People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Where Are Webb & Warner?

Why aren't our two senators working to protect coalfield jobs in Southwest Virginia?

I'm not a fan of Jay Rockefeller, but, by God, unlike the embarrassments we have here, he's there in Washington fighting for his constituents:
Rockefeller: Abandon climate legislation for now
By Ben Geman, The Hill

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) on Thursday said the Senate should abandon efforts – at least for now – to pass a sweeping climate change bill and also urged adoption of his plan that would block some EPA greenhouse gas regulations for two years.

“The Senate should be focusing on the immediate issues before us – to suspend EPA action on greenhouse gas emissions, push clean coal technologies, and tackle the Gulf oil spill,” he said in a prepared statement Thursday afternoon.

“We need to set aside controversial and more far-reaching climate proposals and work right now on energy legislation that protects our economy, protects West Virginia and improves our environment,” added Rockefeller, an ally of the his home state’s coal industry. [link]
We can debate the details.  But the point is, Rockefeller is standing up against those - including the leader of his party - who are intending to inflict grievous harm on his people.  Warner and Webb?

Not a peep.  Not a whimper.

Taking Action. Without The Facts.

Obama - and his infamous EPA - are poised to alter our way of life so as to control CO2 gas "pollution" so as to stop "global warming."

Only two problems.

The globe ain't warming.

And CO2 couldn't contribute to the phenomenon if it were:

Warmists have been riding the wrong horse. A new paleoclimate study shows that it is methane, not CO2 that affects warming. CO2 levels are tied to ocean circulation

Kinda makes you wonder if any of these geniuses - from Obama on down - have the first clue as to what they're doing, doesn't it?

Foregone Conclusion

This is no way to build confidence in our government:
Obama's Gulf Oil Spill Commission and the Missing Experts
By Robert Eugene Simmons Jr., American Thinker

Instead of an oil spill commission staffed with experts, as promised in his Oval Office address, the president has announced a panel with membership that reads like a Who's Who of radical environmentalism. Former Senator Graham of Florida, for example, has consistently pushed for a ban on oil drilling, and Frances Beinecke of the National Resources Defense Council has argued for the global warming agenda -- including linking "global poverty" to global warming, an argument used at the Copenhagen conference to support reparations to be paid to nations such as Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe for our supposed global crimes.

In fact, if you peruse the names of the council members, there isn't a single expert in oil drilling, oil platform rigs, or petroleum engineering. The panel's membership doesn't even include a single oil drilling company executive, or even a field engineer. In fact, the only technical-minded person on the commission at all is Cherry Murray, Dean of Harvard's Engineering School. Murray has had a long and distinguished academic career at all of the "right" schools, but she has absolutely nothing in her resume to indicate that she has the slightest knowledge about petroleum exploration. When it comes to academics, there isn't even one professor that specializes in petroleum exploration despite the plethora of possible names that could be drawn from institutions such as the prestigious Colorado School of Mines. [link]
So the "oil spill commission" is, in fact, going to be a global warming commission.  Swell.  That'll get to the bottom of the problem with oil rig explosions.

For the love of God.

So He Can't Make It Up As He Goes Along?

There's the rule of law.

Who knew?
Obama's Moratorium, Drilled
Wall Street Journal

As legal rebukes go, it's hard to get more comprehensive than the one federal judge Martin Feldman delivered yesterday in overturning the Obama Administration's six-month moratorium on deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

In a remarkably pointed 22-page ruling, the judge made clear that even Presidents aren't allowed to impose an "edict" that isn't justified by science or safety.

Oil-services companies brought the case, which is supported by the state of Louisiana, arguing that the White House ban was "arbitrary and capricious" in exceeding federal authority, and Judge Feldman agreed. He noted that even after reading Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's report on safety recommendations (which included the ban), and Mr. Salazar's memo ordering the ban, "the Court is unable to divine or fathom a relationship between the findings and the immense scope of the moratorium."

Quite the opposite, said the judge, "the Report makes no effort to explicitly justify the moratorium." It does "not discuss any irreparable harm that would warrant a suspension of operations" and doesn't provide a timeline for implementing proposed safety regulations. There is "no evidence" that Mr. Salazar "balanced the concern for environmental safety" with existing policy, and "no suggestion" that he "considered any alternatives." The feds couldn't even coherently define "deep water." Ouch. [link]
Obama's decision to stop drilling was a blatant political ploy intended to capture headlines and gain favor with the environmentalist gangs out there.  And jobs were lost because of it.  For no good reason.

Here's to a judge - one of the few - who is willing to tell the president that he has overstepped his bounds and had no basis upon which to take arbitrary action.

What Goes Around ...

"This administration is the first since Herbert Hoover’s to actually lose jobs on its watch -- 1.8 million jobs."
 -- Senator John Kerry referring to the first Bush term, 2004 --

But it wasn't the last.  Or the worst:
Democrats of 2004 Brand Obama Worst President
Commentary by Kevin Hassett, Bloomberg

June 21 (Bloomberg) -- As we approach another general election, it will be interesting to see how the economic performance of Democrats is judged. If voters borrow the preferred method of John Kerry and other Democrats from 2004, Barack Obama will be revealed to be among the worst presidents in history.

During the 2004 election, Democrats constantly reminded voters that George W. Bush was the first president in decades to oversee a net loss of jobs.

Obama, of course, is just 17 months into his presidency, and more than two years from facing the voters personally. But with a big midterm congressional election upcoming, let’s see how Obama would fare if Kerry-like tactics were used on him.

The answer: not well. Whether the measurement is job creation, unemployment or growth of gross domestic product, the economy has been worse under Obama than it was under Bush.

First, job creation. According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. shed 2.3 million jobs since February 2009, Obama’s first full month in office. Going back to World War II, that is by far the worst record for any president in his first 17 months, outpacing the job destruction experienced in the early Bush years by more than 800,000 jobs.

For Obama, there is an even worse way to play the data, which might just become fodder for a political ad: From November 2008, the month he was elected, until now, the economy has shed an astonishing 4.4 million jobs. That’s worse than Hoover. [link]
What will John Kerry have to say about that?