CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Palin resignation 'is about country' and a 'higher calling'

Amid all the rampant uniformed and mostly unflattering speculation about why she chose to resign, Governor Palin explained on Facebook that her rationale "is about country" and a "higher calling":

How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it’s about country.

[. . .]

I shared with you yesterday my heartfelt and candid reasons for this change; I’ve never thought I needed a title before one’s name to forge progress in America. I am now looking ahead and how we can advance this country together with our values of less government intervention, greater energy independence, stronger national security, and much-needed fiscal restraint.

You can read Palin's entire facebook message below.

Palin also went on the offensive against those spreading inaccurate and libelous tall tales about her resignation. The Governor's attorney, Thomas Van Flein, warned legal action may be taken against bloggers and publications that reprint fraudulent claims:

"To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as 'fact' that Governor Palin resigned because she is 'under federal investigation' for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation.

This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law."

Van Flein also said Palin is not in any criminal legal jeopardy:

"I can say definitively I am aware of no criminal investigation whatsoever involving Sarah Palin. Zero."

The FBI's Alaska spokesman said their is no FBI investigation of Palin for her activities as governor, as mayor or in any other capacity.

Palin's Facebook message:

Happy 4th of July from Alaska!
Today at 4:55pm

On this Independence Day, I am so very proud of all those who have chosen to serve our great nation and I honor their selflessness and the sacrifices of their families, too.

If I may, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the last 24 hours and share my thoughts with you.

First, I want to thank you for your support and hard work on the values we share. Those values led me to the decision my family and I made. Yesterday, my family and I announced a decision that is in Alaska’s best interest and it always feels good to do what is right. We have accomplished more during this one term than most governors do in two – and I am proud of the great team that helped to build these wonderful successes. Energy independence and national security, fiscal restraint, smaller government, and local control have been my priorities and will remain my priorities.

For months now, I have consulted with friends and family, and with the Lieutenant Governor, about what is best for our wonderful state. I even made a few administrative changes over that course in time in preparation for yesterday. We have accomplished so much and there’s much more to do, but my family and I determined after prayerful consideration that sacrificing my title helps Alaska most. And once I decided not to run for re-election, my decision was that much easier – I’ve never been one to waste time or resources. Those who know me know this is the right decision and obvious decision at that, including Senator John McCain. I thank him for his kind, insightful comments.         

The response in the main stream media has been most predictable, ironic, and as always, detached from the lives of ordinary Americans who are sick of the “politics of personal destruction”. How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it’s about country. And though it's honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make. But every American understands what it takes to make a decision because it’s right for all, including your family.

I shared with you yesterday my heartfelt and candid reasons for this change; I’ve never thought I needed a title before one’s name to forge progress in America. I am now looking ahead and how we can advance this country together with our values of less government intervention, greater energy independence, stronger national security, and much-needed fiscal restraint. I hope you will join me. Now is the time to rebuild and help our nation achieve greatness!

God bless you! And I look forward to making a difference – with you!

Sarah

Remember the signers of the Declaration of Independence

Texas Republican Congressman Ted Poe remembers the signers of the Declaration of Independence:

We were so blessed to have such courageous founders.

John McCain on Independence Day and the Iranian protests

"The world must never doubt where we stand in the liberation struggles of our time." - Senator John McCain

In today's weekly Republican address, Senator John McCain speaks on Independence Day and the Iranian protests:

"We are strong and prosperous because we are free, not the other way around."

Full transcript of Senator McCain’s remarks:

Hi, I’m Senator John McCain.

Today, we celebrate our independence, declared 233 years ago, achieved through the trial of a long and difficult war, and preserved through the years with the blood and sacrifice of millions. It’s an occasion for Americans to reunite with family and enjoy a mid-summer holiday with picnics and barbeques, ballgames and golf, and other recreation.  

Our appreciation for what happened on a hot summer day in Philadelphia all these years ago is often limited to a fleeting, warm feeling about an ancient generation of Americans who, against great odds, stood up to a powerful oppressor, and claimed their natural right to liberty. This is an accurate but incomplete understanding of the revolution begun that day. For written on that piece of yellowed parchment is not only the bold assertion that thirteen former British colonies were and forever would remain free and independent states, but also the once radical idea that history has a right side and a wrong side, and that Americans stood and would always stand on the right side.

The signers put their names and ransomed their lives to a universal, not just a national ideal; that all human beings everywhere, not just Americans, not just the mostly well-off white men gathered in Philadelphia for the occasion, ‘are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’  

We’ve not always been true to that ideal, and the rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Slavery, Jim Crow, the disenfranchisement of women were betrayals of the principles enshrined in our founding documents, and had to be conquered before we could claim without qualification to be firmly on the right side of history. But we overcame our faults, corrected our mistakes and in the unfinished story of our Republic, we continue our progress toward ‘a more perfect union.’ And, in the struggle to do so, we have achieved greatness.

Our wealth and power, unequaled by any nation before or since, are not the cause of our greatness. Our ideals have made us great. We are strong and prosperous because we are free, not the other way around. We have marched, in fits and starts, toward the right side of history and have ascended to a most exalted station in the affairs of mankind – ‘leader of the free world.’ It’s a great tribute to us, but also a great responsibility.

We share a kinship of ideals with every man and woman on earth who struggles for their God-given rights. The world must never doubt where we stand in the liberation struggles of our time. We stand with those who risk the anger of tyrants and their lives for the proposition that just government is derived from the consent of the governed; that all people are entitled to equal justice under the law.

Today, we stand with the millions of Iranians who brave batons, imprisonment and gunfire to have their voices heard and their votes counted. They do not ask us to arm them or come to their assistance with anything other than public declarations of solidarity, and public denunciations of the tyrants who oppress them. We have a moral obligation to do so.

There are those among us who warn that a strong and unequivocal declaration of moral support for Iranians would be used by the cruel regime in power there to convince their subject people that the United States is behind the civil unrest they have attempted to hide from the world. But the regime will make that claim no matter what we say or do. Do they really believe Iranians don’t know why they’re protesting and who is oppressing them? Do they think Iranians whose votes were discarded, whose voices have been ignored, whose lives have been threatened by the regime they wish to be rid of will think America has put them in that position; that the CIA caused a brave and idealistic young woman to step out of her car to join their protest, only to be instantly murdered by the henchmen of the regime?

Iranians know the truth. They know who is oppressing them and why. It’s a government that governs without their consent, which beats them, imprisons them and threatens their lives to preserve its own hold on power, and not to resist some imagined foreign enemy.  

They are not fools, these brave and determined Iranians. They are on the right side of history, and the cynics among us, who think them fools, are on the wrong side. Liberty and justice will someday be theirs. Let us hope they will have reason to remember then, who their friends were in their struggle for freedom.

This is John McCain, wishing you a happy and meaningful Fourth of July.

Happy Independence Day

Chronology Of Events:
June 7, 1776 to January 18, 1777

1776
June 7 -- Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, receives Richard Henry Lee's resolution urging Congress to declare independence.

June 11 -- Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston appointed to a committee to draft a declaration of independence. American army retreats to Lake Champlain from Canada.

June 12 - 27 -- Jefferson, at the request of the committee, drafts a declaration. Jefferson's clean, or "fair" copy, the "original Rough draught," is reviewed by the committee.

June 28 -- A fair copy of the committee draft of the Declaration of Independence is read in Congress.

July 1 - 4 -- Congress debates and revises the Declaration of Independence.

July 2 -- Congress declares independence as the British fleet and army arrive at New York.

July 4 -- Congress adopts the Declaration of Independence in the morning of a bright, sunny, but cool Philadelphia day. John Dunlap prints the Declaration of Independence.

July 5 -- John Hancock, president of the Continental Congress, dispatches the Declaration of Independence to the legislatures of New Jersey and Delaware.

July 6 -- Pennsylvania Evening Post of July 6 prints the first newspaper rendition of the Declaration of Independence.

July 8 -- The first public reading of the Declaration is in Philadelphia.

July 9 -- Washington orders that the Declaration of Independence be read before the American army in New York.

July 19 -- Congress orders the Declaration of Independence engrossed (officially inscribed) and signed by members.

August 2 -- Delegates begin to sign engrossed copy of the Declaration of Independence. A large British reinforcement arrives at New York after being repelled at Charleston, S.C.

1777
January 18 -- Congress, now sitting in Baltimore, Maryland, orders that signed copies of the Declaration of Independence printed by Mary Katherine Goddard of Baltimore be sent to the states.

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
Action of Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

WHEN in the Course of Human Events,
it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.

HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.

HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.

HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.

HE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of the Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and the Convulsions within.

HE has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.

HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.

HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us;

FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:

FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:

FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:

FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rules into these Colonies:

FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.

FOR has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.

HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.

HE has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.

HE every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.

WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

As you celebrate Independence Day please remember those who have and are sacrificing so much to ensure our independence.

Originally posted July 4, 2004.

Palin to resign as Alaska governor

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will resign from office July 26.

Palin did not say why she decided to step down, but speculation is that she will focus the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Government squashes Nantucket Tea Party

"We don’t want politics on Main Street."

The Nantucket Tea Party will be one of more than a thousand such protest events to be held across the nation on Independence Day.

The organizers were all set. They were given permission by the Town’s head of Park and Recreation.  After the local paper publicized the event, some members of the Nantucket Park and Recreation Commission decided to forget about the First Amendment. One local official was quoted as saying "we don’t want politics on Main Street." Apparently the head of Park and Recreation was overruled by the commissioners.

The Nantucket Tea Party then got permission to use a bank's private property. A Town official then advised the Nantucket Tea Party that the Tea Party must obtain a permit to block the sidewalk -- even though the street is closed! The Nantucket Tea Party got the Police, Fire and Public Works departments sign off on the event, but the Park and Recreation department balked.

Now the Nantucket Tea Party has been restricted to the steps of a bank. The town government will not allow the Nantucket Tea Party to be part of the Independence Day celebration on Main Street as had been planned.

Nantucket's heavy handed attempt to quash the Nantucket Tea Party is a sad commentary on what too many so-called leaders in this country think about freedom and our rights.

It is especially unfortunate that this is happening in Nantucket, which has a particular historic connection to the first tax revolt in this country, the Boston Tea Party of 1773.  The ships Eleanor, Beaver and Dartmouth, later known as the tea party ships, were owned and operated out of Nantucket.

If you are near enough, go to Nantucket tomorrow and support the Nantucket Tea Party. Festivities begin at 9:30. There will also be a historical presentation by Maurice Gibbs, Commander U.S. Navy (retired), about the historic Boston Tea Party of 1773 and its connection to current events at the Nantucket Tea Party, a reading of the Declaration of Independence and a citizen forum.

The Nantucket Tea Party is a grassroots, nonpartisan group of concerned citizens on Nantucket Island, Massachusetts. The group is open to all who want to get involved in a grass roots movement to reinforce the principles upon which this country was founded.

Is Colin Powell suffering Obama buyer's remorse?

In an interview to air on CNN's "State of the Union," Colin Powell expresses "concerned" about President Obama's ambitious agenda and the high price tags accompanying the Obama agenda.

I think one of the cautions that has to be given to the president — and I've talked to some of his people about this — is that you can't have so many things on the table that you can't absorb it all. And we can't pay for it all.

I'm a little concerned. I'm concerned at the number of programs that are being presented, the bills associated with these programs and the additional government that will be needed to execute them.

Watch the video:

Obama's jobless recovery

Despite all the happy talk that there are signs that the economy is improving, or at least bottoming out, there is little hope that the unemployment rate will improve anytime soon.

Job losses accelerated last month to 467,000, "an unexpectedly large amount."

The unemployment rate rose to 9.5%, the highest level since August 1983.

According to the Associated Press, unemployment is actually much worse:

If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included, the unemployment rate would have been 16.5 percent in June, the highest on records dating to 1994.

Even before the June unemployment numbers were announced, the Los Angeles Times reported many of the jobs are gone forever.

Also, instead of shrinking operations, companies have shut down whole business units or made sweeping structural changes: General Motors Corp. and Chrysler, for example, closed hundreds of dealerships. Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. cut tens of thousands of positions.

It didn't have to be like this. Obama's $787-billion so-stimulus plan should have been more about creating jobs, rather than a vehicle to fund "every liberal, entitlement cause under the sun."

As James Pethokoukis wrote, Obama's stimulus boondoggle was a ruse. Some two-thirds of the Obama stimulus is not intended to be spent until after 2009. Obviously, immediate "stimulus" was not the primary intent of Obama's stimulus. If it had been, the plan would have been front-loaded. The main goal of the Obama stimulus was to make a down payment on Obama's health care, energy and education agenda.

Maybe now that even Obama admits unemployment will break 10 percent, the Obama stimulus ruse will be seen for the great deception it was.

Senators want hearing on Obama's firing of inspector general

Two Republican senators, Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Orrin Hatch of Utah, asked for a congressional hearing to look at whether President Obama acted appropriately when he fired the national service agency's inspector general earlier this month.

In what has become known as Walpin-Gate, Obama fired Gerald Walpin, the inspector general who investigates AmeriCorps and other programs that are part of the Corporation for National Community Service. Obama said he lost confidence in Walpin after Walpin's investigation found misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter.

Walpin has some important friends coming to his defense. Some 145 of them, including former federal judges and even Democrats like Bernie Nussbaum, former President Clinton's first White House counsel.

There is a lot more to this story. The FBI has opened an investigation into Mayor Johnson's group giving credence to the Walpin's work.

More Americans see Democratic Party as 'too liberal'

Gallup finds more Americans describe the Democratic Party's views as "too liberal," from 39% to 46% - the largest percentage the since Democrats' losses in the 1994 midterm elections:

The increasing perception of the Democrats as too far left comes as President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have expanded the government's role in the economy to address the economic problems facing the country. Additionally, the government is working toward major healthcare reform legislation and strengthening environmental regulations.

According to Gallup, even though the Democrats continue to hold the upper hand over Republicans in  party identification and party favorable ratings the Democrats may be vulnerable:

That may expose a bit of a vulnerability for the Democratic Party, and if perceptions of the Democratic Party as being too liberal continue to grow, the GOP may be able to win back some of the support it has lost in recent years. But that may be possible only if the Republicans are at the same time able to convince the public that they are not too far to the political right.

Gallup's findings are not surprising considering what the Democrats have done on spending, taxes and deficits under President Obama.

Coleman concedes

Norm Coleman congratulates Al Franken on Senate win.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The 2008 election is over.

Minnesota Supreme Court gives Coleman 10 days to appeal

The Minnesota Supreme Court, in deciding Al Franken won the U.S. Senate race,  gave Republican Norm Coleman 10 days to appeal.

NBC Justice Correspondent, Pete Williams discusses the situation in the following video report:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Minnesota court rules Democrat Al Franken won Senate seat

The Minnesota Supreme Court declared Democrat Al Franken the winner in the long fought  battle for the U.S. Senate race with Republican Norm Coleman.

Franken's win will give Democrats the 60-seat majority they need to overcome procedural obstacles and push through President Obama's agenda.

Coleman has said in published reports he is unlikely to appeal the state court's decision to the federal courts.

Only 19% believe the House cap and trade bill will help the economy

Rasmussen reports that only 19% believe the Waxman-Markey cap and trade tax climate change legislation the House passed last week will help the economy, but 42% say it will hurt the U.S. economy.

A majority of both Republicans (56%) and Independents (52%) think the bill will hurt the economy.

Among Democrats, 30% say it will help the economy.

Just like polling on bailouts, tea parties, and immigration, Rasmussen found a telling divide between divide between Mainstream America and the Political Class on cap and trade:

Fifty percent (50%) of Mainstream Americans say the climate control measure will hurt the economy, but two-thirds of the Political Class (67%) say it will help.

How can our leaders be that out of touch with their constituents?

New York Democrats refuse to stand for the Pledge Of Allegiance

New York State Senate Democrats caught on tape refusing to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag:

The Senators can play all the political games their constituents will let them get away with, but they should not disrespect the Flag of the United States of America.

They should know better.

United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10 - Patriotic Customs, provides:

§172. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.

Perhaps the New York Democrats learned flag etiquette from Presidential candidate Obama.

More Obama say one thing do another - science suppression edition

In his December 20, 2008 weekly address, President-elect Obama set forth some soaring rhetoric regarding science:

Because the truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources – it’s about protecting free and open inquiry.  It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.  It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient.  Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us.  That will be my goal as President of the United States – and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work.

Just words.

Contrary to Obama's rhetoric his administration has suppressed inconvenient scientific evidence that global warming isn't as bad as the cap and trade advocates have been telling us.

The following video outlines the story:

Declan McCullagh reports that according to recently disclosed emails, the Environmental Protection Agency suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming:

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message (PDF) to a staff researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward...and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."

The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be an independent review process inside a federal agency--and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.

E-mail messages released this week show that Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, was ordered not to "have any direct communication" with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.

The suppressed Carlin report was especially inconvenient for Obama's cap and trade push:

Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature.

If there is a need for the government to lower planetary temperatures, Carlin believes, other mechanisms would be cheaper and more effective than regulation of carbon dioxide. One paper he wrote says managing sea level rise or reducing solar radiation reaching the earth would be more cost-effective alternatives.

How long will President Obama get away with saying one thing while he does the opposite?

Only 15 more Senate votes needed for cap and trade

Darren Samuelsohn reports cap and trade backers are 15 Senate votes short of the 60 needed for passage.

According to Samuelsohn's article, the Senate count stands at 45 yes or probably yes, 32 no, and 23 fence sitters:

To start, there are 45 senators in the "yes" or "probably yes" camp, including Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Maine Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.

There are 23 fence sitters. Alaska's Mark Begich (D) and Lisa Murkowski (R) need to keep their home state's oil and gas interests in mind, while Ohio's Sherrod Brown (D) and Michigan Democrats Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow are pressing for provisions that help agriculture and their state's ailing manufacturing and auto industries.

There are also 32 Republicans who are unlikely to vote for a climate bill of the shape and size that Obama and congressional Democratic leaders envision, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Missouri Sen. Kit Bond and Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, an outspoken skeptic about the link between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

Have things change so much since the 1990's? Back then, the House approved President Clinton's energy tax, also known as the BTU tax. That vote was as close as Friday's on the Democrats' cap and trade energy tax:

In 1993, the legislation containing the Clinton energy tax was adopted on a 219-to-213 vote with 38 Democrats defecting. On Friday, the House bill was approved 219 to 212, with 44 Democrats defecting.

Clinton's energy tax didn't pass the senate and the Democrats lost the senate in the following election.

The whole point of both Clinton's BTU energy tax and the current cap and trade energy tax is to price fossil fuels out of the market. Imposing higher energy costs on our economy, costs which don't apply to economic competitors such as China and India, does not make sense for a struggling economy facing Obama's out of control spending, higher taxes and ever growing multi-trillion dollar deficits.

In 1997 the Senate unanimously passed, 95–0, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing nations as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States." Byrd-Hagel prevented Clinton from even trying to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which also would have put the U.S. economy at an economic disadvantage to China and India.

Have things really changed so since the 1990s that the U.S. Senate would vote to give our economic competitors an advantage?

President Obama hasn't even tried to wiggle out of his admissions that under his cap and trade plan electricity rates will skyrocket and would bankrupt anyone who builds a coal-powered plant.  

Have things really changed so much that the Senate would vote cause electricity rates to skyrocket and to bankrupt anyone who builds a coal powered plant?

Supreme Court rules for white firefighters

The Supreme Court has ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut, were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

The firefighters claimed New Haven unfairly threw out a civil service examination because not enough minorities did well on the test, and the city feared a discrimination suit by the black firefighters.

The Supreme Court decided New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion test because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities. The Court held that the city's fear of litigation cannot justify the refusal to apply the test.    

The decision will certainly play a role in Judge Sotomayor's confirmation.

The 93 decision is available here.

Pawlenty to Obama: Stop spending

"With all due respect, Mr. President, if we're out of money, quit spending it." - Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, CNN's State of the Union, June 28, 2009

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty discussed, health care, cap and trade and stimulus on CNN's State of the Union with John King. Pawlenty did a terrific job countering Obama/Democrat talking points:

• On President Obama's so-called stimulus:

  The General Accounting Office, said recently of the $800 billion stimulus bill, only about $150 billion of it is really stimulative for the economy. The rest was spent on government programs, government social service programs that are not stimulative. And so this is a bill that was misdirected,mis-targeted, mis- prioritized, mis-focused.

• On Out-of-Control Spending:

Well, the president said not long ago in an interview quote-unquote, "we are out of money." With all due respect, Mr. President, if we're out of money, quit spending it.

This is a nation that has got a debt load and a deficit load that is unsustainable. We're going to have, in my view, the federal government debt crisis equivalent of the mortgage crisis within 20 years.

• On Cap and Trade:

It's a cap and trade bill. It's going to cap our job growth and trade our jobs to other countries who provide a more competitive business environment. 

We should do things to reduce emissions and pollution, but we have to do it in a way that doesn't wreck our economy or put unreasonable burdens on our citizens. And this bill does not meet that test.

• On Health Care:

  Well, there are goals of three parts for health care reform, John. One is extending coverage, called access, but there are other goals, as well, which is cost containment, because it's bankrupting cities, states, businesses, the federal government. And the third is making sure we maintain quality.

  So you can obsess just about access, but if you don't also contain costs and preserve quality, you're in big trouble.       

  We share, as Republicans, the goal of health care reform, to get more access, to control costs, to improve quality. But the way to do that isn't to have the government take over the system.

Watch the video:

The full transcript of Governor Pawlenty is available here.

Going cap and trade green

The Tax Foundation released the following video to educate folks about cap and trade:

Here are the lyrics, in case you want to sing along:

We're gonna...
Cap and trade
all carbon emissions
gonna cap and trade
that will be our mission

We're gonna cap and trade
see what I mean
the government is
going green today...
We cap and trade.

See cap and trade
charges folks for releasing carbon
like companies that use
vehicles that park and

utilities and factories
who pass the cost
to people who will pay
for cap and trade.

It sounds like cap and trade
is a tax we pay then
No sir, cap and trade
is just a regulation

See tax is when there's
money spent
this is just a fee to the government
Okay?
It's cap and trade.

So with cap and trade
won't things be more expensive?
Well just...everything
but don't be so apprehensive

Just clothes and food
and heating bills
and anything that needs
to be shipped will
be raised
with cap and trade.

But how is cap and trade
not a tax there, sonny
when we all have to pay
the government our money

You don't seem to understand my friend
we're going green, doesn't that make sense?
they'll pay
for cap and trade.

Sounds like cap and trade
is some sort of weird humor
because these fees will just be
passed on to the consumer

Yes, but check this chart
you'll see for sure
the biggest burden will be
on the poor who'll pay
for cap and trade.

See who cares if cost of most goods go higher?
And household income levels all go down?
and if estimated environmental impact is not really calculable,,,

Oh, what a scene, I'm really keen
the government is going green
We're going green
with cap and trade!

Boehner: 'where are the jobs?'

In today's "Weekly Republican Address," House Republican Leader John Boehner asks, "Where are the jobs?"

It's a good question. After all, to justify spending trillions of borrowed money on President Obama's so-called stimulus, energy and health care bills, Obama and the Democrats promised the unprecedented spending would create jobs:

The president and Democrats in Congress claim this spending binge is necessary to put Americans back to work. They promised unemployment would not rise above 8 percent if their trillion-dollar stimulus was passed.

But our nation has lost nearly three million jobs this year. Unemployment has soared above 9 percent. And now the president admits that unemployment will soon reach double digits.

After all of this spending, after all of this borrowing from China, the Middle East, our children and our grandchildren, where are the jobs?"Where are the jobs?"

You can watch Leader Boehner's address in the following video:

Here's another question. Why do Congressional Democrats continue to pursue economic, health care, energy, and  environmental policies that will destroy more American jobs and drive future generations into deeper debt?

House Democrats and 8 Republicans pass cap and Trade

Congratulations to the House Democrats, and their eight Republican abettors, on the passage of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade tax climate change legislation.

Today's victors are to be congratulated for demonstrating that by using dilatory tactics, such as posting the "final" version of a 1,200 page bill the night before the vote, issuing a 300 page amendment to the 1,200 page bill after 3:00 a.m., and allowing only five hours of debate, it is possible to pass a cap and trade tax plan. A plan that presidential candidate Obama said will cause electricity rates to "necessarily skyrocket" and will bankrupt anyone who builds a coal-powered plant. And show that it is possible to pass such a plan with a whopping seven vote margin - 219-212, with less than 4% of the favorable votes coming from the loyal opposition and more than 20% of the negative votes coming from the majority party.

It does make wonder what is hidden in all those pages that no Representative really had a chance to read, let alone study, that made the Democrats so determined to avoid a real honest to goodness debate.

Congressman Steve King: cap and trade a 'colossal mistake'

"We've seen the example in Spain, it's a colossal mistake there, a political and an economic error. This could be the most colossal mistake ever made in the history of the United State Congress." - Congressman Steve King

Under Cap and Trade there will be less energy because the legislation freezes or rolls back, oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear and biofuels.

Cantor on cap and trade: 'wrong bill at the wrong time'

“This is the wrong bill at the wrong time. As the Leader says, votes for this bill on the other side will come at a significant cost.” – House Republican Whip Eric Cantor

Republican Whip Eric Cantor speaks at a press conference on Cap and Trade:

Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax is wrong for America. It is the wrong bill at the wrong time. It is so far outside the mainstream that I think the public is awakened now and understands there are huge costs and consequences to this bill. There will be millions of jobs lost due to the imposition of a national energy tax on small businesses and working families.

And frankly, the reason why the bill is so wrong is it represents yet a third attempt to try and reduce carbon emissions in a way that has proven unsuccessful in the past. Most of the industrialized world got together in 1992 in Rio, attempted to put goals out there to reduce carbon emissions in this manner and the result was failure. In 2000, Kyoto occurred, and we all know we’re on a course for significant failure in terms of that goal setting as well and its costing hundreds-of-billions of dollars to the global economy.

We can do this. We can make the earth a cleaner place. But the way we do it is to reduce the cost of alternative fuels - to make cleaner those fossil fuels at a reduced cost than what we have today. That is simple economics, that’s how we sustain a cleaner environment and promote a green economy.

This is the wrong bill at the wrong time. As the Leader says, votes for this bill on the other side will come at a significant cost.

Congressman Pence denounces Democrats' secretive cap and trade rush

Congressman Mike Pence denounces the secretive and rushed manner in which cap and trade -- the Democrats' national energy tax bill -- was brought to the House Floor:

What are the Democrats trying to hide this time?

Cap and trade won’t save the earth

A focus group tells Ben Lieberman, the Heritage Foundation's Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Environment, the what they think about global warming and cap and trade. Lieberman points out some key misconceptions that might change their minds about this new energy tax.

Lieberman recently addressed the Heartland Institute's Third International Conference on Climate Change where he discussed four questions that are helpful in analyzing proposals to dealing with climate change:

1. How much of a problem is man-made global warming? After all, Waxman-Markey or any other solution is a solution only to the extent that there's a problem in the first place.
2. If one assumes warming is a problem, how much of it will be solved by the policy under consideration? In other words, if we accept that the increasing trajectory of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is causing net harm, how much of that harm will be alleviated, how much of that rising trajectory will be reduced by the policy measure in question? Are we eliminating 100 percent of the problem, or 25 percent, or maybe only a few percent? And consequently, how much will the earth's future temperature be reduced: a lot, a little, enough to even notice? These are especially important questions to ask of a unilateral measure like Waxman-Markey.
3. Whether this particular solution to global warming has been tried elsewhere, and how well it has worked. What is the real-world experience with this approach? Here there are valuable lessons from Europe, which did us the favor of moving much faster than the U.S. and has already implemented the cap-and-trade approach embodied in Waxman-Markey. And this real-world experience needs to be taken into account.
4. Whether there are better ways of addressing global warming and, for that matter, better priorities to address than global warming. Looking at all the challenges that present generations face and future generations will face, is this the best use of our resources?

Lieberman concludes cap and trade is not only the wrong approach for the economy but may also be the wrong approach for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. You can read Lieberman's analysis here.

Obama on cap and trade: 'electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket'

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." -- Barack Obama, January 17, 2008, San Francisco Chronicle

Watch Obama say that under his cap and trade plan electricity rates will skyrocket:

During the same interview Obama also admitted that his cap and trade plan would bankrupt anyone who builds a coal-powered plant.  

Obama was honest about cap and trade during the campaign.

   

Democrats rush cap and trade vote

There they go again.

The  Democrats' House leadership, and President Obama, are rushing about trying to find the votes to pass cap and trade tax before anybody figures out what it is all about.

The Democrats, like they did with Obama's so-called stimulus, scheduled the vote before the Congress critters could possibly read the 1,200 page bill. The vote is set for tomorrow, even though no one has yet seen the final legislation.

House Republicans pushed back against the Democrats' latest rush with the following video in which Obama admits that under cap and trade the price of electricity will "skyrocket":

The Democrats' cap and trade climate change bill suffers from the same defect as the Clinton/Gore favored Kyoto Protocol. In 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized, that approach was rejected by the Senate because it put the U.S. at an economic disadvantage compared to China and India. The Senate unanimously passed, 95–0, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing nations as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States."