Monday, June 29, 2009
House Passes Climate Bill
.
Legislation to tax U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions was approved by the House of Representatives in a close vote late Friday, securing an initial victory for a cornerstone of President Barack Obama's agenda.
The 1,200 page bill [the last 300 pages added at 3:00 am the day of the vote] -- formally known as the "American Clean Energy and Security Act" -- will reach into almost every corner of the U.S. economy. By putting a price on emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, the bill would affect the way electricity is generated, how homes and offices are designed, how foreign trade is conducted and how much Americans pay to drive cars or to heat their homes.
The House climate bill, approved by a 219-212 [it needed 218, and received 217 in yesterday's 'test vote', so two folks were bought off] vote Friday evening, would mandate that 15% of the nation's electricity come from expensive and unproven sources such as wind and solar power by 2020, expanding the market and profit potential for companies in those sectors.
The legislation has a provision that would impose tariffs on goods imported from countries that don't match U.S. carbon dioxide restrictions -- a slap at China and India that some business interests fear could provoke a trade war. [i.e., Smoot-Hawley, and the depression it caused, all over again. Lesson are repeated until learned.]
The Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities, backed it, as did those with big investments in 'alternative' [to economically viable] energy investors.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers lobbied against passage.
"It will affect every aspect of the American economy, harming our ability to compete in the world and provide secure and affordable energy to American consumers and businesses,"
READ MORE
(Green) DOTS...
.
If Cap And Trade Passes It Will Kill Off Domestic Fuel Production
And what happens when fuel supplies go down? Say hello to $6.00/gallon gas. Which would be perfect, because it just so happens that the federal government owns a couple of car manufacturers that will be producing [glorified golf carts] cars that get very high gas mileage in the coming years.Oh, and guess what? Cap and trade would put domestic fuel producers at a competitive disadvantage with foreign fuel producers.
READ MORE
GM: Michigan plant will make new small car
Detroit - General Motors Corp. confirmed Friday it will use an assembly plant in Orion Township, Mich., and a parts stamping facility in Pontiac, Mich., to build small and compact cars, a move claimed to 'save' 1,400 jobs. The decision is dependent on the outcome of negotiations between the company and the state on incentives...
READ MORE
.
Boehner: Climate bill a 'pile of s--t'
.
"Old words are best. Old words, when short, are best of all."- Winston Churchill
Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) had a few choice words about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) landmark climate-change bill after its passage Friday. When asked why he read portions of the cap-and-trade bill on the floor Friday night, Boehner told The Hill,
"Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s--t."
READ MORE
Night Before Key Vote, Networks Remain Silent on Cap-and-Trade
.
A House vote on Waxman-Markey’s American Clean Energy & Security Act to cap-and-trade emissions was imminent June 26. Some Republicans have called the bill “the largest tax increase in American history,” but despite the enormous burden to taxpayers the three major networks failed to cover the bill the night before.
ABC, NBC, and CBS instead devoted June 25 evening news programming to recently deceased celebrities, Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett. While the deaths of such iconic figures was certainly newsworthy, failing to provide coverage over legislation that would cost every American family $1,241 a year in higher energy bills was irresponsible.
The lack of network coverage on the cap-and-trade issue isn’t new (only 13 stories between Jan. 20 and May 25) and has contributed to ignorance and confusion about the issue.
[Our professional press.]
READ MORE
How the MSM is harming Americans
.
I was saddened to hear that both Farah Fawcett and Michael Jackson died, but I am extremely maddened by the amount of coverage that MSM and even our "reliable" conservative networks are giving to them in light of the serious events which transpired this week.
One of the most serious events was the fact that Harold Koh was confirmed by the Senate on Wednesday June 24th as the State Department's Legal Advisor.
His transnationalist views promote blending international and domestic law. Indeed, this is particularly scary knowing that he believes traditional sovereignty is obsolete [see FLASHBACKSs below]. What are all those people thinking in the senate who voted for him at a 62-35 vote?
The other important event was the fact that on Friday, the United Nations adopted a 16-page document on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development. 
Not only will it require the U.S. to give .7 GDP to foreign aid, it may demand 845 billion of U.S. citizens taxpayer dollars to achieve their Millilium Development goals.
Both of these events will seriously impact America in the near future and it is journalism's duty to inform the American public what this could mean to our country. Did we hear about these events? Did you?
Talk about Nero fiddling while Rome burned. We lost many freedoms last week. The course is set to turn us into a failed nation state, and the so called news media is on 24/7 beating the "dead horse."
America is becoming like M. Jackson. Self inflicted, misguided, drugged up and out of touch with reality.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/enough_of_the_fluff_already_gi.html
FLASHBACKs >
Koh's Academic Hero Proposed 'Global Dictatorship'
The term “world government” is too benign for what Sohn proposed. The term “global dictatorship” would be more appropriate. But this is the direction that Koh apparently would take us.
Koh and Justice Ginsburg - Soulmates
The idea that our government should operate under any law save the Constitution is so outrageous as to place the individual arguing otherwise beyond reason.
The Fight Over Harold Koh
The heart of the concern with Koh, who is now the dean of Yale Law School, is that he believes in “transnationalism,” which is the notion that American courts should honor and apply the laws of other nations in our courts...
Obama Nominee for State Department Legal Adviser
"This is not a desk job. This guy will be the face of American international law around the world,""This is international imperialism. Under Koh's plan, the Constitution would become secondary and international law would take precedence regardless of what Americans said about the matter"...
OBAMA'S MOST PERILOUS LEGAL PICK
Koh is a key test case in the "judicial wars." If he makes it through (which he will if he gets even a single GOP vote) the message to the Obama team will be: You can pick 'em as radical as you like.
.
We Will Bury You
.
Her name was Neda, but to the thugs who rule her country, she counts for nada, London's Guardian reports: The Iranian authorities have ordered the family of Neda Agha Soltan out of their Tehran home after shocking images of her death were circulated around the world. . . .
The police did not hand the body back to her family, her funeral was cancelled, she was buried without letting her family know ...
READ MORE
If the President doesn't stand for Freedom
.
In a time of crisis, with lives in the balance, in the conflict between two powerful ideologies -- one that prizes freedom, one that would strangle its people in a totalitarian grip -- an American president spoke directly to those whose lives and liberties were most threatened and told them that the United States stood with them, that we are all Berliners.
In another time of crisis in the conflict between two powerful ideologies -- one that cherishes freedom, one that would enslave its subjects -- an American president spoke directly to those most threatened and told them that the United States stood by them, demanding, "Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
Two decades later, another conflict between ideologies -- one that values freedom and one that would subjugate its people with the force of clubs and guns -- and the president tells those who are putting their freedoms, their families' well-being, their very lives at stake not that we are as ready to stand with Iranians as we were with Berliners. But that,"I think it's important for us to make sure the Iranian people know we are watching." [snip]
The men and women of this country who have fought and bled and died--and are fighting and bleeding and dying right now in places like Iraq and Afghanistan--know that freedom doesn't come cheap. Few know more about that price than Senator John McCain. To paraphrase him on Neda's death: She died with her eyes open; let us not keep our eyes closed.
If the President of the United States does not stand for freedom, the rest of us must.
READ MORE
Iran Fading From Media Attention
.
In a passionate Wall Street Journal op-ed this morning ("Silence Has Consequences for Iran"), former Spanish Prime Minister José Aznar who, in case anyone cares, serves on the board of WSJ parent News Corp., says that"It would be a shame .... if our passivity gave carte blanche to a tyrannical regime to finish off the dissidents and persist with its revolutionary plans."
Shaking off passivity requires visibility. America's media establishment almost across the board is providing very little. The Associated Press and the New York Times reports exist, but their distribution is dwarfed by the death of a pop star and a governor's infidelity...
[Our 'professional' press.]
READ MORE
The Stoning of Soraya M
.
For the few who don’t know by now, The Stoning of Soraya M. is based on French-Iranian journalist Freidoune Sahebjam’s bestselling book, which relates the true story of a woman in a remote Iranian village, in the years after the 1979 Khomeini revolution, who is falsely accused of adultery and stoned to death by a mob desperate to cleanse themselves of this affront to their collective honor and to their religion.
It’s not only a gripping story in its own right, but it shines a harsh spotlight on the almost unimaginable reality that the barbaric punishment of stoning still exists in the Iranian law code.
READ MORE
NY Times Calls 'The Stoning of Soraya M' Film 'Lurid Torture-Porn'
.
Leave it to New York Times liberal movie critic Stephen Holden to come down on "The Stoning of Soraya M," for stereotyping a couple of murderous, misogynist Islamists as...murderous misogynist Islamists.
Holden generally likes politically activist movies, especially left-wing documentaries that take aim at politically correct targets like big business and heartland hicks. By contrast, he's not fond of Israel or the Catholic Church, or evidently, movies about injustices committed against women in the Muslim world, like "The Stoning of Soraya M."
In calling it "lurid torture-porn," Holden echoes columnist Frank Rich's smear against "The Passion of the Christ" as "a joyride for sadomasochists."
READ MORE
Anti-Stoning Filmmakers Bashed for 'Inflating' of 9/11
.
The New York Times, the Washington Post really hated the new movie The Stoning of Soraya M., which depicts sexist injustice under Islamic Sharia law in Iran. Post critic Jan Stuart complained Friday:Iranian American director Cyrus Nowrasteh, co-writing with wife Betsy Giffen Nowrasteh, has amplified the basic elements of Soraya's story into the worst kind of exploitive Hollywood melodrama, presented under the virtuous guise of moral outrage.
From there, Stuart then condemned how the filmmakers had a reputation for "inflating" historical events like 9/11.
What, precisely, does that mean? How do you "inflate" historical events like 9/11?
Would the Post accuse a filmmaker of "inflating" the Holocaust for moral outrage? Or the killing of gay man Matthew Shepard, who many activists quickly compared to Jesus? The political ideology of the critic is obvious, and drowns out any aesthetic judgment they might offer.
What the Post critic seems to imply is Westeners shouldn't be "rabid" in feeling any moral superiority to Islamic justice, and that the audience should feel dirty, not morally outraged, for taking in the film.
READ MORE
Stoning of Soraya M actress spreads comforting falsehoods
.
Does stoning really have "nothing to do with Islam"?
The Stoning of Soraya M. is a great film; I attended an advance screening of it last year in Los Angeles, and strongly recommend that you see it. It is a powerfully moving indictment of the Islamic practice of stoning adulterers, and indirectly of the Sharia in general -- however, those connected with the film are doing their level best to avoid giving the impression that the film has anything to do with Islam at all.
The latest to do this, but by no means the only one, is actress Shohreh Aghdashloo, who portrays the victim's close friend. This is understandable in today's politically correct Obamoid climate, but it is unfortunate for the Muslim women who are victimized by this barbaric practice: they will never get justice as long as the world is busy making excuses for what victimizes them, instead of calling to account those who are responsible.
The film is great, and depicts the truth. It is a pity that the film's actors and producers feel compelled to deny and downplay the real cause of this crime against humanity. By doing so, they only ensure that it will keep happening.
READ MORE
.
Soldiers arrest Honduran president, seize palace
.
TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras - Honduran President Manuel Zelaya said he was the victim of "a coup" and a "brutal kidnapping" by soldiers.
President Barack Obama said he was "deeply concerned."
READ MORE
EPA QUASHES CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE
.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute has obtained an EPA study of the "endangerment" to human well-being ostensibly caused by carbon dioxide emissions, together with a set of EPA emails indicating that the study, which concludes that carbon dioxide is not a significant cause of climate change, was suppressed by the EPA for political reasons.
You can read the comments that the CEI submitted to the EPA on EPA's proposed endangerment finding here, along with the emails. The censored report, by Alan Carlin and John Davidson, is here.
In their report, Carlin and Davidson point out that the EPA has not done its own evaluation of the global warming theory. Rather, it has relied on analyses by others, mostly the U.N.'s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report. That report, however, was a political document, not a scientific one. Knowing that current scientific research disproves the anthropogenic global warming theory, the U.N. ordered that no recent research be considered in the IPCC report. This is a scandal of which too few people are aware. As science, the U.N. report is a bad joke.
Carlin and Davidson go on to recite the scientific work that shows rather clearly that human activity is a minor factor, at most, in climate change--which has, of course, been occurring from the beginning of Earth's history to the present. Their report is a useful summary of the evidence for those who are not familiar with it.
If the Obama administration gets its way, Americans will not become aware of the scientific evidence: Obama's EPA suppressed the Carlin/Davidson report and tried to keep it secret for political reasons. The emails obtained by the CEI are revealing. Here, the two scientists' superior declines to make their report public because "the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment." Click to enlarge:
Here, Carlin and Davidson are ordered not to communicate to the public their conclusion that the global warming theory is bunk:
Global warming zealots are a bit like Iran's mullahs. They are fanatically devoted to a series of false propositions. Unable to win an open scientific debate, they consistently resort to bullying and brute force to suppress their opposition. Once again, we see the Obama administration taking the lead in this regard, putting political ideology above scientific truth and demanding that all others do likewise.
READ MORE
Big Oil’ s Answer to Carbon Law May Be Fuel Imports
Chicago/Houston - America’s biggest oil companies will probably cope with U.S. carbon legislation by closing fuel plants, cutting capital spending and increasing imports.
Refiners would have to buy allowances for carbon dioxide spewed from their plants and from vehicles when motorists burn their fuel. Imports would need permits only for the latter, which ConocoPhillips Chief Executive Officer Jim Mulva said would create a competitive 'imbalance'...
READ MORE
Fuzzy Green Math
.
There’s something very strange going on with Obama’s proposed global warming tax. According to Greenwire:"The climate program would generate nearly $650 billion between 2012 and 2019, according to Obama's proposal. About $80 billion of the climate revenues would go toward Obama's proposed middle-class tax cut each year beginning in 2012, the draft says, and the government would spend $15 billion per year on 'clean' energy technologies."
This is absurd on its face, of course: $650 billion taken in over 8 years, used in part to fund $640 billion over the same period to help ease the pain it causes, and the . . . er, remaining . . . $120 billion going for green pork, leaving us a balance of minus $110 billion.
Hey, look, the entire enterprise is premised upon make-believe, and computer models which now have been so debunked by observations that they seem obviously inadmissible in a court of law pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmeceuticals (that’s from Wiki; the opinion is here).
This paints a picture rather different than the one floated earlier, of raising energy prices and rebating a portion while paying down debt — instead it's simply a new vehicle to raise revenue to pay for a permanent new welfare entitlement. Er, that is until the scheme succeeds in "bankrupt[ing]" its targets, as then-candidate Obama vowed was the purpose. [coal plants]
READ MORE
Media Ignores Obama's False 'As I've Often Said' Reference to 'Exploration'
.
'It is time for us to lay a new foundation for economic growth by beginning a new era of energy exploration in America."
Gosh, that sounds positively capitalist. You would think the guy is finally going to let the oil companies do what they do best.
Not a chance. Here, from later in the speech, is (I think, because he never used any variation of "explore" anywhere else in the speech) how President 'Prompter defines "exploration":
"As I've often said, in the short term, as we transition to renewable energy, we can and should increase our domestic production of oil and natural gas. We're not going to transform our economy overnight. We still need more oil; we still need more gas. If we've got some here in the United States that we can use, we should find it, and do so in an environmentally sustainable way."
"If" we've got some? There's literally trillions of dollars worth of oil and natural gas within US borders and off US shores -- and hundreds of billions of dollars in royalties the cash-starved government could be collecting.
"If" we can use it?
Words fail.
[Does anyone doubt that 'environmentally sustainable' will be defined in such a way as to prevent any new drilling?]
READ MORE
Obamacare won't survive coming doctor shortage
.
President Obama's ambitious plan for radically increasing the government's role in the nation's health care system misses one critical detail: There aren't enough primary care physicians in America now and their numbers are declining.
That means government won't be able to deliver the expanded health care Obama is promising to millions of uninsured people...
[I.e., we're doing exactly the wrong thing...]
READ MORE
Socialized Healthcare is a Severe Threat to Individual Liberty
.The doctrine of the safety net, to catch those who fall, has been made meaningless by the doctrine of fair shares for those of us who are quite able to stand.
- The Economist
What if someone argues,"There are some things in life that capitalism should not be allowed to structure for profit. Human life and quality of life are two such things. How can you look someone in the eye and tell them that their bank account dictates that they aren't worth helping?"
This argument is severely flawed. One, it assumes that if you are against socialized healthcare then you are against the concept of a safety net; and two, it ignores the fact that healthcare is already provided to those threatened by poverty and old age.. [snip]
... This hypothetical example demonstrates two serious infringements on individual liberty that happen on a regular basis where socialized medicine exists. The money that Sam could have saved on taxes represents real lost-opportunity costs to Sam - he could have used it to invest in starting his own business, buy a bass boat, go on a few extra vacations, donate to charity, put it in a medical savings account to pay for his knee operation, or a million other possibilities of his choosing. In addition to lost opportunity, when Sam actually could have used coverage, he was denied and had no choice in the matter.
To be clear, the plan Obama and the Democrats are offering is not a complete socialization of our healthcare system but it might as well be. A broad-based tax increase will be necessary to pay for the new public "option" (that private insurers won't be able to compete against). While this 'public option' may benefit some it will come at the expense of others and therefore be fraught with all the same threats to individual liberty that socialized medicine has to offer.
Over the previous weeks and months, there have been many excellent reports detailing why the Administration's healthcare plan will increase total government spending on healthcare without improving overall healthcare outcomes. Unfortunately, this information alone is not enough. In Radicals for Capitalism Brian Doherty stated Ayn Rand's belief that,"people don't care if something doesn't work as long as the dominant morality of altruism tells them that it is right."
For opponents of government-run healthcare to succeed they must not only convince the public that the Administration's plan will fail to deliver on its promises but also explain how the plan will severely infringe on individual liberty, which the government of this country was designed to protect.
[Highly Recommended > ]
READ MORE
Obama Says We Shouldn't Treat Old Folks to Save Money And the Media Goes Deaf
.
I am wondering when the euthanasia folks are going to start touting this one? I mean, it sure seemed to me as if the most caring, most civil, most intelligent president ever just said that healthcare could be cheaper if we don't give old folks and the infirm the full measure of care they now get - we should just let them die or suffer because they aren't worth the effort.
Obama said during the ABC Special on Wednesday night that a way to save healthcare costs is to abandon the sort of care that "evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve" the patient's health. He went on to say that he had personal familiarity with such a situation when his grandmother broke her hip after she was diagnosed with terminal cancer:"the question was, does she get hip replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough they were not sure how long she would last?"
But who is it that will present the "evidence" that will "show" that further care is futile? Are we to believe that Obama expects individual doctors will make that decision in his bold new government controlled healthcare future? If he is trying to make that claim it is a flat out untruth and he knows it:
Government does not work by negotiation. Government does not work from the bottom up. It works from the top down. This singular fact means that no doctor will be deciding if you are too old or infirm to get medical care. It will be a medically untrained bureaucrat that sets a national rule that everyone will have to obey. There won't be any room for your grandma to have a different outcome than anyone else's.
So, what will it be then? Who will decide when medical care is just too expensive to bother with? Who will be left to perish because they just aren't worth the lifesaving effort? Well, for sure it won't be any members of Congress or anyone that works for the federal government because they won't be expected to suffer under the nationally socialized plan. It also won't be Obama's buddies in the unions who are about to be similarly exempted from the national plan, at least if Senator Max Baucus has his way.
And what ever happened to the left's mantra that healthcare is a "right" and that money should never enter into a life or death decision? Now that it's Obama saying it's just too darn expensive to save the old and infirm, will our friends on the left now disown Obama the "murderer"?
Imagine if Bush had said something like this? The left wouldn't have hesitated to call him any manner of names.
Oddly, though, the Old Media have not had so much as a raised eyebrow over his statements on Wednesday.
The media remained mum on the possibility that the President, Doctor of life, just said that old folks are too expensive to treat? Hello, CNN, NBC, New York Times... anyone?
[Another example of the real harm our media's spin-by-omission perpetrates.]
READ MORE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
