This Boomer Isn't Going to Apologize


Last weekend I attended my niece's high-school graduation from an upscale prep school in Washington, D.C. These are supposed to be events filled with joy, optimism and anticipation of great achievements. But nearly all the kids who stepped to the podium dutifully moaned about how terrified they are of America's future -- yes, even though Barack Obama, whom they all worship and adore, has brought "change they can believe in."

A federal judge gave the commencement address and proceeded to denounce the sorry state of the nation that will be handed off to them. The enemy, he said, is the collective narcissism of their parents' generation -- my generation. The judge said that we baby boomers have bequeathed to the "echo boomers," "millennials," or whatever they are to be called, a legacy of "greed, global warming, and growing income inequality."

And everyone of all age groups seemed to nod in agreement. One affluent 40-something woman with lots of jewelry told me she can barely look her teenagers in the eyes, so overcome is she with shame over the miseries we have bestowed upon our children.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that graduation ceremonies have become collective airings of guilt and grief. It's now chic for boomers to apologize for their generation's crimes. It's the only thing conservatives and liberals seem to agree on. Mitch Daniels, the Republican governor of Indiana, told Butler University grads that our generation is "just plain selfish." At Grinnell College in Iowa, author Thomas Friedman compared boomers to "hungry locusts . . . eating through just about everything." Film maker Ken Burns told this year's Boston College grads that those born between 1946 and 1960 have "squandered the legacy handed to them by the generation from World War II."

I could go on, but you get the point. We partied like it was 1999, paid for it with Ponzi schemes and left the mess for our kids and grandkids to clean up. We're sorry -- so sorry.

Well, I'm not.

I have two teenagers and an 8-year-old, and I can say firsthand that if boomer parents have anything for which to be sorry it's for rearing a generation of pampered kids who've been chauffeured around to soccer leagues since they were 6.

This is a generation that has come to regard rising affluence as a basic human right, because that is all it has ever known -- until now. Today's high-school and college students think of iPods, designer cellphones and $599 lap tops as entitlements. They think their future should be as mapped out as unambiguously as the GPS system in their cars.

CBS News reported recently that echo boomers spend $170 billion a year -- more than most nations' GDPs -- and nearly every penny of that comes from the wallets of the very parents they now resent. My parents' generation lived in fear of getting polio; many boomers lived in fear of getting sent to the Vietnam War; this generation's notion of hardship is TiVo breaking down.

How bad can the legacy of the baby boomers really be? Let's see: We're the generation that spawned Microsoft, Intel, Apple, Google, ATMs and Gatorade. We defeated the evils of communism and delivered the world from the brink of global thermonuclear war. Now youngsters are telling pollsters that they think socialism may be better than capitalism after all. Do they expect us to apologize for winning the Cold War next?

College students gripe about the price of tuition, and it does cost way too much. But who do these 22-year-old scholars think has been footing the bill for their courses in transgender studies and Che Guevara? The echo boomers complain, rightly, that we have left them holding the federal government's $8 trillion national IOU. But try to cut government aid to colleges or raise tuitions and they act as if they have been forced to actually work for a living.

Yes, the members of this generation will inherit a lot of debts, but a much bigger storehouse of wealth will be theirs in the coming years. When I graduated from college in 1982, the net worth of America -- all our nation's assets minus all our liabilities -- was $16 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve. Today, even after the meltdown in housing and stocks, the net worth of the country is $45 trillion -- a doubling after inflation. The boomers' children and their children will inherit more wealth and assets than any other in the history of the planet -- that is, unless Mr. Obama taxes it all away. So how about a little gratitude from these trust-fund babies for our multitrillion-dollar going-away gifts?

My generation is accused of being environmental criminals -- of having polluted the water and air and ruined the climate. But no generation in history has done more to clean the environment than mine. Since 1970 pollutants in the air and water have fallen sharply. Since 1960, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles and Pittsburgh have cut in half the number of days with unsafe levels of smog. The number of Americans who get sick or die from contaminants in our drinking water has plunged for 50 years straight.

Whenever kids ask me why we didn't do more to combat global warming, I explain that when I was young the "scientific consensus" warned of global cooling. Today's teenagers drive around in cars more than any previous generation. My kids have never once handed back the car keys because of some moral problem with their carbon footprint -- and I think they are fairly typical.

The most absurd complaint of all is that the health-care system has been ruined by our generation. Oh, really? Thanks to massive medical progress in the past 30 years, the chances of dying from heart disease and many types of cancer have been cut in half. We found effective treatments for AIDS within a decade. Life expectancy has risen and infant mortality fallen. That doesn't sound so "selfish" to me.

Yes, we are in a deep economic crisis today -- but it's no worse than what we boomers faced in the late 1970s after years of hyperinflation, sky-high tax rates and runaway government spending. We cursed our parents, too. But then we grew up and produced the largest leap forward in health, wealth and scientific progress the world has ever seen.

Let's see what this next generation of over-educated ingrates can do.

Source

image toon - 1st fnn crpt othr - Kid quiting band for politics due to sex

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

image toon - 1st bdd grn engry = Cap + trade = turning green

(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

image toon - grn engry = taxpayer faints re climate change bill

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

image toon - 1st iran gwot islm msm - Iranian clerics shocked at Neda video w/o burka

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

image toon - sclm bbro hcare grn engry = Feds taxing soda and burps

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

image toon = hcare = Oby as sham-now huckster re health care

'What If Government Ran Health Care?'

.
[funny]

LINK

.

*** SPECIAL ***

Waxman-Markey:
Man-Made Disaster
___

Fiscal Policy: The House of Representatives is voting TODAY on an anti-stimulus package that in the name of saving the earth will destroy the American economy.

___

Not since the Smoot-Hawley misguided piece of legislation imposed tariffs that turned a recession into a depression has there been a piece of legislation as bad as Waxman-Markey.

The 1,000-plus-page American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454) is being rushed to a vote by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi before anyone can seriously object to this economic suicide pact.

It's what Janet Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security, might call a "man-caused disaster," a phrase she coined to replace the politically incorrect "terrorist attack." But no terrorist could ever dream of inflicting as much damage as this bill.

Its centerpiece is a "cap and trade" provision that has been rightfully derided as "cap and tax." It is in fact a tax on energy everywhere it is consumed on everything it is used to make or provide.

It is the largest tax increase in American history — a tax on all Americans — even the 95% that President Obama pledged would never see a tax increase.

It's a political bill that could come to a vote now that a deal was struck with farm-state legislators concerned about the taxation of even bovine flatulence.

As part of the agreement reached Tuesday night and announced by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Beverly Hills, agricultural oversight for cap-and-trade was transferred from the Environmental Protection Agency to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Farmers hope the USDA will be less intrusive. The EPA has been tasked by a Supreme Court ruling to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from your nostrils to your lawn mower. This even covers the emissions of barnyard animals, including the methane from cows.

The American Farm Bureau warns that cap and trade would cost the average farmer $175 on every dairy cow and $80 for beef cattle. So farm-state politics trumped climate change.

We all know about farmers paid not to grow food. But now, American taxpayers apparently will be paying companies not to chop down trees. The Washington Times reports that as part of the legislation, the House will also be voting Friday on a plan [us] to pay domestic and international companies around the world not to cut down trees.

Such offsets "would be a transfer of wealth overseas," said William Kovacs, vice president for environmental affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. So if a tree falls in a Brazilian forest, does a U.S. taxpayer make a sound?

As we've said before, capping emissions is capping economic growth. An analysis of Waxman-Markey by the Heritage Foundation [next-below] projects that by 2035 it would reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $7.4 trillion. In an average year, 844,000 jobs would be destroyed, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by almost 2 million (see charts below).

Consumers would pay through the nose as electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, as President Obama once put it, by 90% adjusted for inflation. Inflation-adjusted gasoline prices would rise 74%, residential natural gas prices by 55% and the average family's annual energy bill by $1,500.

Hit hardest by all this would be the "95% of working families" Obama keeps mentioning as being protected from increased taxation. They are protected, that is, unless they use energy. Then they'll be hit by this draconian energy tax.

And what would we get for all this pain? According to an analysis by Chip Knappenberger, administrator of the World Climate Report, the reduction of U.S. CO2 emissions to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 — the goal of the Waxman-Markey bill — would reduce global temperature in 2050 by a mere 0.05 degree Celsius.

President Obama has called on the U.S. to "lead by example" on global warming. During the campaign, he said: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."

Soon we may not be able to. Other countries can just sit back and watch us destroy ourselves.

___

Waxman-Markey Global Warming Bill:
Economic Impact by Congressional District

Karen A. Campbell, Ph.D., is Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics and David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst for Energy Economics and Climate Change.

[a quite cool breakdown of what this bill will mean to each of us - keep in mind that the more energy you use the more the numbers go up...]

It has become quite clear over the past several months that placing a cap on carbon emission--via rationing, taxing, and eliminating consumer choice--will have major implications for American families and the economy.

An analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill (as reported out of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce) by The Heritage Foundation found that unemployment will increase by nearly 2 million in 2012, the first year of the program, and reach nearly 2.5 million in 2035, the last year of the analysis. Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion. The national debt would balloon as the economy slowed, saddling a family of four with $114,915 of additional national debt. Families would also suffer, as the bill would slap the equivalent of a $4,609 tax on a family of four by 2035.[1]

Heritage is not alone in its assessment. The National Black Chamber of Commerce[2] and the Brookings Institution[3] also project huge job losses. Proponents of a national energy tax will quickly point to a recent Congressional Budget Office memo[4] and Environmental Protection Agency[5] analysis suggesting low per family costs. Those estimates are grossly inaccurate, as both the CBO memo and the EPA's analysis contain flaws too serious for use as measures of the economic impact of the Waxman-Markey bill.

While national numbers are startling, many Members of Congress may be tempted to assume that their congressional districts will not be affected because they "cut a deal" or they have an incomplete view of how the American economy functions. Thus, it is crucially important that the Members making decisions, and the people affected by those decisions, understand how their congressional districts will be impacted by Waxman-Markey, or any type of national energy tax.

The table below lays out six congressional district specific data points:

• Gross State Product Loss in 2012: This number is the amount of economic destruction that will occur in that district in the first year of the cap-and-trade regime.
• Average Gross State Product Loss, 2012-2035: Same as above, only it is the average economic destruction in the district for the bill's first 24 years.
• Personal Income Loss in 2012: This number represents the reduction in consumer spending power in a district in the first year of the cap-and-trade regime.
• Average Personal Income Loss, 2012-2035: Same as above, only it is the reduction in consumer spending power in the district for the bill's first 24 years.
• Non-Farm Job Loss in 2012: Jobs are jobs, and in the first year of the cap-and-trade regime, each district will have significantly less than they otherwise could.
• Average Non-Farm Job Loss, 2012-2035: This number is crucially important because it demonstrates that no district gains jobs, even in the long run; the increase in "green jobs" does not outweigh the decrease in jobs elsewhere.

A Final Note on Jobs

During the "stimulus" debate, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs lamented that "more companies [have] announced mass layoffs."[6] The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines mass layoffs as "where private sector nonfarm employers indicate that 50 or more workers were separated from their jobs for at least 31 days." Under Waxman-Markey, on average each congressional district would experience the equivalent of more than 52 mass layoffs.

Although losing several thousand jobs may not seem like a lot to some politicians who are stuck inside the beltway, the mass layoffs resulting from Waxman-Markey should make any politician--and hard working American--cringe.

Appendix: Table 1

[excerpt of my district, CA 11th/McNerney (Dublin) - open above and find yours...]

THEN {TODAY folks - NOW would be good} >>

"OPPOSE H.R. 2454 (the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009)."


House-Pelosi: http://speaker.house.gov/contact/
YOUR Congressman: https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

or: Speed Message them with your personal distribution list...

and PLEASE PASS THIS ON...
[white envelope lower-left will forward a link to this brief]

.
AND >>>

CALL THE HOUSE SWITCHBOARD and tell 'them'* that you're calling to REGISTER OPPOSITION TO THE WAXMAN-MARKEY BILL...

{* You'll probably get a busy or 'all circuits busy' recording as I have several times (at both numbers) - that's ok, put your call on hold to keep them that way...}

House of Representatives switchboard:
202.225.3121 - 202.224-3121

Please take the time to do your part - despite the focus on economic costs to this bill I personally believe them secondary to the massive transfer of power to control all activity the government will acquire through this bill: if we fail to stop this bill our children will grow up in a country where the government can dictate the cost of all activity - at the cost of personal choice.

So, please forward to everyone you know and call often...

tx.

Oh, and a 'few' FLASHBACKS > ...

.

image toon - 1st iran gwot islm = Death to Satan = Imam, not America

President Obama, Seize the Moment

In 1983, Ronald Reagan used a word to describe the Soviet Union that some of his advisors who wanted engagement with the Soviets wished he wouldn't use. It will anger the Soviet leaders, they said. It will make negotiations impossible.

But Reagan used the word anyway. He called the Soviet regime "evil."

And the impact of that word changed history.

"He could not have helped us better," Lech Walesa, the head of Poland's Solidarity movement, said later. "I don't think any missiles or any army could have been more effective."

President Obama finally spoke forcefully and eloquently about the aspirations of the Iranian people who are demonstrating in the streets of Iran today. His words, "Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history" were particularly meaningful.

Still, President Obama is standing by his policy of engagement with the Iranian theocrats.

Like the advisors to President Reagan, Obama wants to preserve the option of negotiations with Iran. A perfect example of this was the President's refusal in the press conference to address the issue of rescinding invitations to Iranian diplomats of the current Islamic regime to Fourth of July celebrations at U.S. embassies across the world.

But the President's policy of engagement with Iran is dead. The protestors in the streets of Iran killed it.

What's left is a tremendous opportunity - and a tremendous choice - for President Obama. He can use his great rhetorical skills and the resources of the American government to buttress the courage shown by the protestors in the Iranian streets, or he can use them to betray them...

READ MORE

image toon = iran islam crpt 1st fnn = Supreme leader = election as clean as Franken's

Iranian Diplomat: Iran Has Right to Nuclear Weapons

Iran's envoy to the United Nations' atomic watchdog said last week that his country has the right to build nuclear weapons, Agence France Presse reported.

"The whole Iranian nation are united... on [the] inalienable right of [having a] nuclear weapon,"

Ali Asghar Soltanieh said, in an apparent departure from the country's usual refrain that it is only pursuing nuclear energy for civilian purposes.

In addition, the report warned that Tehran has sped up its production of nuclear fuel and has increased its number of installed centrifuges to 7,200—more than enough to make fuel for two nuclear bombs per year.

READ MORE

Toronto 18 attack was to mimic 9/11

It was to be ''the Battle of Toronto,'' a three-day bombing assault aimed at shutting the downtown core, crippling the economy and killing civilians. Members of the so-called Toronto 18 would pack three U-Haul vans with explosives and park them at three locations: the Toronto Stock Exchange; the Front St. offices of Canada's spy agency; and a military base off Highway 401
.
Those were some of the comments made by the alleged Number 2..

[GWOT]

READ MORE

image toon - 1st fnn gwot nsec bdd = Oby repaints lady liberties mantra to include Gitmo murderers

NO EXIT IN JAPAN

Japan's stronger firms have responded relatively quickly to the recession, in marked contrast to the dithering during the "lost decade" of the 1990s. However, it's certain that efforts to keep their struggling companies afloat are hurting them. All of this does enormous harm, says the Economist:

• Tellingly, the shut-down rate of companies in Japan is around half that in America and Britain:
• And the number of corporate insolvencies is expected to increase in Japan this year by only 15 percent, despite the depth of its recession, compared with more than 30 percent in Western Europe and 40 percent in America.

Keeping struggling firms alive fossilizes industry structures and hinders the development of a more flexible labor market and a business environment more supportive of new-company creation -- two areas where Japan is also sadly deficient.

Furthermore, Japan's experience -- a downturn followed by years of stagnation -- serves as a reminder of the importance of destruction in capitalism.

Instead of continuing to prop up struggling companies, Japan and other countries need to let them go under, so that new, better ones can be created...

READ MORE

Americans Still Like Wal-Mart, Say It’s Good for the Community

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans have at least a somewhat favorable view of Wal-Mart, including 24% who are very favorable toward the merchandising giant.

Three-out-of-10 Americans (30%) shop at Wal-Mart at least once a week. Twenty-six percent (26%) rarely or never shop at the store.

While Wal-Mart is often accused of having a negative impact on small, local stores when it moves into an area, 52% of Americans believe, that Wal-Mart is good for the community. Only 28% now say Wal-Mart is bad for the community. [and they're all union workers]

READ MORE

txt mny trade msm = MSM look to teleprompter to give number of jobs saved

Most Oppose More Government Regulation of U.S. Financial System - Obama Ignores

Forty-seven percent (47%) of Americans oppose more government regulation of the U.S. financial system, while just 23% of adults favor giving the Federal Reserve Board more regulatory control.

Fifty-one percent (51%) oppose expanding the Fed’s regulatory powers.

The new survey was taken after the president last week announced a major expansion of regulatory controls over banks and other financial institutions and increases the Fed’s powers over the economy.

[Representative government?]

READ MORE

POLL: 76% Say Government Likely To Waste Stimulus Money

Seventy-six percent (76%) of Americans say it is at least somewhat likely that a large amount of money in the $787-billion economic stimulus plan will be wasted due to inadequate government oversight. Nearly half (46%) say it is very likely, only 18% say it is not likely that taxpayer money will be wasted.

Just 36% of Americans are at least somewhat confident that taxpayer money will be wisely and carefully spent, but that’s down 10 points from February just after the president made his pledge of unprecedented oversight of all government spending and put Vice President Joseph Biden in charge of oversight.

Forty-five percent (45%) of Americans believe the rest of the new government spending authorized in the stimulus plan should be canceled right away.

Obama in a press conference on Tuesday acknowledged that the U.S. economy remains sluggish and reiterated his intention to speed up stimulus spending...

READ MORE

image toon - mny sclm = Stimulus balloons = still down economy

THE NEXT GREAT CRISIS: AMERICA'S DEBT

In 2009 the United States will post a deficit of $1.8 trillion. Even looking forward to 2019, the deficit will still be in the trillions, $1.2 trillion to be exact. But this can't go on forever. What will shock America into action is the prospect of fiscal collapse. And making the challenge far greater: Obama's budget is packed with a wish list of expensive new programs, led by a giant health care reform plan, says CNNMoney.com.

READ MORE

ABC's Jake Tapper Hits Obama for Specifics on Health Care Plan

[Credit where due]

During the June 23 White House press conference, ABC News reporter Jake Tapper sparred with Barack Obama over the details of the President's universal health care plan, bluntly observing,

"...If the government is offering a cheaper health care plan, then lots of employers will want to have their employees covered by that cheaper plan, which will not have to be for-profit, unlike private plans."

Tapper's question, about whether the so-called "public choice" option would actually allow employees to keep the current insurance plans they have now, was a follow-up to a similar one offered by USA Today's David Jackson. After the President failed to answer that query, Tapper began by challenging,

"I wonder if you could actually answer David's? Is the public plan non- negotiable?"

A testy Obama retorted,

"All right, if that's your question ... You think you're going to- are you the ombudsman for the White House press corps? What's your question- is that your question?"

After pointing out how the public option could lead to employers choosing a cheaper, government plan, Tapper continued,

"And then their employees would be signed up for this public plan, which would violate what you're promising the American people, that they will not have to change health care plans if they like the plan they have."

Obama interrupted and attempted to clarify,

"Well, all right- when I say if you have your plan and you like it, and your doctor has a plan- or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don't have to change plans, what I'm saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform."

[Translation: Yes, we'll be forced into the government plan when our employeers cancel their private-insurance coverage to have the tax payers foot the bill.

This is what Obama said on the campaign trail he expects to happen, leaving only the government system in '15 to 20 years'.]

A transcript of the June 23 exchange, which occurred at 1:02pm, follows:

READ MORE

What Does the President’s Promise

"No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people,"

President Obama told the American Medical Association on June 15.

"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."

But today the president 'clarified' that promise.

It seems he wasn’t saying “no one” will take away any American’s health insurance – he was saying the government wouldn’t.

Which is not to say that the government wouldn’t create a situation where such a thing would happen...

“Now, there ae going to be employers out there that start start making decisions..."

[Like I just said. I think those folks really think we're that stupid.]

READ MORE

.

SAVING THE PLANET BUT LOSING THE PATIENT

It looks like public hospitals in British Columbia, Canada, will have to cut patient services in order to comply with global warming laws established by the provincial government. According to the Surrey Leader:

• The Lower Mainland's health authorities will have to dig more than $4 million a year out of their already stretched budgets to pay B.C.'s carbon tax and offset their carbon footprints.
• Critics say the payments mean the government's strategy to fight climate change will further exacerbate a crisis in health funding.

"You have public hospitals cutting services to pay a tax that goes to another 100 per cent government- owned agency,"

For example:

• The Fraser Health Authority will pay $616,000 in carbon tax this year, rising to $821,000 next year, officials there said.
• And by 2010 Fraser will pay $1.3 million a year to the province's Pacific Carbon Trust to offset its projected 52,600 tons of carbon emissions released.
• Vancouver Coastal Health Authority also expects its costs will be close to $2 million next year in combined carbon tax and offset payments.

And while human life is threatened, of course, the stated objective of global warming kooks is once again undermined: Dix warned that some of the potential cuts -- such as closing the emergency room at Mission Memorial Hospital -- would actually increase carbon emissions by sending patients further afield...

READ MORE

White House seeks consumer aid in U.S. climate plan

Washington - A portion of the revenue from any U.S. system capping carbon emissions must go toward softening the impact of higher energy prices on consumers, a White House official said on Wednesday. Joseph Aldy, special assistant to the president for energy and the environment, said building a clean energy economy will not be easy.

''There will be those who are going to be vulnerable as we make this transition''

[That would be everyone, and the economy itself.]

READ MORE

.

NOT TOO LATE TO KILL "CAP-AND-TAX" BILL

.
Perhaps the most destructive legislation in our country's history will, as soon as TOMORROW, be voted on in the House of Representatives: the Waxman-Markey tax bill in the guise of addressing climate change [aka: H.R. 2454 (the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009).]. It will have adverse and lingering consequences for every American.

For example:

• It will raise the cost of electricity in our homes, the fuel for our cars and the energy that produces our manufacturing jobs, with little or no environmental benefit.
• Independent experts estimate that it will cost Americans more than $2 trillion in just over eight years.
• All Americans in the Midwest, South and Rocky Mountain regions will be most drastically affected because the climate change legislation will destroy the nation's coal industry and the low-cost electricity it has provided to these regions for generations.
• Wealth will be transferred away from almost every state to the West Coast and New England.

The most abundant and by far least expensive energy source in our country for generating electricity is coal. America's coal reserves rival the energy potential of Saudi Arabian oil.

But this legislation forces America to throw away this tremendous resource, and our low-cost electricity with it. For instance, the legislation discards coal by setting an unattainable cap on carbon dioxide emissions by 2020, with the first reductions due by 2012.

Under the program, businesses that emit carbon dioxide would be required to purchase or obtain from the government special carbon dioxide credits.
This carbon dioxide cap will force utilities to switch from lower-cost coal to natural gas or other more expensive energy sources.

Reliable estimates show that this bill will cost each American family at least $3,000 more in energy costs each year, notwithstanding the $2 trillion cost to the economy in just eight years.

READ MORE

Then >

"OPPOSE H.R. 2454 (the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009)."


House-Pelosi: http://speaker.house.gov/contact/
YOUR Congressman: https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

or: Speed Message them with your personal distribution list...

and PLEASE PASS THIS ON...
[white envelope lower-left will forward a link to this brief]
.

.

No more Briefs today, so you can focus on your above 'homework'...

Politicians aren't real bright, they need time to digest what they're being told, which means your opposition to the above cap-&-tax bill needs be sent TODAY -

Go tell 'em (& thank you).

.