Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !

Home Front: Politix

McConnell Wins KY

2014-11-05

[HOSTED.AP.ORG] Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell won a hard-fought sixth term Tuesday, putting him a step closer to his lifelong dream of becoming majority leader and getting the GOP off to a good start in its goal of taking control of the Senate. Helping his chances was Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito's capture of the West Virginia seat of retiring Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller. Her victory, while not a surprise, gave Republicans the first of six new seats they will need to control the Senate for the first time in eight years. Kentucky Democrats once had high hopes for challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes, Kentucky's young secretary of state. But the hill was too steep in a state President Barack Obama If you like your coverage you can keep it... lost by 23 percentage points in 2012.

Link

Home Front: WoT

Senators clash with Justice Department lawyer over CIA intelligence memos

2013-12-19

[THEGUARDIAN] An argument about a secret congressional committee's ability to review the US intelligence agencies went kaboom! into rare public view on Tuesday as angry senators demanded legal memos from a nominee to run the CIA's legal office. Caroline Krass, a top justice department lawyer, sparked the ire of several Senate intelligence committee members by claiming that crucial legal opinions about intelligence matters were beyond the scope of the committee. Asked directly and repeatedly if the Senate panel was entitled to the memos, which several senators claimed were crucial for performing their oversight functions, Krass replied: "I do not think so, as a general matter." Dianne Feinstein ...Dem Senator-for-Life from Caliphornica. She has been a politician since about the time she was weaned. Feinstein was the author of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and tried it a second time in 2012. Feinstein has chaired the Select Committee on Intelligence since 2009. At age 80, Feinstein is the oldest currently serving United States Senator.... , the Caliphornia, an impregnable bastion of the Democratic Party, Democrat who chairs the committee, suggested that Krass placed her nomination as CIA general counsel in jeopardy. "You are going to encounter some heat in that regard," Feinstein said. The Senate intelligence committee, whose public hearings are increasingly rare, is usually a bastion of support for the CIA and its sister intelligence agencies. The exception is the committee's prolonged fight with the CIA over a 6,300-page report on the agency's torture of terrorism detainees in its custody since 9/11. The committee has prepared its report for years; the former chairman, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, said the classified version contains 50,000 footnotes. For a year, the panel has sought to release a public version that multiple members of the panel say documents both the brutality of CIA torture and what they have called "lies" told by the CIA to the oversight committees in Congress and the rest of the executive branch concerning its torture practices.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Poll shows popularity problems for Manchin, Holgorsen

2013-09-27

[WVMETRONEWS] U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin is taking a hit in the polls, and so is West Virginia football coach Dana Holgorsen. New numbers released this week from Public Policy Polling showed West Virginia voters gave Manchin a 46-percent approval rating, while 44 percent disapproved. The last time PPP questioned voters about Manchin in 2011, his approval rating stood at 61 percent. Pollsters with PPP said Machin may be suffering from the Obama effect. In only one other state is President Barack Obama They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them... more unpopular than he is in West Virginia right now. Voters surveyed said they support impeaching the president by a 49 percent to 37 percent margin. Obama's favorability rating in the Mountain State sits at 28 percent. Manchin's numbers are higher, but they're not that different from U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) who is not seeking re-election next year. Only 45 percent of those questioned approved of Rockefeller's job performance, while 46 percent disapproved.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) to retire

2013-01-27

[Washington Post] Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) will not seek reelection in 2014, he announced Saturday. He's the senator-for-life from Iowa. He'll be 75 next election, which would make him 81 when his next term expired. He ran his first, unsuccessful, race in 1972, and he worked as an aide to a Democrat congressman before that. He was elected to Congress in 1975, which means he'll have been warming his seat for forty solid years. "It's just time to step aside," Harkin, 73, told the News Agency that Dare Not be Named, noting that he would be 81 by the end of another term. I just said that. Multiple Democratic aides have confirmed the decision, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has issued a statement. "We neither confirm nor deny..." Harkin's decision makes him the third senator up for reelection this cycle to announce his retirement. Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) have both announced they will not seek another term.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Senator Calls For Involuntary Training Of Military Personnel Before ETS

2011-05-12

For the first time, U.S. troops would be required to enroll in a federal job-training program before they're allowed to leave the military under a bill introduced in the Senate on Wednesday. "We are taking a huge step forward in rethinking the way we treat men and women in uniform after they leave the military," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the chief sponsor of the bill. It would be required as part of the Transition Assistance Program, which was created by a partnership among the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Transportation and Labor. She said that one of the first things veterans learn is employers are reluctant to hire them because they fear they may have mental health issues. And who put that idea out in public circulation? "We consistently hear from our members that the challenges in this job market are mounting," said Paul Rieckhoff, founder and executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) (formerly known as www.OperationTruth.org, an anti-war, definitely anti-Bush organization, heavily funded by left wing organizations. Rieckhoff became a star on such programs as the Rachel Maddow Show on Air American Radio and MSNBC-TV, changing the name of the organization to elicit funding and support from unknowing veterans and their families, and away from legitimate veterans organizations.) "They need jobs and skills training to transition into the civilian workforce, and we're encouraged to see that Congress is taking aggressive action on this front. There is a long road ahead." The other co-sponsors are all notorious leftist liberals, Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.; Robert Casey, D-Pa.; Max Baucus, D-Mont.; Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.; Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii; Bernie Sanders, a Vermont socialist; Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio; and Scott Brown, R-Mass, a RINO.

Link

Home Front: Politix

"Tapping stragegic oil reserves" is a diversion from poor politics

2011-03-08

That comes after several Democratic Senators, including Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, called for President Obama to consider releasing oil from the reserve. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner also said last week that the U.S. was prepared to act and tap the SPR if necessary. But that could be a big mistake for one significant reason. This isn't really a crisis yet. Yes, oil and gas prices have surged due to unrest in Libya but there hasn't been much impact on global supply as of yet. Instead, what's going on reeks of speculation. Whoaaa! Tap the Strategic Oil Reserves! Oh my! That sounds important, doesn't it! BFD. AFAIAC, tapping the reserves is a diversion. The oil is there to give us time and resources to stomp someone's a$$ if we get cut off for some reason. Nothing short of that should necessitate getting into it. If politicians tap it, they are just trying to draw attention away from the poor political decisions that put them into a position to feel that they needed to reduce the political heat. If we had our own oil supply, we wouldn't need to worry about the price of oil. But they keep playing games rather than just make the easy, obvious decision that cuts into the size and power of government. After they draw down the reserves, then what? They have to fill them back up again. Duh. And how do you fill them? Buy more oil. Which increases the price. And you end up losing in the end. Except maybe the peasants are too stupid to notice that they just got had. Again.

Link

Economy

Pelosi: Congress Must Fix Climate, not EPA

2010-05-21

Through various regulatory actions, the Obama administration has kept pressure on Congress to tackle climate change this year. But Pelosi and other legislators have argued that the legislative branch has to address the issue. Her comments come a week after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency took a big step toward regulating industrial greenhouse gas emissions. The agency issued rules that describe how it will apply the Clean Air Act to big facilities like power plants and oil refineries starting next year. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the co-author of Senate climate legislation, hopes the new rules bolster political support for his bill. Kerry and other climate advocates say Congress can give various industries far more flexibility and assistance than EPA is currently authorized to provide. Oh, boy! Just what they want! “Today we went from ‘wake-up call' to ‘last call' on the urgency of Senate action on comprehensive energy and climate legislation. The Obama Administration has again reminded Washington that if Congress won't legislate, the EPA will regulate,' he said when EPA issued its rule May 13. But the looming EPA controls have also prompted many Republicans and some centrist Democrats to push bills that would suspend or reverse EPA's power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under its current powers. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) intends to force a Senate vote in the coming weeks on a plan that would block all EPA climate rules. Her resolution under the Congressional Review Act could not be filibustered, but would face a near-certain veto even if it cleared Congress. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) has circulated a less sweeping plan that would block EPA regulation of stationary industrial sources like power plants and factories for two years. To get them through to the next election, I suppose.

Link

Science & Technology

A Political Who's Who of Global Warming Liars

2009-11-28

As the global warming fraud unravels, it's a good time to look at the politicians who have been some of the most outspoken advocates, using global warming/climate change to advance "Cap-and-Trade" legislation and other related laws and regulations. Top of the list is President Barack Obama who has made many references to "climate change" and "global warming" to further this national and international fraud. He'll pick up his Nobel Peace Prize in December; the same one given to Al Gore and the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change a few years back. Further proof of his mendacity will be his attendance at the UN Climate Change Conference in Denmark. Speaking on World Environment Day last June, Obama said of global warming, "We're going to have to make some tough decisions and take concrete actions if we are going to deal with a potentially cataclysmic disaster." This mirrors years of similar doomsday statements by former Vice President Al Gore. This is the kind of drivel Americans and others around the world have heard from their supposed "leaders" for far too long. As we move through the congressional hierarchy, one of the biggest prevaricators about global warming/climate change has been Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-C) and her counterpart in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), manages to wheeze about it from time to time. Former presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry, (D-MA) has been leading the fight for "Cap-and-Trade" but after much reflection former presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) concluded his support of global warming was a mistake. Sen. Kerry said that failure to pass the Senate version of "Cap-and-Trade" (of greenhouse gas emission credits) would be comparable to another 9/11. He also has blamed tornadoes on global warming. The man is a complete idiot. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has uttered every global warming falsehood and has been joined by Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). All three have played a critical role in advancing the "Cap-and-Trade" bill despite the fact that it is a massive tax on energy use and based on a lie. Writing for the Huffington Post in October, Sen. Boxer said, "Global Warming is one of the greatest challenges of our generation. Addressing this challenge also represents enormous opportunities for economic recovery and long term prosperity." Her commentary was titled, "Telling the Whole Story on Global Warming"! Never mind that global warming has been the excuse environmental groups have used to stop the building of coal-fired plants, nuclear plants, drilling for oil offshore in our continental shelf, et cetera. There's no economic recovery to be found in so-called "green jobs" and prosperity is a small light at the end of a very long tunnel as the result of the Obama administration's investments in "renewable energy" and massive increase of our national debt. Among the other politicians hovering around Cap-and-Trade have been Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.VA), Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont), and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM). Sen. Bingaman is a big fan of "renewable energy" (solar and wind) and proposed a nationwide renewable electricity standard even though it provides barely one percent of all the electricity Americans need and use every day. Among the nation's prominent governors, California's Arnold Schwarzenegger has been vocal about environmental issues, many of which have left Californians trapped by idiotic measures ranging from restrictions on fireplaces in new homes or the purchase of large screen television sets. California's failure to anticipate its growing need for electricity has left it dependent on importing it from other states. Meanwhile, over at the Environmental Protection Agency, they are using global warming to justify securing the right to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, claiming that they "cause" a global warming. The expose of the phony "scientific" data behind this massive fraud should, if truth mattered, end this power grab. The ability to regulate CO2 is the ability to control the use of all energy in the nation. That should be stopped! Alone among his colleagues, Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma (R) has been the one outstanding voice for reason and for truth about global warming. The odds are that history will not give his courageous effort to expose the massive fraud the recognition he deserves. The nation owes him a debt of gratitude. The lesson we can draw from this is that the next time any U.S. Senator or Representative, let alone the President and any member of his Cabinet, says anything positive about "global warming" or refers to "climate change" to justify some action, they are lying to you.

Link

Science & Technology

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

2009-08-29

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet. They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency. The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license. "I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill." Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday. A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection. When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Senate Bill Would Give President Emergency Control of Internet

2009-08-28

A Senate bill would offer President Obama emergency control of the Internet and may give him a "kill switch" to shut down online traffic by seizing private networks -- a move cybersecurity experts worry will choke off industry and civil liberties. Ya Think? Details of a revamped version of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 emerged late Thursday, months after an initial version authored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., was blasted in Silicon Valley as dangerous government intrusion. "In the original bill they empowered the president to essentially turn off the Internet in the case of a 'cyber-emergency,' which they didn't define," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which represents the telecommunications industry. "We think it's a veryveryveryveryveryvery bad idea ... to put in legislation," he told FOXNews.com. Clinton said the new version of the bill that surfaced this week is improved from its first draft, but troubling language that was removed was replaced by vague language that could still offer the same powers to the president in case of an emergency. The new improved bill is a tad more...'open-ended'. "The current language is so unclear that we can't be confident that the changes have actually been made," he said. In other words, "We don't want you to read this, just approve it." The new legislation allows the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and make a plan to respond to the danger, according to an excerpt published online -- a broad license that rights experts worry would give the president "amorphous powers" over private users. Another Chris Matthews 'tingly feeling' there "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told CNET News. A Senate source familiar with the bill likened the new power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when he grounded all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001, CNET News reported. Aircraft were used as weapons to kill people. Cyber attacks on our financial and military systems might be grounds for this. However, information on the internet might hurt the One's feelings and possibly inform the public of the truth. We certainly CAN'T have that. Spokesmen for Senator Rockefeller and the Commerce Committee did not return calls seeking comment before this article was published. And Bush was the 'intrusive' President with all that wiretapping and other assorted geegaws. Go read the rest.

Link

Science & Technology

Senate Proposal Could Put Heavy Restrictions on Internet Freedoms

2009-04-21

The days of an open, largely unregulated Internet may soon come to an end. A bill making its way through Congress proposes to give the U.S. government authority over all networks considered part of the nation's critical infrastructure. Under the proposed Cybersecurity Act of 2009, the president would have the authority to shut down Internet traffic to protect national security. The government also would have access to digital data from a vast array of industries including banking, telecommunications and energy. A second bill, meanwhile, would create a national cybersecurity adviser -- commonly referred to as the cybersecurity czar -- within the White House to coordinate strategy with a wide range of federal agencies involved. The need for greater cybersecurity is obvious: -- Canadian researchers recently discovered that computers in 103 countries, including those in facilities such as embassies and news media offices, were infected with software designed to steal network data. -- A Seattle security analyst warned last month that the advancement of digital communication within the electrical grid, as promoted under President Obama's stimulus plan, would leave the nation's electrical supply dangerously vulnerable to hackers. -- And on Tuesday the Wall Street Journal reported that computer spies had broken into the Pentagon's $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter project and had breached the Air Force's air-traffic-control system. Nonetheless, the proposal to give the U.S. government the authority to regulate the Internet is sounding alarms among critics who say it's another case of big government getting bigger and more intrusive. Silicon Valley executives are calling the bill vague and overly intrusive, and they are rebelling at the thought of increased and costly government regulations amid the global economic crisis. Others are concerned about the potential erosion of civil liberties. "I'm scared of it," said Lee Tien, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based group. "It's really broad, and there are plenty of laws right now designed to prevent the government getting access to that kind of data. It's the same stuff we've been fighting on the warrantless wiretapping." Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va, who introduced the bill earlier this month with bipartisan support, is casting the legislation as critical to protecting everything from our water and electricity to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records. "I know the threats we face." Rockefeller said in a prepared statement when the legislation was introduced. "Our enemies are real. They are sophisticated, they are determined and they will not rest." The bill would allow the government to create a detailed set of standards for cybersecurity, as well as take over the process of certifying IT technicians. But many in the technology sector say the government is simply ill-equipped to get involved at the technical level, said Franck Journoud, a policy analyst with the Business Software Alliance. "Simply put, who has the expertise?" he said. "It's the industry, not the government. We have a responsibility to increase and improve security. That responsibility cannot be captured in a government standard." A spokeswoman from Rockefeller's office said neither he nor the two senators who co-sponsored the bill, Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Bill Nelson, D-Fla., will answer questions on cybersecurity until a later date. Obama, meanwhile, is considering his own strategy on cybersecurity. On Friday, the White House completed a lengthy review of the nation's computer networks and their vulnerability to attack. An announcement is expected as early as this week. "I kind of view [the Rockefeller bill] as an opening shot," said Tien. "The concept is cybersecurity. There's this 60-day review underway, and some people wanted to get in there and make their mark on the White House policy development." IT leaders hope the president will consider their argument that their business is not only incredibly complex and static, but that it also spreads over the entire globe. If the United States was to set its own standard for cybersecurity, they say, it would create a host of logistical challenges for technology companies, virtually all of which operate internationally. "Any standards have to be set at an international level and be industry led," said Dale Curtis, a spokesman for the Business Software Alliance. "This industry moves so fast, and government just doesn't move that fast." Many Silicon Valley executives remain hopeful that the White House's recommendations will be more industry-friendly, following what Journoud said was a good dialogue with former Bush administration official Melissa Hathaway, who is leading the White House review and is considered a likely candidate for cybersecurity czar.

Link

Iraq

Hindsight Isn't 20-20 When It Comes To Iraq

2008-08-17

IT WASN'T so long ago that erstwhile supporters of the war in Iraq were invoking hindsight to justify their newfound opposition to it. "Obviously if we knew then what we know now," Senator Hillary Clinton said in December 2006, when asked whether she regretted her 2002 vote authorizing military action, "I certainly wouldn't have voted that way." Many of Clinton's colleagues said the same thing. An ABC News survey of senators in January 2007 found that "an overwhelming number" of Democrats who had voted in favor of going to war - including Joe Biden of Delaware, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, John Breaux of Louisiana, and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia - had had a change of heart. Liberals and Democrats weren't the only ones going wobbly. "If I had known then what I know now about the weapons of mass destruction," Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican, told the Houston Chronicle, "I would not vote to go into Iraq." The conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg pronounced the Iraq war "a mistake by the most obvious criteria: If we had known then what we know now, we would never have gone to war with Iraq." Others singing from the same hymnal have included Jonathan Rauch, National Journal's respected semi-libertarian essayist, and (somewhat earlier) Michael Howard, the former leader of the British Conservative Party. The prevailing wisdom 18 months or so ago was that invading Iraq had been, in retrospect, a disastrous blunder. It had led to appalling sectarian fratricide and an ever-climbing body count. Iraqi democracy was deemed a naive pipe dream. Worst of all, it was said, the fighting in Iraq wasn't advancing the global struggle against Islamist terrorism; by rallying a new generation of jihadists, it was actually impeding it. Opponents of the war clamored loudly for pulling the plug - even if that meant, as The New York Times acknowledged in a bring-the-troops-home-now editorial last July, "that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave." But what if we had known then what we know now? We know now that the overhauled counterinsurgency strategy devised by General David Petraeus - the "surge" - would prove spectacularly successful, driving Al Qaeda in Iraq from its strongholds, and killing thousands of its fighters, supporters, and leaders. We know now that US losses in Iraq would plummet to the lowest levels of the war, with just five Americans killed in combat in July 2008, compared with 66 fatalities in the same month a year ago - and with 137 in November 2004. We know now that the sectarian bloodletting would be dramatically reduced, with numerous Sunni tribal leaders abandoning their former Al Qaeda allies, and Shi'ite radical Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army being thoroughly routed by the Iraqi military. We know now that by the summer of 2008, the Iraqi government would meet all but three of the 18 benchmarks set by Congress to demonstrate security, economic progress, and political reconciliation. And we know now that, far from being undermined by the campaign in Iraq, the wider war against Islamist violence would show significant progress, with terrorism outside Iraq's borders having "in fact gone way down over the past five years," as Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria noted in May - and with popular support for jihadist organizations plummeting across the Muslim world. So what does hindsight counsel today? That Iraq is a pointless quagmire - or that it is a costly but winnable war, in which patience, tenacity, and smarts have a good chance of succeeding? Hindsight isn't always 20-20, particularly in wartime, when early expectations of an easy rout can give way to an unexpectedly long and bloody grind - and when victory has so often been achieved only after persevering through strategic debacles, intelligence failures, and wrenching battlefield losses. There are no guarantees in Iraq. As with every war, we will know for sure how it ends only after it ends. But an effort that so many critics sourly have called the worst foreign-policy blunder in American history - the drive to emancipate Iraq from a monstrous and dangerous dictatorship and transform it into a reasonably civilized, law-abiding democracy - looks increasingly like a mission nearly accomplished. Had we known six years ago what we know today, would we have done it? Differently, no doubt. But we would have done it.

Link

Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More