I

t’s as if the economy were robust, spewing out money to burn.  It’s like everyone agreed there was an imminent threat of global environmental collapse because of human activity.  It’s as if everyone was eagerly awaiting higher costs to everything.

It’s as if the Dems didn’t have a brain in their heads:

House Democratic leaders unveiled a sweeping plan to fight climate change and boost renewable energy this morning, including mandates for renewable electricity nationwide and a market-based system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The plan … is a “discussion draft” authored by Rep. Henry Waxman (D- Beverly Hills), the committee chairman, and Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming. Among the bill’s provisions:

* A nationwide mandate for renewable energy — such as wind, solar and biomass — in electric power generation, starting at 6% in 2012 and rising to 25% by 2025.

Shall we discuss the cost of developing that infrastructure out of thin air?  Or the plausibility of the entire concept?  Or the need, considering our coal, oil and natural gas reserves, our hydroelectric capabilities and potential, a nuclear industry just waiting to re-emerge?  (All quotes from the LA Times, BTW.)

* A “cap-and-trade” program to restrict greenhouse gas emissions by requiring utilities and other emitters to hold “allowances” for the carbon dioxide they send into the atmosphere. The level of allowances would shrink annually to reduce carbon emissions to 3% below 2005 levels by 2012, to 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050.

Shall we discuss this a bit?  I did with the American Petroleum Institute earlier today, and here’s what the good folks there told me:

API hasn’t taken a position on the topic of cap-and-trade per se, but we have been very outspoken about the potential costs of the cap-and-trade proposal in the administration’s 2010 budget.

Based on the administration’s initial estimate, it appeared the proposal would generate $646 billion in revenues.  Our calculations indicate that about 60% of that would come from oil and natural gas, which equates to about $400 billion. Later administration estimates indicated that the revenues could be three times the $646 billion figure, so it appears the burden on this industry – and on consumers – could be much higher than originally anticipated.

You’d think that before madcap schemes are introduced for discussion, someone somewhere might have a handle on how much destruction the proposal will cause family budgets across America.  But really – $646 billion or three times that amount; do we really need either?

* A national standard, akin to California’s, limiting carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles and a new low-carbon fuel standard to further support bio-fuels and low-emission alternatives to gasoline.

Can we discuss this?  Is this really what the automobile industry needs right now?  Perhaps it would be better to get them back on their feet again before cutting them off at the ankles.

Remember, no alternative technologies are ready for market without cap and trade to penalize existing technologies.  They cannot produce enough energy, and they cannot produce it cheaply enough. Cap and trade is just a fancy name for government tromping all over the free market in the name of “saving the planet.”

The planet doesn’t need saving.  The economy does.  And the free market’s on life support.

P.S.: The LA Times report quoted several environmentalist, most of whom were positively giddy about the day’s development.  I sent the reporter this email:

Just read your story and was amazed to find that apparently there wasn’t a single source from industry anywhere for you to get a quote from. Really? Just representatives of environmental groups?

Guess what?  No response.

No Comments yet »

Petraeus + Iowa = Excited Speculation

Update: This turned out to be a bad joke by Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard. He deserves a blogsopheric flogging – here are the facts.

B

uried at the very bottom of a Weekly Standard article about Gen. David Petraeus accepting an invitation to speak at Princton – more on that in a moment – was this enticing little add-on:

“THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned that General Petraeus is planning on delivering the commencement address at the University of Iowa in 2010. Hmmm.”

Hmmm indeed.  That’s a little less than two years before the Iowa caucuses and it could be a meaningless coincidence, but Petraeus teaches his troops to consider the meaning of seemingly meaningless coincidences.

First, he affirmed Princeton’s request in just a few a few minutes, indicating that the general suddenly has an eagerness not just to be seen in public, but to be seen in a swirl of media attention.  You and the general both know that Princeton’s academics will fall all over themselves to see who can be the most obnoxious, unappreciative, seditious voice at that event, assuring Petraeus of plenty of coverage as he responds from far above the fray.

Second, why Iowa?  He has no known ties to the state, having been raised a few miles away from West Point, where he went upon graduation from high school.  Could it be that the slog to the White House starts in Iowa, typically in the spring a couple years before the election?

If the Obama camp is schooled in counterintelligence, the information before them would make them start planning for a presidential run by Petraeus.  What a race that would be! Son of an immigrant vs. son of an immigrant.  Patriot vs. promiser.  Protector vs. poser. Continue Reading »

No Comments yet »

R

eaders of the WSJ and even the NYTimes have known for a while now that Maxine the Maxi-Lib Waters has been scamming the bailout, setting up a meeting between federal regulators and a bank seeking of her acquaintance that was $50 million in bailout funds. (Yeah, yeah – that seems like chicken-scratch, but it’s real money.)

So now, just a tad late, the LA Times has decided it ought to tell its readers about the latest round of nefarious actions by one of LA’s long-term Dem electeds.

Of course, they did it in a blog, not even in the online edition, and they didn’t really report the story; they just quoted the NYT:

Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California [that would be LA], requested the September meeting on behalf of executives at OneUnited, one of the nation’s largest black-owned banks. Ms. [Waters'] husband, Sidney Williams, had served on the bank’s board of directors until early last year and has owned at least $250,000 in stock in the institution. Treasury officials said the session with nearly a dozen senior banking regulators had been intended to allow minority-owned banks and their trade association to discuss the losses they had incurred from the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But Kevin Cohee, OneUnited’s chief executive, instead seized the opportunity to plead for special assistance for his bank, federal officials said.

Heaven forbid that Waters’ home town paper should let on to her constituents what she’s up to.

No Comments yet »

W

hen John McCain said (astonishingly) that the economy was fundamentally sound, the mainly marginalized media couldn’t possibly have done more to trumpet his foolishness.  So, how much do you think they’ll make of this?

President Barack Obama on Tuesday likened the stock market to the daily tracking polls used during campaigns. He said tracking Wall Street’s “fits and starts” too closely could lead to bad long-term policy. (LA Times)

That’s all? Just a bunch of fits and starts, just a daily tracking poll, nothing to pay attention to when setting policy? The LA Times let it pass with no comment, but I can’t.  The stock market has lost half its value in two months – basically, a reaction to Obama’s policies – and that is not what any reasonable person would call “fits and starts.”

indices are not tracking polls; they’re the economy’s EKG; they’re how we track what our retirement will be like; they’re a numeric equivalent to our dreams, and our lifetimes of work.

The president should be pilloried for being so dismissive of the great damage he has done by adopting policies that have devalued our economy by trillions of dollars.  But as long as the media cling to their love affair, he will think he’s getting way with it.  But, most definitely, he is not.

1 Comment »

F

rom Flopping Aces, this little 8-minute film shows what we’re up against:  A well-documented record proving the Dems were at the wheel and in complete control of the economic collapse … while the GOP lies defeated and we live in Obamaland, where media complicitcy and Dem lies combine to keep the people duped.

The clip shows a Fannie and Freddy regulatory hearing where Dems are whistling “all is well” and blaming the regulators for politicizing the issue or for incompetence, while Republicans are calling for more regulation, becuase Freddie and Fannie are in danger of collapse, are mismanaged, and need needs to fixed.  This is not ancient history; it’s 2004, when Congress till had time to acknowledge the writing on the wall and take action that might have spared us the banking/mortgage meltdown.

You’ll particularly like Maxine Waters saying, “Under the leadership of Mr. Franklin Raines, everything … is working just fine,” and Barney Franks adding smugly, “I have seen nothing in this hearing that raises the safeness and soundness issue” at Fannie or Freddy.

That is the record.  We all know it is the record.  Yet the national media have so entirely given up on ethics that a substantial portion of the population firmly believes that it was Republican under-regulation that killed the economy, and the Dems, to continue the media-endorsed cover-up of their blame, continue adopting policies that further weaken America.

1 Comment »

L

iz Robbins, writing on the NY Times’ “The Lede/Notes on the News” blog, is by all indications a woman. As such, I’m sure she finds the cause of fighting domestic violence worthy of promoting tp the NYT’s readers. Heck, she can even focus on the particular problems the Muslim community has with men degrading their wives:

Even as Mr. [Mozzammil] Hassan, 44, [who beheaded his wife Aasiya] sits in jail under a suicide watch that has been considered only a precaution, said his attorney, James Harrington, the gruesome murder has provoked some soul-searching within the Muslim-American community about the role of women and domestic abuse within Islam.

Soul-search they must, as they’re believers in a religion created, expanded and propagated by men who treated women as not much different than livestock. (No wonder females are becoming popular as suicide bombers – they hurt the enemy with no discernable loss to the terrorists’ side!)

But Robbins must soul-search herself as well because she is giving Islam a pass on the larger issue of the despicable act of “honor” killing. Without even bothering to find a compliant Muslim to quote directly, she writes:

The Muslim-American community in Buffalo and around the United States has reacted with outrage over suggestions that this was a religiously motivated killing, an “honor killing” brought on by the shame of Mr. Hassan’s wife seeking a divorce. The Hassans were originally from Pakistan. Although some Muslim fanatical extremists have justified “honor killings” because of shame brought on a family, Islam is a peaceful religion, and does not condone such violence, Muslim-American leaders have repeated in the last week as the case drew more attention.

Not to put too fine an edge on it, but screw the Muslim-American community in Buffalo and around the United States. Who do they think they are, killing two daughters in Texas, one daughter in Georgia and now disgracing our shores by beheading a wife in New York just because they refused to become compliant cows? The Texas girls, shown here, dressed wrong so their dad shot them both.  The Georgia daughter wanted to divorce an abusive husband, so her dad killed her.  And Muzzammil Hassan, rather than face his own shortcomings (this would have been his third divorce), hacked off the head of the woman who, were he a Christian, he was bound by oath to God to protect.

We are America, not Pakistan or Yemen or some other sorry excuse for civilization. If our wives or daughters stray from the straight and narrow, we don’t kill them in the name of our righteous God . (Yes, all too often wives die at husbands’ hands in America – but in the name of anger and ego, not God, and we certainly don’t say their murder honors our God; we call it what it is – a vile and disgusting sin.)

We also don’t think much of newspapers that are so swift to attack the Catholic church for child-abusing priests, but are so completely unable to confront the evil in Islam.  Fortunately, the 50+ commentors on Robbins’ post aren’t buying her coddling of Islam; overwhelmingly they are tired of this religion and those who make excuses for it.  For example:

“Many Muslim-American organizations insist that honor killing is ‘Un-Islamic.’” Yet, many scholars of Islam equally assert that the Qu’ran as well as custom permits grave punishment for “disobedient” women.” The argument that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’ has grown so tiresome in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. – MPCT

True enough.  To true for the NYT.

Hat-tip: Soccer Dad

1 Comment »

I. Kid. You. Not.  Out of ten-gazillion photos snapped at the balance-the-budget summit spin session today, this is the one AP chose to run with its run-down story:

Lovely, isn’t it?  Prez-O appears so humble as the golden light of his aura encircles him.  Good thing:  It’ll take a miracle for him to cut the ballooning deficit in half … as the stock market apparently knows better than the sycophants at the spin fest – the Dow fell another 251 points on bizarre quotes like this:

“If we confront this crisis without also confronting the deficits that helped cause it, we risk sinking into another crisis down the road.  We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences.”

If deficits helped cause the crisis, why is Obama quintupling the deficit with his stimulus program?  Anyone?  Anyone?  And if he really wanted to avoid deferring the consequences, would he be content to end his first (and last?) term with the national debt still at two and a half times the size of the Bush deficit?

And how, pray tell, will he accomplish that if next week he holds a health care summit, which is sure to lead to another round of unparalleled spending and the accompanying expansion of government?

2 Comments »

O

ne week too late, the New York Times has finally published a story on the brutal beheading of Aasiya Hassan by her husband, owner of a TV network dedicated to proving that Islam is indeed moderate, a faith that’s ready for prime time in a civilized world.

The coverage starts off well, but rapidly deteriorates. Here’s the lead:

A man who founded a Muslim-American television station to help fight Muslim stereotypes is to appear on Wednesday in a suburban Buffalo court on charges that he decapitated his wife last week.

Kudos to the NYT; they put the newsworthy significance – beheadings and Muslim stereotypes – right in the lead, casting the story as it should be cast.  But then the story breaks down into a senseless defense of positive Muslim stereotypes:

The gruesome death of Ms. Hassan prompted outrage from Muslim leaders after suggestions that it had been some kind of “honor killing” based on religious or cultural beliefs.

Dr. Sawsan Tabbaa, a Muslim community leader who teaches orthodontia at the State University at Buffalo, said, “This is not an honor killing, no way.”

Dr. Tabbaa added, “It has nothing to do with his faith.”

They are not outraged that she was beheaded. They are not outraged that Islam tolerates such behavior – it is, after all, the only religion in the world whose followers routinely behead people in the name of its god. They are merely outraged that someone would consider Aasiya Hassan’s death an honor killing.

But let’s look at it, shall we?  Aasiya was divorcing Muzzammil, and that’s just not allowed in enlightened Islam.  Men can divorce women easy as pie, but women divorce men? No way.  So she – she, a mere woman – was bringing shame to Muzzammil.

Now, he could have shot her, or strangled her, or crushed her skull with a tire iron or done any of a number of other well established American ways to kill in a fit of passion.  But instead, he did something almost unique to Islam – he beheaded her.  This is no easy feat.  It’s time-consuming, difficult, and very, very personal.

You behead someone not to kill them, but to send a message.  And the message Mazzammil Hassan was sending was simple:  I will not be dishonored!

The NYT, after waiting a week to cover the story, has made itself complicit in covering up the true nature of the crime.

10 Comments »

A

s I reported this morning, the NY Times is not covering the beheading of an upstate NY Muslim woman by her husband – even though it’s a state story, even though he owns a TV network designed to overturn “stereotypes” of Islam … and even though IT’S A BEHEADING FOR GOODNESS SAKE!

My lib friend Dan Chmielewski chides me for chiding the NYT:

Being from Upstate NY, I hope you’ll give me some creds here. But unless is a major story, like the plane crash, the New York Times is not going to cover a local crime story which is what this is. Wonder why you didn’t blog on this story …

… and he links to a Fox News story on Jim Adkisson,a Tennessee truck driver who pled guilty last Monday to killing two people and wounding six others at a church because he considered the liberal church “a den of un-American vipers.”

Not wanting to disappoint Dan (who, I’m sorry, gets no cred for being from upstate), I am blogging on that story, but not as he would want me to.  I just re-checked the NYT, and it still has not posted a story on the upstate beheading murder, but lo and behold, it has run no fewer than three stories on Jim Adkisson’s case … way the heck out there in Tennessee:

• Hatred Said to Motivate Tenn. Shooter (July 28, 2008)

• Hate for Liberals and Gay People Drove Gunman, Police Say (July 29, 2008)

• National Briefing – South – Tennessee – Guilty Plea in Church (Feb. 10, 2009)

The July 28 article dedicated a full 28 paragraphs to the story, and the rehash on the 29th managed to come up with 16 more. Last week’s update on the guilty plea was just a paragraph.  Here’s the lead of the the first story:

A man who the police say entered a Unitarian church in Knoxville during Sunday services and shot 8 people, killing two, was motivated by a hatred for liberals and homosexuals, Chief Sterling P. Owen IV of the Knoxville Police Department said Monday.

“It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that, and his stated hatred for the liberal movement,” Chief Owen said of the suspect, Jim D. Adkisson, 58. “We have recovered a four-page letter in which he describes his feelings and the reason that he claims he committed these offenses.”

The Chmielewski theory that the NYT doesn’t bother with local crime stories elsewhere falls apart here, since two killed with a shotgun, even in a church, isn’t as newsworthy as one person killed by beheading, Muslim or not.  No, what makes it newsworthy is that Adkisson had a “stated hatred for the liberal movement.”  Had a Unitarian shot up a Baptist church because of a “stated hatred of the conservative movement” – newsworthy as that would be on its face – rest assured the NYT wouldn’t have covered it.

The conclusion is irrefutable:  The NY Times will take any opportunity it can to discredit conservatives, particularly conservative Christians, and it will avoid any opportunity to paint Muslims in a negative light.

9 Comments »

Note: This story has been updated with Tuesday afternoon’s post for consideration by the Watcher’s Council

A

Muslim unhappy with his wife’s quest for independence has been charged with beheading her and dumping her body in his upstate New York television studio.

Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37, had filed for divorce from her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, on grounds of cruel and unusual punishment, following a marriage of humiliation, beatings, calls to the police, restraining orders and death threats, according to the woman’s attorney.

Here’s the irony: Muzzammil Hassan founded his TV network, Bridges TV, four years ago “to counter anti-Islam stereotypes.”

“Every day on television we are barraged by stories of a ‘Muslim extremist, militant, terrorist, or insurgent,’” Hassan said in the 2004 release. “But the stories that are missing are the countless stories of Muslim tolerance, progress, diversity, service and excellence that Bridges TV hopes to tell.” (Fox)

No word yet if the Hassan story will headline – poor choice of words there – today’s news on Bridges TV.

And no word on why the story does not appear on CNN, ABC, CBS – or even the home state paper, the NY Times.  (MSNBC does have the story.)

Update 1: As I reported this morning, the NY Times is not covering the beheading of an upstate NY Muslim woman by her husband – even though it’s a state story, even though he owns a TV network designed to overturn “stereotypes” of Islam … and even though IT’S A BEHEADING FOR GOODNESS SAKE!

My lib friend Dan Chmielewski chides me for chiding the NYT:

Being from Upstate NY, I hope you’ll give me some creds here. But unless is a major story, like the plane crash, the New York Times is not going to cover a local crime story which is what this is. Wonder why you didn’t blog on this story …

… and he links to a Fox News story on Jim Adkisson, a Tennessee truck driver who pled guilty last Monday to killing two people and wounding six others at a church because he considered the liberal church “a den of un-American vipers.”

Dan gets no cred for being from Upstate – although he could score some points by providing some Snappy Grillers or Riggies.  But I don’t want to disappoint the boy, so I am blogging on that story – just not as he would want me to.  I just re-checked the NYT, and it still has not posted a story on the upstate beheading murder, but lo and behold, it has run no fewer than three stories on Jim Adkisson’s case … way the heck out there in Tennessee:

• Hatred Said to Motivate Tenn. Shooter (July 28, 2008)

• Hate for Liberals and Gay People Drove Gunman, Police Say (July 29, 2008)

• National Briefing – South – Tennessee – Guilty Plea in Church (Feb. 10, 2009)

The July 28 article dedicated a full 28 paragraphs to the story, and the rehash on the 29th managed to come up with 16 more. Last week’s update on the guilty plea was just a paragraph.  Here’s the lead of the the first story:

A man who the police say entered a Unitarian church in Knoxville during Sunday services and shot 8 people, killing two, was motivated by a hatred for liberals and homosexuals, Chief Sterling P. Owen IV of the Knoxville Police Department said Monday.

“It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that, and his stated hatred for the liberal movement,” Chief Owen said of the suspect, Jim D. Adkisson, 58. “We have recovered a four-page letter in which he describes his feelings and the reason that he claims he committed these offenses.”

The Chmielewski theory that the NYT doesn’t bother with local crime stories elsewhere falls apart here, since two killed with a shotgun, even in a church, isn’t as newsworthy as one person killed by beheading, Muslim or not.  No, what makes it newsworthy is that Adkisson had a “stated hatred for the liberal movement.”  Had a Unitarian shot up a Baptist church because of a “stated hatred of the conservative movement” – newsworthy as that would be on its face – rest assured the NYT wouldn’t have covered it.

The conclusion is irrefutable:  The NY Times will take any opportunity it can to discredit conservatives, particularly conservative Christians, and it will avoid any opportunity to paint Muslims in a negative light.

Update 2: As of 2:40 PST Tuesday, the NYT is still ignoring the story.

Update 3: The Bridges TV site tries valiently to keep probing eyes off the site.  The home page carries a brief statement of deep sorrrow and shock at the murder and arrest.  When I tried to go to the schedule page, it held for a bit, then flipped back to the  home page, so it took several attempts before I identified this “moderate” Muslim fare:

James Zogby, founder and president of the Arab American Institute, holds forth on Mondays and Saturdays from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m.  Zogby may be a moderate in that he’s never actually killed a Jew, but …

Zogby has two goals: to make Arab Americans more powerful than Jewish Americans and to be their preeminent leader. Zogby’s engagement in American politics is motivated, in part, by his concern with what he views as the problem of non-Arabs-and specifically of American Jews-occupying key positions making U.S. policy toward the Middle East. Zogby insinuates that as a result of their background, these officials are incapable of being fair. …

Zogby has come to the defense of extremist Muslim groups such as the Muslim Brethren, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, arguing that these groups are merely “politically” or “religiously” opposed to the peace process. He defends the American Muslim Council (AMC), a Muslim American organization based in Washington that forwards the cause of extremist Islamic organizations such as Hamas, as well as Islamic radical movements in Algeria, Sudan, and other countries. He also has the temerity to call upon Jewish organizations to follow his lead on these issues. ^…

Zogby also defends individual terrorists. When Arafat in 1995 appointed Ziad Abu Eain as the comptroller of the Palestinian Authority, Zogby publicly supported the appointment, still insisting that there had never been credible evidence against Abu Eain. When the U.S. government arrested Musa Abu Marzook, a Hamas leader, in July 1995 in New York on grounds of Israel’s warrant of arrest, Zogby characterized the arrest as “a huge mistake” and “not helpful to the peace process.”

[Read much more from this Middle East Forum article here.]

Zogby is a Maronite Christian, not a Muslim … but if his views represent moderate Islam, there are no moderate Muslims.

Every night from Tuesday to  Saturday, Democracy Now! [with an exclamation point, as if we don't have it now], the flagship news program from the radical Pacifica Network, gets the 9 to 10 pm prime time slot on Bridge TV.  You may recall this group from the news:  Founder/journo Amy Goodman, two producers and a videographer were arrested by police outside the 2008 Republican National Convention on charges of probable cause for riot.  Here’s typical Amy Goodwin-speak:

[Cherif] Bassiouni’s scathing 2005 U.N. report accused the U.S. military and private military contractors of “forced entry into homes, arrest and detention of nationals and foreigners without legal authority or judicial review, sometimes for extended periods of time, forced nudity, hooding and sensory deprivation, sleep and food deprivation, forced squatting and standing for long periods of time in stress positions, sexual abuse, beatings, torture, and use of force resulting in death.”

The piece lacks any mention of terrorist attrocities against the West (or other Muslims), but plenty of negative interpretations of the US response.

Bridges TV is no better a spokesperson for the chimera of the moderate Muslim than is its founder and chief beheader.

15 Comments »