This is the most important week of President Obama’s bid for a second term in November.
●The Supreme Court will rule not only on the constitutionality of Obama’s landmark health-care law, but the highest court in the country also will hand down judgment on Arizona’s stringent illegal immigration law.
●Congress will be forced into action (or inaction) on federal student loans and highway projects — both of which will expire within the next week.
●The House will vote on whether to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress due to his refusal to turn over some documents related to the “Fast and Furious” gunrunning operation.
Any one of those issues — in isolation — would be a major political event with resultant consequences on the presidential race. Combined them all in the space of a week and we may well look back at this coming seven days as where/when Obama’s second term bid was made/broken.
“We are in a short period right now where the candidates and the terms of the presidential debate will be defined, with several critical issues coming to a head and voters’ perceptions of the economy, and who will best deal with it, clarifying,” said Steve Rosenthal, a longtime Democratic strategist. (WP)
In Congress, time is running out on a long-standing stalemate — what else is new — over funding for federal highway projects, and a dispute over the interest rate paid on federal student loans, which is set to double on July 1 if no action has taken.
Obama, who is doing his best to run against the unpopular Republican Congress at the moment, seized on both issues during his weekly Saturday address. “This makes no sense,” Obama said of the impasse. “It’s up to the House . . . to put aside partisan posturing, end the gridlock, and do what’s right for the American people.”
Yeah, the Republican passed a bill, the Democrats didn’t like it so they ignored it completely and blamed the Republicans for “obstructing” the process.
That’s how things are done (or not) in Washington D.C. these days.
And of course, there’s SB1070, the state level version of the Federal laws that are so “racist”.
Holder held in contempt (since he has loads of it for everyone else) unless at 11:59:59 he gives in but don’t bet on it. I wouldn’t especially with Obama who “knew nothing” about it has extended his Executive Privilege that says he did to be a legitimate use and not just a political ploy to delay it after the election. 🙂
WH SpokesKid Jay Carney: “We absolutely agree with the need to find out why Fast and Furious happened …”
“… and why it was employed in the previous administration.”
It was, after all a botched Bush Administration operation… 🙂
Oh, and the Muslim Brotherhood, radical Muslims with ties to Al-Qaeda, take Egypt a year and half after Obama’s glorious “Arab Spring”.
So it should be a fun week. 🙂
Then there’s :
Godfather of global warming hysteria admits he was “unduly alarmist”
Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.
Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.
Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.
He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.
Among his observations to the Guardian:
(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.
As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)
(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.
“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”
(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.
As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”
(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.” (Toronto Sun)
HERESY! They will have to disavow their own God! 🙂
Bet no one in the liberal media listens. They are, after all, “journalists”.