Category — Joe Lieberman

Perhaps the courts are a place to crush this bit of silliness. That cuts out the media and Hollyweird along with most of the pinkos in congress.
The destruction of the world’s economy through burning food as fuel combined with strangling fossil fuel production is here. Witness $4/gal gas, corn and wheat prices and a serious spike in stupidity in politicians.
This makes for interesting reading as well as enlightenment. Of course, there are some who prefer to sit in dark closets.

Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas

You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. [snip]

Most of the clowns running for office have this climate nonsense hook firmly in the gullet. Help them get it out by voting them out of office.

In hope of re-election, many RINO’s have signed on to this idiocy.

Projections from the power producers show am increase for residential electricity of between $800.00 and $2200 per annum for each household.

The trading “fees” for all companies that exceed a to be determined level shall go to renewable generation; included are all sources that are unsustainable without massive government largess: Wind, organic waste (excluding incinerated municipal solid waste); biomass and hydroelectric, geothermal, solar thermal, photovoltaic, tidal, wave, or other nonfossil fuel, nonnuclear source.

Most of the aforementioned methods fell to the wayside as either inefficient, unreliable or extremely expensive. The square miles essential to install wind farms or solar panels able to generate the power mandatory for the country is immense. Unless we are returning to the Bronze Age, then power needs radically ebb.

Of course, large corporations such as GE will profit from strong-arming the taxpayers by promising magical inventions for the Gaian believers.

And you thought the era of cottage industries ended.

S.317

Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)

TITLE I–GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

SEC. 101. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.

(a) In General- The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`TITLE VII–GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

`SEC. 701. DEFINITIONS.

`In this title:

`(1) AFFECTED UNIT-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `affected unit’ means an electric generating facility that–
`(i) has a nameplate capacity greater than 25 megawatts;
`(ii) combusts greenhouse gas-emitting fuels; and
`(iii) generates electricity for sale.

`(B) INCLUSIONS- The term `affected unit’ includes–
`(i) a cogeneration facility; and
`(ii) a facility owned or operated by any instrumentality of–
`(I) the Federal Government; or
`(II) any State, local, or tribal government.

`SEC. 712. SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF THE SAFE CLIMATE LEVEL.

`(a) Definition and Objective of Maintaining the Safe Climate Level-
`(1) FINDING- Congress finds that ratification by the Senate in 1992 of the UNFCCC, commitments which were affirmed by the President in 2002, established for the United States an objective of `stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’.
`(2) DEFINITION OF SAFE CLIMATE LEVEL- In this section, the term `safe climate level’ means the climate level referred to in paragraph (1).
[…]
`(3) COMPOSITION-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The Panel shall be composed of 8 climate scientists and 3 former Federal officials, as described in subparagraphs (B) through (D).

`(B) CLIMATE SCIENTISTS- Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this title, the President of the National Academy of Sciences shall appoint to serve on the Panel 8 climate scientists from among individuals who–

No call for a climatologist in this mob.

`(i) have earned doctorate degrees;
`(ii) have performed research in physical, biological, or social sciences, mathematics, economics, or related fields, with a particular focus on or link to 1 or more aspects of climate science;
`(iii) have records of peer-reviewed publications that include–
`(I) publications in main-stream, high-quality scientific journals (such as journals associated with respected scientific societies or those with a high impact factor, as determined by the Institute for Scientific Information);
`(II) recent publications relating to earth systems, and particularly relating to the climate system; and
`(III) a high publication rate, typically at least 2 or 3 papers per year; and
`(iv) have participated in high-level committees, such as those formed by the National Academy of Sciences or by leading scientific societies.

At the risk of looking like I’m picking on my friend DJ Drummond, I’m going to respond to another of his posts. Who does he blame for Republican’s minority status?

You did that. Yes, you. So did I. The cast is made up of folks who either caused the fights and derailed the discussion, or they stood by and let it happen.

You have the causality backwards. The problem is those discussions weren’t happening. The more conservative elements in the party held their tongues for the better part of 5 years. We felt it was our patriotic duty to support a wartime president. Conservatives bit their tongues so hard they were practically bleeding when President Bush let Ted Kennedy rewrite the education laws and government was spiraling out of control.

All those years of frustration hit the boiling point when the president nominated Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. He promised us justices in the Scalia and Thomas mold, but nominated an unknown and apparently unqualified (he fired her from the White House) personal lawyer to sit on our nations highest court.

The president wasn’t and isn’t implementing a conservative agenda and the Miers’ nomination really brought that fact home for a lot of people. Democrats might be happy to have Democrats in office, but conservatives are a lot smarter than that. They demand results. Results this president simply hasn’t delivered, so exactly how long are we suppose to keep hoping that it changes?

So, here we are. Republicans are the minority party…

Do they deserve to be in the majority? It’s really hard to make that case given what they did when they were entrusted with power. Conservatives tore a hole out of their head to run Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle out of town. They gave the president both Houses of Congress and fought off the traditional loses in off election years. We gave them an opportunity that they proceeded to squander. What more can we do?

the public does not trust anyone in office because pretty much all the character attacks left marks, some of the best-qualified people are staying out or leaving the work because of how anyone gets treated, who seriously tries to tackle the hard jobs, and the tone of debate on issues has gotten so foul that no discussion ever lasts even an hour before personal attacks begin.

Like Lindsey Graham calling us bigots? Or the president saying people who opposed the bill didn’t want to do what was right for America? And let’s face it; much of the criticism is justified. The president hasn’t taken any meaningful steps to secure the border and it’s been over 5 years since 9/11, so all of the sudden were all suppose to fall in line when he says he’s serious about border security?

[Read more →]

Would Joe Lieberman make a good Republican vice-presidential candidate in 2008?  He’s smart, independent, and strong on defense.  He claims to be liberal on domestic issues.  However, he’s conservative enough that the moonbats tried to dump him for Ned Lamont, and he wouldn’t be worse than Senators Snowe, Collins, or Specter.

It’s an intriguing idea, but if McCain or Guiliani win the nomination look for them to shore up the party’s base with a strong conservative pick.  President Bush picked Cheney for exactly the same reason.  Lieberman might be an interesting possibility if by some miracle we actually got a conservative like Tom Tancredo or Newt Gingrich for the top of the ticket because he’d provide a lot of balance.

Shocking! Mark Foley, a Republican, had online chat sex while waiting to cast a vote in the House. Have Republicans no respect for public office? They are so corrupt that they’ll do anything to hold onto power. Did I mention he was a Republican? Why nobody has had this much disrespect for public office since Bill Clinton got a blowjob in the Oval Office while talking about sending US troops into Bosnia—errh—that’s Bill Clinton’s personal business. It was just sex so nobody should be concerned about that one bit or the fact that he committed perjury under oath while this nation’s top law enforcement officer. And in no way was the resulting scandal a distraction for his administration or its response to al Qaeda terrorism. Go Hillary in ’08!

The previous paragraph is what liberals want you to believe, but look at the end results. Foley is gone and a criminal investigation is under way. That’s the right thing to do with a guy for whom there is no defense. Democrats fought tooth and nail to keep Bill Clinton. Joe Lieberman was the lone Democrat to imply that he did anything wrong. Want another example? William Jefferson (D-LA) and Tom Delay (R-TX) both charged with corruption. Which one is no longer serving in Congress? (Hint: It’s not the Democrat.) So remind me again which party will do anything to hold onto power?

North Korea test fired a series of missiles today. One of which, the Taepodong-2, is capable of reaching the United States. Fortunately, President Bush withdrew the United States from treaties limiting our development of missile shield technology, moved the program forward, and recently activated the shield.

It’s hard to overemphasize how important that decision was when the world is grappling with a nuclear armed North Korea that is test launching missiles. If we had listened to Democrats on this issue, our only option would be invading North Korea.

Numerous Democrats were against missile defense at one point or another. Now that even a blind man can see the threat, many have changed their initial positions, but it doesn’t take much digging to find their original thoughts:

“Up to now, you have set this summer as the deadline for announcing a decision on the deployment of a National Missile Defense (NMD) system. We are writing to urge you to delay such a decision and not to take any steps toward deployment at this time.

“Last weekend’s test failure demonstrates that it is too early to know whether deploying a cost-effective NMD system will be possible in the near future and whether it will provide real protection against the potential threat from emerging nuclear powers.

A nuclear missile hitting Los Angeles wouldn’t be “cost-effective” either, but apparently Democrats were more than happy to take that risk.

“We fear that a decision to deploy would imperil, not improve, our national security. Both Russia and China have said they will respond with a new buildup of their own nuclear forces. Furthermore, our allies have expressed grave concern about the impact deployment would have on international strategic stability

Why are Democrats always fighting the last war? Their inability to see even a short time into the future is alarming. I am only surprised they didn’t link it to Vietnam somehow. By the way, did you know John Kerry was a war hero there?

“Mr. President, the most effective way to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons is by continuing our arms reduction agreements and by working aggressively to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and missile technology. We hope you will continue your efforts to preserve the ABM treaty and resist pressure to deploy a national missile defense system at this time.”

Could they be more wrong? It takes real talent to analyze the situation that incorrectly. Remember, these are the same people who keep reminding us how “stupid” President Bush is, but even he saw this situation developing.

You can probably name the Democrats who supported this off the top of your head, but here’s the list:

Max Baucus (MT), Jeff Bingaman (NM), Barbara Boxer (CA), Richard Bryan (NV), Robert Byrd (WV), Max Cleland (GA), Tom Daschle (SD), Christopher Dodd (CT), Byron Dorgan (ND), Richard Durbin (IL), Russell Feingold (WI), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Tom Harkin (IA), Tim Johnson (SD), Edward Kennedy (MA), Robert Kerrey (NE), John Kerry (MA), Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Patrick Leahy (VT), Carl Levin (MI), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Daniel Moynihan (NY), Patty Murray (WA), Jack Reed (RI), Harry Reid (NV), Charles Robb (VA), Jay Rockefeller (WV), Paul Sarbanes (MD), Charles Schumer (NY), Paul Wellstone (MN), Ron Wyden (OR)

Joe Lieberman is striking in his absence. But no good deed goes unpunished, and the crazy anti-war Bush hating wing of the Democratic Party is trying to unseat him this election cycle.

And lest anyone think Hillary is a defense hawk because she wasn’t in the Senate when Democrats signed this, we have this:

Mrs. Clinton has tried on missile defense, as on so many issues, to straddle both sides, a fact New Yorkers are starting to recognize and that is no doubt responsible for her plummeting approval ratings among New Yorkers. On June 17, she sided with Republicans and the few genuinely centrist hawkish Democrats - Zell Miller, Joseph Lieberman - in a pro-missile defense vote. But on the June 23 and 22 votes, she turned around and joined Messrs. Schumer and Feingold and Ms. Boxer on the anti-missile-defense side.

Is it any wonder the American people simply don’t trust Democrats when it comes to national defense? Democratic instincts on national security are consistently wrong. They rely on an international “community” that isn’t capable of making the simplest decisions let alone dealing with nuclear armed nations.

After the Cold War, people thought the world became a much safer place and national security didn’t matter quite as much anymore. Remember all the talk about the “peace dividend” and how much we were going to save by cutting the military? However, some things never change: the world is still a very dangerous place, and Democrats are bad stewards of national security.

Missile defense is even more critical with nations like Iran getting ready to join the nuclear club. We should thank the President for protecting us when Democrats would not.

The NY Post fired both barrels at Howard Dean in this editorial from yesterday:

Not all the surrender monkeys live in France.

Take Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean — the sedition-mongering former governor of Vermont who once presumed to the presidency and who now is working overtime for a terrorist victory in Iraq.

Once the Democratic Party was led by men of vision and courage — men like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S Truman and John F. Kennedy. All were partisan pols to the core, but they knew the dangers of totalitarianism and reflexively rose above petty place-seeking to inspire America in times of peril.

Today, the party has Dean — as petty a place-seeker as can be found on the planet, and devoid of anything even approaching vision and courage.

“[The] idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong,” he said Monday. “Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don’t belong in a conflict like this anyway.”

Dean doesn’t know what he’s talking about, on several levels.

The National Guard and Reserves have been an integral part of the Army’s “total force” for a generation — there’s no bringing them home without collapsing the entire effort in Iraq.

Such an outcome, of course, would be much to Dr. Dean’s liking — because, again, it “is just plain wrong” to think “we’re going to win the war in Iraq.”

(Dean, of course, has never even been to Iraq — in stark contrast to Sen. Joe Lieberman, who’s been there four times in the last 17 months, most recently at Thanksgiving. Lieberman spoke on the subject yesterday, and excerpts of his remarks can be found on the preceding page.)

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman quite properly castigated Dean’s defeatist attitude — terming his prediction “outrageous.”

It “sends the wrong message to our troops, the enemy and the Iraqi people just 10 days before historic elections.”

That’s one way to put it.

We would have preferred a little less varnish on Mehlman’s message.

For what Dean did was send an unambiguous message of encouragement to America’s mortal enemies both in Iraq and elsewhere around the world.

Hang tough, Dean was telling al Qaeda: You may not be able to defeat the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, but we’re doing your work for you right here at home.

For sure, Dean’s words will be rattling around the Mideast for days — courtesy of al-Jazeera.

“Give’ em Hell” Harry Truman, for one, must be spinning in his grave, to see his party in the hands of the spiritual heir to George McGovern.

As expected, Senate Dems went full throttle over Condoleeza Rice’s nomination today. The overweight assassin leads the charge:

Kennedy, of Massachusetts, keyed the Democratic attack with charges that Rice, as Bush’s national security adviser, provided Congress with “false reasons” for going to war. Had she not, he said in a speech, “it might have changed the course of history.”

Even “moderate” pretty boy Sen. Bayh chimed in:

Sen. Evan Bayh , D-Ind., said “we have a moral obligation to provide better leadership.” “Those in charge must be held accountable for mistakes,” Bayh said…

However, there were two Democrats that spoke in favor of Dr. Rice - Joe Lieberman and newly elected Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado. I made a prediction earlier this year that Salazar would make a name for himself and I also predicted that the Dems would continue to cry over the necessity of the war, but at their own risk. So far, I am running 2-0.

Trashing Condi might feel good, but ultimately it reminds people what a bunch of hypocritcal anti-war zealots the Democratic Party has become. EVERYONE thought Sadam had weapons and Nov. 2nd should have settled the “Bush Lied” debate. I am sure Salazar will (and should) challenge the Administration when an issue like social security gets examined by Congress. But by saving his fire for a more relevant and current debate, he immediately separates himself from the self-destructive has-beens in the Democratic Party hell bent on making fools of themselves….. and their party.

As promised, I now present the THIRD TIER targets for the GOP in 2006. And no, by tramp I am not referring to former President Clinton.

New York: Most conservatives won’t say it out loud, but Hillary is almost guaranteed to win if she runs again in NY. Rudy could likely mount the strongest challenge against her, but that’s even debatable. Pataki’s low popularity doesn’t help the cause and with the MSM gushing over Spitzer, it is likely that there will be a strong Democratic turnout. Meanwhile, Shrillary is gleefully waiting for the GOP to start their attacks so she can play victim to the big blue state’s liberal base.

Vermont: Sen. Jim Jeffords will have to decide in 2006 whether he wants to run as an independent or even run at all. Back in 2001, this stray dog ditched the GOP and President Bush just six months after winning re-election as a Republican. Maybe a few “grass root” supporters could talk the fiery Howard Dean into running against Jeffords? Now, that would be something to scream about.

THE WILD CARDS

Delaware: Sen. Tom Carper knocked off the late Sen. Bill Roth (of Roth IRA fame) by a whopping 12 points in 2000. Since then, he has kept a low and moderate profile and will not be in jeopardy unless GOP Rep. Mike Castle grows a sack and takes him on.

Wisconsin: Sen. Herb Kohl could find a tough opponent in Tommy Thompson if he decided to take run. Also, if Kohl retires, this seat becomes a toss up.

Nebraska: Conservative Sen. Ben Nelson’s job will likely be spared considering his toughest potential opponent took a job in the Bush Administration.

Code Blue Alert: There are several Democrats that may be considering throwing in the towel after years of minority status. Depending on the mood of the nation, the candidates, and current events, these seats could be potential targets for the GOP. The hawkish Joe Lieberman (CT), the very partisan Dianne Feinstein (CA), the aging Daniel Akaka (HI), the left’s favorite Klansman Robert Byrd (WV) and of course the manslaughtering drunk, Ted Kennedy (MA) could decide to retire in ‘06 putting more pressure on the Dems to protect open seats. We can only hope.

Coming Soon - the GOP hit list!

The Boston Herald asks why Kerry has not forcefully denounced Howard Dean for his comments questioning whether the latest terror warning was politically motivated:

With pals like Dean, Kerry’s in trouble

We have one question for Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry: Why is Howard Dean still associated with your campaign?

Dean’s comments over the weekend, insinuating that the Bush administration was playing politics with the latest terror threat, should not only be harshly criticized by Kerry, it’s reason enough to demand Dean stop campaigning for the Kerry/Edwards ticket.

“How much of this is real and how much of this is politics?” Dean said on CNN Sunday. “Every time something happens that’s not good for President Bush he plays his trump card, which is terrorism.”

Dean didn’t bother to reconcile his vile accusation with the fact that senior intelligence officials have said much of the detail of the planned attacks on financial centers had been gathered in “the past 36 hours.”

“There may be more to come,” according to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. But officials decided, “We better get out with what we know now.”

And why would that be? To step on a purported post-convention bounce for Kerry? How blinded by partisan cynicism can Howard Dean be?

The information outlined by federal officials Sunday included these security specifics about the New York Stock Exchange, CitiGroup Center, Prudential Financial, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund: Security camera placement, pedestrian traffic, structural features that might “prevent the buildings from toppling down,” and the degree of incline of entrances to underground garages.

The level of detail is chilling to the bone. It would have been a total dereliction of duty for federal officials not to share that information immediately.

Sen. Joe Lieberman said, “I don’t think anybody who is in their right mind would think the president or the secretary of homeland security would raise an alert level and scare people for political purposes. That’s outrageous.”

Howard Dean is a fool and worse, he’s a dangerous fool. Fortunately, Democratic primary voters saw that. Doesn’t the man who touted his own judgment and experience at the Democratic National Convention last week see it, too? We’ve yet to hear a peep out of John Kerry denouncing Dean’s comments. And that, too, is outrageous.

This next quote from a different editorial shows the no-win situation the Bush administration is in when it comes to these terror warnings:

There is a peculiar dilemma built into the work of stopping and readying for mega-terrorism. For all the money, time and disruption demanded, success itself often looks like failure and real failure itself is most certainly catastrophic. Some might ask, “If there was no attack in Boston, wasn’t all that money and effort a waste of public funds?”

We will never know. The highly publicized massive security presence certainly sent a message. Were terrorists convinced that Boston was not a soft and easy target?

When it comes to terrorism, it is near impossible to demonstrate success with complete certainty. It is only really possible to document failure, as was demonstrated through the work of the 9/11 commission.

***

It is only after an incident that the direct sequence of communications, people and actions can be lined up with accuracy. And of course, at that point, it is disastrously too late.

Sunday I said that Dean’s comments were disgusting. Unfortunately many on the left seem to agree with him.

The left has set themselves up for political gain no matter what happens. If Bush issues a terror warning, they suggest it is politically motivated. If the warning turns out to be true and an attack occurs, they blame Bush for failing to stop the attack. If an attack occurs and no warning was issued even though we had intelligence that it might happen, the left will start screaming to impeach Bush for not warning the victims and doing more to prevent the attack.

Now I ask, who is it that is using the terrorism issue for political gain? By making these accusations, the left gives people reason to not take these warnings serious. That is a shame, because it may end up getting people killed. The left should not be rewarded in November for these tactics.

Update: Don’t fall for all the headlines saying the information that resulted in the latest terror warning is years old. First of all, most previous Al Qaeda attacks took years to plan so the fact that some information is a few years old does not mean that the plot was abandoned. Second the stories behind these headlines are burying the fact that some of the intelligence is more recent as this NY Post article shows:

Officials who examined the information concluded that the most recent surveillance of the buildings was done in January. There was additional surveillance last year, a law-enforcement source said.

See Michelle Malkin and Patterico for more.

Some high profile democrats have cut Clarke off at the knees which will make it harder for Kerry to politicize this (via Fox News):

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Sunday he doesn’t believe Clarke’s charge that Bush — who defeated him and former Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 election — was focused more on Iraq than al-Qaida during the days after the terror attacks.

“I see no basis for it,” Lieberman said on “Fox News Sunday.” “I think we’ve got to be careful to speak facts and not rhetoric.”

And Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., told ABC’s “This Week” that while he has been critical of Bush policies on Iraq, “I think it’s unfair to blame the president for the spread of terror and the diffuseness of it. Even if he had followed the advice of me and many other people, I still think the same thing would have happened.”

Presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry said Sunday he asked for copies of Clarke’s book to review. Kerry is vacationing at his Idaho home through Wednesday before returning to the campaign trail.

“I would like to read them before I make any comment at all,” Kerry told reporters. “I have asked for them.”

Kerry’s adviser on national security, Rand Beers, is a close associate of Clarke and held the job as antiterrorism adviser under Bush during part of 2002. Clarke quotes Beers in the book as asking his advice when Beers considered quitting because “they’re using the war on terror politically.”

The White House’s Bartlett noted Clarke’s friendship with Beers and the upcoming presidential election.

“We believe the timing is questionable,” he said. “When (Clarke) left office, he had every opportunity” to make any grievances known.

Of course the fact that Clarke has such a close relationship with a Kerry adviser doesn’t pass the smell test.

Here are some things that the other democratic candidates said about Flipper:

Wesley Clark

“We need leadership that will take responsibility in this country and I’m very disturbed that John did not do that.”

“I don’t think people understand in this country how politicians in Washington can say one thing and do something else.”

Howard Dean

“This is not the person we need to head the Democratic Party. I think Senator Kerry is clearly not the person to carry the banner of the Democratic Party because he has acted so much like a Republican.”

“We are not going to beat George Bush by nominating someone who is the handmaiden of special interests.”

“A special interest clone.”

“A candidate of no principle.”

“Just another inside-the-Beltway guy who’s played the game for 15 years.”

John Edwards

“What he’s saying now is different than what he did in the past.”

“Do you believe that change is more likely to be brought about by someone who has spent 20 years in Washington or by someone who is more of an outsider to this process?”

Dick Gephardt

“John Kerry is no friend to family farmers.”

“I don’t think cheap sound bites hiding expensive plans are the answer.”

Joe Lieberman

“This is about the votes that he’s cast that I believe are inconsistent.”

“We also don’t need a waffler in charge of our country’s future.”