This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Politics

  • Window to the future; Democrats raise taxes on Big Oil

    Completly ignoring the basic laws of economics, Congressional Democrats voted yesterday to increase tax on oil companies by $16 billion. Of course this move comes at a time when oil prices reached an all time high price of $75.48 per barrel at Friday’s market close. So who can expect to pay this tax increase? Who else?

    The Washington Examiner writes about the House vote ;

    Declaring a new direction in energy policy, the House on Saturday approved $16 billion in taxes on oil companies, while providing billions of dollars in tax breaks and incentives for renewable energy and conservation efforts.

    Republican opponents said the legislation ignored the need to produce more domestic oil, natural gas and coal. One GOP lawmaker bemoaned “the pure venom … against the oil and gas industry.”

    The House passed the tax provisions by a vote of 221-189. Earlier it had approved, 241-172, a companion energy package aimed at boosting energy efficiency and expanding use of biofuels, wind power and other renewable energy sources.

    But the money quote from Nancy Pelosi is this one;

    “We are turning to the future,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    Turning to the future, huh? By using the failed policies of the past. That’s our future, readers, more taxes and more punishment for consumer by a populist Congress who operates on one-line sound bites that sound good in your ear but bite you in the pocket.

    The Washington Times writes;

    Democrats said the energy package is a step toward weaning the nation off fossil fuels and their emissions, which many scientists blame for global warming. They also say the proposal will create jobs in the growing renewable energy industry.

    “Energy independence is a national security issue, an environmental and health issue, an economic issue and a moral issue,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat. “We must strengthen our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil.”

    But isn’t it odd that the legislation doesn’t address our own reserves – seems drilling our own oil sources in Alaska would wean us off of foreign oil, too. Or drilling the same areas in the Gulf of Mexico that China and Cuba are drilling right off our shores.

    But, no, it’s easier to raise taxes and punish consumers than to actually create an effective energy policy. It sounds better on the evening news to those Prius-driving hippies who are still watching the evening news.

    Can anyone explain to me and my readers why forcing a windfall tax on oil companies helps the American people? Without making government into some grand charitable organization, I mean. And what does government do to justify it getting $16 billion dollars from oil companies? Those resources belong to the American people – not our government – yet no one among us, the American people, are going to see even a penny of the money. Because Democrats think all money is the government’s money.

    Seems to me that those hypocrits who are always complaining about Republicans who try to legislate-away bad behavior would criticise the Democrats for legislating behavior, too.

  • YearlyKos loves Edwards

    Democrats had better hope that the Kos Kids and those other “progressive” bloggers don’t get to choose their candidate in 2008. According to two Washington Post bloggers, John Edwards, the prettiest girl in presidential field, is their choice – well, this week.

    From Jose Vargas;

    But it was Edwards that shined in the forum. The former North Carolina senator received two standing ovations, his voice drowned out by applause as he derided special interests in Washington. When the candidates were asked if they’d have a presidential blogger, Edwards said he would – and her name would be Elizabeth Edwards. Edwards’s wife was an early adopter in blogging, and she’s been a crucial, encouraging voice in her husband’s campaign on the Internet.

    A trial lawyer deriding special interests. Am I the only one sensing some irony (or hypocrisy) here?

    Next is Chris Cillizza;

    John Edwards — High point: It’s hard to choose just one, as Edwards — in the angry/outraged mode he flashed at the CNN/YouTube debate — was hitting on all cylinders. But, if we must….Edwards’ riff on not “trading our insiders for theirs.” Devastatingly effective as a populist pitch, Edwards nuanced it by calling on all of the candidates to pledge not to accept any money from any Washington lobbyists. By the time he was finished, the crowd was roaring.

    Out of the three Democrats leading the field of candidates, I predict that Edwards is the most easily defeatable candidate what with him being such a blatant and unashamed hypocrit and all. He might sucker in all of those Luanne Platter types, but his resume is a two-liner; one term Senator and failed Vice Presidential candidate.

    Although, I just learned the other day from the lawyer who counts the Electoral College ballots at the Office of the Federal Register that John Edwards is the only Vice Presidential candidate in history to receive an electoral college vote for President from an obviously confused delegate – so he’s got that going for him.

  • YearlyKos moderator enforces DoD policy (Updated 2x)

    I picked up this story from Little Green Footballs who got it from American Prospect that some moderator shouted down an audience member in uniform;

    [A] young man in uniform stood up to argue that the surge was working, and cutting down on Iraqi casualties. The moderator largely freaked out. When other members of the panel tried to answer his question, he demanded they “stand down.” He demanded the questioner give his name, the name of his commander, and the name of his unit. And then he closed the panel, no answer offered or allowed, and stalked off the stage….

    Well, apparently Wes Clark, this century’s “Little Mac” McClellan, explained that a member of the military can’t participate in polical meetings in uniform. Funny, that wasn’t the argument the Left used when Adam Kokesh was bothering people while in uniform on the National Mall during anti-war rallies.

    What Wesley Clark was referring to was DoD Directive 1334.01 which states;

    It is DoD policy that:

     3.1.  The wearing of the uniform by members of the Armed Forces (including retired members and members of Reserve components) is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:

      3.1.1.  At any meeting or demonstration that is a function of, or sponsored by an organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons that the Attorney General of the United States has designated, under Executive Order 10450 as amended (reference (c)), as totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive, or as having adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny others their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.

      3.1.2.  During or in connection with furthering political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest may be drawn.

      3.1.3.  Except when authorized by the approval authorities in subparagraph 4.1.1., when participating in activities such as unofficial public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration, which may imply Service sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted.

      3.1.4.  When wearing of the uniform may tend to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.

    Now unless Kos admits that it’s a totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive organization, the guy was within his rights to be there and in uniform. It’s just a lame excuse to keep people from hearing that current operations have improved life in Iraq, while hiding behind a DoD policy that the Left doesn’t agree with when it suits them.

    And in case this Jon Solz dude who dressed down the soldier is wondering – I don’t care what his rank is or was – I’d tear him a new aft-orifice if I ever caught him intimidating a soldier – especially like a lame little puss. “What’s your unit? Who’s your commander?” That’s stuff real leaders stop doing their first day.

    Its pretty disingeuous of Solz, representing himself as a veteran in everything he writes and says, representing an organization called VoteVets which masquerades as a  nonpartisan organization, but is clearly a tool of the Democrats, and then Solz silences a member of the military. 

    Solz didn’t seem to have a problem with the soldier sitting in the audience – until he had something to say. If there was something wrong with him being at the event, someone should have said something during the 44 minutes he sat there.

    More hypocrisy.

    Michele Malkin has more links and thoughts. mRed at Invincible Armor tracks Leftist reaction. Volunteer Opinion Journal faults global warming for their meltdown. Ace says it’s a good excuse to prosecute Beauchamps.

    Little Green Footballs now has the video.

    UPDATE: Pajamas Media‘s Andrew Marcus has an exclusive interview with the young buck sergeant (h/t Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive). 

    UPDATE II: It seems that Daily Kos is also censoring their diarists who question Solz’ treatment of the young buck sergeant at the center of the fury. One story remains, but LGF has a screenshot if it goes the way of it’s predecesor.

  • End the war; raise the taxes

    A bridge collapses in Minnesota and everyone automatically assumes the only answer is to raise Federal taxes. Well, except Barney Frank – he has a two-point plan. End the war in Iraq (he’s careful to say Iraq specifically, otherwise someone might think he’s a crackpot who wants to end the war against Pakistan) and raise taxes.

    LibertyPost records some of the mooniest/battiest internet posts from the Democrat Underground while Bob Parks, of Black and Right, ventures into the Daily Kos. 

    Can someone tell me why a taxpayer in Arizona should pay money out of his earnings so someone in Minnesota doesn’t have to drive around a body of water? Why should we abandon our worldwide struggle for national security to repair potholes in South Dakota?

    Well, of course, the real answer is that any straw the Democrats can grasp they use. They blamed the Republicans for two hurricanes, I guess they blame them for bridge collapses, too. Just so long as the people who vote remember that Federal government isn’t the answer to every-fricken-question-ever-asked.

    I remember in 1992, the Democrats blamed the President’s father for Hurricane Andrew and when he expanded the capabilities of FEMA (which was little more than a phone bank), the Democrats accused him of “growing government” in the election.

    Any group of people who thought that Al Gore and John Kerry were the best choices for the last two presidential races certainly don’t have the answer to two difficult questions – especially if the only answer they can come up with is “end the war and raise taxes”. A two-year-old could have think that one up.

  • Hypocrisy round-up

    The word hypocrisy gets thrown around alot recently, but there are several new examples that jumped out of the internet pages at me this morning. For example, John Edwards who recently condemned Fox News, a subsidiary of News Corp. and declared he’d not appear at a debate hosted by the successful cable news channel. Well, the New York Post discovered that the former senator, shyster lawyer who channels dead babies on command, hedgefund advisor who learned about poverty by stealing from his investors, and charity manager who funnels off tax-free donations to secretly fund his campaign expenses, took $800,000 from HarperCollins, another News Corp. subsidiary;

    John Edwards, who yesterday demanded Democratic candidates return any campaign donations from Rupert Murdoch and News Corp., himself earned at least $800,000 for a book published by one of the media mogul’s companies.

    The Edwards campaign said the multimillionaire trial lawyer would not return the hefty payout from Murdoch for the book titled “Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives.”

    The campaign didn’t respond to a question from The Post about whether it was hypocritical for Edwards to take money from News Corp. while calling for other candidates not to.

    In addition to a $500,000 advance from HarperCollins, which is owned by News Corp., Edwards also was cut a check for $300,000 for expenses.

    Edwards claimed $333,334 in royalties from last year’s release of the book, according to media accounts. The campaign said last night that those funds were part of the advance.

    Of course he claims he gave the money to charity, but he refuses to offer proof of his benevolence.

    The other day, I wrote about Barack Obama’s naive threat to Pakistan to invade with US troops unless Pakistan passes his test of an acceptable level of violence against al Qaeda in Pakistan. With all of the evidence we have that Iran is involved in war against us, why isn’t Obama beinging just as intolerant of Iran’s sheltering of terrorists, al Qaeda or otherwise?  Well, probably because admitting that Iran is a threat justifies our involvement in Iraq and the naive and inexperienced Obama doesn’t want to piss off the anti-war-at-any-cost whackos at Daily Kos.

    Speaking of Daily Kos, EJ Dionne of the Washington Post decided to defend the vulgar, hate-filled Daily Kos today. Comparing Marko’s internet playground for the mentally unstable to Rush Limbaugh, Dionne wrote;

    Personally, I dislike the use of obscenity on the Web, and many online posts are way too nasty. But the right wing, suddenly so concerned with the niceties of political discourse, did not worry much about what its militants said about Clinton, Al Gore or John Kerry. Limbaugh even blamed the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, on a president who had been out of office for eight months. I’m still waiting for his apology.

    George Bush and Dick Cheney have heaped praise on Limbaugh (“Well, Rush, you’ve got a great show, as always,” Cheney said during one of his many interviews) because he’s an effective organizer for the right — even if Limbaugh has, of late, become disenchanted with some of Bush’s policies. Limbaugh desperately needs a Democratic president. Another Clinton would be perfect.

    Um, EJ, Kos made obscenity on the internet an acceptable part of the debate. And resorting to obscenity on the internet makes the left look childish and immature, well, more childish and immature since most of the Left’s charges against president Bush are just ridiculous. So the Democrat candidates are aligning themselves with the extra-chromosone Left and you’re proud of it? And it hardly compares with Rush Limbaugh’s crowd at all.

    A Washington Times editorial alerts us to another impending CAIR lawsuit;

    Another week, another threat of lawsuit by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. This time, the group behind the Minneapolis “flying imams” lawsuit are targeting the Young America’s Foundation, the nonprofit that owns President Reagan’s Santa Barbara Ranch. YAF’s “offense”: Inviting author and terrorism analyst Robert Spencer to speak at a conference yesterday afternoon for a lecture titled “The Truth About the Council on American-Islamic Relations.” Among other things, the real CAIR story features less-than-flattering facts, such as the “unindicted co-conspirator” label CAIR earned in June in a Hamas terror-funding case, and the several people in the group’s orbit who have been indicted on terrorism-related charges. CAIR would rather try to frighten its critics than debate them.

    As CAIR’s lawyer warned YAF Wednesday: “Our clients have instructed us to pursue every available and appropriate legal remedy to redress any false and defamatory statements that are made at the session.” This comes from a group which claims to “encourage dialogue.”

    This is an outrageous bid at intimidation. A more normal advocacy organization would seek to debate its opponents. Sadly, this litigiousness is commonplace for CAIR, whose activities could be scarcely more different from its mission statement. CAIR claims to strive to “be a leading advocate for justice and mutual understanding” and to “enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.” It could scarcely do less of each. 

    It seems you can hardly mention hypocrisy these days without including CAIR in the discussion. I’ll let the Washington Times editorial stand on it’s own without my comments – they always do it so well.

  • Why Hillary shouldn’t be President

    This guy Ron Hilderacker is one of my minor heroes. He lives back in my old stomping grounds in Upstate New York in a depressed county called Wayne County, named after “Mad Anthony” Wayne of Revolutionary War fame on the southern shore of Lake Ontario.

    But let me tell you the little bit I know about Ron – he started a small weekly newspaper from scratch in a cash-strapped community a few years back. He does most of the research, photography and writing himself as well as personally driving the newspapers to the post office to be mailed to his subcribers.

    He’s a real force in the community because of his paper and he doesn’t hold back on local politicians who’ve been getting away with murder and spending taxpayer money with wild abandon.

    Ron also publishes the mug shots of nearly everyone arrested in the county – bringing shame back to crime. Sometimes he even makes fun of the more stupid criminals – like the mother/daughter team caught shoplifting in the Dollar Store.

    Holderacker brought real journalism back to Wayne County and he reminds me of why I wanted to be a journalist when I was younger.

    My mom turned me on to the paper’s website and I immediately became addicted – so much so that I subscribed. I guess it’s my small way of contributing to Ron’s passions and causes. When subscription price is $40/2 years it really is a “small” contribution.

    Well, imagine how happy I was to see his politics are close to mine (many brilliant people share my ideology, though, so it’s not that rare). His editorial this week is a well-reasoned piece about why New Yorkers should not vote Hillary for President. Here’s a teaser but please go and read the rest for yourselves and even though you might not be from Wayne County, just sit back, relax, read the rest of the paper and remember what journalism used to be;

    Let’s forget for a moment that Hillary Clinton is a woman. Her gender should not be a reason for garnering any sane votes for the Nation’s top post. Let’s forget that Hilary Clinton was not even a real New Yorker since there has been a long history of opportunists who have moved into state to seek a public office as a stepping stone to higher ambitions.

    Hillary Clinton is a liar. She boldfaced stood in front of the news media after her husband, former President Bill Clinton lied to the American people about his marital indiscretions while in the White House. Hillary said she believed that her husband was telling the truth and that she trusted he did not have an affair.

    This flew in the face of years of philandering by Governor Bill Clinton that was not one of the best kept secrets in Arkansas . Hillary was either the dumbest wife on the planet Earth, or a woman who knew the truth would not benefit her own political career path.

  • Stop me before I buy Chinese

    The populist Senate Banking Committee moved to punish the Chinese for manipulating their capital without real evidence that they’re doing it. The Wall Street Journal’s John McCary writes;

    Efforts to sanction China over trade policies seen hurting the U.S. gained steam on Capitol Hill as a second congressional panel approved legislation aimed at pressuring Beijing to revalue its currency.

    The Senate Banking Committee, in a 17-4 vote, moved to tighten the government’s definition of currency manipulation and close an exemption that has allowed the Bush administration to avoid taking that step against China because of an apparent lack of intent. The action follows Senate Finance Committee approval of a bill to address the same problem, but with a different solution: allowing companies claiming to be hurt by currency manipulation to seek antidumping penalties on imports from the offending nation.

    Stupid, stupid, stupid. This will only trigger a legislative war worldwide. And it’s only to buy votes. Americans seem concerned about China’s economic growth (12 1/2% last quarter) yet we still buy all the cheap little plastic crap they dump in our stores.

    It’s just like those stupid Japanese cars that have flooded our highways. Everyone is worried about our “trade deficit” yet the same boneheads who complain about it are buying some over-priced version of a shitbox Toyota or Honda. Yeah, I know, the saleman told you that it was made in the United States with American craftsmanship. But if that’s true, why is it every time I lay on the beach in Miami I see these ships with TOYOTA on the side pulling up with another load of shitboxes? Don’t you feel like a tool?

    And of course we can all count on Chuck Schumer to act like a two-year-old;

    One senator said it was incorrect to raise the threat of retaliation by China as a reason to oppose the legislation.

    “If we manipulated our currency, then China should go after us. But we don’t,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

    Detroit wants Congress to put tariffs on imported cars, Congress wants to manipulate China’s currency, the FDA wants to advise China on food safety. We don’t need government to do these things – we have control over our spending, our wallets, our lives don’t we? Then why do ya’all buy that crap?

    See, the problem isn’t that the government won’t regulate trade, the problem is that Americans have allowed salesmen to tell them what they should buy. I remember my grandfather and my father wouldn’t buy anything that said “Made in Japan” on it (fifteen years after Pearl Harbor). Neither will I. It’s that simple.

    Congress is only doing this for votes. People who don’t want to think about what they buy, people who don’t understand how protectionism triggered the Depression and our involvement in World War II are just happy to see Congress do something – anything that might help tomorrow, but will desvastate us next month. Does Congress care? Nope. The Democrats and Republicans both can blame the president for our economic woes in the next election.

  • Naive Obama; invade Pakistan

    In a stunning display of naivete`, Barack Obama, according to the Associated Press, would invade Pakistan to kill “terror leaders” without local permission;

    Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted — an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

    Well, if that’s not naive personified, I don’t know what is. Of course, the Democrats all think that the goal of our war against terror is to “get” bin Laden, as if all the terrorists in the world would just cease activities as a result. We’ve all seen how quickly terrorist leaders are replaced when we’ve removed them from their operations, well, all of us except the Democrats apparently.

    The goal of this war is to deny these heathens an unassailable training and operational base like the al Qaeda enjoyed in Afghanistan – it’s not to kill their leaders. That’s something out of the Middle Ages. Since Napolean, Grant and Sherman, the rest of the world understood that the only successful way to defeat and enemy is to deny them resources. Hitler’s Russian campaign failed because he targeted cities instead of seizing the Soviet Union’s resources first and strangling the Soviet Army.

    And can you imagine the howl we’d hear from the Left if George W. Bush had said this? Harry Reid would be trampling Congressional pages rushing to get to the microphone to condemn this plan as “expanding the war” and he’d probably throw in some Nixon and Cambodia references for good measure.

    Reuter’s gets the big money quote on Obama’s plan for failure;

    Obama also criticized President George W. Bush’s emphasis on al Qaeda in Iraq and said as president he would end the war in Iraq and refocus efforts on the al Qaeda threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    “The president would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda’s war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq — which didn’t exist before our invasion — and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan,” Obama said.

    So, simply by denying that there’s a war against al Qaeda in Iraq, that’ll solve the problem. The war against terror isn’t about revenge for 9-11, Barack, no matter how hard you want that to be so. It’s about our future and making terror attacks too expensive in terms of lives and treasure for our enemies. And we don’t do that by making enemies out of our few allies in the war.