Since my blog has moved, I can no longer use Bloggers "Follower" gadget. If you are a part of NetWorked blogs, which includes a Facebook page, you can follow through NetworkedBlogs, and I can follow you back. Please come to my new blog - MaggiesNotebook.com, see the NetworkedBlogs widget in the right sidebar and click follow. I will follow back.
"I learned that in extreme situations when human lives and dignity are at state, neutrality is a sin. It helps the killers, not the victims." Elie Wiesel, Holocaust Survivor who lost his family in the Holocaust - Nobel Prize Author
Socialism - Liberalism Quotation
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." – Norman Thomas
American socialist, 1948
Showing posts with label Sen. Jim Inhofe R-OK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sen. Jim Inhofe R-OK. Show all posts
As the first Senator to register my opposition to her nomination to this lifetime position, I remain alarmed with her lack of judicial experience as well as her continued disdain for our nation’s military, her views on civilian trials for terrorists, and her disregard for the second amendment.
After the earthquake that devastated Haiti last January, orphans who were already involved in the adoption process were permitted inside the United States on humanitarian parole while their American families finished the adoption process in the United States courts. Due to unnecessary bureaucratic red tape that the adoptive families of this group of orphans faced, I introduced the Help Haitian Adoptees Immediately to Integrate Act of 2010 (HELP Haiti Act) with U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.). With bipartisan support, this bill passed the U.S. Senate before Congress left for August recess. This legislation will provide much needed relief to these adoptive families as it authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to make a one-time adjustment of status to this set of Haitian orphans.
Recently, a public internal memo was released by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials which indicated that President Obama wants to grant amnesty to thousands of illegal immigrations. I find this immensely troubling, and will continue to oppose legislation that allows any form of amnesty to illegal immigrants.
Last week, I posted on Senator John McCain's Senate Bill 3081 which, if passed, will allow American citizens suspected of terrorism to be held indefinitely without trial, and/or put through the military court system. Senator James Inhofe is one of the surprising co-sponsors of this bill titled "Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010. I spoke to Brandon Andrews in Inhofe's office about the bill, which he seemed well acquainted with.
Jim Inhofe
Taliban American Adam Gadahn and al-Qaeda Anwar al-Awalaki were discussed. There is no doubt it is a new day in America, and there is an obvious need to find a way to handle American jihadists. Can we find a way to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and bring non-military Americans to a military trial? And how in the world did these Senators let this bill get this far?
First, this bill is clearly not in line with the Fifth or Sixth Amendments which says an American citizen cannot be held for capital crimes without the benefit of a Grand Jury indictment, and citizens must have the right to a speedy and public trial." (See the text of both amendments at the bottom of this article.)
Brandon Andrews stressed that an American citizen, under SB3081 would not have the privilege of a Grand Jury if found to be a high-value detainee, but the bill provides for a final determination of the citizen's status by certain members of Congress, and the determination is to be made within 48 hours. If the detainee is determined not to be a "high-value detainee," or "Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent," then the citizen moves into the federal court system, or is released, and is out of the reach of SB3081.
If the citizen is deemed to be a "high-value detainee," or an "Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent," the the citizen is covered by SB3081, and is not entitled to a civilian court, a Grand Jury or a speedy trial.
I asked about al-Qaeda being specified in the bill, but not the Taliban. I asked about American Adam Gadahn, a Taliban al-Qaeda leader, and was surprised to learn that Gadahn is not covered by this bill, because Afghanistan is a sensitive subject, these days. So, theoretically, and realistically, if Gadahn is captured, he will go through a civilian court.
If American Anwar al-Alwalki, a cleric in Yemen with 9/11 terrorist ties, as well as ties to Ft. Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan, is captured he qualifies for SB3081.
I asked if a non-military American citizen has ever been tried in a military court. He said they had, and said he just had that information in front of him, but couldn't pull it up at that moment. He said he would email the information. At one point he said I should have it in 10 minutes. After the phone conversation, the email did not come. I called him back. He said he would re-send it. I sent him an email to verify my email address. I still have not received the information, and have left a couple of voicemails for him but he has not returned the calls. This is unlike the way Inhofe's office usually works.
From my own search, I did find a couple of instances of non-military citizens in military courts, but they were in the 1800's. In 1866, Ex parte Milligan was decided in the U.S. Supreme court, ruling it unconstitutional for non-military citizens to be tried in military tribunals when civilian courts are still operating. That decision arose from 5 Americans planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prison-of-war camps. SCOTUS found that military tribunals were illegal in states upholding the U.S. Constitution.
We have large numbers of American citizens joining the Islamic jihad effort, and we are increasingly at jeopardy from those citizens here, and those who have gone to Islamic countries to train. There is no doubt, it is a new day in America.
According to Brandon Andrews, there are some 3,000 Americans in Yemen in training camps right now. Yemen cleric Anwar al-Awlaki is a good example. He is New Mexico born-and-bred, but has fled to Yemen. It is alleged he had numerous contacts with jihadists in America: meeting with two of the 9/11 hijackers, correspondence with Fort Hood murderer, Nidal Malik Hasan, and perhaps he motivated Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
President Obama has approved the "targeted killing" of al-Awalaki.
During my phone conversation, there was no conclusion from Senator
Inhofe's spokesman, Brandon Andrews, about how this bill works with the
U.S. Constitution. According to Mr. Andrews, there is probably language
in SB3081 that
needs a review or clarification.
For your reference, here is the text of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments:
Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the mIlitia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for he same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.
Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitutionthe
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of counsel for his defence.
Back to my question of how these distinguished Senators let this poorly written legislation get this far, I don't have the answer but will venture a guess: perhaps the routine is that the "needs" are put on paper in the form of a bill, with all it's warts and pimples, in the hope they then get fleshed out in committees.
Okay, Jim Inhofe is my senator, as you know. He said over and over that health care was dead on arrival in the Senate...and of course, he was wrong. Today, the good Senator says the Senate has only 26 votes for cap-and-trade which Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is supporting.
In the video below, Stuart Varney says if all Dems vote for the coming legislation, plus Lindsey Grahamnesty, that is 60 votes - "are you telling me you can beat that?" Twice Inhofe says I know we can beat it. I'm taking it to the bank because Jim Inhofe is far more right than wrong.
Just a few days ago, a report came out from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, saying that the will not be sent through the usual committee process. Instead Reid will personally work the legislation (probably behind closed doors).
In an effort to keep the
bill in Reid's hands, the sponsors -- Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.),
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) won't officially
introduce the bill in the Senate when they unveil it to the public next
week. "If we introduce it, it'll
get referred to committees," Lieberman said. "We want him to be able to
work with it and bring it out onto the floor as a leader whenever he's
ready." Lieberman said the sponsors
plan to reference all of the bill (S. 1462) the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee passed last summer and stressed they have been
talking at the staff level with the Finance Committee. Once they roll
out the bill, Lieberman said Reid wants all of the relevant Senate
committees with a role in the process to take a couple of weeks to
outline changes. "We'll unveil a full
legislative language bill for discussion, for people to respond to, to
see where we are," Kerry said. "It'll be up to the majority leader at
that point where he wants to proceed."
Already, some senators also
are raising red flags about the committee process, which they warn may
be circumvented if the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman proposal moves directly
into Reid's office. "These bills need to go
through committee," said Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.). "If you're
talking about making major deals on energy policy, it needs to go
through the Energy Committee. If you're making major deals on tax
policy, it needs to go through the Finance Committee. I mean, if you
want to get it done."
Cantwell and Sen. Susan
Collins (R-Maine) are pushing an alternative cap-and-dividend bill (S. 2877) that aims to circumvent the
creation of a trillion-dollar carbon trading market.
Jim Inhofe and Stuart Varney - Cap-and-Trade (video)
I have sent three emails to Bill O'Reilly, one to Fox and Friends, two to Rush, one to Megyn Kelly, one to Neal Cavuto and two to Tom Coburn. I think I caught O'Reilly's attention. The issue: Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn's treatment of a constituent who asked about a jail sentence for noncompliance with the health care mandates. Then, Ruth Marcus, writing at the Washington Post just had to point out
that something "weird" is going on in the Republican party. I think I can explain it to her. Readers, I know this is my fourth post on Coburn's townhall. I can't help myself.
Bill O'Reilly
Coburn told the woman it was not the intention to put anyone in jail. And he indicated that she got her erroneous information from watching Fox News. He went on to call Nancy Pelosi a "nice lady," and when the townhall crowd groaned, he lectured them again, and again blamed it on watching Fox. He also had the audacity to ask the crowd - after the groans - if they knew her, or had met her? Well, of course they did not, or most did not. We don't live and hang on Capitol Hill. We are not quite in the Senator's league. The question was disingenuous.
What he didn't say, but should have said, is this:
The House of Representatives put a prison penalty in their bill. The Senate took it out. Nancy Pelosi tried to impose a prison penalty, but the Senate denied it.
Now that's the truth. Instead, he left everyone thinking the Oklahoma woman was just a sucker for Fox News and didn't know what she was talking about.
So, tonight on O'Reilly's Talking Points, he reported when and where the jail sentence was a part of proposed legislation. Now, both O'Reilly and Coburn know the truth. And now we can safely say that Nancy Pelosi is not such "a nice lady."
I hope Coburn is feeling a bit of shame for demeaning one of his voters. If you want to see the identifying parts of Pelosi's legislation with the prison sentence, you'll find it here.
Ruth Marcus
In the meantime, Ruth Marcus writing for The Washington Post believes "something weird"
is going on in the Republican Party because Republican Senator Tom
Coburn is getting some blowback about his remarks. I assure you, Ms. Marcus
there is nothing weird about Republican's criticism of Coburn's rare, but
not completely unusual, moment of arrogance.
Yes, Senator Coburn is very conservative. But what does that have
to do with anything? Afterall, we are not Democrats. We do not march
in lockstep. We are Republicans and we don't shy away from pointing out
when one of our own, living in the rarified air of Washington, D.C.,
takes a moment to lift his chin and be obnoxious.
You, Ms. Marcus, point to Coburn's "moment of civility," but no...when you don't have the details, and your response is inadequate, and you intimate that your own consitutent just believes everything she hears, that's rude. It's not civil.
But when you say Coburn's answer was "accurate," a Democrat would see it
that way. It's "accurate," but there's a backstory...an important
backstory...that Senator Coburn should have known about. Afterall, his
constituent knew it.
About Senator Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn being "twins," you should know, Ruth, that Coburn and Inhofe are unlikely ideological
twins. Inhofe is always conservative, Coburn is generally conservative. I
often praise, applaud and honor Senator Coburn. I am a fan. I vote for
him. I have every right to criticize him - and remember, I am not a
Democrat blindly following rubes who think they are so totally
incredible - like Al Gore, Charlie Rangel, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine
Waters.
Coburn and his wife are very friendly with Democrats, including
the former Senator from Illinois, Barack and his wife Michelle. They
have a "friendship." So maybe he has a similar "friendship" with Nancy and
hubby, and perhaps spends some quality time at the vineyards. I don't know. I don't much
care (I care a little, but...).
So the story isn't that there is something weird going on in the Republican party. The story is that Coburn was not well-informed and he was patronizing of his constituent, and he needn't judge Oklahomans for watching Fox. It's just not a good idea.
The first video below is O'Reilly's interview with Tom Coburn a couple of days ago, and at this time, neither of them knew there was a jail sentence at one time. Coburn is so lame in this video. The second video is of tonight's Talking Points, with O'Reilly explaining Pelosi's "jail sentence."
Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit spoke by phone with Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) this week. Inhofe was named National Journal Magazine's No. 1 Conservative in the Senate, and the only Senator receiving a perfect score for conservatism. As I often say, Senator Inhofe is MY senator. I am proud that the state of Oklahoma is the reddest state in the union, and with Inhofe's long record, there has never been any doubt that he is the "reddest" senator. In the interview with Hoft, we also see that earmarks can affect national defense...are not a simple subject, and are not something to be easily dismissed.
Jim Inhofe
One more thing about my state of Oklahoma. In the 2008 election, McCain received the largest margin of the vote of any state. While almost all of us wished we had a candidate other than McCain, at least we didn't help Barack Obama mount the Oval Office.
Having said that, the interview is about bigger things than being the No. 1 Conservative in the U.S. Senate. Inhofe has some advice on earmarks...what's important and what is not, and it's something we need to be thinking about. Do we really know the bottom line of earmarking? Apparently we do not, and neither does the Republican leadership.
Inhofe sees the Republican leadership's move to ban all earmarks as not very smart (he might have said "dumb"). Earmarks make-up 1-1/2% of spending, and according to the Senator, if the money is not spent in earmarking, it will go to Obama to spend. This puts some defense money in the hands of the President and Democrats:
If you stop an earmark it doesn't save one penney. All it does is take that money and gives it to the President of the United States. That's the way the system works. It goes to the executive branch.
Assuming this is correct, we need to change the way the system works. If money for earmarks - not allocated and spent, goes back into the Executive hopper for distribution...that's nothing short of wrong. If the money is not spent, it should not be spent.
Update 3-13-10 6:28 EST:
Senator Inhofe was just on FOXNews live with Rick Fulbaum. Inhofe said where the system is going awry is in the authorization and appropriating procesess. Everything spent should be first authorized, and then appropriated. That's not happening. I understood him to say that legislators take to the floor to appropriate an expense without authorizing it first.
He has also introduced legislation to replace President Obama's 20% ban on discretionary spending in the 2011 budget, and replace it with discretionary spending capped at 2008 levels. According to Inhofe, Obama's 20% ban means nothing because the 2010 budget was bloated by 20%. His legislation actually saves 20% by going back to 2008 discretionary spending levels.
On national defense and earmarks:
I'm not about to allow these people with this earmark program to put everything in the hands of Obama and that's what we'd be doing."
Hoft asked about Inhofe's contentious relationship with Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and the senate race heating up in her district with three Republicans challenging her seat. This was Inhofe's comment (an apparently one he has made often):
Defeating Barbara Boxer is not a victory, it's a contribution to mankind.
I hope you'll visit Gateway Pundit, listen to the audio of this interview, and consider Inhofe's comments on earmarking and national defense.
The U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms sent out an email to Senators warning that The Drudge Report website was spreading virus' around Senate computers. Senator Jim Inhofe debunked the email and said there was no evidence of a Drudge infection at all. Inhofe said it was an attempt to discredit Drudge - after all, Inhofe says in the video below, "he [Drudge] is a man of truth and most of them don't want the truth." Oddly, if the Sergeant at Arms was concerned about The Drudge Report, it seems he only warned a few Senator's offices.
No one draws attention to the mean spirit of liberalism better than Keith Olbermann. He has named Senator Jim Inhofe's daughter's family, including their 4 children, "the worst family in the world." We could say their igloo really frosted critics.
Molly Rapert, Jim Inhofe's daughter, her husband, Jimmy Rapert and their children were stranded in Washington, D.C. during the snow storm. On a bright and sunny day, they went outside and built a igloo - a big one.
Comments came from cars passing by: "Where's global warming when you need it? Jase Rapert, 14, thought a sign saying "Al Gore's New Home," would be appropriate. Then came "Honk if you heart global warming."
Molly and Jimmy Rapert and family - Al Gore's New Home
The story and the photos were everywhere. The Senator didn't know about the igloo until after it was done - but honestly, who cares if he built it and signed it. That would be even funnier.
Olbermann, 51, isn't exactly one to talk about what makes a great family. He has never married and has no children. No wonder is he is a crank-extraordinaire, but what a relief - no worries about his offspring. He has reportedly lived with Katy Tur since mid-2006. Now, in the second video below, you'll see Katy Tur, 25, dancing.Tur joined the Weather Channel in May 2009:
Olbermann denied any speculation that he assisted Tur in getting the Weather Channel gig, telling TV Newser that Tur was hired based on talent alone.
Olbermann signed off the video by calling Grandpa Inhofe a "cheesy politician."
Olbermann names Inhofe Family Worst Family in the World (video)
Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) was interviewed by Tulsa 740-KRMG's Joe Kelly, and as always,was bluntly honest in his assessment of Obama's State of the Union address. See video below.
Inhofe said after Bill Clinton's first State of the Union address, his thought was: "This guy can say things that aren't true with greater conviction than anyone I've ever seen...but Obama is better!"
When he says things that he knows are not right, we know these are his weakest points, and he tries to make them into his strongest points, things like we will do our work openly. Everybody knows, Joe, that all these deals on his government-run health care were done literally behind closed doors."
Listen as Inhofe says Obama is" incredbily eloquent" and then mentions that people around him stand and applaud, knowing that what the President says is not true. While I cannot put words in the Senator's mouth, what he is saying is, the President is an eloquent liar.
Inhofe, a member of the Senate Armed Services committee was shocked that national security took only 7 minutes of his 70 minute speech. He mentioned Obama's supposed bogus restrictions on lobbyists. The Lonely Conservative has that story.
Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) made a statement at a Senate Armed Services Committee this week that prompted Oklahoma's Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) to ask Inhofe for a meeting. My hubby found this piece in the TulsaWorld, who would not even print the word "CAIR." See a video below.
During the Senate Armed Services Committee meeting, Inhofe said:
I for one, I know it’s not politically correct to say it, but I
belief in racial and ethnic profiling,” Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma
Republican, said Thursday during a Senate Armed Service Committee
review of the Fort Hood shootings. “I think if you’re looking at people
getting on an airplane, and you have X amount of resources to get into
it, you need to get at the targets. …
“When you hear that not all Middle Easterners or Muslims between the
ages of 20 and 35 are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims or
Middle Easterners between the ages of 20 and 35, that’s by and large
true.”
CAIR, who the Tulsa World shamefully refrained from mentioning by name - in their article, CAIR was a Muslim civil libertities organization - is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holyland Foundation. The FBI has broken all relations with CAIR and has said they are affiliated with the the Palestinian terrorist political party, HAMAS. CAIR rushes to the defense of every Muslim disrupting our air travel. They file the fastest lawsuits this country has ever seen. They hang-out on Capitol Hill and Democrats embrace them, and when evidence was found that they paid "someone" to get two Muslim interns positions on sensitive offices inside Congress, CAIR came out swinging. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has called for an IRS investigation into CAIR's non-profit status. Yet the Tulsa World cannot call them by name?
CAIR's response to Inhofe's comments
It is disturbing to hear a member of the United States Senate suggest
that entire religious and ethnic groups should automatically be
considered terror suspects,” said Razi Hashmi, executive director of
CAIR-OK. “Our nation’s leaders have a duty not to exacerbate the
growing anti-Muslim sentiment in American society.
By painting all Muslims and Middle Easterners as suspects, Senator
Inhofe does a disservice to our nation and to its tradition of racial
and religious diversity.
To Mr. Hashmi, what Inhofe is telling you is that he has a responsibility to keep Americans, first free, and second safe. After he profiles you, and you pass the test, he will keep you free and he will keep you safe. That's the goal. We don't want the inconvenience, but we get it anyway, and we get searched, anyway. If you travel by air, and a jihadist takes the plane down, it won't matter to him that one of his brothers is on the flight. The goal is not to let him on the flight. What is it you don't get about that? Man-up and drop the arrogant posturing. You are getting on America's last nerve.
I found the first video below at the BaltimoreSun. Strange that it was labeled "CAIR Video." Well, it a CAIR video, on Youtube.com on the CAIRtv channel. There's another video I hope you see: The Islamic Infiltration, Part 1: Inside Our Government, Armed with Our Secrets. Stick with the video until the former FBI agents is interviewed - and he speaks about CAIR. You can also access Part 2 after viewing Part 1. TulsaWorld - someone needs to sit down and watch The Islamic Infiltration. It will serve you well to do so.
Rolling Stone magazine named Senator Jim Inhofe No. 7 on their list of "Idiots" who are the "planet's worst enemies." Inhofe's outrage was that he wasn't No. 1. Nevermind the mini ice age some prominent climate scientists believes we may headed for, including Professor Mojib Latif, a member of the UN's IPCC. See a beautiful video of Montana and the "cooling trend" there, from a reader below.
Top on the list of those believing cooler temps are on the weather radar is the U.N.'s own Professor Mojib Latif, "a leading member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC). Latif apparently warned his colleagues in a 2008 Geneva conference that tests he developed and performed deep beneath the surface of the ocean showed a coming cooling trend.
Speaking of the natural cycles that determine warmer or cooler temps, Latif said:
They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become
much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this
may well last two decades or longer.
The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will
come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and
there may well be some cooling.’
In other words, this cooling is not a side-effect of warming, as so many warming theorists want us to believe.
Latif is a professor at the Leibniz Institute at Germany's Kiel University. Life may be a tad uncomfortable for this IPCC scientist, because no one wants to hear what he is saying.
According to the UK's DailyMail, the BBC continued the warming storyline:
Though record lows were experienced as far south as Cuba, where the
daily maximum on beaches normally used for winter bathing was just
4.5C, the BBC assured viewers that the big chill was merely short-term
‘weather’ that had nothing to do with ‘climate’, which was still
warming.
Professor Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group says that multi-decadal oscillations (MDOs) are moving together in a "synchronised way across the globe," and "they are abruptly flipping the world's climate from a warm mode to a "cold mode," and the same will happen again in another 20-30 years.
Prof Tsonis said that the period from 1915 to 1940 saw a strong warm mode, reflected in rising temperatures.
But from 1940 until the late Seventies, the last MDO cold-mode era,
the world cooled, despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels in the
atmosphere continued to rise.
Many of the consequences of the recent warm mode were also observed 90 years ago.
Tsonis is not a warming denier, but he does not believe that computer models showing that if CO2 reaches a particular level, then temps and sea levels will rise by a given amount.
This is a very interesting article, with numerous named scientists saying that the warming we experienced was natural, with little attribution to CO2.
Thanks for the tip from reader, David Lemon. If you have not taken a look at David's online Clay to Bronze workshop, complete with fascinating videos of him as he works, you have missed something very special. David is an amazing sculptor, and a really fine videographer, working in Ennis, Montana. Get away from politics for awhile and watch David at work. Look around at some of his photos and videos of winter in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho.This video is on David's website, but I borrowed it because it fits right in with the cooling trends. David begins a trip with temps 10 below and drives past a river with 10' of ice on top. Watch for the little pop-ups describing where he is and what you are seeing. Take a look at a gallery in Jackson Hole, the Tetons...just beautiful and the his music is always incredible.
Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) attended the Copenhagen summit separate from the gang of 20-or-so Congressional global warming, and cap and tax advocates. Without Inhofe, we would know nothing about these arrogant politicians traveling on our millions, some taking family along in three luxurious military jets. The number was actually 101-or-so when Senators flying commercial with staff are counted.
Note that it was well-known before the summit, that Copenhagen would yield nothing. Still yet, swimming against the tide of strong American opposition to the goals of Copenhagen, our elected officials took a vacation courtesy of the taxpayer. The official line is that there was a need to "show support." Why should we support failure and spend millions to do so? We have let these people get away with this for so many years. How will we ever turn it around?
Also note that no one in Copenhagen was interested in Inhofe's message. That is clear evidence that the Senator has had a tremendous impact in fighting the global warming insanity. What greater honor than to have this gang ignore your message. Politico mentions that Inhofe was wearing black snakeskin cowboy boots (I can hear the derision in the printed words). Inhofe called global warming a hoax, and told the few gathered that the U.S. Senate will not pass cap and trade. And a der Speigel reporter told him he was "ridiculous." At this time ClimateGate had already broken...and this reporter calls Inhofe "ridiculous?"
Inhofe, a well-spoken and well-informed global warming opponent, gave CBS News some details. Why would CBS go to a Republican for the scoop? Because Democrats are not talking. Here's Inhofe:
Senator Inhofe is
one of the few who provided us any detail. He attended the summit on
his own for just a few hours, to give an "opposing view."
"They're going because it's the biggest party of the year," Sen.
Inhofe said. "The worst thing that happened there is they ran out of
caviar."
Our investigation found that the congressional delegation was so
large, it needed three military jets: two 737's and a Gulfstream Five
-- up to 64 passengers -- traveling in luxurious comfort.
Add senators and staff, most of whom flew commercial, and we
counted at least 101 Congress-related attendees. All for a summit that
failed to deliver a global climate deal.
As a perk, some took spouses, since they could snag an open
seat on a military jet or share a room at no extra cost to taxpayers. Rep. Cabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was there with her husband. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito was also there with her husband. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) took his wife, as did Rep. Jim Sensebrenner (R-WI) -- a climate change skeptic -- even brought along his daughter.
Here's the math:
# Three military jets at $9,900 per hour - $168,000 just in flight time.
# Dozens flew commercial at up to $2,000 each.
# 321 hotel nights booked - the bulk at Copenhagen's five-star Marriott.
# Meals add tens of thousands more.
Here's the size of the carbon footprint, and I question the implication that carbon dioxide is "climate-stunting." Nevertheless, all that carbon footprint business is Liberal rhetoric, designed to harness our way of life, but not theirs:
And all those attendees who went to the summit rather than hooking up by teleconference? They produced enough climate-stunting carbon dioxide to fill 10,000 Olympic swimming pools.
Which means even if Congress didn't get a global agreement - they left an indelible footprint all the same.
Inhofe says he made the trip to the frigid conference, which experienced record snowfalls, to correct what Senators Barbara Boxer and "maybe" John Kerry might say - that "we're going to pass climate change legislation." Inhofe said:
I want to make sure they know it's dead and it's not going to pass the United States Senate. It's not even close."
The above statement was made in early December - perhaps before we knew the lengths of disgrace this Senate will go to secure a vote. See the video below - which is a very good discussion - and don't miss, toward the end at about 5:36 minutes-in when Inhofe reveals why Liberals will not consider a simple carbon tax.
A little interesting tidbit: the interviewer here is CNN's Kiran Chetry. Remember when she jumped ship from FOX's Saturday morning FOX and Friends? When E.D. Hill left the top- rated weekday FOX and Friends, Kiran was a tad upset that Gretchen Carlson was chosen as E.D.'s replacement. She and husband, a FOX meteorologist, jumped the deck of the sleek racing vessel at FOX to the sinking barge at CNN.
Back at Copenhagen, it is doubtful that frigid weather and record-breaking snowfalls kept the caviar or champagne from flowing, (until it ran out). Five-star Marriotts can throw a pretty good party.
Jim Inhofe - Kiran Chetry on Copenhagen Global Warming (video)
Senators Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe are big sticky thorns in the side of the TulsaWorld. This week, both senators blasted Obama's health care bill in strong statements that surely had World editors holding their noses as the paper went to print.
Tom Coburn
Coburn's message got right to the heart of the legislation:
"This vote is indeed historic," Coburn said in a prepared statement. "This Congress will be remembered for its arrogance, corruption and stupidity."
In the year of 2009, a Congress ignored the coming economic storm and impending bankruptcy of our entitlement programs and embarked on an ideological crusade to bring our nation as close to single-payer, government-run health care as possible.
If this bill becomes law, future operations will rue this day and I will do everything in my power to work toward its repeal. This bill will ration care, cut Medicare, increase premiums, fund abortion and bury our children in debt."
"Arrogance, corruption and stupidity..." All that and more. Well-said Senator Coburn.
Senator Inhofe, in the beginning, believed any version of health care coming out of the Harry Reid Senate would be dead-on-arrival. This Senate old-timer underestimated his colleagues' lack of ethics, he didn't see the big "buy off" coming toward the already ethics-challenged Senate body, he didn't realize how deeply Democrats had fallen into the abyss of slime politics.
Inhofe knows it now, and the following has been his position from the beginning of viewing the legislation:
"I am adamantly opposed to
this $2.5 trillion government run health care system with its half a
trillion dollar increase in taxes on Americans and nearly half a
trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare to help pay for it," Inhofe said
in a statement released on his Web site. "I am also opposed to the
public financing of abortion this bill allows.
"At a time when Senators and staff should be spending time
with family celebrating the joys of Christmas, the Democrats are so
committed to the idea of socialized medicine that they will stop at
nothing to get it -- even though the majority of Americans do not want
it. To make matters worse, special deals were cut for certain states in
order to buy votes."
I encourage Senator Inhofe to adopt the words of Coburn - "corruption," and "stupidity," and if he believes them, say them. We need even stronger language out of Inhofe, and we know him to be more than capable of painting a visual with just a few words.
I appreciate both of these Senators who have fought hard to kill this legislation.
Neither of these senators shoot from the hip. They know the legislation
well and they do their homework. We need more like them.
Between now and the mid-term elections we will do well to focus on the word "corruption," and those who specifically voted to corrupt our legislative process. The message is to make payback hell for Harry Reid.
"My" senator, Jim Inhofe (R-OK) talks about the time of "Kyoto" and Clinton-Gore in the White House, when even he believed global warming was real.
Jim Inhofe
Then, the Wharton School of Economics questioned the enormous costs of Kyoto. That's when Inhofe, and many scientists began to question the science, before taking steps to destroy America economically. This is quite a video. It is not a short discussion, but it a good and important discussion.
Senator Inhofe is interviewed in the video below by Terence Jeffrey at CNSNews.
Thanks to my friend Butch at 123Beta for the video.
Senator Jim Inhofe CNSNews Interview on Global Warming (video)
Senator Jim Inhofe is calling for an investigation into the ClimateGate CRU fradulent warming data, and the U.N.'s chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri dismisses the "few" scientists who might have shamed themselves by discussing their purposefully fraudulent data entry.
Rajendra Pachauri
The U.N. says ho-hum, these emails, discussing the fraud committed by the very scientists considered the primary climate change gurus, mean nothing. The direct quote from the UN chairman of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Rajendra Pachauri:
"There is "virtually no possibility" of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN's top global warming body, its chair said today."
That sounds like a good story line until you realize that there are only a "few" scientists giving "advice" to the UN body. There are only about four to six at the top. Everyone else based their theories on the research done by these few at the top.
Mr. Pachauri also said "western lifestyle is unsustainable," and you'll love this:
Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation
taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water
in restaurants should be curtailed, the world's leading climate
scientist has told the Observer.
Pachauri, the Chairman of the IPCC, is calling for "sustainable consumption." I'd love to know a bit about his lifestyle - about the home he lives in, the car he drives. Here's some more:
Pachauri also proposed that governments use taxes on aviation to
provide heavy subsidies for other forms of transport. "We should make
sure there is a huge difference between the cost of flying and taking
the train," he said. Despite the fact that there is often little
benefit in time and convenience in short-haul flights, he said people
were still making the "irrational" choice to fly. Taxation should be
used to discourage them.
Pachauri caused controversy last year by advocating, in an interview with the Observer, because of the levels of carbon emissions associated with rearing livestock. He is scheduled to deliver a keynote speech at the opening session of the Copenhagen summit.
He said that he also believed car use would have to be "curbed": "I
think we can certainly use pricing to regulate the use of private
vehicles." ...
Pachauri also denounced the practice in some restaurants of providing
iced water to customers who had not ordered it. "It is just an enormous
amount of waste that we don't even think about," he said.
If you take Pachauri's comments lightly, think again and get busy finding out the real mission behind his words. You'll find them in the U.N. Millennium Development Goal (MDG). Here are a few nuggets from this ambitious document that will lead to the take-over of the world:
...Poverty
eradication is not an automatic consequence of economic growth; it
requires purposeful action to redistribute wealth and land,...
1) Abolishing war through a worldwide freeze on militaries and achieving global disarmament:"
To initiate a worldwide freeze on armed forces
...the prohibition of the use of force,...must not be undermined
To explore the feasibility of a legally binding convention on overcoming poverty,...To carry out the objective of moving towards the abolition of war by practical means,...the
United Nations Secretariat and interested Governments, or a separate
group of Governments, should develop a draft proposal for global disarmament
2) Prohibiting advanced weapons technology
...devise ways of stopping
the technological development of new and more advanced weapons that
create new imbalances in global power relationships.
3) Monitoring small arms
4) Controlling the world's immigration to allow for:
...the global principle of freedom of circulation for all
5) Controlling the world's finances:
...To move towards democratic political control of the global economy so that it may serve our vision.
...Sustainable funds could be raised through a currency transfer tax...and a tax on the rental value of land and natural resources.
6) Controlling the world:
Globalization needs defining [and then they define it]....it is transforming our world into a global village...
7) Prohibiting "sanctions" against rogue countries:
...Stop imposing economic sanctions...
8) Controlling conservation through a global tax:
...establish a global habitat conservation fund to purchase comprehensive protection of threatened, critical ecological habitat worldwide. The fund should accrue
revenues from a nominal (0.5 -1.0 per cent) royalty on worldwide fossil
energy production oil, natural gas, coal, collecting at least $5
billion to $10 billion annually.
A not-to-be missed portion of the U.N. Millennium Development Goal is the oft-used word "transnationalism," which buys right into Rajendra Pachauri's desire to control your life.
In short, the U.N. defines transnationalism as a type of globalization
that is, this minute, turning the world into a "global village." That
"global village" will give back control of "peace, equity, social justice,
democracy and human rights," to the people. The U.N.'s vision of
globalization is one that makes all industry, throughout the world
"work for the benefit of everyone to eradicate poverty and hunger
globally..."
The U.N. MDG says this:
This can happen only if global corporations, international financial and trade institutions and Governments are subject to effective democratic control by the people..."
Its application is an affront to due process and the rule of law in
this country. It would criminalize internal U.S. policymaking
deliberations, with profound implications for U.S. sovereignty. If
allowed to run its course, this prosecution would have a profoundly
chilling effect on the willingness of subordinates to provide a
president with advice or perhaps even to serve in government.
If the discussion of the U.N. Millennium Development Goal seems off topic. I wish it was, but in truth this the what the U.N. is striving for, and the IPCC is a part of that goal.
I need a minute to rant here about those trying to defend Phil Jones and his friends at the top by pointing out that the ClimateGate emails were obtained illegally. No, the U.N. is the United Nations, and the U.S. pours the funds into this disgusting organization. All the work has been done through grants - whether I or you, liked it or not, they have received U.S. taxpayer monies. Forgetting that the emails were likely obtained by an insider-whistleblower, there is nothing criminal about obtaining information that CRU would not release because it knew it was straight up fraud.
So, I wish Senator Inhofe well with his investigation. It needs to be done, but I doubt that we will hear the Democrat congress admonish the U.N.'s IPCC - or step away from Copenhagen permanently. Every Democrat is already bought and sold, as well as a few Republicans.
Jim Inhofe ClimateGate Investigation (video)
Read another enlightening take on Rajendra Pachauri at ChicagoRay's
Thank you to friend, super-sleuth and amazing sculptor, David Lemon.
Superman Conservative Senator Jim Inhofe declared victory over the global warming conspiracy this week and then had the pleasure in a committee meeting, to tell fellow senator, Barbara Boxer, "we won, you lost, get a life." See the video below.
I proudly declare 2009 as the 'Year of the Skeptic,' the year in which scientists who question the so-called global warming consensus are being heard.
Inhofe also recalled his most famous comment in which he suggested that man-made global warming would turn out to be "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." "Today, I have been vindicated," he said.
The comments came in the wake of the cancellation of the Copenhagen conference, "which previously was viewed as a chance for nations to make some kindof a binding agreement on greenhouse gases." According to Inhofe:
"the reality, of course, is that Copenhagen will be a disaster."
Senator Jim Inhofe and Senator Barbara Boxer (video)
Thanks to my hubby, who reads the Tulsa World and then rants, and to Hot Air.
In Eric Holder's speech announcing that he was bringing Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and five other terrorists to New York City, New York City, (he said it twice) for criminal trials, he thanked Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham for passing legislation to "strengthen" and "reform" the military commission system. See videos below.
Republican Senators receiving a thank you from Eric Holder is the stuff of nightmares. I can see Holder smugly inserting McCain and Graham into his text, knowing the conservative angst that would follow.
Carl Levin (D-MI) the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. John McCain (R-AZ) is the ranking Republican member. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) sits on the committee. I suppose that is why Holder was thanking these two men. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is also on the committee and I notice he received no thanks.
As explained by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in a letter to Levin and McCain dated July 23, 2009, the amendment would:
...establish a system for addressing classified information issues in
military commissions that is similar to the system provided by the Classified Information Procedures Act ("CIPA") for criminal cases prosecuted in Federal court.
The Levin-Graham-McCain amendment adapts CIPA to the military commissions context, with some modifications to reflect lessons learned from past terrorism prosecutions....
It sets substantive standards for providing the defense access to classified information in the discovery phase, and for the use of classified information at trial.
We believe the amendment will advance the President's objective of reforming the commissions and ensuring that they are a fair, legitimate, and effective forum for the prosecution of law of war offenses.
Through a Sense of Congress, the preferred forum for the trial of alien unprivileged enemy belligerents is trial by military commission.
I guess Eric Holder didn't get the memo.
Here's more:
(1) Changes "unlawful enemy combatant" to "unprivileged enemy belligerent,"
(2) Making an unprivileged
enemy belligerent, who engaged in or supported hostilities against the United
States, subject to military commissions. Obviously, trial by military commission cannot be interpreted as the same as a civil Federal court.
(3) Forbids the use of statements that were obtained "by the use of torture."
(4) Gives the accused the right to seek suppression of evidence that is not reliable or probative.
(5) Additional restrictions on the use of hearsay evidence.
(6) Specific procedures for the treatment and protection of classified information. The Military Commissions Act provides for this and meets the challenges of the Classified Information Protection Act. More on that below
(7) Unprivileged enemy belligerents will not be read Miranda rights, unless an "unappealable court order requires it.
(8) Allows the U.S. to take an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals (rather than, or in lieu of current law that allows such an appeal to the Court of Military Commission Review.
(9) Right of appeal with respect to classified information. This is already in the MCA's MRE 505 governing military tribunals.
(10) Adds contempt and perjury and obstruction of justice as triable offenses.
So this basically was about McCain tamping down "torture" and making it impossible to use any confessions or statements from that "torture," no matter the results.
There were obviously some good things out of this: no more mirandizing, and if I understand this correctly, perjury and contempt can be charged against the defendants. Terrorists are hard-core liars and contemptible by nature.
*****
If you are interested in DOJ's comments that this new legislation would provide the same protections in the Military Commissions Act as afforded by the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), as I looked at everything I could find, the protections afforded the accused in a military trial is virtually the same as that stipulated by CIPA.
I saw one possible difference, that being that the first responsibility of a military court is to protect national security, and the first responsibility of a civil Federal court is to protect the rights of the defendant. But the methods and way to do that are virtually the same.
Military courts are subject to the 6th Amendment's demand for the accused's right to a fair trial. Once the habeus corpus section of the MCA of 2006 was ruled unconsitutional, there is little that is different between Military courts and Federal courts.
The following are my notes on the CIPA and the Military's MRE 505:
The Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) is a tool to help courts decided whether or not sensitive information is a national security threat, before the trial begins.
The 1980 CIP Act through a formal written request pre-trial, notifies the prosecution that the defendant will be
asking for X, Y and Z during the trial, giving the prosecution the
opportunity to dismiss the case if the risk to national security is unacceptable. A civil judge decides what is admissable and what is not - always with the defendants right to a fair trial prevailing.
Once the trial begins, if additional sensitive information comes to light, another CIPA form must be submitted for prompt court conference.
If the court admits the sensitive material for trial, the DOJ can then enter a request to the court to substitute summaries or redacted documents in lieu of originals. The court may accept or reject such a request. At all times, if summaries or redacted information is admitted, it must guarantee the defendant the same degree of fairness that the original documents would provide.
The Attorney General then decides whether to appeal the court's ruling, or file a formal protest. If a formal protest is waged by the DOJ, the court can "require" the prosecution to dismiss the case, although the likelihood of that happening is insignificant. Once that is put to bed, the DOJ determines the degree of risk to national security if the trial goes forth. If the risk is unacceptable, the DOJ can dismiss the case. This is known as the "disclose or dismiss dilemma." That's it. That's the choice. A civilian court makes the determination about a prisoner of war.
At all times, the goal of CIPA is fairness to the defendant, and while CIPA has withstood Constitutional challenges:
...the judge in the Iran-Contra prosecutions has ruled that CIPA procedures must give way when they risk excessive exposure of the defendant's case.
This was the case of Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, where the judge saw a risk to North's defense of "excessive exposure" of his case. The conclusion of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) report summary, is that it works best when when the classified information is only "marginally relevant or marginally sensitive." When sensitive information is at the "core" of the defendant's case, it is less likely that the case can be resolved in a manner that preserves the rights of the defendant - which means that national security is at jeopardy in such a trial, and so presumably, the DOJ would move to dismiss the case.
In a military court the guidelines are known as MRE 505. With MRE 505, CIPA is essentially flipped. National security is the greatest concern, not the defendant, but in all cases, the defendant's right to a fair trial is adhered to.
As far back as 2004, this exhaustive article written by Joshua E. Kastenberg, compares CIPA and the Military MRE 505. I noticed something that might not happen in a civil court, although I can't confirm that. In the case of a Marine embassy guard in Moscow, the military court ruled that the national security risk of allowing the public to hear testimony, warranted preventing public access to certain witnesses. Military courts have been been sensitive to how a trial under CIPA requirements, might change a defendant's outcome, from that in a Military court. In otherwords, the Military has, at times, used CIPA to "balance context between an accused's rights and the need to protect national security information."
In a military trial, the defendant has the right to civilian counsel, but if classified material is to be introduced into evidence, the civilian attorney must have the proper security clearances. The defendant's right to a speedy trial is likely compromised by this requirement. If the civilian counsel refuses the clearance procedure, but the defendant continues with the representation, the attorney will be excluded from some portions of the trial.
The first video below is Eric Holder announcing that the 9-11 terrorists will be brought to New York City for Federal criminal trial. The second video is Senator Barack Obama in September 2007 saying KSM would "get real military procedures...." As Scared Monkeys says,"Obama was for Military Commission tribunals before he was against them."
Eric Holder Civil Trials (video)
Barack Obama - KSM will get real military procedures (video)
FAIR USE: This blog may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner or may be authorized or licensed for publication at this site only. Permission to copy, republish or reproduce such material must be obtained from the original copyright owner.
Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Important Notice
Patrons of this Blog are advised that they will be held responsible for any unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, or harmful material of any kind or nature posted by their respective ISP. Patrons are cautioned not to transmit via comments, including links to any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation. Comments here are typically unmoderated and unedited. The fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes the site owner's endorsement of commenters' views.
![Twitter](<a href="http://www.twitter.com/maggiesnotebook"><img src="http://twitter-badges.s3.amazonaws.com/follow_me-b.png" alt="Follow maggiesnotebook on Twitter"/></a>){kind=small}
