Published 1-3-10                         Volume 6- Issue 1 2010 situation grows more difficult for Democrats   By LIZ SIDOTI AP An already difficult situation for Democrats in Congress is worsening as the 2010 political season opens. To minimize expected losses in next fall's election, President Barack Obama's party is testing a line of attack that resurrects George W. Bush as a boogeyman and castigates Republicans as cozy with Wall Street. Four House Democrats from swing districts have recently chosen not to seek re-election, bringing to 11 the number of retirements that could leave Democratic-held seats vulnerable to Republicans. More Democratic retirements are expected. Over the holiday break, another Democrat, freshman Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama, defected to the GOP. "I can no longer align myself with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy, and drives us further and further into debt," said Griffith, who voted against Democrats' three biggest initiatives in 2009: health care, financial regulation and reducing global warming. In the Senate, at least four Democrats _ including Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and five-term Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd _ are in serious trouble. The party could also lose its grip on seats Obama held in Illinois and Vice President Joe Biden long occupied in Delaware. Going into 2010, Democrats held a 257-178 majority in the House and an effective 60-40 majority in the Senate, including two independents who align themselves with Democrats. But they face an incumbent-hostile electorate worried about a 10 percent unemployment rate, weary of wars and angry at politicians of all stripes. Many independents who backed Democrats in 2006 and 2008 have turned away. Republicans, meanwhile, are energized and united in opposing Obama's policies. The one thing that heartens Democrats is that voters also don't think much of the GOP, which is bleeding backers, lacking a leader and facing a conservative revolt. House Democrats began an ad campaign in December assailing Republicans for opposing legislation restructuring federal financial rules and recalling the final days of the Bush presidency, when the economy tanked. "Remember? We all know we should never let this happen again," the ad says. It lays into Republicans for voting "to let Wall Street continue the same risky practices that crippled retirement accounts and left taxpayers on the hook for $700 billion." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who heads the House Democrats' campaign arm, said his party wants to remind voters who was on their side at a difficult time. "The Republican Party in Washington today is no different than the Republican Party that ran the Congress before," he said. But that was three years ago. Democrats have been in control since, and Bush is long gone. This is Obama's country now. Democrats tried to use Bush against Republican Chris Christie in the New Jersey governor's race in November _ and Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine still lost. A top Democratic priority is minimizing losses among nearly four dozen seats the party now holds in moderate-to-conservative districts that Republican John McCain won in the 2008 presidential race. The most vulnerable in that group include Democratic Reps. Mary Jo Kilroy in Ohio, Harry Teague in New Mexico, Frank Kratovil in Maryland, Tom Perriello in Virginia and Travis Childers in Mississippi. Reps. Bart Gordon and John Tanner, both of Tennessee, were in that group until they chose to retire. So was Griffith, before he switched to the GOP. Retirement announcements from Reps. Dennis Moore of Kansas and Brian Baird of Washington put two more Democratic seats in swing-voting districts on the GOP's target list. Democrats insist that Gordon, Tanner, Moore and Baird are leaving for personal reasons and are not the first ripple in a wave of retirements akin to 1994 when 28 Democrats chose not to run, and Republicans won control in part by winning 22 of those seats. Republicans don't agree. "Democrats are beginning to see the writing on the wall, and instead of choosing to fight in a difficult political environment, they are taking a pass and opting for retirement," said Ken Spain, a spokesman for the House GOP's campaign arm. The GOP will be defending at least a dozen open seats because of retirements, with several lawmakers leaving the House to run for higher office. The situation for Democrats in the Senate is nearly as grim as it is for them in the House. Democrats crowed after six Senate Republicans _ four from swing states Florida, Ohio, Missouri and New Hampshire and two from GOP-leaning Kansas and Kentucky _ announced retirements. Spirited GOP challenges are now expected in all six states, and Republicans say they are optimistic they can retain the seats. An emboldened GOP also is looking to put a pair of senior Senate Democrats out of office. Reid, who is seeking a fifth term, is faring poorly in surveys in a hypothetical matchup with Nevada GOP chairwoman Sue Lowden, one of several Republicans competing for a chance to challenge him. Dodd, the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee chairman who has taken heat for a discounted VIP mortgage loan he got from a subprime lender, has been consistently behind potential GOP challenger Rob Simmons in Connecticut polls. Simmons, a former House member, has his own challenger in World Wrestling Entertainment co-founder Linda McMahon, who also is seeking the Republican nomination for Dodd's seat. Also vulnerable are Sen. Blanche Lincoln, a moderate Democrat in GOP-leaning Arkansas, and Sen. Michael Bennet in Colorado, who was appointed when Ken Salazar became Obama's interior secretary. Republicans have high hopes for picking up Senate seats in Illinois and Delaware that were held by the president and vice president, respectively. Neither of their appointed successors is seeking election to the seats. Early polling shows GOP Rep. Mark Kirk leading among Republican candidates in Illinois. Veteran GOP Rep. Mike Castle, a former two-term governor, is running for the Senate in Delaware. Biden's son, Democratic state Attorney General Beau Biden, is considering whether to challenge Castle. "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy ... its inherent virture is the equal sharing of misery." Headlines Sen. Reid’s Government-Run Health Plan STILL Requires a Monthly Abortion Fee Follow @GOPLeader on Twitter for updates. Fixed it is not.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) latest health care “manager’s amendment” would STILL levy a new “abortion premium” fee on Americans under the Democrats’ health care plan.  Just like the original 2,032-page, government-run health care plan from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) and the last version of Senator Reid’s 2,074-page bill, this latest 383-page amendment levies an abortion premium and does not fix the problem of government funds being used to subsidize elective abortions. Under Reid’s “manager’s amendment,” there is no prohibition on abortion coverage in federally subsidized plans participating in the Exchange.  Instead the amendment includes layers of accounting gimmicks that demand that plans participating in the Exchange or the new government-run plan that will be managed by the Office of Personnel Management must establish “allocation accounts” when elective abortion is a covered benefit (p. 41).  Everyone enrolled in these plans must pay a monthly abortion premium (p. 41, lines 5-8), and these funds will be used to pay for the elective abortion services.  The Reid amendment directs insurance companies to assess the cost of elective abortion coverage (p. 43), and charge a minimum of $1 per enrollee per month (p. 43, lines 20-22). In short, the Reid bill continues to defy the will of the American people and contradict longstanding federal policy by providing federal subsidies to private health plans that cover elective abortions.  The new language does include a “state opt-out” provision if a state passes a law to prohibit insurance coverage of abortion, but it’s a sham because it does nothing to prevent one state’s tax dollars from paying for elective abortions in other states. A majority of Americans believe that health care plans should not be mandated to provide elective abortion coverage, and a majority of Americans do not believe government health care plans should include abortion coverage. Currently, federal appropriations bills include language known as the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, while another provision, known as the Smith Amendment, prohibits federal funding of abortion under the federal employees’ health benefits plan.  Under the Reid “manager’s amendment” the new health care plan that will mirror the federal employees’ plan and be managed by the Office of Personnel Management will NOT be subject to the Smith Amendment. Leader Reid’s latest health care proposal is an affront to the American people and drastically moves away from current policy.  In a statement released by National Right to Life Committee legislative director Douglas Johnson said, “The new abortion language solves none of the fundamental abortion-related problems with the Senate bill, and it actually creates some new abortion-related problems.”  The American people deserve more from their government than being forced to pay for abortion.  The pro-life Stupak/Pitts amendment passed the House by a vote of 240 to 194, enjoying the overwhelming support of 176 Republicans and 64 Democrats.  The Stupak/Pitts Amendment codifies current law by prohibiting federal funding of elective abortions under any government-run plan or plans available under the Exchange.  The Reid plan ignores the will of a bipartisan majority of the House, and indeed the American people, by rejecting this bipartisan amendment. Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life – not end it – and the American people agree.  House Republicans have offered a common-sense, responsible solution that would reduce health care costs and expand access while protecting the dignity of all human life. The Republican plan, available at HealthCare.GOP.gov, would codify the Hyde Amendment and prohibit all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. And under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage may not receive federal funds. UPDATE: Here is a detailed critique of the new Reid abortion language from the National Right to Life committee. Father of terror suspect reported Mutallab to US Embassy 6 months ago Alleged terrorist idenitifed as engineering student who preched Islamic teachings By STEFANIE COHEN NY Post The father of the al Qaeda terrorist behind Friday’s attempted explosion aboard a Northwest flight bound for Detroit reported his son’s fanatical religious views to the U.S. Embassy six months ago, according to a Nigerian news outlet. The young man, Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, is the son of Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, a former Nigerian minister and bank chairman. He became wary of his son’s religious beliefs and reported his activities to the U.S. Embassy as well as Nigerian security services half a year ago, according to the Nigerian newspaper This Day. The elder Mutallab had left his home in Katsina today, a city in Northern Nigeria, to speak with security agencies, the site reported, quoting family sources. He said his son left London to travel, though he did not know where to. “I believe he might have been to Yemen, but we are investigating to determine that,” he says. A source close to the dad said he was shocked that his son was allowed to travel to this country after he’d reported his extreme views. The bungling bomber is an engineering student at the University College, London, and is known to have preached Islamic teachings while in high school, where he was called "Alfa," which is slang for Islamic scholar. After enrolling at the University College in London, Mutallab relocated to Egypt and then Dubai, where he told his family that he no longer wanted contact with them, the site reported. The would-be jihadist smuggled explosive powder onto the plane, which had originated in Amsterdam, and tried to detonate it as the airliner descended into Detroit. As the crew prepared to land, Mutallab emerged from the bathroom with a pillow over his stomach and then began mixing chemicals in a syringe. However the device misfired and began spewing smoke and flames, setting Mutallab’s legs on fire. Heroic passengers sprayed him down with water and fire extinguishers, restrained him, trapped him in a headlock, and dragged him to the front of the plane. He is currently being treated for his burns at the University of Michigan hospital in Ann Arbor. Administration Transfers 12 Gitmo Detainees Overseas, Despite Concerns FoxNews.com The Obama administration has transferred 12 Guantanamo Bay detainees to their home countries in Yemen, Afghanistan and the Somaliland region, despite concerns that many former prisoners are returning to terrorism.  The Obama administration has transferred 12 Guantanamo Bay detainees to their home countries in Yemen, Afghanistan and the Somaliland region, despite concerns that many former prisoners are returning to terrorism.  The Justice Department said in a written statement that the transfers were carried out under "appropriate security measures" and that "consultations" with the host countries would continue.  Six Yemeni detainees went to Yemen, four Afghan detainees went to Afghanistan, and two more Somali detainees went to the Somaliland region.  The announcement came after Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., sent a request to President Obama on Friday to stop the release. The nearly 100 Yemenis remaining at the Cuba facility make up the largest group there. But releasing more detainees to Yemen is raising concerns, because of the country's security problems and lack of resources.  "I have written you and others in your administration on three occasions imploring you to halt the release of detainees to these countries due to the deteriorating security situations and the dangerous potential for recidivism," Wolf wrote in his letter.  "I am deeply concerned that American lives will be at risk because of this terrible decision," he said.  Wolf noted that the Defense Intelligence Agency may have upwardly revised its recidivism numbers on former Gitmo detainees that have returned to terrorism -- information that has not been provided to most members of Congress.  In July, the agency reported that 18 percent of the detainees sent home or to another country are confirmed or suspected of what the Pentagon calls "terrorist activities."  "I hope your administration will not suppress this information," Wolf wrote. "The American people have a right to know the facts about the danger posed by released detainees."  According to the Justice Department, more than 560 detainees have left Guantanamo for other countries since 2002. The administration is looking to transfer remaining detainees to a prison in Thomson, Ill., though making its January 2010 deadline for closure is virtually impossible. Troops in standoff at oil well Lara Jakes ASSOCIATED PRESS BAGHDAD | Iraqi troops massed Saturday near an oil well on the border in a standoff with Iranian forces that seized control of the site in a sudden flare-up of tension between the two uneasy neighbors. The top U.S. diplomat in Iraq said Baghdad's speedy response to the border incursion showed that Iraq is "not going to be pushed around" by Iran. The Iraqi troops and border guards were waiting for further orders at a staging ground about a half mile from oil well No. 4 at the al-Fakkah oil field, said an Interior Ministry official at the site who was not authorized to talk to the media. The Iranian military, meanwhile, denied it had violated Iraq's sovereignty since the oil well was part of Iranian territory according to a 1975 border agreement, in a statement carried by the Arabic-language Iranian news station al-Alam. The field is located about 200 miles southeast of Baghdad. It was not clear, however, whether the Iranian forces who seized the well late Thursday night were still there. The diplomatic and security standoff began late Thursday, when Iranian forces crossed into Iraq and seized the well that sits just over the border in the southern Maysan province. It was a dramatic display of the occasionally tense relations between the wary neighbors. The takeover - which included planting an Iranian flag on the well - was met by protests from Baghdad and an emergency meeting of Iraq's national security council, which denounced the move as a gross violation of Iraqi sovereignty. Iraqi officials said the well was clearly in Iraqi territory and demanded the Iranians leave immediately. High-level diplomatic talks between Iraq and Iran are continuing, said Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Labid Abbawi. "The situation this morning is the same: the Iranians have not withdrawn from the well," Mr. Abbawi said. "We are still sticking to our position in demanding an immediate withdrawal of Iranian forces from the oil well." Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Rahmin Mehmanparast accused foreign media of spreading false news to "disrupt good relations" between Tehran and Baghdad. "Diplomatic and technical mechanisms" were the way to deal with the issue, said Hasan Kazemi Qomi, the ambassador to Iraq, according to the semiofficial Fars news agency. Army Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, told reporters that the Iranian forces had withdrawn from the oil well as of Saturday morning. But an oil worker at the field said five Iranians remain inside the well, and the Iranian flag was still flying above it. It was not clear what kind of Iranian forces had been at the well. An Iraqi official and an eyewitness described them as soldiers. The Iraqi government spokesman described them only as armed men. U.S. officials said Iran had overstepped its boundaries. Adm. Mike Mullen, the top American military official, said the U.S. considers the oil site Iraqi sovereign territory. Christopher Hill, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, said the incident does speak to the overall view here that they are not going to be "pushed around by Iran." However, Adm. Mullen said the incident must be resolved by the Iraqi government, and there were no plans by the United States to intervene. Once bitter enemies, Iraq and Iran settled into a more positive, if still uneasy, relationship after a Shi'ite-led government came to power in Iraq following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion there. Columns Griffith's Party Switch Illustrates The Death Of Moderate Democrats Dick Morris and Eileen McGann Parker Griffith's decision to step out of line and refuse to drink the Democratic Kool-Aid illustrates the Achilles' Heel of the Democratic regime in Washington: The radical reign of Pelosi and Reid is held up by pillars of moderate and conservative Democrats who come from districts that regularly vote Republican. To survive in these red precincts, Democrats must act like Republicans, advocating a balanced budget, opposing big spending and fighting against socialized medicine. But, in Washington, Pelosi and Reid use their backing to bring a radical left leadership to Congress. Once it sufficed for a moderate Democrat merely to vote "no." But American voters are onto their tricks and realize that a Democrat -- any Democrat -- will vote "yes" when his party leaders need it. The unanimous Senate Democratic support for Obamacare shows that there are really only two types of congresspeople: Democrats and Republicans. All other shadings and adjectives are mere decoration. The Senate dealmaking that produced party unity has gone on in full public view, a vindication of Otto von Bismark's wisdom in proclaiming that the public should never witness either a sausage being made or a law being passed. We are watching, real time, as moderate Democrats fold for tiny, dirty little payoffs to their states and their egos. A moderate Democrat is just someone who will demand a higher price for caving into what Reid and Pelosi and Obama want him to do. By focusing on his so-called moderation and hoping for his support, we just drive up his market price and elevate the bribe he will get. (We only know now about the publicly funded bribes these moderate members of Congress are getting. We will learn, as the years unfold, what private commitments were exchanged for their health care votes. Follow the judgeships, ambassadorships and Cabinet positions to see where these folks land after their voters have thrown them out.) So Parker Griffith realized -- as others will -- that merely voting against the legislation he did not like would not be sufficient to inoculate him against voter anger. To get out of the way of the looming tsunami of 2010, he had actually to switch political parties and become a Republican. In 2010, voters will realize that they can vote only for one of the two parties. Individuals don't matter. Candidate personalities, preferences, backgrounds and even ideologies don't matter. Once the smart voter said that he votes for the person, not the party. Now, this once virtuous citizen would be a fool. There is no such thing as a moderate Democrat or a centrist or a conservative or a Reagan Democrat. There are only Democrats who, when the chips are down, will vote as his leaders need him to vote. Rep. Parker Griffith, the newly minted Republican, is typical of his class of freshmen Democrats from heavily John McCain districts. For them to survive, they need to switch parties. Otherwise, they -- and the damage they have done -- will be two-year footnotes to history. Understanding the Global-warming Jihadists   by SelwynDuke NewsBack.com   "I was born with a chronic anxiety about the weather," said John Burroughs in 1877. Today, anxiety about the weather is more common than ever, although it’s not inborn but cultivated in schoolrooms, through television sets and by lying, rapacious ex-vice presidents. And I have anxiety about the weather, too — especially when it’s being used to promote a destructive agenda. This brings us to Climategate, the scandal everyone is talking about and that inspired British journalist James Delingpole to write “it's [the climate con is] all unravelling now.” I only wish I could be so optimistic. Sure, we have the smoking gun of the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia, which provide evidence that we “deniers” were only denying a lie. And the erstwhile head of its Climatic Research Unit, Phil Jones — a con man with a science degree if ever there were one — had to resign in disgrace. But don’t for a moment confuse a smoking gun with a coup de grace, or being sacrificed for the team with waving the white flag. I say this because I long ago realized something about man’s nature, something that may sound like a gross exaggeration: If a person has a strong enough vested interest in believing 2+2=5, he will surely insist it is so — in the face of all evidence to the contrary. But before I talk about who the real deniers are and what is being denied, let’s discuss the ugly reality reaffirmed by Climategate. Here is the lowdown in a nutshell: Governments have used billions of dollars of our money to fund fraudulent science, which, in turn, is used to justify policy that would steal untold billions more from us through taxation and the handicapping of the private sector. This will, of course, stifle the creation of wealth, but it will also be a transfer of it. But this would not be so much from the rich to the poor; it would be from the poor and middle class to the rich and well-connected. Carbon-credit con men such as Al Gore will add to their many millions, while subtracting from the many millions some of the latter’s few dollars. It would move us toward a situation in which we’d have two Americas, as John Edwards might say. One would be a lying, covetous ruling class of John Edwardses. The other would be the masses, who would be perpetually mired in serfdom. Yet defeating the climate con won’t be easy, because it isn’t just money that drives the con men. In fact, many of them are so married the climate con that they have become one with their misguided notions. Call it the Zen of Being Wrong. One reason not to do wrong is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Obviously, Bill Clinton, John Edwards and Tiger Woods would never have felt the urge to lie about their affairs if they had never had affairs. Of course, the lying was immoral, but this is how one sin leads to another. A transgression leads to a lie, which leads to a full-blown cover-up, etc. And the deeper you dig that hole, the harder and more painful it is to climb out of it. In the case of the climate con artists, the pain would be great and the price steep. Their creed has been likened to a religion, and in many ways it is. They aren’t global-warming theorists. They are global-warming fundamentalists. They have invested so much of their time, energy, emotion, ego and reputations in the climate con that to relinquish it would be to relinquish themselves; to call it a lie is to call their lives a lie. It’s just a bit like asking a Jihadist to give up Islam. These are not people who subscribe to AGW theory; they have submitted to it. Then you have those who are using this religion to make money — and they and the true believers are often one and the same. These are the carbon-credit capitalists, the green-technology givers and greenback grabbers. And we have to add to this the fact that all these people had become science’s Torquemadas, inquisitors bent on stifling inquisitiveness. Al Gore told us “The debate is over” as he and his co-religionists strove to root out heresy and sought to destroy the “deniers.” Thus, they have no reason to expect mercy. Surrender is simply not an option. So forget about icebergs; the meltdown the climate con artists fear is that of their reputations, egos, finances and faith. Scientists or not, to admit error is not merely the alteration of a hypothesis to them; it is the loss of religion and meaning, the end of empire, the fall of Rome. It is complete and utter personal destruction. Yet destruction is precisely what the climate-change con men would visit on the economies of nations in their delusional grip. Other lands, such as China and India, will never yield to such insanity. They may pay lip service to it, though, especially if doing so will encourage us to more thoroughly handicap ourselves. Then they can laugh and rise to prominence while we become the most recent great civilization to descend into backwater status. As I write this, the climate-change con artists are meeting in Copenhagen, where useful-idiot communists are protesting in the streets while their standard bearers, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Zimbabwean strongman Robert Mugabe and Bolivian President Evo Morales are railing against free markets and beating the red drum. Do you really think these folks care about the environment? The green that really concerns them is your money — and I do mean your money. Because if there is an “international” agreement to fight the phantom of climate change, you can bet your depreciating bottom dollar that we Americans will pay the freight. We are, after all, the world’s biggest energy suckers. The question is, are we just the world’s biggest suckers? Chavez, Mugabe and China are betting yes. And if we want to make fools out of them, we’ll cause radical climate change — to the political climate in Washington in 2010. It’s probably our last chance to prove who the fools really are. "Shut up" is a favorite Democrat talking point By: Noemie Emery Washington Examiner Columnist "This is not an administration that takes bad news well," Jennifer Rubin wrote on Commentary's blog, referring to Robert Gibbs' fit when asked to explain the Gallup poll showing the president taking on water, sinking into the high-to-mid 40s, and losing ground fast. Neither apparently does much of the left, which, faced with cratering numbers for both the health care proposals and for global warming, responded with all of the rational discourse and respect for debate and dissenting opinion that has made them so widely beloved. First, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who emerged in the health care debate as the leading Republican anti-bill spokesman, was widely portrayed as sorry old coot acting from "bitterness," and who squandered his chance to establish a legacy by opposing the bill out of spite. He was a maverick, not an ex-Democrat, and his ally Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., fared even worse. He was described as a "putz" by Jonathan Alter, as "the L-word" and as "Joe the Bummer" by Chris Matthews. He was also described as a traitor to Judaism by various bloggers -- by Jonathan Chait as the one Jew in the world too clueless to know what he's doing, and by Ezra Klein as a potential mass murderer, "willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score." Paul Krugman wanted him "hung in effigy," and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., urged he be "recalled" from office, though by whom was uncertain. Unfortunately, there is no provision in Connecticut law for recalls (much less for lynching) so they will have to wait for their chances in 2012. In related news, Rep. Alan Grayson, Lunatic-Fla., known mainly for saying the Republicans' health plans called for asking the sick to "die quickly" and for telling former Vice President Cheney to "shut the f--k up," sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking the Department of Justice to investigate, fine, and perhaps send to jail for five years a Florida activist who reacted to his behavior by setting up a fundraising Web site called "mycongressmanisnuts.com." He complained that the blogger was "senseless and juvenile." "Just five years?" queried blogger Ed Morrissey. "Why doesn't Grayson just demand that Holder chop off her head?" Then there was global warming, or the First Church of Al, where Al Gore sought refuge after the Florida recount and rapidly built a cult following. This was largely by warning that the Earth was in such danger from fossil fuel usage that in order to fight it he was compelled to jet all over the world spreading the message, and run up monstrous utility bills in his three or more homes. When this cause was imperiled by e-mails showing that the global warming police had doctored the data -- and film showing Obama flying into a snowstorm on his trip to the summit at Copenhagen, Denmark, and then flying back into an even more extravagant blizzard in Washington -- certain members of the pundit-industrial complex responded by asking that news that impugned their consensus should be -- you guessed it -- suppressed. ThinkProgress blogger Matt Yglesias complained that CNN ran a show called "Global Warming: Fact or Fiction" without taking sides on the side of the "Goracle," or saying that what he called the global warming "deniers" were totally out of their minds. He then said the news media -- along with the rest of what he called the elite of the country -- had a moral duty to the rest of humanity to censor their output, so that opinion contesting the "global climate-warming consensus" would never again see the light of the day. At the New Republic, Ed Kilgore was in total agreement, blaming the mainstream press for being browbeaten by right-wing fanatics into thinking they ought to air different opinions, and even cover all of the news. Morals in this case seem to equal suppression. "Yglesias is right," he concluded. "This is one area of public policy where 'respect for contrary views' and 'editorial balance' are misplaced." What a good thing Democrats are the party of logic and reason. They might tell their critics to "Shut the f--k up." Political Stimulus CBS Sees 'Bitter Medicine' in Employer Mandates to Buy Health Insurance By Brad Wilmouth NewsBusters   On Thursday’s CBS Evening News, correspondent John Blackstone gave attention to the danger for small businesses if the final version of health care reform requires employers to provide health insurance for their employees as he highlighted two business owners – one who fears health care reform could close down his night club business while the other is more optimistic about how her business would be affected. Substitute anchor Jeff Glor set up the report: "As we mentioned earlier, the health care bill passed by the Senate today would extend coverage to 30 million Americans. A key element is a mandate forcing many companies to pay for their workers' insurance or pay a fine – a very difficult choice for struggling small business owners." Blackstone related that "the prescription for change includes some bitter medicine, mandates requiring companies to pay for health insurance or pay a fine." While Blackstone at one point argued that small business owners are likely to benefit "from insurance exchanges in the reform plans which should hold down premiums in many cases by helping small businesses join together for greater buying power," the CBS correspondent also gave substantial attention to nightclub owner Jay Siegan’s fears that " the music will go silent if he's required to provide insurance." And even while kennel owner Virginia Donohue voiced support for health care reform, as she claimed health insurance is a "basic human right," Blackstone also informed viewers that Donohue, who already pays for health insurance for her employees, "admits she can barely afford it." On the down side, a clip of Donohue was shown complaining about large increases in her health insurance premiums, but Blackstone did not take the opportunity to pass on the argument that government regulations contribute to high health insurance. [0] Below is a complete transcript of the story from the Thursday, December 24, CBS Evening News: JEFF GLOR: As we mentioned earlier, the health care bill passed by the Senate today would extend coverage to 30 million Americans. A key element is a mandate forcing many companies to pay for their workers' insurance or pay a fine – a very difficult choice for struggling small business owners. More now from John Blackstone in tonight’s "Eye on Health Care." JAY SIEGAN, BUSINESS OWNER: I'm Jay Siegan. I own the Red Devil Lounge in San Francisco. VIRGINIA DONOHUE, BUSINESS OWNER: I'm Virginia Donohue. I own Pet Camp in San Francisco. JOHN BLACKSTONE: Two owners of small businesses whose concerns about health care reform are as different as their companies. Virginia Donohue owns a boarding kennel for dogs and cats. Her 20 employees all get health insurance. DONOHUE: We think health insurance is a basic human right, and in this country, you get it through your employer. BLACKSTONE: At Jay Siegan's nightclub with 15 employees, nobody gets health insurance. SIEGAN: We want to take care of our employees, of course. BLACKSTONE: But right now you can't afford to pay. SIEGAN: Right now I cannot afford to put all our employees on health care. I cannot afford it. BLACKSTONE: Donohue admits she can barely afford it. Since 2000 the cost of covering her workers has tripled from $30,000 to $90,000 a year while benefits have been cut back. This year alone, premiums rose 30 percent. DONOHUE: Everybody's revenues are down. You don't see anybody getting raises. There is no cost of living increase. What justifies 30 percent? BLACKSTONE: The prescription for change includes some bitter medicine, mandates requiring companies to pay for health insurance or pay a fine. After an outcry, the House bill exempted companies with payrolls under $500,000. The Senate bill exempts those with fewer than 50 employees. Jay Siegan is grateful he's unlikely to fall under the mandate SIEGAN: We’ 're just hanging on. We need breaks. BLACKSTONE: But given her payroll size, Donohue's business could come under the mandate. Since she's already providing health coverage, she's looking at the upside. DONOHUE: There's a tax credit for companies, and I’d love that. BLACKSTONE: For Donohue, the credit could save $7,000 to $10,000 in the first year under the House bill, but less under the Senate version. Both Donohue and Siegan could benefit from insurance exchanges in the reform plans which should hold down premiums in many cases by helping small businesses join together for greater buying power. Now, small firms pay an average 18 percent more for health insurance than big ones without a significant cost break. Jay Siegan says the music will go silent if he's required to provide insurance. SIEGAN: I’d want to see it happen one way or the other. I just need to see it happen in a way that doesn't shut down a bunch of businesses in the meantime. BLACKSTONE: Virginia Donohue says almost anything is better than what we have. SIEGAN: It's not working. The system is completely broken. BLACKSTONE: Two owners looking for reforms that help their workers stay healthy while helping their businesses survive. John Blackstone, CBS News, San Francisco. Republican Party Notes RNC Chairman Statement on the Christmas Holiday "May the God of Hope fill you with all Joy & Peace" ROMANS 15:13 NIV At this special time of year, our hearts are filled with gratitude for our many blessings and our homes are filled with the warmth of the season. During the holidays, I am reminded of our responsibility to serve others, to exhibit compassion for those in need, and to remember our servicemen and women who defend our freedoms. We honor their sacrifice to our great nation, and we keep their families in our thoughts. For those in uniform who are serving in distant lands, we pray for their safe return home. As I reflect on a successful 2009, I would like to thank our supporters for all that you have done this year for the Republican Party and our country. I am grateful for your support and for the important work you do around the country on behalf of our Republican principles. On behalf of the Republican National Committee, I want to send my best wishes to you and your families for a healthy, safe and Merry Christmas. Political Cartoons Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson Information of Interest FNC’s Pinkerton Corrects FNC’s Kennedy on Global Warming: ‘Cooling Since 1998' By Brad Wilmouth NewsBusters.org On Saturday’s Fox News Watch on FNC, regular panel member Jim Pinkerton of the conservative New America Foundation corrected fellow panel member Douglas Kennedy – an FNC correspondent and son of former New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy – as Kennedy asserted that "you don't have to be a scientist to know that the world is getting hotter," and that "that's objective reporting to say that the world is getting hotter." Pinkerton responded: "Actually, it’s inaccurate reporting to say that. The world has been cooling since 1998." Earlier, Pinkerton also seemed to pick up on a Newsbusters posting [0] by the MRC’s Geoffrey Dickens as he cited a polar photographer who appeared as a guest on Thursday's Today show on NBC and declared that the debate over global warming is over. Pinkerton also alluded to a story by ABC's Jake Tapper which ran on Thursday's World News in which clips of drought and flooding were shown during a soundbite of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown talking about climate change. Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Saturday, December 19, Fox News Watch on FNC: JIM PINKERTON, NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION: If the choice is between corrupt politics and corrupt science, I’ll take neither. I’ll say let’s just not throw our economy down the toilet based on some theory. But, meanwhile, the media are showing their bias more thickly than any other issue I can think of. You mentioned the NBC report where a photographer taking cute pictures of walruses and seals and so on, is there brought on as a climate expert, saying, see, I’ve taken a photograph of a seal, that proves climate change is real, we’ve got to do something about it. And then ABC News had Gordon Brown, the prime minister of England, talking about how we have to do something about climate, and they cut in B-roll of floods and hurricanes and disasters and so on. I mean, it’s like they’re making little movies in advancing their agenda. ... DOUGLAS KENNEDY, FNC CORRESPONDENT: I don’t pretend to understand, I’m not a scientist. I know the polar ice caps are melting. I mean, you don’t have to be a scientist to know that the world is getting hotter. I can’t believe there are still people, I mean, I thought we had gone through this and, you know, gotten past people still that- PINKERTON: Actually, the world has been cooling since- KENNEDY: I don’t think it’s -- that’s objective reporting to say that the world is getting hotter. PINKERTON: Actually, it’s inaccurate reporting to say that. The world has been cooling since 1998. Palin blasts 'arrogance of man' in Copenhagen By Michael O'Brien The Hill The now-finished climate change summit in Copenhagen marks the "arrogance of man," former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) said this weekend. Palin, who had urged President Barack Obama not to attend the conference in Denmark, blasted the agreement world leaders made late on Friday to begin stemming emissions that contribute to climate change. Palin tweeted early Saturday morning: Copenhgen=arrogance of man2think we can change nature's ways.MUST b good stewards of God's earth,but arrogant&naive2say man overpwers nature Earth saw clmate chnge4 ions;will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl chng Those tweets and previous skepticism the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee has expressed toward global warming science has led some to label her a climate change "denier." But Palin has maintained that she does not deny that climate change exists, and that she only questions the extent of the change and what sort of policies should be put in place to address it. Obama hammered out what the White House has called a "meaningful agreement" with China, India, and South Africa to stem the forces behind global warming late on Friday evening. Time for a Climate Change Plan B The U.S. president is in deep denial. By NIGEL LAWSON Washington Times  The world's political leaders, not least President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, are in a state of severe, almost clinical, denial. While acknowledging that the outcome of the United Nations climate-change conference in Copenhagen fell short of their demand for a legally binding, enforceable and verifiable global agreement on emissions reductions by developed and developing countries alike, they insist that what has been achieved is a breakthrough and a decisive step forward. Just one more heave, just one more venue for the great climate-change traveling circus—Mexico City next year—and the job will be done. Or so we are told. It is, of course, the purest nonsense. The only breakthrough was the political coup for China and India in concluding the anodyne communiqué with the United States behind closed doors, with Brazil and South Africa allowed in the room and Europe left to languish in the cold outside. Far from achieving a major step forward, Copenhagen—predictably—achieved precisely nothing. The nearest thing to a commitment was the promise by the developed world to pay the developing world $30 billion of "climate aid" over the next three years, rising to $100 billion a year from 2020. Not only is that (perhaps fortunately) not legally binding, but there is no agreement whatsoever about which countries it will go to, in which amounts, and on what conditions. The reasons for the complete and utter failure of Copenhagen are both fundamental and irresolvable. The first is that the economic cost of decarbonizing the world's economies is massive, and of at least the same order of magnitude as any benefits it may conceivably bring in terms of a cooler world in the next century. The reason we use carbon-based energy is not the political power of the oil lobby or the coal industry. It is because it is far and away the cheapest source of energy at the present time and is likely to remain so, not forever, but for the foreseeable future. Switching to much more expensive energy may be acceptable to us in the developed world (although I see no present evidence of this). But in the developing world, including the rapidly developing nations such as China and India, there are still tens if not hundreds of millions of people suffering from acute poverty, and from the consequences of such poverty, in the shape of malnutrition, preventable disease and premature death. The overriding priority for the developing world has to be the fastest feasible rate of economic development, which means, inter alia, using the cheapest available source of energy: carbon energy. Moreover, the argument that they should make this economic and human sacrifice to benefit future generations 100 years and more hence is all the less compelling, given that these future generations will, despite any problems caused by warming, be many times better off than the people of the developing world are today. Or, at least, that is the assumption on which the climate scientists' warming projections are based. It is projected economic growth that determines projected carbon emissions, and projected carbon emissions that (according to the somewhat conjectural computer models on which they rely) determine projected warming (according to the same models). All this overlaps with the second of the two fundamental reasons why Copenhagen failed, and why Mexico City (if our leaders insist on continuing this futile charade) will fail, too. That is the problem of burden-sharing, and in particular how much of the economic cost of decarbonization should be borne by the developed world, which accounts for the bulk of past emissions, and how much by the faster-growing developing world, which will account for the bulk of future emissions. The 2006 Stern Review, quite the shoddiest pseudo-scientific and pseudo-economic document any British Government has ever produced, claims the overall burden is very small. If that were so, the problem of how to share the burden would be readily overcome—as indeed occurred with the phasing out of chorofluorocarbons (CFCs) under the 1987 Montreal Protocol. But the true cost of decarbonization is massive, and the distribution of the burden an insoluble problem. Moreover, any assessment of the impact of any future warming that may occur is inevitably highly conjectural, depending as it does not only on the uncertainties of climate science but also on the uncertainties of future technological development. So what we are talking about is risk. Not that the risk is all one way. The risk of a 1930s-style outbreak of protectionism—if the developed world were to abjure cheap energy and faced enhanced competition from China and other rapidly industrializing countries that declined to do so—is probably greater than any risk from warming. But even without that, there is not even a theoretical (let alone a practical) basis for a global agreement on burden-sharing, since, so far as the risk of global warming is concerned (and probably in other areas too) risk aversion is not uniform throughout the world. Not only do different cultures embody very different degrees of risk aversion, but in general the richer countries will tend to be more risk-averse than the poorer countries, if only because we have more to lose. The time has come to abandon the Kyoto-style folly that reached its apotheosis in Copenhagen last week, and move to plan B. And the outlines of a credible plan B are clear. First and foremost, we must do what mankind has always done, and adapt to whatever changes in temperature may in the future arise. This enables us to pocket the benefits of any warming (and there are many) while reducing the costs. None of the projected costs are new phenomena, but the possible exacerbation of problems our climate already throws at us. Addressing these problems directly is many times more cost-effective than anything discussed at Copenhagen. And adaptation does not require a global agreement, although we may well need to help the very poorest countries (not China) to adapt. Beyond adaptation, plan B should involve a relatively modest, increased government investment in technological research and development—in energy, in adaptation and in geoengineering. Despite the overwhelming evidence of the Copenhagen debacle, it is not going to be easy to get our leaders to move to plan B. There is no doubt that calling a halt to the high-profile climate-change traveling circus risks causing a severe conference-deprivation trauma among the participants. If there has to be a small public investment in counseling, it would be money well spent. Local Flavor   Recent Senate Votes Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Vote Passed (60-39, 1 Not Voting) The Senate passed this $871 billion health care bill. The House and Senate must now work out the differences between their versions of the bill in conference. Sen. Richard Burr voted NO......send e-mail or see bio Sen. Kay Hagan voted YES......send e-mail or see bio To permit continued financing of Government operations - Vote Passed (60-39, 1 Not Voting) The Senate passed this legislation to raise the federal debt limit to $12.39 trillion. The bill has been sent to the President. Sen. Richard Burr voted NO......send e-mail or see bio Sen. Kay Hagan voted YES......send e-mail or see bio presented by: Road Runner   In this MegaVote for North Carolina's 8th Congressional District: Recent Congressional Votes Senate: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 Senate: Cloture Motion; Reid Amdt. to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act House: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 House: Jobs for Main Street Act Upcoming Congressional Bills Senate: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Recent Senate Votes Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 - Vote Agreed to (88-10, 2 Not Voting) The Senate gave final approval to this bill funding the Department of Defense through September 2010. The bill now goes to the President. Sen. Richard Burr voted NO......send e-mail or see bio Sen. Kay Hagan voted YES......send e-mail or see bio Cloture Motion; Reid Amdt. to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Vote Agreed to (60-40) The Senate agreed to this motion to invoke cloture on an amendment making changes to the $871 billion health care bill. The vote allows debate to proceed and prevents a filibuster. Sen. Richard Burr voted NO......send e-mail or see bio Sen. Kay Hagan voted YES......send e-mail or see bio Recent House Votes Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 - Vote Passed (395-34, 5 Not Voting) The House approved this defense spending bill, sending it to the Senate for final passage. Rep. Larry Kissell voted YES......send e-mail or see bio Jobs for Main Street Act - Vote Passed (217-212, 6 Not Voting) The House passed this $154 billion jobs bill which is partially paid for by unspent money from last year's Troubled Asset Relief Program. The bill now goes to the Senate. Rep. Larry Kissell voted YES......send e-mail or see bio