Sen. Inhofe’s Family Builds Igloo for Global Warming Spokesman Al Gore in Snow-laden D.C.

CNS News

Tuesday, February 09, 2010
By Christopher Neefus

‘Al Gore’s New Home,’ an igloo built by the family of Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) near the U.S. Capitol in snow-laden Washington, D.C. (Photo courtesy of office of Sen. Jim Inhofe.)

(CNSNews.com) – The family of Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) had some fun at former Vice President and global warming spokesman Al Gore’s expense over the weekend after record snowfall blanketed the nation’s capital.

The family spent Saturday and Sunday building an igloo near the U.S. Capitol building, and the Oklahoma senator posted photos of their handiwork on his Facebook page. They added signs to the snow dwelling that read, “AL GORE’S NEW HOME!” and “HONK IF YOU (LOVE) GLOBAL WARMING.”

Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is one of the foremost skeptics of anthropomorphic or man-caused global warming (AGW). Gore, on the other hand, produced the film “An Inconvenient Truth,” which helped to mainstream the issue of global climate change, and is a prominent proponent of curbing carbon emissions to try to halt it.

The Inhofe family, including the senator’s daughter and grandchildren, built the igloo after a large storm system dumped more than two feet of snow on the Washington, D.C. metro area on Friday and Saturday. The National Weather Service measured a record 32.4 inches at Dulles International Airport. Another 6 to 16 inches are predicted to fall on the capital on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Roll Call’s “Heard on the Hill” blog first reported on the igloo Tuesday morning.

Inhofe’s press secretary, Matt Dempsey, told CNSNews.com that the senator had known what his family planned to do. “Absolutely, I think the senator was out there with them,” said Dempsey. “I would have to double check.  But no, he was happy to have them do that.”

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)

“It’s just disappointing that more of the liberal blogs don’t seem to have a sense of humor about this,” he said.  “This was done in good fun.”

Brad Johnson, who blogs for the liberal Center American Progress criticized the prank and tagged it in the category of “Radical Right-Wing Agenda.”

“In reality, winter snows do not invalidate the reality that the planet just experienced the hottest decade on record,” Johnson wrote. “Scientists have been warning for decades that global warming would increase the severity of winter storms.”

Inhofe has often sparred with Gore in the past over his stance that global climate change is an emergency caused by humans and that legislation to curb carbon emissions is required.

In December, Inhofe told Fox News anchor Sean Hannity that Gore should give back the Oscar and Nobel Prize that he won for his work on “An Inconvenient Truth” and for spreading the message on climate change. “Oh, yeah, I think it’d be great to give it back, but that’s not going to happen—you know that and I know that,” said Inhofe.

Former Vice President Al Gore, seen here at the climate summit in Copenhagen on Monday, Dec. 14, 2009, says new computer modeling suggests the Arctic Ocean may be nearly ice-free in the summertime as early as 2014. (AP Photo)

In March 2007, when Gore testified on global warming before the Environment and Public Works Committee, Inhofe confronted Gore with the allegation that his large home in Tennessee consumes nearly 20 times as much energy as the average American household, and challenged him to take a pledge to reduce that number. (See Chart.)

“There are hundreds of thousands of people who adore you and would follow your example by reducing their energy usage if you did,” Inhofe told Gore. “Don’t give us the run-around on carbon offsets or the gimmicks the wealthy do.”

“Are you willing to make a commitment here today by taking this pledge to consume no more energy for use in your residence than the average American household by one year from today?” said Inhofe.

The Web page for the minority on the committee keeps track of how long it has been since Gore refused the pledge: the total stands at 1,056 days, or nearly three years

Source:

Obama lying to the People, Again

Big Government

by Vince Haley

If you’re the President of the United States or one of his political appointees and you’re ideologically opposed to new oil and natural gas development offshore, what do you do when the public registers its overwhelming support for new drilling in public opinion polls?

You dance, delay, and deceive. You speak melodious words about seeking the wisdom of the public in making these decisions and then ignore evidence of the public will when you get it, or worse, you hide it.

First came the dance.  In August 2008, after soaring gas prices and a dramatic shift in public opinion caused President Bush, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, and Republican presidential candidate John McCain to reverse their positions on offshore drilling, then-Senator Obama also changed. The Democratic presidential nominee reversed his own position and that of his party, saying he was open to offshore drilling as part of an overall energy plan.  The Democratic Congress followed a month later by quietly dropping the 25-year Congressional ban on offshore drilling.

Then came the delay. In January 2009, President Obama inherited a draft five year offshore drilling plan prepared by the outgoing Bush administration.  The plan was already receiving public comment as part of the elaborate rule making process followed by federal agencies.  Ken Salazar, Obama’s new Secretary of Interior, determined the decision about new offshore drilling was so important that he ordered a six-month extension to the comment period.

Third comes the dishonesty.

In April of 2009, during a discussion about offshore exploration in San Francisco, Salazar said that President Obama directed him to “to make sure that we have an open and transparent government” and that “these are not decisions that are going to be made behind closed doors.” Salazar went on to say that President Obama wanted to make sure that DOI was “maximizing the opportunity for the public to give us guidance on what it is that they want to do.”

Yet, more than four months after the comment period ended, the Department of the Interior has failed to make any public announcement about the results, even though sources have told American Solutions for months the comments show a 2-1 advantage in support of offshore drilling.

It took American Solutions almost four months and the power of the Freedom of Information Act to finally uncover indirect confirmation that, out of over 530,000 comments submitted, pro-drilling comments outnumbered anti-drilling comments by a 2-1 margin.

In an email dated October 27, 2009, Liz Birnbaum, director of the Minerals Management Service, informs other Interior officials that a preliminary tabulation of the results of the comment period had not yet gone to Secretary Salazar, adding “[s]o the Secretary can honestly say in response to any questions that he’s [SIC] has not yet seen the analysis of the comments – staff is still working on it. I did, however, confirm to him the 2-1 split that these guys [at American Solutions] are emphasizing.”

When a public employee is on record condoning purposeful deception of the American people, the taxpayer should no longer have to fund his or her job.  Secretary Salazar should immediately fire Liz Birnbaum for purposefully deceiving him, and in turn, the American people.  It’s not possible for the Secretary to honor pledges of openness, honestly, and transparency in government if his staff is going to deliberately undermine such pledges.

Public opinion polls already measure near 70% support for offshore drilling, so the results from a public comment period that reflect the same public sentiment should not be surprising.  But after all this talk of wanting the public’s input, Secretary Salazar and his team must find it a real stumbling block to have to explain all their anti-energy development actions in light of the comment period results to which they previously attached such great importance.

This newly gained insight into the anti-energy exploration mindset within the Department of the Interior allows a new perspective of President Obama’s mention of offshore development in his recent State of the Union address.  Here is the one paragraph in which the President described offshore development:

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.  It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.  It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies.  And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

To the passive listener, it sounded like President Obama expressed at least rhetorical support for offshore drilling.

But the President only says we must make “tough decisions” on offshore drilling, deliberately refusing to apply that standard to other decisions on energy.

But tough for whom? Certainly not for the public that overwhelmingly supports more offshore drilling.

Indeed, the only person facing a tough decision is the President since an important part of his political base is opposed to new American energy development.

Bucking public opinion would indeed be a tough decision for this President, but he has shown himself quite comfortable with bucking public opinion to pursue stunningly unpopular policies on health care and cap and trade.

In short, it’s a fair conclusion that the tough decisions the President identified in his State of the Union was his intended decision not to pursue any new offshore oil and gas development. The actions by Salazar and his team are entirely consistent with that conclusion.

What makes all of this dispiriting, especially this month, is that with 15 million Americans out of work and with the President’s recently submitted budget projecting trillion dollar annual deficits for the next ten years and a near tripling of the national debt by 2020, the President is throwing away a golden opportunity over the next three decades to create millions of new jobs and generate more than $270 billion in annual economic growth from new oil and gas development, including $54 billion annually in federal tax receipts that could help lower the federal deficit and the national debt.

These extraordinary benefits of job creation and economic growth – all without requiring any federal spending – are, sadly, not on President Obama’s agenda, notwithstanding all the phony rhetoric to the contrary.

Indeed, we can look forward to the President’s continued strategy of dance, delay, and deceive.

Source:

75% Are Angry At Government’s Current Policies

Rasmussen

Voters are madder than ever at the current policies of the federal government.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 75% of likely voters now say they are at least somewhat angry at the government’s current policies, up four points from late November and up nine points since September. The overall figures include 45% who are Very Angry, also a nine-point increase since September.

Just 19% now say they’re not very or not at all angry at the government’s policies, down eight points from the previous survey and down 11 from September. That 19% includes only eight percent (8%) who say they’re not angry at all and 11% who are not very angry.

Part of the frustration is likely due to the belief of 60% of voters that neither Republican political leaders nor Democratic political leaders have a good understanding of what is needed today. That finding is identical to the view last September, just after the tumultuous congressional town hall meetings the month before. But only 52% felt this way in November.

Americans are united in the belief “that the political system is broken, that most politicians are corrupt, and that neither major political party has the answers,” Scott Rasmussen explains in his new book, In Search of Self-Governance.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

Male voters are definitely angrier than women. Voters earning $60,000 to $100,000 per year are more frustrated than those in any other income group.

Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Republicans are angry with the government’s current policies, which is perhaps not surprising with the White House and Congress both in Democratic hands. But 78% of voters not affiliated with either major party agree.

Sixty-one percent (61%) of Democrats share that anger, but Republicans are three times as likely as Democrats to be Very Angry.

The divide between the Political Class and Mainstream voters, however, is remarkable. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Mainstream voters are angry, but 84% of the Political Class are not. Those numbers include 57% of Mainstream voters who are Very Angry and 51% of the Political Class who are not angry at all.

But then 68% of Mainstream voters don’t think the leaders of either major political party have a good understanding of what the country needs today. Sixty-one percent (61%) of the Political Class disagree.

By comparison, the majority of Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliateds don’t believe the current political leaders have a good handle on what is needed today.

Older voters and higher-income voters share that belief most strongly.

Democratic Senate candidates are struggling in a number of states in part because of unhappiness with the government’s policies, including the controversial national health care plan. Opposition to that plan played a key part in the GOP upset Senate win last month in Massachusetts.

Most voters oppose the now-seemingly-derailed health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats for months. They continue to have very mixed feelings about the $787-billion economic stimulus plan approved by Congress last February.

Looking back, most voters still don’t approve of the multi-billion-dollar government bailouts of the financial industry and troubled automakers General Motors and Chrysler.

Forty-nine percent (49%) worry the government will try to do too much to help the economy, while 39% fear it won’t do enough.

As the economy continues to stumble along, 59% of voters believe cutting taxes is better than increasing government spending as a job-creation tool, but 72% expect the nation’s elected politicians to increase spending instead.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of Americans say the size of the federal budget deficit is due more to the unwillingness of politicians to cut government spending than to the reluctance of taxpayers to pay more in taxes.

Voters have consistently said for months that they have more confidence in their own economic judgment than that of either the president or Congress.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

Scorce:

Feds Fail to Issue Recall for Chevy Cobalt Despite More Complaints Per Vehicle Than Toyota

Bob McCarthy Writes

If someone died as a result of faulty mechanics in a Toyota or Lexus vehicle, then a recall was indeed necessary.  But shouldn’t the playing field be level for all manufacturers, regardless of whether or not someone died?

I ask this question three days after publishing a pair of posts in which I expressed skepticism about the reasons behind the federal government issuing recalls on products made by the Japanese auto giant:

• In Obama Administration Sending Wrong Signals, I speculated about the possible reasons why the Obama Administration would want to bully Toyota; and

• In Is Toyota Paying Price for Not Supporting Obama?, I examined the number of campaign contributions made by Toyota executives to Barack Obama since Jan. 1, 2007, and found that only two of 151 executives listed on the Toyota web site gave a combined total of $2,500 to Obama for America.

Today, however, I discovered something more.

On Feb. 2, the Los Angeles Times reported that an estimated 905,000 2005-’09 Chevrolet Cobalt vehicles, including the Cobalt SS, are the subject of a new investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration due to complaints of electric power steering failure. Such an action is sometimes the precursor to a recall.  During the days that followed, Edmund’s Inside Line, The New York Times Wheels blog and two other publications reported the same basic story, informing readers that the investigation was launched after more than 1,100 consumer complaints were received.

According to a Chicago Tribune report Jan. 26, the Toyota recall was based upon some 2,000 complaints related to 2.3 million vehicles sold.

In doing the math related to these recalls, I found the following:

• Only 1 in 1,000 (.001) consumers complained about the Chevrolet product; and

• Fewer than 1 in 1,000 (.00009) consumers complained about the Toyota product.

In short, the Chevrolet product has received more complaints per car sold than the Toyota products!  So why hasn’t the federal government issued a recall on the Cobalt? Probably because Chevrolet is owned by General Motors (a.k.a. “Government Motors”), a taxpayer-owned company that stands to benefit greatly from having its foreign-owned competitors struggle with the public relations nightmares related to product recalls.

Source:

The New American Dream

The Obama File

Source:

No More Rock Stars!

American Thinker

Why is it that Americans are so hung up on rock stars, Hollywood celebrities, and anorexic models? Our culture is caught up (and brought up) in the influences of “America’s Next Top Model” and “American Idol” hysteria. The obsession with these entertainment programs likely had some influence on the outcome in the 2008 presidential election, which resulted in the choice of a man who was not competent to serve in the government, let alone run the country.

On the heels of the Obama phenomenon that swept the country, one would think that at least a majority of Americans have learned their lesson. The electorate gave up the principled legitimacy of George W. Bush and John McCain for Obama’s hope and change rhetoric, pectoral muscles flaunted on all of the magazine covers, swaggering across a Styrofoam stage with an air of confidence that only rock stars radiate.

But now, waking up from The Obama Show is like being on “Let’s Make a Deal” and trading in your winning prize hidden under box number 1 for the “zonk” behind curtain number 2. Americans are stuck with the booby prize for the next three years. And buyer’s remorse is setting in as the wrapping comes off the package and all that is left is an empty shell of ideology so far left from the mainstream that it reeks of practical joke.

The latest phenomenon on the iconic stage appears to be Scott Brown. Within hours of his win in the Massachusetts senatorial special election, headlines appeared broaching the possibility of a 2012 run for president. According to a recent report, Brown’s election “has many Republicans hoping he’ll make a White House bid.”

It is surprising that with everything working in its favor for midterm elections in 2010 and a national election in 2012, some Republicans are falling for the latest rock star candidate to sweep the stage. This is disheartening when considering that Republicans have multiple viable candidates in Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Eric Cantor, and others. There are even signs that Newt Gingrich may throw himself into the mix.

And yet the media and pundits cannot help but attempt to create a candidate who embodies the rock star persona. In the mainstream, there has been more discussion about Scott Brown’s 1980s pinup than his policies — clearly the mainstream does not want to come clean with the real reasons why Massachusetts voters booted out the Democrats, so they focus on Brown as a cultural icon rather than serious politician.

The problem is that politicians like Obama, Palin, Edwards, and Brown often jet to the forefront of the American political scene faster than the public has time to digest anything beyond their good looks. Yet in Obama’s case, there was plenty of time to digest his record, or lack thereof, and the majority of Americans still chose to go with his good looks and charm rather than the substance offered by the McCain/Palin ticket. Clearly the far left knowingly voted for the socialist agenda being offered by Obama, but the independent voters who helped him win fell for the faux persona and the rhetoric, which was music to their ears.

What happened to the days when experience and wisdom mattered? Appearance was not always paramount. What was important was the ability to govern, respect for the Constitution, understanding of foreign affairs, knowledgeable and respectable advisers, and high moral standards.

Obama was elected without any indication that he is capable of running the country, and after a year in office, he has proven that assumption correct. Furthermore, one would expect a Harvard Law graduate and constitutional law instructor to be familiar with, and hold in high regard the provisions of, the Constitution. Instead, Obama continues to show his disdain for the Constitution’s limitations, and he most recently illustrated his ignorance of constitutional jurisprudence when he scolded the Supreme Court justices for their decision in Citizens United v. FEC.

Obama certainly was lacking in the area of foreign affairs. His selection of running mate Joe “we’ve lost the war/let’s partition Iraq into three regions” Biden, his belief that Austrian is a language, and his misstatement that Japanese Emperor Hirohito signed the surrender to MacArthur are just a few of the indicators that should have set off alarms.

On the issue of surrounding oneself with respectable advisers and maintaining high moral standards, where does one begin? Obama has surrounded himself with tax cheats, America-bashers, and individuals who favor teaching homosexuality to elementary school students — and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Obama’s character can easily be called into question after one year of watching him consistently lie to the public, renege on all of his campaign promises, and ignore the will of the American people.

None of this is to say that Scott Brown or Sarah Palin may not make a fine president some day. The point is that they should be given time to grow as politicians, leaders, and representatives of the American people. They should be given time to accomplish more than the production of a successful autobiography, a few impressive interviews, and some great headshots. Americans do not need to elect an individual who is better left to the footnotes in the annals of history — an individual who is enjoying fifteen minutes of fame while more serious leaders with less commercial appeal are being ignored.

John Edwards is thankfully all but gone from the public stage. Scott Brown is seated in the Senate, where he will take the time to grow as a politician on the national level and gain the electorate’s respect while serving in office. Sarah Palin may or may not find her way to a future presidential ticket, but she will be given time to acquire the tools necessary in order to succeed.

Obama will not go down in the history books as a simple footnote, a political mistake based on a confused and misguided electorate caught up in his rock star persona, and this is unfortunate. When the show is over and the curtain comes down on the Obama presidency, he will likely be remembered as the worst president this country has ever seen. And all of the pictures of him topless on the cover of Vanity Fair and glowing with the aura of a messiah on the cover of Time Magazine will be overshadowed by his inexperience, his horrific decisions, and his devastating policies.

Source:

“Citizen vs. Natural Born Citizen” – with Obama’s Exact Citizenship Status It’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” – Washington Times National

The Betrayal

A Place to Ask Questions To Get the Right Answers Published:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26563415/Citizen-v-natural-born-Citizen-It-s-Don-t-Ask-Don-t-Tell-20100208-Issue-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-pg-15

Many people do not know there is a difference between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” Being a “Citizen” of any type, whether an Article II natural born Citizen, 14th Amendment born Citizen, 14th Amendment naturalized Citizen, or statutory born Citizen under a Congressional Act, means you are a member of the society and entitled to all its rights and privileges. But under our Constitution to serve in the singular most powerful office in our government, that is to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military under our Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, of our Constitution you need to be a “natural born Citizen.” Being a “natural born Citizen” cannot be conveyed by any laws of man and can only be conveyed by the facts of nature at the time of your birth and circumstances of your birth, i.e., being born in the country to two citizens of the country.

(Legal Treatise “The Law of Nations – Principles of Natural Law” Section 212 by E. Vattel 1758, SCOTUS Decision Venus 1814, SCOTUS Decision Minor v Happersett 1874). This new advertorial is designed to help educate the public pictorially about the fact that Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA and thus is ineligible under our Constitution to the office he sits in. Obama is a Usurper who was allowed to be put there by millions in foreign money, a corruptly lead Congress, and an enabling main stream media. This is a constitutional crisis and a national security concern that must be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court or our Republic, Constitution, and Liberties are in great danger.

Obama is hiding the truth from the People with an enabling media and is refusing to answer questions on his Article II constitutional eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the military. In fact he said last week people should not even question him about it. With him his exact citizenship status policy is, “don’t ask, don’t tell” and hope it goes away. Well it is not going away. This is a constitutionally based legal eligibility question. Obama’s election fraud and cover up will be revealed. The truth and the Constitution will win the day in the end and We the People will constitutionally remove the Usurper from his illegally obtained office.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ … help the cause: http://www.protectourliberty.org/

Source:

Van Jones was honored by Jimmy Carter, RFK daughter

By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Kerry Kennedy

While leading a communist revolutionary organization that opposed the U.S. government, President Obama’s controversial former “green jobs” czar, Van Jones, was honored by and maintained a working relationship with Mary Kerry Kennedy, the activist daughter of Robert F. Kennedy.

Jones also received an award during his communist leadership period from a group on which former President Jimmy Carter served as an adviser.

In the 1990s, Jones was the leader and founder of a radical group, the communist revolutionary organization Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM. The group’s official manifesto, “Reclaiming Revolution,” boasted “we also saw our brand of Marxism as, in some ways, a reclamation.”

In 1998, both Carter and Kerry Kennedy were on the board of the Reebok Human Rights Awards, which selected Jones as one of four activists from around the world to receive its annual award.

In 2000, Jones was honored by Kennedy again when the activist gave him the “Kerry Kennedy Cuomo Human Rights Defender” award.

In 2004, Court TV aired “RFK: Our Children, Our Future,” a documentary on the legacy of Robert F. Kennedy’s commitment to human rights, which featured Jones as a commentator alongside Kerry Kennedy.

Complete Story: