Oklahoma’s Senator Inhofe has been attacked, but don’t look for the Left to be outraged.  Outrage comes from Leftists only when Conservatives speak freely, but at least Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is tweeting about something his family well knows – sexual deviancy.

Where is the same righteous indignation for these remarks after they so recently attacked Rush Limbaugh for his accurate description of Sandra Fluke?  Yes, Limbaugh apologized, but will Robert F. Kennedy Jr. do the same?  Don’t bet on it.

Click here to see Kennedy’s note via Twitter.

Kennedy is the senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council and co-host of the nationally syndicated weekly talk radio show Ring of Fire, but will the Left call for his resignation from radio?"

Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard has a thought on the subject writing, “These liberals sure are offended by terms like ‘slut’ and ‘prostitute’ – only when said by a conservative about a liberal, of course.”  Click here for Sheppard’s post.

The Blaze also published questions of Leftist propriety suggesting that free speech reigns only when it serves the most politically correct Leftist agenda.  Click here for the post on The Blaze.

For the facts of global warming and details on how to approach the science, the Cornwall Alliance has available online a speech by Dr. Richard Lidzen before the British House of Commons in Parliament, click here for the full story.

A summary in Lindzen’s words follows:  



Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.

Here are two statements that are completely agreed on by the IPCC. It is crucial to be aware of their implications.

A doubling of CO2, by itself, contributes only about 1C to greenhouse warming. All models project more warming, because, within models, there are positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds, and these feedbacks are considered by the IPCC to be uncertain.

If one assumes all warming over the past century is due to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, then the derived sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. The higher sensitivity of existing models is made consistent with observed warming by invoking unknown additional negative forcings from aerosols and solar variability as arbitrary adjustments.

Given the above, the notion that alarming warming is ‘settled science’ should be offensive to any sentient individual, though to be sure, the above is hardly emphasized by the IPCC.

Click here to read more. 

This is the Super Tuesday pontificating pundits have long discussed.  Today, Oklahomans will decide individually which Republican and Democrat candidates they support for national office.

The Democrat ballot features President Barack Obama, Randall Terry, Darcy Richardson, Bob Ely and Jim Rogers.

The Republican ballot includes Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul in addition to Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry – the later now withdrawn from the race.

For a candidate to capture all 40 delegate votes in Oklahoma, they’ll need 50% or more of the vote.  Otherwise, the delegates will be split among the candidates.

Tulsa Today will update as results come in, voting reported as "very light" throughout the city. 

Editor’s Note:  First published by National Review, U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions is demanding that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan recluse herself from any participation in the Court’s debate on President Obama’s health-care law.

As solicitor general of the United States, Justice Elena Kagan served as the head of an office responsible for formulating the Obama administration’s legal defense of its domestic agenda priority — Obamacare. It could be no surprise to President Obama who appointed her to the Supreme Court that any former solicitor general would have many conflicts for years to come. Now, the Court will soon hear a constitutional challenge to the health-care law. 

Despite mounting evidence of her substantial participation in the
administration’s legal defense of that law, she still has not announced
whether she will recuse herself from presiding over the case as a
justice. 

According to Section 455(b)(3) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, justices must disqualify themselves in cases where they have “served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy.” In United States v. Gipson, the Tenth Circuit held that judges must recuse themselves if they have “previously taken a part, albeit small, in the investigation, preparation, or prosecution of a case.” Other courts have suggested that, merely by virtue of a lawyer’s position as the head of an office during the preparation of a case, he or she is disqualified to sit as a judge on that case. For example, several U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal have held that U.S. attorneys who later become judges must recuse themselves from any proceeding that had been pending in any way in their offices, even if they were not substantively involved.
 
Previously undisclosed e-mails that the Justice Department has released pursuant to court order demonstrate Kagan’s direct involvement in the administration’s defense of the president’s health law from the very beginning. In January 2010, she assigned her chief and only political deputy, Neal Katyal, to the matter — the legal equivalent of a firm’s senior partner delegating work to a junior associate. That same month Katyal wrote in an e-mail to the associate attorney general’s office that “Elena would definitely like OSG [Office of Solicitor General] to be involved in this set of issues.” These actions alone constitute personal participation in the preparation of the case, and that is all §455(b)(3) requires to trigger mandatory recusal.
 
Kagan herself has admitted that she attended “at least one meeting” in which the case now before the Court was mentioned, but the e-mails show that she also was privy to discussions of the administration’s litigation strategy at least up until the announcement of her nomination on May 10, 2010. On March 18, Katyal e-mailed Deputy Attorney General Tom Perrelli and copied Kagan, discussing in detail and providing an Internet link to a draft complaint in potential litigation. He wrote: “For what it is worth, my advice (I haven’t discussed this with Elena, but am cc’ing her here) would be that we start assembling a response, [material redacted] so that we have it ready to go.” And at least one e-mail suggests that discussions of litigation strategy were deliberately not conducted in written form. On March 21, Katyal e-mailed Kagan to ask whether she would attend a key White House meeting on health-care litigation strategy. Kagan responded: “What’s your phone number?” These actions further support the need for her recusal.
 
It appears that Kagan and Katyal were cognizant of the recusal issue. On May 17, Katyal forwarded Kagan an e-mail he had just sent to Justice Department spokesperson Tracy Schmaler, in which he falsely asserted (as the previous e-mails show) that Kagan “has never been involved in any of it [health-care litigation]. I’ve run it for the Office, and have never discussed the issues with her one bit.” Ironically, Kagan responded minutes later to both Katyal and Schmaler: “This needs to be coordinated. Tracy, you should not say anything about this before talking to me.”
 
Some have attempted to manipulate this legal analysis by seeking to equate the facts surrounding Kagan’s prior involvement in the health-care case with an entirely different set of facts regarding Justice Thomas’ wife’s former employer, which took a position on the constitutionality of Obamacare after she left the organization. But those allegations bear no relationship to any legal standard for recusal, and are so specious that they have been rejected by scholars and legal commentators across the ideological spectrum. Justice Breyer summarily dismissed this as a “false issue.”
 
Recusal due to previous participation in a case is not an admission of wrongdoing, but rather an expected consequence when a government lawyer accedes to the bench. Indeed, Justice Thurgood Marshall — the last solicitor general to become a justice, and the justice for whom Kagan clerked — recused himself from 98 of the 171 cases decided by the Court in his first year, and most of them were cases in which the federal government was a party.
 
Justice Kagan has recognized that her involvement as solicitor general in the preparation of the government’s challenge to Arizona’s immigration law prohibits her involvement in that case as a judge — even though the lawsuit was not filed until two months after she ceased performing the duties of her office due to her nomination, and even though she testified that she was not asked to express an opinion on the Arizona law. In contrast, Justice Kagan’s involvement in the preparation of the government’s defense of the health-care law began at least as early as January 2010, four months before her nomination and two months before the bill became law. That she would not follow the same course in the health-care case is dubious. These facts require recusal.

About the author: Senator Jeff Sessions is a senior member of the Judiciary Committee. 

In an energetic appeal for support, Newt Gingrich stood before 4000 onlookers at the Oral Roberts University Mabee Center and proclaimed a message reminiscent of his 1994 “Contract with America” campaign.  He progressed through issues including energy, healthcare, the economy, foreign policy, and declared Obama the “most dangerous president in modern American history.” 

While explaining his plan to rebuild the shattered economy, he announced that, if elected, he would abolish the “death tax.”  Meaning, he would offer legislation repealing the estate tax.  The logic is that heavily taxing estates, eviscerates family wealth and forces more people into the public welfare system. 

In 2013, an estate will be subject to a 50% tax on any property in excess of one million dollars.  Take, for example, a family that has fifty-thousand dollars in savings and owns a small electrical business valued at 1.7 million dollars.  If the business is owned in the father’s name, upon his death, the family will owe three-hundred and fifty thousand dollars in estate taxes.  Only having fifty-thousand dollars in savings, the family will be forced to liquidate their business.

This removes their income and forces both the family and the employees into unemployment.  The government is no longer receiving tax revenue from their business and paying more people unemployment checks.  In short, everyone loses.

In an interview with the speaker following the event, Gingrich was asked if he feels a sense of awe about where he has arrived in life.  Gingrich responded with unusual candor and personal reflection when he told a descriptive tale of himself standing on the balcony of the Capitol Building on the morning of his swearing-in as Speaker of the US House of Representatives.  Click here to see the video on YouTube.

Citing the influence of his father, “a career soldier,” he explained his feelings towards his journey from meager beginnings to his current position.  He described how he doesn’t lose heart because “America has been so good to” him and how he felt “privileged to live as an American.”

In his speech, Gingrich described his campaign experience as a "roller coaster."  He has held the lead in the national polls on two separate occasions, and he is currently trailing behind Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.  He emphasized that the most important part of this race is to prevent Obama from being reelected.

About the author:  Kai Vincent Turley Good, a student at Oral Roberts University, moved from Maine to Oklahoma in 2009.  Good has authored two books, Excellence Body, Mind, and Spirit and A Jewel of the Realm, and currently sits on the board of directors for the Foundation for the Preservation of American Values.  As a member of the United States Martial Arts Hall of Fame, Good has taught self-defense at New Mission Self Defense, a studio he co-founded with his father in 2005.  He hosts At Issue, a political television talk show for ORU, and when returning to Maine for visits, he frequently appears on radio programs for Fox News WLOB.  Good writes freelance articles for a brpolitics.com and Tulsa Today.

Credit:  Photo #1 and #3: By Greg Duke,  Photo #2:  By Kevin Niedenfuer, ORU Student

Video Interview:  Kai Vincent Turley Good with Cameraman:  Kevin Niedenfuer 

Click here for the video posted on YouTube. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) and outspoken opponent of the New START treaty, today said that President Obama’s announcement to unilaterally disarm up to 80 percent of our nation’s nuclear arsenal is breaking his word to Congress in order to fulfill campaign promises to his liberal base.

“President Obama is breaking his word to Congress that paved the way for Senate ratification of the New START treaty,” said Inhofe.  “In order to get New START, President Obama committed to a 10-year plan to rebuild our aging nuclear weapons complex and modernize delivery systems.  His written commitment to pursue those programs and capabilities is what prompted many Senators to support ratification of New START.  Now we find out it was a hollow commitment to Congress that is trumped by election year politics.

“He campaigned in 2008 on dramatically reducing our nuclear arsenal and even won a Nobel Peace Prize for those promises.  Now that he is campaigning for re-election, he is once again catering to his liberal base that believes that if we unilaterally disarm, the rest of the world will follow suit and threats to our national security will just go away.  

“At the very same time that President Obama is announcing his proposal to disarm America, Iran is preparing to make a major announcement on their own efforts to achieve nuclear weapons.  The idea that making ourselves weaker will somehow lead to increased global security and stability is ridiculous.  The reality is, if we follow this plan, our allies will soon realize that we can no longer protect them under our nuclear umbrella, which will lead to greater nuclear proliferation.”

Inhofe pointed out that any reduction in our nuclear deterrent should be based on all countries, especially Russia and China, agreeing to reduce their nuclear stockpiles, including rail based launchers and tactical nuclear weapons.  Reductions should also be accompanied by a robust modernization program to ensure viability of the remaining assets in the nuclear triad, and deterrence should be bolstered by a robust and tested missile defense system that can protect not only the United States, but our allies around the world.

Nuclear Facts:

• Obama weighing options for sharp new cuts to our nuclear arsenal unilaterally, potentially up to 80 percent.
• In 2008, he campaigned to provide "verifiable reductions in all U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons — whether deployed or non-deployed, whether strategic or non-strategic — and work with other nuclear powers to reduce global stockpiles dramatically."
• Under the recently negotiated New START Treaty, the U.S. nuclear arsenal is currently at 1,550 warheads.  Obama’s proposed plans could reduce the number of warheads as low as 300.
• New START does not address tactical nuclear weapons even though these weapons remain one of the most significant threats to national security
• Russia has approximately 4,000 tactical nukes.  That is a 10 to 1 superiority in tactical nuclear weapons over U.S. tactical capabilities.  Under New START, Russia’s nuclear weapons will outnumber ours by at least 2 to 1.
• The U.S. is the only major nuclear power not modernizing its weapons.  Most are 15 years older than they were designed to last.
• Enhanced safety, security, and reliability of nuclear weapons stockpile, modernization of the nuclear weapons complex, and maintenance of the nuclear delivery systems are key to enabling further reductions.
• To garner support for New START, the Obama Administration committed to a 10-year plan (i.e. the Section 1251 Plan) to rebuild our aging nuclear weapons complex and modernize the triad of strategic delivery systems.  
• Obama pledged in a Dec 2010 letter to several senators, “I recognize that nuclear modernization requires investment for the long-term…that is my commitment to the Congress – that my administration will pursue these programs and capabilities for as long as I am president.”   
• The President’s support for the revised 1251 plan was the basis upon which many senators voted in favor of New START ratification.  
• The President’s just released FY13 budget cuts and delays modernization of our nuclear enterprise.
• New START reduces US nuclear stockpile without ensuring modernization of its nuclear triad and supporting infrastructure, contains language limiting U.S. missile defense development and deployment, lacks verification procedures that would ensure compliance and deter cheating, and fails to deter proliferation.
• President Obama canceled the “third” site in Poland that would have provided a missile defense capability against a nuclear armed Iran.  Instead, he changed course and adopted a phased adaptive approach which has resulted in gaps in capability and protection for the east coast.
• President Obama has also cut funding and testing for Ground Based Interceptors (GBIs) that are an integral portion of our nuclear defense system.