Posts Tagged ‘ Cap and Trade ’

BP Rig Disaster Too Perfect

Last month in an effort to draw Conservatives and “moderate” Democrats to support (or at lease not vigorously oppose) his Cap & Trade Bill,  President Obama decided to permit limited oil drilling off the U.S. coast.  Almost instantly environmental groups were responding with outrage.

Environmentalists missed the point.  Being so focused upon the tree bark they can’t see the tree much less the forest.

President Obama never intended to allow significant oil drilling.  It was all a ploy to push through a huge energy tax that will eventually kill domestic oil drilling as well as what’s left of the American coal industry.

Nevertheless, left-wing nuts went crazy.  From where I sit it seems the President could have ignored them until enough back-room deals were cut to pass his so-called Cap & Trade bill, but the pressure mounted.  Then as if an answer to some environmentalist’s prayer; out of nowhere and perfectly timed, an oil rig explodes in the Gulf of Mexico. Continue reading

Advertisements

Democrats defy logic and the public

At least we see people are starting to get it.  Unfortunately, the administration looks at polls and dismisses them.  They are undounted.  Let’s review:  Health care that will raise a family’s health insurance cost while at the same time requiring that coverage under penalty of prison is not welcome by the American public.  The administration and the leadership in Congress flip America the bird and push harder.  Global warming is revealed to be a hoax complete with intentionally destroyed data and explicit written evidence of number tampering.  Does the Administration pause and investigate?  No they defiantly press harder, seeking an international treaty that would crush what’s left of American industry, impose a global tax on Americans, then pour salt on U.S. industry by announcing CO² a hazardous waste to be regulated. Stand-by for the breathing tax, trust me it’s coming. Meanwhile unemployment remains in the double digits.  Does any of this create jobs for Americans?  Not really.

I’ll give Obama kudos, he does not craft his agenda by following polls.  President Clinton seemed obsessed, chasing  polls, however Obama seems obsessed by ideological fervor.  I’ve heard him called an empty suit and while I have not come to any solid conclusion on that, I doubt it.  I do believe he is a front man for greater powers, but I think he is completely in line with those who sponsor him.  He has a clear agenda to socialize America.  He was raised and mentored by communists, by his own admission he chose to associate himself with radicals and communist professors while in college, why then should it surprise anyone when his administrative agenda is aggressively socialist?

I’ll answer that.  I believe it is due to two things.  Continue reading

Today’s Unconscionable Government Actions

I found this column in today’s Examiner.com. It is written by Anthony G. Martin, who also blogs at Liberty Sphere.  He covers the material well and paints a picture of the extreme arrogance we are dealing with.

However, we must remember the Democrats, led by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, know their window of opportunity is closing.  In about a year that window will be closed as Republicans and conservative will sweep away their temporary super-majority.  If anything last Tuesday’s repudiation encourages them rather than chastens them.  It encourages them to move with a sense of urgency knowing they must act before the public can throw them out.  Why, you may be asking?  Because a sweeping take-over of health care give Democrats power.  The more people latched onto the government tit they more people are beholden to the Democrats.  They are enslaving the American people while the idiot masses gladly extend their hands for a bit more money, never suspecting it is they who are paying for it.  In more ways than they realize.

(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)Unconscionable.

That is the only word one can find that adequately describes the actions of an extremist U.S. government barely 2 days out from a clear repudiation by the voters.

Unconscionable.  A most startling word that denotes the lack of a conscience.

There is no other way to suitably or more accurately describe the actions of the U.S.Congress today, initiated by the Democratic leadership, even as hundreds if not thousands of conservatives descended upon Washington in a Capitol Building protest led by Rep. Michelle Bachmann.

Bachmann’s plan included a rally on the Capitol steps to decry the push by Nancy Pelosi and other extremists to shove government-run healthcare down the throats of the American people, followed by a citizen-led person-to-person campaign as the protesters seek out and talk to their own Representatives face-to-face.

These stalwart Patriots arrived in Washington just in the nick of time, it would appear.

Reuters reports that a Senate panel led by California Leftist Barbara Boxer approved a ‘climate change’ measure over the objections of the GOP, which boycotted the vote en mass. The bill essentially cripples the oil, coal,and gas industries by mandating ‘carbon emissions’ restrictions that would have the effect of hampering the ability of Americans to say warm, cool, and drive to work…you know, that little thing we call ‘LIVING.’

Unconscionable.

Bloomberg is reporting that despite the voice of the citizens in repudiating ObamaCare and other Obama initiatives in Tuesday’s vote, the Democratic leadership in the House is proceeding with plans for a vote on the massive 2-trillion-dollar government takeover of healthcare. The vote could come as early as tomorrow or Saturday.

Unconscionable.

And then, in perhaps the most outrageous action of all, the U.S. Senate, led by Leftist extremists such as Harry Reid, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer, voted to BLOCK a simple question from being asked on the upcoming U.S. Census.

That question? ‘Are you a U.S. citizen?’

Unconscionable.

The whole purpose of the census is to discover how many CITIZENS we have in the U.S. for the purpose of setting House district boundaries, the number of representatives allowed to the states, as well as billions of dollars in federal money.

When illegal aliens are included in the mix, which the Democrats wish to do, an unfair advantage is created in favor of those states that have the most illegals–states such as California.

Such a thing is not only unconstitutional but criminal.

Since law enforcement won’t do that job in holding our elected officials accountable to the law and the Constitution, is it time for ordinary citizens to place these enemies of the rule of law under ‘citizens’ arrest?’

No one is above the law, and extremist illegal measures implemented by elected officials should be met by extreme action on the part of the citizens.

This is a clear attack on our liberties. And, as Barry Goldwater is famous for saying, ‘Let me remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me also remind you that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.’

The day the earth stood still

For months now, I’ve desired to write a piece on the ridiculousness of the environmental movement.  There really is no way to truly satisfy this movement short of renouncing technology and returning to a state of primitive culture.  Naturally, such a move would also require a vast reduction in the human population as primitive cultivation techniques could not sustain the current population levels.  I truly don’t think environmentalists think through the ultimate consequences of what they seek.  Or do they?  With all the talk of Mao perhaps they have.  Besides, paraphrasing my favorite political philosopher, “a healthy planet comes through the barrel of a gun.”

The following reprint makes my points with nearly the sense of humor I would have employed.  The author is another anonymous blogger but interestingly from the other side of the political universe.  Although I wonder about that.  He tells us he’s not a conservative yet then he tells us he opposes “pretty much everything the President is doing.”  Well, I’ll let him pick it up now.

Reprint from Therefore I Think. (Slightly abridged.)
Human technology threatens the planet - time to go primative

Human technology threatens the planet

In his 2007 book “The World Without Us” author Alan Weisman hoped “…to produce a book about the present state of our planet that would be noticed and read by as wide an audience as possible…I’m grateful that its offbeat point of departure — seeing our world minus the distraction of ourselves — has worked so well…” [Emphasis mine.]  He talks about how the planet would “recover” once humanity is gone.  An interesting note is that one of the cover quotes praising the book is from the organizer of the 350.org demonstrations this last weekend.

Before I go any further, let me clarify a few assumptions some may be making, based on my previous posts and this one:

1. I am not a republican.

2. I am not a conservative.

3. I am not white.

4. And, despite my not agreeing with pretty much everything the President is doing, I am not a racist.

Back to the topic at hand:

So what are these people after?  They want to (as Ayn Rand once wrote) “return to the primitive.”  Many want an egalitarian society where someone’s need is a warrant on your life.  Pretty much all want to level the playing field, not by raising the standard of living where it is low, but by lowering the standard of living where it is high – i.e., advanced industrial nations like the U.S.  They want to take down capitalism because according to their altruistic morality, it is wrong or at best a necessary evil.

What makes me say this?  Let’s start with www.350.org and their own view on global warming:

“Global warming is caused by releasing what are called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The most common greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide. Many of the activities we do every day like turn the lights on, cook food, or heat or cool our homes rely on energy sources like coal and oil that emit carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.”

Everything that humans do has an impact on the environment.  To enjoy our high standard of living – from the lights we use to push back the darkness, to the vehicles we drive or fly to save time traveling, to the appliances we use to free up time to be with our family or work more productively, to cooking the food we eat with a stove rather than an open fire, to heating or cooling our homes so that we can be comfortable – these activities and many more create an “environmental footprint.”  So, basically every life-sustaining activity we humans do – including many of the things that have raised our life expectancy – is “bad for the environment.”  According to this premise, the earth would be better off if we were either dead or lived like our distant ancestors – and that is what is preferred.

Try and reduce your “footprint” by using cloth diapers and you get chastised for the excess water you’re using to clean them.  Use compact fluorescent bulbs to save energy and discover that they contain mercury.  Advocate for solar panels or wind mills to harness alternative energies (as inefficient and impractical at this point as they are) and get yelled at for trying to disturb ecosystems or pristine land.  You can’t win because environmental footprint is the measure by which nature is disturbed.  The less it is disturbed the better, so the more you disturb it by living like a human being, the more guilty you are.  Keith Lockitch of the Ayn Rand Center likens this to the guilt of Original Sin – making one feel guilty for their very existence.

How about these ideas to reduce your carbon footprint:

– Victoria University’s research fellow Brenda Vale, an authority on “sustainable architecture,” recently co-authored the book “Time to Eat the Dog.”  The book looks at ways to “modify” behavior to save energy.  In September 2008, Ms. Vale told a Wellington city council in New Zealand “a big dog can have a carbon footprint that is the equivalent to a small car and therefore the best way forward, if you are going to have a pet, is to make sure it is edible.”  Vale says edible animals for pets like pigs, chickens, or rabbits would be better for the environment.

Time to meet your maker, Fido.

– But another study written in World Watch Magazine states that the carbon footprint of livestock (like chickens and pigs – see above) has been underestimated, and that the only true alternative to reduce your “carbon footprint” is to be a vegetarian.  If someone wants to be a vegetarian, go for it; I was a vegetarian for a couple of years and was fine.  Because I was having trouble gaining weight while on a work out regimen, I started to eat meat again; in other words if the choice is my health or that of an animal, I choose me.  Call me crazy.  Anyways, the kicker is the last sentence in the article:

“Unfortunately, meat consumption provides yet another illustration of the global inequalities and injustices associated with climate change, where consumption in industrialized countries directly degrades the quality of life in developing countries.” [Emphasis mine.]

This is very important because this is the premise (taken in a larger context away from just food consumption) of the environmentalist movement across the globe, and is the guiding principle in the ideas being floated for the climate treaty hoped to be agreed upon in December.

– Forget the animals; go to the source of the “footprint” problem says New York Times contributer Andrew Revkin.  During an October 14 climate panel he said:

As part of a cap and trade scheme, “if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate…shouldn’t there be a carbon value for that?”  He says further: “Probably the single most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the light or driving a Prius, it’s having fewer kids, having fewer children.”  He has blogged in the past: “More children equal more carbon dioxide emissions.”

Do you really need any analysis of this point of view?  Yet it is absolutely consistent with the more “mainstream” ideas of environmentalism.  Nature = good.  Humans = bad.  He might as well say, “China’s got it right.  One child per couple.  After that I propose, for the good of the planet, forced sterilization.  Sacrifice your fertility to Mother Earth.”

As I’ve stated before, the current flurry of activity – from the 350.org campaign to the current climate bill moving its way through Congress (and backed by the President) is the climate conference in Copenhagen this December where many leaders hope to iron out a binding climate treaty.  At the very least they hope to lay the ground work for one later down the road.  President Obama is aiming for a treaty by the end of his first term.

A perfect analogy for all of this is Earth Hour.  On March 28, people in an estimated 1,000 cities in 80 countries turned out the lights for one hour; this included homes, office spaces, and national landmarks; non-essential lights is what they called it.  Begun in 2007, Earth Hour is supposed to bring awareness to our carbon footprint, dependence on energy, and global warming.

Here’s the House of Parliament in London before:

House of Parliament

Here’s the House of Parliament during Earth Hour:

House of Parliament after

It’s a great analogy to what they’re ultimately after: lights-out on our civilization.  It’s ironic (and hopefully not prophetic) that near the end of Atlas Shrugged, protagonist John Galt says that they (the men of the mind; the producers and creators on strike) would know when it was time to return to the world and when the collectivists’ experiment had run its course – when the lights of the world’s great cities had gone out.

 


Cavemen have small footprints

The future of humanity under extreme environmental policies

Final note from the editor:

Not exactly the future I envisioned for my kids, but hey, it’s about the smallest carbon footprint a human can have.  But wait, even cavemen produce waste, burn fuels, and kill animals.  These cavemen have obviously killed animals.  Tsk, Tsk. Vegan cavemen, now that would be better.  Naturally the ultimate environmentalist would like a planet devoid of humans but they’ll never admit it.

Death and Taxes

Soon these words may be linked by more than the phrase coined by Ben Franklin nearly 200 years ago. If Obama is successful in passing the health care and cap and trade legislation the government may be not only raising your taxes but deciding who dies and when that decision will help keep taxes from rising even higher.

It’s been a busy summer.  While you have been vacationing, (or is that looking for work after being laid-off), wasting fossil fuels, and over-consuming all kinds of unhealthy foods, the White House has been ramming its agenda through Congress.  Congress has been emotionally debating major pieces of legislation without reading or knowing what’s in them.  Even though passage of either or both of these will have a greater impact on the American way of life than all the laws passed since Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society.

A Common Sense Approach to Disaster

“Common sense approach” is a phrase I have heard President Obama use more than once, yet the approach being employed to push his primary agenda has been anything but common sense.  Common sense would not have a bill written so complicated it requires a team of lawyers to interpret it.  Common sense would not push through legislation that would benefit 8% of the population while punishing the other 92%.  Common sense would not encourage Congress not to read legislation by restricting the time they have to read it.  Common  sense does not rush through society-changing legislation by setting deadlines.

  Obama complained about legislation rammed through by the Bush Administration, yet he is employing the same tactic now.  I suppose if it was successful then it should be now.  This is another example of the ends justify the means, hypocrisy be damned.

Capping and Trading the Future

First up we have H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, (ACESA), aka Cap and Trade. Not one representative read it.  They couldn’t read it.  In the middle of the night, hours before the vote 300 pages were added to the bill.  They were not simple inserted pages or an addendum but a complex set of insertions that contained strange annotations like “insert page 15 after paragraph 8.”  Following the House passage of this moronic bill, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) has had time to study the bill and its implications. By the way, the EIA is a non-partisan entity and is very well regarded as fair, honest, and policy-neutral.

Report # SR-OIAF/2009-05 paints a bleak picture.  The report concludes that “Cap and Trade” would certainly raise energy prices.  (The report compares costs in 2007 dollars and make predictions out as far as 2030.  In fairness we all should know such predictions are faulty since unknown and unintended factors will likely alter the actual course of events.  However the trends should be fairly accurate representations.) Following the excel sheet we can see crude prices shooting up 200% and electricity up nearly 50%, mostly between 2025-30.  For those of us who have been paying attention this comes as no surprise.  Obama told the SF Chronicle in 2008, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”  No one listened or apparently cared because we were operating under intense fear of the economy.  People still are not listening only now it’s because the legislation is too complex.

Furthermore, the EIA reports that “ACESA increases the cost of using energy, which reduces real economic output, reduces purchasing power, and lowers aggregate demand for goods and services. The result is that projected real gross domestic product (GDP) generally falls.”  In other words, if we’re losing jobs now, you ain’t seen nothing yet.  It seems this bill reduces pollution not by creating alternatives but rather by raising the price of current energy sources.  The increased prices reduce demand and inhibit production through lower national production.  CHANGE WE NEED?

Destroying Health Care

Next up, Health care.  I’ve written about this scam before and little has changed.  The plan laid out by the house is a single payer system regardless of how many times Obama repeats his blatant lie that it is not.  Again I refer you to page 16 of H.R. 3200.  If you have the brain power and the caffeine I recommend you continue reading.  You’ll find old people being encouraged to forgo life-saving treatment and accept hospice or comfort care.  Presumably to save tax-payers money.

To me the kicker is that all this “crisis” in health care is primarily being marketed as a push to insure 47 million uninsured Americans.  In fact that number includes 10 million illegals and if we weed out the 18 million who don’t want health insurance we’re down to 19 million.  Let’s bump it up to 25 just to give the whiners a break.  There are 320 million Americans.  A quick tap on my calculator tells me all this is to fix health insurance for 7.8% of the population. And we’ll ALL pay higher taxes to pay for it.  While Glibb and Obama deny it, Geithner laid the groundwork with his Sunday test balloon.

I like my insurance.  I pay $200 a month for my family of 5.  When I see my doctor I pay less than $20, slightly more for a specialist.  A hospital visit runs about $100.  Sometimes I pay for tests.  I like it, it’s not perfect but it is darn close.  I know many people pay more and I feel blessed.  Would I like those people to have better?  Sure but I don’t want to pay for it.  Especially when you look at Massachusetts.  Their premiums are 3 times what I pay and their deductible is far higher.  Would I trade my plan so less than 8% of the population gets coverage?  No!  Should Medicare be fixed to provide them coverage?  Yes.

Dissidents Beware

Rasmussen did a poll of MA residents asking if they liked their state-run health plan.  26% liked it and only 10% think health care got better.  New York Times liberal editorialist, Paul Krugman, called the poll a lie.  He offered no counter polling data just condemned the data because he didn’t like it.  Some of his readers called outright for thought police.  Liberals are getting scarier everyday!

The President is far scarier.  First the administration paints those of us who want to keep our health care as mere puppets or worse employees of the insurance companies.  Our opposition is called “manufactured” so people on the fence won’t take us seriously.  He repeats the lie that you can keep the plans you have.  However, Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), freely admits that “single-payer” is the goal of the legislation.  When he says, “it could lead to single-payer and that is the best way to reach single-payer,” he says that knowing that under page 16 it is only a matter of time before private insurance dries up.

Back to Obama…  In a move that brings forth images of the Soviet Union and the KGB, a posting on the official White House Blog, call for supporters to report e-mails and websites that are negative towards his health care bill.  I expect there is a Czar somewhere ordering my blog be tracked and soon there will be a midnight pounding on my door.  I suppose rendition could be in my future.  If I ever doubted Obama was a classic socialist, he has removed all my doubts since January.

A Foreshadowing of Clunkers to Come

ClunkerFinally, for those of you who are so desperate for change that you fantasize about a wonderful state-run health care plan that cost you nothing or less than you pay now, I direct you to Obama’s Cash For Clunkers program.  This is a simple program not a bloated complex scheme like Health Care or Cap & Trade.   The idea simple, the government pays for you to trade in the gas-guzzler and buy a nice new car.  In theory the environment gets a bumps as well as the economy.

It’s not working out that way, folks.  Turns out the environmental impact is nill.  Aside from that the government can’t administer the program.  Naturally there is a huge demand for the program.  let’s face it – free money and a new car is pretty dang appealing.  So a program that was promised to only cost $1 billion dollars has to be “bailed out” with $2 billion more. To make matters worse, dealers aren’t getting their money from the government.  In Atlanta mega-dealer, Jim Ellis, is no longer offering the deal to its customers.

So when the President tells you his health care will only cost “$50 and $65 billion a year when fully phased in,” don’t believe him.  At a minimum triple the number.  In 1966 the government estimated Medicare would cost only $12 billion by 1990, (adjusted for inflation.)  When 1990 arrived Medicare cost $107 billion.  With such a track record who in their right mind would ever believe a President when they tell you how much something will cost them.  Furthermore, hearkening back to “common sense,” how can a national health care system that covers all 320 million of us cost less than Medicare that only covers a portion of the population.  I believe it’s because he’s telling us how much more it will cost than it will charge for premiums.

READ THE BILLS!

I’m closing with this.  Before Congress votes on this or any plan they need to not only read it but have their attorneys read it and explain it to them.  Unfortunately there is no law requiring them to do so but there should be.  Listen to Representative John Conyers (D-MI) scoff at those who would demand they read the bills.

It’s true they don’t have the time, but that fact must change.  We should put the brakes on Congress and allow them time to shut up and read the darn bills they are so passionately supporting or opposing.  Maybe if they read the bills there actually might be bipartisanship since they would start voting on what is right and not simply how their ignorant party leadership is telling them to vote.  And I’m not the only one who thinks so.

Boxed In: Senator Boxer plays the race card

Last Week, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) used race in an attempt to put down Black Chamber of Commerce, President Harry Alford.  She used a classic liberal move, she tried to use one black group’s opinion to counter another on the issue of Global Warming. She wasn’t interested in his scientific study and countered with an NAACP opinion.

The tone of condescension Boxer exhibited was outrageous.  Watch this and pretend Boxer is a Republican.  Now tell me how much press you think this would have received?  Especially notice Boxer’s angry disparaging whispers while Alford attempts to assert his reputation.  People of California, next chance you get you need to send this condescending bigot home.  She’s been in Washington so long she doesn’t even smell her own stench!

Just to complete the story, here is Alford’s comments on this encounter that appeared on last night’s O’Reilly Factor.

%d bloggers like this: