Monthly Archives: June 2013

Arrogance

Posted on by
Reply

Fox News‘ headline says it all:

Obama planning to sidestep Congress for next phase in climate change agenda

He came through on that in his Tuesday speech: he intends to implement his climate change claptrap by diktat through his EPA, wholly ignoring the will of the people and our representatives.  In the realization of his speech, his

national plan to combat climate change…include[s] the first-ever federal regulations on carbon dioxide emitted by existing power plants….

In a speech at Georgetown University Tuesday Obama…announce[d] he’s issuing a presidential memorandum to implement the regulations….

And

…he is directing his administration to allow enough renewables on public lands to power 6 million homes by 2020, effectively doubling the capacity from solar, wind and geothermal projects on federal property.

But he won’t allow oil and gas drilling—or the associated jobs and cheap energy.  Expensive energy that the unemployed can’t get is better, you see.  Additionally, there’ll be

…$8 billion in federal loan guarantees to spur investment in technologies that can keep carbon dioxide produced by power plants from being released into the atmosphere.

Never minding that actual science, rather than the pseudo-science of his followers, has shown that CO2 is a trailing indicator of increasing health of the planet.

Congress?  I don’ need no stinkin’ Congress.

Progressives and Democracy

Posted on by
Reply

The Texas legislature, Monday morning, moved forward a bill to ban abortions after the 20th week.  The Progressives’Democrats’ behavior during the debate was—and will be, apparently—illuminating.

Democrats used parliamentary tactics to draw out the debate for 15 hours, pointing out technical mistakes in the process or trying to tack on amendments to fundamentally change the bill.

And

Congresswoman Jessica Farrar (D) gave a personal privilege speech decrying how the Republicans were manipulating the parliamentary process to rush it to a vote.

Never minding that the voting deadline was just hours off, while she and her colleagues were doing everything they could to prevent the vote being taken.

“Everything about the process related to these abortion regulation bills has smelled like partisan politics,” Farrar said.

And

Democrats in the Senate said they would try to filibuster the bill if it came to them on Tuesday, which now appears assured.

Whose partisan politics, really?  Leaving aside the question of the legitimacy of banning late-term abortions, why are these Texas Progressives so afraid of the democratic process that they’ll use whatever partisan tactics they can dream up to block the democratic process, to block an up or down vote?

I can hear the objections now: the Republicans do the same thing when they’re in the minority.  That’s certainly true—the Federal Senate’s filibuster is intended explicitly to protect the minority from mere tyranny.  But that filibuster can be ended by a vote of the body.  Aside from which, if Democrats don’t like it when Republicans do it, how is it all right for Democrats to do it?  Is Democrat morality purely situational?

In the end, of what are these Progressives so afraid that they work so hard to block a vote at all?  That if the democratic process runs its course, they won’t get their way?  Is it, then, that no one can have democracy if Progressives can’t have their way?

Update: In the event, the bill failed.  The Senate’s vote began a few minutes too late, due mostly to a successful Democrat fillibuster and a lack of coherent Republican response to the fillibuster.

A Little Bit of Cynicism

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court has agreed to take up, in its next term, the question of recess appointments and of what is a “recess.”  The DC Circuit had ruled, in the case being appealed, that certain NLRB appointments were unconstitutional and so invalid because they had occurred while the Senate was in session and not in recess.  That court also held both that an actual recess could only occur between the year-long sessions of a Congress and that a recess appointment could be made only for a vacancy that originated during that recess.

President Barack Obama’s Solicitor General, Donald Verilli, in his filing before the Supremes argued with a straight face that were the Court to uphold the DC ruling, it would restrict the president’s power.

To which I ask, “Yeah, and…?”

Verilli also argued with similar seriousness that upholding the DC ruling

…would deem invalid hundreds of recess appointments made by presidents since early in the nation’s history[.]

Umm, no.  It would deem invalid the appointments on appeal and possibly the appointments made under similar circumstances since the NLRB appoints at the start of 2012.  Verilli knows better.

The PRC and American Defense

Posted on by
Reply

Seth Cropsey, Deputy Undersecretary of the Navy for both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush, made some points in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last week.

Beijing continues to build up its medium-range and long-distance missile arsenal, antiship cruise missiles, space weapons and military cyberspace capabilities.  China is also improving its fighters, building three classes of attack submarines, and has commissioned its first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning.  It is, in short, building an advanced system of weaponry capable of striking Asian states from afar.

The US’ response:

plans for increasing the US Marine contingent based in Darwin on Australia’s north coast to 1,100 from 250 [ultimate goal in a nebulous future: 2,500].

And

Facing this…is a US fleet less than half the size it was…in the early 1990s.  The plan to build the 306-ship fleet that the Navy says is necessary to accomplish all its missions rests on assumptions about shipbuilding costs that the Congressional Budget Office and Congressional Research Service agree are unrealistic.  …  On Tuesday, Rep. Randy Forbes (R., Va.), chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on sea power, told a group at Washington’s Hudson Institute that “In 2007, the Navy was able to meet about 90% of America’s combatant commanders’ need [for ships].  This year that figure will fall to 51%.”

And

The defense budget since 9/11 has averaged 4.1% of GDP.  Under the budgets projected by the Obama administration, the figure is projected to drop to 2.5% in less than a decade.

Here is the American retreat in full throat.

Why?

“All of the Above” is just Obamatalk

Posted on by
Reply

Kelly David Burke has the sorry tale in a recent Fox News article.

The Bush administration had set aside 1.3 million acres for oil shale and tar sands development in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.  The new Bureau of Land Management plan cuts that amount by two-thirds, down to 700,000 acres….

I’ll elide Burke’s poor arithmetic—the 600,000 acre reduction amounts to a reduction of a bit under 50%–he is, after all, a journalist; his point remains valid: this is an enormous reduction in oil resource availability.

President Barack Obama’s BLM has its excusesrationale all lined up though.  It’s

…not against oil shale and tar sands development, but will restrict the amount of public lands available for leasing until the processes are proven, and proven safe.

Never mind that Canada has been successfully and safely extracting oil from shale and from tar sands for decades, and US companies have been extracting from shale for nearly as long with similar success and safety.

This is, in the end, just part of Obama’s effort to artificially suppress the price of otherwise unviable solar and wind energy sources with enormous subsidies and loans while trying to restrict the supply of oil (and gas) in an attempt to price these sources up into the stratospheric range of even the subsidized “green” energy…sources.

It’s all of a piece with his decision elsewhere to slow walk oil leases and drilling permits.