitlement Problem First
If You’re Paul Krugman, It’s Easy Lying About Cap and Trade
Feds Target Yard Sales
“Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban — or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged — that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can. …But this is not simply an American problem — far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in London and Bali were tied to al Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and in Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it, too, is likely to have ties to al Qaeda’s leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake.”
So according to President Obama, victory against the Taliban in Afghanistan is not only essential for the security of the United States, but for “the safety of people around the world.” We couldn’t agree more, which is why it is so alarming to learn that President Obama is considering a different strategy advocated by Vice President Joe Biden. Just as Biden opposed the successful surge in Iraq, Biden now opposes a surge in Afghanistan, instead favoring withdrawing most U.S. troops leaving only special forces and predator drones to strike al Qaeda cells. Biden was wrong about Iraq and he is wrong about Afghanistan. Heritage fellow James Phillips explains:
The war in Afghanistan cannot be effectively waged merely with air power, predator drones, and special forces. In the late 1990s, the Clinton Administration hurled cruise missiles at easily replaceable al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, but this “chuck and duck” strategy failed to blunt the al-Qaeda threat. The Bush Administration’s minimalist approach to Afghanistan in 2001 was a contributing factor that allowed Osama bin Laden to escape from his mountain redoubt at Tora Bora. Afterwards, Washington opted to focus narrowly on counterterrorism goals in Afghanistan–rather than counterinsurgency operations–in order to free up military assets for the war in Iraq. This allowed the Taliban to regroup across the border in Pakistan and make a violent resurgence. The “small footprint” strategy also failed in Iraq, before it was abandoned in favor of General Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy, backed by the surge of American troops, in early 2007.
Despite this record of failure, some stubbornly continue to support an “offshore” strategy for landlocked Afghanistan today. But half-measures–the hallmark of the “small footprint” strategy–will not work. Precise intelligence is needed to use smart bombs smartly. Yet few Afghans would risk their lives to provide such intelligence unless they are assured of protection against the Taliban’s ruthless retaliation.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates seconded this analysis this Sunday telling ABC News’ This Week:
I think that most people who — the people that I’ve talked to in the Pentagon who are the experts on counter-terrorism essentially say that counter-terrorism is only possible if you have the kind of intelligence that allows you to target the terrorists. And the only way you get that intelligence is by being on the ground — getting information from people like the Afghans or, in the case of Iraq, the Iraqis.
And so you can’t do this from — from a distance or remotely, in the view of virtually all of the experts that I’ve talked to.
The security of the United States and the “safety of people around the world” depend on President Obama ignoring Biden and listening to Gates on this particular point. But listening to Gates will not be enough. The American people are unsure about which strategy to pursue in Afghanistan. According to Gallup, 41% of Americans favor withdrawing troops from the country while 41% favor increasing troop levels. Gallup’s Frank Newport adds: “The data indicate that Republicans do seem willing to support Obama should he make a decision to increase U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan. On the other hand, Democrats seem willing to oppose Obama in this case.”
If anybody can convince liberals to support victory in Afghanistan it is President Obama. Health care is important. But so is national security. According to the Washington Post, Obama has scheduled at least five meetings with his national security team over the next two weeks to reexamine the strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. When this review is completed, the President should announce his decision in a nationally televised speech. He should explain to the American people what is at stake in Afghanistan, why it is necessary to make continued sacrifices to defeat distant enemies there, and why the war is not only necessary, but winnable. President Obama’s March troop surge has not even been implemented yet. The President needs to win over his own party in Washington before U.S. forces can defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
