Showing posts with label Lindsey Graham. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lindsey Graham. Show all posts

Friday, July 22, 2011

Cut Cap and Balance… Or?

Daily National Debt Increase Figures: 

Below is what our national debt increases per day…. every day:

Under Clinton 547 Million per day

Under Bush 1.6 Billion per day

Under Obama 4.3 Billion per day

Under Bush… who is still getting blamed for everything by the Obama administration we added $1.6 Billion per day to our debt.  Under Obama we add $4.3 Billion to our debt every day and Obama is still perceived as the good guy by the uninformed public.  This is what happens when a Nanny State of selectively educated people crowns a Messiah who controls the media.  It is frightening!!

Debt image

The White House and House Speaker John Boehner emphatically denied a report that they were closing in on a major deal to cut the deficit and raise the debt ceiling, though President Obama's top spokesman continued to insist Thursday that Congress will act to prevent a first-ever U.S. default  (most economists assure us that there is plenty of revenue coming in to pay the interest on our debt, social security, and the military with about $39 Billion left over.)

I am not a huge Lindsey Graham (R-SC) fan by any means, but his explanation of what is going on in the Senate right now is the best I’ve heard. 

Graham Speaks in Support of Cut, Cap and Balance

America at a pivotal point. We either stop spending, demand that our government live within their means by requiring a a Balanced Budget Amendment or we become Greece… and I’m not talking beautiful ocean, the Acropolis and Parthenon and old world charm.  I’m talking default, riots in the street and economic collapse.

No More Commissions… Pass Cut, Cap and Balance

With Default Looming, Obama Finds Time to See New Harry Potter Movie… Really??

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Graham's endorsement boosts climate bill - Beware the Cap ‘n’ Trade Republicans

The surprise endorsement of climate-change legislation by a leading Senate Republican has jump-started the languishing proposal but also has raised the prospect that it will include two major items that environmentalists dislike: more nuclear power and more offshore oil drilling.

In an op-ed published Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina joined with Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the chamber's leading Democratic advocate of climate legislation, to promote a bipartisan plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

They proposed a compromise that reduces U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions - which are widely considered to contribute to climate change - through a market-based "cap and trade" system, combined with a "clean energy" program providing incentives for nuclear power, offshore oil and gas drilling, and coal emissions controls.

Analysts from the political left and right expressed optimism that the unexpected alliance will improve the bill's chances of passage. The House narrowly passed its version this summer, but the Senate has long been considered a much tougher sell.

"If Sen. Graham supports action, it's a very important step forward," said Daniel J. Weiss, climate strategy director at the liberal Center for American Progress. "Sen. Graham has good standing on both sides of the aisle and it will help with undecided members of both parties."

Scott Segal, a lawyer at the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani who represents energy companies and manufacturers, said by e-mail that the Kerry-Graham plan faces significant opposition but addresses some of the most vexing issues impeding the bill's progress in the Senate.

"The senators' position is a definite step forward," Mr. Segal said. "They have outlined many of the key issues that need to be resolved in order to achieve political consensus behind a bill, and that's very useful."

Many obstacles remain. Democrats and Republicans from coal-producing states and the Midwest continue to resist the legislation over fears that it would cause huge increases in the cost of energy that would hurt their constituents and businesses.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, Ohio Democrat, has been adamant that a bill will not pass the Senate unless it includes measures to tax imports from countries that do not limit their carbon-dioxide emissions. President Obama has expressed doubts about the provision, saying it appears to be protectionist. Other Democratic senators, including Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, say they cannot support a bill that drives coal-fired energy prices higher.

Environmental groups tend to oppose nuclear power generation and prefer "green" sources such as wind, solar and geothermal energy. They also routinely oppose offshore oil and gas drilling, saying it threatens the environment without increasing U.S. energy security.

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, plans to issue a revised version of the bill soon, which she recently introduced with Mr. Kerry late last month. The bill does little for nuclear power beyond new training programs and is silent about offshore drilling.

Mr. Kerry and Mr. Graham were unavailable for comment Monday.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Kerry could not say whether their plan would be the basis for the committee's legislation. She said by e-mail that the joint op-ed "signals Sen. Kerry's and Sen. Graham's commitment to getting 60 votes in the Senate for climate change legislation." She added that the two want to make "substantial, bipartisan" progress leading up to the major U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen starting Dec. 7.

Mr. Obama and environmental groups have called on the Senate to act quickly to strengthen his negotiating position in advance of the summit, where developed and developing nations, including China, will meet to draft a new agreement intended to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Reuters news agency reported Monday that Mrs. Boxer, after meeting with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, said she wants to pass a bill through her committee before the Copenhagen summit. Separately, Energy Secretary Steven Chu told reporters in London that he remains optimistic that Mr. Obama could sign a bill into law by the time the summit opens, though few observers expect the Senate to act that swiftly.

Stanford U. doesn’t want you to see this video

What did I tell ya? Lindsey Graham signs on to cap-and-tax

Ugh: McCain & Company melting on cap-and-tax

The Boxer-Kerry green boondoggle

Beware the Climate Change Republicans

The Great Man-Made Global Warming Swindle

Green Hell

Red Hot Lies

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Hmmmm… Another Nearly Identical “Wise Latina” Comment in 1994 – Fool Me Once As The Say?!?

Oh my: Sotomayor made nearly identical “wise Latina” comment in 1994, too

Updated - 6.5.09 at 6:30PM PST - We are up to 8 nearly identical rasicst comments now... Is rhis really who and what we want in a Supreme Court Judge, interpreting our laws???
POSTED AT 4:05 PM ON JUNE 3, 2009 BY ALLAHPUNDIT Soto
SEND TO A FRIEND | SHARE ON FACEBOOK | PRINTER-FRIENDLY
Hmmm… With a smirk and a smile…

Leave it to Greg Sargent to conclude that the big scoop here is that no GOP senators pressed her on the earlier remark at her ‘98 appellate confirmation hearing, where the scrutiny’s normally a fraction as intense as it is for a SCOTUS appointment. The real significance, of course, is that it puts the lie to the White House’s feeble spin about how Sotomayor supposedly misspoke in 2001, a position the nominee herself has been forced to adopt even though people on her own side admit it’s nonsense. Evidently, the idea that her biology makes her a superior judge has been with her for decades. The only wrinkle: In 1994 she insisted it was her gender that made her “better” and by 2001 that notion had evolved to include race as well. Nice to know that her progressivism became more “sophisticated” over time.

Here’s what she said in the 1994 speech:

“Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that “a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion in dueling cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Prof. Martha Minnow is correct, there can never be a universal definition of ‘wise.’ Second, I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.”

Lindsey Graham met with her today and all but declared afterwards that he won’t vote for her, in full accordance with the precedent set by The One’s ideological jackassery when he voted to torpedo Roberts and Alito. As gratifying as that sort of payback is, though, the racial politics here are a lot different for Graham than they were for Obama. Prudence or principle? Exit question: Was Rush serious today when he said he’d support her if he had reason to believe she was pro-life? What possible reason aside from her faith (one that’s shared by countless of pro-choice Democrats) would we have to think that? Surely someone as invested in gender politics as our “wise woman” nominee isn’t going to disappoint NARAL.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Source: Hot Air

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Additional Related Resources:

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Obama Defends Reversal on Releasing Detainee Photos

415_051309_fx_Obama_C

President Obama has decided to not release the photos which the Pentagon had planned to release by May 28 in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

In a sharp reversal, President Obama announced Wednesday that he will not release hundreds of photos potentially showing U.S. military personnel abusing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"My belief is the publication of these photos would not add any additional benefits to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals," Obama said in a brief appearance. "The most direct consequence would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and put our troops in greater danger."

Obama added that he's made it clear to military officials, however, that the abuse of detainees is "prohibited and will not be tolerated."

Obama told his legal advisers last week that he did not feel comfortable with the release of the photos because he believes they would endanger U.S. troops, and that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented in federal court, a senior administration official told FOX News.

The Pentagon had planned to release the photos by May 28 in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. That decision was made after the Justice Department lost its latest round in federal court and concluded that any further appeal probably would be fruitless.

But on Tuesday, the president raised the issue of these photos with Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, during a White House meeting and told him of his decision to argue against this release, the official said.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Wednesday that Odierno was the most vocal opponent of releasing the photos and that he shared his concerns with Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

"Odierno was really the one who persuaded the secretary that this had to be fought and the secretary completely agreed," Morrell said.

Gates, in turn, vocalized the concerns to Obama in a series of discussions over the past weeks, Morrell said.

The belief of most of the commanders overseas was the potential the photos had to "incite violence and serve as a potential recruiting tool for terrorists" was too big to let happen without more of a fight.

The ACLU, which has claimed the release of the photos will help the American people decide whether the abuse was widespread, immediately criticized the decision.

"The Obama administration's adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president's stated desire to restore the rule of law, to revive our moral standing in the world and to lead a transparent government," Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU, said in a statement.

"If the Obama administration continues down this path, it will betray not only its promises to the American people, but its commitment to this nation's most fundamental principles," he continued. "President Obama has said we should turn the page, but we cannot do that until we fully learn how this nation veered down the path of criminality and immorality, who allowed that to happen and whose lives were mutilated as a result.

"Releasing these photos -- as painful as it might be -- is a critical step toward that accounting," he added. "The American people deserve no less."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Wednesday that the president believes releasing the photos would only "sensationalize" rather than "illuminate" the investigation into detainee abuse.

Republican leaders praised Obama's decision.

"I agree with the president that the release of these photos would serve no purpose other than put our troops in greater danger," he said in a statement. "The president made the right decision and I applaud him for it."

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, told FOX News he believes Obama made the right move.

"I think the release of these photos would do nothing more than give our enemies a recruiting tool that would put our soldiers in danger and frankly put Americans in danger," he said.

Some lawmakers had urged Obama to fight the release of the photos because they feared it would turn into a sequel to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq, which caused an international backlash against the U.S. with photos in 2004 of smirking U.S. soldiers posing with detainees, some naked, being held on leashes or in painful positions.

Nine U.S. soldiers were eventually found guilty in the Abu Ghraib abuse case.

Whether the new photos are as repugnant as those from Abu Ghraib is still an open question. But one U.S. official told FOX News that hundreds of photos are involved, drawn from military investigations into alleged abuse between 2001 and 2005.

A senior Pentagon official told FOX News that the government will shift its defense to arguing the negative national security implications that the release of the photos will have.

This legal approach was not employed from the start, the official said, because it was working poorly in the original case that challenged the release of the Abu Ghraib photos. That case was dropped because the photos were all leaked.

Source:  FOXNews.com - FOX News' Major Garrett, Catherine Herridge, Justin Fishel, Steve Centanni and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

For whatever reason… We say good job Mr. President!!

We also say, good job Fox News, Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham and all others that stood up for America and the safety of American Troops and the American Public!!

Related Resources: