Exclusive: New information on Romney’s views on global warming
Recently, various media outlets have reported on Romney’s statement in which he expressed support for global warming: “I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that.” This despite the last two winters being among the coldest in recent history and the recent evidence revealing pro-global warming scientists to have made fraudulent claims and suppressed contrary views. Romney also called for America to “reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases,” which, will, of course entail massive new government programs despite air quality in the United States being among the cleanest in the world.
I have always argued that Romney’s long history of promoting liberal causes make him unfit as the GOP nominee and that should he win, his lack of a consistent worldview would set the party back decades. But the “Romney is a conservative” myth has become so entrenched that when people hear about his global warming views, they’re surprised. But Romney has always held liberal views on the environment – he’s just downplayed them for the last five years and hoped no one would notice.
Most voters seem unaware of that Romney ran for Governor on a global warming platform. In 2004, Governor Romney initiated the “Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan” which just about every New England free market group attacked due to the harmful effects the plan would have upon the state’s economy. This plan morphed into a larger regional plan called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), that Romney and ten other liberal Northeastern governors signed. The goal of the pact was to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by ten percent by 2019. This pact, of course, assumed the global warming theory was scientific fact and to carry it out its wide-ranging dictates, Romney hired Douglas Foy, a radical environmental activist.
Foy’s claim to fame was his notoriety for suing businesses for not complying with various draconian environmental regulations. Not surprisingly, RGGI was a disaster from day one and created such economic uncertainty that businesses began to flee the state. Indeed, the job creation record of Gov. Romney became the second worst in the country, another shocking fact most voters are unaware of. Nevertheless, against all evidence, Romney insisted that RGGI was “good for business,” a statement which sounds like Obama’s statements about how his policies promoting alternative fuels are “good for business.”
As a result of the negative economic impact and a pressure campaign mounted by the business community, Romney did eventually pull out of RGGI. However, shortly after pulling out of RGGI, Romney initiated new regulations that essentially did the same thing RGGI was planning to do: a series of damaging emission regulations targeted at power plants. Incredibly, in preparations for these regulations, Romney proceeded to demonize the plants, even claiming “the Salem Harbor Plant is responsible for 53 premature deaths, 570 emergency room visits and 14,400 asthma attacks each year.” It turned out that these stats were false and borrowed from extremist environmental propaganda. Moreover, the stats were based upon a theoretical model created by the American Cancer Society and had nothing to do with the Salem Harbor plant. Even though there were zero deaths associated with the Salem Harbor power plant, Romney held a press conference in front of the power plant with all his extremist environmentalist friends present and recited these phony statistics while hysterically announcing “that plant kills people.” Bear in mind Salem Harbor was a legal power plant in full compliance with the law in every respect. Due to the impact Romney’s regulations had upon energy rates, the Salem Harbor power plant filed for bankruptcy two years later but was then purchased by Dominion Power. Foy later became a “super-secretary” in the Romney administration, responsible for overseeing the transportation, housing, environmental and energy agencies.
Read More at Romney Exposed By Rino Hunter, Romney Exposed
Terrorist proclaimed himself ‘Darwinian,’ not ‘Christian’
A review of Anders Behring Breivik’s 1,500-page manifesto shows the media’s quick characterization of the Norwegian terrorist as a “Christian” may be as incorrect as it was to call Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh one.
Breivik was arrested over the weekend, charged with a pair of brutal attacks in and near Oslo, Norway, including a bombing in the capital city that killed 7 and a shooting spree at a youth political retreat on the island of Utoya that killed more than 80 victims.
Piecing together Breivik’s various posts on the Internet, many media reports have characterized the terrorist – who says he was upset over the multiculturalist policies stemming from Norway’s Labour Party – as a “right-wing, Christian fundamentalist.”
Yet, while McVeigh rejected God altogether, Breivik writes in his manifesto that he is not religious, has doubts about God’s existence, does not pray, but does assert the primacy of Europe’s “Christian culture” as well as his own pagan Nordic culture.
Breivik instead hails Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary theories stand in contrast to the claims of the Bible, and affirms: “As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science, and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe.”
Read More at WorldNetDaily WorldNetDaily
The “Gang of Six” Deal is the Antithesis of Reform
The media frenzy over Republican Senators and Barack Obama making nice over the debt ceiling crisis exposes for all Americans to see the extent to which both parties are aligned with Wall Street interests, and against the interests of Main Street and small business. The subject of this latest bipartisan love fest is the Gang of Six plan.
Americans want reform. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives was swept into office by promising reform. The Gang of Six solution is the antithesis of reform.
Supposedly it offers the “balanced approach” of which Obama rambles on about endlessly. But in reality, the Gang of Six is one-sided. It offers only vague language about spending cuts. At best the Gang of Six plan might cut $500 billion, and even these cuts cannot be guaranteed. In real terms, government would continue to grow.
Also the Gang of Six solution would dramatically increase taxes. It calls upon the Senate Finance Committee to craft a tax reform plan that would actually increase taxes by $2.3 trillion over a 10 year period. Some members even cynically call it a tax reduction by using a baseline that everyone knows is phony. This is a baseline that predicts all of the middle class tax cuts signed into law by President Bush was repealed.
All of this because rejecting the debt ceiling increase would require the U.S. government to right size itself and begin a pay as you go diet.
Read More at Floyd Reports by Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, Floyd Reports
MSNBC Distorts Reagan Position on Debt Ceiling, Says Media Watchdog Group
Cable network MSNBC has been distorting the late President Ronald Reagan’s position on raising the debt ceiling, in the midst of a current-day political debate over raising that ceiling between President Barack Obama and Republicans on Capitol Hill, says an analysis by the Media Research Center (MRC).
“At least five MSNBC anchors since Tuesday have promoted a cherry-picked House Democratic Caucus video that distorts President Ronald Reagan’s position on the debt ceiling, inaccurately asserting that President Barack Obama is more in line with Reagan than the Republicans,” MRC News Analyst Alex Fitzsimmons reported in a BiasAlert on Wednesday.
The five MSNBC anchors are Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell and Thomas Roberts. They each played or cited an excerpt from a Reagan speech given on Sept. 26, 1987. In the excerpt, Reagan expressed the need to raise the debt ceiling.
However, the cable network did not acknowledge that later in that same speech Reagan insisted on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
MRC President L. Brent Bozell III expressed outrage at the network on Thursday.
Read More at CNS News by Fred Lucas, CNSNews
C.S. Lewis vs. Barack Obama on Economics and Government
As Americans prepared to mark the birth of their country with the usual outpouring of celebratory events, pundits on the political right were scratching their heads over President Obama’s most recent comment about America’s free-enterprise system.
This time, corporate jet owners got the hit, no fewer than six times during Obama’s late June press conference, apparently for taking advantage of Bush administration tax breaks at the cost of “your child’s safety.” Such financial obscenities were matched by continued tax breaks for “millionaires and billionaires,” whose wealth the political Left covets and whose sheer selfishness, in their view, has driven a stake through the heart of the president’s vaunted recovery summer. All the while unemployment rates remain stubbornly high, large and small businesses refuse to take their plunge into the world created by Obamacus Economicus, Americans by large majorities believe the country is going “in the wrong direction,” and administration officials remain puzzled by it all. The question is how to explain all this.
Two observers, one a 19th-century Frenchmen and the other a 20th-century Englishmen, offered words of wisdom about the consequences of centralizing political control and, we shall argue, the moral relativism that accompanies such a development.
Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville’s famous warning in Democracy in America about the peculiar type of despotism to which democracies are especially vulnerable included comments about “an immense tutelary power” hovering over a mass of citizens, for whose happiness it “willingly labors, but it chooses to be a sole agent and the only arbiter,” leaving nothing for individual determination. “What remains,” de Tocqueville asked, “but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?” The result is a power that “prevents existence,” that “compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people,” to the point where they can no longer be considered human beings at all.
Or if they can, they have no chests. This designation was made famous by that bête noire of British moral relativists, C. S. Lewis, noted for his writings on Christian apologetics as well as his Narnia series and the space trilogy. Lewis’s The Abolition of Man consists of three lectures he gave during World War II and was not about politics per se, but rather about the perils of assuming that science can dismiss statements of moral sentiments as purely subjective reactions. He noted that dismissing value statements’ objective meaning has the effect of emasculating humanity; that is, ripping out the “spirited element” of personhood—one’s chest—which hosts “indispensable liaison officers between cerebral man and visceral man. It may even be said that it is by this middle element that man is man.”
Read More at Floyd Reports By Marvin J. Folkertsma, Floyd Reports
Angry Tea Party Stirring up GOP Revolt
A significant faction of the tea party movement is prepared to revolt against any GOP deal to raise the debt ceiling – even if it is “revenue neutral” and cuts trillions from federal spending, grass-roots sources tell Newsmax.
For the most part, tea party leaders have coalesced around the “cut, cap, and balance” approach to raising the debt ceiling: Trillions in real spending cuts, a cap on how much federal spending can consume as a percent of GDP, and, ultimately, a balanced budget amendment that would prevent the federal government from running up future deficits.
But the fractious tea party movement actually consists of thousands of loosely affiliated groups. They generally support constitutionally limited government, but don’t always agree on specific policies. And they are by no means united on whether the debt ceiling should be raised at all.
The leaders of at least one major tea party organization, Tea Party Patriots, are adamantly opposed to any deal to raise the debt ceiling, under virtually any circumstances. Doing so, they say, only invites more deficit spending.
Some analysts call such fiscal hawks “debt-ceiling absolutists.” The absolutists say Uncle Sam must go cold turkey and swear off the spending binge that has saddled America with over $14.3 trillion in national debt. But labels aside, their influence within the GOP caucus is substantial.
Read More at Newsmax By David A. Patten, NewsMax
Kincaid: Obama Poised to Win Budget Battle and Slash Defense
Another discussion by liberal talking heads on CNN yesterday depicted House conservatives as fanatical budget-cutters standing in the way of a “deal” on federal spending and debt. But the Cut, Cap, and Balance Bill, which has been portrayed as draconian and fiscally conservative, actually raises the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion. Nine House Republicans voted against the bill for this and other related reasons.
Coverage of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act (H.R. 2560) has been extremely misleading. The coverage is reminiscent of how the media portray cuts in the rate of growth of federal spending as actual cuts.
In this case, however, the House Republican leadership went along with the ploy, in order to portray themselves as serious budget cutters. The liberal media were only too willing to oblige, setting up a final showdown in which Obama stands to come out the big winner and make cuts that will undermine our national defense—a constitutional obligation of the federal government.
Indeed, one of the “popular” alternatives, now being touted by some in the liberal media, is a plan by “conservative” Senator Tom Coburn to cut $1 trillion from the U.S. defense budget. His options include cancelling aircraft carriers, “reforming” the Joint Strike Fighter program, delaying production of the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle, terminating a mobile air defense system, reducing nuclear weapons, and reducing purchases of the V-22 Osprey.
At Commentary magazine, Alana Goodman writes of the Coburn plan that “it’s far more radical than Obama’s own recommendation to slash the defense budget by $400 billion.” She adds, “Military spending is not the reason why we’re in a fiscal crisis. Getting rid of wasteful spending in the defense budget is one thing, but strangling it with cuts will endanger our troops and dangerously diminish America’s standing in the world.”
Read More at GOPUSA By Cliff Kincaid, GOPUSA
McConnell Prepares to Betray Tea Party, Aid Obama’s Debt Ceiling Power Grab
Even as freshman Congressmen passed the Cut, Cap, and Balance proposal last night, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell quietly planned to sell them out. Insiders report McConnell is going through the motions of voting on the House measure but has invested his energy in cutting a deal with Democrats and give Barack Obama unconstitutional and near-dictatorial powers to raise the debt ceiling.
The Hill newspaper exposed the betrayal:
Publicly, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) have made votes on the Cut, Cap and Balance Act and a balanced-budget amendment their priority this week.
But GOP aides say the leaders are already looking past those votes to a potential deal with Democrats to raise the debt limit before an Aug. 2 deadline and spare Republican lawmakers from a political backlash.
“McConnell is going to let cut, cap and balance have its vote and then immediately move to plan B,” said a GOP aide in reference to the fallback debt plan McConnell is negotiating with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
McConnell’s “Plan B” would allow Barack Obama to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling in three portions over the next year. Only a supermajority of more than two-thirds of Congressmen could override him.
Read More at Floyd Reports by Ben Johnson, The White House Watch
Joe Miller agrees to pay legal fees
Joe Miller, who lost a 2010 senate bid against Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, announced he won’t be appealing a court order requiring that he pay state legal fees incurred in his fight to overturn the election results.
“Given the amount at issue, it simply does not make good financial sense to move forward with the appeal,” Miller said in a statement Thursday. “Pyrrhic victories are not my goal. Accordingly, this court fight ends today.”
After losing to tea party-backed Miller in the Republican primary, Murkowski ran as a write-in candidate in the general election in November.
When Murkowski won by 4.5 percentage points, Miller called on the Division of Elections to review the ballots in accordance to state election law, which says write-in votes must match the name of the candidate. Miller claimed all ballots with misspellings should be thrown out in a recount.
But the state had ruled as long as a voter’s intent was clear on the write-in, then a misspelled ballot could be counted. The Superior Court judge rejected Miller’s lawsuit, and the state’s Supreme Court upheld the decision.
Read More at CNN by Ashley Killough, CNN
Here is the press release: https://www.joemiller.us/2011/07/miller-chooses-not-to-appeal-legal-fees-ruling/