Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) has been pressured to resign his seat in Congress, due to allegations of sexual harassment. He have no information about the truth of the charges, but we find it interesting that the Democrat leadership moved so swiftly to push his ouster. Certainly, it has nothing to do with the fact that Massa was a vote against “cap-and-trade” and “ObamaCare.”
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Since its founding, ShoreBank has been a progressive-minded bank focused on community development. However, it soon adopted the progressive commitment to environmentalism after founders Ron Grzywinski and Mary Houghton were approached in 1993 by Ecotrust, an environmentally-conscious firm focusing on debt for nature swaps in rainforest countries as well as environmental banking in the Pacific Northwest. The partnership of the two firms led to the establishment of ShoreTrust (now ShoreBank Enterprise Pacific) which provided financing, marketing and management assistance to small businesses in the Pacific coastal rain forest area. From there, the rest of the ShoreBank family eventually followed in adopting the green agenda.
For the entire story chronicling the founding of the bank and its move towards its environmental commitment, you may read Alka Srivastva’s dissertation for Case Western Reserve University here>>>.
From there, it did not take long for ShoreBank to incorporate environmentalism into its mission and formalize its commitment to the green agenda. In 1999, ShoreBank’s board of directors adopted a new conservation and development policy requiring the bank itself to reduce its waste and also encourage its customers to adopt more sustainable practices. The concept of environmental health then assumed its place alongside the goals of community development and profitability to form the “Triple Bottom Line” slogan that the company champions today. As evidence of its own commitment, ShoreBank has even addressed its own carbon emissions by purchasing offsets for 450 metric tons of C02 to offset emissions through 2010.
ShoreBank’s environmental advocacy is now prevalent throughout its dealings, both in how it relates to its domestic banking customers, and in its international development objectives.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
This week (March 3, 2010) was the deadline Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) set for Mark Crisson, President and CEO of the American Public Power Association (APPA), to explain why APPA is urging Senators to support Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s Congressional Review Act resolution to veto the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. The Senate may vote on the Murkowski resolution as soon as next week.
Now, aside from the merits of the issue, which I’ll get into in a moment, Waxman and Markey’s behavior is out of line. Waxman and Markey (W/M) are Members of the House of Representatives. What business is it of theirs if the APPA lobbies Senators about a bill pending in the Senate? Senators can conduct their own inquiries without any assistance from W/M. And why didn’t W/M copy Sen. Murkowski or at least Senate Energy Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) on their Feb. 25 letter to Mr. Crisson? Failure to “cc” any of the principals in the Senate flouts one of the most basic rules of legislative courtesy.
Besides being busybodies, Waxman and Markey are bullies.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
There was an old English saying, “A mayde schuld be seen, but not herd” which has since morphed into ‘Children should be seen and not heard’. The latter was the world I grew up in, and as one finds as one grows up, there is wisdom in old sayings.
I remember being with my father and his friends as a child, and that saying was the rule, because of course, I had very little to offer an adult conversation. That was then.
I also remember the Bill Clinton/Whitney Houston 80s and 90s. Bill Clinton for coining the phrase “for the children” and Whitney Houston for that sappy song “The Greatest Love Of All’ with what we thought were harmless lyrics….
I believe the children are our are future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Between the two of them, talk about the makings of the big head.
Let me preface the remainder of this column by saying that when I refer to young people, I don’t mean all. Some of them get it. Obviously, most of them don’t.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
The retirement of Evan Bayh is the latest heralding of difficult 2010 election year for the Democrats. It is also a symptom of Obama’s mid 40s approval rating. Smart Democrats know that the average midterm election year losses for the President’s party, when his approval rating is below 50%, is 41 seats in the House. Three Presidents in the modern era suffered such a fate – Johnson, Ford and Bill Clinton. Of those three, only Clinton went on to win a second term. While it is likely Obama will suffer huge mid-term losses, it is more than unlikely that he will enjoy Clinton’s revival.
Clinton suffered the loss of 54 House seats in his first midterm election, despite a growing economy, because he broke his middle class tax cut promise – and the Republicans were smart enough to unanimously oppose that and run on the Contract With America. Despite the loss of the House for the first time in 40 years, Clinton won reelection.
Clinton was able to win reelection in part because Bob Dole was not an effective candidate for the Republicans on the tax issue. Clinton also famously triangulated in 1995 and 1996 with the help of longtime strategist Dick Morris. Dropping ideology for practicality, in 1995 and 1996, Clinton pushed a national campaign to prevent teen pregnancy, issued an order clarifying the rights of religious expression in schools, supported uniforms for public schools, banned human cloning, signed Megan’s law and welfare reform to name a few less than ideological triangulations. Even before that, Clinton incurred the wrath of unions by pushing the ratification of NAFTA.
Of course, as the Governor of a swing state, Bill Clinton leaned an early lesson in pragmatism after he was defeated in his bid for a second term. After apologizing for the policies that led to his reelection defeat, he regained the governorship and went on to enact mandatory competency testing for teachers and granted tax breaks to businesses – again with triangulating guru Dick Morris by his side.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
The U.S. Chamber strongly supports efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, but we believe there’s a right way and a wrong way to achieve that goal.
The wrong way is through the EPA’s endangerment finding, which triggers Clean Air Act regulation. Because of the huge potential impact on jobs and local economies, this is an issue that requires careful analysis of all available data and options. Unfortunately, the agency failed to do that and instead overreached. The result is a flawed administrative finding that will lead to other poorly conceived regulations further downstream.
Today the Chamber is filing a formal petition indicating it will challenge EPA’s decision to trigger Clean Air Act regulation, based on lapses in EPA’s process in making that decision. The Chamber’s legal challenge will focus specifically on the inadequacies of the process that EPA followed in triggering Clean Air Act regulation, and not on scientific issues related to climate change or endangerment.
We continue to call for Congress to address climate change policy through the legislative process, rather than having EPA misapply environmental statutes like the Clean Air Act or Endangered Species Act that were not created to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Emphasis mine.
In addition to ignoring its own internal rules and working outside the legislative branch, the EPA is acting on a 2007 Supreme Court Ruling, which, based on new developments in the Climategate scandal, should be revisited. The ruling states the EPA was found to have the authority to regulate emissions that contribute to global warming and climate change. In addition, the Court stated:
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
If you followed the news out of Nashville, you probably heard that some Tea Party folks are creating a Political Action Committee that will win 15 to 20 key Congressional races in 2010 and, perhaps, in years beyond. What you didn’t hear at the press conference was that several grassroots tea party organizers are so strongly in favor of this move that we have agreed to serve Ensuring Liberty PAC through its organizing parent, the Ensuring Liberty 501.c(4). Our local tea parties will continue unchanged.
Who Comprises the ELPAC
Very simply, ELPAC is led by six people from some of the most effective local Tea Party organizations in America:
While you might not recognize all of these names, I do. These are the people who have been in the fox holes with us since day one. They are bold and resilient fighters for freedom. They are the men and women we turn to for counsel, support, advice, strength, and help across the Mid-West and across the the nation. We share mutual faith in each other. The men and women on this list have skills to win elections with grassroots activism. They embody what happened in NY-23 and Massachusetts.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
It can be no secret by now that President Obama did not have a signature achievement his first year in office. Of all his major initiatives, health care, cap and trade, civilian trials for terrorists and the “stimulus” bill – only the so-called stimulus bill was enacted. Hardly a success, as more Americans than not know what Paul Krugman and E.J. Dionne do not – that it was a bad idea. Worse for the Democrats — none of those efforts have produced a greater consensus or momentum for them or Obama. To the contrary, the Democrats lost key races in 2009, a Democrat House Member defected to the Republicans, the nation is more divided than ever and the Democrat Party is in disarray — as in the Obama presidency.
Not to be out-done by 2009, in 2010, the Obama presidency has endured:
(1) the loss of the Kennedy seat (which is how the Democrats view that race) even though Obama stumped for the Democrats’ candidate;
(2) Obama’s deficit commission was shot down;
(3) The unions are warning the Democrats that they are “going to have a hard time getting members out to vote”;
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
The 13th Annual Energy & Environment Conference, held in Phoenix Feb. 1-3, isn’t the sort of place where global warming “deniers” are exactly welcome. In fact, by my observations, the skeptical caucus at the event consisted entirely of: James M. Taylor, a senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute; Keith Lockitch, a fellow of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights; and me. All the other attendees spent their time discussing how the U.S. government — or, even better, a “global government” — needs to compel us all to live “greener” lives through schemes like cap-and-trade. Environmentalists are a bossy and power-hungry lot.
Lockitch gave a presentation arguing free-market economies are better positioned than socialist societies to deal with any severe weather events caused by climate change — and was called a “denier” and compared to a shill for “Big Tobacco” for his trouble. Taylor got off a little easier, receiving only scoffs and curious-to-annoyed glances for asking inconvenient questions.
But that’s not to say we were the only people to question the assumptions of the attendees who believe the “science is settled” on global warming. Perhaps the greatest challenge came from one of their own — renowned climate scientist William Sprigg — who urged his colleagues to stop treating the ClimateGate scandal as irrelevant noise promoted by “deniers.” In an amazingly telling moment, green energy consultant Andy Van Horn, who introduced Sprigg, admitted he’d never heard of ClimateGate until Sprigg suggested it a few weeks ago as a topic worthy of discussion. (Who are the real “deniers” again?)
Sprigg, adjunct research professor in the Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Arizona, believes the planet is on a potentially dangerous warming path and atmospheric carbon dioxide is to blame. He also led the technical review of the first global warming report issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990. Clealry, Sprigg is no “outlier” or “rebel,” but one of the most respected and “mainstream” scientists in the field of climatology. So it came to a bit of shock to the audience when Sprigg expressed concerns about how contrarian scientists are treated with contempt by many of his colleagues.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Editors Note: This post is re-printed with permission from The Nation magazine, where it appears as the February 4, 2010 cover story. You can see a video interview with Professor Lessig about the piece here, or take action on issues raised in the piece by visiting FixCongressFirst.org.
We should remember what it felt like one year ago, as the ability to recall it emotionally will pass and it is an emotional memory as much as anything else. It was a moment rare in a democracy’s history. The feeling was palpable–to supporters and opponents alike–that something important had happened. America had elected, the young candidate promised, a transformational president. And wrapped in a campaign that had produced the biggest influx of new voters and small-dollar contributions in a generation, the claim seemed credible, almost intoxicating, and just in time.
Yet a year into the presidency of Barack Obama, it is already clear that this administration is an opportunity missed. Not because it is too conservative. Not because it is too liberal. But because it is too conventional. Obama has given up the rhetoric of his early campaign–a campaign that promised to “challenge the broken system in Washington” and to “fundamentally change the way Washington works.” Indeed, “fundamental change” is no longer even a hint.
Instead, we are now seeing the consequences of a decision made at the most vulnerable point of Obama’s campaign–just when it seemed that he might really have beaten the party’s presumed nominee. For at that moment, Obama handed the architecture of his new administration over to a team that thought what America needed most was another Bill Clinton. A team chosen by the brother of one of DC’s most powerful lobbyists, and a White House headed by the quintessential DC politician. A team that could envision nothing more than the ordinary politics of Washington–the kind of politics Obama had called “small.” A team whose imagination–politically–is tiny.
These tiny minds–brilliant though they may be in the conventional game of DC–have given up what distinguished Obama’s extraordinary campaign. Not the promise of healthcare reform or global warming legislation–Hillary Clinton had embraced both of those ideas, and every other substantive proposal that Obama advanced. Instead, the passion that Obama inspired grew from the recognition that something fundamental had gone wrong in the way our government functions, and his commitment to reform it.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
For the Tea Party movement, 2009 was about coming together, meeting our brothers and sisters in arms, and standing athwart socialism, yelling, “Stop!” It worked. President Obama entered office promising socialized medicine, card check, and cap and trade all before the August recess. He went 0 for 3 thanks a grassroots uprising that came together like spattered quicksilver.
In our desire to fix things, we also launched a lot of legislative initiatives. These initiatives included various sovereignty amendments in the states, petitions for Constitutional Conventions, petitions for redress of grievances, petitions of right, and state laws exempting states from any national healthcare legislation. Each of these was a bold and important step, and such laws, amendments, and petitions should continue. Next year.
Let’s not fool ourselves. While the Tea Party movement has been very effective, it has been effective only when focused on a very narrow set of compelling causes. Our quick responses to card check and cap and trade convinced the White House to suspend those initiatives until we weren’t looking. Our overwhelming attack on ObamaCare took the last bit of energy and time from each Tea Party patriot. We left it all on the field.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Politics is a game of addition – successful politics anyway. Great leaders, when faced with a divided electorate, not to mention difficult economic times, use a limited agenda to forge consensus out of broken paradigms. Once they achieve an initial success, they seek a broader consensus. In the 1980’s Reagan faced a divided Republican Party and a fractured and dispirited nation. Concentrating on the prosperity issue and our national prestige, Reagan first brought Republicans together and then independents and even many Democrats. Indeed, so successful was Reagan at bringing people together, that in time he could rely on a group of Reagan Democrats. Few other Presidents have had such success at building consensus let alone are able to claim a voting block from the other party in their name.
There is little doubt that Obama faced a divided electorate when he first took office and a difficult economic climate. Rather than start with a limited agenda designed to build consensus, Obama did the opposite. Obama chased too many rabbits at once and preferred ideological fights over practical solutions. As a result, the Country is more divided than ever – not less.
The most recent manifestation of that divisive M.O. is the White House’s amazing decision to insist on a terror trial in New York. Of course, it remains a jarring ideological decision to treat KSM as a “criminal” versus the warring “terrorist” that he is. As I wrote, in my article Internment, CSI and Eric Holder’s Disarming of America, that decision will have profound negative consequences for decades to come. To the point of this article, Obama is compounding his initial divisive decision (treating him as a criminal) by fighting with New York over the place of the trial. It is a political fight which he cannot win regardless of the outcome of the trial.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Now President Obama tells us he’s going to take the economy seriously. God help us.
As the war on the economic recession grew bleak and the unemployed body count grew, Obama and the Democratic Congress were bogged down in the quagmires of health care reform and cap-and-trade – wars of choice but not of necessity.
Obama and Congressional leaders dithered on the economy to satisfy their liberal base and deliver on campaign promises of a government takeover of health care, a cap-and-trade system and a scheme to eliminate the secret ballot in union elections.
Fortunately for America, Obama and his Congressional allies have been unsuccessful so far.
In a recent interview with ABC News, the president said he lost touch with the American people because he was so focused on crafting policy. And the result was the special election in Massachusetts that ended in disaster for Democrats.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Drudge is pointing to this damning story to proclaim “TRIPS TO COPENHAGEN COST OVER $1,000,000… ” for Congressional trips across the pond. What did you get for it, other than the joy of sending “106 people from the House and Senate” which included “spouses, a doctor, a protocol expert and even a photographer”? Nothing. No climate deal (thankfully). While you gave the shirt off your back, you didn’t even get this:
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
The Scott Brown triumph heralds an enormous opportunity for Republicans this fall. As I posited in Part 2 of this series, The Top 4 Things Congressional Republicans Must Do in 2010, in order to make the most of the 2010 elections, Republicans must run on a defined Agenda for the Fall Elections. That Agenda needs to be Clear, Practical and Limited. Here is what I mean:
Clear. In the wake of the Brown election, the Democrats most certainly will have a messy 2010. The Pelosi wing of the Democrats, driven in part by Moveon.org, Emily’s List and others, will continue to push their views and legislation on issues like Health Care, Cap and Trade, Taxes, Afghanistan and more. The Evan Bayh wing of the party, located in swing districts and states and fearful of the message of the Brown election – in order to survive – will have to push back on those Left Wing plans. At worst, that inter-party warfare will be politically very ugly. At best it will portray a Democrat Party with no clear vision for the future. Similar to the fate that befell the warring and splintered Democrat Party in 1968, the Democrat infighting in 2010 will hamstring their election efforts.
That lack of clarity on the Democrats part must be contrasted by a clear governing vision on the part of Republicans. The beauty of the Contract With America, beyond its content, was that it provided a concise and clear Agenda. It told the voters exactly what Republicans intended to do if they won. This Fall, Republicans, in a unified fashion, must do no less than that if they want to take back the House.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
As Democrats are grieving their lost super-majority in Congress, some special interests are trying to spin the loss in ridiculous ways. The latest: Union boss Leo Gerard writes that “The message of Massachusetts should be clear: If Democrats want to save their own jobs in the midterm elections this fall, they must create jobs now.”
Create jobs? Create jobs?! It’s truly a fundamentally different worldview — and the kind that led Democrats off the cliff in the first place — to believe the government, rather than American entrepreneurs create jobs. (Here’s just one retort to that kind of logic.)
In one sense, there is a way Democrats could create jobs: They could quit trying to kill job-creating employers. Shred cap and trade. Hit the reset button on health care legislation. And, particularly important given the disastrous push by labor bosses, toss card check. Quit trying to force “green jobs” by killing other jobs. Stop the devastating machine of regulation from steamrolling any hope of economic recovery.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
I believe that Scott Brown will win the senatorial election being held in Massachusetts today and that he will do so not by an eyelash but by a landslide. We are about to witness the Massachusetts Miracle.
I have three reasons for being so confident. First, the polls — with admirable consistency — suggest that he is ahead. Second, the Coakley campaign and the Democratic Party nationally have panicked. Coakley’s minions have sent out a flier accusing Scott Brown of wanting to turn rape victims away from Massachusetts hospitals, and the DC apparatus has sent in Bill Clinton and Barack Obama for last-minute campaigning. Both moves are likely to backfire.
First, the claims in the flier are ridiculous and demonstrably false, and voters in Massachusetts have the wit to recognize that fact. Second, the bloom is off the rose. Clinton is a has-been, and Obama inspires little in the way of adulation these days. Their appearance in Massachusetts under these circumstances is a public confession that Martha Coakley is herself a loser. In special elections, turnout is everything. Scott Brown commands enthusiasm; no one — even within the Democratic establishment — has expressed any genuine excitement regarding his opponent.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
I’ve been involved in politics for longer than I usually care to remember. I’ve been in and around countless campaigns at all levels of government. One of the more intense times in political campaigns is the period immediately following a campaign; when operatives are busy taking credit or assigning blame. And let me tell you, they take this spin-battle very seriously.
That said, this is a battle that takes place AFTER the returns are in. Politico has a “leaked” memo from the Coakley campaign blaming national Democrats for their poor showing:
National Dems Failed to Aid Coakley Until Too Late
— Coakley campaign provided national Democrats with all poll results since early December
— Coakley campaign noted concerns about “apathy” and failure of national Democrats to contribute early in December. Coakley campaign noted fundraising concerns throughout December and requested national Democratic help.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Beyond a pleasing sight for the heart, what would Ted Kennedy’s seat going Republican really mean?
A lot.
First, there would be the psychological effect.
On Democratic donors — it would discourage them from opening their checkbooks. On Republican donors — the impact would be electric in kindling their interest and generosity. On Democratic incumbents seeking re-election — it would make the beaches and golf courses that await them in their Florida retirement homes (and the lucrative lobbying jobs in Washington) infinitely more attractive. On Republicans considering running for the House and the Senate — it will help them see the truth: That their time is at hand! (It might even help our esteemed Party Chairman Michael Steele, realize that we can capture both houses this year!)
But in the Senate itself, it would really signal the end of Obama’s legislative dominance. He’ll probably be able to pass health care either by Democratic dithering in certifying Brown’s election or by ramming through the bill while he’s en route to Washington on the shuttle.
But, beyond that, the prospects of getting 60 votes on the remaining items in Obama’s legislative agenda: cap and trade, union card check, and immigration reform would slip away with the Massachusetts result.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Wednesday will mark the first anniversary of the presidential inauguration of Barack Obama — who began his Presidency, as nearly all new first-term Presidents do, high in the polls. At that time, Obama’s approval ratings were, in fact, in the stratosphere. In the last twelve months, however, they have fallen further and faster than those of any President since polling began; and, and, as developments in Massachusetts suggest, his party is now in danger of suffering in November an historic defeat — which is likely to rival its fate in 1938, 1966, and 1994 if the Democrats do not, as I believe they may, do even worse. In a poll released on Thursday, the National Journal reports that half of the adults sampled responded that, if new Presidential elections were held right now, they would vote against Barack Obama, and less than a quarter of those questioned indicated that they would vote to re-elect the President. It is an appropriate time in which to pose this question: Why have Obama and his supporters fallen so far and so fast?
We must, I think, begin before the beginning. The Obama campaign was predicated on a fraud. With a skill that was breathtaking, Barack Obama managed during that campaign to signal to the left within the Democratic Party with a wink and a nod that he was their man and that he meant business — that he really intended to “transform” America. To those in the middle and on the right who are ashamed of the nation’s historic sins in matters of race, he offered absolution, and he promised that the penance that they would have to perform after leaving the confessional would not be harsh. He was not, he said, a tax-and-spend liberal.
I was not taken in. Late in 2008, after reviewing the page proofs of Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift, I persuaded my editor to allow me to add the following to the book:
Once again, as in the 1920s, rational administration has failed us. As on that other occasion, the Federal Reserve Board and the Department of the Treasury pursued over an extended period under more than one administration an easy-money policy bound in the end to give rise to “irrational exuberance” in the markets and to a bubble followed by a catastrophic decline in prices and a collapse of the credit markets. And, to make matters worse, we responded to this set of circumstances precisely as we did on that earlier occasion — by electing a president and choosing a Congress intent on dramatically increasing the scale and scope of the administrative state.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?