GLOBAL WARMING AND HURRICANES

Democrats are trying the blame the Bush administration for pressuring experts to downplay the connection between hurricanes and global warming. A report released by Democrats on Monday called the "Political Interference With Climate Change Science Under the Bush Administration" marks the end of a 16-month investigation into the conspiracy theories of Democrats. The report says that "the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming."

Now former director of the National Hurricane Center, Max Mayfield has stepped forward to contradict the Democrats' findings: political pressure did not cause him to change his congressional testimony which downplayed the link between global warming and hurricanes.

The controversy started when a staff member of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska sent an email to the NOAA asking Mayfield to say that global warming was not making hurricanes stronger. Bottom line for Democrats ... Bush was behind the whole thing. I wonder how many Democrat staffers have pressured government scientists to participate in the global warming alarmism?

By the way, part of Mayfield's original testimony following hurricane Katrina states, "the increased activity since 1995 is due to natural fluctuations/cycles of hurricane activity driven by the Atlantic Ocean itself along with the atmosphere above it and not enhanced substantially by global warming."

Why are Democrats upset? They see global warming as the key to more income redistribution. They don't want to loose this argument.

GREEN U-TURN

Australia's new green Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has suddenly done an about-face on cutting green house gas emissions. I love to see a leader with convictions. Just days after Rudd said Australia would back a 25-40% cut on 1990 emission levels by 2020, he has suddenly decided that it is unrealistic.

The electricity industry stepped up and warned that it wouldn't be able to meet growing consumer demand and comply with the target, causing huge rises in electricity prices. The Energy Supply Association of Australia found that cutting carbon emissions by 30% of 2000 levels by 2030 would push power costs up by 30%.

Perhaps Australia's new "green" top guy has figured out that this whole global warming thing is really a badly disguised attack by tired or communists and leftists castoffs against the industrialized world and the evil specter of capitalism.

IRAN

In light of the report on Iran’s nuclear activity, an Iranian government spokesman said that “Americans should pay the price” for turning international public opinion against Iran.

I don’t think it takes the United States to turn international opinion against Iran … I think its leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does it for them. His latest idea is to create an international Islamic court to try war criminals and other human rights violators.

He claims that bodies like the UN are being “manipulated by the West.

Remember … when it comes to Iran and whether they do or don’t have nukes, which would be the biggest error:

(a) Believing that Iran does have a nuclear weapons program and taking action to stop it; or,
(b) Believing that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, when in fact they do, and failing to stop it.

I apologize for the fact that this may be too tough a problem for a government educated liberal to solve.

HILLARY TRAILS

Polls are now showing that Hillary Clinton trails five Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups. The top five were Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee. (Huckabee, by the way, was not considered a top five candidate in the first round of polling during the summer.) But against Barack Obama or John Edwards, Republicans were down in the hypothetical head-to-head match-ups.

Our best hope at this point is for the MoveOn Democrats to go ahead and nominate Hillary ... they we can watch with glee as she self-destructs and takes the Democrats with her.

WHITE FLAG DEMS PASS IRAQ WITHDRAWAL BILL

By Michelle Malkin

Time to bring it out again…

Just about an hour ago, the Dems passed their Iraq withdrawal bill, tying $50 billion in war funding to a demand that President Bush start bringing troops home in coming weeks (never mind that it’s already starting) with a mandated timetable of ending combat by December 2008:

House Democrats pushed through a $50 billion bill for the Iraq war Wednesday night that would require President Bush to start bringing troops home in coming weeks with a goal of ending combat by December 2008.

The legislation, passed 218-203, was largely a symbolic jab at Bush, who already has begun reducing force levels but opposes a congressionally mandated timetable on the war. And while the measure was unlikely to pass in the Senate — let alone overcome a presidential veto — Democrats said they wanted voters to know they weren’t giving up.

“The fact is, we can no longer sustain the military deployment in Iraq,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “Staying there in the manner that we are there is no longer an option.”

Translation of Pelosi’s remarks: “Stop pestering me, Code Pink! I beg you to stop!”

The White House says it will veto the bill; the GOP reportedly will back the president. Nancy was sweating it for a bit this evening:

The bill represents about a quarter of the $196 billion Bush requested for combat operations in the 2008 budget year, which began Oct 1.

It would compel an unspecified number of troops to leave Iraq within 30 days, a requirement Bush is already on track to meet as he begins in coming weeks to reverse the 30,000 troop buildup he ordered earlier this year. It also sets a goal of ending combat by Dec. 15, 2008, and states that money included in the bill should be used to redeploy troops and “not to extend or prolong the war.”

The measure also would set government-wide standards on interrogation, effectively barring the CIA from using such harsh techniques as waterboarding, which simulates drowning.

The bill was on shaky ground this week, after some liberal Democrats said they were concerned it was too soft and would not force Bush to end the war. Conservative Democrats said they thought it went too far and would tie the hands of military commanders.

The bill’s prospects brightened somewhat after three leading anti-war Democrats announced they would support it. California Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters said they had agreed to swing behind it because the bill explicitly states the money should be used to bring troops home.

But still uncertain the bill would pass, Pelosi on Wednesday delayed a vote by several hours while she met with supporters and asked them to help her round up votes.

Fifteen Democrats broke ranks and joined 188 Republicans in opposing the measure. Four Republicans joined 214 Democrats in supporting it.

Roll call vote coming up…

Here it is.

The 15 Dems who opposed the withdrawal bill:

Allen
Baird
Barrow
Boren
Cooper
Kucinich (because he didn’t think it went far enough)
Lampson
Marshall
Matheson
McNulty
Michaud
Snyder
Stark (because he didn’t think it went far enough)
Tanner
Taylor

The 4 Republicans who supported the withdrawal bill:

English (PA)
Jones (NC)
Shays
Walsh (NY)

One voted “present:”

Lewis (GA)

And 11 didn’t vote:

Bono
Carson
Cubin
Doyle
Hastert
Jindal
Mack
Oberstar
Pearce
Sessions
Weller

***

John Boehner’s office e-mailed the following statement following the vote:

“By Christmas, some 3,000 American troops will return home from Iraq after achieving remarkable success in our fight against al Qaeda. And how is Congress welcoming them back? By passing yet another politically-motivated measure that cuts off funding for those continuing to serve our nation in Iraq and hamstrings the commanders who are leading them to victory. This measure will never be signed into law, and it represents yet another failure for Democratic leaders intent on putting politics before accomplishment.

“Congress would be better served by sending the President the long-overdue veterans and troops funding bill, which enjoys broad, bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. But the Majority leadership has played politics with this critical legislation, stalling its completion to take up today’s cynical proposal to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. Consequently, returning troops and their families will face more hurdles and take more time to get the housing and health care benefits they deserve – all thanks to Congress.

“Under General Petraeus’ strategy, our troops are routing al Qaeda in Iraq, improving security for the Iraqi people, and laying the foundation for critical political reconciliation in that country. Congress should not undermine this success and risk having al Qaeda stand back up. Instead, Members of both parties should recognize that the Petraeus plan is working, continue to solidify our troops’ gains, and work to bring them home after victory, not defeat.”

Meanwhile, over in Iraq…

More from the front on the Dawn Patrol at Mudville Gazette. And Herschel Smith at Captain’s Journal.

***

The NYT covers tonight’s “rancorous debate” on the House floor:

In two hours of rancorous debate on the House floor, Republicans stressed the recent progress in Iraq while Democrats said that the political situation remained bleak and that it was time to pull out American troops.

“The sacrifice of our troops was simply not met by the actions of the Iraqi government,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. “This legislation today offers something fundamentally different than what President Bush is proposing, a 10-year war, a war without end costing trillions of dollars. It provides the tools to our troops so they can get the job done. It also presents a strategy that will bring them home, responsibly, honorably, safely and soon.”

…For Republicans, the debate provided another chance to accuse the Democrats of wasting time. “Today, if my calculations are right, we will have our 58th vote on trying to restrain the commanders in the field in Iraq,” said Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the Republican whip. “The Democrats appear to never get tired of foregone conclusions, to never get tired of doing the same thing over and over again with the same result — the ultimate Groundhog Day of legislation that doesn’t get us anywhere.”

The White House also hammered the Democrats in Congress. Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, promised a veto and accused the Democrats of ignoring gains in Iraq.

You’ll love this bit of editorializing in the last paragraph of the NYT piece:

The debate over war financing also provided a forum for Republicans to praise recent developments in Iraq, including what they called a decline in violence.

“…what they called a decline in violence.”

“They” are not the only ones calling it that.

Related: A Pat Dollard reader has an interesting exchange with a WaPo reporter about the MSM coverage of Iraq. Read it.

EDWARDS' FAMILY LEAVE

Now the great John "poverty tour" Edwards has released his plan for the Family Leave Act. Edwards proposes spending $2 billion a year (that we don't have) to help states create family leave programs – that's twice as much as Hillary Clinton's suggestion. But Edwards wants at least eight weeks of paid time off every year for so-called family leave .. and he wants it by 2014

Edwards also wants to expand the federal Family and Medical Leave Act to include 13 million workers who are eligible for unpaid leave. But wait! There's more! He also wants to require all businesses to offer workers a minimum of seven paid sick days a year.

Add it up. Edwards wants to use the police power of government to force employers to pay employees for a minimum of 47 days a year ... for not working. This is in addition to vacation days!

Just remember, to Democrats like John Edwards, government is the solution to everything. Edwards says, "It works in combination with universal health care, universal preschool, and a whole series of things that are essentially aimed at making sure we strengthen and grow the middle class in this country, and provide some level of financial security that does not exist today." Universal ... universal ... that's just another way of saying "funded by your tax dollars."

There is not one single penny earned by one individual in this country that people like Edwards don't covet. They're smart, though. They'll be sure to take the money from people who's votes they don't need .. and then spend it on those more likely to vote for them.

If Edwards and the MoveOn Democrats were to get their way on programs like these, all future election campaigns would be peppered with warnings that "If you vote for my opponent he will take away your paid family leave! If you'll vote for me, I'll give you a few days more!"

Nowhere in our Constitution can I find any article or section that gives Washington the power to force employers to pay people for not working. Once you've accepted the premise that Washington does have this power ... what's the limit?