No Need to Panic About Global Warming There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy. A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed. In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts. Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2. The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2. The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job. This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death. Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money." Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them. Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically. A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet. If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review. Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.
“I believe in America”? That’s what you’re going with this cycle, governor? I’m sorry, you don’t get to quote “The Godfather” unless you’ve killed a bunch of your enemies while attending a baptism.
The response to Newt’s second coming in South Carolina was flawlessly orchestrated. Mitt hit hard at Monday’s debate, and did a mop-up operation on Thursday night. He marshaled the help of boosters and aggressive defenders in media and politics. When Tom DeLay emerged from forced retirement and Bob Dole from convalescence to lay waste to Gingrich, you know it was a coordinated hit Godfather fans should recognize. Gingrich was caught in a revolving door, bullets flying, with nowhere to go.
Opinion Evidence Mounts Against Justice Kagan For Recusal In ObamaCare Suit By Ronald Rotunda Last month, Chief Justice Roberts gave his annual year-end report on the federal judiciary, but it was quite different from prior ones. For the first time, it focused on when Supreme Court Justices should disqualify (or “recuse”) themselves from a case because of a conflict of interest. He acknowledged that the Code of Conduct for United States Judges applies to all federal judges except Supreme Court Justices. However, he assured us that the Justices do, in fact, look to this Code for guidance, and follow it, along with the federal statue, federal advisory opinions, and court precedent. All this comes hard on the heels of those calling on Justice Elena Kagan to disqualify herself in the ObamaCare litigation because of her role, as Solicitor General, in preparing its constitutional defense. These calls have intensified with the release of recent emails. Justice Kagan’s supporters respond that she testified in her confirmation hearings that she had nothing to do with ObamaCare. First, her phraseology was much more precise. She said she would only recuse herself from any case in which she “officially formally approved something,” or “served as counsel of record” or “played any substantial role.” But the statute requires disqualification if Kagan, as a federal employee (she was the former Solicitor General) “participated” as an “adviser” on a matter, even if she did not give any formal advice. She also must disqualify herself if her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. In response to a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request, the Obama Administration has turned over some emails but it refuses to turn over many others because, it says, these emails are “protected by the attorney work product doctrine.” That doctrine, the DOJ affidavit explains, covers discussion by “OSG” (Office of Solicitor General) lawyers about “legal issues, arguments, and strategy concerning anticipated” litigation over ObamaCare. So, the DOJ is simultaneously claiming that it completely walled off Kagan from any discussions involving the constitutional defense of ObamaCare, while admitting that Kagan was participating in emails discussing “legal issues, arguments, and strategy concerning” the anticipated ObamaCare litigation. In March of 2010, there are a series of emails to or from Kagan; the subject line of all of them is “Health care litigation meeting.” The DOJ refused to disclose these emails because they discuss legal arguments for the “expected [health care] litigation.” If Kagan hermetically sealed herself from discussions on shaping defenses for ObamaCare litigation, why is she repeatedly sending and receiving emails shaping defenses for ObamaCare litigation? The Government refuses to release these emails, on grounds of a litigation privilege, while claiming that it erected such a solid wall around Kagan that she never would send or receive such emails. This wall must have more holes than Swiss cheese. If we can read theses emails, we will learn if the legal theory developed in those meetings is the legal theory that Kagan adopts when she rules on the case. A week after the president announced her nomination to the Supreme Court, a DOJ press officer emailed the Deputy Solicitor General and asked if Kagan had been involved in the preparations for health care litigation. Notwithstanding these earlier emails, he responded, a minute later: “No she never has been involved in any of it. I've run it for the Office, and have never discussed the issues with her one bit.” A few minutes later, he forwarded that email to Kagan. One would think, if Kagan’s Deputy was correct, that Kagan would simply say, “of course,” or, perhaps nothing. But that is not what happened. Less than two minutes later, Kagan wrote: “This needs to be coordinated. Tracy [the DOJ press officer], you should not say anything about this before talking to me.” What is there to “coordinate”? Why would Kagan suggest that they have to get their stories straight? And why “talk” instead of using emails (which leave a paper trail)? The Judicial Conference of the United States publishes a Compendium of Selected Opinions, to guide federal judges on ethical issues. One section deals with “prior government employment.” The typical fact scenario is a government employee (often a U.S. Attorney) who becomes a judge. Several pages summarizing prior ethics opinions all say the same thing: if the U.S. Attorney was personally involved in a pending or impending matter, she must disqualify herself, and the parties cannot waive that disqualification; if she was not personally involved, but the impending matter was in her office (under her responsibility), she must disqualify herself, unless the parties waive the disqualification. At the very least, Kagan must disqualify herself because her office was involved with the prospective ObamaCare litigation. However, the parties could waive this disqualification. Of course, if Justice Kagan was personally involved, she will be in the category where the parties cannot waive disqualification. Justice Kagan should also follow Supreme Court precedent on this issue. In Schneiderman v. United States (1943). Justice Jackson refused to participate because the case began in 1939, he became Attorney General in 1940, and thus he “succeeded to official responsibility for it.” Therefore, he disqualified himself and wrote his opinion because “I desire the reason to be a matter of record.” The remaining question is if Chief Justice Roberts was correct when he assured us that the Justices follow their own precedent on disqualification. Mr. Rotunda, co-author of Legal Ethics (published by the American Bar Association & West Pub. Co.), is the Doy & Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence at Chapman University.
If this had happened to any of my son's when they were coming up, this mama grizzlie would have been all over them. Things were so different then. I'm sorry for parent's now. They are made to feel they are wrong, if they try to do what is right. If they can't work their evil through us, they try to do it through our children. May God be with us. Sylvia
Mathew Staver, the founder of the Liberty Counsel, sent a letter to Superintendent Todd Carlson demanding an apology for “Its unconstitutional and irrational censorship and humiliation” of Brandon Wegner.
Wegner, a student at Shawano High School, was asked to write an op-ed for the school newspaper about whether gays should be allowed to adopt. Wegner, who is a Christian, wrote in opposition. Another student wrote in favor of allowing gays to adopt.
Wegner used Bible passages to defend his argument, including Scripture that called homosexuality a sin.
After the op-ed was published, a gay couple whose child attend s the high school, complained.
The school immediately issued an apology – stating Wegner’s opinion was a “form of bullying and disrespect.”
“Offensive articles cultivating a negative environment of disrespect are not appropriate or condoned by the Shawano School District,” the statement read. “We sincerely apologize to anyone we may have offended and are taking steps to prevent items of this nature from happening in the future.”
But Staver said what the school system did next was absolutely outrageous. He said the 15-year-old was ordered to the superintendent’s office where he was subjected to hours of meetings and was accused of violating the school’s bullying policy.
“The superintendent called him ignorant and said he had the power to suspend him,” Staver said. “He’s using his position to bully this student. This is absolutely the epitome of intolerance.”
Staver said the boy’s parents were never notified.
At one point, Staver said the superintendent gave him a chance to say he regretted writing the column.
“When Mr. Wegner stated that he did not regret writing it, and that he stood behind his beliefs, Superintendent Carlson told him that he ‘had got to be one of the most ignorant kids to try to argue with him about this topic,’” Staver said.
At that point, Staver said the superintendent told the boy that “we have the power to suspend you if we want to.”
The superintendent allegedly told Wegner that he was personally offended by Wegner’s column.
FOX News & Commentary offered Carlson a chance to address the allegations. He refused to submit to questions, but did say he would send a statement. That statement never arrived.
Staver said Wegner was not trying to cause problems or pick a fight.
“He was asked to write an article in the newspaper overseen by a faculty adviser,” he said, suspecting the superintendent was specifically outraged over the Bible verses Wegner had used.
“The superintendent wants everyone to accept homosexuality as normative and homosexual adoption as something that should be standard practices,” Staver said. “In doing so, he’s belittling the views and the biblical views of many people across this country. He is playing a zero-sum game. He’s not interested in dialogue. He wants to cram his view down the throat of everyone else and will not tolerate an opposing viewpoint.”
Staver said an apology from the superintendent may not suffice – and they may consider taking legal action.
“It was a very intimidating situation for this 15-year-old boy,” he said.”It was uncalled for. He crossed the line. It’s absolutely outrageous and he needs to apologize for his actions.”
Karen Granville with the .38 revolver she used to hold a suspect until police arrived at her Daytona Beach home Tuesday. (N-J | David Massey)
DAYTONA BEACH -- A 22-year-old car theft suspect tried to elude police Tuesday morning, but was stopped in his tracks when he was confronted by a gun-toting 64-year-old woman.
"I was not going to let him go," said Karen Granville, who lives on Redwood Street. "I just held my gun in my right hand until the police arrested him."
Granville helped authorities nab Roderick Willis after he led them on a short chase. He was suspected of driving a stolen vehicle, authorities said.
Daytona Beach police were looking for a stolen vehicle about 3 a.m. Tuesday when a Volusia County sheriff's deputy spotted an orange Dodge Charger traveling west on Sixth Street. The deputy tried to stop the vehicle, but a chase quickly ensued, according to a report from the Volusia County Sheriff's Office.
A sheriff's helicopter tracked the suspect to Redwood Street, where deputies say Willis ditched the vehicle in the driveway in front of Granville's home.
Granville said she was up late because her cat had rousted her. She was watching the Bravo channel when she heard a sheriff's helicopter hovering above her house.
Moments later, she said she saw Willis run into her backyard and try to scale her fence. Granville grabbed her .38 Special revolver and followed him.
"My adrenaline was just flowing at 100 mph," she said. "I just said, 'Stop right there (expletive), or you're going to be dead where you stand."
Granville held the man at gunpoint until police arrived.
Willis was charged with fleeing and eluding law enforcement, driving with a suspended license, use of a vehicle to commit a felony, possession of marijuana, possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. He was booked into the Volusia County Branch Jail on Tuesday and released after posting $7,500 bail.
Willis, who could not reached by phone Tuesday night, spent time in jail last year for fleeing officers, court records show.
Volusia County sheriff's officials say the Dodge Charger belonged to Hertz Rental Car Co. and was turned over to the company. Willis was not charged with vehicle theft.
This is the second time in less than two weeks older city residents have armed themselves to stop would-be criminals.
Charles Robbins, 82, shot and killed 24-year-old Tyler Orshoski after the man apparently tried to break into his home Jan. 11.
Police Chief Mike Chitwood said he doesn't encourage vigilante justice but said people have the right to protect themselves or their property.
"They're fed up with everything," he said. "People have to do what they have to do."
Grimes said she had to drink a glass of wine after the incident to calm her nerves.
She said she hopes she never has to pull out her gun again.
"It was quite an experience," she said. "I'm just glad I could help."
Who on earth is advising Mitt Romney? Somebody should have stopped this:
“Romney blasts Gingrich over attack on debate moderators, news media”
Yikes!
Note to Mitt advisers: Republicans hate the news media. Got it? And that goes double for debate moderators who try to entrap conservative candidates with trick questions. Indeed, it was partly Newt’s attack on these scoundrels that catapulted him into first place in South Carolina. There’s absolutely no reason for Romney to say this.
Siding with a group that epitomizes the values of the Democratic party and is justly loathed by conservatives just isn’t going to do Mitt any good in the primaries (and Mitt may find himself tempted to attack the press himself if he gets the nomination and has to run against their darling O!). Standing up for the press reinforces concerns that Mitt is not “one of us.” So how ’bout a few unkind words for John King, Mitt?
President Obama's State of the Union address did not end in time for discussion in today's Morning Jolt with its 7 a.m. deadline. . . .
Okay, not really, but man, was that a long speech. Sixty-five minutes of speaking, and he started late. And it felt even longer for being terrible. I mean, terrible in the sense that you and I kept rolling our eyes at the insinuation of blame, the proclaiming of fantastic results, the grandiose promises, and everything else from this president that grows ever more tiresome. I figure Obama might see a bump in his numbers from this speech, because he basically said he can deliver utopia in exchange for some tax hikes on millionaires.
It's not often that "confrontational" is an adjective used to describe a State of the Union address, but that's what the Los Angeles Timesgoes with:
By using his State of the Union speech to draw sharp contrasts with Republicans on such high-profile issues as taxes and the housing market, President Obama opened an election-year debate on the role of government that could be more intense than any in decades. Warning Congress that "I intend to fight obstruction with action," he painted a confrontational picture that stands in sharp contrast with the conciliatory approach taken by the last Democrat to seek a second term, Bill Clinton.
Obama's State of the Union might be most notable for what was not said. There were 44 words dedicated to health care reform. There was no mention of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka stimulus bill.
That is rather telling, considering that these are Obama's two largest policy achievements. . . .
As for the rest of the speech, it was bookended by some strong military metaphors (even if they were an unpleasant reminder that the president wants to gut the armed forces budget). That leaves over an hour of something something building wind turbines with American workers something something still won't cover our $30 trillion Medicare shortfall. Snooze.
Mitch Daniels's response left Mona Charen, well, I'll let her tell you herself:
Jefferson "trembled for" our country when he reflected that "God is just." We must do the same when confronted with the contrasting speeches tonight of Barack Obama and Mitch Daniels. That our best leaders, such as Mitch Daniels, who tonight delivered the finest response to a State of the Union ever, have chosen not to serve, leaves the country to the second-raters. And if we are led by second rate people, we will become a second rate country.
I don't know, after that marathon of a convention acceptance speech from the president, second-rate looks pretty good right now.
One of those folks Charen considered second-rate, Newt Gingrich, responded to the address by targeting the noble motives he and his supporters always go on about:
Here we have to confront the truth about President Obama. Economic growth and prosperity is not really at the top of his agenda. He will always prefer a food stamp economy to a paycheck economy and call it fair.
For the president and a large part of the political class, it's about their power, their right to rule. They just want to take money from Joe the Plumber -- the small business people who makes over 90 per cent of the new jobs -- and redistribute it to the government bureaucracy and their political friends and allies. That's why so much of that nearly trillion-dollar stimulus didn't create jobs but just went into the pockets of special interests who support President Obama and the leadership of the Democratic Party.
No better example of this exists than in the crisis of American energy. President Obama and his political allies -- not of few of whom love living in energy inefficient houses or driving gas-guzzling luxury vehicles -- openly admit they want gas prices to remain high so that the rest of America will learn to live more modestly. They think it's good for rest of us. Only recently, the president canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline that would have created countless new jobs and helped America on the way to energy independence because he wanted to appease the far left of his party. And yet not a single word on the Keystone XL pipeline tonight.
Warren Buffet Cleans Up After Keystone XL The Sage of Omaha is one lucky guy. by John Haywar When President Obama, who is normally a great proponent of “infrastructure” projects, made his bizarre decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline project, I wondered if he might have been induced to create those thousands of American jobs if the oil could be moved by his beloved high-speed rail. As it turns out, oil is already moved from northern latitudes, such as the booming oil fields of North Dakota, down to the Gulf of Mexico by rail of the old, low-speed variety. Fortunately, as Newt Gingrich pointed out during the Monday night Republican debate in Florida, the oil is on private land, so Obama can’t shut production down. Shipping the oil with a pipeline would have significantly reduced costs, as an Associated Press report explains: Billions of dollars of infrastructure improvements have been made in recent years to allow North Dakota's oil shipping capacity to keep pace with the skyrocketing production. North Dakota is the nation's fourth-biggest oil producer and is expected to trail only Texas in crude output within the next year. Alison Ritter, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Mineral Resources, said the state's so-called takeaway capacity is adequate, though producers and the state were counting on the on the Keystone XL to move North Dakota crude. Shipping crude by pipeline in North Dakota adds up to $1.50 to its cost, compared to $2 or more a barrel for rail shipments, producers say. "Oil that would have moved by the Keystone XL is now going to shift to rail transportation," Ritter said. Amusingly, a spokesman for the Sierra Club admitted “there is no question that [transporting] oil by rail or truck is much more dangerous than a pipeline,” but that didn’t stop the zero-growth eco-fanatics from calling in their chips with President Downgrade to kill that pipeline. Those rail shipments are expected to “increase exponentially with increased oil production and the shortage of pipelines,” according to Justin Kringstad, director of the North Dakota Pipeline Authority. That’s going to be quite a windfall for the railroad companies, isn’t it? As it happens, 75 percent of the oil currently shipped by rail out of North Dakota is handled by Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC… which just happens to be a unit of Warren Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. What a coincidence! For some reason, nobody from BNSF or Berkshire Hathaway would return the AP’s telephone calls, but oilman Harold Hamm told them he was sure this was just a wonderful “lucky break” for Barack Obama’s favorite billionaire, who is “certainly favored by this decision.” I’ve heard Buffett’s famously overtaxed secretary will be a guest at the State of the Union address tonight. Maybe someone could ask her about it. The “tax me more” refrain from liberal billionaires is one of the oldest sucker games in the book. For the well-connected, the money that can be made through government power – whether by influencing corrupt politicians, or merely predicting what they’re going to do - dwarfs whatever income they offer to cough up.
Every few years, you see a headline like today’s from Reuter’s: “Abortion Safer Than Giving Birth: Study.”
And you wonder about those headline writers. Don’t they pause, even for a second, and wonder “safer for whom?” When a woman is pregnant, there are two patients. In an abortion, one always dies.
FoxNation; Brazil Stiffs Obama on Oil Deal, Exposing President's Incompetence
COMMENTARY | President Barack Obama has suffered the second embarrassment over oil imports within the space of a week. Brazil, whose offshore deposits of oil were sought by the Obama administration, has signed contracts with China for the product.
According to the Washington Times, Brazilian offshore crude may number about 38 billion barrels. Obama went to Brazil last month to put in a bid for the oil, offering loans and other support to develop the oil in an "environmentally responsible matter," The Hill reported at the time. Republicans criticized that initiative, pointing out Obama has placed roadblocks in the way of domestic development of oil and gas reserves.
Brazil's decision comes on the heels of Obama's refusal to permit the building of the Keystone XL pipeline to bring oil from Canada's tar sands in Alberta to Texas oil refineries, according to the Los Angeles Times. The decision was criticized by Republicans as well as union officials who point out that 20,000 jobs the pipeline would bring would therefore not be created.
The Obama administration’s decision to kill the Keystone XL pipeline (which would bring oil down from Canada’s province of Alberta to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast) is emblematic of the pervasive, systematic hostility the administration has shown to all forms of fossil-fuel production and consumption.
Whether it’s coal production and use, oil production and use, or natural-gas production and use, the Obama administration has been consistent in its efforts to stymie production and force conservation (a.k.a. rationing) by limiting access to supply or jacking up price through regulations.
Given the extensive network of crude-oil pipelines that already criss-cross the United States, and its history of largely safe operation, it seems clear that the decision to deny the Keystone XL pipeline was political. Over at the Daily Beast, Daniel Stone suggests that the administration acted in order to deny Republicans a victory, and to get the issue out of the way so Obama can focus on his own grand energy vision in the upcoming State of the Union address. I have my doubts about that, given the utter debacles that the administration has made with regard to Solyndra and their entire renewables/electric-car agenda. On the other hand, this President has a history of doubling- and tripling-down on his more absurd energy policies, and isn’t afraid of over-the-top Orwellian speaking.
Whether it represents Obama’s ongoing crusade against fossil fuels; a fit of pique over Congress’s decision to force the President’s hand (he had until February 21 to decide); or the Obama campaign thinks that the inevitable response from Republicans will help to rally his base, the decision is guaranteed to make regular appearances for the rest of the presidential-campaign silly season.
Finally, Obama has certainly strengthened Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper’s hand in pushing for a West Coast terminal to send oil-sand oil off to China. Harper should send him a commemorative hockey puck.
Obama to Disney World to talk up tourism today, but tourists are banned
Hey, Mr. President! You've just destroyed the Keystone XL pipeline project and thousands of new union jobs. What are you gonna do now? "I'm going to Disney World." No, it's not another Obama vacation. He's flying Air Force One down to Orlando this morning on business. His people say the Democrat has some new ideas on how to increase tourism to Florida and probably the entire 57 states. Naturally, this requires another Obama speech. And what better place for a campaigning president to go lecture needlessly on improving tourism than the iconic institution that figured it all out decades ago, Walt Disney Resorts? But here's the problem with Obama going to Disney's Main Street: They have to halt all tourism there for him to be seen encouraging more tourism, close the whole place down to tourists for much of the day while he's there and before. Even Disney employees are being barred. So, Main Street won't look anything like the photo above. And the thousands of existing tourists who expected to spend a valuable vacation day strolling the old-fashioned shops for fudge and Mickey ears, riding the steam-powered cars and horse-drawn streetcars and getting a photo with the real Snow White today are just plum out of luck, like Grumpy. This isn't the first time Obama's message has messed with the mechanics. A while back he flew about two hours to Columbus, Ohio for a 10-minute speech celebrating stimulus jobs at a construction site where workers had to take a day off without pay because the president decided to come mark their employment in front of cameras. Does Obama, after all his lagging economic recovery, really want today's political optics to be this oblivious president himself shutting down businesses all along any Main Street so that the Real Good Talker can read from a teleprompter at yet another hand-picked crowd for the cameras? Seriously? Later, after the president's entourage and motorcade depart the wonderful world of Disney following their private photo op visit, they'll likely re-open the magical street to the tourists he was talking about getting more of. After how much lost business? But Obama leaving Main Street is bad news for Broadway. After shutting down Disney's Main Street, President Obama is heading to New York City this afternoon to paralyze Manhattan traffic again. That's because the Obama 2012 campaign has him scheduled for not one, not two, not three, but four campaign fundraisers in one evening. Hopefully, the well-heeled 1% can listen as fast as he talks.
In response to the Drudge Report’s scoop about Marianne Gingrich’s interview with ABC News, Bob Walker, a senior Gingrich adviser, tells National Review Online that the campaign will fight back. “It is pretty nasty to use personal tragedy for political exploitation,” he says. “That was a very bitter divorce, and you’re talking about somebody who is still, probably, very bitter.”
Beyond Walker, several sources close to the Gingrich campaign agree on the merits, but predict that Gingrich will likely ignore the story. They tell NRO that the interview is a “retread” of an Esquire magazine article published in 2010, and that Gingrich will not respond to the broadcast, at least in any official capacity.
“He’ll answer questions from voters, he’s not running away from anything, but these are old issues from the divorce,” says one source. “He has addressed these issues before, and there is nothing new here.”
Other sources familiar with ABC’s editorial direction on the segment shrug off the newsflashes, guessing that Matt Drudge, the site’s editor, was playing up a leaked scoop, nothing more. “Marianne Gingrich’s unhappiness with how things ended is something people close to Newt have known for a long time,” says a second source. “The real response from people who know him is disappointment with Marianne for doing this, and sadness about the whole situation.”
A prolonged battle with her over quotes, or with ABC News, is likely not on the horizon. There may be concerns voiced about how certain anecdotes are presented, and about specific claims, but “Gingrich has addressed this time and time again,” says a third source. “He is out there all of the time, in all of these forums, acknowledging that he has made mistakes.”
ABC News wanted Gingrich to come on Nightline to offer a rebuttal of sorts but Gingrich’s advisers declined. “This is a sideshow, a distraction,” the third source says. “Is it helpful? No. But is it a game-changer? No.”
EDITOR’s NOTE: This post has been updated to include new reporting.
Below, Gingrich’s daughters issue a memo to ABC News:
To: ABC News Leadership
From: Kathy Lubbers, Jackie Cushman
Date: January 18, 2012
The failure of a marriage is a terrible and emotional experience for everyone involved. Anyone who has had that experience understands it is a personal tragedy filled with regrets, and sometimes differing memories of events.
We will not say anything negative about our father’s ex-wife. He has said before, privately and publicly, that he regrets any pain he may have caused in the past to people he loves.
ABC News or other campaigns may want to talk about the past, just days before an important primary election. But Newt is going to talk to the people of South Carolina about the future– about job creation, lower taxes, and about who can defeat Barack Obama by providing the sharpest contrast to his damaging, extreme liberalism. We are confident this is the conversation the people of South Carolina are interested in having.
Our father is running for President because of his grandchildren – so they can inherit the America he loves. To do that, President Obama must be defeated. And as the only candidate in the race, including Obama, who has actually helped balance the national budget, create jobs, reform welfare, and cut taxes and spending, Newt felt compelled to run – to serve his country and safeguard his grandchildren’s future.
Nearly one-in-three primary voters (31%) in South Carolina say they still could change their minds, and it’s unclear how Perry’s withdrawal, the growing dispute over Romney’s taxes or an interview this evening with one of Gingrich’s former wives might impact the contest. Six percent (6%) still haven’t made a choice yet. Sixty-two percent (62%) now are certain of how they will vote on Saturday, including nearly 70% of those supporting Gingrich, Romney, Santorum and Paul. Just 37% of Perry voters have made up their minds at this point.
Gingrich holds a two-to-one lead over Romney among both Very Conservative and Tea Party Republicans in the state. The former Massachusetts governor holds a far more modest lead among Somewhat Conservative voters and those who are not members of the grassroots movement.
Evangelical Christians prefer Gingrich by 37% to 21% margin, with Paul and Santorum at 16% and 15% respectively. Romney leads among all other religious groups.
Despite continuing criticism of Romney’s record as a businessman, 62% of all South Carolina primary voters now feel his business record is primarily a reason to vote for him, while just 22% view it as chiefly a reason to vote against him. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.
By a narrow 36% to 31%, primary voters think Romney would do a better job than Gingrich managing the economy. Seventeen percent (17%) feel Paul would do a better job.
Elections - POLITICS Perry drops out of Republican presidential race, endorses Gingrich Published January 19, 2012 | FoxNews.com Rick Perry dropped out of the presidential race Thursday and endorsed Newt Gingrich, a move that comes just two days before the South Carolina Republican primary. The Texas governor, saying he will return to his state "with pride," announced in South Carolina that "there is no viable path forward for me in this 2012 campaign." After surging to the front of the GOP field upon entering the race last summer, Perry struggled to sustain that support and endured disappointing finishes in the leadoff Iowa and New Hampshire contests. He said Thursday he entered the race with a "sense of calling," but realizes "when it's time to make a strategic retreat." "I've always believed the mission is greater than the man," Perry said.
The Texas governor offered a brief but robust endorsement of former House speaker Gingrich on his way out of the race, calling him a "conservative visionary." While Perry is polling only in single digits in South Carolina, his endorsement could make a difference in the tightening contest if his supporters gravitate toward a particular candidate. "Newt is not perfect, but who among us is? The fact is there is forgiveness for those who seek God. And I believe in the power of redemption," Perry said. "I have no question that Newt Gingrich has the heart of a conservative reformer, the ability to rally and captivate the conservative movement." Gingrich said in a statement he is "humbled and honored" to have Perry's support. Perry was seen as competing for social conservative supporters alongside Rick Santorum and Gingrich, though the latter two candidates were faring much better in the polls. Gingrich has been trying to lock down support of primary voters who are reluctant to back frontrunner Mitt Romney, even urging Santorum and Perry to drop out earlier in the week. Following a strong debate performance on Monday, recent polls have shown Gingrich closing the gap with Romney -- two new polls even show Gingrich narrowly leading in South Carolina. But the race remains in flux. Santorum enjoyed a burst of good news Thursday when the Iowa GOP announced that certified vote totals showed Santorum actually led Romney by 34 votes in the Iowa caucuses. Party officials initially said Romney won that contest by eight votes. The results from eight precincts are missing, making it virtually impossible to declare an official winner, but the Iowa announcement Thursday could help Santorum build the case for his candidacy. He and Ron Paul have trailed Gingrich and Romney in most recent polls. Gingrich also is bracing for an interview set to air Thursday night with his second ex-wife, while Romney continues to face questions about his personal wealth and tax records. Perry is withdrawing ahead of another presidential debate Thursday night. The Texas governor has struggled at the debates -- his campaign took one of its biggest hits at a debate last year when he failed to initially recall which three federal departments he wanted to abolish. Perry plans to return to Texas after announcing his withdrawal late Thursday morning. Perry is the second candidate this week to withdraw from the race. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman earlier dropped out following a distant third finish in the New Hampshire primary. He endorsed Romney for the nomination. Fox News' Carl Cameron contributed to this report.
John J Miller started the day here in The Corner with the story of Professor Robert Klein Engler, who was fired from Roosevelt University and only discovered why two months later. It was for telling a joke:
A group of sociologists did a poll in Arizona regarding the state’s new immigration law. Sixty percent said they were in favor, and 40 percent said, ‘No hablo Ingles.’
The part of me that would like my evenings back is okay with the concept of debate season coming to an end. The part of me that hates seeing the likely 2012 Republican nominee back down from anything is not okay with the appearance that Mitt Romney has had enough of this. Byron York:
After a debate in which Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney faced attacks from all sides, the Romney campaign says it has not yet accepted invitations to participate in two high-profile debates leading up to the January 31 Florida primary, and a key Romney adviser is expressing fatigue and frustration over what he sees as a never-ending series of GOP debates.
"There are too many of these," Romney strategist Stuart Stevens said after Monday night's Fox News debate at the Myrtle Beach Convention Center. "We have to bring some order to it. We haven't accepted Florida. . . . It's kind of like a cruise that's gone on too long."
"Given the news this week, I'm not sure a 'cruise' analogy is a good choice," quips Ed Morrissey.
Ace doesn't think Romney will go through with this . . . yet:
I don't suppose that anyone can disagree too much that there have been too many debates. I wish he had skipped earlier ones, though, because most debates are about him, and you rarely get to hear other people except vis a vis Romney.
Maybe his thinking is that, given an apparently wide leadin Florida (Romney 46, Gingrich 20, Santorum 12),he's got Florida wrapped up and can afford to coast.
The problem with that rationale is that the field may not be five-strong when he gets to Florida. Perry or Gingrich or Santorum may drop out by then, and the remaining candidates will get a bump from that.
Prediction: He goes to both debates or at least one. Maybe he'll skip one to make the point that he's not required to attend every single one of them.
At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey says that on the question of whether to continue holding them:
That is going to be out of Romney's hands. He might not like getting beat up on stage, but at least he's there to defend himself. The media will cover the debates whether Romney is there or not, so the only way he could successfully shut down the debates is if he gets the other Republican candidates to also withdraw. They're practically on life support as it is, so they are certainly not going to pass up an opportunity for national and state-wide coverage in Florida for free. If they show up, Romney has to participate as well, if for no other reason than to keep playing defense and push back a little himself.
Bruce McQuain says he's had enough, at least in the current format:
I'm personally tired of the debates. For the most part they've delivered more entertainment than information. They've devolved into scorekeeping about who got the best shot in on Romney. This is something like the 15th Republican debate and we're no more enlightened about the serious topics we should be addressing than we were after the 1st.
If we have to go through more of this debate nonsense, can we have one solely focused on jobs, the economy and the proposed policies each of the candidates would try to have implemented to turn this mess around? Can we hear an intelligent discussion of what the European mess portends and how it will effect us? . . .
And can we give them more than 90 seconds to answer? I'm tired of hearing the same old stump speech for the umpteenth time, the usual fall back when there are time limits on answers. If the debate is 2 hours and that means only 2 to 3 questions get asked, but each candidate gets, say 5 to 7 minutes to answer, I'm fine with that.
Eh, I'm not so certain that some of the candidates this cycle had a good five-to-seven-minutes worth of thoughts to share on all topics.
Over at the New York Post, Arthur Herman has penned an outstanding piece that outlines the double standards inherent in every American conflict since Vietnam. Here’s the core point:
After Vietnam, our politicians demanded that our armed forces be trained to wield the most lethal weapons ever made, with the moral and cultural sensitivity of Peace Corps volunteers. To anyone who knows history, our troops have met this challenge with overwhelming and unprecedented success — as our real record in Iraq and Afghanistan attests.
But it has left our military trapped in a strange double bind, one reflected in the furor over this video. If Somalis drag our dead through the streets or Iraqi insurgents dismember captured Marines or the Taliban gang-rape and mutilate women to enforce their vicious version of sharia law, the media treat it as irrelevant to understanding who we are fighting, or why. They even suppress those stories and images — such as the beheadings of Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg. Their grounds for that censorship is that such reporting might “inflame hatred” — in other words, make us fight harder.
On the other hand, if an American warrior oversteps civilized bounds, his behavior becomes proof that our mission is a moral failure and no longer deserving of support.
This actually understates the severity of the problem. When the media confronts enemy atrocities, they’ll often argue that the very horror of those atrocities demonstrates the desperation we’ve allegedly caused. In other words, our atrocities are our fault and their (much worse) atrocities are our fault. Heads, we lose. Tails, they win.
The vast majority of our soldiers not only fight honorably (in fact, one of the tragic and untold stories of the war is the number of American soldiers who died because they showed restraint), they are keenly aware of the extraordinary scrutiny. When I deployed, countless soldiers asked me if they were “going to jail” if they made an honest mistake outside the wire. The question itself grieved me. Imagine the stress of fighting for your life while constantly looking over your shoulder for the long arm of the law.
At the same time, while we knew that the slightest error (or malicious report) could become world news overnight, we also knew that al-Qaeda actions like shooting babies in the face or decapitating women was no news at all. Double standards have consequences. And as Arthur Herman rightly notes, for Americans the consequences can include terrible wounds and sudden death on an overly sensitized battlefield.
Updated: January 17, 2012 | 3:55 p.m. January 17, 2012 | 1:47 p.m.
FLORENCE, S.C. – Injecting a big dose of testosterone into the presidential debate, Republican candidate Newt Gingrich said on Tuesday that he wants to “knock out” President Obama in the general election in response to a question about whether he wants to bloody his nose.
At a town hall meeting attended by about 200 people at the Art Trail Gallery, a supporter told Gingrich, “We’ve got to bloody Obama’s nose. You’ve mentioned challenging him to seven, three-hour debates.… If he doesn’t agree to that, how do you plan to aggressively take the gloves off and go after him?” Gingrich responded, “I don’t want to argue with you about the analogy. I don't want to bloody his nose, I want to knock him out.”
The audience applauded.
Gingrich was asked by another member of the audience whether he would consider running for vice president if he doesn’t get the nomination himself. In a rare acknowledgement of his weakness as a team player, Gingrich said the other candidates wouldn’t want him as their running mate. “Well I’d have to look at it very seriously if offered. But I’ll tell you, I can't imagine a presidential candidate who’d want to have me as their vice president.”
Recovering his usual bravado, the former House speaker said, “If you look at the polling, I’m the only conservative who realistically has a chance to be the nominee. So any vote for Santorum or Perry in effect is a vote to allow Romney to become the nominee. Because we’ve got to bring conservatives together in order to stop him.”
Asked if his former colleague in Congress, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, should drop out of the race, Gingrich said, “Rick is a good friend of mine and he’s a nice man. He lost his state for reelection by the largest margin in the history of Pennsylvania. Now, there’s no evidence he can put together a national majority.… He doesn’t have any of the knowledge for how to do something of this scale.” He later added, “From the standpoint of the conservative movement, consolidating into a Gingrich candidacy would in fact virtually guarantee victory on Saturday,” the day of the South Carolina primary.
On Fox News tonight, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin told Sean Hannity that she would vote for Newt Gingrich in the South Carolina primary to keep the vetting process in motion:
If I were a South Carolinian though, and each one of these primaries and caucuses are different, Sean, I want to see this thing continue because iron sharpens iron. Steel sharpens steel. These guys are getting better in their debates. They are getting more concise. They are getting more grounded in what their beliefs are and articulating what their ideas are for getting America back on the right track and getting Americans working again. If I had to vote in South Carolina order to keep this thing going, I would vote for Newt and I would want it to continue. More debates, more vetting of candidates.
Hello Syl and Charlie...I wish u a blessed and merry Christmas.. May u always have angels watching over u and may this Christmas be as special as u are my dear friend. Hugsss...merry Christmas once again.
us2nomads wrote on Dec 6, '11, edited on Dec 6, '11
TO ALL MY ONLINE FRIENDS, ALL AROUND THE WORLD
I haven't been on line in awhile. Two of my jaw teeth abscessed & had to be pulled, just after Thanksgiving. I'm still having quite a bit of pain. I have a lot more dental work to be done but I'm going to take a break from it until after Christmas. I was thinking of all of you & hoping you had a nice Thanksgiving, & will have a Christmas filled with peace & celebration of the birthday of the baby Jesus. May God bless all of you. Sylvia
A little boy is talking to his pregnant mom. Boy :Is this my little sister in here? Mom :Yes. Boy :Do you love her? Mom : Of course! Boy :Then why did you eat her?!
:-) That was so cute. Thank you dear Arisa for your messages. It means so much to know you are thinking & praying for both of us. I have been run through so many test for so long now, that I can't keep up with all of them. We are praying to know something soon. Charlie is on some medication now, that seems to be helping him quite a bit. That is a big help to both of us. I will send you a private message, a little later, to let you know what all we know now, so far.
A little boy is talking to his pregnant mom. Boy :Is this my little sister in here? Mom :Yes. Boy :Do you love her? Mom : Of course! Boy :Then why did you eat her?!
Thank you for your kind comment in my guestbook ~ it is much appreciated.
You are welcome Charlie. We thank you for all your wonderful accounts of places we would otherwise never know anything about. You have a wonderful gift for writing.
klimjo, Thank you for stopping by our guest book & we are happy to have you as one of our friends.
us2nomads wrote on Jul 13, '11, edited on Jul 13, '11
Arisa, God bless you my dear friend. This song is so beautiful that it brought tears to my eyes. You have no idea how much your support & that of your associates, has meant to us through this dark time in our lives. We are both under doctors care now for the issues we have been dealing with. There has been some slight improvement in some of the problems. We hope to have a more detailed report to give soon. Dr. Kim has given Charlie some Meds that is helping some with the anger. That of course is a help to me also, as I am the only target he has for his anger. We are going for him to have a MRI of the brain, today. We pray that will tell us a lot more. They have been working to improve my kidneys & they are showing some improvement, but just enough yet for them to be able to give me some of the other treatments they need to give me. Arisa, please give my thanks to all your friends who are praying for us. God bless you. With love. Sylvia
