Like way behind. Like “I’m not with that guy” behind.

But as DrewM. from Ace Of Spades said, “If this guy were running against Lindsay Graham, I’d send him money.”

…Meet Marco Rubio, who is blowing the doors off Charlie Crist in Florida GOP Senate primary. You might want to get familiar with him, because by 2021 – if not sooner – he could end up in the White House.

Rubio brought down the house at CPAC 2010 in Washington today:

“To stimulate the economy and create jobs at no cost to the taxpayers, and without borrowing money from foreign governments for which our children and grandchildren will be responsible, and for other purposes.”

So reads the introduction to HR 1431, a piece of legislation that was introduced in the House of Representatives on March 11, 2009 by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT).  Identical legislation was introduced in the Senate as S-570 by Senators Vitter (R-LA) and Shadegg (R-AZ) soon after.  David Vitter renewed his call for this legislation to be debated today.

The No Cost Stimulus Act, authored by “the party of ‘No’” and of “no ideas,” would create jobs in the energy sector by promoting domestic oil and gas production, streamlining nuclear powerplant construction,  and limiting the EPA’s authority to impose economy-killing mandates that many believe are outside their jurisdiction.  These proposals, excepting the latter, are completely consistent with President Obama’s comments on growing the energy sector during his State of the Union Message, though frequent readers will recall our skepticism of those remarks.  “Actions speak louder than words,” and past actions of the Obama administration cause us to extrapolate that skepticism to include any support for this legislation as well.  This legislation has been lingering for almost a year with no indication that the leaders of the majority party will place it on the docket of either chamber for debate.  Neither has there been an outcry from the public to debate and pass this legislation, for there has been little or no publicity of it (a Google search of the topic provided no sources from “mainstream media” websites in the first fifty hits).

As summarized above, this legislation addresses three primary areas of job creation, and simultaneously helps the nation make great strides towards energy independence.  Imagine a growing economy fueled by high paying jobs and clean, reliable energy sources that are not dependent on countries that hate us for their supply!

Oil Exploration and Production

President George W Bush, before he left office, took steps to open up 85% of US territorial waters for exploration and production.  Congressional limitations on exploring those waters were subsequently allowed to expire.  The Department of the Interior began taking steps to make these resources available.  The general public expressed strong support for renewed domestic exploration (remember “drill, baby, drill” and “drill here, drill now?”).  Then along came “hope and change,” and progress ceased.    As the Heritage Foundation reports,

“Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar extended the initial 60-day comment period to six months, unnecessarily delaying the process of leasing offshore areas to energy companies for drilling and access to domestic resources.”

The No Cost Stimulus Act includes provisions to expedite the lease approval process rather than delay it as Secretary Salazar is doing, while providing a reasonable environmental review process, but also recognizing that current technologies greatly reduce the likelihood of environmental harm from drilling activity.

There is an estimated 19 billion barrels of oil, the equivalent of 30 years of imports from Saudi Arabia at present day rates, available from this source.

While again remaining sensitive to environmental concerns, the No Cost Stimulus Act would open selected areas of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for exploration and production of oil, with similar provisions for expedited approvals.  Drilling in ANWR would only be allowed during periods when the ground is frozen, thus having no affect on wildlife migration that occurs during warmer periods.

There is an estimated 16 billion barrels of oil available from this source.

And lastly, this legislation provides for the recovery of crude oil from domestic shale formations.  Secretary Salazar recently reversed agreements that would have allowed for exploration and production of this oil on federal lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.  Sale of such leases by the DOI would be authorized by this legislation when the recovery technology becomes feasible.

Conservative estimates place available quantities of oil from shale at 800 billion barrels.

Expedited Approval Processes

Despite having received about 20 applications to construct more than 30 new nuclear reactors, no new reactors have been approved in this country for over three decades.  This legislation provides for accelerating that process so as to permit the construction of new, safe, clean power generation facilities.

Similarly, energy projects under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency for review generally require about 4 ½ years to advance through the process.  This legislation would limit those reviews to 270 days so the projects might one day be built.

Unlegislated Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction

Both the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act have been proposed as vehicles by which the construction of generating facilities and the production of domestic energy resources could be delayed or killed.  The No Cost Stimulus Plan would block recent efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases without legislative authority. 

Our nation needs this legislation.  It will create revenue for the national treasury, to the tune of an estimated $273billion per year from offshore oil royalties, and another $158billion from ANWR.  Estimates of revenue at the state level, and as would be generated from oil bearing shale, are not as readily available, but would be significant.  And these are not taxes on individuals, but rather are positive consequences of normal leasing activities.

And it will create an estimated 2million jobs which are sorely needed in this economy.  Engineers, geologists, and skilled craftsperson’s are required to locate and extract the oil, and to design and construct nuclear powerplants. 

Finally, it will greatly contribute to energy independence.  This nation is highly dependent on the importation of resources for the production of fossil fuels from regions of the world that don’t like us very much.  Monies we send them in exchange for their oil is often used to fund Jihadist terror training and attacks on this nation.  Why should we continue to fund those activities when the energy we need is available from our own sources?

This is important legislation.  ANWR.org reports that it was supported in the Senate at its introduction by Senators Christopher Bond (MO), Jim Bunning (KY), Tom Coburn (OK), Thad Cochran (MS), John Cornyn (TX), Jim DeMint (SC), John Ensign (NV), Michael Enzi (WY), James Inhofe (OK), James Risch (ID), Jeff Sessions (AL), and Richard Shelby (AL).  In the House, it is supported by Representatives Todd Akin (MO), Michele Bachmann (MN), Spencer Bachus (AL), Marsha Blackburn (TN), John Boozman (AZ), Charles Boustany (LA), Paul Broun (GA), Henry Brown (SC), Michael Burgess (TX), Bill Cassidy (LA), Jason Chaffetz (UT), Michael Conaway (TX), Mary Fallin (OK), John Fleming (LA), Virginia Foxx (NC), Trent Franks (AZ), Scott Garrett (NJ), John Gingrey (GA), Louis Gohmert (TX), Walter Herger (CA), Jim Jordan (OH), Jack Kingston (GA), John Kline (MN), Doug Lamborn (CO), Robert Latta (OH), Jerry Lewis (CA), Cynthia Lummus (WY), Kevin McCarthy (CA), Tom McClintock (CA), Thaddeus McCotter (MI), Patrick McHenry (NC), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA), Randy Neugebauer (TX), Devin Nunes (CA), Joseph Pitts (PA), Tom Price (GA), George Radanovich (CA), Dennis Rehberg (MT), Dana Rohrabacher (CA), Steve Scalise (LA), John Shadegg (AZ), Michael Simpson, (ID), Mark Souder (IN), John Sullivan (OK), William Thornberry (TX), Zach Wamp (TN), Lynn Westmoreland (GA), and Donald Young (AK).

These members of the House and Senate need to know that we support them, and members whose names are absent need to be encouraged to support it if they haven’t joined the contingent yet.  This legislation merits the same kind of grass roots engagement as was given healthcare “reform” and the Scott Brown for Senate efforts.  Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi must be strongly encouraged to bring this legislation forward.

Ashley Alber summarizes it best at Human Events.com, where she says

“The first so-called “stimulus” package cost each American family about $18,000.  But the Democrats aren’t done.  After a conference with economists (recently), Speaker Pelosi indicated she’d be open to a second spending spree in an amount to be determined.

Republicans – incorrectly being blamed for having no alternatives – are again proposing legislation that (a) would stimulate the economy and (b) not cost the taxpayers a dime.

An increase in GDP and creating more than 2 million long term, sustainable jobs without spending trillions of dollars sounds impossible during an administration that spends money like a teenage girl.”

by Nick Bouterie

From the Times-Picayune:

In an unusual alliance, conservative Sen. David Vitter is teaming with self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders to block a vote on Ben Bernanke’s nomination for a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Vitter, R-La., and Sanders, who is officially listed as an independent from Vermont, are joined by Sens. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., and Jim DeMint, R-S.C., in the move against Bernanke. All have said they won’t lift their holds until Senate leaders agree to establish congressional audits of the powerful monetary agency.

In opposing the Bernanke nomination, Vitter faulted Bernanke’s policies in trying to rescue troubled financial companies.

“Over the past year or so, the Fed has doled out several trillion dollars to any number of troubled institutions through a series of programs that were supposed to turn our economy around,” Vitter said. “These programs have worsened our economic crisis by making ‘too big to fail’ a permanent government policy and created further debt that will now be the burden of our children and grandchildren.”

At the very least, Vitter said, the Senate shouldn’t vote on Bernanke, who was first appointed by President George W. Bush, until a process is established for audits of the agency.

Senator Vitter, along with the other three Senators mentioned above, “gets it” on this issue, and they are standing up for U.S. taxpayers. Ben Bernake was one of the accomplices in the recent financial crisis by helping promote policies of “Too Big to Fail” and legislation that led to the vote-buying and blackmail that took place to pass the $700 billion financial bailout in 2008, now known as TARP.

Sen. Vitter has his own faults, but he was one of the few members of Congress and one of the few Republican legislators to stand up to his own party and colleagues and vote against the TARP boondoggle. It also appears he is going to be one of the few to demand accountability from Ben Bernanke and the policies he promoted since the Bush Administration.

Nick Bouterie is a resident of Acadia Parish

One day after setting off a stampede of criticism, covered earlier today on the Hayride, over its heavy-handed efforts to bull-rush a pair of travel bloggers into finking a whistleblower which had leaked its Dec. 25 security directive, the Transportation Security Administration has now backed off its demands for immediate compliance.

Blogger Chris Elliott, who had been served with a subpoena from TSA last night demanding he immediately turn over the identity of his source for the security directive, contacted a lawyer after his conversation with TSA agents. Anthony Elia, Elliott’s attorney, told the Associated Press that the subpoena had been suspended until Jan. 20. Later today on Elliott’s blog it was reported that the subpoena has been dropped altogether…

Mr. Elia:

This is to confirm our earlier telephone conversation that the TSA subpoena of December 29, 2009, issued to your client, Mr. Christopher Elliott, is being withdraw as no longer necessary.
Thank you for your assistance and have a happy and safe New Year.

John A. Drennan
Deputy Chief Counsel (Enforcement)
Office of the Chief Counsel
Transportation Security Administration
Department of Homeland Security

Elliott’s experience was a more positive one than was Steven Frischling’s. Frischling had his computer seized by TSA agents yesterday, and when it was returned to him by the agency today he says it was damaged. From Frischling’s blog today:

Yesterday was an interesting day, which I really wish had happened to someone else. At 10:30am two Transportation Security Administration Special Agents returned to my home and removed my laptop from my house. The TSA was looking for the email address of the person who sent me Security Directive SD-1544-09-06. I did not have the email address and knew it was not on my hard-drive, however the computer was removed to be searched by a Secret Service computer forensics expert. The search yielded nothing.

What worries me is this…and not for my own security and freedom…but for the safety of the traveling public which the TSA is charged with protecting. Why was I assigned two high-ranking TSA Special Agents?

One Special Agent, out of Boston, served with Secret Service for more than 30 years and has also served in the role of Director of Counter Terrorism & Law Enforcement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The other Special Agent, from New Jersey, served more than 20 years with the Secret Service, leaving the Secret Service in the position of Assistant Special Agent In Charge of the New York Field Office, and then going onto work as a Deputy Director of Global Security.

The agent from Boston joined the TSA as a Special Agent in October 2009; the agent from New Jersey also joined the TSA as a Special Agent in 2009.

I understand the TSA’s concern in finding their internal leak, however as much of the media has reported, the TSA appears to be using a heavy handed tactic in coming after Chris Elliot and myself regarding this issue. These two agents, with more than a combined history of 50 years of working as Secret Service investigators, may be better tasked to dealing with matters of direct national security issues.

The Department of Homeland Security could have better allocated its resources of two clearly senior investigators researching something more befitting their experience and expertise. The Department of Homeland Security could have better allocated its resources in having a Secret Service computer forensics specialist travel more than 100 miles to image my hard-drive.

When the TSA removed my laptop from my home, my computer and system was functioning perfectly. Shortly before the TSA returned to my home they called me to tell me that the Secret Service computer forensic investigator was encountering many ‘bad sectors’ in my hard drive. Upon checking my MacBook following its return, and running Disk Utility it appears that I have many bad sectors in my hard drive, countless errors in my operating system, my MacBook will not synch with Time Machine to be backed up, my audio is no longer working and a red-light inside my audio jack is on constantly.

The TSA has reportedly offered to buy Frischling a new computer. He attributes today’s fiasco to the agency’s lack of a full-time appointed head, a vacancy which exists because Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has placed a hold on Obama’s designate for the job Erroll Southers. The left is engaged in a conniption over DeMint’s hold, but the South Carolina conservative has made the point that Southers is a supporter of unionizing TSA employees. A move is already on by the National Treasury Employees Union to sign up the TSA’s workers; the NTEU is an affiliate of the George Soros-funded left-wing group Americans Coming Together.

“I’m only looking for some time to debate the issue and have a vote so this isn’t done in secret,” says DeMint.

Mitch McConnell was dealt an unwinnable hand on health care reform. I’m not going to argue that.

When Al Franken and ACORN stole Norm Coleman’s Senate seat in Minnesota last year, and milquetoast Republicans made only halfhearted attempts to stop it, the die was cast for McConnell. He was sitting at only 40 votes, meaning if the Democrats could unify their 60 votes there was, ultimately, nothing McConnell could do to stop them from passing legislation. He could slow it down, and to his credit he’s managed to do so. But he was never going to win this one.

There are many in the conservative movement who think that because the American people hate this health care bill McConnell could have won if he’d just delayed the thing long enough. I differ with them on that because there are no moderate Democrats in the Senate – there are hard-core Marxists and there are whores, and McConnell didn’t have anything to offer to the whores.

When you’re lacking in resources, you’re going to lose unless you’ve got more brains or more will than the other guy. Certainly, I think McConnell probably does have more brains than Harry Reid. Hell, my dog has more brains than Harry Reid.

What he doesn’t have is the will. Reid is willing to do ANYTHING to get where he wants to go. McConnell is a guy who won’t go there. Doesn’t want to get his hands dirty. Doesn’t want to be seen in the same manner Republicans see Reid, or Tom Daschle before him – two absolutely deplorable bastards whose only redeeming characteristics were that they’d chew through wood to win a fight.

And as a result, McConnell and his people at the top of the Senate GOP leadership came up with a “messaging” strategy in fighting the health care bill. They rhetorically hammered away at the flaws in the bill, they raised points of concern, they ginned up as much public outcry as they could and they took their case to the American people. They figured the way to go was to be Gregory Peck in To Kill A Mockingbird, rather than The Joker.

What they didn’t do was street fighting. They didn’t raise points of order until the very end of this fight. They didn’t refuse unanimous consent and grind Senate business to a halt. They operated largely in a business-as-usual manner while pledging undying commitment to fighting with everything they had. Meanwhile, Reid went about bribing and cajoling everyone he could in typical Las Vegas greaseball fashion. And ultimately, nice guys finish last.

That “messaging” strategy was fine for a while. But when it became clear it wasn’t going to work, it was time to fight to the death.

I posted before that this was always going to be the Alamo. McConnell probably saw that, too. And I don’t blame him for ending up at the Alamo.

The problem is, when you get to the Alamo, you go down fighting. You don’t surrender the Alamo. Leonides didn’t surrender at Thermopylae, and MacAuliffe didn’t surrender at Bastogne.

McConnell surrendered at Christmas. Because he wanted to go home. There was an ice storm coming, they’d get stranded in DC, he and his people knew they’d lost, they were out of bullets and so it made sense to throw in the towel.

As a practical matter, maybe he did the right thing.

This was the Alamo. It was always going to be the Alamo. And at the Alamo you get beat.

Here’s my problem, though. If it’s going to be the Alamo, ACT LIKE IT. Don’t capitulate, don’t surrender, don’t give an inch. Go down fighting, and in doing so make it as painful on the other side as humanly possible.

The thing McConnell and the GOP leadership inside the Beltway has got to understand is that there’s a tidal wave building out there. You have probably 60 percent of the American people who are at least intrigued – if not completely on board – with the idea of rolling the clock back 100 years and wiping out everything the Democrats have done since Woodrow Wilson. That’s the essence of the Tea Party movement, and with those people rests the opportunity to build the kind of majority for the Republican Party the Democrats have right now – the difference being that a GOP with FIDELITY to the principles of constitutional conservatism could HOLD that kind of majority long enough to make fundamental change in the country.

But you can’t galvanize the support of the Tea Party Movement by capitulating because an ice storm is coming. You need to make a gesture that shows FIGHT, that shows PASSION, and that shows COMMITMENT. Cutting a deal with Harry Reid shows none of those. Mary Landrieu got $100 million, Ben Nelson got $400 million and Mitch McConnell got the afternoon off, is what it looks like. He comes off as a sucker, because he didn’t get squat from his rollover to Reid.

Nobody expected McConnell to actually win this fight. But if you’re going to lose, then for God’s sake lose at the Alamo and not the Maginot Line.

McConnell needed to bleed every last drop out of the Democrats on this deal. He bled a good bit, but there was more he could have drawn from them. And to cut a deal at the end like he did throws away everything the GOP did do to delay this thing – all anyone will remember is that he capitulated. That’s not how you inspire the tea party crowd to join your side.

Supposedly, McConnell extracted “concessions” from Reid in return for moving the final vote up to Thursday morning rather than make it last as long as possible and put the Democrats – and his own people – through the hell of a Christmas on the Senate floor.

What did he get? A couple of lumps of coal in his stocking.

McConnell got a vote next month on giving TARP money back to the Treasury rather than have that money end up in the hands of the Obama administration for his cockamamie Porkulus Part 2 “jobs” program. He also got a vote on stopping the EPA from regulating carbon emissions.

McConnell’s lieutenant John Cornyn, the Texas Senator who as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee has been busy committing resources to more milquetoast candidates like Charlie Crist in Florida, Carly Fiorina in California and Mark Kirk in Illinois as opposed to letting Republican primaries play out according to what the political market dictates (which is an awfully curious stance for the party which supposedly believes in market principles to take), put the leadership’s position in as accurate a light as can be.

“There were extensive conversations about how do we keep the time we need to expose the deficiencies of this bill and, of course, the sweetheart deals that produced it, but yet show respect to people and their families, let them get home at least in time for Christmas Eve,” he said.

This, just a day after McConnell was all over the talk radio shows swearing they’d fight to the end.

What’s worse, these two votes McConnell supposedly wrested out of Reid’s grip as payment for giving up the fight on the health care bill are of zero value whatsoever.

Getting a vote on giving the TARP money back? It’s completely retarded to even have a vote on that. The law is clear about whether that money goes back to the Treasury – not that any part of the original TARP bill has been followed in the first place. Now, when it’s an 85-15 vote in favor of the GOP position it looks like Reid and the Democrats are giving the country good government. Why McConnell should give them the opportunity to go home and say “Hey, I voted for fiscal sanity” and then treat that as a benefit to Republicans is beyond me.

And a vote on stopping the EPA from regulating carbon emissions? Seriously? The Democrats realize that the American people will be lynching them from lightpoles on the Washington Mall if the EPA goes through with that. They can’t wait to unload that turkey. Not to mention it’s patently unconstitutional for the EPA to regulate CO2 without an evidentiary showing of harm in a court of law. If I’m McConnell I’m going to fight Reid on even having that vote, much less consider it a concession from the Democrats. They made that mess; I’m going to let them bleed on it.

The quality of the tactical thinking this shows, if true, tells me how bad the situation is atop the Senate GOP. We need a Nick Saban as the head coach of this team and we’ve got Gerry DiNardo or Mike Archer instead.

The majority of the country is there for the taking, but right now the GOP isn’t up to taking them. That’s a real shame, because right now it looks very likely that a third party movement will emerge – and that’s exactly what the Democrats are praying for; it’s the only thing which can save them from getting massacred at the polls in 2010 and 2012.

It’s time for McConnell and the rest of the current establishment at the top of the Beltway Republican totem pole to step aside and let a new class of leaders pick up the standard. The Senate GOP needs a Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn or John Kyl – who is willing to fight the hard left to the death – to take over the leadership.

We are beyond “nice guy politics.” The future of the country is at stake, the other side will stop at nothing to win and the American people are more furious at Washington now than they’ve ever been. If the Republicans won’t slit throats and take ears and noses as trophies, the electorate will kill itself trying to find someone who will.

It’s clear McConnell just isn’t that guy. Like Cornyn, he’s a good senator. But as our general, he’s too much McClellan and not enough Sherman. The other side has Shermans; we’d better find one soon.

From a news release by Jim DeMint’s office…

Today, U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and John Ensign (R-Nevada), raised a Constitutional Point of Order on the Senate floor against the Democrat health care takeover bill on behalf of the Steering Committee, a caucus of conservative senators. The Senate will vote tomorrow on the bill’s constitutionality.

“I am incredibly concerned that the Democrats’ proposed individual mandate provision takes away too much freedom and choice from Americans across the country,” said Senator Ensign. “As an American, I felt the obligation to stand up for the individual freedom of every citizen to make their own decision on this issue. I don’t believe Congress has the legal authority to force this mandate on its citizens.”

“Forcing every American to purchase a product is absolutely inconsistent with our Constitution and the freedoms our Founding Fathers hoped to protect,” said Senator DeMint. “This is not at all like car insurance, you can choose not to drive but Americans will have no choice whether to buy government-approved insurance. This is nothing more than a bailout and takeover of insurance companies. We’re forcing Americans to buy insurance under penalty of law and then Washington bureaucrats will then dictate what these companies can sell to Americans. This is not liberty, it is tyranny of good intentions by elites in Washington who think they can plan our lives better than we can.”

Americans who fail to buy health insurance, according to the Democrats’ bill, would be subject to financial penalties. The senators believe the bill is unconstitutional because the insurance mandate is not authorized by any of the limited enumerated powers granted to the federal government. The individual mandate also likely violates the “takings” clause of the 5th Amendment.

The Democrats’ healthcare reform bill requires Americans to buy health insurance “whether or not they ever visit a doctor, get a prescription or have an operation.” If an American chooses not to buy health insurance coverage, they will face rapidly increasing taxes that will rise to $750 or 2% of their taxable income, whichever is greater.

The Congressional Budget Office once stated “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

A legal study by scholars at the nonpartisan Heritage Foundation concluded: “An individual mandate to enter into a contract with or buy a particular product from a private party, with tax penalties to enforce it, is unprecedented– not just in scope but in kind–and unconstitutional as a matter of first principles and under any reasonable reading of judicial precedents.”

DeMint and Ensign have thrown down another gauntlet of opposition to the health-care bill, though it’s a little unclear how much of a delay this move will cause. What’s true, though, is that every member of the Senate will now have to go on record on the question of whether they think it’s constitutional for the federal government to force individuals to buy health insurance.

We’ve seen some high comedy thus far on the constitutionality question, from Mary Landrieu’s “constutitional scholars” speech to Roland Burris’ “health, welfare and defense” clause” to Nancy Pelosi’s “Are you serious? Are you serious?” misrecital of The Joker. Safe to say that the constitutionality of an individual mandate isn’t the strong point of the Democrat argument; DeMint and Ensign are going to force them to stand in the sunshine on the question.