From the Seattle Times:

Washington, DC – Congressman Dave Reichert (WA-08) released the following statement today after the U.S. House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act:

“Energy independence and our national security are critical issues for America. These issues transcend politics. The future of this country is on the line and we can spare no effort when it comes to  leading on these issues at a global level.

“This bill is not perfect, but it is a vital step toward energy independence. America cannot maintain global leadership without innovation and new ideas, and we cannot lead if we increasingly depend
on foreign nations to heat our homes and move people and goods. The price of inaction is too great; America cannot stand on the sidelines while our competitors embrace new energy efficient technologies. It’s also important that we engage in a bipartisan discussion as we move forward – this bill has many other hoops to jump through before it becomes law and I will continue to work with my colleagues across the aisle and in the Senate to gain more tax relief for middle-income families.

“Teddy Roosevelt was the true example of a Republican engaged in conserving resources for our children and grandchildren, but he also had the foresight to seek a brighter future for them. Republicans must be at the table as we look for solutions in energy independence and preserving our environment, while also looking at the bigger picture and working with all of our colleagues for a stronger nation.”

OK, breaking this down:

Energy independence and our national security are critical issues for America. These issues transcend politics. The future of this country is on the line and we can spare no effort when it comes to
leading on these issues at a global level.

So far so good.  I agree completely.  It’s of course the Democrat party that is playing Politics with this issue, by ramming it through with minimal debate, or even opportunity for the Representatives to read and digest the bill, with all of its last minute amendments, deals, and PLACEHOLDERS.  That’s right, PLACEHOLDERS.  They voted on a bill with a section that HASN’T EVEN BEEN WRITTEN YET.

Courtesy of Michelle Malkin: 

On the House floor this afternoon, Barney Frank explained the “placeholder” in the cap and trade bill that apparently will deal with regulations of financial derivatives market associated with reducing
carbon emissions.

I feel so much better that we have a PLACEHOLDER in a piece of legislation of this magnitude, controlled by one of the main players in the Sub-Prime Mortgage crises.

This point alone should have been a deal killer.

This bill is not perfect, but it is a vital step toward energy independence. America cannot maintain global leadership without innovation and new ideas, and we cannot lead if we increasingly depend
on foreign nations to heat our homes and move people and goods.

He is right, that this bill is NOT perfect.  It is far from perfect.  Nor will it be a vital step towards energy independence.  What it does is handicap american industry, at the very time that we should be trying to rehabilitate it; and kills more jobs than it will create.  Oh, and as an added bonus, it will greatly increase the cost of energy in the United States, while forcing oil refineries off shore, to nations with far more lax environmental laws.

Courtesy of Bloomberg:

The same amount of gasoline that would have $1 in carbon costs imposed if it were domestic would have 10 cents less added if it were imported, according to energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie in Houston. Contrary to President Barack Obama’s goal of reducing dependence on overseas energy suppliers, the bill would incent U.S. refiners to import more fuel, said Clayton Mahaffey, an analyst at RedChip Cos. in Maitland, Florida.

So, there go America’s refinery jobs, and with the added bonus of being more dependent on foreign energy!

Back to Reichert:

The price of inaction is too great; America cannot stand on the sidelines while our competitors embrace new energy efficient technologies. It’s also important that we engage in a bipartisan discussion as we move forward – this bill has many other hoops to jump through before it becomes law and I will continue to work with my colleagues across the aisle and in the Senate to gain more tax relief for middle-income families.

We have two “alternative” energy sources available that we are ignoring:  Nuclear and Hydro-Electric.

In fact, according to the Washington Times;

Renewable energy accounts for about 8.5 percent of domestic electricity generation, but the House bill’s renewable mandate would not recognize all of that as renewable. Hydropower, for example, which makes up a large chunk of current electricity generation, is not all counted as renewable toward the new mandate.

So, it has the be the right kind (read: Politically Correct) form of energy…

And as far as “tax relief for middle income families” goes, the idea that more than a pittance of the Cap and Trade money will filter down to the consumer is laughable on it’s face.

Courtesy of Fox/Liz Peek:

A sober assessment of the government’s budget situation over the next decade would lead some to think that there is about as much chance of cap-and-trade revenues being recycled back to taxpayers as there is of Nancy Pelosi taking command of the CIA. The government is looking high and low for revenues to fund healthcare legislation and a slew of other programs; this torrent will be just too delicious to give up.

Remember the Social Security Lockbox?  Just how many times do our Representatives have to lie to us, before we wise up?

But I guess the part that really stings is when Reichert puts himself in the company of Teddy Roosevelt:

“Teddy Roosevelt was the true example of a Republican engaged in conserving resources for our children and grandchildren, but he also had the foresight to seek a brighter future for them. Republicans must be at the table as we look for solutions in energy independence and preserving our environment, while also looking at the bigger picture and working with all of our colleagues for a stronger nation.”

Now, I am a BIG fan of TR – I think he is the quintessential American President.  TR embodied the America of his time.

But TR was unable to curb his own political ambition, and his ill advised run for the Presidency against William Taft (on the Bull Moose party ticket, as he had failed to wrest the Republican nomination from Taft – who was his chosen successor), costing both the election, and allowing Woodrow Wilson to win, with only 42% of the vote.  We are still dealing with the fallout of the Wilson presidency, to this day.

So I guess there is some similarity to TR, after all.

The Republican’s had a far better alternative to the Cap and Tax Economy Killer bill, the American Energy Innovation Act, HR. 2828, which the Democrat Party killed in “Bipartisan” fashion…

The only question I have left for Reichert, not that I expect to ever find out the truth of the matter, is:  Did you vote for this bill out of personal conviction, or were you offered some kind of deal?

All I can say, for myself, is that I refuse to support anyone who puts American families and their well being second to passing what is a really bad piece of legislation, out of the misguided notion that something is better than nothing.

If Reichert (and just two or three other turncoats) had stood strong, they could have forced the Democrat dictators in the House to reconsider their definition of “Bipartisan”.

Thanks, Dave.  Hope you aren’t counting on my vote in 2010.

Maybe Obama is hiring for all the new bureaucracy he is creating…

Tags: Cap and Trade, Reichert

From Michelle Malkin, we get the link to the final talley, showing Congressman Dave Reichert voting AYE, to PASS the Cap and Trade Economy Killer Bill.

As Michelle asks;

There are 7 GOP turncoats with recorded YEA votes.

What were their payoffs???

I hope Dave Reichert’s payoff was worth it, because he has now thrown his lot in with the job killers in the Democrat party.

I held my nose and voted for Reichert in 2008, because he is a squishy Republican at best.  There was never any thought that he was a conservative.  But the alternative was Darcy Burner.

At least Burner would not have stabbed her Liberal supporters in the back, like Reichert has with conservatives, Republicans, and working people.

Even if this Bill gets stopped in the Senate, Reichert has given the fanatics on the left some degree of cover, by supporting this monstrosity of a bill.

I will be happy to campaign for ANYONE who wants to run against Reichert for his House seat in 2010.

I will, to borrow a turn of phrase, vote for a yelllow dog, before I ever vote for Dave Reichert again.

Tags: Reichert

Michelle Malkin and the Americana for Prosperity are reporting that Dave Reichert (R – Wa. Dist 8) is leaning towards a YES vote on the Cap and Trade Economy Killer bill, currently being ramrodded through the House of Representatives, despite the Republicans being locked out of the process, and Cong. Waman doing a midnight drop of a 300+ page amendment to the bill.

I cannot encourage people strongly enough to contact Cong. Reichert’s office, and let them know where you stand on this issue!

Washington DC office phone:

(202) 225-7761

Mercer Island office phone: 

(206) 275-3438 or (877) 920-9208

If you are a constituent, you can email his office here.

UPDATE (1:50PM, PDT):  Finally got ahold of Cong. Reichert’s office in DC.  To paraphrase the intern that answered, Reichert is NOT fixed in position, and is weighing response from constituents.

So again, if you are in Wa. Dist 8, and Dave Reichert is your US Representative, please call and or email his office NOW on this issue.

The running vote total is only slightly in favor of the bill right now, so every vote counts on this one!

Tags: Cap and Trade, Reichert

Ralph Peters has a most excellent piece today, courtesy of the NY Post:

An ugly pattern’s emerging in our president’s beliefs:

He’s infallible. This is rich, given all the criticism of the Bush administration’s unwillingness to admit mistakes. We now have a president with Jimmy Carter’s naivete, Richard Nixon’s distaste for laws, Lyndon Johnson’s commitment to the wrong war, and Bill Clinton’s moral fecklessness.

Democracy isn’t important. Our president seems infected by yesteryear’s Third-World-leftist view that dictatorships are essential to post-colonial development — especially for Muslims.

Look where Obama has gone and who he supports: the pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia, his groveling speech in Egypt, his embrace of Hamas, his hands-off approach to the gory regime in Sudan — and now his dismay at the protests in Iran.

Strict Islam is true Islam. This is bewildering, given Obama’s childhood exposure to the tolerant Islam practiced in most of Indonesia. The defining remark of his presidency thus far was his Cairo demand for the right of Muslim women to wear Islamic dress in the West — while remaining silent about their right to reject the hijab, burqa or chador in the Middle East.

History’s a blank canvas — except for America’s sins. Of course, we’ve had presidents who presented the past in the colors they preferred — but we’ve never had one who just made it all up.

Testify, Brother.

Today’s Recommend Reading.

Tags: Obama, Recommended Reading

Gateway Pundit has a wonderful piece comparing and contrasting the stands of G. W. Bush and B .H. Obama, regarding the struggle for freedom and democracy in the world today:

“All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.”

President George W. Bush
Second Inaugural Speech
January 20, 2005

President Bush’s made this pledge to political dissidents and freedom activists in 2005, “We will stand with you.” And, the oppressed took him at his word. There was an Orange Revolution in Ukraine, a Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, and a Cedar Revolution in Lebanon that spring. There were democratic elections in Afghanistan where women were not only allowed to vote but took seats in parliament. There were democratic elections for the first time in the United Arab Emirates. Saudi Arabia released political dissidents. There were Arab democracy conferences in Qatar and women were allowed to vote in Kuwait. Egyptian judges stood up against a regime. Another regime in Libya opened up to the West. And who could forget the Iraqis who walked for miles, braving terrorist death threats, to vote in free democratic elections for the very first time.

President Bush later met with democracy activists from Burma on the twenty year anniversary of the bloody 8888 Protests in Burma. And before he left office in December 2008 President Bush met with dissident bloggers on Human Rights Day.

But those days are over. There’s a new administration in town with a new set of rules and a new set of priorities. Persecuted political dissidents and brave democracy activists do not rank high on the list.

Already this year the Obama Administration has waived sanctions on Syria, considered opening travel to Cuba, announced plans to drop sanctions against the murderous junta in Burma, reportedly approved Sharia Law in the tribal regions of Pakistan in exchange for a bogus peace treaty, praised the Venezuelan “democracy,” discussed holding talks with the Iranian regime, and accepted China’s human rights abuses. That’s quite a record and it hasn’t even been 200 days since they took office.

In February seven former Iranian student prisoners wrote a letter to President Obama and urged him to support the democratic movement of the Iranian people. Their letter went unanswered. It should come as no surprise then that as chaos broke out this weekend in Iran over a very controversial election result the Obama Administration fell silent.

Less than 24 hours after the flawed results were announced by the official media the Obama Administration announced that they would engage with the regime.

Whatever else his flaws, G. W. Bush was a vocal supporter of people around the world, of all faiths and races, who wanted to be free.

B. H. Obama, like most on the left, does not believe that Freedom and Democracy should be “imposed”, or, for that matter, that what we think of as American (or even Western) values are superior in any way to the oppression suffered by people in other nations, in the name of Religion or any particular brand of Politics.

Tags: Bush, Freedom, Obama

I have stayed away from this for a week, but feel compelled to comment at this point.

Last night, Letterman issued a non-apology:

“All right, here – I’ve been thinking about this situation with Governor Palin and her family now for about a week – it was a week ago tonight, and maybe you know about it, maybe you don’t know about it. But there was a joke that I told, and I thought I was telling it about the older daughter being at Yankee Stadium. And it was kind of a coarse joke. There’s no getting around it, but I never thought it was anybody other than the older daughter, and before the show, I checked to make sure in fact that she is of legal age, 18. Yeah. But the joke really, in and of itself, can’t be defended. The next day, people are outraged. They’re angry at me because they said, ‘How could you make a lousy joke like that about the 14-year-old girl who was at the ball game?’ And I had, honestly, no idea that the 14-year-old girl, I had no idea that anybody was at the ball game except the governor and I was told at the time she was there with Rudy Giuliani … and I really should have made the joke about Rudy …” (audience applauds) “But I didn’t, and now people are getting angry and they’re saying, ‘Well, how can you say something like that about a 14-year-old girl, and does that make you feel good to make those horrible jokes about a kid who’s completely innocent, minding her own business,’ and, turns out, she was at the ball game. I had no idea she was there. So she’s now at the ball game, and people think that I made the joke about her. And, but still, I’m wondering, ‘Well, what can I do to help people understand that I would never make a joke like this?’ I’ve never made jokes like this as long as we’ve been on the air, 30 long years, and you can’t really be doing jokes like that. And I understand, of course, why people are upset. I would be upset myself.

“And then I was watching the Jim Lehrer ‘Newshour’ – this commentator, the columnist Mark Shields, was talking about how I had made this indefensible joke about the 14-year-old girl, and I thought, ‘Oh, boy, now I’m beginning to understand what the problem is here. It’s the perception rather than the intent.’ It doesn’t make any difference what my intent was, it’s the perception. And, as they say about jokes, if you have to explain the joke, it’s not a very good joke. And I’m certainly – ” (audience applause) “– thank you. Well, my responsibility – I take full blame for that. I told a bad joke. I told a joke that was beyond flawed, and my intent is completely meaningless compared to the perception. And since it was a joke I told, I feel that I need to do the right thing here and apologize for having told that joke. It’s not your fault that it was misunderstood, it’s my fault. That it was misunderstood.” (audience applauds) “Thank you. So I would like to apologize, especially to the two daughters involved, Bristol and Willow, and also to the governor and her family and everybody else who was outraged by the joke. I’m sorry about it and I’ll try to do better in the future. Thank you very much.” (audience applause).

Now, the thing that is MOST wrong about this is that Letterman is so tone-deaf that it took a WEEK of criticism before he really understood that he had done something wrong.  But even then, he doesn’t recognize that he made a mistake – it’s everyone ELSE’S fault for their PERCEPTION of what he said.  He still contends that it would have all been OK, if the Palin daughter that he joked about was 18 years old, instead of 14.

But almost as bad – and certainly worse, from certain perspectives – is that Letterman felt that it was not only OK and fair to make sexual jokes about the children of a political figure, simply because he, and his hyper liberal audience, disagree with the parents’ politics.

And not making sexual jokes about the children, but the parents as well.

This is the state of civil(?) discourse in the United States today.

If you disagree with someones politics, you are free to malign them, and smear their character, in ways that would have led to an invitation to a Duel 200 years ago, and a beating by the persons relatives even 100 years ago.

But today, public figures in general, and Conservatives in particular, are considered fair game for slander that would have landed people in court for defamation of character even 30 years ago.

And why are Conservatives in particular subjected to this kind of gutter commentary and “comedy”?  Because they tend, as a group, to praise basic values such as chastity, traditional marriage, and traditional family values.  Any black mark in their personal lives (such as a teenage daughter becoming an unwed mother) is seen as proof of hypocrisy, and becomes an open license to besmirch and smear the parent, as well as the entire family.

Which really is the point, from the perspective of the Left.  It is necessary to tear down their opponents on a personal level, to level the playing field, since Leftists believe that their are no standards that should be defended.  The left believes that all lifestyles are equal; that morals and ethics, and standards of conduct are simply local eccentricities, and none are worthy of being help up as superior to another. 

But it’s really really hard to make jokes about political corruption, or sexual misconduct, about a group of people who feel that there is nothing wrong with either issue.

So a Governor of a State of the Union becomes a “Slutty Flight Attendant”.  And Letterman doesn’t feel that he has to apologize for that.

So, no, Letterman still doesn’t get it. 

But I am not calling for a boycott of his sponsors, or for his termination.  But I think what he should be compelled to do is spend a week living with a Conservative family.  For Letterman, and for that matter, most of the people on the left that think like him, that would be the cruelst punishment of all, becuase they just might come to understand that Conservatives are people too, and worthy of some modicum of respect.

That we can disagree, without dehumanizing and demeaning those that we disagree with.

Tags: Palin

Courtesy of JoNova:

Michael Kundu, Board President of Marysville (Washington State, USA) District #25 has written to colleagues to urge them to trash a free science resource that discusses logic, reason and evidence, and the core of science. The Skeptics Handbook has arrived at school board presidents’ desks around the US.

“I would encourage all of you to stuff that junk mail directly into the recycle basket.”

In a spot of unwitting self-parody he states:

“…we need to have the ability to tell fact from fiction.  This last mailing is an excellent example of ‘fiction’.”

Thus Michael Kundu, whale photographer, pronounces the data from NASA, Hadley, UAH, CSSP, IPPC, as fiction.

There is a great deal more background at the link, including an interesting exchange between a Marysville resident, and Mr. Kunda, in the Comments.

This is the same Micheal Kunda, who, as Marysville SB President, wrote a commentary peice in the Everett Herald about Science Education:

While NASA and the ESA enjoy excellent working relationships, the ESA is increasingly seeking more qualified science and technology graduates from Europe and Asia. There’s no prejudice involved (American researchers are part of the LHC project); it’s simply because the number of qualified American science and technology graduates is declining. Even today, NASA reports that about 80 percent of its new hires were educated in foreign institutions.

This spring, U.S. Chamber of Commerce studies reported that American universities generate only 225,000 graduates annually in the STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) fields. Microsoft says it is finding it increasingly difficult to attract qualified U.S. engineers, and this July, the National Research Council (a congressionally chartered policy advice group) released a dire report, calling for more legislative support to promote degrees in fields like biology and chemistry.

I agree completely with Mr. Kunda’s commentary, and I certainly suggest that everyone read it.  If that was the ONLY information I had read concerning Mr. Kunda’s attitudes about Science, I would have voted for him too.

But for someone who, on the one hand, calls for more Science (and related fields) education in the United State, then, on the other hand, simply dismisses out of hand, with no rational reasoning, data that conflicts with his preconceived notions, he contradicts himself.  What concerns me even more, beyond his summary dismissal of arguments and data against Man-Made Global Warming, is his utter unwillingness to give any data or arguments to support his position.  And on the gripping hand, the most disturbing thing of all is his use of Wikipedia as an authoritative source for an attack on the organization that printed the book in question; and this statement:

As board members, one of our main priorities should be to promote the use of accurate, legitimately scientifically-based information in our schools. We’ve seen the efforts by radical creationists, anti-evolution activists, anti-union, white separatist and other fringe groups to subversively infiltrate public education – this mailing from the Heartland Institute is on a similar level.

So, being Anti-Union is now equivalent to being a White Separatist?  Being skeptical of Man Made Global Warming is equivalent to being Creationist and Anti-Evolution?

As to his statement that:

Each of us has an obligation to try and improve the academic environment for our students – we need to have the ability to tell fact from fiction.  This last mailing is an excellent example of ‘fiction’.

I wonder how many time Al Gore’s money making scheme, and widely discredited, “An Inconvenient Truth”, has been shown in the Marysville SD, with Mr. Kunda’s blessing.

I submit that Mr. Kunda’s attitutde about global warming is no less a matter of faith than the people he seeks to demean in his screed.

I suggest reading the email chain between Mr. Kunda, and people involved with the book, here.

Also, you can read the Skeptic’s Handbook here.  It is, from my reading, simply questioning foundaiton of Man Made Global Warming (i.e., CO2), NOT that Climate Change is a real and present process.  Only the most closed minded and parochial would suggest that Climate Change does not occur.  Climate Change has been around since the earth cooled enough to actually HAVE a climate, billions of years ago.  Cliamte Change will be around, long after man has passed on…