The Senate will, one presumes, finally vote either this week or next to block EPA from imposing President Obama’s ‘other way to skin the cat’ of Kyoto-style energy rationing, by using the Clean Air Act – a law that EPA’s own public filings inescapably acknowledge was never intended for such purpose. What will be at stake is little less than the rule of law itself.

Policy sanity also stands to take a beating, or else gain a new lease on life. The United States derives over 80% of its total energy from the three fossil fuels now being regulated by the Clean Air Act on the basis of EPA’s Endangerment Finding, which by design strangles our ability to use them.  Further, the Obama Administration has in effect decided that the EPA knows how to run the U. S. economy.

With über-green Germany, even nuke-happy France, appearing set to ramp up their coal use in the wake of Japan’s nuclear incident, the first rational response would be to call off EPA’s war on coal. Not to fight like mad to preserve and advance it.

But fight like mad to preserve and advance this war on coal is what the administration and its Senate enablers are doing.

And as George Mason University professor of science and public policy Thomas Lovejoy said in an astonishing admission to the Washington Post not long ago, in the context of this very Obama Power Grab:

“When Congress resists action on pressing environmental issues, regulation provides a way forward”.

Actually, no. Our Constitution – so quaint and outdated according to certain quarters though it may be (it’s still better than whatever it is we have today) – makes it quite plain that it is only when Congress decides to act that agencies have a way forward.

(more…)

There’s much good news from the elections, but first let me wet blanket some of the fires of enthusiasm. Republican majority or Democrat, it remains the case that so long as the Dept of Health and Human Services, the EPA, the Federal Reserve, and the like still exist the Federal government will continue to do great harm. That will still be true even if a better-than-Reagan Republican wins in 2012.

Now, for the election analysis — including lots of good news from the events of Nov. 2.

There’s no doubt the American electorate in many, many places rejected the Obama-Pelosi-Reid anti-Constitutional approach to government, i.e. Progressivism.

That’s clear, even though the Republican pickup in the Senate was disappointing, especially with the re-election of Harry Reid. Take a look at Republican gains in the State legislatures: 650-700 seats, compared to 505 in 1994. That’s huge.

There’s bad news to be sure.

Boxer won, and by a surprisingly comfortable margin. Polls can still be wildly wrong, apparently. Henry Waxman and Nancy Pelosi coasted to easy wins, Moonbeam Brown became Governor of California again. State legislators there are their younger clones. All that seals that state’s fate. It will be at least 25 years before the once-Golden State recovers, if ever, no matter who is elected two, four, or six years from now.

(more…)

With less than 24 hours until polls open in most of the United States, the media seems to have taken on the role of the young boy with his finger in the dike, doing their best to plug leaks that will hurt incumbent and liberal Democrat candidates so that voters will not have critical information to help them decide how to vote.

The media would have you believe that in California, former Governor Jerry Brown has already won with poll reports showing Meg Whitman trailing and Barbara Boxer surging to a low single digit lead over Carly Fiorina. Sources associated with the Whitman and Fiorina campaigns have indicated that internal polling actually shows Whitman and Fiorina to be much more competitive than the media would have you believe, and in some cases, beating Brown and Boxer who represent the relics of failed Democrat ideals.

Americans have come to understand the phrase “all politics is local” as immortalized by former House Speaker Tip O’Neill; however, all local politics are not reported equally.

I would like to share with you three examples where the media has been protecting politicians and an explanation of how the media is being influenced in their decision to not report these stories.

First, on October 19, 2010, with news cameras present in studio and rolling, it was revealed on The Rick Amato Show that Congressman Bob Filner (D-CA 51st) was having an inappropriate relationship with a Southwest Airlines corporate lobbyist. It was also revealed that Congressman Filner who serves on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee agreed to sponsor legislation impacting aircraft maintenance.

(more…)

As the Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee, and a 28-year inhabitant of Washington, DC, locked in a surprisingly tight race for re-election, one might expect Barbara Boxer to avoid controversial figures like the plague.  But the challenges facing Boxer as she seeks to win a fourth term in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday apparently haven’t stopped her from buying the endorsement of her close friend, embattled Rep. Maxine Waters, once again.  Below the fold are images of the pages of Waters’ 2010 general election “slate mailer” obtained by Big Government on Saturday, which showcases her endorsement.  On page three of the mailer itself, Boxer is prominently recommended by Waters.

Waters, of course, is embroiled in an ethics scandal and will proceed to a full ethics trial following the election.  The case against Waters is focused on her alleged use of her elected office as a U.S. Representative for the financial benefit of a family member.  This is relevant to Boxer’s “purchase” of her endorsement not only because it is unseemly for a sitting Senator who chairs her chamber’s ethics body to be buying the endorsement of someone facing such charges, but also because Waters’ slate mailer “business,” which appears to focus entirely on the sale of Waters’ endorsement for sometimes large sums, is a financially lucrative enterprise that involves her using her political position again to financially benefit her family.

The slate mailer “business” is run by Boxer’s daughter, and has been criticized by (among others) good government groups Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the Sunlight Foundation.  Karen Waters has benefited to the tune of over $400,000 since 2004 by virtue of her mother’s willingness to hawk her political backing to various high-bidding Democrats, including Boxer.

(more…)

Stay with me here: The Boxer campaign has acknowledged that the letter we posted earlier on Boxer campaign letterhead soliciting teachers to recruit student volunteers is authentic… but they weren’t really soliciting teachers to recruit student volunteers… but they are still sorry. Prepare to have your intelligence insulted by Boxer campaign manager Rose Kapolczynski:

Because some local social studies teachers encourage students to volunteer, Boxer campaign volunteer coordinators notified a handful of schools near the campaign headquarters that the campaign was accepting volunteers. The letter did not ask teachers to solicit students to work on the campaign or to use school facilities, supplies or equipment for political purposes. The sole intent of the letter was to provide interested students with information about a volunteer opportunity. However, the letter, which was written by a volunteer and reviewed by a junior staffer, was inappropriate and we apologize. The author of the letter has been counseled and campaign coordinators will no longer conduct outreach to public schools.”

I acknowledge there’s an amount of wordplay, an amount of posturing done in a campaign, particularly when we get down to the wire in a tight race, but the hubris in this response is overwhelming, if not impressive.  The aforementioned letter begins, “As you may know, Senator Boxer is facing her toughest race yet.  With only 19 days left until election day, it’s now or never.” Later on it’s suggested that teachers can award extra credit to students who work on the Boxer campaign. Yet, according to the Boxer crew…

The letter did not ask teachers to solicit students to work on the campaign or to use school facilities, supplies or equipment for political purposes…

If this is true, then why are they apologizing?  They’ve done nothing wrong after all!

But they have done something wrong: Those responsible for Boxer’s reelection bid asked teachers to pimp out their kids for her campaign, and got caught red handed.  Now they have the audacity to play semantics games in the press and pass the blame down the chain to “a junior staffer.”

Honestly, how dumb does Barbara Boxer think we are?

Here’s the letter again:

A couple days ago we acquired a direct mailer allegedly from the Barbara Boxer campaign which encouraged Los Angeles teachers to offer their students extra credit if they volunteer for her campaign.  We have been unable to conclusively verify the letter’s authenticity, so until this point we had not posted it.  Apparently the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer’s Association has, because they’ve released a statement to the Los Angeles Unified School District and the Los Angeles County Board of Education imploring them to inform their teachers that any who recruit volunteers for the Boxer campaign would be illegally using taxpayers’ funds.   Letter first, HJTA statement after the jump:

***

(more…)

California Republican Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina Tuesday reaffirmed her opposition to the Federal Communications Commission’s bid to exert regulatory influence over the broadband industry, attesting in a web video to the onerous and “antiquated” regulations imposed on the tech industry.

“Net neutrality, in principle, sounds fantastic,” Fiorina said in a ten-question online forum hosted by PDF. “But I grew up in the telcom industry, and I know how bureaucratic, and frankly antiquated, the regulations in the telcom industry have been.”

Fiorina, the former chief executive of tech giant Hewlett-Packard, warned the FCC against imposing a dated regulatory regime on industry that thrives on innovation.

“I don’t think we should take a regulator structure that was created in the early 20th century and apply it in the 21st century,” she said, adding, “I don’t support reclassifying broadband as telecom as a result.”

(more…)

Sen. Barbara Boxer’s Capitol Hill staff is stonewalling a request by military mother Beverly Perlson for a copy of a reported diplomatic letter provided by the California Democrat to the leftwing group Code Pink/Global Exchange in support of the delivery of $600,000 in cash and aid to the “other side” in Fallujah, Iraq in late 2004.

Perlson, whose son has served four tours in the war on terror, is founder of the pro-troops group The Band of Mothers.

After initially telling Perlson the letter could not be found, Boxer’s staff has given Perlson the run around. Since she first made her request by telephone last week, Perlson says she has been passed from one staffer who, after failing to return several phone calls, referred her to another staffer who has not returned repeated phone messages. The receptionist refuses to give an e-mail address to Perlson so she can send her request in writing.

The stonewalling by Boxer’s office is in stark contrast to California Rep. Henry Waxman’s office which promptly provided Perlson a copy of a similar letter by Waxman.

(more…)

Last week, the Veterans of Foreign War came under scrutiny because their lobbying arm, the VFW PAC, had endorsed a number of candidates without a track record of supporting the military over actual veterans and those who have demonstrated they would be advocates for veterans. Highlights incude Democrat Ron Klein, who is running against Republican challenger Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Allen West Florida 22^nd Congressional District in Florida’s 22nd Congressional District and Senator Barbara Boxer over Carly Fiorina for Senate in California. As I pointed out at Blackfive, this is not the first year that the VFW endorsements have angered its membership. This time, when these endorsements were called into question, the VFW-PAC doubled down.

Today we learn, in what is a victory for veterans and those who support them, the Veterans of Foreign Wars commander-in-chief has moved to disband the VFW PAC over these endorsements:

It should be noted that the so-called “peace activists” at the Code Pink organization are anything but peace activists. These anti-American radicals and Marxists supported the mass murderer Saddam Hussein who ran one of the most brutal regimes in the 20th century. Code Pink activists currently support the illegitimate Iranian regime, the Marxist Chavez regime in Venezuela and have even met with Taliban Islamists.

“Code Pink Kills American Troops Giving Money to Terrorists” (Target of Opportunity photo)

On November 22, 2004, the socialist anti-American group Code Pink sent out a plea to supporters to help send assistance to the “refugees” from Fallujah, Iraq.

Today, as CODEPINK was busily preparing a year-end humanitarian mission to Iraq, we received an urgent message. It was from our dear friend Dahr Jamail, an amazing American independent journalist who has been risking his life to get the true story of Fallujah to the American public:

“I have just come from a refugee camp in Baghdad with families from Fallujah. The suffering is beyond description. It’s worse than anything you’ve read or anything I’ve written so far.

This is a humanitarian crisis. They need medicines for their camp and the other camps immediately. We have an organization set up of doctors who can distribute the medicines and supplies. BUT WE NEED THEM NOW! THIS CANNOT WAIT!”
Solidarity,
Dahr

The next day, on November 23, 2004, Code Pink announced that they had raised nearly $20,000 in one day for “refugess” from Fallujah.

(more…)

The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) has doubled-down on failure.

Ignoring the growing protests of its outraged members, the supposedly “independent” VFW Political Action Committee (VFW-PAC) has issued a new statement refusing to back off on the disgraceful set of endorsements that have threatened the venerable and (at least at the local level) respected organization with destruction.

The short version: “Our members are partisan morons who ought to sit back and let us decide what’s good for them.”  The long version:

VFW-PAC Stands By Endorsement Process

WASHINGTON, DC, Oct 13,2010 – The VFW-PAC was established in 1979 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW) as a separate, nonpartisan organization charged with the single task of working in Congress to support candidates who have taken responsible positions on issues involving national defense and legislation pertaining to the nation’s veterans.

An eleven member Board of Directors reviews and establishes the criteria used for the endorsement process each election cycle. This cycle the Board chose a methodology for endorsement that was used successfully in years past; grading an incumbent’s support by the position taken on critical issues of importance to the VFW. Therefore, thirteen roll call votes in the House of Representatives and nine votes in the Senate that aligned with VFW priority goals were selected to grade the support of incumbent members of Congress. The bar was set high, as a Senator must have voted in concert with the VFW position on 7 of 9 votes and a Representative 10 of 13 to receive the VFW-PAC endorsement. If a member of Congress failed to make the grade, the Board would consider a challenger for that Congressional seat. The Board would also consider candidates running for open seats. Both challengers and open seat candidates would have to state in writing their position on VFW priority goals.

There are a few races out of 356 endorsed candidates in both the House and Senate, where emotions are running high, that are getting a lot of attention. In some cases there are veterans and even VFW members running against Congressional incumbents endorsed by the VFW-PAC. It would not only be unfair, but contrary to VFW-PAC By-Laws to disregard the incumbent’s record of support and endorse another candidate. The VFW-PAC will not abandon those in Congress that have supported issues of critical importance to our nation’s security and veterans.

In the political endorsement arena, there will always be party loyalists and individuals that will not agree with the VFW-PAC decision. The Board respects their position and appreciates their activism in support of the candidate of their choice. The VFW-PAC endorsement is not designed to tell people how to vote; but to point out who has demonstrated support for veterans and America’s security.

The VFW-PAC disagrees with those who claim the endorsement process is skewed, flawed, or unfair.

(more…)

So would aiding and abetting terrorists to kill US soldiers qualify as behavior unbefitting of a sitting US senator?

On October 12, Scott Swett at the American Thinker reported that Senator Barabara Boxer (D-CA) along with Representatives Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) secured diplomatic courtesy letters that allowed anti-American Code Pink activists to travel to Fallujah, Iraq. The radicals traveled to Fallujah in late 2004 to donate $600,000 worth of humanitarian aid to the people who had just killed 51 Americans and wounded 560 more earlier that month. Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah was the heaviest US urban combat since the Vietnam War.

After the report was published at American Thinker the article was deleted at Islam Online.
But, thanks to the internet archive a copy of the article is still available:

The article says that Code Pink:

“Secured diplomatic courtesy letters from US Senators Barbara Boxer of California and Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Congressmen Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Henry Waxman of California.”

Swett reported on how Barbara Boxer and Code Pink assisted terrorists in Iraq:

(more…)

In the wake of the tsunami of protests from its members over the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) endorsement of a slew of anti-military incumbents, the VFW’s “leadership” has issued a new statement trying to calm the furor and, in doing so, has further embarrassed itself.  You see, to them, the problem isn’t that the VFW allowed its good name to be tarred by supporting candidates like the one who literally partied with Hanoi Jane Fonda.

No, the problem is that you, the veterans, are just too stupid to understand how it’s not the leadership’s fault that this happened on their watch:

Comrades,

The angry tone and tenor of the telephone calls and messages being received at national headquarters make it clear that many of our members are not cognizant of the fact that VFW National By-Laws clearly stipulate that the VFW Commander-in-Chief is not authorized to direct or otherwise attempt to introduce his control over the VFW PAC. Furthermore, no membership dues or donations made to the VFW or VFW Foundation are used for the VFW PAC.

As you know, the recent endorsements by the PAC are the subject of much controversy. Unfortunately, many questions have been raised regarding VFW’s involvement in the endorsement process and the integrity of the organization as a whole. Regrettably, many of our members and supporters are disappointed and have misdirected their anger toward the VFW as having lost its purpose.

Comrades, we cannot sit idly by while a great organization is being disparaged and maligned, even unintentionally. It is vitally important that you take a direct role in alleviating this current flood of criticism by reminding members and supporters that:

– The VFW PAC was created by the VFW members and not by VFW national leaders. 2/3 of the delegates of the 80th VFW National Convention (1979) voted to establish PAC as a standing committee.

– VFW By-Laws stipulate that VFW leadership does not direct PAC activities and that the VFW convention is the governing body of the organization. As such, it is only the delegates at the convention that can determine the continuation of the PAC.

– Encourage VFW members to get involved in their VFW Posts and to exercise and further direct their concerns to convention delegates so that there can be an informed debate on the existence of the PAC.

If I know my vets, they are plenty “cognizant” of when they are being fed a bunch of crap.

(more…)

Ten years ago, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)– currently chair of the Senate Ethics Committee– personally moved legislation that has financially benefited her son, Capitol Confidential has learned.

Boxer, then in her second term as a U.S. Senator, carried legislation restoring federal recognition to a Native American tribe, the Coastal Miwoks.  At the time, the Miwoks claimed to be a “nongaming tribe.”  However, Boxer’s legislation, as signed into law by President Bill Clinton, allowed for a casino to be constructed– a result that would specifically have been blocked under similar legislation introduced by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).

Now, with a major relevant condition having been met, local residents are bracing themselves for construction of a new casino, a project that has been pushed by none other than Boxer’s son, Doug Boxer.  Questions are being raised about the younger Boxer’s involvement and his mother’s legislative actions that paved the way for what looks like a financially lucrative deal benefiting him personally.

Less than a year after Boxer’s tribal bill was signed into law, Doug Boxer helped negotiate a casino partnership between the tribe and Station Casinos of Las Vegas.  Doug Boxer’s firm also acquired options on 2,000 acres of land that was later transferred to Station Casinos for an undisclosed price, but which some reports indicate could have been as much as $24 million.

(more…)

There is a brief story by Jim Carlton in the weekend edition of The Wall Street Journal entitled “Fiorina Stays Away from Middle Road,” and in the cover story for the latest issue of The Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes describes Carly Fiorina’s campaign against Barbara Boxer as “the most important race of 2010.”

I am not sure that I agree with the extravagant claim advanced by Barnes. But if Fiorina does, in fact, put an end to Boxer’s career, his assertion might well prove to be right – for, as Barnes shows in detail, the title of Carlton’s story is apt.

Carly Fiorina is not a squish. She is anti-abortion, and she makes no bones about the fact that she thinks Roe v. Wade a travesty. She is hostile to Obamacare, and she wants it repealed. She thinks that a tax increase at this time would be counter-productive, and she means to stop it. She thinks the deficit a threat to American prosperity and power, and she intends to see to its reduction. She favors offshore drilling, and she supports Arizona’s attempt to stop illegal immigration. She does not pander; she does not retreat. She makes her case. And if she wins – and she may well win –  in California of all places, it really will be the occasion of a political earthquake. More important, from my perspective, even if she loses, we win.

If our aim were a mere partisan victory, my claim would be ridiculous. A vote in the Senate is, after all, a vote in the Senate. But if there is something more at stake – if a partisan victory predicated on an abandonment of principle is a devastating, demoralizing defeat – then it is far, far better to lose a close race while making a principled argument, as Abraham Lincoln did in his senatorial campaign against Stephen Douglas in Illinois in 1858, than it is to win by way of cowardice, collapse, and compromise.

To grasp what I mean one must look beyond November.

(more…)

You might think that a prominent veterans organization like the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) would actually reserve its political endorsements for, you know, veterans, or at least those politicians that actually demonstrate some level of respect for the military.  But you would be wrong.  And the problem is not just the VFW; rather, the VFW’s current lobbyist-driven fiasco simply serves to illustrate how out-of-touch the Washington in-crowd is with the feelings of us benighted souls dwelling outside the beltway.

In the Florida 22^nd Congressional District race, incumbent Democrat Ron Klien is running against Republican challenger Allen West.  Actually, he’s properly addressed as Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Allen West, a decorated combat veteran who commanded a battalion in Iraq until he was forced to retire after making a 9mm suggestion to a captured terrorist that it would be a very, very smart move to give up some information about future attacks against LTC West’s men.  Now, that’s not to say Congressman Klien does not have a distinguished military record of his own – to be fair, apparently he saw most of Saving Private Ryan on AMC once, though he found it pretty scary.

After due consideration- which apparently means the VFW’s lobbyists told it to do so – the VFW endorsed Klein.

Okay, sometimes an organization makes a mistake.  I mean, it’s not like the VFW decided to endorse, say, a liberal Democratic senator who tried to humiliate an Army general testifying by demanding that he call her “Senator” instead of the perfectly appropriate “ma’am,” or who allowed her fundraisers to be hosted by the likes of Hanoi Jane.  That would be, well, crazy.

Oh, wait.  The VFW is endorsing leftist Senator Barbara Boxer.  Yeah, the same Barbara Boxer who voted to undercut us troops as we sat out in the desert waiting for Operation Desert Storm to start.  Yeah, the same Barbara Boxer who undercut the troops by voting to cut and run in Iraq.  Yeah, that Barbara Boxer – the one who will be running around using the VFW’s shameful endorsement as a shield against the truth of her track record of contempt for our military.

(more…)

A citizen journalist interviewed sign-holding protesters at a Barbara Boxer rally outside of KPCC radio station where Boxer was debating Carly Fiorina.

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Californians are left with a deeply unsatisfying choice for the U.S. Senate this year. The incumbent, Democrat Barbara Boxer, has failed to distinguish herself during her 18 years in office. There is no reason to believe that another six-year term would bring anything but more of the same uninspired representation. The challenger, Republican Carly Fiorina, has campaigned with a vigor and directness that suggests she could be effective in Washington – but for an agenda that would undermine this nation’s need to move forward on addressing serious issues such as climate change, health care and immigration.

It is extremely rare that this editorial page would offer no recommendation on any race, particularly one of this importance. This is one necessary exception.

Boxer, first elected in 1992, would not rate on anyone’s list of most influential senators. Her most famous moments on Capitol Hill have not been ones of legislative accomplishment, but of delivering partisan shots. Although she is chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, it is telling that leadership on the most pressing issue before it – climate change – was shifted to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., because the bill had become so polarized under her wing.

For some Californians, Boxer’s reliably liberal voting record may be reason enough to give her another six years in office. But we believe Californians deserve more than a usually correct vote on issues they care about. They deserve a senator who is accessible, effective and willing and able to reach across party lines to achieve progress on the great issues of our times. Boxer falls short on those counts.

(more…)

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee, has paid some $30,000 since 2004 for the endorsement of embattled Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) in the context of a scheme that critics charge is unethical and amounts to Waters using her political station to benefit her family members.

According to the Washington Times, Waters “has turned political endorsements into a family business, using federal election laws to charge California candidates and political causes to include their names as her personal picks on a sample ballot, or ‘slate mailer,’ she sends to as many as 200,000 South Central Los Angeles voters.”

The slate mailer business, it turns out, is run by Waters’ daughter, Karen, via her public relations firm.  Records show that Karen Waters’ firm has been paid more than $350,000 since 2004, and has billed a further $82,000 since California’s June primary, for its services in this regard.

It is a scheme that has been criticized by good governance groups including the Sunlight Foundation and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

(more…)

News broke just before the weekend that California Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina opposes the absurd notion known as Internet Network Neutrality (NN).

“The principle sounds fantastic, but the principle is not the problem,” Fiorina said in an interview at the Technology Policy Institute’s conference in Aspen, Colo. “The problem is how companies and regulatory bodies are trying to translate that principle into policy, which would have a bad effect.”

A spokeswoman later added that Fiorina “opposes Net neutrality and thinks government intervention and more regulation will not be helpful where the Internet is concerned.”

It’s really helpful to have someone running for office publicly standing opposed to NN who is as knowledgeable on it as is Fiorina – she is a former (1999-2005) chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard (HP).

Fiorina’s opponent is a big NN proponent.

Fiorina’s position contrasts greatly with that of her opponent, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, who previously cosponsored legislation that would have set open Internet rules firmly in place.

In a statement, Boxer reaffirmed her support for Net neutrality. Her office later added that Boxer felt it was “premature to comment” on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s efforts to mandate Net neutrality using its own rule-making process.

(Emphasis mine.)

“Premature to comment?”

(more…)