June 30, 2009
Betrayed by my Republican Congressman
There is much outrage in the 10th District where I live.
I would imagine that the same outrage exists in the congressional districts represented by all eight of the renegade Republicans. It is frowned upon to criticize fellow Republicans, but this defection cannot be brushed aside.
Forty four wise Democrats crossed party lines to vote against the bill, while Kirk and seven other Republicans chose to ignore the 300-page amendment that was dropped into the mostly unread 1,000 page bill early in the morning on June 16, leaving no time to read the additional 300 pages and which turned the bill into an even more regulative and economic monstrosity.
Although Mark Kirk is proud to define himself as a moderate Republican with strong environmental leanings, he has put himself on record as supporting radical legislation that would result in economic pain for his constituents with little or no environmental gain.
It might be that Kirk has sealed his political future — Kirk has expressed interest in running statewide here in Illinois for U.S. Senate or governor — with his “yes” vote on the Democrat’s Global Warming bill, after voters learn what is in the 1,300 page bill? Unfortunately Kirk has become more liberal in many ways than many moderate Democrats in Congress.
The Waxman-Markey bill is instead a job killer. Especially hard hit would be energy-intensive sectors such as manufacturers, farmers, construction, machinery, transportation, and plastics.
Consumers will also pay more for all goods and services since just about everything we do and produce uses energy. Hardest hit by the draconian energy tax would be working families, but the tax would affect everyone whether rich, poor or in between.
What was Congressman Mark Kirk thinking? Did he make a devilish deal to become one of eight Republican turncoats? And what about the other seven Republican traitors in the U.S. Congress? It is unconscionable that they voted for the most massive tax increase and interference with private property ever! As such they should and are likely to face stiff opposition in 2010.
Hopefully the U.S. Senate will have more sense and will not ascribe to the ill-advised House version of the energy bill. If similar legislation is passed in the senate, it would be a bad deal for America and a devastating man-made disaster. Every effort must be made to defeat what would amount to a misguided approach to this nation’s energy needs.
Glenn Beck read my American Thinker letter and invited me as a guest on his national Fox News TV show on Monday, June 29. Beck’s show that day was all about the “cap and trade” bill that passed the House on Friday, June 26. I responded on Beck’s show as an angry citizen in Kirk’s 10th Dstrict who could no longer support or vote for Congressman Kirk.
June 26, 2009
President Obama in a Rose Garden appearance on Thursday, June 25, told the media that whoever leads the world in green technology will lead the world.
The push to create viable green energy power through wind and solar is but a mirage, coupled with the myth that we are killing ourselves and the world by continuing to depend on oil and coal for our energy needs.
There must be a reason why most power plants in this county use coal to produce energy, which is under assault by the Obama administration. It is because coal is the cheapest, the most dependable, and it works.
Contrast coal with the fad of building wind turbines which generate power only when the wind blows. As of yet there is no way to store that power. Most Importantly, wind power is not cost effective unless government subsidies are provided
The Waxman-Markey global warming bill now in the House pushes green energy. If passed, it would vastly expand power in Washington, D.C. and would function as a massive energy tax on the American people by raising the cost of energy and the price paid for all goods and services without achieving environmental pay-offs.
Going green has failed in Europe. Are the American people willing to have junk science destroy the economy thereby ending the U.S. as a free and productive country, all because CO2 has been falsely classified as a pollutant?
June 25, 2009
June 24, 2009
President Obama is urging U.S. lawmakers before their month-long summer vacation on Aug. 3rd to come up with bills on health care reform and global warming.
Already environmental activists and interest groups are involved in propaganda campaigns to scare people into clamoring for climate legislation to avoid “climate catastrophe.” Not only is my 10th District Congressman Rep. Mark Kirk being pressured through telephone calls to his constituents to support health care reform that includes a government public plan, but Kirk is also the target of TV ads on Fox News urging him to vote for “The American Clean Energy and Security Act.”
A study at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis in Washington, D.C. has found that by 2035 the proposed Waxman-Markey global warming legislation would inflict GDP losses of $9.4 trillion, raise an average family’s energy bill by $1,241, and destroy on the average 1,145,000 jobs. (Morning Bell: What is the Bigger Threat? Global Warming or Global Warming Legislation). Meanwhile China and India will be firing up coal-fired power plants, benefiting economically, while this nation’s regulates itself to death.
Given the possible economic down side of enacting the Waxman-Markey energy bill and how its ”cap-and-trade” provision would control and penalize large industrial sources that emit carbon dioxide, it would seem prudent to first examine the urgency for enacting global warming legislation
On Wednesday, June 17, an interesting graph appeared in the Wall Street Journal. (Building Up /Total Carbon-Dioxide Emissions). It indicated that even if the U.S. were to reduce its output of CO2 by 50%, it would have no perceptible effect on the world environment as enormous amounts of CO2 is produced by nature every year. Further stated was that such an effort “will probably destroy the economy, reduce the dollar to junk status, and end the U.S. as a free and productive country as we know it.”
Not to be overlooked, especially by Chicagoans, is The Heartland Institute, a 25 year old non-partisan think tank located in Chicago, IL. On June 2nd it sponsored the Third International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, D.C. Released at the conference was a 880-page report — Climate Change Reconsidered — that challenges point by point the flawed claims of a 2007 U.N document embraced by the Obama administration. The appendix lists the names of 31,478 American scientists who have signed a petition– including 9,029 with PhD’s, which states in part: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of Earth’s climate.” (The Climate-Change Report the UN Failed to Write).
There is massive deceit taking place among advocates of global warming through doctored data, misrepresented study findings, and flawed computer simulations that amounts to a government-created Ponzi scam that surpasses the shame of the Madoff scandal. As such global warming is not and never was the crisis so many politicians and activists claim it is. Fraud by investment gurus earn them jail and fines; no punishment awaits fraud on the public by government officials.
Efforts made to control emissions of greenhouse gases would not only be ineffective and completely pointless as carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant, but also extremely expensive. The net result of the Waxman-Markey energy bill would be to vastly expand power in Washington, D.C., while functioning as a tax on the American people by raising the cost of energy and the price paid for all goods and services.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/economic_downside_of_waxmanmar.html at June 24, 2009 – 07:22:25 PM EDT
While President Obama and his Administration breathlessly make the rounds in town hall meetings, even at the White House no less, and the halls of Congress, to impose an unpopular, astonishingly expensive, carelessly crafted and incomplete plan to overhaul of the health care industry, everyone is ignoring the energy crisis.
OK, there doesn’t appear to be an energy crisis at the moment with gasoline under $3.00. There is in fact, both a rising energy cost with oil nearly doubling in the past few months,(Largely weak dollar driven thanks to the projected debt) and an energy dependence problem we are overlooking. In these troubled economic times we are distracted and have taken our eye off the energy ball. At issue: not a thingl is being done to seriously address the energy dependence elephant in the room. Don’t be fooled by the rhetoric, watch what is actually occurring in the Obama Administration. What is going on is, As Fred Barnes says, an effective miss-direction play, analogous to football.
President Obama declared in April 2009, “we can and should increase our domestic oil and natural gas production, if we’ve got some here in the US that we can use, we should find it and do so in an environmentally sustainable way”. What has actually occurred since the inauguration? 1. Focus on wind and solar, currently providing <1% of our needs and promising to double or triple in a few years, to 2% or 3%, interesting but hardly a serious solution. 2. Proposed removing tax incentives to produce oil and gas, adding a 13% excise tax on energy sourced from the Gulf of Mexico and adding a 3% tax hike on companies that produce or process oil and gas. 3. Delaying the implementation of the outer continental shelf leasing plan. 4. Interior Secretary Salazar cancelled 77 oil and gas leases in Utah, stopped plans to lease oil shale fields in five states where experts determined there are 1 to 2 trillion barrels of recoverable oil, declared the Yellow Billed loon to be an endangered species, limiting the development of oil reserves in Alaska. Further, due to permitting process glitches, stopped the issuance of oil leases in promising fields in Colorado and Alaska. I would call these the “No New Domestic Energy Czar” initiatives.
As to nuclear power, no support from Obama until the waste matter is settled. Has he forgotten or ignored the Yucca Mountain decision and investment, a site nearly completed and ready for business, to say nothing of the reprocessing option ala France. In effect, Obama is ignoring Nuclear Energy, the one and only energy source today that has the capacity to end energy dependence, and with zero air pollutants or CO² emissions. The likely agenda here: Nuclear Energy does not represent a carbon “Cap & Trade” source of tax revenue. email@example.com
No matter how the energy debate develops, the policies Obama has implemented, not articulated, will result in continued energy dependence on countries and people with whom we are not friendly, nor are they dependable sources. The likely outcome? Soaring energy costs that will be a burden on the economic health of America, a depressing effect on a financial recovery and a threat to our very way of life
June 14, 2009
President Obama expressed great hope for Iran as the Iranian people were voting on Friday, June 12, and credited his speech of June 4th in Cairo, Egypt for the rejection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when early on it was reported that challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi held a commanding lead over President Ahmadinejad.
In a still disputed and bitterly contested election, President Ahmadinejad was declared a landslide winner by Iran’s state news agency IRNA, even though an 85% voter turn out usually indicates a desire for change.
In reality neither candidate was a good choice. It was a choice between the bad and ugly. Although Mousavi was seen a a reform-minded candidate, had he been elected, it would not have made a difference either domestically or in Iran’s image abroad. Iran’s president is but a puppet of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei holds the ultimate political authority in Iran.
As President Obama envisions an open dialogue and more open mindedness over Iran’s nuclear program, he might well heed what Ayatollah told a huge crowd to mark 20 years since the death of the founder of the Islamic republic just hours before Obama delivered his Cairo speech aimed at establishing a new relationship with the Muslim world: “In the past few years, American governments have occupied two Islamic countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, under the pretext of the fight against terrorism. . . If the new president of American wants a change of face, America should change this behavior. Words and talk will not result in change.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8082386.stm
This does not sound like a country who is about to give up its nuclear ambitions, it’s hatred of Israel and calls for annihilation, or its devil-like image of America.
President Obama is playing with fire if he foolishly believes that his charm, charisma and power of persuasion can open up a productive dialogue with Iran to improve decades of confrontational relations, especially relating to Iran’s nuclear program, when Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has the last word on major Iranian policy decisions.
The Iranian elections were a sham from the very beginning. Change is not possible in the current political climate with Khamenei and the mullahs in charge.
It was in March of this year when Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Secretary, told a reporter from the German newspaper DER SPIEGEL that she preferred to refer to Islamic terrorism as “man-caused” disasters.
Was this a harbinger of things to come in the way this nation treats acts of terrorism?
U.S. Rep. Mike Rodgers (R-Mich), recently back from Afghanistan, blew the whistle when he told of captured foreign fighters getting “Miranda” warnings prior to questioning. Neither Rep. Rodgers or the U.S. Congress had been briefed about the Obama administration’s new advisement policy procedures.
Given a “Miranda” warning, a terrorist has the right to remain silent, the right to speak to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning and the right to have a lawyer provided and paid for at government expense. Who could think it wise to silence enemy combatants trained to kill U.S. soldiers who might have intelligence information when snatching them off the battlefield?
Such a change in advisement policy would represent a policy shift. It would elevate the role of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, replacing the CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and interrogations, as acts of terrorism are moved from the battlefield to the courtroom, thus turning the battlefield into a crime field.
Dealing with terrorists as a legal matter on the battlefield would handicap the effectiveness of American armed forces. Will every soldier have to have a translator? Will they have to collect evidence to testify years later in civilian courts. If so, chaos and confusion will result for our soldiers and interrogators.
The lessons learned from 9/11 seem to have been forgotten. Prior to 9/11 terrorism was treated as a criminal act, but did this prevent us from losing 3,000 on 9/11? Al-Qaeda was at war with us, but we weren’t with them. Also likely to occur is another turf war spawning distrust and a wall of separation between the CIA and the FBI.
It is unconscionable that terrorists are receiving rights that they never had before, hereby extending Constitutional protection to the worst scum of the earth even when they are being held overseas. It is likewise foolish and dangerous to grant rights that are destructive of American society to those who wish to destroy us.
Constitutional protection for terrorists is not in keeping with American values. It is apparent that victory in the Obama administration does not head their policy list. There is a time for law enforcement and a time for troops to do what they must do to win. Islamist terrorist are still at war with us. Not to be at war with them is a recipe for disaster and humiliation for a once strong and proud nation.
June 13, 2009
Every day there seems to be an announcement of a new czar. Captivated by the un-American notion of running the county through Russian-style czars that are empowered to issue czarist-style proclamations (The Romanov Dynasty produced 18 czars from 1612 to 1917), the Obama administration is up to 23 czars in only 5 months.
The most recent czar appointment was a “Pay Czar” to regulate executive pay at firms receiving TARP funds. It is fair to assume that compensation regulations will reach far beyond receivers of TARP funds.
Another czar appointment will take place later on in June with the naming of a “Special Master of Hallway Traffic” to ensure that employees of bailed-out firms remain at their desks during work hours and are not out wandering the halls and getting into mischief. This czar, when named, could rightly be placed in a “believe it or not” category far out in the Twilight Zone.
In no way am I equating the Obama administration with the era of the Russian Romanov Dynasty; nevertheless, in naming czars Obama is creating fiefdoms within his White House which bypass the oversight of Congress. In so doing President Obama is amassing executive power that is not answerable to any one.
The Constitution sets forth three separate but equal branches of government. Obama was not elected to rule, yet Obama is seeking to rule rather than to govern by usurping power that doesn’t belong to him through fiat.
Congress should care as should the American people.
June 11, 2009
The general consensus following Obama’s 6,000 word speech at Cairo University in Egypt on Thursday, June 4 was one of brilliance.
To the contrary, Obama’s address was vapid and more about impressing foreigners with himself at the expense of his own country. All but ignored by the cheer leading press is how Obama’s words gave hope to tyrannical regimes and brought darkness to forces of liberty.
- Obama ignored the History of violence and bloodshed in the Middle East.
- Obama pressured Israel and the Palestinains to live up to their peace obligations, as if both desire peace.
- In so doing Obama was dismissive of Israel.
- Obama pandered to the most oppressive regimes upon the fact of this earth.
- Obama called Iraq a “war of choice.”
- Obama told the world we are not going to torture any more (we never did).
- Obama called 9/11 a torture upon our county, rather than a terrorist attack.
- Obama erased the moral distinction between the Islamic world and the West.
- Obama seemed comfortable with Iran becoming a nuclear power.
- Obama wrongly called the U.S. “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”
For one who says he loves his country, Obama exhibits little of it when he goes abroad. Although President Obama represents the greatest country on the face of the earth, American exceptionism fails to register in Obama’s mind.
JFKennedy would never have gone overseas and dumped on his own country. Neither would have Reagan, FDR, or Lincoln and any U.S. president.
It is way past time for Middle East leaders to come over here and apologize to this nation for the long list of horrors committed across the globe by radical Muslims and to thank the U.S. for what this nation has done to help Muslims nations fight their oppressors.