Obama: Everything Is Bush’s Fault

Heard this on Rush Limbaugh’s show today.

H/T Moonbattery

Bush’s Polar Bear Ruling Upheld

Bummer dude.....

Let the howling begin. The enviro-nuts will be yelling about being betrayed and the BDS sufferers who want every ruling made by the Bush administration overturned will have they’re panties in a twist over the latest polar bear ruling. It seems the Obama administration has agreed with Bush that the polar bear does not need more protection.

WASHINGTON — The Interior Department is letting stand a Bush administration regulation that limits protection of polar  bears from global warming, three people familiar with the decision told The Associated Press.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will announce on Friday that he will not rescind the Bush rule, although Congress gave him authority to do so. The people spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to pre-empt the secretary’s announcement.

A year ago, the iconic polar bear was declared a threatened species because global warming is causing a severe decline in Arctic sea ice, the bear’s habitat. But the Bush administration rules limit that protection, saying no action outside the Arctic region could be considered a threat to the bear under the law.

Environmentalists have strongly opposed the rule as have many members of Congress. They argued the limits violate the Endangered Species Act because the release of greenhouse gases from power plants, factories and cars indirectly threaten the bear’s survival.

In March, federal lawmakers authorized Salazar to scrap the Bush regulation without going through a long regulatory process. The deadline for such action was Saturday, 60 days after Congress acted.

Salazar was expected to say that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will further study the limitations established by the “special rule” issued by the Bush administration in March 2008 when the bear was officially declared a threatened specie because of the reduction in Arctic sea ice, which is the bear’s habitat.

But business groups and their supporters in Congress have argued strongly that the Endangered Species Act is the improper vehicle for addressing climate change and that there are other ways to deal with the global environmental issue.

Congress is trying to craft broad legislation that would limit greenhouse gases and, separately, the Environmental Protection Agency has begun a lengthy regulatory process that could lead to heat-trapping emissions being controlled under the federal Clean Air Act. Last month, the EPA declared carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases a danger to public health.

But after the polar bear was declared threatened in March 2008, and brought under the protection of the Endangered Species Act because of climate change, environmentalists hoped they could use the species law to force broader nationwide limits of greenhouse gases.

The Bush special rule for the polar bear “significantly undercuts protections for the polar bear by omitting global warming pollution as a factor in the polar bear’s risk of extinction,” said Jane Kochersperger, a spokeswoman for Greenpeace, which delivered 80,000 petitions to the Interior Department after they were collected by the two environmental groups.

On Thursday, Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington, the ranking Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee, urged Salazar to keep the Bush rule in place.

“This reaches far beyond the scope of polar bears in the Arctic and could put jobs and economic activity across the entire nation at risk,” said Hastings.

Source

Bush Commutes Sentences For Border Patrol Agents

They never should have been there in the first place.

On his last full day in office, President Bush commuted the sentences of two former Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting a Mexican drug runner in 2005.

The imprisonment of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean had sparked outcry from critics who said the two were just doing their jobs. They had been sentenced to 11- and 12-year sentences, respectively.

Their prison sentences will now expire on March 20 of this year.

It’s not a pardon, but it is good news.

The Rest Here

More at Michelle’s

Nuke has it too

THE MAN is coming to town!

President Bush will be landing at the Redding airport. As my luck goes, I will be at another airport 70 miles away…..:???:    Very Cool Anyway!!!

President Bush will be the third sitting president to visit the Redding area. Harry Truman made a “whistle stop” on a train in 1948 and then John F. Kennedy came in 1963 to dedicated Whiskeytown Dam.

A White House spokesman confirmed Tuesday that President Bush will be arriving early Thursday afternoon on Air Force One at the Redding Municipal Airport to survey north state fire damage.

“He’s coming in,” spokesman Trey Bohn said.

Although an exact time was not given for his arrival, Bohn said Bush will land early afternoon at the Redding airport and will receive a briefing on the wildfires ravaging the north state.

He will then take a helicopter trip from there to inspect the fire damage, Bohn said, adding that Bush also will be making a statement to the media when he returns to the airport.

But it does not appear that Bush will address the general public who arrive at the airport to see him, Bohn said.

“There won’t be much of a public interaction,” he said. “It’s not open to the public, per se.”

Bush will be making the trip to California from Washington, D.C., after first attending the morning funeral for former White House press secretary Tony Snow, who died of cancer Saturday.

He’s also scheduled to attend a private Republican National Committee fundraiser in the Napa area on Thursday after his fire inspection trip and will be flying into Travis Air Force Base, Bohn said.

The Federal Aviation Administration has issued a temporary flight restriction for Redding Municipal Airport, as well as Benton Airpark, that would prohibit general aviation pilots from flying in and out of those facilities during Bush’s visit, said Rod Dinger, the city of Redding’s airports manager.

The temporary flight restriction will not affect air carrier traffic, firefighting air tankers and aircraft, law enforcement, air-ambulance and air cargo flights, he said.

Presidential advance teams began arriving Saturday at Redding Municipal Airport in preparation of the presidential visit, and a spokesman with Mercy Medical Center in Redding also confirmed that hospital officials have been contacted by team members about the visit.

The nature of the contact with the hospital was not disclosed.

A spokeswoman at the Secret Service’s Sacramento field office said she was not authorized to talk about the president’s trip. The Secret Service Web site said that teams of Secret Service agents travel in advance of presidential visits and conduct site surveys, which assess needs for manpower, equipment, hospitals and evacuation routes for emergencies.

Fire, rescue and other public service personnel in the community also are alerted and a lead advance agent coordinates all law enforcement representatives participating in the visit.

Redding Police Chief Leonard Moty said Tuesday that Secret Service personnel contacted the police department last week to alert them of a possible visit by Bush.

Moty said his department is prepared to help provide security for the trip, which will also require assistance from other law enforcement and public safety agencies, such as the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office, the California Highway Patrol and the Redding Fire Department.

Moty said his officers would primarily help to provide perimeter control at the airport and that the department has enough personnel to handle the job.

“It does tax our resources a bit, but that’s the way it goes,” he said.

Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko said he and others in his department met Monday with members of the Secret Service advance team to go over the president’s expected visit and will assist agents in helping ensure that Bush remains safe.

“We are working closely with them,” Bosenko said, adding that unexpected national and worldwide events could always cause the presidential trip to be canceled.

He said Bush’s will have only a “minimal” effect on the department’s day-to-day operation.

The Real Oil Crisis is Politics

With all of the new technology available to us, drilling for our own oil is more unobtrusive, and desirable, than ever. Yet, it’s politics as usual whenever it is mentioned that we can start to support our own oil needs.

President Bush held a recent press conference on the current state of the economy and the high cost of energy.

He made several important points. First, he noted one reason gas prices are increasing is that global supply has not kept pace with the growing demand worldwide. Members of Congress, he said, “have been vocal about foreign governments increasing their oil production; yet Congress has been just as vocal in opposition to efforts to expand our production here at home. They repeatedly blocked environmentally safe exploration in ANWR [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge]. The Department of Energy estimates that ANWR could allow America to produce about a million additional barrels of oil every day, which translates to about 27 millions of gallons of gasoline and diesel every day. That would be about a 20 percent increase of oil … and it would likely mean lower gas prices.”

And of course Chucky Schumer has the answer. It’s old and tired, but it is against anything positive that can be done easily and quickly to fix the problem. So it fits the liberal format perfectly.

The response of Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat: “Unless the [Bush] administration gets OPEC [the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries] to increase oil supply, American consumers are going to be in for a scorching summer of $4 gasoline with no relief in sight.” Apparently, Mr. Schumer expects President Bush to bully other countries into relieving our economic problems. This is wise foreign policy advice if ever there was some. And if foreign governments do not want to help us we should not expect Congress to do anything about it. After all, why alleviate needless financial hardship when some senators can use it as a political weapon?

Everybody wants cheaper gas, and less dependence on foreign oil, so why not take the option staring us in the face, while we develop the alternative power we need, like Nuclear Power? OOPS! I said the N word, and that is also not acceptable. When will rational thinking people stand up to the enviro-nuts and their enablers in the Democratic party? Perhaps another Carter administration? I certainly don’t want it to come to that, there’s too much at stake for our nation to risk another Carter type presidency, but that may be what we will get this time around. Obama will destroy us in 4 years, Clinton will take a little longer, and McCain only shows strength on the security front.

The Rest Here

Related Article

The Real Cost of Global Warming

Once again everyone jumped to conclusions when President Bush proposed some goals for greenhouse gases on April 23. What he called for was much wiser than the hysterical crap the gloworms are proposing. In short, he calls for stopping The Growth of greenhouse gases by 2025, while the Dems want an 80% Reduction by 2050. Even John McCain wants 65% by 2050. Do you have any idea of the damage to our economy and way of life that would cause? It would be worse than signing the Kyoto Treaty. Damn, I hope people wake up to this soon.

We all ought to reflect on what an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 really means. When we do, it becomes clear that the president’s target has one overwhelming virtue: Assuming emissions curbs are even necessary, his goal is at least realistic.

The same cannot be said for the carbon emissions targets espoused by the three presidential candidates and environmentalists. Indeed, these targets would send us back to emissions levels last witnessed when the cotton gin was in daily use.

Begin with the current inventory of carbon dioxide emissions – CO2 being the principal greenhouse gas generated almost entirely by energy use. According to the Department of Energy’s most recent data on greenhouse gas emissions, in 2006 the U.S. emitted 5.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, or just under 20 tons per capita. An 80% reduction in these emissions from 1990 levels means that the U.S. cannot emit more than about one billion metric tons of CO2 in 2050.

Were man-made carbon dioxide emissions in this country ever that low? The answer is probably yes – from historical energy data it is possible to estimate that the U.S. last emitted one billion metric tons around 1910. But in 1910, the U.S. had 92 million people, and per capita income, in current dollars, was about $6,000.

By the year 2050, the Census Bureau projects that our population will be around 420 million. This means per capita emissions will have to fall to about 2.5 tons in order to meet the goal of 80% reduction.

And as you know if you’ve been here before, C02 is not a pollutant!

And consider this. Do you really want to go back to living in caves?

Today, the average residence in the U.S. uses about 10,500 kilowatt hours of electricity and emits 11.4 tons of CO2 per year (much more if you are Al Gore or John Edwards and live in a mansion). To stay within the magic number, average household emissions will have to fall to no more than 1.5 tons per year. In our current electricity infrastructure, this would mean using no more than about 2,500 KwH per year. This is not enough juice to run the average hot water heater.

You can forget refrigerators, microwaves, clothes dryers and flat screen TVs. Even a house tricked out with all the latest high-efficiency EnergyStar appliances and compact fluorescent lights won’t come close. The same daunting energy math applies to the industrial, commercial and transportation sectors as well. The clear implication is that we shall have to replace virtually the entire fossil fuel electricity infrastructure over the next four decades with CO2-free sources – a multitrillion dollar proposition, if it can be done at all.

The Kool-Aid drinkers are more of a threat than you may know. First of all, the economy will be ruined. And maybe even more important, by removing C02 from the environment, they may be helping us into the next Ice Age.

Read The Rest.

I Am SO Going To Miss These Guys

“On the security front, I think there’s a general consensus that we’ve made major progress, that the surge has worked. That’s been a major success,” Cheney told ABC News’ Martha Raddatz during an exclusive interview in Oman.

When asked how that assessment comports with recent polls that show about two-thirds of Americans say the fight in Iraq is not worth it, Cheney replied, “So?”

“You don’t care what the American people think?” Raddatz asked the vice president.

“You can’t be blown off course by polls,” said Cheney, who is currently on a tour of the Middle East. “This president is very courageous and determined to go the course. There has been a huge fundamental change and transformation for the better. That’s a huge accomplishment.”

I like having people who are not poll driven run the country. Most polls are Bullsh!t anyway. They poll a couple thousand people they select from somewhere, and then tell us that is what Americans think. I saw Cheney answer that question on the tv, and Raddatz couldn’t believe what she heard. Priceless!

Source

Lies, Damned Lies And Statistics

What if they let some experts give their opinion and it was then accepted as fact? It happens all the time, but this was very close to lying, if not the real deal. Some bitter retirees gave their opinion just to bash President Bush again. Colin Powell, Barry McCaffery and Bob Scales all put their mouth in gear without their brain engaged.

Army Maj. Gen. Bob Scales, the former head of the Army War College, agreed. He wrote in an editorial in the Washington Times on March 30:

“If you haven’t heard the news, I’m afraid your Army is broken, a victim of too many missions for too few soldiers for too long. … Today, anecdotal evidence of collapse is all around.”

But the statistics prove them, and the others that jumped on that old bandwagon were wrong. You decide why they would jump to conclusions.

According to Army statistics obtained exclusively by FOX News, 70 percent of soldiers eligible to re-enlist in 2006 did so — a re-enlistment rate higher than before Sept. 11, 2001. For the past 10 years, the enlisted retention rates of the Army have exceeded 100 percent. As of last Nov. 13, Army re-enlistment was 137 percent of its stated goal.

Be sure to read the rest, it has some charts to prove what Fox News is reporting, and some excuses from the ones that didn’t use statistics, just misguided opinions.

The Rest From Fox News