Calculate your one-day Carbon Belch !
Posted on 06/03/2008 1:18:56 PM PDT by Graybeard58
There are RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) and then there are RINOs who call themselves Republicans for Environmental Protection. Founded in 1995, REP seeks to save the planet through decidedly un-Republican, big-government socialism. It also annually hands out its "Greenest Republican in Congress" award. This year's co-winner is Rep. Christopher Shays, RINO-4th District, who by sheer coincidence is on REP's "Honorary Board of Distinguished Republicans," along with co-winner Sen. Susan Collins, RINO-Maine. On REP's 0-100 scorecard, Rep. Shays scored 103 for promoting policies that are responsible for today's record energy prices and much more. Out of the other side of his mouth, of course, Rep. Shays whines about high gasoline prices so people think he cares about their energy miseries when he really doesn't.
Rep. Shays and REP go way back. In 1996, he was its first legislator of the year, an award later won by then-Rep. Nancy Johnson for her role in helping liberal environmental extremists choke off domestic oil and natural-gas supplies from which Americans really would benefit today. Connecticut's Rob Simmons was the first REP RINO elected to Congress, and REP's Web site shamelessly declares, "We're proud that all three ... are dues-paying REP members and members of REP's Honorary Board."
REP says it exists to counter assertions that "no 'real Republican' wants to protect the environment or believes in conservation" and that real Republicans think "regulatory reform and property rights are more vital than laws to prevent the extinction of species."
This argument is too flimsy and lazy to call a straw man. "Real Republicans" favor environmental protection and conservation, and support many of REP's goals. Where they and REP diverge is on the tradeoffs and remedies that extremists champion. To achieve what REP wants in the authoritarian manner it proposes would require a massively expensive, despotic government that routinely would trample personal and economic freedoms.
Everyone wants "clean air and water," but are the incremental improvements REP et al. demand worth draining billions from the economy every year; imposing punitive taxes and regulations; eroding Americans' standard of living; and sacrificing constitutional rights? REP seems to think so because it sees environmental protection as a with-us-or-agin-us proposition, requiring at the very least the demonization real Republicans who seek honest debate and rational, proportional solutions.
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this list, let me know.
And how is that any different from the government we have today? The framework is already there. The REP is just a bunch of useful idiots for certain interests ("the powers that be") that ultimately want total control over all Americans.
I’m going to guess that Rep. Shays loses his seat to the Democrats on November 4. This is soon going to be the beginning of the end of both the Republican Party and U.S. conservatism. Eventually, the next Congress with their socialistic super-majorities in both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate will eventually, both, fully implement the Fairness Doctrine and legally allow illegal immigrants to vote in all future U.S. elections. These two future political moves will truly kill off both the Republican Party at every level and U.S. conservatism at every level.
* Cease all ethanol production. It takes away from food production and the unintended consequence is higher food costs. As diesel prices go up, the cost of farming tips the balance of cost to make ethanol a bad idea. Just say "no" to ethanol! Even Jimmy Carter says that diverting farm production from food to fuel is dumb – even HE gets it.
* Immediately create only ONE "blend" of gasoline and cease regional "boutique" blends which are stupid, costly, and meaningless. Even if this is the "cleanest" blend, just make it ONE and be done with it. Trucking custom blends around the country is wasteful.
* Lift the restrictions in order to drill for oil in Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, and other sites in the CONUS as a matter of national security.
* Encourage the petro industry to construct state-of-the-art refineries and/or retrofit current and dormant ones and crank up production for our newly-accessed oil in the CONUS.
* Make all “carbon credit” scams unlawful. Discrediting Algore should have been a slam-dunk a long time ago. Stop electing Reps who buy into the Global Warming / Global Cooling / Climate Change Hoax. CO2 is not our enemy!
* Construct SEVERAL, regional Pebble-Bed Modular Reactors (or other similar modern designs) that are not considered "breeders", are rechargeable, and cleaner than any current nuclear generator design. Breeders are OK, but PBMR's are better. NO SOMETHING NUCLEAR to resolve energy problems.
* Use the residual heat from the reactors above to process motor fuel from coal and/or shale. Even though Clinton "stole" some of the best coal reserves, we still have a lot to use.
* Become independent enough to make the cartels (i.e. OPEC) inconsequential.
* Convince local taxing bodies to lift or cap the sales tax on gasoline so that as gas prices go up, the local tax collectors don’t see a windfall revenue jump at the expense of the consumer. The Federal government could compel the states (and locals) to cap the fuel taxes.
If you squint real hard, and read between the lines, the ‘manifesto’ will require the dismissal of all RINOs and LibDems and the election of some clear-minded conservatives to even consider any of the above. I'm all for conservation and reducing overt polution, but enough is enough!
Do either of these peons own a clothesline? I am bet'n not.
Ergo, it's all BS.
Next year, I’m betting that REP hands out the award for the Greenest Republican to Sen. (Pres?) John McCain for his tireless efforts in the fight against Global Warming.
A greener GOP——it’s already green: dhimmified for Muslims. In that respect the GOP and the Dems have sold us out to OPEC/Islam.
green is the new mean.
I’ll just call ‘em all MeCain Republicans.
There’s been another Republican Environmentalist group (non profit) around for several years. A joint effort ran by Grover Norquist & Gale Norton.
Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, which was co-founded by Norquist and Gale Norton before she became secretary of the interior.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR2006101200889.html
Why are you opposed to nuclear power?
That is a clear-headed, concise and well-thought-out Energy Manifesto. I’d love to see it come true in our lifetime. :)
Typo: NO SOMETHING NUCLEAR...should be DO SOMETHING NUCLEAR
Sen. McCain has been an unceasing supporter of that and an unceasing opponent of abortion.
And yet you casually refer to Sen. McCain as a RINO. It seems to me that you have very little faith in your own stated religious faith.
Sen. Obama has a 100 percent record IN SUPPORT of unrestricted abortion - including ever partial-birth abortions.
That includes also presumably abortions in the third trimester.
So whether Sen. McCain or Sen. Obama becomes the President is sure to determine whether millions of God's holy children are going to live or die - to be killed before they even see God's beautiful Earth or to killed the moment they emerge upon it.
The RINO would seem, sir, to be perhaps yourself. There would also seem to be a question of being Christian in name only - but the Lord will assuredly be the ultimate judge of us all.
There is also REP - Republicans for Environmental Protection.
They seem to be making a little more noise lately.
duh—I shoulda read the article before reponding to your post, LOL. Sorry about that.
Okay, hold up. Not every Republican is a one-issue (abortion) voter. And not every Republican is a Christian.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.