.
3/21/14,
"Tea Party Patriots endorse Bevin," The Hill, Alexandra Jaffe
"Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) primary challenger, businessman Matt
Bevin, picked up another national Tea Party endorsement on Friday.
Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund is backing Bevin and launching an
independent expenditure in the race, which an aide to the group said
would come in the form of grassroots organizing and direct outreach to
voters rather than advertising.
Jenny Beth Martin, the group’s
president, said it's backing Bevin because he’s “a job-creator, family
man, and community leader committed to fighting for personal freedom,
economic freedom, and a debt free future.”
“Unlike the incumbent, Matt Bevin has never voted to raise the debt ceiling, has never cut a
deal with Joe Biden to raise taxes by $600 billion, and has never worked
to ‘crush’ his political opponents,” she added.
Martin also said
that because McConnell’s been in Congress for decades he could have
used his leadership to reign in government spending, but “instead,
Senator McConnell worked with the Obama Administration to raise taxes,
has voted to raise the debt ceiling ten times, and has added pork barrel
projects to further his own career instead of the needs of the American
people.”
Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund also endorsed Sen. Thad
Cochran's (R-Miss.) primary challenger, state Sen. Chris McDaniel,
earlier this week.
Bevin has the backing of nearly every national
conservative group, including the Senate Conservatives Fund and
FreedomWorks. The Club for Growth hasn’t yet weighed in on the race and
has signaled it ultimately might sit the primary out.
Conservatives
feel McConnell is vulnerable to a primary challenge due to his support
for the financial bailout and a number of votes to raise the debt limit,
including one contentious vote just a few months ago.
But Bevin
hasn’t yet managed to close the double-digit lead McConnell has posted
in every public poll of the race, and has just two months left to do so.
If McConnell makes it through the primary, he’s expected to face Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes in the general election." via Mark Levin twitter
=========================
Image, 1/4/2013, Backslapper McConnell and Obama, Getty
=================================
3/12/14, The LA Times is thrilled that Mitch McConnell pointedly refused to deny the existence of man-caused global warming climate terror. $1 billion a day was invested in the idea of "global warming" in 2012 alone. Pretty good for something that doesn't exist:
3/12/14,
"How curbing climate change can prevent Russia from becoming a superpower," LA Times, Matthew Fleisher, guest blogger
"On Monday night, Democratic senators held an all night “talk-athon”
on the Senate floor to bring increased attention to the issue of
climate change. Predictably, their efforts were mocked by the Republican
leadership.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called the Democratic efforts "30 hours of excuses" for why "families are losing work because of government attacks on the coal industry."
Interestingly, McConnell didn’t deny that global warming existed. His
argument was that fighting climate change isn’t worth the economic
costs. That puts him in line with the majority of non-tea party
Republicans on the issue -- 61 percent of whom, according to a recent Pew poll, agree that global warming is occurring."...
======================
McConnell's "global warming strategy" of changing the subject to jobs (cited in above 2014 LA Times article) may reflect GOP "leadership" strategy that began in mid 2013. As reported by Politico, GOP "leadership" policy on global warming became, "change the subject to jobs."
This allows massive criminal theft from US taxpayers to continue, gives
Obama and his EU partners freedom to continue meetings and drafting
of language to tie US taxpayers to a 2015 UN climate
treaty and then to endless "post 2015" UN programs via John Podesta and UN parasites :
6/27/13, "GOP climate tack: Talk jobs, not science," Politico Pro, Darren Goode
"Republican leaders have a clear strategy for combating President Barack Obama’s climate agenda: Don’t talk about the science.
Just as top Republicans have called for their party to rebrand itself by
avoiding rhetoric that alienates minorities, young voters and women, key
GOP lawmakers are trying to stay out of the long-running debate about
whether global warming is real..."
===================
Note: In the above Politico article when terms "science" and "the science" are used it's with the implication that scientific proof exists of catastrophic human caused global warming,
that the US is mainly the cause of it, that
US taxpayers must pay many more trillions for it than they've already paid, and sign a UN climate treaty. There's actually scientific proof of the
reverse, that CO2 doesn't cause temperature increase including a 30 year peer reviewed study:
"Fig. 1. Monthly global atmospheric CO2
(NOOA; green), monthly global sea surface temperature (HadSST2; blue
stippled) and monthly global surface air temperature (HadCRUT3; red),
since January 1980. Last month shown is December 2011."
January 2013, "The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature," Global and Planetary Change, ScienceDirect.com
==================================
Even
if
Politico's version of "science" were true, China controls global CO2.
The US has no ability to make significant change in global CO2. No
matter how much we harm our economy it's negated by China. The
US EPA has essentially confirmed this twice in the Federal Register, 1/8/14, and 9/20/13, stating that Obama
proposed rules to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants will have "negligible CO2 emissions changes." Why didn't Mitch McConnell say this, that even the EPA says Obama rules against power plants won't improve emissions? This is ample justification to cancel the rules:
.
1/8/14, "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," US Federal Register
"I. General Information," "A. Executive Summary"
"3. Costs and Benefits"
"Therefore, based on the
analysis presented in Chapter 5 of the RIA, the EPA projects that this
proposed rule will result in negligible CO 2 emission changes, quantified benefits, and costs by 2022.
[2]"...
.
================================
On 9/20/13, EPA again in the Federal Register said new Obama power plant rules will result in "no notable CO2 emission changes":
9/20/13, EPA text (pp 343, 346) says its rule limiting CO2 emissions in new power plants will have no notable effect on CO2 emissions:
Sept. 20, 2013, Environmental Protection Agency, “Standards
of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary
Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units Proposed Rule.” Submitted “for publication in the Federal Register”
page 343, “X. “Impacts of the Proposed Action”
p. 346, E. “What are the economic and employment impacts?”
“The EPA does not anticipate that this proposed rule will result in notable CO2 emission changes, energy impacts, monetized benefits, costs, or economic impacts by 2022.
The owners of newly built electric generating units will likely choose
technologies that meet these standards even in the absence of this
proposal due to existing economic conditions as normal business
practice. Likewise, the EPA believes this rule will not have any impacts on the price of electricity, employment or labor markets, or the U.S. economy.
p. 346, F. What are the benefits of the proposed standards?
As previously stated, the EPA does not anticipate that the power industry will incur compliance costs as a result of this proposal and we do not anticipate any notable CO2 emission changes resulting from the rule. Therefore, there are no direct monetized climate benefits in terms of CO2 emission reductions
associated with this rulemaking. However, by clarifying that in the
future, new coal-fired power plants will be required to meet a
particular performance standard, this rulemaking reduces uncertainty and may enhance the prospects for new coal-fired generation and the deployment of CCS, and thereby promote energy diversity.” (end page 346)
====================
.
A Republican consultant quoted in 6/27/13, Politico article, "GOP climate tack: Talk jobs, not science," seems to suggest the lure of global warming for politicians.
Mitch McConnell has nurtured the multi-trillion dollar climate scare
industry for decades. At minimum he's done nothing to stop it:
"“If you really believe or accept that global warming is a legitimate,
real, immediate threat, then there's no amount of money you wouldn't pay to avoid it" he said. “But if it’s not, then you can talk about the
economics all you want.”"
---------------------------
Ed. note: The white patches behind part of this post were put there by my longtime google hackers.
No comments:
Post a Comment