Waxman, Markey, and Inslee’s argument

U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce of...

Image via Wikipedia

Last week the House Energy & Power Subcommittee marked up H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act. Today, the full House Energy & Commerce Committee will mark up the bill.

Opponents, especially Reps. Waxman, Markey, and Inslee, viciously attacked the bill last Thursday. Their arguments are reviewed in detail at the blog GlobalWarming.Org.

The post concludes with this summary of the Waxman-Markey-Inslee argument as follows:

We know what is good for America and the world. It’s a future without fossil fuels. We can’t persuade the people’s representatives to support our agenda and turn it into law. Therefore, it is necessary for EPA to implement our agenda regardless of the defeat of cap-and-trade, the November 2011 elections, and the separation of powers. Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.

The question on limiting of the breadth of power of the EPA to have control over the future of the United States energy policy is one of the most important debates of our time.

h/t to Marlo Lewis

About these ads
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

117 Responses to Waxman, Markey, and Inslee’s argument

  1. Brent says:

    They are awfully full of themselves aren’t they

  2. Dave Springer says:

    “We know what is good for America and the world. It’s a future without fossil fuels.”

    With all due respect, Mr. Inslee, you are wrong about what’s good for America and the world.

    What’s good for America and the world is less expensive, renewable, clean energy that doesn’t require massive infrastruture replacement in the way of distribution and consumption.

    Your plans would cripple our ability to develop a better energy future by killing the goose that is laying the golden eggs before we have a better goose to replace her. You sir are a moron.

  3. Theo Goodwin says:

    This topic will require some research. If the summary of the WaxMarIns position is accurate then their position is repugnant to the vast majority of Americans.

  4. James Sexton says:

    I think the summation is accurate for the context of the whole climate change discussion and not simply confined to Waxman, Markey, and Inslee.

  5. PhilJourdan says:

    We know what is good for America and the world.

    Those people scare me the most. For the reality is they are not even smart enough to know what they know not. And in this case, it is just about everything.

  6. Henry chance says:

    Irony.
    On youtube last year we saw Waxman admit that he had not read the monstrous cap and trade bill.

  7. Metryq says:

    Wow. Is that about EPA policy, or “progressive” policies in general? A severe case of “Quincy syndrome” if ever I saw it.

  8. ew-3 says:

    “Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.”

    This so outrageous. What about their oath to defend the constitution ?

    It would seem that something about this must be illegal.

  9. golf charley says:

    Isn’t there something in the American Constitution about this sort of behaviour? Perhaps it is tucked away at the back somewhere, written with a quill pen taken from a sparrow

  10. Pull My Finger says:

    [snip - over the top - Anthony]

  11. Noelle says:

    The sentence immediately before the quotation you cite is: “I would summarize the core premise of Waxman, Markey, and Inslee’s opposition to H.R. 910 as follows: ”

    I think it’s important to point that out that because the words cited are not from Waxman, Markey, or Inslee, but, instead, the author of the blog.

    Also, because the EPA’s action is based on scientific findings, by arguing that the EPA should be controlled in the way the current Congress is trying to, is it fair to characterize you argument that the scientific expertise of Congress is superior than that of the EPA and other scientists who have the training and conducted research?

  12. Dennis Cox says:

    “We know what is good for America and the world.”

    and,

    “Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.”

    Yeah, right, never mind the constitution, or our right to choose our own destiny. They want to stuff their perspective down our throats. Whether we like it, or not.

    sounds like a pretty darn repugnant attitude to me. In the last century, didn’t the Nazis have similar views about Germany ‘and the world’?

  13. John Marshall says:

    It is time for revolution in America. These guys should swing for this even though stupidity is not really a capital crime, or perhaps it is in their case.
    It might be time to ask Japan how they feel about power cuts, etc. after their terrible experience. They wish to get back to the 21st cent.

  14. Jeremy says:

    We can’t persuade the people’s representatives to support our agenda and turn it into law. Therefore, it is necessary for EPA to implement our agenda regardless of the defeat of cap-and-trade, the November 2011 elections, and the separation of powers. Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.

    That right there is a justification for a dissolution of our government. These elected officials are saying, “to hell with our government, what we want is more important, we’re doing it anyway.” Honestly, how do they think they can get away with this?

  15. Ken Hall says:

    And when I said some time ago that these climate alarmist supporting politicians are using “climate change” to create a dictatorship, I was branded a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.

    And yet here in black and white from out of their own mouths do they condemn themselves.

    We know what is good for America and the world. It’s a future without fossil fuels. We can’t persuade the people’s representatives to support our agenda and turn it into law. Therefore, it is necessary for EPA to implement our agenda regardless of the defeat of cap-and-trade, the November 2011 elections, and the separation of powers. Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.

    IF the alarmists are correct, then even if we reduced our CO2 output to zero, we would still not be able to cool the planet by more than one degree for about 1000 years. Reducing our CO2 output to zero would mean a literal return to the stone age. No more flights, no more cars, no more TV, no more computers, no more JOBS, no more electricity and no more industry.

    Even if we did all that, we would not reduce the temperature of the earth. So the tiny amount of change that is being offered by the politicians is nowhere near enough.

    They are sacrificing our income, way of life, our homes, jobs, families for NOTHING.

    IF the alarmists really believed what they are saying, then they would NEVER even consider getting on a plane to their luxurious climate conferences.

    They would be doing all they could to reduce CO2.

    The fact is we are not going to reduce CO2 output by the amount that the alarmists are screaming for. That would destroy the economy entirely. So we are going to miss whatever arbitrary timetable for a tipping point they invent.

    So we may as well enjoy our guaranteed ride to extinction and relax all the CO2 restrictions. What is the point of a miserable road to hell? We may as well enjoy it. I wanna buy a V12!!!

    Besides, we may just discover that the alarmists are wrong, and then find that we saved our economy in the process.

    I say we hang these human hating climate alarmists from lamp-posts and let them lead their human depopulation agenda from the front!

  16. David S says:

    ew-3 says:
    March 15, 2011 at 7:32 am
    “Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.”

    This so outrageous. What about their oath to defend the constitution ?

    Exactly!!!

    IMHO the founders missed the boat by not providing a means to immediately remove from office anyone who refuses to uphold his oath. As a result we have had one constitutional violation after another, going all the way back to the Adams administration and the Alien and Sedition Act.

  17. If EPA had followed the mandates of the CAA, they would not have “found” CO2 to be a pollutant. Their “finding” was politically motivated by the desire to be able to control the use of fossil fuel energy. That same motivation established the IPCC whose “science” the “findings” are based.

  18. Chris in Ga says:

    It’s the last sentence that worries me and defines what they think.

    Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.”

  19. etudiant says:

    Do note that this summary is written by the blog poster, not by the people engaged in the debate.
    This kind of far reaching summation can be applied to almost any case where regulatory mission creep pushes the boundaries of what is regulated. In every case, the rule making will fill in a lot of space that the original law left open.

  20. Alexander K says:

    As an interested observer of the American politcal scene, I understand the Constitution is the document that enshrines and defines how politicians must act. To openly defy that which is laid down in the American Constitution must be treason, which I understood to be utterly beyond the pale. Surely these carpetbaggers cannot be allowed to overthrow the Constitution, so who is empowered to stop them. To my mind there seems little point to the Constitution if it cannot be enforced.

  21. Alan the Brit says:

    I have warned you chaps & chapesses in the colonies before. Watch out for your democracy, it’s a frgile thing & easily taken away in front of your eyes as it has been done over here in the PDREU/EUSR! We can elect a “state” government of any policital hue into the Westminster Parliament, we could elect a Hitler or a Stalin in fact (having said that, despite their revolting & abysmal reputations they at least got things done), it would make no difference as to how & by who we are governed. That’s the EU for you, the only thing the European Parliament in the way of power is to cede more of it to Bruxelles! The EU is driving Global Goverment & it will be the same bodies in charge! Kick your politicians where it hurts, in the ballot box!

  22. Bushy says:

    You All are missing the point, look at them pictures, aliens thats what.

  23. Jaye Bass says:

    Hang on now, did they actually say that?

  24. MikeEE says:

    Didn’t President Obama say it would be so much easier being president of China? Then you wouldn’t have to waste time with negotiations.

    MikeEE

  25. Keith Battye says:

    A lot of guys running countries in Africa subscribe to this “I know what’s best for everybody and damn the constitution” thinking.

    It doesn’t usually work out so good.

  26. Alan Clark of Dirty Oil-berta says:

    Uhhhh folks…. this is a somewhat sarcastic “summation” or paraphrasing of the Markley-Waxman-Inslee position. It’s not a direct quotation.

  27. Keith Battye says:

    BTW , just so’s you know . . Google “Waxman Markey Inslee and WUWT comes up as the first return.

  28. David44 says:

    Come on guys. We may hate these guys’ agenda or even them, but none of them said what is in that summary paragraph. This is what Mr. Lewis’ thinks they think. He may even be right, but his inflammatory “summary” is over the top. Had he put quotes around it, either they would be guilty of treason, or he would be guilty of libel.

  29. tom in indy says:

    Let me frame this for you. Special interests control American politics. On the left, we have unions and on the right we have big oil. The right is trying to gain control of the debate by reducing union membership, dues and hence union campaign contributions. The left is trying to gut the oil industry for the same reason.

    When we were young and naive, we believed that government served the people. Now that we are older and wiser, and the curtain has been pulled back, we see that government serves special interests.

  30. RHS says:

    I wish that would make the 5 o’clock news somewhere, anywhere. Can’t believe I have to visit this site for meaningful insight to politicians as well as science. Not that I mind really!

  31. Pete H says:

    “Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.”
    I would hope that the MSN and everyone who reads that will rise up to ensure that everyone can see what these people are like! 10/10 again!

  32. Dan Lee says:

    Wow, how’s that for a kill quote? Anyone who supports AGW and related legislation must now defend:

    …implement our agenda regardless of:
    -the defeat of cap-and-trade
    -the November 2011 elections
    -the separation of powers.
    - the question, “Is your agenda more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with?”

    Answer yes to the above, and THEN let’s discuss global warming, in the context of what we intend to do about it besides adapt?

  33. TomRude says:

    Who bought their election campaign?

  34. Frank K. says:

    “We know what is good for America and the world. It’s a future without fossil fuels. We can’t persuade the people’s representatives to support [blah, blah, blah]…”

    Actually, this statement is no different than a concluding statement in a typical NASA GISS (or similar) climate journal paper. It could have been written by any of our manic CAGW climate heroes…

  35. To Jay,

    No. They did not actually say that. However, it is a relatively accurate summary interpretation of a lot of “politically correct” speaking.

  36. James Sexton says:

    Jaye Bass says:
    March 15, 2011 at 8:12 am

    Hang on now, did they actually say that?
    =========================================

    No, the summation was done by Marlo Lewis. It seems some here are missing this detail. Even so, I believe the summation to be a correct assessment of their position.

  37. rbateman says:

    The summary smacks of self-coronation (they have a full tank of Green Energy gas, plenty of GCM cigarettes, and are on a Mission from GAIA).

  38. ferd berple says:

    “Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.”

    The EPA policy is being enacted by the President of the United States. He has made this very clear in his public statements. He knows best what is right for the country. Congress and the People have it wrong.

    Waxman, Markey, and Inslee are showing their loyalty to the President through their actions. Their statements reflect the President’s policy on this matter. The People and Congress need to start doing as they are told.

  39. MarkW says:

    “Therefore, it is necessary for EPA to implement our agenda regardless of the defeat of cap-and-trade, the November 2011 elections,”

    Whoa there, they already know who’s going to win in this years elections?

  40. pat says:

    These scientific illiterates have been bullying others for years. To them science is just an excuse to further their bizarre need to have every American and every American institution conform to leftist Utopian ideal. They are painfully ignorant on virtually every matter of which they effusively opine. Being unaware that the talking points fed to them by the Warmists, Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, etc are just that: Talking points. Not facts.

  41. Smokey says:

    tom in indy says:

    “Let me frame this for you. Special interests control American politics. On the left, we have unions and on the right in the center we have big oil.”

    Fixed it for you.

    “Big oil” can be you. Just buy stock in Exxon-Mobil and you can collect the dividends as an owner. “Right” is used as a pejorative, indicating an extremist, when it is always the Left that is extreme Big Government supporters.

    It’s always irritating to se anyone try to demonize an honest, law abiding company that provides a necessary product. Don’t like ‘em? Then don’t buy their products. There are always bicycles. Avoid anything made of plastic. And of course, don’t buy food that uses commercial fertilizer.

    You don’t want to be a hypocrite, right?

    But I do agree that special interests own the government – and disreputable carreer politicians like Waxman and Markey. Unions take members’ dues, give it [97%] to the Democrat Party, and in return get self-serving laws passed that extract money from non-union workers and hand it over to union members to pay them far in excess of their market skills. It’s a caste system, with the low caste taxpayers paying excessive salaries, benefits and pensions to the gilded upper caste unions.

  42. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.

    OK, now, where did I leave that musket?

    Absolutely outrageous. However, I’m glad they blew the cover off of their agenda for all to see. Cockroaches hate nothing more than bright light. They will come to regret that they ever uttered those words.

  43. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Folks, Waxman, Markey and Inslee did NOT make that statement. It was a “summary” by the blogger, his interpretation of what the Democrats meant by their arguments. It is a somewhat over-the-top statement and I think Representatives Waxman, Markey and Inslee would reject that formulation and be horrified at the sentiment…. even if it is not that far off the mark.

  44. Snotrocket says:

    Anthony, it may be a fair summation, and I’m sure it represents the spirit of warmism, however I think it would have played a lot more ethically – for those who did not bother to read the link in GlobalWarming.org – if you had included Marlo Lewis’s first line of the summary: “I would summarize the core premise of Waxman, Markey, and Inslee’s opposition to H.R. 910 as follows:”

    That said, I am entirely comfortable with the idea that wanting to bypass government with the EPA is the sort of idea that these democrats want to see.

  45. TomB says:

    tom in indy says:
    March 15, 2011 at 8:24 am says: “on the right we have big oil”
    Do just a little research on just which political party receives the most contributions from oil companies. You’ll obviously not be pleased with what you find.

  46. oakgeo says:

    Smokey @ March 15, 2011 at 8:52 am says:

    It’s a caste system, with the low caste taxpayers paying excessive salaries, benefits and pensions to the gilded upper caste unions.

    I certainly seems to have come to this. Unions, although historically instrumental in improving conditions across the board for workers, now benefit only themselves. Think of all the GM bondholders who lost big while the UAW was saved from making any substantive concessions.

  47. Joel Shore says:

    Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.

    I’m a little confused about what the Constitutional principle is that Waxley, Markey, and Inslee are claimed to be wanting to ignore. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled back in 2007 that the EPA had the authority to regulate CO2 from cars under the Clean Air Act: http://miratechcorp.com/site/miratech/section/140 and in fact the duty to do so or to provide an explanation for not doing so.

    Last time that I checked, the Supreme Court was the branch of government charged with interpreting both our laws and our Constitution. The Republicans in Congress certainly have the right to try to limit the EPA’s authority (since that authority is provided by statute, not innate Constiutional right). However, the Democrats in the Senate and the Democrat in the White House also have the right to try to block any such law, which is what they are doing.

  48. Philip Peake says:

    Those statements sound suspiciously close to treason to me.

  49. Jaye Bass says:

    James Sexton says:
    March 15, 2011 at 8:41 am

    No, the summation was done by Marlo Lewis. It seems some here are missing this detail. Even so, I believe the summation to be a correct assessment of their position.

    I absolutely agree with your last statement. However, lets deal with the facts and debate from there.

  50. Steve Keohane says:

    From the Way-Back machine, 4/26/09, “Waxman’s Stunningly Stupid Statement”
    “We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap..” juxtaposed with We know what is good for America and the world. The inmates are indeed in charge of the asylum.
    link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/quote-of-the-week-5-waxmans-stunningly-stupid-statement/
    Inspired this take on Waxman and his ilk’s effectiveness at saving the arctic.
    http://i44.tinypic.com/2062dk0.jpg

  51. Tom Davidson says:

    Translation: “Forget the facts. We know what we know. We are so desperate to control the smallest aspects of your private lives that we will completely circumvent democracy and implement our personal agendas through anonymous and unaccountable bureacracies.”

  52. greg2213 says:

    WUWT says, “…The post concludes with this summary of the Waxman-Markey-Inslee argument as follows: ”

    http://www.globalwarming.org says, “I would summarize the core premise of Waxman, Markey, and Inslee’s opposition to H.R. 910 as follows: ”

    (italics are mine)

    Given all that we’ve seen the last couple of years does anyone really doubt that the summary is pretty close to what these guys really think? Especially since, IMO, these guys really honestly believe in the alarmist predictions of catastrophe?

    I think this is more than adequate reason to work for the removal of these people from any public office. Perhaps they should retire to some nice, cushy, well-paying job in the climate lobbying industry or as talking heads on some MSM station.

  53. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    @Robert E. Phelan says:
    March 15, 2011 at 9:01 am
    Folks, Waxman, Markey and Inslee did NOT make that statement. It was a “summary” by the blogger, his interpretation of what the Democrats meant by their arguments. It is a somewhat over-the-top statement and I think Representatives Waxman, Markey and Inslee would reject that formulation and be horrified at the sentiment…. even if it is not that far off the mark.
    ——-
    REPLY I know, just havin’ fun with it! I love to invoke the “where’s my musket?” adage.

    Realistically, it isn’t that hard to find attributable quotes nearly like that one from politicians & policy-makers. The Hockey Team spouted all sorts of that stuff in the Climategate emails, and that side is getting ever-more desperate.

    Can’t wait to read the reaction to this one!

    Committee ranking Democrat Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) offered an amendment Tuesday that called on Congress to agree that climate change is occurring. The amendment failed on a party-line vote of 20-31. No Republicans voted for the amendment.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/149585-house-gop-rejects-amendment-that-says-climate-change-is-occurring

  54. BradProp1 says:

    What’s sad is that these morons continue to get re-elected. That doesn’t say much about their constituents. Maybe this stupidity should be tested on their constituents first. Then we’ll see how long they remain in office!

  55. Lady Life Grows says:

    Mostly, these people are not scientists and simply do not have either the expertise or the time to investigate adequately ANY of the hundreds of bills they must vote on. Their staffs help–but not enough.

    But I also believe that some of these people are consciously trying to destroy the United States.

  56. adrianS says:

    When you think of all the American, Candian, British, Australian, NewZealand, Polish, Indian, French and other people who died during the last world war fighting for democracy its awful to see this ” well we know whats best for you approach “so we will suspend your democratic rights by essentially a legal move to implement what you wouldnt have voted for. Dont the people count any longer. SInce Hansen & Co we have seen very slight increases in global temperature— nothing like they predicted 20 yrs ago, so why should we suspend democracy now?

  57. Vince Causey says:

    We have already seen the face of ‘noble cause corruption’ in scientists. This is the face of noble cause corruption in politicians. Where the scientist averts his gaze from evidence that invalidates his ‘science,’ the policy maker averts his gaze from the constitution. When the scientist can no longer avert his gaze, he hides the decline. When the politician can no longer ignore the constitution, he doesn’t merely hide it – he demolishes it comprehensively and totally.

    It should not need pointing out, that as soon as you override the checks and balances in government on the basis that this time ‘we face an unprecendent threat,’ then you no longer have any checks and balances, and you have condoned dictatorship. I sincerely hope that these policy makers did not mean what Marlo Lewis has attributed to them, or that they will reflect soberly on what they have just said and pull back from the brink. If not, I still have faith in the American people to recognise the threat before it is too late.

  58. ew-3 says:

    Gotta love http://www.opensecrets.org Let’s you know who has the real power.

    Contributor Total Indivs PACs
    ———————————————————————————-
    American Assn for Justice $90,500 $0 $90,500
    American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $87,500 $0 $87,500
    National Assn of Letter Carriers $82,500 $0 $82,500
    American Hospital Assn $81,000 $2,000 $79,000
    American Medical Assn $74,000 $0 $74,000
    Service Employees International Union $69,500 $0 $69,500
    National Assn of Realtors $68,000 $0 $68,000
    Time Warner $63,000 $17,000 $46,000
    United Auto Workers $62,500 $0 $62,500
    Walt Disney Co $62,500 $3,500 $59,000
    American Society of Anesthesiologists $57,500 $0 $57,500
    KidsPAC $55,000 $0 $55,000
    AFLAC Inc $52,500 $0 $52,500
    Teamsters Union $52,500 $0 $52,500
    National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $52,000 $2,000 $50,000
    American Postal Workers Union $51,500 $0 $51,500
    United Food & Commercial Workers Union $51,000 $0 $51,000
    News Corp $48,900 $28,900 $20,000
    American Podiatric Medical Assn $45,500 $0 $45,500
    AT&T Inc $44,000 $1,000 $43,000

  59. ew-3 says:

    and for Rep Markey (and why is Colorado State University using tuition funds to back a Mass Rep?)

    Contributor Total Indivs PACs
    ActBlue $197,416 $197,416 $0
    EMILY’s List $187,623 $166,750 $20,873
    Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $53,869 $53,869 $0
    League of Conservation Voters $38,201 $28,723 $9,478
    Brownstein, Hyatt et al $32,833 $31,833 $1,000
    Colorado State University $25,529 $25,529 $0
    JStreetPAC $21,500 $21,500 $0
    American Assn for Justice $20,000 $0 $20,000
    American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $20,000 $0 $20,000
    American Postal Workers Union $20,000 $0 $20,000
    AmeriPAC: The Fund for a Greater America $20,000 $0 $20,000
    BRIDGE PAC $20,000 $0 $20,000
    Carpenters & Joiners Union $20,000 $0 $20,000
    Communications Workers of America $20,000 $0 $20,000
    International Assn of Fire Fighters $20,000 $0 $20,000
    Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $20,000 $0 $20,000
    National Air Traffic Controllers Assn $20,000 $0 $20,000
    National Assn of Letter Carriers $20,000 $0 $20,000
    National Education Assn $20,000 $0 $20,000
    Plumbers/Pipefitters Union $20,000 $0 $20,000
    Service Employees International Union $20,000 $0 $20,000
    Teamsters Union $20,000 $0 $20,000
    United Food & Commercial Workers Union $20,000 $0 $20,000
    United Steelworkers $20,000 $0 $20,000

  60. ew-3 says:

    sorry – post above was for Betsy Markey of Colorado, so CSU makes sense

    Here’s for Ed Markey
    Enernoc $25,900 $25,900 $0
    Thermo Fisher Scientific $18,100 $8,100 $10,000
    Feeley & Driscoll $15,500 $15,500 $0
    DLA Piper $14,900 $12,150 $2,750
    Holcim Ltd $14,500 $12,000 $2,500
    Patton Boggs LLP $14,500 $9,500 $5,000
    National Grid plc $13,000 $7,000 $6,000
    Time Warner $13,000 $0 $13,000
    Raytheon Co $11,250 $1,250 $10,000
    Qualcomm Inc $11,000 $4,000 $7,000
    Comcast Corp $10,250 $250 $10,000
    Mintz, Levin et al $10,100 $10,100 $0
    American Assn for Justice $10,000 $0 $10,000
    American College of Emergency Physicians $10,000 $0 $10,000
    Honeywell International $10,000 $0 $10,000
    Major League Baseball Commissioner’s Ofc $10,000 $0 $10,000
    National Beer Wholesalers Assn $10,000 $0 $10,000
    National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $10,000 $0 $10,000
    Operating Engineers Union $10,000 $0 $10,000
    Suffolk Construction $10,000 $10,000

  61. Phil R says:

    tom in indy says:
    March 15, 2011 at 8:24 am
    Let me frame this for you. Special interests control American politics. On the left, we have unions and on the right we have big oil. The right is trying to gain control of the debate by reducing union membership, dues and hence union campaign contributions. The left is trying to gut the oil industry for the same reason.

    When we were young and naive, we believed that government served the people. Now that we are older and wiser, and the curtain has been pulled back, we see that government serves special interests.

    Agree in general, but there is a (huge) difference. “Big Oil” produces something of value that everyone needs (energy, raw materials for various products, value for their stockholders), whereas unions, especially public unions, don’t produce anything (see public education) and are becoming a huge burden on the taxpayer. No matter how loud they scream and what childish antics they pull, you could “reduce union membership” with little lasting effect. If you “gut the oil industry,” well, let’s just say I’d rather be beholden to “Big Oil.”

    Full disclosure. I have no ties with “Big Oil” and “Big Oil” did not fund me to write this. :-)

  62. DD More says:

    A few points from the ‘article’

    Waxman said: “Some Republicans on the committee will argue today that this bill is not a rejection of science,but if they believed in the serious threat posed by climate change, they would have accepted our offer to work together without preconditions to develop a responsible plan for promoting clean energy and reducing carbon emissions.”

    Have they seen the recent UAH or RSS temperature charts, with temperatures the same as 1989?

    Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) made the same point, claiming that the sponsors had a “truth in advertising” problem, because EPA is not collecting revenues from taxpayers.

    I believe the current business tax rate is 35%, although it is generally passed on to the consumer.

    Rep. Inslee denounced H.R. 910 as the “dirty air act” (not very original), asserting it would prevent EPA from fighting childhood asthma. If Inslee really believes that, then I have a bridge I’d like to sell him. To restate the obvious, carbon dioxide is not an asthma-triggering or -exacerbating air pollutant.

    From the article, they did say this.

  63. Brian H says:

    Noelle;
    About the EPA’s science: they did none, and didn’t even cite any. They just took the IPCC’s word for it. Fools quoting each other.

  64. P. Solar says:

    Seems like just about everyone got conned by this the same as I did until I checked out that quote on the actual blog post, not the misleading excerpt here.

    This outrageous statement did not come from Waxman et al , it was globalwarming.org’s own “summary” of their position.

    “I would summarize the core premise of Waxman, Markey, and Inslee’s opposition to H.R. 910 as follows: …. blah… ”

    So when Anthony says “The post concludes with this summary of the Waxman-Markey-Inslee argument as follows:” we should be very clear that what follows is NOT Waxman’s own summary of their position but someone who is trying to shoot them down.

    I doubt I’d agree with whatever they DO actually say but don’t have time to study the 10 pages or so of quotes to see if it is fair.

    However , I’d suggest A.W makes that intro a bit clearer than it currently is because most readers seem to be taking it as Waxman’s own words.

  65. kramer says:

    “Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.”

    Would that be Agenda 21?

  66. Ed Zuiderwijk says:

    These guys have the temerity to state that the US Constitution should be ignored (obviously because they in their arrogance “know that they are right”).

    If that’s not sedition then what is? Prosecuting, that lot, and pronto.

  67. Bob Diaz says:

    RE: We know what is good for America and the world. It’s a future ….

    Wow, if you replace the word “America” with “Germany”, it sounds like something Hitler would say!!!!

  68. An Inquirer says:

    Noelle, if you really believe that EPA based its decision on science, then perhaps our worst fears about our education system have been realized. I have read the supporting document for EPA finding, and I doubt that my science students would have received a passing grade if they had submitted such work. The document contains page after page of misleading graphs and deceptive presentations. I do not know which upsets me more — the fact that they expect the public to accept the propaganda or the fact that we taxpayers are paying for the propaganda.

  69. BradProp1 says:
    What’s sad is that these morons continue to get re-elected. That doesn’t say much about their constituents. Maybe this stupidity should be tested on their constituents first. Then we’ll see how long they remain in office!

    “Rep Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)” – That should explain it all.

  70. Greg Holmes says:

    I find this intolerable,even in the UK no peoples representative could survive saying “we know what is best and will do it even if it is outside the law”. America you are a lost Democracy, soon to be an autocracy. Good luck.

  71. Russ Hatch says:

    Let’s see if we can have the various power and fuel and gasoline companies refuse to sell their products to Waxman, Markey, Inslee, and the upper echelon of the EPA for a about six months so that they can reduce their carbon footprint to the level they want us to. Then we can revisit this and see what their attitude is.

  72. Joel Shore says:

    Brian H says:

    Noelle;
    About the EPA’s science: they did none, and didn’t even cite any. They just took the IPCC’s word for it. Fools quoting each other.

    Well, the EPA is not supposed to do original scientific research. What it is supposed to do is synthesize the research that has been done to produce a scientific finding. That the EPA scientists did quite admirably, including responding very patiently to lots of the usual nonsense…see here: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions.html

  73. Anthony

    Not an example of your usual rigour, I’m afraid.

    Although you did note that the italicised conclusion is a summary, too many of the replies seem to assume that the words were those of the three stooges (Waxman, Markey, and Inslee). That’s sad, for it gives ammunition to the trolls, who will claim distortion.

    Ah, but it’s a very appropriate summary of what their position really means. Heh heh…

  74. Mac the Knife says:

    These are profoundly dangerous people (Markey, Waxman, Inslee). They and Our Dear Leader Barack Obama are using regulatory agencies and ‘czars’ to usurp the authority of legislature, judiciary, and the expressed will of the informed American citizen voters.

    The paraphrase summary that leads this post is not wide of the mark, just stated without the embellishment of usual politician dissembling.

  75. MarkW says:

    oakgeo: Working conditions and salaries were improving long, long before unions ever came on the scene. There is no evidence that the unions have been successful in permanently accelerating this already existing trend. (To the extent that they have managed to accelerate the trend, it wasn’t permanent, as the company soon went bankrupt and stopped paying their workers anything.)

  76. tom in indy says:

    @ SMOKEY and PHIL R.

    You guys are wrong on where the energy money goes. One of you suggested I do a little research, so I did.
    http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E&goButt2.x=7&goButt2.y=11

    I am conservative. I am on the side of business. I directly benefit if government favors business over unions, social services, etc. However, if you can’t see the obvious fact that special interests run both parties, then you have been brainwashed by your party of choice. Republicans push breaks for industry, democrats push for breaks for unions. There is a battle for control going on right now. Sure, some industries are hedging their bets and they shifted a bit toward the left in the last election cycle, e.g. finance and banking. But that only proves the point. WE THE PEOPLE are waking up, but we don’t stand a chance against special interests on both sides unless we can get together at the ballot box.

  77. Jeff Carlson says:

    the left constantly puts words in our mouths … aren’t we all “global warming deniers” ? I say turnabout is far play … let them prove they don’t mean the summation … quit playing by MoQ rules and punch back just as hard as they punch us … keep the punches above the belt even though they don’t …

  78. Dennis Dunton says:

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    David44 says:
    March 15, 2011 at 8:23 am

    Come on guys. We may hate these guys’ agenda or even them, but none of them said what is in that summary paragraph. This is what Mr. Lewis’ thinks they think. He may even be right, but his inflammatory “summary” is over the top. Had he put quotes around it, either they would be guilty of treason, or he would be guilty of libel.
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    You do have a point David, however their favorite climatologist…..Jim Hansen WAS quoted by AP several months ago opining that when it came to controlling CO2 emissions “Democracy is a failure.”

  79. Smokey says:

    tom in indy,

    What I objected to was the implication that oil companies are extreme radicals on the Right, just like people like Waxman and unions are radicals on the extreme Left. That is an odious comparison that unfairly demonizes oil companies. Law-abiding companies that provide essential products are mainstream centerists, they are not extremists like Henry Waxman. And if you have a 401-K, you’re probably already an owner of Big Oil.

    I agree with you regarding special interests, as I commented above:

    “…I do agree that special interests own the government – and disreputable carreer politicians like Waxman and Markey. Unions take members’ dues, give it [97%] to the Democrat Party, and in return get self-serving laws passed that extract money from non-union workers and hand it over to union members to pay them far in excess of their market skills. It’s a caste system, with the low caste taxpayers paying excessive salaries, benefits and pensions to the gilded upper caste unions.”

    It’s even worse than that, but I won’t go into details. I’ve seen the corruption from the inside, having been the elected president of my union Local for four terms. I constantly heard complaints from people who objected to having union dues taken out of their paychecks. But they didn’t have a choice. If they refused to pay dues, the company was contractually obligated to fire them. Nice, huh?

  80. max says:

    2010 elections not 2011.

  81. Doug Proctor says:

    “I would summarize the core premise of Waxman, Markey, and Inslee’s opposition to H.R. 910 as follows: We know…”

    Dudes – the politicians didn’t say what the “summary” says. It’s a spin. A personal opinion that has been inserted with misleading optics. This is how conspiracies start.

    Please for your readers’ sake, modify the quote.

  82. Legatus says:

    ” Therefore, it is necessary for EPA to implement our agenda regardless of the defeat of cap-and-trade, the November 2011 elections, and the separation of powers. Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.”

    Our elected representatives, and our military, are required to take an oath to protect us and our constitution against all enemies, foriegn OR DOMESTIC. The EPA has delcared themselves to be above our democratic institutions, our law, and even our highest law, our constitution. Therefore, legally, the use of deadly force against the EPA is authorized, and even demanded, by our constitution and the oaths our
    representatives and military made.

    So get to it boys. It’s the law.

  83. Sun Spot says:

    @Smokey says: March 15, 2011 at 8:52 am

    re: your anti-union extremism

    My union uses my union dues for lawyers at bargaining time to get a binding contract, just like my CEO and VP’s have a lawyer that get a deal signed for themselves. When my CEO gets “let go” he/she gets a multi-million dollar severance and pension, my CEO’s get muti-million dollar bonus’s every year that they don’t earn. What’s good for the gander is good for the goose. I suspect you don’t have the cojons to get organized and wrestle with the CEO’s, VP’s and boards of directors for a piece of the pie. If you have no cojons to unionize the CEO’s will take your lunch for themselves and leave you with a pittance for a wage.

  84. Phil R says:

    tom in indy,

    Smokey says:
    March 15, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    “tom in indy,

    “What I objected to was the implication that oil companies are extreme radicals on the Right, just like people like Waxman and unions are radicals on the extreme Left. That is an odious comparison that unfairly demonizes oil companies. Law-abiding companies that provide essential products are mainstream centerists, they are not extremists like Henry Waxman. And if you have a 401-K, you’re probably already an owner of Big Oil.”

    What he says.

    I think we both agree with you as far as special interests, and that special interests are looking out for…well…their own interests. It’s just that the comment hints at moral or ethical relativism. They are not the same. “Big Oil” (and by extension, Big Business) is not perfect, but they provide a lot of benefits to society in the way of energy, jobs, investment value, etc. What value have the people (read taxpayers) of Wisconsin received with the childish antics of their state senators and striking teachers over the last few weeks?

  85. Louis Hissink says:

    The fact is that what are called fossil fuels are not, but stupid is as stupid does I suppose.

  86. Tom says:

    November 2011 elections… I totally trust these people to be the best and brightest.

  87. According to Waxman and Markey their agenda is more important than anything else.
    This is so typical of elitists; they THINK they know what is good for everyone else.
    The chutzpah of these imbeciles is incredible.

    Until we re-engineer the cosmic energy harnessed by the ancients and most recently by Tesla, fossil fuels are the only answer. Wind and solar have EROEI’s of < 1 and are colossal wastes of resources, and nuclear has again become too controversial and dangerous.

    I know what is best for the world. It is a world without Waxman and Markey, and a world powered by shale, coal, oil and gas. The USA sits on over 21% of the entire world's recoverable reserves of fossil btus. This is the stuff that made the USA the greatest empire on Earth. But for some liberal pinheads who unfortunately are in high political office, they just can't stand being the biggest and best.

  88. Smokey says:

    Sun Spot says:

    “re: your anti-union extremism”

    If you will re-read my post, you will see that I am not anti-union. I am anti-collecting-dues-and-sending-some-of-the-collected-money-to-Democrats [who get 97% of all union contributions].

    It is illegal under the L.M.R.D.A. [the federal law regulating unions] to use union dues to support political candidates. But unions have learned to game the system, and they get around that restriction. The SEIU is notorious in that regard.

    I was elected president of my Local 4 times [and twice elected as a statewide officer] before I retired. I was a union negotiator, and the company we worked for was extremely tough in negotiations. I know how it works. But I object to public sector unions. I do not agree that they should be allowed to exist – in that respect FDR and I are in agreement.

    The reason is simple: public sector unions are negotiating for more taxpayer money, with politicians who almost always take the easy way out by agreeing to their demands.

    In return the politicians get union votes, and the public employee unions get more and more taxpayer money, causing taxes [or public debt] to rise inexorably. The taxpaying public has no say in the process, even though it is their money that’s being handed out in ever increasing amounts. [And don't say we can vote the bastards out; they have gerrymandered the voting districts to the point that their job security is on a par with public sector unions.] Public sector unions are parasites on the taxpaying public. They should be outlawed.

    I fully support unions in the private sector. As for public employee unions: Bust ‘em!

  89. Frank K. says:

    Sun Spot says:
    March 15, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    Sun Spot – if you hate working for private industry – then, please quit your job, start your OWN company, becomes its CEO, then YOU can call the shots. Pretty simple…

  90. kcrucible says:

    Also, because the EPA’s action is based on scientific findings, by arguing that the EPA should be controlled in the way the current Congress is trying to, is it fair to characterize you argument that the scientific expertise of Congress is superior than that of the EPA and other scientists who have the training and conducted research?

    Science informs politics. Science does not govern.

  91. kcrucible says:

    Science informs politics. Science does not govern.

    Addendum: And no arm of the Executive branch governs either. They IMPLIMENT the government dictated by congress, who are duely elected representatives of the people of the united states.

    So if Congress wants to reign in something that they feel is over the line, that’s entirely their perogative. If the people disagree they’ll lose their jobs for it.

  92. To Joel Shore ,

    You are mistaken. I worked for EPA doing research in atmospheric science for over 20 years. My job included reviewing all related peer reviewed papers, but was mainly original research that was published in peer reviewed journals. I was responsible for writing a chapter in most of the Air Quality Criteria Documents that were mandated by the CAA. In using the IPCC report as gospel “findings”, they did not follow the CAA instructions and this will be proven in the courts some day. Between now and then, congress has the responsibility of lessoning the damage that a politically motivated EPA can do to our country.

  93. Tony says:

    Sun Spot says:
    My union uses my union dues for lawyers at bargaining time to get a binding contract, just like my CEO and VP’s have a lawyer that get a deal signed for themselves. When my CEO gets “let go” he/she gets a multi-million dollar severance and pension, my CEO’s get muti-million dollar bonus’s every year that they don’t earn. What’s good for the gander is good for the goose. I suspect you don’t have the cojons to get organized and wrestle with the CEO’s, VP’s and boards of directors for a piece of the pie. If you have no cojons to unionize the CEO’s will take your lunch for themselves and leave you with a pittance for a wage.

    Sun Spot,

    I haven’t had to bother with unions, because I’ve been able to make MYSELF valuable enough to my bosses that they don’t WANT to let me go. Once, I had made myself valuable enough to get a 50% raise simply by asking for it. Has your union ever accomplished that for you?

    Of course, I’ve also never treated my boss like an enemy.

  94. Tony says:

    I apologize for being needlessly antagonistic in my previous post.

    As the topic of labor unions is not really appropriate for this forum, I will be dropping the subject.

  95. Pamela Gray says:

    Exactly when did we add another branch of power to the constitution? We didn’t? So what these politicians are admitting to is that this is a necessary green-military police Coup. And just which branch of the guvmnt is allowing that to happen?

  96. Chris Riley says:

    These people seem irrational and they are, in fact “fit to be tied”. Two years ago they were only inches from victory. They only needed to get the legislation through a largely socialist Congress. It was supposed to be over by July 09. Then their world fell apart. They thought they would be lioized in the history books as couragous leaders who delivered America into a Marxist/Maltusian Utopia, the new Founding Fathers. It now seems clear that, to the extent the Inslee’s and Markey’s of this world will be remembered at all, it will be, at best, as clowns.

  97. Luther Wu says:

    I’m really starting to question some people’s reading comprehension skills…
    good grief.
    The politicians did NOT utter that closing argument.

  98. MJ says:

    Really. Wow.

    Mother nature I think will have the last say on all this nonsense.. surprising the most recent events she unleashed should have brought a little humility to these people..

  99. AusieDan says:

    QUOTE
    Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.
    UNQUOTE
    The are saying that their agenda is more important than the rule of law.
    Do you agree?

  100. eadler says:

    The Republicans’ version of Waxman/Markey/Inslee’s objection to HR 910 is

    We know what is good for America and the world. It’s a future without fossil fuels. We can’t persuade the people’s representatives to support our agenda and turn it into law. Therefore, it is necessary for EPA to implement our agenda regardless of the defeat of cap-and-trade, the November 2011 elections, and the separation of powers. Our agenda is more important than any constitutional principle that might interfere with it.

    Why should one trust the proponents of HR910 to accurately represent the arguments of the opponents? An intelligent discussion of the issue should include some reference to what Waxman Markey and Inslee actually said, or at least an impartial news summary of their arguments.

    Based on what I have read their objections are:

    *In fact the Supreme Court upheld the EPA’s right to make the finding that GHG’s are pollutants and to regulate them based on existing Congressional legislation.

    *The EPA’s findings are based on the consensus of the world’s climate scientists and scientific organizations.

    *Regulation of GHG’s is needed to protect future generations from harmful effects of climate change.

    *The Republicans pushing this bill are wrong about the science.

    *In addition, if the bill ever passes the Senate, the president will veto it, so it has no hope of becoming law.

    It is pretty clear to me that the ,Republican legislators, who are pushing this are doing it out of conservative ideology, and have no clue about the science.

  101. Pamela Gray says:

    eadler, it is clear to me (regardless of your cogent reminder that the original post was a conservative summary of a liberal position, not a quote) that the EPA is seeing itself as being quite powerful and carries a commission to create a rule of law. So I ask again, who invited a 4th branch to our government? It seems disingenuous to me, to do an end run around a branch, a branch duly ELECTED to represent the people, that refuses to enact a law. I don’t know about you, but I see a slippery…nay… GREASED, slope here.

  102. Leg says:

    I saw Markey on TV today bemoaning nuclear power. I have watched him for years and he has been a long time foe of nuclear power. If this bill (not the blog opinion) represents his views on fossil fuel, and I think I’ve seen this from him before, it indicates the guy wants to erase 65% of our electrical generation and replace it with what? Windmills? Good luck with that.

  103. Mark T says:

    *In fact the Supreme Court upheld the EPA’s right to make the finding that GHG’s are pollutants and to regulate them based on existing Congressional legislation.

    And the Congress now has a right to reign in that power that was handed over un-Constitutionally in the first place.

    *The EPA’s findings are based on the consensus of the world’s climate scientists and scientific organizations.

    No they aren’t. Their findings are based on the IPCC report. The “consensus” canard is a myth.

    *Regulation of GHG’s is needed to protect future generations from harmful effects of climate change.

    No it is not.

    *The Republicans pushing this bill are wrong about the science.

    No they aren’t.

    *In addition, if the bill ever passes the Senate, the president will veto it, so it has no hope of becoming law.

    The President doesn’t have much choice… if he doesn’t pass it, the EPA gets no funding for anything, and it doesn’t need to be a law to have the same force.

    You either aren’t from the US or you’re just an idiot. Either way…

    Mark

  104. Apparently the EPA says H2O is pollution. The head of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, has said, “Greenhouse gases are pollution”. 95% of greenhouse gases is H2O. So H2O is pollution.

    video of Lisa Jackson saying greenhouse gases are pollution:

  105. A little insight into how some in Washington handle ‘global warming’.

  106. Stephen Richards says:

    TomB says:
    March 15, 2011 at 9:08 am
    tom in indy says:
    March 15, 2011 at 8:24 am says: “on the right we have big oil”
    Do just a little research on just which political party receives the most contributions from oil companies. You’ll obviously not be pleased with what you find.

    Try looking at who funded Obama to the tune og $150m. Facebook, Google ???

  107. Dave Springer says:

    David S says:
    March 15, 2011 at 7:52 am

    “IMHO the founders missed the boat by not providing a means to immediately remove from office anyone who refuses to uphold his oath.”

    Sure they did. It’s in the second amendment to the constitution.

  108. jon shively says:

    As far as I can see these gentlemen did not say what is quoted above. However their wish to get us off a carbon diet has just been trumpted by the nuclear crisis in Japan. The American MSM has killed the future of nuclear energy and won’t be happy until all the plants are shut down. So much for weaning us off of carbon.

  109. Mr Lynn says:

    BradProp1 says:
    March 15, 2011 at 10:20 am
    . . . What’s sad is that these morons continue to get re-elected. That doesn’t say much about their constituents. Maybe this stupidity should be tested on their constituents first. Then we’ll see how long they remain in office!

    I have the misfortune of living in Ed Malarkey’s district. It is so dominated by moonbats that Ed generally runs unopposed. Last year a chiropractor from Methuen (I think) challenged him—nice guy, but no fire and no money, and ‘Fast Eddie’ (as Howie Carr on WRKO calls him) romped over the challenger. Rep. Malarkey is a blithering idiot, who nonetheless fancies himself an expert on all things energy-related. According to Howie, before he got elected to Congress, he was driving an ice-cream truck.

    This state is so left-wing that referenda to limit income and sales taxes routinely go down to defeat. It’s not called ‘Taxachusetts’ for nothin’.

    Smokey says:
    March 15, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    . . . Public sector unions are parasites on the taxpaying public. They should be outlawed.

    Amen! They are also skewing elections by getting cash to their lackeys in the Democratic Party and getting bodies out to the polls on Election Day.

    But the tide is turning. Scott Brown won. Maybe we’ll have a stronger opponent to Fast Eddie in 2012. The silver lining of the Great Recession is that states are being forced to reign in those public-employee unions, and the Republicans in the House of Representatives are able to challenge the EPA and its coat-holders like Waxman and Malarkey.

    /Mr Lynn

  110. Mac the Knife says:

    Frank K. says:
    March 15, 2011 at 4:04 pm

    “Sun Spot – if you hate working for private industry – then, please quit your job, start your OWN company, becomes its CEO, then YOU can call the shots. Pretty simple…”

    Frank – Sun Spot doesn’t ‘have the cojones’ for that tough of a job.

  111. Jeremy says:

    eadler says:
    March 15, 2011 at 7:50 pm

    *In fact the Supreme Court upheld the EPA’s right to make the finding that GHG’s are pollutants and to regulate them based on existing Congressional legislation.

    This is meaningless because as all of us know, congress is particularly bad at writing airtight laws. SCOTUS in many cases gets its hands tied by the crap these nitwits put onto paper, and this is the case with those findings. The clean air act (CAA) was particularly poorly worded to include “any species” as I recall, which enables the EPA to essentially do what it wants so long as any species can be shown to be in peril. In short, the findings of SCOTUS have no bearing on what the intent of the EPA was, or what is particularly good for the United States in this regard.

    *The EPA’s findings are based on the consensus of the world’s climate scientists and scientific organizations.

    The EPA’s “findings” are basically plagiarism from a flawed IPCC report known to have used non-peer-reviewed literature to base it’s assessments of risks to people. It cannot possibly be believed in this case. Consensus does not exist, and even if it did, it is scientifically meaningless.

    *Regulation of GHG’s is needed to protect future generations from harmful effects of climate change.

    Good luck regulating water vapor, the most potent GHG.

    *The Republicans pushing this bill are wrong about the science.

    This bill has nothing to do with science, only re-asserting correct bureaucratic power where it was intended to be. Hence this argument is completely tangential.

    *In addition, if the bill ever passes the Senate, the president will veto it, so it has no hope of becoming law.

    If this is so, then Waxman, Markey, and Inslee are making a hilarious political mistake looking so hysterical and spouting such nonsense in a world that refuses to cooperate with predictions when another politician down the chain would save them.

    It is pretty clear to me that the ,Republican legislators, who are pushing this are doing it out of conservative ideology, and have no clue about the science.

    It’s pretty clear to me that politicians in general, having usually been lawyers, hate science with near passion and take their advice from their staff’s full of ideologues. But you’re of course free to throw out whatever partisan nonsense you wish.

  112. Joel Shore says:

    Mark T:

    And the Congress now has a right to reign in that power that was handed over un-Constitutionally in the first place.

    (1) Yes, Congress has the right to do this. And, the Senate and President have a right to oppose it.

    (2) Here, you go throwing around claims of “un-Constitutionally”. The Supreme Court does not agree with you, and the current court is hardly a bastion of liberalism at the moment (to put it mildly). Fine, you think you understand the Constitutionality better than the Supreme Court, that is your right. But, you should at least accept the reality that this is not the law of the land.

  113. Joel Shore says:

    Dave Springer says:

    “IMHO the founders missed the boat by not providing a means to immediately remove from office anyone who refuses to uphold his oath.”

    Sure they did. It’s in the second amendment to the constitution.

    If this statement is implying what I think it is, I am very surprised it was allowed past moderation and I find it quite offensive. I hope those here who are claiming (with no evidence) that their opponents are the one sacrificing constitutional principles will condemn the implications of this statement in unambiguous terms.

  114. beng says:

    ****
    Robert E. Phelan says:
    March 15, 2011 at 9:01 am

    Folks, Waxman, Markey and Inslee did NOT make that statement. It was a “summary” by the blogger, his interpretation of what the Democrats meant by their arguments. It is a somewhat over-the-top statement and I think Representatives Waxman, Markey and Inslee would reject that formulation and be horrified at the sentiment…. even if it is not that far off the mark.
    ****

    They should come forward & denounce the statement.

    Even if they did, I still wouldn’t believe them — they’re career Stalinist bureaucrats specializing in lying.

  115. jorgekafkazar says:

    P. Solar says: “Seems like just about everyone got conned by this the same as I did until I checked out that quote on the actual blog post, not the misleading excerpt here.”

    Not Jorge. It was clear in context, since the “quote” was so over-the-top, and there were none of these: ” ” Yes, there was no /sarc flag. Yes, these guys are bananas. And yes, Warmistas never do things like make up quotes people don’t actually say. Right?

    /sarc²

  116. Brian H says:

    Mark T says:
    March 15, 2011 at 9:53 pm ;

    Well said! But it’s “rein in”, not “reign in”. Think mules, not kings! ;)

Comments are closed.