The liberal media bias was in full view again this week as Kentucky GOP Senator Jim Bunning chose to publicly force Democrats to abide by their own 'pay-go' rule to fund the most recent set of jobless benefits extensions.
Nevermind that Bunning was focused merely on holding Democrats to their own rules. Media and Democratic Senators predictably portrayed Bunning as yet another heartless, cruel Republican trying to cut benefits for the unemployed.
This isn't simply a failure of our legislators to stick to their own rules and demonstrate some fiscal rectitude. It's a failure of our 'press' to report honestly on important matters.
And, of course, out of 40 other Republican Senators, including newly-arrived, ostensibly fiscally-concerned Scott Brown, only two actually went on record as standing with Bunning- Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Bob Corker of Tennessee. The rest of the GOP cowards in the Senate just wanted Bunning to shut up and stop making them all look spineless. Sad to say, that includes such luminaries as New Hampshire's Judd Gregg, Bunning's fellow Kentuckian, Mitch McConnell, Richard Shelby, John McCain, and John Kyle.
All sunshine fiscal conservatives who hid when the going got tough.
We'll all be poorer, in many ways, for the way in which Jim Bunning's principled, correct stance was covered.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Charlie Rangel Gives Up Chairmanship
Thank heavens for minor miracles. Serially corrupt Congressman (D-NY) Charlie Rangel finally stepped down from his chairmanship of the House Ways & Means Committee.
True, he couched it in terms of a 'temporary leave.' But GOP Minority Leader John Boehner immediately retorted that such terminology appears to be a non-starter. He contended that either one is, or is not, chairman of a committee. There is no 'temporary leave' category.
Republicans had been moving ahead to vote Rangel out, if only to force House Democrats to go on record as supporting the corrupt New Yorker.
Amazingly, Rangel actually admitted, in his press conference announcing his turnabout on resigning, given his steadfast denial of doing so only the prior evening, that he was doing this to avoid harm to fellow Democrats running for re-election.
That's a rare moment of candor and awareness of the public mood among Washington's Democratic mis-leaders these days.
True, he couched it in terms of a 'temporary leave.' But GOP Minority Leader John Boehner immediately retorted that such terminology appears to be a non-starter. He contended that either one is, or is not, chairman of a committee. There is no 'temporary leave' category.
Republicans had been moving ahead to vote Rangel out, if only to force House Democrats to go on record as supporting the corrupt New Yorker.
Amazingly, Rangel actually admitted, in his press conference announcing his turnabout on resigning, given his steadfast denial of doing so only the prior evening, that he was doing this to avoid harm to fellow Democrats running for re-election.
That's a rare moment of candor and awareness of the public mood among Washington's Democratic mis-leaders these days.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Dylan Ratigan's Rant On MSNBC
To give some idea of the anger and hatred of the independent Tea Party movement in the liberal-dominated media, consider this clip.
Dylan Ratigan is an ex-CNBC reporter and program anchor. Dissatisfied with bullying businessmen on his former network, he wrangled a political program on MSNBC.
I had the misfortune of being subjected to about 20 minutes of his tirades recently when waiting in a doctor's office, captive to a television tuned to the largely unwatched channel. That afternoon, Ratigan was ranting about health care and bullying GOP legislators.
It was evident that his producer prodded him to attempt to become a liberal Glenn Beck. By that, I mean using lots of props and trying to be theatrical. Beck is a natural at it, plus he has valid points. Ratigan looks, and is, forced, while trying to sell tired, unbelievable liberal pablum.
In this clip, we see Ratigan shouting down his own guest with a 'have you stopped beating your wife' sort of question. When his guest replies by asking about similar racism at NBC, Ratigan lashes out with a non sequitor, then goes ballistic.
Apparently, it never occurred to Ratigan that a grassroots movement focused on smaller government, which doesn't require formal membership, can't control everyone who claims affiliation with it.
I was at the Tea Party 9-12 rally at the Capitol last September, and saw absolutely no anti-black nor anti-Jewish expressions. The attendees were very peaceful and focused. The most energy emanated from the speakers' podium.
So much for truth from the liberal media.
Dylan Ratigan is an ex-CNBC reporter and program anchor. Dissatisfied with bullying businessmen on his former network, he wrangled a political program on MSNBC.
I had the misfortune of being subjected to about 20 minutes of his tirades recently when waiting in a doctor's office, captive to a television tuned to the largely unwatched channel. That afternoon, Ratigan was ranting about health care and bullying GOP legislators.
It was evident that his producer prodded him to attempt to become a liberal Glenn Beck. By that, I mean using lots of props and trying to be theatrical. Beck is a natural at it, plus he has valid points. Ratigan looks, and is, forced, while trying to sell tired, unbelievable liberal pablum.
In this clip, we see Ratigan shouting down his own guest with a 'have you stopped beating your wife' sort of question. When his guest replies by asking about similar racism at NBC, Ratigan lashes out with a non sequitor, then goes ballistic.
Apparently, it never occurred to Ratigan that a grassroots movement focused on smaller government, which doesn't require formal membership, can't control everyone who claims affiliation with it.
I was at the Tea Party 9-12 rally at the Capitol last September, and saw absolutely no anti-black nor anti-Jewish expressions. The attendees were very peaceful and focused. The most energy emanated from the speakers' podium.
So much for truth from the liberal media.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Troubles In The Alternative Energy World
Another blow to Al Gore's dreams of alternative energy. Here are some passages from an editorial in yesterday's Wall Street Journal entitled "The Brewing Tempest Over Wind Power."
The Obama administration has made the increased use of wind power to generate electricity a top priority. In 2009 alone, U.S. wind generation capacity increased by 39%. But more wind power means more giant turbines closer to more people. And if current trends continue, that spells trouble.
In 2007, a phalanx of wind turbines were built around Charlie Porter's property in rural northern Missouri. Soon, Mr. Porter began to have trouble sleeping. So did his wife and daughter. The noise, he told me, made sleeping almost impossible. "We tried everything—earplugs, leaving the TV station on all night." Nothing worked. Late last year he moved his family off their 20-acre farm.
Mr. Porter's story is no isolated event. Rural residents in Texas, Maine, Pennsylvania, Oregon, New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, France and England have been complaining about the noise from wind turbines, particularly about sleep deprivation. Dozens of news stories—most of them published in rural newspapers—have documented the problem.
Doctors and acoustics experts from the U.S. to Australia report a raft of symptoms that they blame on wind turbine noise, including sleep disturbance, headaches and vertigo. Dr. Nina Pierpont, a pediatrician in Malone, N.Y., has studied 36 people affected by wind turbine noise since 2004 at her own expense. The people she interviewed were widely dispersed; they lived in the U.S., Canada, England, Ireland and Italy. She found that the collection of symptoms she calls "wind turbine syndrome" disappeared as soon as people moved out of their noise-affected homes and into new locations at least five miles from any turbines.
The wind lobby has publicly rejected these claims. In December, the American Wind Energy Association in conjunction with the Canadian Wind Energy Association, issued a report titled "Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Review Panel." It declared: "There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects." It also suggested that some of the symptoms being attributed to wind turbine noise were likely psychosomatic and asserted that the vibrations from the turbines are "too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans."
Yet the report also noted that in "the area of wind turbine health effects, no case-control or cohort studies have been conducted as of this date." True enough—but it means there are no studies to prove or disprove the case. It also says that "a small number of sensitive people" may be "stressed" by wind turbine noise and suffer sleep deprivation. But who gets to define "sensitive" and "small number"? And if turbine noise and sleep disturbance aren't problems, then why are people in so many different locations complaining in almost identical ways? Such questions are only going to be pressed with more urgency in the future.
By 2030, environmental and lobby groups are pushing for the U.S. to produce 20% of its electricity from wind. According to the Department of Energy, meeting that goal will require the U.S. to have about 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity, an eightfold increase over current levels. Installing tens of thousands of new turbines inevitably means they'll be located closer to populated areas.
It doesn't look good for wind power, does it? Guess somebody better phone Boone Pickens to break the bad news to him.
Meanwhile, on the other flank, Democratic Senators in West Virginia, Ohio and Michigan banded together to put EPA head Lisa Jackson on notice that they plan to strip her agency of the ability to regulate carbon.
In a move that shows economics trumping junk science, the Senators from these coal-producing states are pushing back against their own party's administration's attempt to set rules on carbon emissions, regardless of the fate of the cap and tax legislation now stalled in the chamber.
Looks like sanity and common sense may be catching up with the wacky left-wing premature push to abandon fossil-fuel based activity and bet the ranch on alternative sources, among them, wind.
The Obama administration has made the increased use of wind power to generate electricity a top priority. In 2009 alone, U.S. wind generation capacity increased by 39%. But more wind power means more giant turbines closer to more people. And if current trends continue, that spells trouble.
In 2007, a phalanx of wind turbines were built around Charlie Porter's property in rural northern Missouri. Soon, Mr. Porter began to have trouble sleeping. So did his wife and daughter. The noise, he told me, made sleeping almost impossible. "We tried everything—earplugs, leaving the TV station on all night." Nothing worked. Late last year he moved his family off their 20-acre farm.
Mr. Porter's story is no isolated event. Rural residents in Texas, Maine, Pennsylvania, Oregon, New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, France and England have been complaining about the noise from wind turbines, particularly about sleep deprivation. Dozens of news stories—most of them published in rural newspapers—have documented the problem.
Doctors and acoustics experts from the U.S. to Australia report a raft of symptoms that they blame on wind turbine noise, including sleep disturbance, headaches and vertigo. Dr. Nina Pierpont, a pediatrician in Malone, N.Y., has studied 36 people affected by wind turbine noise since 2004 at her own expense. The people she interviewed were widely dispersed; they lived in the U.S., Canada, England, Ireland and Italy. She found that the collection of symptoms she calls "wind turbine syndrome" disappeared as soon as people moved out of their noise-affected homes and into new locations at least five miles from any turbines.
The wind lobby has publicly rejected these claims. In December, the American Wind Energy Association in conjunction with the Canadian Wind Energy Association, issued a report titled "Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Review Panel." It declared: "There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects." It also suggested that some of the symptoms being attributed to wind turbine noise were likely psychosomatic and asserted that the vibrations from the turbines are "too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans."
Yet the report also noted that in "the area of wind turbine health effects, no case-control or cohort studies have been conducted as of this date." True enough—but it means there are no studies to prove or disprove the case. It also says that "a small number of sensitive people" may be "stressed" by wind turbine noise and suffer sleep deprivation. But who gets to define "sensitive" and "small number"? And if turbine noise and sleep disturbance aren't problems, then why are people in so many different locations complaining in almost identical ways? Such questions are only going to be pressed with more urgency in the future.
By 2030, environmental and lobby groups are pushing for the U.S. to produce 20% of its electricity from wind. According to the Department of Energy, meeting that goal will require the U.S. to have about 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity, an eightfold increase over current levels. Installing tens of thousands of new turbines inevitably means they'll be located closer to populated areas.
It doesn't look good for wind power, does it? Guess somebody better phone Boone Pickens to break the bad news to him.
Meanwhile, on the other flank, Democratic Senators in West Virginia, Ohio and Michigan banded together to put EPA head Lisa Jackson on notice that they plan to strip her agency of the ability to regulate carbon.
In a move that shows economics trumping junk science, the Senators from these coal-producing states are pushing back against their own party's administration's attempt to set rules on carbon emissions, regardless of the fate of the cap and tax legislation now stalled in the chamber.
Looks like sanity and common sense may be catching up with the wacky left-wing premature push to abandon fossil-fuel based activity and bet the ranch on alternative sources, among them, wind.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
A "Simple Majority?"
Leave it that uber spinmeister, House Speaker Frisco Nan, to relabel the Senate's reconciliation process as just a "simple majority."
That's the Democrats' new code word for the rarefied Senate procedure allowing bills to pass with only 51 votes.
Yes, technically, it's a simple majority. But only on tax or spending bills devoid of policy. So to label it as simply, well, a "simple majority" is totally misleading.
And, while I'm on the topic, what the hell is the House Speaker doing explaining Senate tactics?
Perhaps the new terminology is party-wide speak, in order to confuse voters.
The video of Nan making this solemn pronouncement isn't on YouTube yet, but when it is, or if you saw it already yesterday, you will note her lecturing, scolding attitude.
Boy, that's going to go down well with voters outside of Frisco, eh?
As I noted in yesterday's post concerning New York's Democrats' corruption issues, I'm sure Nan will get re-elected in her safe district.
Question is, how many other voters will send Democrats home, in hopes of giving Nan a brand new, albeit smaller and powerless office in next year's new Congress?
That's the Democrats' new code word for the rarefied Senate procedure allowing bills to pass with only 51 votes.
Yes, technically, it's a simple majority. But only on tax or spending bills devoid of policy. So to label it as simply, well, a "simple majority" is totally misleading.
And, while I'm on the topic, what the hell is the House Speaker doing explaining Senate tactics?
Perhaps the new terminology is party-wide speak, in order to confuse voters.
The video of Nan making this solemn pronouncement isn't on YouTube yet, but when it is, or if you saw it already yesterday, you will note her lecturing, scolding attitude.
Boy, that's going to go down well with voters outside of Frisco, eh?
As I noted in yesterday's post concerning New York's Democrats' corruption issues, I'm sure Nan will get re-elected in her safe district.
Question is, how many other voters will send Democrats home, in hopes of giving Nan a brand new, albeit smaller and powerless office in next year's new Congress?
Monday, March 1, 2010
New York: US Capital of Corruption?
It's been quite a week for New York politicians.
First, tax cheat Charlie Rangel suffered yet another damaging disclosure. This time, in addition to revelations of his non-payment of taxes on various real estate properties, and misuse of rent-controlled apartments in New York City, the chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, it was revealed that he took trips to the Caribbean which were paid for by corporations. This is a clear violation of ethics rules.
His, and Frisco Nan's reactions were both predictable and disappointing. Rangel essentially claimed that his aides' actions aren't his responsibility, so he was innocent of anything.
Of course, members of Congress are among the first to conduct public hearings accusing corporate CEOs of guilt when employees of their companies engage in misconduct.
The House Speaker, having recently alleged she runs 'the most ethical House' ever, refused to remove Rangel from his Ways & Means Committee post, claiming that there was no serious national damage involved, so she saw no reason to take disciplinary action.
Further, as the linked article notes, she was surprised a Democratically-controlled ethics panel even bothered to publicly admonish Rangel.
Suffice to say, all of this demonstrates just how hopelessly tone-deaf and out of touch with voters Rangel and Frisco Nan are. They may be re-elected in their safe districts in November, but I'm guessing neither will be in the majority when they are.
Then we come to New York governor David Paterson's decision not to run again, amidst two scandals. One is his misuse of his office to strong-arm and intimidate a woman from proceeding in her case of physical violence abuse against one of Paterson's aides.
Paterson unwisely got involved, rather than show some sense and tell the aide that, as governor, nothing he would do would be proper.
Paterson also evidently set the state police upon the complainant.
Then it has come to light that Paterson may have favored a political supporter in the choice of to whom to let a casino-related contract.
Lest you think Paterson's final capitulation to his party to not run again is good news, look who is waiting in the wings.
AG Andrew Cuomo, running for governor, was one of the major culprits in sparking the recent financial sector meltdown, as HUD secretary for Bubba Clinton.
Cuomo has behaved thuggishly, using the Martin Act to bully several financial executives and companies, including BofA, Merrill Lynch, John Thain and Ken Lewis. Oblivious, all the while, to his own culpability in the mess, due to his actions while HUD Secretary to provide more, riskier mortgages to poorer people who could not really afford home ownership.
It doesn't look like New York's governance nightmare is going to end anytime soon.
First, tax cheat Charlie Rangel suffered yet another damaging disclosure. This time, in addition to revelations of his non-payment of taxes on various real estate properties, and misuse of rent-controlled apartments in New York City, the chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, it was revealed that he took trips to the Caribbean which were paid for by corporations. This is a clear violation of ethics rules.
His, and Frisco Nan's reactions were both predictable and disappointing. Rangel essentially claimed that his aides' actions aren't his responsibility, so he was innocent of anything.
Of course, members of Congress are among the first to conduct public hearings accusing corporate CEOs of guilt when employees of their companies engage in misconduct.
The House Speaker, having recently alleged she runs 'the most ethical House' ever, refused to remove Rangel from his Ways & Means Committee post, claiming that there was no serious national damage involved, so she saw no reason to take disciplinary action.
Further, as the linked article notes, she was surprised a Democratically-controlled ethics panel even bothered to publicly admonish Rangel.
Suffice to say, all of this demonstrates just how hopelessly tone-deaf and out of touch with voters Rangel and Frisco Nan are. They may be re-elected in their safe districts in November, but I'm guessing neither will be in the majority when they are.
Then we come to New York governor David Paterson's decision not to run again, amidst two scandals. One is his misuse of his office to strong-arm and intimidate a woman from proceeding in her case of physical violence abuse against one of Paterson's aides.
Paterson unwisely got involved, rather than show some sense and tell the aide that, as governor, nothing he would do would be proper.
Paterson also evidently set the state police upon the complainant.
Then it has come to light that Paterson may have favored a political supporter in the choice of to whom to let a casino-related contract.
Lest you think Paterson's final capitulation to his party to not run again is good news, look who is waiting in the wings.
AG Andrew Cuomo, running for governor, was one of the major culprits in sparking the recent financial sector meltdown, as HUD secretary for Bubba Clinton.
Cuomo has behaved thuggishly, using the Martin Act to bully several financial executives and companies, including BofA, Merrill Lynch, John Thain and Ken Lewis. Oblivious, all the while, to his own culpability in the mess, due to his actions while HUD Secretary to provide more, riskier mortgages to poorer people who could not really afford home ownership.
It doesn't look like New York's governance nightmare is going to end anytime soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
