Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim S who wrote (34914)	4/30/2009 2:16:27 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

April 22, 2009 5:09 PM Obama Earth Day Flights Burned More Than 9,000 Gallons Of Fuel Posted by Mark Knoller It happens every time a president leaves town to make an Earth Day speech. Reporters scramble to point out how much fuel was expended so the President could talk about conserving energy and using alternative fuels. In flying to and from Iowa today, President Obama took two flights on Air Force One and four on Marine One. The press office at Andrews AFB wouldn’t give me the fuel consumption numbers for the 747 that serves as Air Force One without the approval of the White House Press Office, which as I write this has yet to be given. But Boeing says its 747 burns about 5 gallons of fuel per mile. It’s 895 miles from Washington to Des Moines, so a round trip brings the fuel consumption for the fixed-wing portion of the President’s trip to 8,950 gallons. The trip also put President Obama on Marine One for round-trip flights between the White House and Andrews AFB and between Des Moines International Airport and Newton, Iowa, site of his Earth Day speech. It totaled about an hour of flight time. The VH-3D that serves as Marine One consumes about 1200 pounds of fuel per hour which comes out to about 166 gallons consumed flying the President today. Not included in these calculations are the presidential vehicles that took him the short distance from the landing zone in Newton to the event site at the Trinity Structural Towers Manufacturing Plant. In his speech there, President Obama called for a “new era of energy exploration in America.” At a plant that manufactures the towers for wind turbines, he urged Americans to support his plan for promoting expanded use of alternative and renewable fuels. And he announced that for the first time, the Interior Department would be leasing federal waters for projects to generate electricity from wind and ocean currents. President Obama could have saved at least 9,116 gallons of fuel by giving his speech at the White House – but no wind turbines are manufactured here. cbsnews.com

To: Jim S who wrote (34914)	4/30/2009 8:56:01 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Johanns denounces use of budget reconciliation for climate change law Wednesday, April 29, 2009 Sen. Mike Johanns office WASHINGTON -- Senator Mike Johanns today spoke on the Senate floor to discuss the possibility of budget reconciliation being used to slip sweeping climate change legislation into law, which the Senate has twice rejected with a strong bipartisan majority vote. After stripping Senator Johanns' amendment from the final report, Senate Budget conferees produced a final budget resolution, to be voted on in the House and Senate today. "I am disappointed by this blatant disregard of the clear will of the U.S. Senate, which has twice expressed its desire for full and robust debate on this complex legislation," Johanns said. "We made it clear that climate change legislation, which will have such significant economic impact on America, deserves thorough and thoughtful consideration. Congress is now one step closer to putting partisan strategizing above the will of the Senate and the interests of the American people." Highlights as well as the full text of Senator Johanns' speech as prepared for delivery are below: Fast Facts: · On April 1, the Senate passed Senator Johanns' amendment with 67 votes, including 26 Democrats, which would have prevented cap-and-trade legislation from being slipped into law using budget reconciliation. · On April 23, 66 Senators voted to instruct budget conferees to include the Johanns amendment in the final Senate Budget Conference Report. o However, conferees stripped Senator Johanns' amendment, and it appears nowhere in the final budget. o Instead, the following language was added in the report accompanying the Budget Resolution: 'It is assumed that reconciliation will not be used for changes in legislation related to global climate change.' o This language appears only in the report and is not binding in any way. · The House Energy and Commerce Committee has reconciliation instructions for the Senate in its final budget resolution. o The House could use these instructions to enact cap-and-trade legislation. · With these instructions, the House and Senate could go to conference and final legislation could emerge with cap-and-trade included--without any Senate amendments and only 10 hours of debate on the Senate floor. · Budget reconciliation could also be used to push universal health care through to become law. Senator Mike Johanns' Remarks As Prepared for Delivery: "Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed in the outcome of the conference report -- specifically, the blatant disregard for the will of a bipartisan majority of the Senate. "67 of us spoke with one voice in opposition to allowing cap-and-trade legislation to be slipped into law in a way that stifles amendments and debate. Almost 70 of us spoke again in a bipartisan voice to instruct budget conferees to include our amendment in their report to ensure the bright light of transparency shines on any cap-and-trade legislation. Yet, the amendment supported by 67 senators is nowhere to be found in this conference report. The door has been re-opened to pass sweeping cap-and-trade legislation with a simple majority. "The Budget Committee leadership did include report language about climate change, but it has little or no meaning. The sentence in the conference report states, 'It is assumed that reconciliation will not be used for changes in legislation related to global climate change.' Unfortunately, this statement is not worth the paper it is written on. This assumption is made by people who don't even control the process. "Frankly, the Budget Committee can assume whatever it wants, but the truth is the majority leadership can roll them at any time. And then what will be our recourse? There is none. This Budget Committee assumption has no teeth at all...It is simply a nice platitude to lull us to sleep. Surely you understand my skepticism. "67 Senators supported an amendment that had real enforcement teeth to shield the American people from being railroaded in the dead of night. It would have ensured open debate and the opportunity to offer amendments. Yet, when the conference agreement returned, the amendment had been stripped from the budget resolution to ensure it appears nowhere in black and white. "We must be on guard. Some might suggest we relax because there are no reconciliation instructions entitled 'cap and trade.' In fact, they will argue that because there are no instructions for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works at all -- there is no need to worry -- case closed. Don't fall for it. Remember, the House Energy and Commerce Committee has reconciliation instructions in the final resolution. "So, the House could easily use these instructions to enact cap and trade. They could generate over a trillion dollars for nationalized health care or for any other initiative. They go to conference and presto -- cap and trade emerges from the conference with not a single Senate amendment offered and only 10 hours of debate on the Senate floor. "Consider this, a hard-working American on the night shift could literally go to bed after a long nights work and wake-up to find cap and trade is law. What a rude awakening -- his family facing a new $3,000 tax, and his job in jeopardy of moving overseas where no carbon cap exists. "And let's not be fooled--there will be tremendous pressure on the Committee to follow this path. Many will want to avoid such inconveniences as consultation with the American people. After all, such discussions could be uncomfortable. Who wants the unpleasant job of explaining to the American people that they're going to be taxed every time they turn on a light or start the washing machine? I can see why some think it would be easier just to slip this legislation through with little transparency. "And it's not just cap-and-trade that could become law without a robust debate -- budget reconciliation could also be used to push universal health care through. Budget reconciliation is ill-suited to pass complex, comprehensive legislation like health care reform. By mixing a complex policy with budget reconciliation instructions and the Byrd Rule, you get a witch's brew. The result would be a bizarre set of rules. "You could literally have a situation where a high bar would have to be met -- a 60 vote requirement -- to pass non-controversial, budget-neutral health care provisions. And yet -- listen to this -- major overhaul provisions that cost hundreds of billions of dollars will only need a simple majority. "And that is where we will be -- some simple sections of the health care bill will require 60-votes, while the tax increases and the extravagant spending provisions within the same bill will require only a simple majority. How unfortunate. It is certainly no way to legislate. This situation will make a mockery of the work we do in Congress. "Mr. President, allowing only 20 hours of debate on this extremely complex issue will result in piecemeal policies with glaring weaknesses. I am not interested in finding a band-aid solution. I am not interested in playing politics with such an important issue. I am interested in being thoughtful about our approach to such important policy -- legislation that will affect the lives of virtually every American. "The budget rules were never intended to expand government programs or be the catalyst for major policy implementation. The American people deserve better than the course this budget resolution charts. I urge all Americans to pay close attention because Congress is on a dangerous course. "There is troubling potential for health care reform and climate legislation to constitute the largest government transfer of wealth ever witnessed in the history of our country. The American people must be vigilant. They must demand honesty... demand transparency... and demand that those in Washington remember the principles of democracy." Story URL: mccookgazette.com

To: Jim S who wrote (34914)	10/20/2009 10:19:30 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

Does Obama Believe in Human Rights? Human rights "interfere" with President Obama's campaign against climate change. OCTOBER 19, 2009, 10:34 P.M. ET. By BRET STEPHENS Nobody should get too hung up over President Obama's decision, reported by Der Spiegel over the weekend, to cancel plans to attend next month's 20th anniversary celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Germany's reunited capital has already served his purposes; why should he serve its? To this day, the fall of the Berlin Wall on the night of Nov. 9, 1989, remains a high-water mark in the march of human freedom. It's a march to which candidate Obama paid rich (if solipsistic) tribute in last year's big Berlin speech. "At the height of the Cold War, my father decided, like so many others in the forgotten corners of the world, that his yearning—his dream—required the freedom and opportunity promised by the West," waxed Mr. Obama to the assembled thousands. "This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom." Those were the words. What's been the record? China: In February, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton landed in Beijing with a conciliating message about the country's human-rights record. "Our pressing on those [human-rights] issues can't interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis," she said. In fact, there has been no pressing whatsoever on human rights. President Obama refused to meet with the Dalai Lama last month, presumably so as not to ruffle feathers with the people who will now be financing his debts. In June, Liu Xiaobo, a leading signatory of the pro-democracy Charter 08 movement, was charged with "inciting subversion of state power." But as a U.S. Embassy spokesman in Beijing admitted to the Journal, "neither the White House nor Secretary Clinton have made any public comments on Liu Xiaobo." Sudan: In 2008, candidate Obama issued a statement insisting that "there must be real pressure placed on the Sudanese government. We know from past experience that it will take a great deal to get them to do the right thing. . . . The U.N. Security Council should impose tough sanctions on the Khartoum government immediately." Exactly right. So what should Mr. Obama do as president? Yesterday, the State Department rolled out its new policy toward Sudan, based on "a menu of incentives and disincentives" for the genocidal Sudanese government of Omar Bashir. It's the kind of menu Mr. Bashir will languidly pick his way through till he dies comfortably in his bed. Iran: Mr. Obama's week-long silence on Iran's "internal affairs" following June's fraudulent re-election was widely noted. Not so widely noted are the administration's attempts to put maximum distance between itself and human-rights groups working the Iran beat. Earlier this year, the State Department denied a grant request for New Haven, Conn.-based Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. The Center maintains perhaps the most extensive record anywhere of Iran's 30-year history of brutality. The grant denial was part of a pattern: The administration also abruptly ended funding for Freedom House's Gozaar project, an online Farsi- and English-language forum for discussing political issues. It's easy to see why Tehran would want these groups de-funded and shut down. But why should the administration, except as a form of pre-emptive appeasement? Burma: In July, Mr. Obama renewed sanctions on Burma. In August, he called the conviction of opposition leader (and fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner) Aung San Suu Kyi a violation of "the universal principle of human rights." Yet as with Sudan, the administration's new policy is "engagement," on the theory that sanctions haven't worked. Maybe so. But what evidence is there that engagement will fare any better? In May 2008, the Burmese junta prevented delivery of humanitarian aid to the victims of Cyclone Nargis. Some 150,000 people died in plain view of "world opinion," in what amounted to a policy of forced starvation. Leave aside the nausea factor of dealing with the authors of that policy. The real question is what good purpose can possibly be served in negotiations that the junta will pursue only (and exactly) to the extent it believes will strengthen its grip on power. It takes a remarkable presumption of good faith, or perhaps stupidity, to imagine that the Burmas or Sudans of the world would reciprocate Mr. Obama's engagement except to seek their own advantage. It also takes a remarkable degree of cynicism—or perhaps cowardice—to treat human rights as something that "interferes" with America's purposes in the world, rather than as the very thing that ought to define them. Yet that is exactly the record of Mr. Obama's time thus far in office. In Massachusetts not long ago, I found myself driving behind a car with "Free Tibet," "Save Darfur," and "Obama 08" bumper stickers. I wonder if it will ever dawn on the owner of that car that at least one of those stickers doesn't belong. Write to bstephens@wsj.com online.wsj.com

To: Jim S who wrote (34914)	11/3/2009 12:03:07 PM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Behind Obama's Berlin Wall Snub By Rich Lowry November 3, 2009 In his first year in office, Barack Obama has visited more foreign countries than any other president. He's touched ground in 16 countries, easily outpacing Bill Clinton (three) and George W. Bush (eleven). It's an itinerary befitting a "citizen of the world." But there's one stop Obama won't make. He has begged off going to Berlin next week to attend ceremonies commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall. His schedule is reportedly too crowded. John F. Kennedy famously told Berliners, "Ich bin ein Berliner." On the 20th anniversary of the last century's most stirring triumph of freedom, Obama is telling them, "Ich bin beschäftigt" - i.e., I'm busy. It doesn't have quite the same ring, does it? Obama's failure to go to Berlin is the most telling nonevent of his presidency. It's hard to imagine any other American president eschewing the occasion. Only Obama - with his dismissive view of the Cold War as a relic distorting our thinking and his attenuated commitment to America's exceptional role in the world - would spurn German president Angela Merkel's invitation to attend. Obama famously made a speech in Berlin during last year's campaign, but at an event devoted to celebrating himself as the apotheosis of world hopefulness. He said of 1989, "a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one." The line was typical Obama verbal soufflé, soaring but vulnerable to collapse upon the slightest jostling from logic or historical fact. The wall came down only after the free world resolutely stood against the Communist bloc. Rather than a warm-and-fuzzy exercise in global understanding, the Cold War was another iteration of the 20th century's long war between totalitarianism and Western liberalism. The West prevailed on the back of American strength. But Obama doesn't think in such antiquated, triumphalist terms. Given to apologizing for his nation abroad, he resolutely downplays American leadership. "President Obama is applying the same tools to international diplomacy that he used as a community organizer on Chicago's South Side," the Washington Post notes, approaching "the world as a community of nations, more alike than different in outlook and interest." To the extent that the Cold War doesn't fit this unbelievably naïve worldview, it's an intellectual inconvenience. Wouldn't Obama at least want to take the occasion to celebrate freedom and human rights - those most cherished liberal values? Not necessarily. He has mostly jettisoned them as foreign-policy goals in favor of a misbegotten realism that soft-pedals the crimes of nasty regimes around the world. During the Cold War, we undermined our enemies by shining a bright light on their repression. In Berlin, JFK called out the Communists on their "offense against humanity." Obama would utter such a phrase only with the greatest trepidation, lest it undermine a future opportunity for dialogue. Pres. Ronald Reagan realized we could meet with the Soviets without conceding the legitimacy of their system. He always spoke up for the dissidents - even when it irked his negotiating partner, Mikhail Gorbachev. Whatever the hardheaded imperatives of geopolitics, we'd remain a beacon of liberty in the world. Obama has relegated this aspirational aspect of American power to the back seat. For him, we are less an exceptional power than one among many, seeking deals with our peers in Beijing and Moscow. Why would Obama want to celebrate the refuseniks of the Eastern Bloc, when he won't even meet with the Dalai Lama in advance of his trip to China? So Obama huddles with Merkel during her visit to Washington and leaves it at that. An American president will skip events marking the end of a struggle to which we, as a nation - under presidents of both parties - devoted blood and treasure for 50 years. For Barack Obama, 1989 is just another far-away year - and the Democratic party of such men as Harry S. Truman and JFK has never seemed more distant. Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. realclearpolitics.com