|
Written by George Landrith
|
|
Thursday, 05 June 2008 |
United States Senate
U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC 20002
Dear Senator:
We the undersigned write to urge you to reject legislation that imposes regulations on American energy usage through a so-called “cap-and-trade” provision in a vain attempt to change global average temperatures.
The underlying assumption of such legislation – that we are experiencing catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming – is highly questionable. It is important to note that temperature data show there has been no warming trend in more than a decade, and now even many climate change alarmists admit that there will be no additional warming in the coming decade, and that we may in fact see a cooling trend. We believe that a 20-year period with no warming -- despite record CO2 emissions – is a clear refutation of earlier alarmist predictions that should give policymakers pause. Many climate change alarmists dismiss this 20-year period of stable or cooling temperatures as being attributable to natural climate variability. If that is the case, why wouldn’t the warming trend that apparently stopped or reversed itself in the mid-1990s, also be attributable to natural climate variability? Are we seriously to believe that all cooling is natural, but all warming is man-made? |
|
|
Written by Dr. Miklos K. Radvanyi
|
|
Wednesday, 04 June 2008 |
|
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the enduring malaise of Lebanon is not rooted in the religious differences of the “Shi’ism” of Hetzbollah, the “Sunni’ism” of the rest of the Muslims and the “Christianity” of the Maronites. Neither is the war among these three constituent communities of the country merely a proxy war between Iranians and Arabs. Finally, the alleged incompatibilities between modernity and Islamic traditions, democracy and xenophobic Islamic fundamentalism do not have significant bearing on the current situation. |
|
|
Written by Vincent Gioia
|
|
Tuesday, 03 June 2008 |
|
Even though no one expects it to become law this year, a desperate effort is underway to enact the so-called "Climate Security Act", the brainchild of Senators Lieberman and Warner. As I have written before, among other horrors it would impose "cap-and-trade" mandates on anything that generates carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and that pretty much includes everything in our daily lives from electricity to cars. |
|
|
Written by U.S. Senator James Inhofe
|
|
Tuesday, 03 June 2008 |
|
The Wall Street Journal
June 3, 2008
With average gas prices across the country approaching $4 a gallon, it may be hard to believe, but the U.S. Senate is considering legislation this week that will further drive up the cost at the pump.
The Senate is debating a global warming bill that will create the largest expansion of the federal government since FDR's New Deal, complete with a brand new, unelected bureaucracy. The Lieberman-Warner bill (America's Climate Security Act) represents the largest tax increase in U.S. history and the biggest pork bill ever contemplated with trillions of dollars in giveaways. Well-heeled lobbyists are already plotting how to divide up the federal largesse. The handouts offered by the sponsors of this bill come straight from the pockets of families and workers in the form of lost jobs, higher gas, power and heating bills, and more expensive consumer goods. |
|
|
Written by George Landrith
|
|
Thursday, 29 May 2008 |
Dear Senator or Representative:
We are writing to respectfully urge Congress to exercise rigorous oversight the Defense Department’s decision to award a $40 billion refueling tanker contract to the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS).
Our many concerns about the wisdom of this contract are based on grave questions about the mission capability, survivability, and excessive cost of the EADS aircraft. The Airbus 330 is able to land on only about half as many airfields as the American-made Boeing KC-767, is a bigger target with an excessively large footprint, and is unable to refuel the V-22 Osprey, along with other commercial and military aircraft. EADS has never manufactured a functioning boom or a fully operational tanker. |
|
|
Written by Editorial, Daily Herald, Everett, WA
|
|
Thursday, 29 May 2008 |
While the General Accounting Office investigates the Air Force's decision to award a $35 billion refueling tanker contract to Europe's Airbus rather than Boeing, Sen. Patty Murray is asking some very pointed and pertinent questions. Answers have been elusive.
Why, Washington's senior senator asked the Pentagon's comptroller at a hearing last month, did the Air Force apparently not consider the difference in additional construction costs at air bases for Airbus' larger and heavier tanker? The Airbus A330, the airframe chosen by the Air Force over Boeing's KC-767, would require an additional $2 billion to upgrade hangars, runways, ramps and other infrastructure, Murray pointed out. |
|
|
Written by Dennis Hastert
|
|
Thursday, 29 May 2008 |
The Washington Times
A core lesson our nation learned on Sept. 11, 2001, is the asymmetric nature of the threats we face and how comprehensive our security efforts must be to effectively combat them.
While in subsequent years, many among our political class have chosen to disregard this lesson, it was shocking to learn that a critical element of our national security team has apparently disregarded it as well.
In the largest acquisition in its history, the U.S. Air Force recently awarded a $40 billion contract to build our next generation of aerial refueling tankers to a foreign-led consortium of companies. This decision puts at risk our ability to project power across the globe, protect our supply chain of critical military components and maintain our economic competitiveness — all essential components of a truly comprehensive national security effort. |
|
|
Written by George Landrith
|
|
Thursday, 29 May 2008 |
Another website with great information on the misguided award of America's next generation of tanker to Airbus/EADs can be found at:
www.americastanker.com/tankerhome.html |
|
|
Written by Chris Adamo
|
|
Thursday, 29 May 2008 |
Since leaving office, former Vice-President Al Gore has gained enormous stature within certain circles on the world scene, acquiring it per the standard liberal formula. Taking up his “Earth in the Balance” cause, he produced the feature length movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is replete with fantastic prophesies of doom for the planet unless America immediately regresses to third-world squalor.
An insipid and unsubstantiated piece of propaganda, Gore’s movie would never have resonated beyond the boundaries of a few egg headed film fests, were it not for the concerted efforts of virtually every liberal and socialist special interest known to mankind. Coming to his aid, they collectively proclaimed “An Inconvenient Truth” to be at once the scientific equivalent of Einstein’s theory of relativity, packaged in cinematic genius that eclipses Ben Hur. |
|
|
Written by Rebecca Hagelin
|
|
Thursday, 15 May 2008 |
|
Think energy is expensive now? Wait until Congress plugs in the “Climate Security Act of 2007.”
That’s the leading piece of legislation on Capitol Hill designed to combat "climate change." Lawmakers have cooked up an expensive solution to a hyped-up rallying cry against a "problem" that scientists can't even agree exists in the first place. Of course, Congress is doing what Congress seems to do best -- pass laws in response to the latest craze. In this case, if the politicians are successful, you may find yourself nostalgic for the days of $3.60 gasoline.
And that would be only the start. The overall economic costs could be staggering. |
|
|
