Posts Tagged ‘climate change’
Wouldn’t it be fascinating to listen into the White House conversations about Arizona, and in particular, Governor Jan Brewer?
Staffer: “Mr. President, that Governor that wagged her finger in your face is doing more than even Democrat Governors to implement your health care bill!”
POTUS: “ReallyShould we consider her for an Administration post?”
Staffer: “You want her wagging her finger at you at every Cabinet meeting?”
POTUS: “Good point. Let’s just send her some flowers.”
It’s been interesting to watch the reaction from national reporters in watching Brewer cheerlead Medicaid expansion. Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court gave State the “out” from one of the most egregious parts of Obamacare and a “conservative” Republican Governor not only decides to opt-in, she does so with the enthusiasm of a school girl getting ready for prom.
So there is a cognitive dissonance in the heads of DC-based reporters who, if you mention “Arizona Governor” immediately think about immigration crackdowns. No open borders, but it’ll be open enrollment.
The Supreme Court ruling, striking down the federal component of the Defense of Marriage Act, affirms, for now, the state’s ability to define marriage. This was expected, and as a believer in State’s Rights, it was the right decision.
While my friends in the gay community celebrated the “overturning” of California’s Proposition 8, what the Court did was much more nuanced and process oriented. They basically ruled that the federal appellate courts had no jurisdiction over the appeal because backers of Prop. 8 didn’t have standing to carry the appeal. Only the state could have done that. Call it a victory for gay marriage on a technicality. That is, the higher courts have not affirmed the district court’s overturning of Prop. 8 (yet).
That’s not to say that there isn’t a obvious trend towards gay marriage becoming more accepted and eventually legal across the board. The challenge will be how to balance the rights of gay couples with the religious freedom of churches and faith-based institutions.
For example, while I believe gay couples should have the same rights afforded straight couples, I don’t think the Catholic Church’s adoption services should be required to facilitate adoptions by gay couples. However, as a result of Massachusetts state law, the Catholic Church was faced with the choice of facilitating such adoptions or close their doors. That’s a clear overreach of the First Amendment, which protects religious liberty.
Needless to say, this discussion is far from over.
Obama’s big play on dealing with “climate change” exposes, yet again, his complete disregard for Congress, the will of the American people or the rule of law. Keep in mind, it was five years ago this month that Obama said, “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
This is a President who claims to be looking out for the little guy, but subsidizes his billionaire friends with “green energy” cash and wants to shut down coal-fired power plants, even admitting that “under my plan, electricity rates will necessarily sky-rocket.” Who gets hurt? The poor and those on fixed-income. With friends like these…
The Arizona Capitol Times had their “Best of the Capitol” awards dinner this week. Inexplicably, I was nominated for a couple categories in which the competition was overwhelming. Congrats to Arizona Chamber President Glenn Hamer for his “Power Broker” award and to Chuck Coughlin for “Best Political Operative.” Well-deserved by both.
“Climategate” is the latest scandal to rock the political scene. As the scope of the fraud perpetrated by “scientists” expands, it is going to have a big impact on the efforts to pass cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate and create even more problems for Obama.
So what should Obama do? A smart move would be to scrap his plans to attend the climate summit in Copenhagen. We remember what happened last time he went to Copenhagen. The cap-and-trade bill is already on life support in the Senate, and Obama will face criticism that the U.S. is not doing enough. Why subject himself, and the U.S., to criticism for not being “green enough” when we now have proof that there is true scientific bias and fabrication of information?
There are many people in the scientific world who are trying to minimize this bias and fraud as no big deal. George Monbiot, a big-time climate change advocate, warns that the email scandal is a big deal, and that the climate change crowd minimizes it at its own peril. His blog post tries to juxtapose this scandal with the “lying” of the “fossil fuel industry,” but that’s to be expected.
The Wall Street Journal Europe editorialized on this issue, writing:
The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at in the first place, and how even now a single view is being enforced. In short, the impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.
According to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the “peer-review” process, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges that critics have lobbed at climatologists from outside this clique are routinely dismissed and disparaged.
There is plenty more to come on this issue, and if you aren’t up to speed on the Climategate emails, one of the best recaps (and with a very Arizona-specific twist) is Greg Patterson’s treatment of this at espressopundit.com.
Count on the United Nations to come up with one of the most outlandish reasons to push the alarmist view of the “dangers” of global warming: ‘Climate change pushes poor women to prostitution.’
Seriously? I mean, come on, these kinds of claims make the global warming and overpopulation crowd look downright silly. This is the “oldest profession” we are talking about, and we are supposed to believe that global warming causes an increase in prostitution?
Just when I thought I’d heard it all.
Isn’t timing in life just so strange sometimes?
I’ve been insanely busy with work projects, my daughter Kinsey had successful back surgery this morning (I’m actually sitting next to her as she sleeps right now), and all this news won’t stop breaking!
SC Gov. Mark Sanford has an affair with a lady in Argentina and a really random turn of events that lead to the press conference announcing it. Farrah Fawcett dies. Michael Jackson dies. Congressional Democrats are pushing through the largest tax increase in the history of mankind with their Climate Change bill. Obama’s health care plan is really, really expensive and it’s going to be harder to pass than most people had thought.
Any one of those issues could warrant multiple blog posts. Alas, the timing makes it tough.
I can’t not at least make some comment on Sanford. I’ve known Sanford since he was elected to Congress in 1994. He was one of the true revolutionaries. He kept his personally imposed term-limits pledge and could arguably be the best conservative Governor in the nation. I have long pined for him to run for President. I have been devastated since his press conference – which was like a car accident – I couldn’t turn away.
I suppose no one really has control of timing – so I’m reserving the right to go back and blog about some of the topics above later.
Liberal Democrats know that they can’t their Climate Change bill to President Obama’s desk, because it will die in the Senate. But Pelosi is so set on satisfying her liberal base, she is going to put dozens of her “moderate” Democrats at risk by putting a Climate Change bill on the floor this Friday.
It will be pretty instructive to see who ends up voting for it. The discussion about getting Farm Belt Democrats on board is interesting, because they are not happy. Pelosi, however, will figure out a way to buy their vote by the time it matters. And you and I will pay for this HUGE tax increasing monstrosity. Even more bizarre, is that Greenpeace and a bunch of other leftist greenies oppose the bill because it doesn’t go far enough!
It’s interesting to see Pelosi trying to satiate her base, and angering almost everyone in the process.