He's "behind the at," as my English teacher used to say....
Information on the street has it that Al Gore is stuck in an airport, trying to charter a private airplane to take him back to Norway, where naïve-but-friendly natives thoughtlessly awarded him a Nobel Peace Prize for propagandizing the remote, but politically pregnant, possibility that our climate is getting dangerously warmer because we're eating too much meat, using old-fashioned light bulbs and driving cars not running on recycled garbage.
Poor Al is simply trying to redeem what little self-esteem he has left, after accepting that obviously misdirected and undeserved Peace Prize. Trouble is: Old Al can't find a charter flight out (not even one of those pedestrian commercial flights) because the U.S. of A. is suffering one of the coldest winters in recorded history.
Even our nation's capital is blanketed under snow making travel impossible, and freeze warnings once again extend clear into sunny Florida.
Apparently even died-in-the-wool, amoral politicians have their limits; No, unfortunately they don't
Al just seemingly wants to get that embarrassing Nobel Peace Prize rescinded, so that it doesn't become part of the inscription on his tombstone.
If only the freezing weather would let up!
We feel for you Al. Yeah we do. *snork*
Methinks Mr. Nash doesn't like AlBore very much. :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/13/2010 19:46 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Greenpeace and Sen. Lisa Murkowski's office are in a battle of words over her effort to block U.S. EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.
An aide to the Alaska Republican condemned Greenpeace yesterday after PolluterWatch, a project of the environmental group, launched a Web site called PolluterHarmony.com, a take-off on the matchmaking site eHarmony.com.
PolluterHarmony.com calls itself "the #1 matchmaking site for polluters, industry lobbyists, & politicians!" and features a photo of Murkowski along with a video with a man who says he is a corporate lobbyist and is matched with "Lisa," who "likes to stay up late at night and gut clean energy bills." The man speaks in romantic tones about his match with Lisa, saying, "It's been just magical." A picture shows a man and woman holding hands as they walk.
The PolluterWatch site is one of a number of ads targeting Murkowski for her plan to offer a resolution that would essentially veto EPA's finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare. Released last December, EPA's determination opens the door for rules aimed at slashing emissions from a broad range of sources.
Environmentalists yesterday said they planned to erect a billboard criticizing Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, one of three moderate Democrats who has signed on in support of Murkowski's measure. Environmental and faith-based activists this week launched radio advertisements targeting eight senators seen as key in a vote on Murkowski's measure, which the groups coined the "Dirty Air Act." Last month, the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund released a television ad and Friends of the Earth Action Fund aired radio ads in Alaska, both attacking Murkowski.
"This type of personal attack is highly offensive and clearly crosses the line," Murkowski spokesman Robert Dillon said. "This is a perfect example of what's wrong with Washington. Too often outside groups go for the personal attack when they can't win on the merits. Rather than have a legitimate debate about the policy, they launch a smear campaign."
Dillon said the site featured "insults to the senator and her family -- as if these people have no bounds, no sense of truth, and no interest in meaningful climate policy. Greenpeace should be downright ashamed to be associated with, let alone paying for, these ads."
PolluterWatch director Kert Davies responded today by saying that "what crosses the line is Senator Murkowski's blatant attempt to gut the Clean Air Act in order to satisfy her dirty industry lobbyist backers."
"If she objects to the scrutiny her conduct has received, she should consider putting her constituents ahead of Washington lobbyists," Davies said. "Until then, we will continue to hold her accountable for her close ties to influence peddlers like Jeffrey Holmstead."
Posted by: Fred ||
02/13/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
Shoudla gone with the 777 base to begin with instead of the 767.
Bottom line, the original Northrop-EADS bid was better against Boeings short-legged, lower capacity, higher maint old 767 airframe based bid in an effort to save their 767 line instead of producing what the USAF needed.
If its 777 based, then I think they will probably win it on merit. As long as they don't get arrogant again.
#1
This seems like a good outcome. Obama's abuses of executive power will be much easier to undo than legislation while still having the same damaging effects on the nation. Thus we get to sample the disaster and enjoy the suicide of the Democratic Party all wrapped in a neat relatively easily reversed package. Break out the popcorn!
#2
For what its worth, Obama signed (38) Executive Orders during his first calendar year, 2009. I don't know how that stacks up with previous presidencies. Here is a list, if you are interested. LINK
#3
Nothing will endear Americans to the Marxists running the USA more than giving them a good glimpse of the precipice. Kill more industry since 18% unemployment/underemployment is not enough. Say "Hello" to $5 gas and $.25kWh electricity and 25% un/under employment. Spit.
Posted by: ed ||
02/13/2010 13:18 Comments ||
Top||
#4
BTW, the 9.7% unemployment rate the Obama admin was crowing about: An exodus of discouraged workers from the job market kept the U.S. unemployment rate from climbing above 10 percent in December, economists said.
Had the labor force not decreased by 661,000 last month, the jobless rate would have been 10.4 percent, according to economists including David Rosenberg at Gluskin Sheff & Associates in Toronto and Harm Bandholz at UniCredit Research in New York.
...
About 1.7 million Americans opted out of the workforce (therefore not counted) from July through December, representing a 1.1 percent drop that marks the biggest six-month decrease since 1961, the Labor Department report showed. The share of the population in the labor force last month fell to the lowest level in 24 years.
The so-called underemployment rate -- which includes part- time workers whod prefer a full-time position and people who want work but have given up looking -- rose to 17.3 percent in December from 17.2 percent.
Posted by: ed ||
02/13/2010 13:26 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Nothing will endear Americans to the Marxists running the USA more than giving them a good glimpse of the precipice
What I was thinking. It'll be interesting to see where his poll numbers go once this gets wide recognition.
#8
By my count -- 19 of those 54 (count from a quick look) included were a direct result of the tragedy of 911 -- putting into place, structure for fighting the War on Terror
Math -- 54-19=35 (less than The One's 38 without 911)
10 of them put in an Order of Succession for 10 Departments of the government. Pre 9/11, there were no plans for who is now in charge. (I think the House even tightened up their succession plan)
#9
It's not the number, it's the content. GW signed a bunch in his first year of course- 2001 was a doozy for all kinds of federal action. The question is whether a president uses any of them in ways that remove legislative oversight.
#10
RF - your right, it is all in the content -- and the Obama "content" is one of expanding government offices, protecting unions, and the revoking of Bush's This, and Bush's That
10 -- "not Bush" or "amend Bush" or "revoke Bush"
6 -- concerning Unions
11 -- expansion of government by committee or department
(not an in-depth reading, of course. Amending this up to as many 10 amending EO's in one EO.)
#11
And... at least 20 of Bush's were concerning national security -- 0 of Obama's concern national security, except the ones he revoked or amended of Bush's.
#12
Sherry- that's sort of what I figured; I didn't have the energy to dope-fiend the contents of either Obama or Bush. If there was such a thing as a 'newspaper' here in the US, someone could probably write an interesting story just tearing the EOs apart and getting comments on their meaning.
Rep. Patrick Kennedy's decision not to seek re-election will leave Washington without a Kennedy in political office for the first time in more than 60 years.
The Rhode Island Democrat's term ends early next year but he says in a television message viewed by The Associated Press on Thursday that his life is "taking a new direction" and he will not seek a ninth term. The video was provided to the AP by Kennedy's congressional office.
The 42-year-old son of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy does not give a reason for the decision but says it has been a difficult few years for many people and he mentions the death in August of his father.
"Illness took the life of my most cherished mentor and confidante, my ultimate source of spirit and strength," he said, as a black-and-white photo of him as a boy sailing with his father appeared on the screen. "From the countless lives he lifted, to the American promise he helped shape, my father taught me that politics at its very core was about serving others."
Posted by: Fred ||
02/13/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The 42-year-old son of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy does not give a reason for the decision but says it has been a difficult few years for many people and he mentions the death in August of his father
I think we can rule out "spend more time with family."
#5
I can't figure it out. Must be, someone showed him the tapes and told him to retire, or else. Has to be the first time in ages that a Kennedy has taken the classy way out.
#6
I'm beginning to get somewhat concerned about the increasing number of these beltway vermin jumping off the ship. Do they know something we don't know?
#10
Besoeker: A much worse problem is relatively invisible. That is the "K Street" lobbyists, lawyers, consultants and Hill Rats that make up the Beltway Bandits. Average pay in the 1980s was over $100k.
The only comparable organisms are the Futurama brain slugs. But these are the people who actually write the laws, and shovel the pork for their elected and appointed bosses.
They believe in AGW, why shouldn't they believe in 2012? Would you really want to be caught there? You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
#13
I'm beginning to get somewhat concerned about the increasing number of these beltway vermin jumping off the ship. Do they know something we don't know?
Seems fairly obvious to me, the Democratic Party is crumbling, they figure to get out before the final disaster ans claim "NOT MY FAULT" as loudly as possible, Many sheeple will believe them.
I won't.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
02/13/2010 15:12 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Either The burg has a glitch , or the Comments are very slow, there's a 20 second delay between pushing the Submit button and anything happening, I thought it didn't work, and clicked again.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
02/13/2010 15:15 Comments ||
Top||
#15
RJ,
When they leave office the money in their campaign fund is theirs. They've spent the last 15 months shaking down contributors. Now the fund is fat. Spend it on a campaign that will be a probable loss or spend it on a nice villa for retirement? Hmmmm.
#16
A Washington without Kennedys...
Is like a day with sunshine.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
02/13/2010 15:46 Comments ||
Top||
#17
It's like having a permanent disease clear up. Think Herpes
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/13/2010 16:23 Comments ||
Top||
#18
FrankG: Are you suggesting that all the herpes cases in DC have cleared up in the last 24hours? Because there are alot less manageable diseases out there. Like Barney Frank.
Posted by: Charles ||
02/13/2010 17:59 Comments ||
Top||
#19
I was only referring to the Kennedy parasite
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/13/2010 18:05 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Just like herpes, we need to be on the lookout for the next round of herpes, er kennedys, flairing up.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
02/13/2010 21:35 Comments ||
Top||
Legislation giving Washington D.C. a firm tongue lashing was approved Thursday by the Kansas Senate.
The resolution calls on the federal government to "cease and desist" from passing onerous mandates on the states. If passed by the House the resolution would be sent to the President and other federal leaders.
It demands that Washington repeal existing mandates and respect Kansas' sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, which reserves for the states rights not delegated to the federal government.
Supporters note that while the resolution can't force Washington to do anything, it sends a message for Kansans upset with overreaching mandates like health care reform legislation, gun control, abortion rights and immigration policy.
"It ... speaks loudly for the freedom of the citizens of the state of Kansas," said Sen. Mary Pilcher Cook, a Shawnee Republican and the main sponsor of the resolution.
Seven of the 40 members of the Senate voted against the resolution. One of them, Sen. David Haley, a Kansas City, Kan. Democrat, called it "sort of sad" and noted that the Senate had pledged allegiance to the U.S. flag just minutes before the vote.
"I've been unhappy with the federal government," he said. "But not to the point of secession or sedition."
Similar bills are pending in Missouri.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/13/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We need more states doing this. Obama and his cronies will start cranking out executive orders and regulations instead of legislation, since they cannot get their sh*t sandwich legislation passed through congress.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/13/2010 0:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
If the federal government has to work hard to find some way to foist their mandates on states, it's probably unconstitutional.
#3
The 10th Amendment movement is well underway, and has plenty of momentum in the States. Since the national government is oblivious, the next step is for individual States to create delegations to confer with each other.
This amounts to "pre-constitutional convention" discussions. It is akin to straw polling, to come up with a concise list of constitutional changes that have to be made, a process of how to both make them, and how to insure they are carried out before the convention ends.
Unless agreement exists between 3/4ths of the States before the convention even begins, even if the 2/3rds of the States that are willing to call a convention, it would not be productive.
Many States would be nervous about holding an "open convention", so want a minimum of debate, except to enunciate the agreement, vote on it, and return it to the States for approval.
Once that is done, the convention becomes a simple majority vote overseeing authority, to insure the changes are made to the letter of the new constitution.
As needed, they can relieve and replace any elected or appointed official who interferes with the convention, refuses to carry out its directives, or does not carry them out expeditiously or correctly.
Security for a constitutional convention will have to be insanely strict, as every villain on the planet would sell their soul to get involvement with it. Any federal employee or official would have to be excluded, and there would have to be severe penalties, which cannot be appealed, to anyone who violated the rules.
#4
State soverneinty resolutions; a growing movement among States to send a message to Washington. Needs to be done. Other (but not inclusive of all issues) are: firearms freedom acts, medical marijuana, National Health Care and Cap and Trade nullification.
#6
We have been working on this for several years, and have finally joined Ok. and Tex. with our own 10th. amendment bill.
I do not expect Missouri to join in since Kansas and Missouri do not agree on anything including the number of victories on the football field.
Bipartisanship in kansas can be described as Wildcats and Jayhawks joining together against anything.
House Joint Resolution No. 125, House Resolution No. 5, and Senate Joint Resolution No. 17 have been introduced. The House resolutions have been reported out of committee and now go to the floor for a vote. The Senate joint resolution is still in committee. Keep your fingers crossed for us.
I think there are 2 House bills because the Senate is slightly majority Democrat and the sponsoring House Delegates may suspect the bill might not make it through the Senate (the sponsoring Senater is a Republican), so if they can't get a joint resolution passed, at least they can send a House resolution to D.C.
Not that D.C. is going to care. :-(
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/13/2010 14:29 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Just to take the cynical, devil's advocate approach here:
States want to be free from Federal mandates and restrictions, but seldom refuse Federal handouts in the form of grants, earmarks, highway building money, etc.
In the past, the Federal government has responded to uppity states refusing federal mandates by withholding Federal money. States that refused to lower their speed limits to 55 were threatened with the cutoff of Federal highway funds. Most of them immediately caved in.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
02/13/2010 15:52 Comments ||
Top||
#10
In the past, the Federal government has responded to uppity states refusing federal mandates by withholding Federal money.
Barry would never consider doing something like that now would he?
#11
This seems to be to be foolish and a bit backward. It also seems a bit on the shortsighted scale to say, DC is out of touch. Before you shoot me, hear me out. If Kansas was so damn worried about DC then they need to take a good look at their Congressmen and Senators, same for Texas, Arizona and Missouri. They need to pass new state laws allowing for removal of the idiots they elected and to hold their representatives accountable. We as a nation do not do that. Once Mr Smith goes to DC it seems the states give up on him. Congressmen should answer to the governors and the people in open forums on a regular basis as directed by state law. We bitch about congress, call them out of touch, and then we elect comedians, old guard pork hounds, and WWF wrestlers into power. Congress and Senate elections are more popularity contests than choosing real leaders. We hold someone that is a great speaker in higher regard than someone who manages and leads. We get the legislation we deserve by allowing them to divide up out states districts so they will stay in power forever. We elect their children, like they are smarter because their dad was in Washington DC. We listen to people like Hannity and Olberman, believe their propaganda without question and let them divide our nation further and further toward a point where any real compromise in government is impossible. Now we are letting Palin become the self appointed leader of the tea party movement. Her agenda is not based on tackling issues, hers is pointing fingers.
Ok, my rant is over. I believe the great document that starts with We the people means just that and until the American people take a long hard look in the mirror we the people will continue down this road of ignorance toward another civil war.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
02/13/2010 18:08 Comments ||
Top||
#12
The only way we'll get rid of the feds blackmailing the states will be to take the tax out of the hands of the fed gov. They invented ridiculous tax rates leaving states with little ability to control their own destiny. Sure, states cave in to fed blackmail, the feds take money from the people and give some of it back to state polititions
Q Robert, the Vice President last night said that Iraq could end up being one of the President's great achievements. Given that the Vice President was in favor of a partial partition of the country and the President opposed the surge that helped stabilize it, how is that one of the President's great achievements?
MR. GIBBS: Well, putting what was broken back together and getting our troops home, which we intend to do in August of this year.
Q But the Status of Forces Agreement to bring troops home was signed before the President took office.
MR. GIBBS: Something that -- something that I think the political pressure that the President, as a then-candidate, helped to bring about.
Look, I think that we will long debate Iraq. We will long debate whether at a very important moment in our efforts to root out terrorism particularly in Afghanistan and on that border region with Pakistan, whether we took our eye off the ball.
I think historians will debate that long after we're gone. I think they will come likely to the conclusion that no single event took our eye off of what needed to be done in order to -- in order to occupy a country that, until we got there, didn't have a single member of al Qaeda.
So, look, obviously -- look, the Vice President has been deeply involved in fixing the political process there so that elections can be held and so that our troops can come home as scheduled this summer.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/13/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Another example of how this administration squirms when it gets caught, err, "exaggerating."
Jeez, next thing you know, Nobama will try to take credit for inventing the internet or something equally stupid.
#3
If Nixon can be blamed by the left for getting us into Vietnam when he inherited the conflict it is not really inconsistency to give Obama credit for winning in Iraq when he inherited that conflict. inconsistency is the hobgoblin of little minds and the Democrats are certainly hobgoblins.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Greenpeace and Sen. Lisa Murkowski's office are in a battle of words over her effort to block U.S. EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.
Rep. Patrick Kennedy's decision not to seek re-election will leave Washington without a Kennedy in political office for the first time in more than 60 years.
