Saturday, October 10, 2009
Pakistan News - Attack on GHQ in Rawalpindi 10-10-2009
And we are supposed to feel safe with these people gaurding Nukes.
MGC
Don't Blame Obama's Caddy
I remember people saying it was Carters advisers messing up policy. now people are trying to blame Barry's advisers.
Here is a good article from Geoffrey P. Hunt posted at The American Thinker
By Geoffrey P. Hunt
Traditional media pundits, especially the Obama cheerleading variety, blame lousy advice from president Obama's inner circle for his abject failure at Copenhagen to convince the IOC to shed its grace on Chicago. No, this fiasco had little to do with advice, whether incompetent or otherwise. It was Obama himself who produced such a vacuous self-serving embarrassment. He didn't need help from anyone else to show the world, once again, that he has zero political instinct for leadership in governance. Never was so much presidential prestige needlessly vaporized for such inconsequential stakes.
Knowing and judging are the handmaidens of political instinct. Our greatest political leaders in the 20th century, TR, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan, all had keen instincts about leadership in governance, knowing where and how to leverage the power of the office. Even Gerald Ford, usually considered decent but hardly a great president, made the decision to pardon Richard Nixon on his own, the right decision for the nation yet politically fatal for him.
The great presidents of the modern era had advisors; FDR essentially was the architect of the modern "Office of the President". But they had the common sense to keep advisors at arm's length; they were not products of handlers. They led and governed from their own center of gravity. They knew the president alone makes judgments, severable from whatever counsel is provided, good or ill. They knew presidents own their decisions; no one else. They knew all presidential decisions matter, at least symbolically, even those having little lasting impact on foreign policy or the domestic scene. Finally and perhaps most important, they knew that the consequences of being wrong or squandering political capital are not trivial.
It is painfully obvious Obama doesn't comprehend any of this. Even if he did, it is unlikely anything would be different. Obama doesn't know enough about the office nor its history to lead or leverage, much less govern. Indeed he trivializes the office and seems indifferent to learning its history. He sees the presidency as simply a platform for his own self-indulgence. Speechmaking is the extent of his governance. Knowing and judging are conspicuously missing from his core competencies.
Obama himself surrendered the domestic legislative initiative for economic stimulus, energy and health care to the incompetent and insufferable Pelosi/Reid coalition. Obama himself launched the apology tour around the world. Obama himself handed over our moral standing to the thieves and thugs at the UN. Obama himself genuflected to Marxist dictators and state sponsors of terrorism. Obama himself turned his back on our Eastern European friends. Obama himself repudiated the world's only democracy from the Mediterranean to India. Obama himself has abandoned his troops in Afghanistan. Obama himself invited Marxist and enviro-radical Van Jones, "Green Jobs Czar" and sex-pol extremist Kevin Jennings, "Safe Schools Czar" onto his White House payroll.
Are any of these disasters the product of lousy advice? Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't really matter. Whether derived from Obama's own misjudgments, his inability to recognize and discard bad advice or even his failure in not knowing how to pick good advisors, the consequences are the same. The office of the president has been emasculated and its occupant reduced to a pathetic caricature, while the nation suffers.
Occasionally a double bogey round of golf can be blamed on a bad caddy. But chronically lousy golfers will still be lousy golfers no matter who's carrying their bag. Obama doesn't need a different caddy. He never learned how to play the game in the first place.
Here is a good article from Geoffrey P. Hunt posted at The American Thinker
By Geoffrey P. Hunt
Traditional media pundits, especially the Obama cheerleading variety, blame lousy advice from president Obama's inner circle for his abject failure at Copenhagen to convince the IOC to shed its grace on Chicago. No, this fiasco had little to do with advice, whether incompetent or otherwise. It was Obama himself who produced such a vacuous self-serving embarrassment. He didn't need help from anyone else to show the world, once again, that he has zero political instinct for leadership in governance. Never was so much presidential prestige needlessly vaporized for such inconsequential stakes.
Knowing and judging are the handmaidens of political instinct. Our greatest political leaders in the 20th century, TR, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan, all had keen instincts about leadership in governance, knowing where and how to leverage the power of the office. Even Gerald Ford, usually considered decent but hardly a great president, made the decision to pardon Richard Nixon on his own, the right decision for the nation yet politically fatal for him.
The great presidents of the modern era had advisors; FDR essentially was the architect of the modern "Office of the President". But they had the common sense to keep advisors at arm's length; they were not products of handlers. They led and governed from their own center of gravity. They knew the president alone makes judgments, severable from whatever counsel is provided, good or ill. They knew presidents own their decisions; no one else. They knew all presidential decisions matter, at least symbolically, even those having little lasting impact on foreign policy or the domestic scene. Finally and perhaps most important, they knew that the consequences of being wrong or squandering political capital are not trivial.
It is painfully obvious Obama doesn't comprehend any of this. Even if he did, it is unlikely anything would be different. Obama doesn't know enough about the office nor its history to lead or leverage, much less govern. Indeed he trivializes the office and seems indifferent to learning its history. He sees the presidency as simply a platform for his own self-indulgence. Speechmaking is the extent of his governance. Knowing and judging are conspicuously missing from his core competencies.
Obama himself surrendered the domestic legislative initiative for economic stimulus, energy and health care to the incompetent and insufferable Pelosi/Reid coalition. Obama himself launched the apology tour around the world. Obama himself handed over our moral standing to the thieves and thugs at the UN. Obama himself genuflected to Marxist dictators and state sponsors of terrorism. Obama himself turned his back on our Eastern European friends. Obama himself repudiated the world's only democracy from the Mediterranean to India. Obama himself has abandoned his troops in Afghanistan. Obama himself invited Marxist and enviro-radical Van Jones, "Green Jobs Czar" and sex-pol extremist Kevin Jennings, "Safe Schools Czar" onto his White House payroll.
Are any of these disasters the product of lousy advice? Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't really matter. Whether derived from Obama's own misjudgments, his inability to recognize and discard bad advice or even his failure in not knowing how to pick good advisors, the consequences are the same. The office of the president has been emasculated and its occupant reduced to a pathetic caricature, while the nation suffers.
Occasionally a double bogey round of golf can be blamed on a bad caddy. But chronically lousy golfers will still be lousy golfers no matter who's carrying their bag. Obama doesn't need a different caddy. He never learned how to play the game in the first place.
Friday, October 9, 2009
NAGR GUN RIGHTS ALERT
October 9, 2009
Keep it vigilant
Enemies of the Second Amendment may be working overtime in their fight against freedom, but the National Association for Gun Rights is up to the task.
This past April, I set up NAGR’s Billwatch page to keep track of the rascals, and it now sports an exhaustive list of gun-grabbing legislation you can reference whenever you need.
I’ve even collected a number of pro-gun bills which need our support. I’ve ranked each bill on a scale of Strongly Support to Strongly Oppose to let you know where NAGR stands.
Please click here to visit the Billwatch page to stay fully informed of all gun-related bills making their way through Congress.
Best Regards,
Luke O’Dell
NAGR Operations Director
P.S. The National Association for Gun Rights works hard to keep you informed about the threats in Congress. But our efforts are only possible with your help. Please click here to donate.
To help the National Association for Gun Rights grow, please forward this to a friend.
To view this email as a web page, please click this link: view online.
Help fight gun control. Donate to the National Association for Gun Rights!
Keep it vigilant
Enemies of the Second Amendment may be working overtime in their fight against freedom, but the National Association for Gun Rights is up to the task.
This past April, I set up NAGR’s Billwatch page to keep track of the rascals, and it now sports an exhaustive list of gun-grabbing legislation you can reference whenever you need.
I’ve even collected a number of pro-gun bills which need our support. I’ve ranked each bill on a scale of Strongly Support to Strongly Oppose to let you know where NAGR stands.
Please click here to visit the Billwatch page to stay fully informed of all gun-related bills making their way through Congress.
Best Regards,
Luke O’Dell
NAGR Operations Director
P.S. The National Association for Gun Rights works hard to keep you informed about the threats in Congress. But our efforts are only possible with your help. Please click here to donate.
To help the National Association for Gun Rights grow, please forward this to a friend.
To view this email as a web page, please click this link: view online.
Help fight gun control. Donate to the National Association for Gun Rights!
Barbara Boxer Harpy Of The House
You ever notice this woman only opens her mouth to be a nasty little harpy?
The Heritage Foundation
The Morning Bell
FRIDAY, OCT 9, 2009
As fellow Americans we always take pride in the achievements and awards of our compatriots. While we congratulate President Obama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize today, he should accept the award on behalf of the American people for all our many sacrifices to make the world a better place. Everyone recognizes, however, that the Nobel Committee awarded the prize to President Obama on the basis of hope for the future than achievements of the past. The politicization of this award saddens us when dissident leaders in China, Zimbabwe, Cuba and other dictatorships are passed over despite substantial achievements and not just hope for things to come.
More recently, Former President Jimmy Carter won the award in 2002, and Former Vice President Al Gore won the award in 2007 for his environmental activism. It is clear to everyone that in recent years, the Nobel Prize has taken on a form of a political football that Europeans are able to lob into U.S. domestic politics when they desire to.
President Obama has built high expectations for himself since he began his campaign in 2007. He was going to turn around Afghanistan, the “good war.” He was going to restore America’s leadership role internationally, and deliver global consensus on issues as weighty as a nuclear arms or universal emissions standards. So far, he has been given little time to show results to match this “promise.” While some fellow nations of the world have embraced him, other former allies like Poland, the Czech Republic and others have condemned his policies. While he has spoken of a nuclear free world, French President Nicolas Sarkozy called this vision “naïve.” While he has delivered speeches looking to bridge the Muslim and western worlds, he has also failed to recognize that Muslim women and men are fighting against a Taliban intent on oppression, poverty and terrorism.
The Nobel Peace Prize is not the Nobel Intentions Prize. Past winners have risked life, freedom and their families to deliver world change. Former Polish President Lech Walesa who led the Solidarity movement to free Poland from brutal Russian oppression. Or Mother Theresa who was given the award after decades saving children from famine, or Begin and Al-Sadat in 1978 who made a giant leap forward in Middle East security, bridging the gap between Israel and Egypt.
The Nobel Prize committee should have given President Obama the opportunity to meet these weighty expectations rather than diminish past achievements with a public relations award. However, the Nobel organization is a private one. And they have every right to give this award to whomever they choose. The real measure of success for President Obama will be how well he serves the American people, safeguards our sovereignty and keeps the nation secure, free and prosperous.
FRIDAY, OCT 9, 2009
As fellow Americans we always take pride in the achievements and awards of our compatriots. While we congratulate President Obama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize today, he should accept the award on behalf of the American people for all our many sacrifices to make the world a better place. Everyone recognizes, however, that the Nobel Committee awarded the prize to President Obama on the basis of hope for the future than achievements of the past. The politicization of this award saddens us when dissident leaders in China, Zimbabwe, Cuba and other dictatorships are passed over despite substantial achievements and not just hope for things to come.
More recently, Former President Jimmy Carter won the award in 2002, and Former Vice President Al Gore won the award in 2007 for his environmental activism. It is clear to everyone that in recent years, the Nobel Prize has taken on a form of a political football that Europeans are able to lob into U.S. domestic politics when they desire to.
President Obama has built high expectations for himself since he began his campaign in 2007. He was going to turn around Afghanistan, the “good war.” He was going to restore America’s leadership role internationally, and deliver global consensus on issues as weighty as a nuclear arms or universal emissions standards. So far, he has been given little time to show results to match this “promise.” While some fellow nations of the world have embraced him, other former allies like Poland, the Czech Republic and others have condemned his policies. While he has spoken of a nuclear free world, French President Nicolas Sarkozy called this vision “naïve.” While he has delivered speeches looking to bridge the Muslim and western worlds, he has also failed to recognize that Muslim women and men are fighting against a Taliban intent on oppression, poverty and terrorism.
The Nobel Peace Prize is not the Nobel Intentions Prize. Past winners have risked life, freedom and their families to deliver world change. Former Polish President Lech Walesa who led the Solidarity movement to free Poland from brutal Russian oppression. Or Mother Theresa who was given the award after decades saving children from famine, or Begin and Al-Sadat in 1978 who made a giant leap forward in Middle East security, bridging the gap between Israel and Egypt.
The Nobel Prize committee should have given President Obama the opportunity to meet these weighty expectations rather than diminish past achievements with a public relations award. However, the Nobel organization is a private one. And they have every right to give this award to whomever they choose. The real measure of success for President Obama will be how well he serves the American people, safeguards our sovereignty and keeps the nation secure, free and prosperous.
GOP LEADER ALERT 10-9-09
STUCK IN THE SWAMP: SPEAKER PELOSI PROTECTING RANGEL “A GRAVE MISSTEP,” SIGN OF “BUSINESS AS USUAL”
GOP LEADER: “WHAT MORE HAS TO HAPPEN BEFORE SPEAKER PELOSI DOES THE RIGHT THING?”
October 9, 2009
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
Permalink
This week Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-NY) and all but two House Democrats voted to protect Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and allow him to stay as chairman of the powerful tax-writing committee even though he is under investigation for not paying his taxes. Yesterday, the House Ethics Committee announced it was expanding its inquiry further. It begs the question: What more has to happen before Speaker Pelosi does the right thing? Here’s what a number of editorials and opinion-makers are saying today:
EDITORIALS: “FORGET HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI’S PLEDGE TO ‘DRAIN THE SWAMP’ …”
“Sinking with Mr. Rangel. It is time for Democrats in Congress – who once justifiably complained about the corruption of the Republican majority – to demonstrate to Americans that someone in that august body has ethical standards. Instead, House Democrats have again shielded Representative Charles Rangel from his serial ethical messes and ducked their responsibility to force him from the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee. Speaker Pelosi won her gavel with a promise to ‘drain the swamp’ … But protecting Mr. Rangel as chairman is a grave misstep that can only hand the ethics issue back to her opponents.” (New York Times editorial, 10/9/09)
“Our view on congressional ethics: Step aside, Chairman Rangel. … But this is not an ‘innocent until proven guilty’ criminal case. The House is merely deciding whether Rangel should continue to have the high honor of chairing its most powerful committee. It already has more than enough evidence to determine that someone else is more worthy. … Formal disciplinary action can and should await the committee’s report. But failure to replace Rangel as chairman now sends a number of unfortunate signals — chief among them that House Democrats consider blatant ethical sloppiness to be no big deal.” (USA Today editorial, 10/9/09)
“Ethical issues reasons to step down. … Forget House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s pledge to ‘drain the swamp’ … It is past time for Rep. Rangel to step down.” (Watertown (NY) Daily Times editorial, 10/9/09)
“Rangel is not above the rules. … Rangel ought to step down on his own while the query continues. Barring that, the House leadership should force him to do the right thing. If it won’t — and that’s the most likely outcome – it signals business as usual on Capitol Hill and further deepens the gulf between lawmakers and the American people whose interests they were sent to Washington to represent.” (Clarksville (AL) Leaf-Chronicle editorial, 10/9/09)
“Democrats duck obligation to take action against Rangel. … Still, the Democrats need to show that they can keep their House in order – and they should begin by taking strong action against Rep. Charles B. Rangel, the chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. … There are only two possible explanations here. Either Rangel is lying or he isn’t. If he is, he should be forced out. If he isn’t, his shoddy bookkeeping and poor command of the most basic tax rules make him ill-suited to serve as chairman of a congressional committee that writes the tax code and oversees the Internal Revenue Service. Either way, Rangel needs to go. If not, the credibility of House Democrats will.” (Santa Rosa (CA) Press Democrat editorial, 10/9/09)
OPINION-MAKERS: SPEAKER PELOSI NEEDS TO EXPLAIN TO VOTERS “WHY THE AFFLUENT MAN WHO SETS THEIR TAXES DIDN’T PAY HIS”
“The issue has the potential to become a ‘political liability’ for Democrats, a veteran political analyst said. ‘These charges are serious. And they keep adding more charges,’ said Stephen Hess of the non-partisan Brookings Institute. ‘So they’re going to have to be met and dealt with and voted upon. They can’t be swept under the table.’ … Nonetheless, Democratic strategist and CNN contributor James Carville said the controversy and ethics investigation could have an effect on the political future of not only Rangel but also the Democratic Party. Rangel should ‘take all of this ethical stuff dead seriously,’ he said. ‘This thing, it has a bad odor to it.’” (CNN, 10/9/09)
“Charlie Rangel’s Cloud. An Ethics Case Could Drag Democrats Down. House Democrats had better start taking the ethics allegations against Rep. Charlie Rangel seriously. I know it’s difficult for those steeped in Capitol Hill’s hermetic culture to understand, but a verdict of ‘mistakes were made’ -- which a lot of Democrats would like to reach -- doesn’t cut it in the real world. Strange as it seems. Seriously. … Speaker Nancy Pelosi may owe her job to Rangel, but she needs to press the ethics committee to do its work without fear or favor. And she needs to contemplate the prospect of explaining to voters, come next fall, why the affluent man who sets their taxes didn’t pay his.” (Eugene Robinson, Washington Post column, 10/9/09)
“The Republicans are, however, completely right about Rangel. Whenever a powerful committee chairman has so many problems that you need a timeline to keep all the allegations straight, he is a liability. When those problems revolve around things like failure to pay taxes, it is not a good plan to have him be in charge of tax policy.” (Gail Collins, New York Times column, 10/8/09)
GOP LEADER: “WHAT MORE HAS TO HAPPEN BEFORE SPEAKER PELOSI DOES THE RIGHT THING?”
October 9, 2009
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
Permalink
This week Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-NY) and all but two House Democrats voted to protect Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and allow him to stay as chairman of the powerful tax-writing committee even though he is under investigation for not paying his taxes. Yesterday, the House Ethics Committee announced it was expanding its inquiry further. It begs the question: What more has to happen before Speaker Pelosi does the right thing? Here’s what a number of editorials and opinion-makers are saying today:
EDITORIALS: “FORGET HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI’S PLEDGE TO ‘DRAIN THE SWAMP’ …”
“Sinking with Mr. Rangel. It is time for Democrats in Congress – who once justifiably complained about the corruption of the Republican majority – to demonstrate to Americans that someone in that august body has ethical standards. Instead, House Democrats have again shielded Representative Charles Rangel from his serial ethical messes and ducked their responsibility to force him from the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee. Speaker Pelosi won her gavel with a promise to ‘drain the swamp’ … But protecting Mr. Rangel as chairman is a grave misstep that can only hand the ethics issue back to her opponents.” (New York Times editorial, 10/9/09)
“Our view on congressional ethics: Step aside, Chairman Rangel. … But this is not an ‘innocent until proven guilty’ criminal case. The House is merely deciding whether Rangel should continue to have the high honor of chairing its most powerful committee. It already has more than enough evidence to determine that someone else is more worthy. … Formal disciplinary action can and should await the committee’s report. But failure to replace Rangel as chairman now sends a number of unfortunate signals — chief among them that House Democrats consider blatant ethical sloppiness to be no big deal.” (USA Today editorial, 10/9/09)
“Ethical issues reasons to step down. … Forget House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s pledge to ‘drain the swamp’ … It is past time for Rep. Rangel to step down.” (Watertown (NY) Daily Times editorial, 10/9/09)
“Rangel is not above the rules. … Rangel ought to step down on his own while the query continues. Barring that, the House leadership should force him to do the right thing. If it won’t — and that’s the most likely outcome – it signals business as usual on Capitol Hill and further deepens the gulf between lawmakers and the American people whose interests they were sent to Washington to represent.” (Clarksville (AL) Leaf-Chronicle editorial, 10/9/09)
“Democrats duck obligation to take action against Rangel. … Still, the Democrats need to show that they can keep their House in order – and they should begin by taking strong action against Rep. Charles B. Rangel, the chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. … There are only two possible explanations here. Either Rangel is lying or he isn’t. If he is, he should be forced out. If he isn’t, his shoddy bookkeeping and poor command of the most basic tax rules make him ill-suited to serve as chairman of a congressional committee that writes the tax code and oversees the Internal Revenue Service. Either way, Rangel needs to go. If not, the credibility of House Democrats will.” (Santa Rosa (CA) Press Democrat editorial, 10/9/09)
OPINION-MAKERS: SPEAKER PELOSI NEEDS TO EXPLAIN TO VOTERS “WHY THE AFFLUENT MAN WHO SETS THEIR TAXES DIDN’T PAY HIS”
“The issue has the potential to become a ‘political liability’ for Democrats, a veteran political analyst said. ‘These charges are serious. And they keep adding more charges,’ said Stephen Hess of the non-partisan Brookings Institute. ‘So they’re going to have to be met and dealt with and voted upon. They can’t be swept under the table.’ … Nonetheless, Democratic strategist and CNN contributor James Carville said the controversy and ethics investigation could have an effect on the political future of not only Rangel but also the Democratic Party. Rangel should ‘take all of this ethical stuff dead seriously,’ he said. ‘This thing, it has a bad odor to it.’” (CNN, 10/9/09)
“Charlie Rangel’s Cloud. An Ethics Case Could Drag Democrats Down. House Democrats had better start taking the ethics allegations against Rep. Charlie Rangel seriously. I know it’s difficult for those steeped in Capitol Hill’s hermetic culture to understand, but a verdict of ‘mistakes were made’ -- which a lot of Democrats would like to reach -- doesn’t cut it in the real world. Strange as it seems. Seriously. … Speaker Nancy Pelosi may owe her job to Rangel, but she needs to press the ethics committee to do its work without fear or favor. And she needs to contemplate the prospect of explaining to voters, come next fall, why the affluent man who sets their taxes didn’t pay his.” (Eugene Robinson, Washington Post column, 10/9/09)
“The Republicans are, however, completely right about Rangel. Whenever a powerful committee chairman has so many problems that you need a timeline to keep all the allegations straight, he is a liability. When those problems revolve around things like failure to pay taxes, it is not a good plan to have him be in charge of tax policy.” (Gail Collins, New York Times column, 10/8/09)
Thursday, October 8, 2009
State Of Georgia Board Of Regents
I noticed this IP address today. They where checking my Obama kids video post. I think they where looking at Conservative blogs for the CNN video. I put it up today after the visit.
MGC
Domain Name (Unknown)
IP Address 168.9.0.# (Georgia Department of Education)
ISP State of Georgia/Board of Regents
Location Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : Georgia
City : Atlanta
Lat/Long : 33.8004, -84.3865 (Map)
Language English (U.S.)
en-us
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; GTB6; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript version 1.3
Monitor Resolution : 1024 x 768
Color Depth : 16 bits
Time of Visit Oct 8 2009 10:27:20 am
Last Page View Oct 8 2009 10:27:20 am
Visit Length 0 seconds
Page Views 1
Referring URL http://www.google.co...t song&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Search Engine google.com
Search Words federalist song
Visit Entry Page http://mgc-theameric...kids-obama-song.html
Visit Exit Page http://mgc-theameric...kids-obama-song.html
Out Click
Time Zone UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time Oct 8 2009 10:27:20 am
MGC
Domain Name (Unknown)
IP Address 168.9.0.# (Georgia Department of Education)
ISP State of Georgia/Board of Regents
Location Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : Georgia
City : Atlanta
Lat/Long : 33.8004, -84.3865 (Map)
Language English (U.S.)
en-us
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; GTB6; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript version 1.3
Monitor Resolution : 1024 x 768
Color Depth : 16 bits
Time of Visit Oct 8 2009 10:27:20 am
Last Page View Oct 8 2009 10:27:20 am
Visit Length 0 seconds
Page Views 1
Referring URL http://www.google.co...t song&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Search Engine google.com
Search Words federalist song
Visit Entry Page http://mgc-theameric...kids-obama-song.html
Visit Exit Page http://mgc-theameric...kids-obama-song.html
Out Click
Time Zone UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time Oct 8 2009 10:27:20 am
Cap And Trade Calamities
How Will the Senate Address India and China?
Cap and trade proposes a new national tax of historic proportions
One of the differences in the Senate version of cap and trade is that it leaves the door wide open on how to deal with countries that do not adopt carbon capping systems. China, India and other developing countries have made it clear they will not implement carbon cabs that would hurt their economies. The passed Waxman-Markey House cap and trade bill would impose a carbon tariff if countries do not implement some sort of carbon capping regime by 2020.
Since cap and trade would artificially raise the price on goods produced in the United States and place American firms at a competitive disadvantage, imports suddenly become cheaper. Some members of Congress and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu suggests a carbon tariff would “level the playing field” and ensure that Americans don’t begin purchasing goods from other countries.
But protectionism is not the answer. As if the economic perils of cap and trade weren’t bad enough, adding a tariff to carbon-intense imports will make them worse—not only for the United States, by making goods we buy from other countries more expensive—but also for developing countries relying on trade to better their own economies.
A carbon tariff would severely hinder free trade. Protectionism often begets more protectionism. Countries already berating the U.S. cap-and-trade bill because they view this as unfair could very well respond by implementing tariffs of their own in retaliation. Zhang Haibin, a professor of environmental politics at Peking University and an adviser to China’s Ministry of Commerce on trade and climate change policies, warned the U.S. cap and trade bill “could spark big trade disputes, a trade war even.” Furthermore, trying to measure the carbon intensity of goods produced by different countries to create some sort of one-size-fits-all balancing act will be a bureaucratic nightmare and highly subjective.
India and China’s carbon emissions are rising at rapid rates; in fact, China’s emissions are rising at rates six times faster than ours. The developing world is still developing. One Indian energy official recently said, “It is morally wrong for us to agree to reduce [carbon dioxide emissions] when 40 percent of Indians do not have access to electricity.” The path to a cleaner environment is not to prevent economic growth abroad but instead enhance it. As these countries develop and secure the fundamental needs for their citizens, they will be able to turn their attention to the environment. And we can help. Senior Trade Analyst Daniella Markheim of The Heritage Foundation suggests, “policymakers should maintain the integrity and freedom of global markets as a means to transfer clean technologies, keep international investment flowing, and promote economic growth and prosperity in the United States and around the world.”
It will be interesting to see how the Senate deals with this situation. Stay tuned.
Cap and trade proposes a new national tax of historic proportions
One of the differences in the Senate version of cap and trade is that it leaves the door wide open on how to deal with countries that do not adopt carbon capping systems. China, India and other developing countries have made it clear they will not implement carbon cabs that would hurt their economies. The passed Waxman-Markey House cap and trade bill would impose a carbon tariff if countries do not implement some sort of carbon capping regime by 2020.
Since cap and trade would artificially raise the price on goods produced in the United States and place American firms at a competitive disadvantage, imports suddenly become cheaper. Some members of Congress and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu suggests a carbon tariff would “level the playing field” and ensure that Americans don’t begin purchasing goods from other countries.
But protectionism is not the answer. As if the economic perils of cap and trade weren’t bad enough, adding a tariff to carbon-intense imports will make them worse—not only for the United States, by making goods we buy from other countries more expensive—but also for developing countries relying on trade to better their own economies.
A carbon tariff would severely hinder free trade. Protectionism often begets more protectionism. Countries already berating the U.S. cap-and-trade bill because they view this as unfair could very well respond by implementing tariffs of their own in retaliation. Zhang Haibin, a professor of environmental politics at Peking University and an adviser to China’s Ministry of Commerce on trade and climate change policies, warned the U.S. cap and trade bill “could spark big trade disputes, a trade war even.” Furthermore, trying to measure the carbon intensity of goods produced by different countries to create some sort of one-size-fits-all balancing act will be a bureaucratic nightmare and highly subjective.
India and China’s carbon emissions are rising at rapid rates; in fact, China’s emissions are rising at rates six times faster than ours. The developing world is still developing. One Indian energy official recently said, “It is morally wrong for us to agree to reduce [carbon dioxide emissions] when 40 percent of Indians do not have access to electricity.” The path to a cleaner environment is not to prevent economic growth abroad but instead enhance it. As these countries develop and secure the fundamental needs for their citizens, they will be able to turn their attention to the environment. And we can help. Senior Trade Analyst Daniella Markheim of The Heritage Foundation suggests, “policymakers should maintain the integrity and freedom of global markets as a means to transfer clean technologies, keep international investment flowing, and promote economic growth and prosperity in the United States and around the world.”
It will be interesting to see how the Senate deals with this situation. Stay tuned.
A-HOLE OF THE WEEK
This weeks award goes to demented Communist and loyal Barry O Politburo member Cass Sunstein
I figured I better get this one in before I can't post this stuff anymore. Check out the article posted at The American Thinker.
![]()
I figured I better get this one in before I can't post this stuff anymore. Check out the article posted at The American Thinker.
The Heritage Foundation
The Morning Bell
THURSDAY, OCT 8, 2009
The Baucus Bait And Switch
Throughout the health care debate, President Barack Obama repeatedly promised the American people that his health care plan “will help bring our deficits under control in the long term.” Problem is that the White House could not get the Congressional Budget Office to cooperate. Throughout the summer the CBO issued report after report showing that the versions of Obamacare working their way through Congress all added to the deficit.
First, CBO found that the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) bill would increase the deficit by $1 trillion. Three weeks later, the CBO released a report on a revised bill showing HELP 2.0 only raised the deficit by $597 billion. The House then got a little clever and tried to game the CBO scoring system by phasing in the major spending of their bill over time, but even that maneuver left them with $245 billion added to the deficit in the first ten years (with crippling deficits to come as the entitlement spending ramped up in the out years).
Enter Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-MT) who was determined to manipulate the CBO’s scoring system as best he could and deliver a deficit neutral version of Obamacare. After months of working directly with CBO staff, Baucus scored a victory for Obamacare yesterday when the CBO released a preliminary analysis purporting to show that the Baucus bill would reduce deficits by a total of $81 billion over the next decade. The New York Times awarded Baucus with the headline that the White House has been searching for since the debate first began: “Health Care Bill Gets Green Light in Cost Analysis.” But this headline and the accompanying article are fundamentally dishonest. As the Politico reported yesterday: “While the media and lawmakers often shorthand a CBO letter as a “score” or “cost estimate,” today’s CBO letter is neither. Because the bill is still in “conceptual,” or layman’s terms, CBO’s letter today was a “preliminary analysis.” For it to be an official cost estimate, the bill has to be translated into legislative language.”
Indeed, the CBO went to great pains to emphasize this fact in their letter to Congress: “CBO and JCT’s analysis is preliminary in large part because the Chairman’s mark, as amended, has not yet been embodied in legislative language.” But this isn’t even the most deceptive part of what the left in Congress is trying to pull on the American people. Not only does the Baucus bill not even really exist, just a Vapor Bill filled with conceptual language, it is about to be completely thrown out the window when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) merges it with the deficit busting HELP bill to move it to the Senate floor.
Then the real deception begins. Majority Leader Reid will then move to proceed on a House passed TARP tax bill, completely gut it, and insert his version of Obamacare. After the Senate passes the bill it will go to the House where if it is approved without amendment, it can then proceed directly to President Obama’s desk for signing. Throughout this whole time, the White House and the left in Congress will be using headlines like the one from the New York Times this morning to claim that Obamacare will reduce the deficit. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Baucus bill is the only version of Obamacare to get anything close to a deficit neutral nod from CBO and even that is done through creative deception. When it is combined with these other bills, Obamacare is certain to become an even greater budget buster once again. But the left’s entire strategy is to move fast so that a true CBO cost estimate of what Congress is actually voting on never happens.
Conservatives are fighting to make sure this deception is not perpetrated on the American people. Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) has introduced legislation that would change Senate rules to require a 72-hour waiting period and an official CBO cost estimate before the Senate was allowed to consider any legislation. If President Obama’s promises to the American people about ethics and transparency mean anything, then he should insist that Congress take its time and allow for a full CBO scoring of health reform
THURSDAY, OCT 8, 2009
The Baucus Bait And Switch
Throughout the health care debate, President Barack Obama repeatedly promised the American people that his health care plan “will help bring our deficits under control in the long term.” Problem is that the White House could not get the Congressional Budget Office to cooperate. Throughout the summer the CBO issued report after report showing that the versions of Obamacare working their way through Congress all added to the deficit.
First, CBO found that the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) bill would increase the deficit by $1 trillion. Three weeks later, the CBO released a report on a revised bill showing HELP 2.0 only raised the deficit by $597 billion. The House then got a little clever and tried to game the CBO scoring system by phasing in the major spending of their bill over time, but even that maneuver left them with $245 billion added to the deficit in the first ten years (with crippling deficits to come as the entitlement spending ramped up in the out years).
Enter Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-MT) who was determined to manipulate the CBO’s scoring system as best he could and deliver a deficit neutral version of Obamacare. After months of working directly with CBO staff, Baucus scored a victory for Obamacare yesterday when the CBO released a preliminary analysis purporting to show that the Baucus bill would reduce deficits by a total of $81 billion over the next decade. The New York Times awarded Baucus with the headline that the White House has been searching for since the debate first began: “Health Care Bill Gets Green Light in Cost Analysis.” But this headline and the accompanying article are fundamentally dishonest. As the Politico reported yesterday: “While the media and lawmakers often shorthand a CBO letter as a “score” or “cost estimate,” today’s CBO letter is neither. Because the bill is still in “conceptual,” or layman’s terms, CBO’s letter today was a “preliminary analysis.” For it to be an official cost estimate, the bill has to be translated into legislative language.”
Indeed, the CBO went to great pains to emphasize this fact in their letter to Congress: “CBO and JCT’s analysis is preliminary in large part because the Chairman’s mark, as amended, has not yet been embodied in legislative language.” But this isn’t even the most deceptive part of what the left in Congress is trying to pull on the American people. Not only does the Baucus bill not even really exist, just a Vapor Bill filled with conceptual language, it is about to be completely thrown out the window when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) merges it with the deficit busting HELP bill to move it to the Senate floor.
Then the real deception begins. Majority Leader Reid will then move to proceed on a House passed TARP tax bill, completely gut it, and insert his version of Obamacare. After the Senate passes the bill it will go to the House where if it is approved without amendment, it can then proceed directly to President Obama’s desk for signing. Throughout this whole time, the White House and the left in Congress will be using headlines like the one from the New York Times this morning to claim that Obamacare will reduce the deficit. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Baucus bill is the only version of Obamacare to get anything close to a deficit neutral nod from CBO and even that is done through creative deception. When it is combined with these other bills, Obamacare is certain to become an even greater budget buster once again. But the left’s entire strategy is to move fast so that a true CBO cost estimate of what Congress is actually voting on never happens.
Conservatives are fighting to make sure this deception is not perpetrated on the American people. Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) has introduced legislation that would change Senate rules to require a 72-hour waiting period and an official CBO cost estimate before the Senate was allowed to consider any legislation. If President Obama’s promises to the American people about ethics and transparency mean anything, then he should insist that Congress take its time and allow for a full CBO scoring of health reform
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
The Heritage Foundation 33 Minutes
Assessing Iran's Missile Threat
The Heritage Foundation's Missile Defense Expert Baker Spring shared his thoughts on last week's Iranian missile test and the new information about Iran's second nuclear site to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on Monday. Here is a portion of that interview.
Q: Heritage's Iran Working Group said in a Special Report in June that Iran could have intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) capable of reaching the U.S. by 2015. Is that still on target, or do you think with all that's going on that that may move up?
Missile Defense News
Slawomir Debsk on Missile Defense
Iran’s Long-Range Missile Threat
Iran’s Second Nuclear Site
Rep. Pete Hoekstra Calls for Independent Review of Iranian Nuclear Issue
Baker Spring: Well, certainly with international or outside cooperation it could move up. And I think that it is wrong for the Administration's explanation on why it decided to cancel the so-called Third-Site option for missile defense in the Czech Republic and Poland.
I talked about the Iranian test program as if it can be neatly categorized as supporting only short- or intermediate- or long-range missiles. The fact of the matter is that these technologies cut across all those categories, and a short-range missile can be used to learn things that will help you with regard to long-range missiles. So, yes, I think that there's a chance that the program can be accelerated, and I think that's particularly the case if we find that there's more widespread foreign support from countries like China, Russia or North Korea and cooperation with the Iranian program than we know about today.
Q: How concerned should we be here in the U.S. about Iran's ICBMs?
Baker Spring: Well, again, in that time frame, the 2015 time frame, I think that we should (be concerned). The problem that we face right now with regard to what we have fielded right now is that we have, on any day-to-day basis, somewhat fewer than 30 available, usable, long-range defensive interceptors that are located in Alaska and California. Now, against long-range missiles launched from North Korea or Iran, there is coverage of all the United States.
The problem for the system on a missile that would be launched out of Iran toward the eastern portion of the United States is that the interceptors in Alaska and California are operating at the outer edges of their performance envelope. And so the reason that the Bush Administration looked at putting these systems in Europe in the so-called Third Site was to provide a somewhat more robust capability precisely for countering that Iranian long-range missile. It's not that we have nothing. It's just that it's so limited as to not be what it should be, to put it bluntly.
Q: We've been down this road before with Iran. President George W. Bush tried diplomacy and then the U.N. imposed some, I guess, relatively weak sanctions. How much tougher do the sanctions have to be? Do we have to put a stranglehold on them economically?
Baker Spring: Maybe, maybe not. I think that actually reasonably strong sanctions might have a significant impact if the sanctions lead to a strengthened and emboldened Iranian opposition within Iran itself.
There are two ways you can read the political impact of sanctions. If they are truly tough sanctions will this have the impact of rallying the Iranian population around the regime, or would the sanctions send the signal to Iranian dissidents that the international forces and the U.S. and Europe are actually on their side in trying to isolate and reduce the options of the regime in Tehran and therefore embolden them? If it has that latter impact, in my judgment sanctions can be a telling tool.
Q: Do we know the full extent of Iran's nuclear program at this point?
Baker Spring: I don't think so. Well, obviously, I mean, the Iranians have been pursuing weapons programs for years. In this particular case, we have an Iranian enrichment facility, relatively small in scale and not operational, but fairly well advanced in construction, as I understand.
The Heritage Foundation's Missile Defense Expert Baker Spring shared his thoughts on last week's Iranian missile test and the new information about Iran's second nuclear site to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on Monday. Here is a portion of that interview.
Q: Heritage's Iran Working Group said in a Special Report in June that Iran could have intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) capable of reaching the U.S. by 2015. Is that still on target, or do you think with all that's going on that that may move up?
Missile Defense News
Slawomir Debsk on Missile Defense
Iran’s Long-Range Missile Threat
Iran’s Second Nuclear Site
Rep. Pete Hoekstra Calls for Independent Review of Iranian Nuclear Issue
Baker Spring: Well, certainly with international or outside cooperation it could move up. And I think that it is wrong for the Administration's explanation on why it decided to cancel the so-called Third-Site option for missile defense in the Czech Republic and Poland.
I talked about the Iranian test program as if it can be neatly categorized as supporting only short- or intermediate- or long-range missiles. The fact of the matter is that these technologies cut across all those categories, and a short-range missile can be used to learn things that will help you with regard to long-range missiles. So, yes, I think that there's a chance that the program can be accelerated, and I think that's particularly the case if we find that there's more widespread foreign support from countries like China, Russia or North Korea and cooperation with the Iranian program than we know about today.
Q: How concerned should we be here in the U.S. about Iran's ICBMs?
Baker Spring: Well, again, in that time frame, the 2015 time frame, I think that we should (be concerned). The problem that we face right now with regard to what we have fielded right now is that we have, on any day-to-day basis, somewhat fewer than 30 available, usable, long-range defensive interceptors that are located in Alaska and California. Now, against long-range missiles launched from North Korea or Iran, there is coverage of all the United States.
The problem for the system on a missile that would be launched out of Iran toward the eastern portion of the United States is that the interceptors in Alaska and California are operating at the outer edges of their performance envelope. And so the reason that the Bush Administration looked at putting these systems in Europe in the so-called Third Site was to provide a somewhat more robust capability precisely for countering that Iranian long-range missile. It's not that we have nothing. It's just that it's so limited as to not be what it should be, to put it bluntly.
Q: We've been down this road before with Iran. President George W. Bush tried diplomacy and then the U.N. imposed some, I guess, relatively weak sanctions. How much tougher do the sanctions have to be? Do we have to put a stranglehold on them economically?
Baker Spring: Maybe, maybe not. I think that actually reasonably strong sanctions might have a significant impact if the sanctions lead to a strengthened and emboldened Iranian opposition within Iran itself.
There are two ways you can read the political impact of sanctions. If they are truly tough sanctions will this have the impact of rallying the Iranian population around the regime, or would the sanctions send the signal to Iranian dissidents that the international forces and the U.S. and Europe are actually on their side in trying to isolate and reduce the options of the regime in Tehran and therefore embolden them? If it has that latter impact, in my judgment sanctions can be a telling tool.
Q: Do we know the full extent of Iran's nuclear program at this point?
Baker Spring: I don't think so. Well, obviously, I mean, the Iranians have been pursuing weapons programs for years. In this particular case, we have an Iranian enrichment facility, relatively small in scale and not operational, but fairly well advanced in construction, as I understand.
The Heritage Foundation
The Morning Bell
WEDNESDAY, OCT 7, 2009
The ‘Tax and Spend’ Left are Back with a Vengeance
According to exit polls, Americans who voted last November 4th described themselves as 34% conservative, 44% moderate and only 22% liberal. One third of new voters were independents — and about two-thirds of them voted for President Barack Obama. How did President Obama win over so many moderates and independents? By explicitly renouncing his party’s tax and spend past. Specifically, Obama promised to “cut taxes for 95% of workers and their families” and enact “a net spending cut” for the federal government. Not only has President Obama failed to keep these promises, but his leftist base is stepping up their campaign for massive new tax hikes and spending increases.
Obama’s ‘no tax increases on families making $250,000 a year or less‘ lasted exactly 15 days. On February 4th, the President signed into law a bill expanding the children’s health insurance program that was paid for with a 156% tax hike on tobacco. Since slightly more than half of today’s smokers (53%) earn less than $36,000 per year, there is no way this bill can not be considered a tax hike on the poor. Democrats in the House have also passed a trillion dollar energy tax hike, and the Senate is about to approve new taxes on individuals who don’t have health insurance, businesses that want to create jobs, and on families with high cost health insurance plans. But even all those new taxes are just the beginning. This past Monday on Charlie Rose, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said a new value-added tax (VAT) is “on the table” as well.
A VAT is a type of national sales tax. However, instead of being collected at the cash register, it is imposed on manufacturers at each “value added” stage of the production process. Since everybody buys stuff, including families making less than $250,000 a year, any VAT would necessarily break Obama’s no tax hike promise. Worse, a VAT would expand the size of government, inadvertently increase income tax rates, and destroy jobs.
And it is that last part, the destroying jobs part, that should most worry Americans today. The latest Bureau of Labor and Statistics report released last Friday contained some truly sobering employment numbers that completely undercut any claims that the President’s $787 billion stimulus plan is working. Every aspect of the labor market in September was negative. The labor force participation rate fell to 65.2 percent, the lowest point of this recession and the lowest rate in 25 years. The unemployment rate increased by only 0.1 to 9.8 percent, but the unemployment rate would have been higher had 571,000 not left the labor force. The male unemployment rate reached 10.3 percent, the highest level since the Great Depression.
So what is the left’s answer to the President’s failed spending? More spending. The New York Times editorial board recommends “more stimulus to spur job creation” or “a large federal jobs program” or, we love this one: “surprise us.” Not to be outdone, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is suggesting the federal government should raise its deficit stimulus spending to at least $1.2 trillion. And none of this even includes the trillion dollar price tag for Obamacare or President Obama’s long-term budget which would permanently keep annual spending between $5,000 and $8,000 per household higher than it had been under President George W. Bush.
WEDNESDAY, OCT 7, 2009
The ‘Tax and Spend’ Left are Back with a Vengeance
According to exit polls, Americans who voted last November 4th described themselves as 34% conservative, 44% moderate and only 22% liberal. One third of new voters were independents — and about two-thirds of them voted for President Barack Obama. How did President Obama win over so many moderates and independents? By explicitly renouncing his party’s tax and spend past. Specifically, Obama promised to “cut taxes for 95% of workers and their families” and enact “a net spending cut” for the federal government. Not only has President Obama failed to keep these promises, but his leftist base is stepping up their campaign for massive new tax hikes and spending increases.
Obama’s ‘no tax increases on families making $250,000 a year or less‘ lasted exactly 15 days. On February 4th, the President signed into law a bill expanding the children’s health insurance program that was paid for with a 156% tax hike on tobacco. Since slightly more than half of today’s smokers (53%) earn less than $36,000 per year, there is no way this bill can not be considered a tax hike on the poor. Democrats in the House have also passed a trillion dollar energy tax hike, and the Senate is about to approve new taxes on individuals who don’t have health insurance, businesses that want to create jobs, and on families with high cost health insurance plans. But even all those new taxes are just the beginning. This past Monday on Charlie Rose, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said a new value-added tax (VAT) is “on the table” as well.
A VAT is a type of national sales tax. However, instead of being collected at the cash register, it is imposed on manufacturers at each “value added” stage of the production process. Since everybody buys stuff, including families making less than $250,000 a year, any VAT would necessarily break Obama’s no tax hike promise. Worse, a VAT would expand the size of government, inadvertently increase income tax rates, and destroy jobs.
And it is that last part, the destroying jobs part, that should most worry Americans today. The latest Bureau of Labor and Statistics report released last Friday contained some truly sobering employment numbers that completely undercut any claims that the President’s $787 billion stimulus plan is working. Every aspect of the labor market in September was negative. The labor force participation rate fell to 65.2 percent, the lowest point of this recession and the lowest rate in 25 years. The unemployment rate increased by only 0.1 to 9.8 percent, but the unemployment rate would have been higher had 571,000 not left the labor force. The male unemployment rate reached 10.3 percent, the highest level since the Great Depression.
So what is the left’s answer to the President’s failed spending? More spending. The New York Times editorial board recommends “more stimulus to spur job creation” or “a large federal jobs program” or, we love this one: “surprise us.” Not to be outdone, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is suggesting the federal government should raise its deficit stimulus spending to at least $1.2 trillion. And none of this even includes the trillion dollar price tag for Obamacare or President Obama’s long-term budget which would permanently keep annual spending between $5,000 and $8,000 per household higher than it had been under President George W. Bush.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Lose Afghanistan, Lose Pakistan, Lose Iran, Lose It All
From The American Thinker and James Lewis
October 06, 2009
Lose Afghanistan, Lose Pakistan, Lose Iran, Lose It All
By James Lewis
The gangster regimes of the world are on the march, and they've got our number. They know how to squeeze more civilized nations. Our weakness is cowardice, and that goes double or triple in the face of nuclear weapons. That's why all the rogues are trying to get nukes as fast as they can. They know it's the perfect blackmail weapon, and it makes them invulnerable to attack.
That is also why President Obama's public rejection of General McChrystal's advice on Afghanistan affects your personal safety and mine. Gen. McChrystal wants more troops. Obama doesn't want to send them because he needs the money to promote his socialist take-over of America. You can't have both. Look at Europe, where the military have become pathetic social welfare programs. All the air is sucked out by bigger and bigger victim programs.
Obama must be realizing by now that the chance of a major war in the Gulf next year is rising to 100 percent. Ahmadinejad will have nuclear weapons too, and he already has enough radioactive materials for a dirty nuke, a low-tech weapon that can spread terror everywhere in the world. The Left always puts the burden of proof for WMDs on America, which can never prove their existence because the CIA rarely can penetrate totalitarian regimes. You can't prove a negative. Ever. So the Left is always asking the impossible. It makes them sound reasonable when they are just sabotaging common sense.
But Saddam had a warehouse full of yellowcake uranium, as we now know, and to make a terror weapon all he had to do is load a plane full of that stuff and crash it into the LA Library Tower. You don't need a nuclear explosion to spread terror. All you need is a lot of radioactive stuff thrown together with explosive; agricultural fertilizer will do. For radioactive material you could use the Cesium in your local X-ray unit. Saddam did not do that because he feared our inevitable retaliation.
If Israel attacks Tehran, the Iranians will try to retaliate, either by a missile strike or by local attacks using Hezbollah and Hamas. If Israel does not attack Tehran, the Iranians will try to attack Tel Aviv anyway, because it is the key plank in their ideological doctrine, the one they have been chanting about for thirty years. For Israel it's just in the difference in the timing of an inevitable war. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. So it makes more sense for Israel to attack first, and expect to defend immediately against Iranian retaliation. It is far, far better to do that before the Iranians get actual nukes.
If Obama expects to stay out of that battle, good luck. The Iranians are just as likely to strike the Saudi oil fields (fifty miles away), the Gulf sheikhdoms, the US military in Iraq, the US Navy in the Gulf, or Israel. Israel is the best-defended state in the region. Unlike the Arab states Israel has proven retaliatory capacity. The Arabs have to rely on us, but if we don't come through and defend them successfully, the Saudis are all ready to import nuclear weapons from Pakistan. They've already paid for them by financing Paki nuke development.
So the United States will be drawn into an East Asian or Gulf war. There's no way it can stay out. Unless of course we want a war to spread wider.
As soon as rogue nations get their nukes we are in completely unknown territory. Nothing in the US-Soviet balance of power over the last sixty years is guaranteed to work anymore. The nuclear balance will not have two sides, but half a dozen. Tehran preaches suicide warfare, the first regime to do so since Tojo's Japan sixty years ago. Pakistan does not, but if Pakistan is taken over by the Taliban, you can't trust that any more. India certainly will not trust Islamic radicals with nuclear weapons next door.
So everything depends upon vigorous American action. That's what McChrystal has undoubtedly been telling Obama behind the scenes. We know that the General decided to go public at the risk of his career. That means Obama was resisting the iron logic of reality. He is by far the most unqualified president ever to occupy the office in a time of grave national danger. He's no Washington, no Lincoln, no Truman, no FDR, no JFK, and no George W. Bush. If he can learn quickly enough, he might be able to rise to their level of courage and realism. If not, the world is back to 1939 and Hitler's invasion of Poland.
Will the United States back Israel in a preemptive war? If so, and if preemptive strikes succeed, we can keep the rogues in their place. Beating down Iranian nukes will signal to the other rogues that nuclear weapons are not the ace in the hole they think it is.
That is why Afghanistan and its neighbor Pakistan, AfPak, is a historic watershed moment. If we lose in Afghanistan and the Taliban win, and they can combine with their brethren in Pakistan to get control over a nuclear weapon, and we will see an Al Qaeda look-alike with nukes. That's what Cheney and Bush were warning us about. India can't afford that, and they are quickly arming up. China can't afford it either.
The same logic applies to Iran. Ahmadinejad has been threatening not just Israel and the United States, but the Saudis and Gulf States. The Saudis have financed Pakistan's nuclear program to be able import them instantly, as soon as Tehran gets its own.
It is the United States that keeps its finger in this dike. Pull that finger out, and we'll see a flood.
So we lose, and the world does, too, if we don't beat down the threat. If we succeed in defending the world in alliance with other countries, we will survive and the gangster regimes will be held back.
Welcome to Obama's Choice.
The White House debate on Afghanistan is therefore critical. That is why General McChrystal is risking his career by going public, and why the White House is sneering at him in public, the way they do. But McChrystal was appointed just ten months ago as the best expert in the Petraeus anti-insurgency doctrine. There aren't any better military leaders for this kind of conflict. His willingness to go public shows what kind of values he has.
Obama is now where he dreamed of being: Making a huge life-or-death decision on civilization. He has never shown any comprehension of America's strategic aims and doctrines in the last sixty years. I can only guess that he is getting intensive tutoring right now by General Jones and SecDef Robert Gates; maybe even by Hillary and Bill. Anybody with credibility will do.
If Obama makes the wrong decision, start digging that hole in your back yard. It'll be a long-term investment, because you'll want a bomb shelter for years to come.
This could be the real Obama Stimulus Plan.
Israel is bound and determined to defend herself. If the United States fails to back an Israeli attack on Tehran they will do it anyway. The US will then be caught in the middle, along with Saudi Arabia and all the rest.
There is no substitute for successful preemption. Bush and Cheney tried to point out those harsh realities, but they were shut out by our fantasy-driven media. The Left chose to close its eyes and ears to the plain facts.
Now Obama is in charge.
We're waiting for the answer. So are the gangster regimes.
October 06, 2009
Lose Afghanistan, Lose Pakistan, Lose Iran, Lose It All
By James Lewis
The gangster regimes of the world are on the march, and they've got our number. They know how to squeeze more civilized nations. Our weakness is cowardice, and that goes double or triple in the face of nuclear weapons. That's why all the rogues are trying to get nukes as fast as they can. They know it's the perfect blackmail weapon, and it makes them invulnerable to attack.
That is also why President Obama's public rejection of General McChrystal's advice on Afghanistan affects your personal safety and mine. Gen. McChrystal wants more troops. Obama doesn't want to send them because he needs the money to promote his socialist take-over of America. You can't have both. Look at Europe, where the military have become pathetic social welfare programs. All the air is sucked out by bigger and bigger victim programs.
Obama must be realizing by now that the chance of a major war in the Gulf next year is rising to 100 percent. Ahmadinejad will have nuclear weapons too, and he already has enough radioactive materials for a dirty nuke, a low-tech weapon that can spread terror everywhere in the world. The Left always puts the burden of proof for WMDs on America, which can never prove their existence because the CIA rarely can penetrate totalitarian regimes. You can't prove a negative. Ever. So the Left is always asking the impossible. It makes them sound reasonable when they are just sabotaging common sense.
But Saddam had a warehouse full of yellowcake uranium, as we now know, and to make a terror weapon all he had to do is load a plane full of that stuff and crash it into the LA Library Tower. You don't need a nuclear explosion to spread terror. All you need is a lot of radioactive stuff thrown together with explosive; agricultural fertilizer will do. For radioactive material you could use the Cesium in your local X-ray unit. Saddam did not do that because he feared our inevitable retaliation.
If Israel attacks Tehran, the Iranians will try to retaliate, either by a missile strike or by local attacks using Hezbollah and Hamas. If Israel does not attack Tehran, the Iranians will try to attack Tel Aviv anyway, because it is the key plank in their ideological doctrine, the one they have been chanting about for thirty years. For Israel it's just in the difference in the timing of an inevitable war. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. So it makes more sense for Israel to attack first, and expect to defend immediately against Iranian retaliation. It is far, far better to do that before the Iranians get actual nukes.
If Obama expects to stay out of that battle, good luck. The Iranians are just as likely to strike the Saudi oil fields (fifty miles away), the Gulf sheikhdoms, the US military in Iraq, the US Navy in the Gulf, or Israel. Israel is the best-defended state in the region. Unlike the Arab states Israel has proven retaliatory capacity. The Arabs have to rely on us, but if we don't come through and defend them successfully, the Saudis are all ready to import nuclear weapons from Pakistan. They've already paid for them by financing Paki nuke development.
So the United States will be drawn into an East Asian or Gulf war. There's no way it can stay out. Unless of course we want a war to spread wider.
As soon as rogue nations get their nukes we are in completely unknown territory. Nothing in the US-Soviet balance of power over the last sixty years is guaranteed to work anymore. The nuclear balance will not have two sides, but half a dozen. Tehran preaches suicide warfare, the first regime to do so since Tojo's Japan sixty years ago. Pakistan does not, but if Pakistan is taken over by the Taliban, you can't trust that any more. India certainly will not trust Islamic radicals with nuclear weapons next door.
So everything depends upon vigorous American action. That's what McChrystal has undoubtedly been telling Obama behind the scenes. We know that the General decided to go public at the risk of his career. That means Obama was resisting the iron logic of reality. He is by far the most unqualified president ever to occupy the office in a time of grave national danger. He's no Washington, no Lincoln, no Truman, no FDR, no JFK, and no George W. Bush. If he can learn quickly enough, he might be able to rise to their level of courage and realism. If not, the world is back to 1939 and Hitler's invasion of Poland.
Will the United States back Israel in a preemptive war? If so, and if preemptive strikes succeed, we can keep the rogues in their place. Beating down Iranian nukes will signal to the other rogues that nuclear weapons are not the ace in the hole they think it is.
That is why Afghanistan and its neighbor Pakistan, AfPak, is a historic watershed moment. If we lose in Afghanistan and the Taliban win, and they can combine with their brethren in Pakistan to get control over a nuclear weapon, and we will see an Al Qaeda look-alike with nukes. That's what Cheney and Bush were warning us about. India can't afford that, and they are quickly arming up. China can't afford it either.
The same logic applies to Iran. Ahmadinejad has been threatening not just Israel and the United States, but the Saudis and Gulf States. The Saudis have financed Pakistan's nuclear program to be able import them instantly, as soon as Tehran gets its own.
It is the United States that keeps its finger in this dike. Pull that finger out, and we'll see a flood.
So we lose, and the world does, too, if we don't beat down the threat. If we succeed in defending the world in alliance with other countries, we will survive and the gangster regimes will be held back.
Welcome to Obama's Choice.
The White House debate on Afghanistan is therefore critical. That is why General McChrystal is risking his career by going public, and why the White House is sneering at him in public, the way they do. But McChrystal was appointed just ten months ago as the best expert in the Petraeus anti-insurgency doctrine. There aren't any better military leaders for this kind of conflict. His willingness to go public shows what kind of values he has.
Obama is now where he dreamed of being: Making a huge life-or-death decision on civilization. He has never shown any comprehension of America's strategic aims and doctrines in the last sixty years. I can only guess that he is getting intensive tutoring right now by General Jones and SecDef Robert Gates; maybe even by Hillary and Bill. Anybody with credibility will do.
If Obama makes the wrong decision, start digging that hole in your back yard. It'll be a long-term investment, because you'll want a bomb shelter for years to come.
This could be the real Obama Stimulus Plan.
Israel is bound and determined to defend herself. If the United States fails to back an Israeli attack on Tehran they will do it anyway. The US will then be caught in the middle, along with Saudi Arabia and all the rest.
There is no substitute for successful preemption. Bush and Cheney tried to point out those harsh realities, but they were shut out by our fantasy-driven media. The Left chose to close its eyes and ears to the plain facts.
Now Obama is in charge.
We're waiting for the answer. So are the gangster regimes.
GOP LEADER ALERT 10-06-09
WILL HOUSE DEMOCRATS VOTE TO PROTECT CHAIRMAN RANGEL AGAIN?
FAILURE TO PAY TAXES AND DISCLOSE INCOME, USING OFFICIAL LETTERHEAD TO RAISE MONEY FOR ‘MONUMENT TO ME’, CORPORATE-FUNDED TRIPS AMONG ACCUSATIONS RANGEL FACES
October 6, 2009
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
Permalink
Upon winning the majority in the 2006 election, Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that Democrats would usher-in “the most honest, the most open, the most ethical Congress in history.” Despite that well-known promise, however, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) remains as chairman of the Ways & Means Committee even though he faces serious charges that are now the subject of an Ethics Committee investigation. Moreover, Democrats have twice voted against resolutions calling for Rangel to step down as chairman until the investigation is complete. House Republican Conference Secretary John Carter (R-TX) announced last week his intention to offer another resolution this week to remove Rangel from his chairmanship pending completion of the investigation.
Before the House votes on a resolution, it might be helpful for the Majority Democrats to review the accusations facing Rangel:
Failure to report $75,000 in rental income on federal and state tax returns: The New York Times reported that Rangel “earned more than $75,000 in rental income from a villa he has owned in the Dominican Republic since 1988, but never reported it on his federal or state tax returns, according to a lawyer for the congressman and documents from the resort.” Rangel also “paid no interest for more than a decade on a mortgage” for the villa and “the loan was given to him by the resort development company, in which Theodore Kheel, a prominent New York labor lawyer, was a principal investor. Mr. Kheel, who has given tens of thousands of dollars to Mr. Rangel’s campaigns over the past decade.”
Agreed to preserve a tax break that would benefit a supporter who on the same day pledged to give $1 million to Rangel’s ‘Monument to Me’: As the New York Times reported, Rangel agreed “to preserve a tax loophole for an oil-drilling company at the same time that its chief executive pledged $1 million to a City College of New York school that will bear the congressman’s name.”
Used official congressional letterhead to solicit support for his ‘Monument to Me’: The Washington Post reported that Rangel “penned letters on congressional stationery and has sought meetings to ask for corporate and foundation contributions for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York, a project that caused controversy last year when he won a $1.9 million congressional earmark to help start it.”
Rented four rent-stabilized apartments: As the New York Times reported, Rangel had four rent-stabilized apartments “including three adjacent units on the 16th floor overlooking Upper Manhattan” and “six floors below, as a campaign office, despite state and city regulations that require rent-stabilized apartments to be used as a primary residence.” Rangel “paid a total rent of $3,894 monthly in 2007 for the four apartments” even though the “current market-rate rent for similar apartments in Mr. Rangel’s building would total $7,465 to $8,125 a month.” Rangel later relinquished the apartment used as a campaign office.
Took at least two corporate-funded trips: As The Hill newspaper reported, the funding of trips Rangel took to the Caribbean raise questions about whether the trips violated “a two-year-old ethics rule passed after Democrats regained the House.” A major airline “provided in-kind donations of tickets for Rangel and five other members of Congress to fly from their districts to St. Martin.” According to ethics experts, the donation of tickets “for members to use for a specific trip is a clear violation of House ethics rules governing travel.”
Failed to disclose millions of dollars in income and assets: The New York Post reported that Rangel “failed to report as much as $1.3 million in outside income -- including up to $1 million for a Harlem building sale -- on financial-disclosure forms he filed between 2002 and 2006, according to newly amended records.” Rangel also “lowballed his income by as much as $70,000 in 2002, $46,000 in 2003 and $117,000 in 2006” and in 2004 “Rangel left off his disclosure form as much as $430,000 in stock transactions.” CBS News reported that Rangel also omitted a checking account worth more than $250,000.
FAILURE TO PAY TAXES AND DISCLOSE INCOME, USING OFFICIAL LETTERHEAD TO RAISE MONEY FOR ‘MONUMENT TO ME’, CORPORATE-FUNDED TRIPS AMONG ACCUSATIONS RANGEL FACES
October 6, 2009
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
Permalink
Upon winning the majority in the 2006 election, Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that Democrats would usher-in “the most honest, the most open, the most ethical Congress in history.” Despite that well-known promise, however, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) remains as chairman of the Ways & Means Committee even though he faces serious charges that are now the subject of an Ethics Committee investigation. Moreover, Democrats have twice voted against resolutions calling for Rangel to step down as chairman until the investigation is complete. House Republican Conference Secretary John Carter (R-TX) announced last week his intention to offer another resolution this week to remove Rangel from his chairmanship pending completion of the investigation.
Before the House votes on a resolution, it might be helpful for the Majority Democrats to review the accusations facing Rangel:
Failure to report $75,000 in rental income on federal and state tax returns: The New York Times reported that Rangel “earned more than $75,000 in rental income from a villa he has owned in the Dominican Republic since 1988, but never reported it on his federal or state tax returns, according to a lawyer for the congressman and documents from the resort.” Rangel also “paid no interest for more than a decade on a mortgage” for the villa and “the loan was given to him by the resort development company, in which Theodore Kheel, a prominent New York labor lawyer, was a principal investor. Mr. Kheel, who has given tens of thousands of dollars to Mr. Rangel’s campaigns over the past decade.”
Agreed to preserve a tax break that would benefit a supporter who on the same day pledged to give $1 million to Rangel’s ‘Monument to Me’: As the New York Times reported, Rangel agreed “to preserve a tax loophole for an oil-drilling company at the same time that its chief executive pledged $1 million to a City College of New York school that will bear the congressman’s name.”
Used official congressional letterhead to solicit support for his ‘Monument to Me’: The Washington Post reported that Rangel “penned letters on congressional stationery and has sought meetings to ask for corporate and foundation contributions for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York, a project that caused controversy last year when he won a $1.9 million congressional earmark to help start it.”
Rented four rent-stabilized apartments: As the New York Times reported, Rangel had four rent-stabilized apartments “including three adjacent units on the 16th floor overlooking Upper Manhattan” and “six floors below, as a campaign office, despite state and city regulations that require rent-stabilized apartments to be used as a primary residence.” Rangel “paid a total rent of $3,894 monthly in 2007 for the four apartments” even though the “current market-rate rent for similar apartments in Mr. Rangel’s building would total $7,465 to $8,125 a month.” Rangel later relinquished the apartment used as a campaign office.
Took at least two corporate-funded trips: As The Hill newspaper reported, the funding of trips Rangel took to the Caribbean raise questions about whether the trips violated “a two-year-old ethics rule passed after Democrats regained the House.” A major airline “provided in-kind donations of tickets for Rangel and five other members of Congress to fly from their districts to St. Martin.” According to ethics experts, the donation of tickets “for members to use for a specific trip is a clear violation of House ethics rules governing travel.”
Failed to disclose millions of dollars in income and assets: The New York Post reported that Rangel “failed to report as much as $1.3 million in outside income -- including up to $1 million for a Harlem building sale -- on financial-disclosure forms he filed between 2002 and 2006, according to newly amended records.” Rangel also “lowballed his income by as much as $70,000 in 2002, $46,000 in 2003 and $117,000 in 2006” and in 2004 “Rangel left off his disclosure form as much as $430,000 in stock transactions.” CBS News reported that Rangel also omitted a checking account worth more than $250,000.
GOP LEADER ALERT 10-06-09
‘DON’T READ THE BILL:’ INSIDE DEMOCRATS’ OPPOSITION TO TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
DEMOCRATIC LEADERS DEFEND STATUS QUO DESPITE WIDESPREAD PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR “READ THE BILL” REFORM
October 6, 2009
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
Permalink
“Read the bill” reform has gained the support of an overwhelming majority of Americans, widely respected government watchdogs, and even some rank-and-file Democrats. Yet, Democratic leaders continue to protect the status quo, refusing to allow a vote on a resolution requiring a 72-hour review period for all legislation. Only 36 more signatures on a discharge petition filed by Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) are needed to force an up-or-down vote on “read the bill” reform. The various rationales Democrats have provided to justify their opposition to common-sense transparency and accountability reveal just how out-of-touch this majority has become.
THREE REASONS DEMOCRATS OPPOSE “READ THE BILL” REFORM:
1. ‘We don’t do things that way.’ Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), addressing attempts by Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee to ensure lawmakers and the public have 72 hours to review health care legislation: “We have never, ever, ever, ever done that in this committee.” (Politico, 9/24/09)
2. ‘Saying we can’t change the bill at the last minute means we can’t, you know, actually change the bill at the last minute.’ “What if only one short word or amendment is made?” Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) asked last week. “It's one thing initially for a bill to have a long time, but if you come out of a conference and they don’t change anything then, you don’t need 72 hours.” (The Hill, 10/2/09)
3. ‘Nobody actually reads the bills.’ This rates as the most common reason. For instance, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said last month during a Senate Finance Committee hearing, “I mean, let's be honest about it. The legislative language, everybody knows, is relatively arcane, legalistic, and most people don’t read the legislative language.” Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) recently added: “I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life. … It’s just anyone who says that they can do that and actually get much out of it is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.” (Politico, 9/23/09; New York Post, 10/4/09)
THREE REASONS AMERICANS SUPPORT “READ THE BILL” REFORM:
1. “Stimulus bill a sorry spectacle. What a joke. Your Congress has voted to spend almost $790 billion of your money on a stimulus package that not a single member of either chamber has read. The 1,073-page document wasn't posted on the government’s website until after 10 p.m. the day before the vote to pass it was taken.” (Jack Cafferty, CNN.com, 2/17/09)
2. “Energy bill a travesty containing who knows what. The cap-and-trade bill passed the House of Representatives shrouded in a fog of willful ignorance and calculated irrationality. No one could be sure what he was voting for -- not after a 300-page amendment added at 3:09 a.m. the day of its passage. The bill is so complex and jerry-built that even its supporters can’t know how, or if, it will work. And it’s impossible for someone to know whether the motivating crisis, impending planetary doom, will ever materialize.” (Rich Lowry, Salt Lake Tribune, 6/30/09)
3. Organizational Chart of the House Democrats’ Health Plan, which depicts the bureaucratic nightmare that is the House Democrats’ costly government-run health care proposal. The chart was produced by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) and the Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee (JEC).
DEMOCRATIC LEADERS DEFEND STATUS QUO DESPITE WIDESPREAD PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR “READ THE BILL” REFORM
October 6, 2009
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
Permalink
“Read the bill” reform has gained the support of an overwhelming majority of Americans, widely respected government watchdogs, and even some rank-and-file Democrats. Yet, Democratic leaders continue to protect the status quo, refusing to allow a vote on a resolution requiring a 72-hour review period for all legislation. Only 36 more signatures on a discharge petition filed by Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) are needed to force an up-or-down vote on “read the bill” reform. The various rationales Democrats have provided to justify their opposition to common-sense transparency and accountability reveal just how out-of-touch this majority has become.
THREE REASONS DEMOCRATS OPPOSE “READ THE BILL” REFORM:
1. ‘We don’t do things that way.’ Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), addressing attempts by Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee to ensure lawmakers and the public have 72 hours to review health care legislation: “We have never, ever, ever, ever done that in this committee.” (Politico, 9/24/09)
2. ‘Saying we can’t change the bill at the last minute means we can’t, you know, actually change the bill at the last minute.’ “What if only one short word or amendment is made?” Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) asked last week. “It's one thing initially for a bill to have a long time, but if you come out of a conference and they don’t change anything then, you don’t need 72 hours.” (The Hill, 10/2/09)
3. ‘Nobody actually reads the bills.’ This rates as the most common reason. For instance, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said last month during a Senate Finance Committee hearing, “I mean, let's be honest about it. The legislative language, everybody knows, is relatively arcane, legalistic, and most people don’t read the legislative language.” Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) recently added: “I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life. … It’s just anyone who says that they can do that and actually get much out of it is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.” (Politico, 9/23/09; New York Post, 10/4/09)
THREE REASONS AMERICANS SUPPORT “READ THE BILL” REFORM:
1. “Stimulus bill a sorry spectacle. What a joke. Your Congress has voted to spend almost $790 billion of your money on a stimulus package that not a single member of either chamber has read. The 1,073-page document wasn't posted on the government’s website until after 10 p.m. the day before the vote to pass it was taken.” (Jack Cafferty, CNN.com, 2/17/09)
2. “Energy bill a travesty containing who knows what. The cap-and-trade bill passed the House of Representatives shrouded in a fog of willful ignorance and calculated irrationality. No one could be sure what he was voting for -- not after a 300-page amendment added at 3:09 a.m. the day of its passage. The bill is so complex and jerry-built that even its supporters can’t know how, or if, it will work. And it’s impossible for someone to know whether the motivating crisis, impending planetary doom, will ever materialize.” (Rich Lowry, Salt Lake Tribune, 6/30/09)
3. Organizational Chart of the House Democrats’ Health Plan, which depicts the bureaucratic nightmare that is the House Democrats’ costly government-run health care proposal. The chart was produced by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) and the Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee (JEC).
Cap And Trade Calamities
Heritage's Research on the Cap and Trade Global Warming Bill
When gas prices surpassed $4 per gallon last summer, it forced families to cancel their vacations. Not only was the day-to-day driving eating up families’ budgets, but it made the cost of traveling somewhere for vacation all that more expensive. Purchasing airline tickets was out of the question for many. If cap and trade becomes law, news could only get worse for the air travelers and the airline industry.
From CQ Politics: “The most recent draft of the Senate bill by John Kerry, D-Mass., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., includes aircraft and aircraft engines in its emissions-trading plan. The language tracks with provisions in a climate change bill the House passed in June.”
Cap and trade, which would artificially raise the price of energy, could cost the airline industry $5 billion dollars according to the article. When speaking about Waxman-Markey, Steve Sear, Delta Air Lines vice president of global sales, said passing cap and trade would result “in hundreds of millions of dollars in additional fuel costs that will either have to be absorbed or passed on to customers.”
On top of that, Sear went on to say that Waxman-Markey, officially known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) would hurt the industry’s ability to innovate on its own:
“Those additional costs will undermine the ultimate aim of the act—to decrease carbon emissions—by making it difficult, if not impossible, for U.S. airlines to invest in the technology and alternative fuels that can reduce harmful greenhouse gases. ACES also would threaten our ability to provide jobs to thousands of U.S. workers, and airline service to hundreds of communities. It would put U.S. carriers in a competitive disadvantage against foreign airlines immune to the measure’s effects.”
Whether greenhouse gases are harmful is beside the point. An energy tax on any businesses will reduce the amount of money that can be spent on innovation and entrepreneurial activity that produce greater efficiency.
When gas prices surpassed $4 per gallon last summer, it forced families to cancel their vacations. Not only was the day-to-day driving eating up families’ budgets, but it made the cost of traveling somewhere for vacation all that more expensive. Purchasing airline tickets was out of the question for many. If cap and trade becomes law, news could only get worse for the air travelers and the airline industry.
From CQ Politics: “The most recent draft of the Senate bill by John Kerry, D-Mass., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., includes aircraft and aircraft engines in its emissions-trading plan. The language tracks with provisions in a climate change bill the House passed in June.”
Cap and trade, which would artificially raise the price of energy, could cost the airline industry $5 billion dollars according to the article. When speaking about Waxman-Markey, Steve Sear, Delta Air Lines vice president of global sales, said passing cap and trade would result “in hundreds of millions of dollars in additional fuel costs that will either have to be absorbed or passed on to customers.”
On top of that, Sear went on to say that Waxman-Markey, officially known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) would hurt the industry’s ability to innovate on its own:
“Those additional costs will undermine the ultimate aim of the act—to decrease carbon emissions—by making it difficult, if not impossible, for U.S. airlines to invest in the technology and alternative fuels that can reduce harmful greenhouse gases. ACES also would threaten our ability to provide jobs to thousands of U.S. workers, and airline service to hundreds of communities. It would put U.S. carriers in a competitive disadvantage against foreign airlines immune to the measure’s effects.”
Whether greenhouse gases are harmful is beside the point. An energy tax on any businesses will reduce the amount of money that can be spent on innovation and entrepreneurial activity that produce greater efficiency.
The Heritage Foundation
The Morning Bell
TUESDAY, OCT 6, 2009
Competition, Not Price-Controls, Will Save Medicare
“I just want to be clear, again: Seniors who are listening here, this does not affect your benefits. This is not money going to you to pay for your benefits; this is money that is subsidizing folks who don’t need it.” Or so President Barack Obama promised our nation’s seniors earlier this year. Problem is, as we have pointed out many times, this is simply not true: Obamacare will absolutely cause reduced Medicare benefits for Seniors. Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf told Congress that and even the New York Times has grudgingly admitted as much.
Specifically, every version of Obamacare waiting to be merged into one bill on Capitol Hill cuts billions of dollars from the Medicare Advantage program. One of the dirty little secrets about Medicare is that it actually only covers slightly more than half of all health care costs for seniors and disabled citizens. Medicare recipients buy the balance of their health care coverage through private supplemental insurance or Medigap coverage. Most seniors, therefore, actually have at least two health insurance providers, the federal government through Medicare, and a private supplemental insurer. Medicare Advantage allows seniors to pay a single premium and receive a much broader range of health care services than just government-run Medicare provides, including prescription drug coverage, preventive-care services, routine physical examinations, and coordinated care for chronic conditions.
The Baucus bill, which will be voted on in the Senate Finance Committee later this week, is the least offensive Medicare reform plan currently being included in Obamacare. However, the Baucus bill fails to achieve true reform in two ways: First, it takes all ’savings’ from Medicare reform and immediately plows them into a new deficit exploding entitlement. Second, and more importantly, it preserves the old fee-for-service Medicare program which is based on central planning and price controls.
The better option would be to move Medicare towards a true “premium support” system where the government would make direct contributions to all beneficiaries who could then control how to spend their own health care dollars. This would be the same model as the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) which provides health insurance to Members of Congress. Heritage fellow Bob Moffit explains:
With modifications, Congress could adopt a premium support system broadly similar to the FEHBP and secure the same positive results in intense competition, patient choice, high quality care, and patient satisfaction. Without such modifications, there is no real reform but just more of the same.
Instead of breaking the President’s promises, and raising health care costs for America’s seniors, Congress should hit the reset button and start over with real competition and state based reform that lowers costs and improves care.
TUESDAY, OCT 6, 2009
Competition, Not Price-Controls, Will Save Medicare
“I just want to be clear, again: Seniors who are listening here, this does not affect your benefits. This is not money going to you to pay for your benefits; this is money that is subsidizing folks who don’t need it.” Or so President Barack Obama promised our nation’s seniors earlier this year. Problem is, as we have pointed out many times, this is simply not true: Obamacare will absolutely cause reduced Medicare benefits for Seniors. Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf told Congress that and even the New York Times has grudgingly admitted as much.
Specifically, every version of Obamacare waiting to be merged into one bill on Capitol Hill cuts billions of dollars from the Medicare Advantage program. One of the dirty little secrets about Medicare is that it actually only covers slightly more than half of all health care costs for seniors and disabled citizens. Medicare recipients buy the balance of their health care coverage through private supplemental insurance or Medigap coverage. Most seniors, therefore, actually have at least two health insurance providers, the federal government through Medicare, and a private supplemental insurer. Medicare Advantage allows seniors to pay a single premium and receive a much broader range of health care services than just government-run Medicare provides, including prescription drug coverage, preventive-care services, routine physical examinations, and coordinated care for chronic conditions.
The Baucus bill, which will be voted on in the Senate Finance Committee later this week, is the least offensive Medicare reform plan currently being included in Obamacare. However, the Baucus bill fails to achieve true reform in two ways: First, it takes all ’savings’ from Medicare reform and immediately plows them into a new deficit exploding entitlement. Second, and more importantly, it preserves the old fee-for-service Medicare program which is based on central planning and price controls.
The better option would be to move Medicare towards a true “premium support” system where the government would make direct contributions to all beneficiaries who could then control how to spend their own health care dollars. This would be the same model as the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) which provides health insurance to Members of Congress. Heritage fellow Bob Moffit explains:
With modifications, Congress could adopt a premium support system broadly similar to the FEHBP and secure the same positive results in intense competition, patient choice, high quality care, and patient satisfaction. Without such modifications, there is no real reform but just more of the same.
Instead of breaking the President’s promises, and raising health care costs for America’s seniors, Congress should hit the reset button and start over with real competition and state based reform that lowers costs and improves care.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Liberal Fascists Strike Again
Tonight while listening to the Mark Levin Show Mark stated that his Wikipedia page and other conservative talk show personalities pages where being edited so that only negative comments showed and positive comments where being deleted. I went and took a look. I tried to post on Marks page only to find out that the page was partially blocked. This is not the Internet Gremlins playing hell but the volunteer web meisters who are Liberal Fascists. I for one will be boycotting Wikipedia seeing that it has been comprimised by the Leftists
Half A President
This Article comes from the American Thinker
Half a president
By Steve McCann
President Obama apparently wants to do only half of his job -- the part that is the most fun. And he's got his eyes on a higher position.
Barack Obama has been the number one topic of conversation among many of my friends and associates in London. His incompetence, narcissism and danger to the interests of the United States and its allies in Europe are startling people. I was asked "How does Obama view himself as President?" We happened to be sitting in a hotel which overlooked Buckingham Palace and suddenly the answer to the question came to me.
In the United Kingdom and many other countries with a parliamentary system there is a distinction between the head of state and the head of the government. In some countries such as Denmark, Spain and the United Kingdom the monarch either a King or Queen is considered the head of state and with that office goes all the trappings of royalty. The mundane responsibility of running the government falls to the elected Parliament and their chosen Prime Minister.
Of the world's major democracies only the United States merges both functions into the office of President.
It appears that Barack Obama views himself as the head of state only. As such he cannot be bothered with the day to day responsibility of governance. He is, in his narcissistic world, above all that; thus he delegates the writing of the Stimulus, health care and other major bills to Nancy Pelosi, puts off any decisions on Iran and Afghanistan, appoints czars with power to spend and set policy and prefers to spend his time on television speaking to the huddled masses.
His responsibilities as the head of government have been assigned to others, who in many cases are not answerable to the American people. This has created untold chaos in Congress and apprehension among the citizenry. Yet the President appears not to care, as his interests lie elsewhere.
The Presidency of the United States to Mr. Obama is nothing more than a stage so he, pre-ordained by destiny, can act as head of state for the world. He is much too busy enjoying the trappings of royalty, despite his oft-declared disdain for that class, to be bothered about the dismal long term future of the United States if the left wing policies of his government are enacted. It appears President Obama also believes as the world head of state he can, by sheer force of his will, charm and persuasion convince the most brutal of global adversaries to live in peace.
The rest of the world has begun to see through his unrestrained self-absorption. The rejection of the Olympics for Chicago despite his personal intervention, and the published mockery of him by Nicholas Sarkozy are just the tip of the iceberg that is the real consensus of opinion, particularly in Europe.
However President Obama's make-up is such that he will never accept any criticism as being valid when directed toward him, and will instead seek any excuse to explain away what is said or done as being the result of the failings of others.
Notwithstanding the determination of the founding fathers to avoid having a monarch, we now have one, at least in his own mind.
Half a president
By Steve McCann
President Obama apparently wants to do only half of his job -- the part that is the most fun. And he's got his eyes on a higher position.
Barack Obama has been the number one topic of conversation among many of my friends and associates in London. His incompetence, narcissism and danger to the interests of the United States and its allies in Europe are startling people. I was asked "How does Obama view himself as President?" We happened to be sitting in a hotel which overlooked Buckingham Palace and suddenly the answer to the question came to me.
In the United Kingdom and many other countries with a parliamentary system there is a distinction between the head of state and the head of the government. In some countries such as Denmark, Spain and the United Kingdom the monarch either a King or Queen is considered the head of state and with that office goes all the trappings of royalty. The mundane responsibility of running the government falls to the elected Parliament and their chosen Prime Minister.
Of the world's major democracies only the United States merges both functions into the office of President.
It appears that Barack Obama views himself as the head of state only. As such he cannot be bothered with the day to day responsibility of governance. He is, in his narcissistic world, above all that; thus he delegates the writing of the Stimulus, health care and other major bills to Nancy Pelosi, puts off any decisions on Iran and Afghanistan, appoints czars with power to spend and set policy and prefers to spend his time on television speaking to the huddled masses.
His responsibilities as the head of government have been assigned to others, who in many cases are not answerable to the American people. This has created untold chaos in Congress and apprehension among the citizenry. Yet the President appears not to care, as his interests lie elsewhere.
The Presidency of the United States to Mr. Obama is nothing more than a stage so he, pre-ordained by destiny, can act as head of state for the world. He is much too busy enjoying the trappings of royalty, despite his oft-declared disdain for that class, to be bothered about the dismal long term future of the United States if the left wing policies of his government are enacted. It appears President Obama also believes as the world head of state he can, by sheer force of his will, charm and persuasion convince the most brutal of global adversaries to live in peace.
The rest of the world has begun to see through his unrestrained self-absorption. The rejection of the Olympics for Chicago despite his personal intervention, and the published mockery of him by Nicholas Sarkozy are just the tip of the iceberg that is the real consensus of opinion, particularly in Europe.
However President Obama's make-up is such that he will never accept any criticism as being valid when directed toward him, and will instead seek any excuse to explain away what is said or done as being the result of the failings of others.
Notwithstanding the determination of the founding fathers to avoid having a monarch, we now have one, at least in his own mind.
The Morning Bell
The Morning Bell
MONDAY, OCT 5, 2000
Indecision in Afghanistan Costs Lives
Last week, upon arriving in Copenhagen for his failed mission to secure the 2016 Olympic Games for Chicago, President Barack Obama met face-to-face with U.S. and NATO Forces Commander in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChrystal on Air Force One. The meeting was just the second conversation between the two since Gen. McChrystal assumed command of what President Obama used to call the “central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism.” Just days before, while responding to questions about his recommendation for 40,000 more troops, Gen. McChrystal told the International Institute for Strategic Studies, “Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, nor will public support.
A Glimmer of Hope for Abstinence Education Funding
President Obama’s advisers were “shocked and angered” by “the bluntness” of McChrystal’s speech with one White House source offering: “People aren’t sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn’t seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly.” McChrystal may not know Washington politics, but he has impeccable credentials when it comes to military strategy. And on military strategy, Gen. McChrystal also said this last week:
I absolutely believe that al Qaeda and the threat of al Qaeda and Taliban senior leadership are critical to stability in the region…But I also believe that a strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a shortsighted strategy.
Gen. McChrystal is far from the only thinker to come to that conclusion. British Army Chief of the General Staff Gen. Sir David Richards told The Sunday Telegraph:
If al-Qaeda and the Taliban believe they have defeated us – what next? Would they stop at Afghanistan? Pakistan is clearly a tempting target not least because of the fact that it is a nuclear-weaponed state and that is a terrifying prospect. Even if only a few of those (nuclear) weapons fell into their hands, believe me they would use them. The recent airlines plot has reminded us that there are people out there who would happily blow all of us up.
Former CentCom Commander Gen. Anthony Zinni told Face the Nation:
I think we have to be careful how long this goes on. It– it could be seen not only out there in the region by our allies even as the enemy as being indecisive–unable to make a decision. We’ve had a strategy since March. We have a general out there who is probably the best qualified we could have that’s telling us what we need on the ground to have the security space and the time to get those non-military things done. And I just don’t understand why we’re questioning that judgment at this point and I hope this doesn’t go on much longer.
British Shadow Defense Secretary Dr. Liam Fox told Heritage last month:
Were we to lose and be forced out of Afghanistan against our will, it would be a shot in the arm for every jihadist globally. It would send out the signal that we did not have the moral fortitude to see through what we believe to be a national security emergency. It would suggest that NATO, in its first great challenge since the end of the Cold War, did not have what it takes to see a difficult challenge through.
Chair of the House Armed Services Committee Ike Skelton (D-MO) told Face the Nation:
That’s the purpose of this entire mission. To quell the al Qaeda and to make sure that the Taliban is not there to invite them back. The war really didn’t start until March of this year when the president came forth with a strategy, frankly an excellent strategy. He chose General McChrystal who is the best in the business for this type of conflict. He asked General McChrystal for an assessment. He got that assessment. Of course that became known … it was public. And in essence he’s going to be asking for additional resources. … I back him up. I sent a letter to the president a number of days ago spelling out in great detail - some six pages of a letter - spelling out basically ‘Give the general what he needs.’
And Henry Kissinger writes in Newsweek:
The demand for an exit strategy is, of course, a metaphor for withdrawal, and withdrawal that is not accompanied by a willingness to sustain the outcome amounts to abandonment. Even so-called realists—like me—would gag at a tacit U.S. cooperation with the Taliban in the governance of Afghanistan.
Those in the chain of command in Afghanistan, each with outstanding qualifications, have all been recently appointed by the Obama administration. Rejecting their recommendations would be a triumph of domestic politics over strategic judgment.
The domestic politics are clear. MoveOn.org is asking their members to sign a petition calling for “a clear military exit strategy” and in the House, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) has introduce a bill co-sponsored with 21 member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus that would prohibit an increase of troops in Afghanistan.
President Obama must ignore this pressure from his leftist base and give his military commanders the best chance for success by meeting their requests for the troops and resources necessary to fully implement the counterinsurgency strategy that his administration adopted in March. As General McChrystal warned: “We must show resolve. Uncertainty disheartens our allies, emboldens our foe.” President Obama must take the long view and avoid short-sighted policies that undermine our friends in Afghanistan and Pakistan, while encouraging our enemies.
MONDAY, OCT 5, 2000
Indecision in Afghanistan Costs Lives
Last week, upon arriving in Copenhagen for his failed mission to secure the 2016 Olympic Games for Chicago, President Barack Obama met face-to-face with U.S. and NATO Forces Commander in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChrystal on Air Force One. The meeting was just the second conversation between the two since Gen. McChrystal assumed command of what President Obama used to call the “central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism.” Just days before, while responding to questions about his recommendation for 40,000 more troops, Gen. McChrystal told the International Institute for Strategic Studies, “Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, nor will public support.
A Glimmer of Hope for Abstinence Education Funding
President Obama’s advisers were “shocked and angered” by “the bluntness” of McChrystal’s speech with one White House source offering: “People aren’t sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn’t seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly.” McChrystal may not know Washington politics, but he has impeccable credentials when it comes to military strategy. And on military strategy, Gen. McChrystal also said this last week:
I absolutely believe that al Qaeda and the threat of al Qaeda and Taliban senior leadership are critical to stability in the region…But I also believe that a strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a shortsighted strategy.
Gen. McChrystal is far from the only thinker to come to that conclusion. British Army Chief of the General Staff Gen. Sir David Richards told The Sunday Telegraph:
If al-Qaeda and the Taliban believe they have defeated us – what next? Would they stop at Afghanistan? Pakistan is clearly a tempting target not least because of the fact that it is a nuclear-weaponed state and that is a terrifying prospect. Even if only a few of those (nuclear) weapons fell into their hands, believe me they would use them. The recent airlines plot has reminded us that there are people out there who would happily blow all of us up.
Former CentCom Commander Gen. Anthony Zinni told Face the Nation:
I think we have to be careful how long this goes on. It– it could be seen not only out there in the region by our allies even as the enemy as being indecisive–unable to make a decision. We’ve had a strategy since March. We have a general out there who is probably the best qualified we could have that’s telling us what we need on the ground to have the security space and the time to get those non-military things done. And I just don’t understand why we’re questioning that judgment at this point and I hope this doesn’t go on much longer.
British Shadow Defense Secretary Dr. Liam Fox told Heritage last month:
Were we to lose and be forced out of Afghanistan against our will, it would be a shot in the arm for every jihadist globally. It would send out the signal that we did not have the moral fortitude to see through what we believe to be a national security emergency. It would suggest that NATO, in its first great challenge since the end of the Cold War, did not have what it takes to see a difficult challenge through.
Chair of the House Armed Services Committee Ike Skelton (D-MO) told Face the Nation:
That’s the purpose of this entire mission. To quell the al Qaeda and to make sure that the Taliban is not there to invite them back. The war really didn’t start until March of this year when the president came forth with a strategy, frankly an excellent strategy. He chose General McChrystal who is the best in the business for this type of conflict. He asked General McChrystal for an assessment. He got that assessment. Of course that became known … it was public. And in essence he’s going to be asking for additional resources. … I back him up. I sent a letter to the president a number of days ago spelling out in great detail - some six pages of a letter - spelling out basically ‘Give the general what he needs.’
And Henry Kissinger writes in Newsweek:
The demand for an exit strategy is, of course, a metaphor for withdrawal, and withdrawal that is not accompanied by a willingness to sustain the outcome amounts to abandonment. Even so-called realists—like me—would gag at a tacit U.S. cooperation with the Taliban in the governance of Afghanistan.
Those in the chain of command in Afghanistan, each with outstanding qualifications, have all been recently appointed by the Obama administration. Rejecting their recommendations would be a triumph of domestic politics over strategic judgment.
The domestic politics are clear. MoveOn.org is asking their members to sign a petition calling for “a clear military exit strategy” and in the House, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) has introduce a bill co-sponsored with 21 member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus that would prohibit an increase of troops in Afghanistan.
President Obama must ignore this pressure from his leftist base and give his military commanders the best chance for success by meeting their requests for the troops and resources necessary to fully implement the counterinsurgency strategy that his administration adopted in March. As General McChrystal warned: “We must show resolve. Uncertainty disheartens our allies, emboldens our foe.” President Obama must take the long view and avoid short-sighted policies that undermine our friends in Afghanistan and Pakistan, while encouraging our enemies.
The National Right To Work
What is Obama’s Department of Labor Trying to Hide?
The Obama Department of Labor appears in violation of federal law by refusing to cooperate with disclosure demands, and your National Right to Work is turning up the heat.
Six months ago, National Right to Work Foundation president Mark Mix filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking documents pertaining to the close – and potentially unethical – relationship between Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and her associates with the union bosses.
In one egregious example, almost immediately after winning the election in November, Obama appointed AFL-CIO lawyer Deborah Greenfield to his transition team to oversee the change in power at the Department of Labor. But at the very same time, Greenfield was on the AFL-CIO legal team which was suing the DOL to overturn union officer conflict-of-interest reporting regulations.
Early in his term, President Obama has quickly acted to gut these union reporting requirements intended to root out corruption. But the American people – especially American workers paying dues to the AFL-CIO – have a right to know about this potential conflict of interest, not to mention the Obama Administration’s apparent hypocrisy.
But despite Obama’s repeated promises of a new era of transparency, his Administration is stonewalling the Foundation’s FOIA request and seems to be inviting a lawsuit from the Foundation. Read more about the situation at the Foundation’s blog.
As always, remember to check back regularly at the Foundation's blog for all the latest updates from National Right to Work.
The National Right to Work Foundation provides free legal aid to employees so they can fight back against union coercion and abuse.
The Foundation must rely on the voluntary support of individual Americans who believe in our cause and wish to advance our strategic litigation program. To make a fully tax-deductible donation in whatever amount, please
The Obama Department of Labor appears in violation of federal law by refusing to cooperate with disclosure demands, and your National Right to Work is turning up the heat.
Six months ago, National Right to Work Foundation president Mark Mix filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking documents pertaining to the close – and potentially unethical – relationship between Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and her associates with the union bosses.
In one egregious example, almost immediately after winning the election in November, Obama appointed AFL-CIO lawyer Deborah Greenfield to his transition team to oversee the change in power at the Department of Labor. But at the very same time, Greenfield was on the AFL-CIO legal team which was suing the DOL to overturn union officer conflict-of-interest reporting regulations.
Early in his term, President Obama has quickly acted to gut these union reporting requirements intended to root out corruption. But the American people – especially American workers paying dues to the AFL-CIO – have a right to know about this potential conflict of interest, not to mention the Obama Administration’s apparent hypocrisy.
But despite Obama’s repeated promises of a new era of transparency, his Administration is stonewalling the Foundation’s FOIA request and seems to be inviting a lawsuit from the Foundation. Read more about the situation at the Foundation’s blog.
As always, remember to check back regularly at the Foundation's blog for all the latest updates from National Right to Work.
The National Right to Work Foundation provides free legal aid to employees so they can fight back against union coercion and abuse.
The Foundation must rely on the voluntary support of individual Americans who believe in our cause and wish to advance our strategic litigation program. To make a fully tax-deductible donation in whatever amount, please
The Heritage Foundation
Featured Research
Green Job Subsidies Will Destroy Far More Jobs Than They Create
By Ben Lieberman
Don't let the hype about "green jobs" fool you. The global warming bill approved earlier this year by the House of Representatives would destroy far more jobs than it could ever possibly create.
Proponents of the bill's effort to reduce carbon emissions by imposing an enormously expensive cap-and-trade system are finding it a tough sell. The American people simply aren't buying the idea that global warming is a dire crisis that justifies a blank-check response. Reality is just not cooperating with doom-and-gloom global warming predictions. No warming has occurred for the last decade. And now the recession has heightened concerns about the economy and jobs.
As a result, proponents of the Waxman-Markey bill -- currently being debated in the Senate -- have changed their sales pitch. Rather than present this big energy tax as a costly but necessary step to save the planet, supporters now claim that it would be an economic boon, a green-job-generating machine.
For information on cap and trade, visit Heritage's Rapid Response page, which features research, commentary, blog posts, charts and additional policy resources.
Global Warming on the Hill:
It's shaping up to be a quiet week in Congress when it comes to global warming, as all eyes will be focused on health care. However, there will be plenty of closed-door activity. The cap-and-trade bill introduced last week by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) was incomplete. They will spend the next couple of weeks trying to fill in the blanks to secure support among Senators who are justifiably concerned such a scheme could hurt their state and the nation’s economy. Senators Kerry and Boxer will have hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenues (read taxes) at their disposal to attempt to placate concerns and win over industry groups. Backroom deals, interest groups and hundreds of billions of dollars is never a good combination.
Green Job Subsidies Will Destroy Far More Jobs Than They Create
By Ben Lieberman
Don't let the hype about "green jobs" fool you. The global warming bill approved earlier this year by the House of Representatives would destroy far more jobs than it could ever possibly create.
Proponents of the bill's effort to reduce carbon emissions by imposing an enormously expensive cap-and-trade system are finding it a tough sell. The American people simply aren't buying the idea that global warming is a dire crisis that justifies a blank-check response. Reality is just not cooperating with doom-and-gloom global warming predictions. No warming has occurred for the last decade. And now the recession has heightened concerns about the economy and jobs.
As a result, proponents of the Waxman-Markey bill -- currently being debated in the Senate -- have changed their sales pitch. Rather than present this big energy tax as a costly but necessary step to save the planet, supporters now claim that it would be an economic boon, a green-job-generating machine.
For information on cap and trade, visit Heritage's Rapid Response page, which features research, commentary, blog posts, charts and additional policy resources.
Global Warming on the Hill:
It's shaping up to be a quiet week in Congress when it comes to global warming, as all eyes will be focused on health care. However, there will be plenty of closed-door activity. The cap-and-trade bill introduced last week by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) was incomplete. They will spend the next couple of weeks trying to fill in the blanks to secure support among Senators who are justifiably concerned such a scheme could hurt their state and the nation’s economy. Senators Kerry and Boxer will have hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenues (read taxes) at their disposal to attempt to placate concerns and win over industry groups. Backroom deals, interest groups and hundreds of billions of dollars is never a good combination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
