April 30, 2009
- $100 million represents just 1/40,000 of the proposed budget for FY 2010.
- It is the amount the federal government spends every 13 minutes.
- For a family earning $40,000 annually, it would be like cutting $1 from the family budget.
- It’s less than one F-22 fighter plane.
- It’s less than 1/4 quarter of the budget increase Congress awarded to itself.
- It represents roughly one-twentieth of 1 percent of the $192.3 billion federal deficit for March.
April 30, 2009
What ever happened to President Obama’s promise of an open government? All Americans should be concerned about the partisan Democrat shenanigans taking place this weekend. Congressional leaders and the White House are spending the weekend hammering out final details of the proposed $3.5 trillion FY 2010 budget bill, with no Republican input, in a push toward final approval of the 2010 budget proposal by Wednesday. This would give President Obama something to “crow” about on Wednesday, when during prime time Obama plans to enumerate his 100 days in office accomplishment to the American people.
Because health care is one of the big drivers of government spending in Obama’s budget — nationalized health care for Democrats has been a dream since FDR — Democrats have decided to use a process called “reconciliation” to pass the budget bill in the Senate (Reconciliation waives the need for a super majority vote of 60; a majority vote will do.), so there is no chance that Republicans will be able to derail the bill. Also distressing is that debate will be limited without the possibility of amendments. This sounds like a power grab to me.
Democrats are attempting to create a brand new entitlement program that that will absorb 17% of our budget, all under the public radar (Obama’s 2010 budget proposal allows $600 billion for health care, but the real number is closer to $1.2 trillion.). The process of reconciliation will insure that the massive $3.5 trillion budget bill passes, which will pave the way for the takeover of this nation’s health care system based on a single-payer government plan, at a time when our government is already deep in long term and short term debt. This sounds like a power grab to me.
Are the American people really that unhappy with their health care? Is private care so bad that the American people are willing to surrender care decisions to a bureaucracy that cares little about the individual?
The Utopian notion that everyone is going to have health whenever and whatever their ailment is a pipe dream. Nationalized health care experiments in Canada and England have failed, yet the Obama Administration seeks to establish nationalized health care for the American people. This will not result in Obama’s promised reform of health care, but will instead usher in rationed and inferior health care in lieu of health care on demand. There will be long waits to have tests done, there will be an absence of private capital to develop new life saving drugs and treatment methods, and Americans doctors will find nationalized health care unacceptable and will leave their profession, resulting in the need to import foreign doctors who are willing to work for a fixed salary.
President Obama is not willing to compromise on health care, but are the American people willing to accept a straight-jacket-type of health care? I don’t think so, but given the Democrat’s stealth approach to their dream of legislating Universal Health Care, nationalized health care might be well on the way to reality before the American people realize what is happening.
Americans for Prosperity brought Fox News Commentator Fred Barnes to speaks in Lake County at Austin’s Saloon in Libertyville on Tuesday, April 28th, to provide an “insiders” perspective” on what is happening in Washington, D.C. and what it means for Illinois taxpayers. Americans for Prosperity is a grassroots government watchdog group of 400,000 members nationwide. Illinois has 20,000 members. Joe Calomino is the AFP-IL State Director.
AFP stands for less taxes and less government and is committed to advancing every individual’s rights to economic freedom and opportunity. For more information visit www.americansforprosperity.org or www.afpil.org
The event was attended by 320 people. In addition to Fred Barnes, other guest speakers included Greg Baise, Economic Freedom Alliance and Chairman of the Illinois Manufacturers Association; Phil Kerpen, National Policy Director, Americans for Prosperity; and Zonia Pino, Legislative Specialist on Energy and the Environment Heartland Institute.
Ron Gitwitz, a gubernatorial candidate in 2006 and former head of Helene Curtis cosmetics, now IL-Chairman of AFP, introduced Fred Barnes. Barnes is best known for his association with Fox News. He joined the Fox team in 1996.
Fred Barnes presented a message that was both hopeful and filled with concern. He believes that all this nation stands for is in jeopardy, but that the situation is not hopeless. While Democrats seek to ram through nationalized health care in their goal to empower government at the expense of the individual, Barnes feels that the importance of grassroots activism cannot be overlooked in its ability to stall or to stop the surge to increase taxes and spending and the power grab taking place in Washington. Barnes noted how Democrats have been pushed back in getting card check enacted. Cap and trade has also been slowed down and possiblity won’t be acted upon until next year.
Barnes spoke of how political events never follow a straight line of projection and how things can change because people can change them. As an explanation, Barnes told how Ronald Reagan spoke of Washington as surrounded on all sides by reality.
Regarding Obama, he was elected in November because he had the dialogue for what was perceived wrong in Washington, D.C. He would be bi-partisan and gave this reason why he should be elected. There was confusion by the voters as to whether Obama was a moderate or had the most liberal voting record of any president. His moderate rhetoric won the day.
It was interesting how Fred Barnes spoke about the Obama administration. There are no business people in Obama’s administration at the higher levels, only lawyers, those in academia and policy advocates. Within Obama’s administration there is only one solution to every problem – a government solution which requires money to be spent. Barnes spoke of Obama’s massive spending as possibly derailing the Obama administration and how liberal Al Hunt likewise expressed concern how such spending might doom Obama. Barnes described Washington, D. C. as a spending machine and how ridiculous it was for Obama to ask his cabinet to cut $100 million from his $3.6 trillion 2010 budget proposal, which according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office calculations would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year from 2010-2019. Buying supplies in bulk or using teleconferencing were suggested to Obama as ways to achieve the $100 million cut. This is government at its worst! The way business is done in Washington.
The scariest thing to Barnes is how Democrats wish to change our health care system. Everyone will have the choice to come to the public health care system, which in reality will be a government-run health care system. This will result in the rationing of health care and poor quality health care, as can be observed in countires that do have a single-payer system under a nationalized health care program. Democrats want people to believe that they will receive high quailty health care while at the same time will not have to pay as much for it.
Barnes went on to speak about what must be done to foster an economic recovery. Barnes spoke of the economy as being in the tank and that an economic recovery won’t happen soon.
What must be done to change it? We need to cut taxes across the board. People have lost confidence. We must create confidence in the American people that Washington knows what it is doing. Incentives must be given for people to create and to invest. Tax cuts create the conditions for people to make the right investments. There is now fear of inflation with all the borrowing and the printing of money.
In conclusion, Barnes admitted how the odds of stopping Obama’s initiatives seem long, hard and impossible, but how those at the grassroots level can make a difference. We must work to save America from what has never been before — a government that is more important than its people. We must let Washington hear our voices over those of interest groups. Washington must come to fear the power of the people.
April 25, 2009
Earth Day celebrations filled the calendar on Wednesday, April 22. The Chicago Tribune did its part in promoting Earth Day with NEW FOCUS commentaries by Joshua Boak and JimTankersley, which respectively told of Exelon’s plan for a solar power plant on Chicago’s South Side and of an Interior Department nod to build offshore wind turbines along the Atlantic Coast.
Speaking on Earth Day afternoon in Iowa, Pres. Obama lamented that only 3% of America’s electricity comes from renewable sources such as wind and solar. Obama then praised Denmark as a Scandinavian country that produces almost 20% of its electricity via the wind.
Evidently President Obama has not heard about the failure of the Danish wind power experiment. Here are the facts: Even with more than 6,000 turbines, Denmark has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. Needed is a 50% increase of coal-generated electricity to cover for wind power’s unpredictability. Regarding CO2 emissions, Flemming Nissen, head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM, relates how wind turbines cannot be counted upon to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. They may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions depending on the carbon-intensity of the back-up generation needed because of the intermittent nature of wind turbines. Most importantly, Denmark has the highest rate of electricity generation costs in Europe at 15 cents kwh. Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries said that “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.”
Even the promise of job creation is a bogus one. A recent detailed analysis (focusing mainly on Spain) found that for every job created by state-funded support of renewables like wind and solar, 2.2 jobs were lost.
America gets about one-ten-thousandth of its electricity from solar power, while wind power comes in at about 3%.
There is a reason why wind and solar power will never become viable sources of alternate energy here in America, despite the push toward a greener Earth. Electricity produced by wind and solar power is not cost- effective. In the real world, without government mandates and huge government subsidies, both make no sense. Nor will the American people tolerate the doubling and tripling of their electricity bills.
My response to an American Thinker blog post by Carol Negro on 4/18/09 – Yes, cannibalism is at the heart of Socialism
April 25, 2009
I felt an urgency, given the current rapid left-ward direction of this nation, to elaborate further on Carol Negro’s excellent AT blog post of Saturday, April 18 — “Socialism is really cannibalism.”
Yes, cannibalism is at the heart of Socialism. Under a Socialistic system the People are subject to the State; where in a Democracy the State is subject to the People. Socialism makes the state all-powerful, so the State picks and chooses who is to benefit from the People’s work, cannibalizing the efforts of the productive to benefit elites and curry favor from the unproductive. Invariably, over time, Socialism becomes tyrannical as the elites seize all power and both the productive and unproductive are enslaved. That’s the ultimate cannibalism of a person’s time and work
The Communist form of Socialism follows Karl Marx’s slogan “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” These two sides of society can never be defined because all people who are mentally and physically competent have abilities, and they all also have needs. But the slogan sounds seductively sweet to those who put feelings above reason — an endemic problem in our poorly educated populace — and I suspect in the poorly educated populace of Lenin’s and Stalin’s times.
Marx’s slogan also appears religiously utopian to anyone of Judeo/Christian heritage, which makes it incredibly corruptive. It sounds like it might have been spoken by Moses or Jesus, when actually it was a clever ploy by a 19thcentury atheistic philosopher to incite class warfare and subvert religion — which it has done very effectively as we see 150 years later. Most Christians and Jews today — and especially clergy — worship St. Karl. They see God has as a big pain withHis faith stuff, objective morality, natural law, requirement for deep theology, etc. He’s just so judgmental and insensitive!
So the country falls more and more for the happy-clappy Socialist religion, singing “we are the world,” being betrayed by media, entertainment, education, and religious elites, and falling madly in love with Barack Obama, an androgynous character of no character, who is piping them along like rats to the river.
April 22, 2009
It was interesting to see in the Chicago Sun-Times on Sunday, April 19, beneath the bold headline which read — CLIMATE AND CALAMITY — this shorter article: “Ex-WLS weatherman calls warming ‘greatest scam in history.'”
John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel and author of “The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam,” isn’t the only person speaking out about the false claims made by Al Gore and now being embraced by world leaders, including President Obama.
Man-made global warming, now conveniently called climate change, is being disputed by thousands of scientist world-wise. On January 31 Czech president Vaclav Klaus, a climate change skeptic, had these words for Al Gore while both were attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland: “I’m very sorry that some people like Al Gore are not ready to listen to the competing theories. I do listen to them.”
The Sun-Times would do well to check with Chicago’s own Heartland Institute who has done outstanding work in refuting Global Warming Myths. A must read is this book by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery of the Heartland Institute: “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 years.”
There are now calls to get skinny to save the planet by lessening ones global footprint. Please bring on that second piece of French Silk Chocolate Cream pie for me!
April 18, 2009
Spring brings thoughts of Ravinia Festival 2009 and of pleasant and exciting evenings spent listening to music in its beautiful Highland Park setting. There are over 120 events scheduled for this summer featuring an array of musical offerings sure to please everyone, even special activities and concerts to delight children!
Recently I had the privilege of attending a Ravinia Festival 2009 Season Preview Event at which time Welz Kauffman, President and CEO of the Ravinia Festival, spoke of some exciting new Ravinia innovations. Among them was how it is possible to get a reserved seat ticket, dining and parking for as low as $35.00. What a bargain in these tough economic times! As unbelievable as it may sound, Mr. Kauffman went on to list four pavilion concerts where every seat in the house is being offered at the low price of $25.00 – July 12, 15, 19 and Aug. 5.
A big hit last summer at several pavilion concerts were two large video screens up front and to each side of the stage which allowed the audience to have a close up look of the performers. It was pleasing to hear that video screens will be part of every pavilion concert this summer.
Celebrating the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, Ravinia has scheduled several concerts honoring our 16th president. Two of the concerts feature world-premiere tributes and demand checking out: Ramsy Lewis’s “Lincoln” on Friday, June 12 and the other commissioned by the Ravinia Festival from Tony-winning choreographer Bill T. Jones on September 17 and 19. Jones will strive to express through dance, with the New York-based Arnie Zane Dance Company, what Lincoln might have to say to us today. Be among the first to witness its world-premiere!
If you have never checked out the Ravinia website at www.Ravinia.org, you must do so now. It has a wealth of information to offer. Pick any concert date and you will be rewarded with information about the concert, the performers and even some music to wet your appetite.
Once you have become acquainted with Ravinia, you will realize what a treasure exists in your own back yard. Visit Ravinia and experience its magic. I have for over 35 years.
April 18, 2009
April 18, 2009
According to a recent Department of Home Land Security report issued by Janet Napolitano, I am an enemy of the state and a right wing extremist, because out of concern for this nation’s economic decline and its grab for power I attended Chicago’s April 15th Tea Party — one of over 700 in all 50 states.
The Chicago Sun-Times covered the event under the headline, “Tax protesters vent rage in Chicago, across U.S.” I found in bad taste a remark included in the article by U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky’s in which she labeled the protests as “an effort to misrepresent the public about the Obama economic plan.” She then went on to call the tea parties “a shameful political stunt.” Might Rep. Schakowsky have received her marching orders from the White House?
The truth is that the over 700 Tea Parties represented a grassroots movement with no specific leader or origin. Concern started with President Bush’s $168 billion economic stimulus, through the 2008 housing bailout, then came TARP I and Tarp II, followed by President Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus, and then the auto bailout, etc.
Is it any wonder why so many Americans have grown weary of the ever expanding size and scope of the federal government under the Obama Administration? The Tea Parties were reported as protests with rage. Protest they were, but those who participated in Chicago’s Tea Party were respectful and orderly with their expressions of concern. Worth noting by the Sun-Times is that there was no venting of rage in Chicago.
Hopefully Republican and Democrat politicians alike took notice of the voices they heard from participants of Tax Day Tea Parties. Their message was loud and clear. Things must change in Washington!
Even while Obama was using fear to convince the American people that failure to act quickly on the stimulus bill would turn a crisis into a catastrophe, the Obama administration was simultaneously setting in motion another leg of its power grabbing mission aimed at regulating and controlling free enterprise — its “greening” of America wish list.
Most disturbing is that the “greening” mania is based on the myth that CO2 is causing global warming — now promoted as climate change to cover all possible climatic variation — when carbon dioxide is a natural part of our soil and our atmosphere. Plants need CO2 to flourish. A plant denied carbon dioxide is like a human being denied oxygen. Both will die.
It is expected that the EPA will follow through with its proposed regulations for CO2, as announced in an advance notice in July of 2008. The Heritage Foundation estimates that the proposed regulations would cost the American economy easily $7 billion by 2029; result in millions of job losses, especially in the manufacturing sector; and drive up gas prices, food, transportation cost, and the price of manufactured goods.
A study done on Dec. 10, 2008, by Dr. Tim Ball, a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, concluded that pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today. Typically C02 is described at 0.03 percent. The current amount of CO2 in the air is around 0.04 percent.
Dr. S. Fred Singer, a Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University, in disputing the notion that human-caused carbon dioxide is behind current warming, wrote how reducing energy use by 30 percent within twenty years to bring the U.S. with the “Kyoto Protocol” treaty — the goal of the Obama administration — would only slightly reduce the current rate of increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
It is also a myth that the earth’s temperature is spiking. Over the centuries the atmosphere has repeatedly warmed and cooled. Many experts have noted that the globe hasn’t warmed since 1995. Pravda reported on January 9 that the earth is on the brink of entering another Ice Age.
The U.S. is presently experiencing a bone chilling winter, yet global warming continues to be mumbled to the shivering masses. Polar ice is accumulating faster than usual. Germany has had its coldest winter in a century. Heavy snow fell in France and Spain. Just recently England experienced paralyzing blizzard conditions. Even so, global warming disciples have suggested this year’s wild winter spells are proof of climate change!
Unfortunately many scientists have reaped millions from climate-change research which politicians utilize to make their points to the public. Such scientists do not care to examine the facts, but instead have turned their support for global warming into a cash cow through the use of grant and research money in the billions of dollars. Now hundreds of millions more for climate change research is being proposed for inclusion in the proposed stimulus bill!
Throughout the world there are thousands of promint scientists who believe that the warming and cooling of the earth is a cycle of nature that is unconnected with man’s activities. Dr. Will Happer, a prominent award winning Princeton University physicist once associated with Al Gore, declared in December of last year that man-made global warming fears are “mistaken.” He, along with 650 other dissenting scientists, signed on to a 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report from Environment and Public Works.
John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel and author of “The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam,” calls global warming “a hoax, bad science, and the greatest scam in history.” On Jan. 31 Czech president Vaclav Klaus, a climate change skeptic, and whose county holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, had these words for Al Gore while both were attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland: “I’m very sorry that some people like Al Gore are not ready to listen to the completing theories. I do listen to them.”
The key players are now in place in Washington, D.C. and in state governments across this nation to enact laws that tax citizens for their carbon footprints soon after the EPA officially declares CO2 a pollutant. Accordingly, the Obama administration will mark a new era in U.S. climate policy that has been eagerly awaited by countries and environmental groups who believe global warming is an urgent world-wide problem.
President-elect Obama provided these thoughts in a pre-recorded video message to 800 attendees from the U.S. and foreign countries at a 2008 mid-December Governors’ Global Climate Summit hosted by CA: “The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. . . . and once I take office you can be sure that the U.S. will once gain engage vigorously in these (UN climate) negotiations, and help lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change.”
In the same video message Barack Obama applauded the California’s approach to green issues, indicating that he wanted to base his greening of America on the great policies that CA has followed for years. Such a policy would be problematic, for under the mantle of environmental consciousness, as reported by Max Schulz in Human Events the week of Jan 19, “California’s model is broken: The state is bankrupt and so are its ideas on “green” economics.” CA has more businesses than any state in recent years and is facing a $40 billion deficit.
Another clue into the approach to climate change by the Obama administration came on January 13 at a confirmation hearing for Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. At the hearing Clinton spoke of climate change as a national security threat, with wars being fought over basic resources like food water and arable land.
In the aftermath of her confirmation, Clinton has vowed to use her cabinet position to shape foreign policy that would fight climate change. She views the upcoming 2009 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change conference in Copenhagen as the next opportunity for the U.S. to ratify a climate change treaty like the Kyoto Protocol which was rejected by the U.S. Senate in 1995 by a vote of 95 – 0.
Troubling is President Obama’s appointed energy team. It resembles an extreme green team rather than a pro-energy team. Nobel prize-winning physicist Steven Chu as Energy Secretary, thinks electricity prices are anomalously low; Ken Salazar (D-Colorado), heading the Department of the Interior, often opposed energy leasing on federal lands and in offshore areas; John Holdren as science advisor is know for his doom and gloom rhetoric; and Carol Brower, the president’s top assistant on every and climate policy, has a long history of placing environmental concerns above that of affordable energy and economic growth.
A Human Events article during the week of January 5 cautions the American people to expect Obama’s team to look with disfavor on coal and nuclear power, to support high European taxes on gasoline, and to favor investments in alternative forms of energy such as windmills, solar power, and other power sources that meet the criteria of clean and green energy.
Already the push toward the greening of America has begun. In the first week of the Obama administration, President Obama issued two Executive Orders that instructed key federal agencies to reexamine policies that could force automakers to produce more fuel-efficient cars that emit fewer greenhouse gas emissions (CO2). Lighter cars made of aluminum and plastic will achieve a higher Café standard, but they will also result in more injuries and deaths. It is folly to believe that government can revive the already failing auto industry by telling them what kind of cars they must produce, if people are not interested in buying the small, mandated green cars
Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chair of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, told reporters on Feb. 3rd that the Senate is ready to enact climate change legislation and that major climate change legislation could be introduced “in weeks, not months” that would include limiting emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide, such as emissions from coal-fired power plants and fossil-fueled vehicles.
Major policy shifts in climate policies WILL happen in the Obama administration. Many countries and environmental groups are already hailing the new era of U.S. climate policy under President Obama. Laws will be legislated and heralded by green crusaders, which will cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
Included in Obama’s plan is an aggressive cap and trade system — Obama wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050 — which would mean that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gas emitted would be charged to the polluter. In a moment of candor during the campaign season, Obama admitted that his cap and trade plan would bankrupt coal plants and cause energy prices to skyrocket. A study by the National Association of Manufacturers has projected that a Carbon Tax would potentially decrease U.S. GDP by up to $269 billion and cost 850,000 jobs by 2014.
Another myth held by many and being advanced by the Obama administration is that alternative fuels will save this nation and the planet from a catastrophic melt down. Accordingly, wind mills, solar power, and ethanol are being pushed as tomorrow’s answers to today’s prayers.
Regarding ethanol, it has been proven to be an unacceptable alternative fuel source. Ethanol is 20% to 30% less efficient than traditional gasoline, it is costly to make, and it wouldn’t survive in a free market without generous subsidies mandated by Congress using our tax dollars. The use of corn to produce ethanol has also resulted in higher food prices, as farmers are growing corn for fuel rather than corn for human consumption. Corn-based ethanol in gasoline also increases overall emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2).
What about wind power as an alternative energy source? S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery in their book, Unstoppable Global Warming (Every 1,500 Years) have this to say: “Windmills are huge structures that produce very little electricity – and then only when the wind blows within certain speed ranges. The cost of wind is not competitive and wind farms would not be constructed without massive subsidies.
Wind energy is growing rapidly in percentage terms only because the base from which it starts is tiny. EIA projects that wind energy will supply just 0.0025 percent of the U.S. electricity generation in 2020. Windmills produce only when the wind is blowing and the feasibility of storing electricity in batteries is limited and very expensive.”
Patrick J. Michaels in the November 2008 issue of Townhall magazine describes wind energy as a dubious investment and that without subsides it is nearly twice as expensive to produce as coal-fired electricity. He further notes that “wind turbines produce most of their electricity during off-peak house when wholesale electricity prices are lowest, and very little electricity during hot summer days, when wholesale electricity prices are highest.” Can you imagine having a one in three shot that you’re TV or light switch will turn on!
Despite the strikes against wind power, my home county, Lake County, IL, is exploring the wind issue. A few months ago the Lake County News-Sun, formerly the Waukegan News-Sun, reported that Libertyville trustees have agreed to amend the village code to allow for wind turbines to generate electric power. A more recent New-Sun article on Friday, Jan. 30, recounted how the Lake County Board is looking into having a wind farm near Wadsworth covering 380 acres, which would have up to 10 wind turbines, and which would generate up to 15 to 20 megawatts of energy, enough to provide electric power to 3,000 – 5,000 average homes.
Referenced in the Wall Street Journal on August 25, 2008, was how wind turbines made by Suzlon Energy Ltd. (the world’s fifth-largest wind-turbine maker by sales) are cracking because they cannot handle the wind.
Solar power also fails as a dependable and viable alternative energy source. Singer and Avery have this to say about solar power in their before-mentioned book, Unstoppable Global Warming (Every 1,000 Years): “Impressive amounts of (desert) land area would have to be devoted to this use in order to replace fossil fuel supplies. Most of today’s solar cells, which convert sunlight into electricity, are produced with expensive silicon”
The authors then go on to relate how there is some experimentation being done by a French-Italian company to use cheaper organic materials such as plastics to bring down the price of producing solar energy. Even so Singer and Avery conclude that solar radiation is relatively dilute as a viable alternative energy source.
Reported in the Heritage Foundation’s “Morning Bell” report on July 14, 2008 was shocking news that the world is powering up while America is powering down. The world seems to know that green sources of energy are inadequate to keep their people out to poverty. Countries in Europe to South America to Asia countries are building coal and nuclear power plants at a dizzying pace while also drilling for oil wherever they can find it. Will America be left behind by an administration that kow-tows to extreme environmentalists?
The Obama administration seems willing to impose a death wish upon this nation by its allegiance to an out-of-control environmental movement with its advocacy of carbon-emissions legislation which would limit needed energy sources.
Given the stance of the Obama administration, shouldn’t the real beneficiary of any carbon-emissions legislation be the revival of the nuclear industry. The nuclear industry has submitted 18 proposals for 28 new reactors before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but Obama’s environmental allies seem ready to lie down in front of bulldozers before allowing a nuclear reactor to be built. Global warming has become a new religion for these hard core environmentalists.
In California electrical generating capacity has not kept up with its rising demand. Because of environmental opposition to coal, oil, gas and nuclear power, the state has not built any new power plants in more than twelve years. It is frightening that Obama is using California’s and its failed green energy policies as his standard bearer for the rest of the nation!
And what about the status of energy needs here in my home state of Illinois? I’ve already recounted how wind turbines are being considered in communities not far from my Lake Bluff home in northern Illinois. The location of the proposed Wadsworth wind-farm is only miles away from a dual nuclear plant at Zion, IL, which was prematurely shut down in 1998.
The shutdown of an extremely low cost and carbon-free, already-built source of massive amounts of low-coat electricity, defies logic, when the nuclear facility could save northern Illinois consumers millions of dollars in energy purchase costs while reducing massive amounts of carbon output, particularly when Illinois customers have already paid for the plant and funded the decommissioning trust out of the own pockets in prior rates.
Exelon, the owner of the dual Zion Nuclear Plant, admitted in 2007 that the scarcity of low cost power in Illinois is driving up and will keep high for years unless low cost generation is built. The Zion Nuclear Plant needed new steam generators to remain operable. An unanswered question is why Exelon changed the steam generators at the Bryon and Braidwood Nuclear Sites in Illinois but allowed weeds to grow around the Zion Reactor Site? Illinois legislators and citizens should care.
Each of the Zion reactors would produce 1,000 megawatts of energy. Now contrast that to the measly 15 to 20 megawatts of power that would be generated by the proposed Wadsworth wind farm covering 380 acres of land.
Do wind farm proponents not realize that the life expectancy of windmills is about 20 years, which is about one fourth the life of a nuclear power plant? In addition, nuclear power plants don’t fail its customers. They run at a high capacity factor without being subjected to the wind blowing or the sun shining.
It is disconcerting that the Obama administration has bought into global warming big time. Their views are dangerous because drastic actions to curb CO2 will negatively impact the lives of the American people as they decimate this nation’s economic engine. This at a time when many reputable scientists are convinced that climate change is a natural phenomenon and that the earth has seen cycles lie this one on the average of about every 1,500 years.
Historic records indicate that people suffered during the “Little Ice Age” from around 1400 to 1850. Food became scarce and people starved. During the “medieval warm period” around 1100 A.D, when temperatures were at least as hot as they are now, life was good. There was plenty of food, even a surplus.
It was encouraging to learn from a recent Rasmussen poll that 59 percent of those surveyed don’t believe mankind is warming up the planet despite the scenarios of doom and gloom coming from Obama and his fellow Democrats.
According to CFACT (Collegians For a Constructive Tomorrow), a program formed to dispel the myth about global warming on college campuses: “Genuine environmental stewardship” is all about advancing practical solutions and approaches based on facts instead of Al Gores’s agenda of alarm and hysteria based on poor science. ” It is also “about intelligent conservtion of our resources, not reckless government intrusions in our businesses and private lives.”
At a time when many Americans are being indoctrinated in a belief system based on a political agenda rather than science, it becomes the responsibility of those who have not drunk the global warming Kool-Aid to question and to confront those who are pushing global warming propaganda.
Proposed climate change legislation that seeks to limit coal, oil and nuclear as sources of energy must be opposed in mass by the American people, unless they view with fondness the horse and buggy days. Not to do so would mean a victory for global warming alarmists and their agenda.
Is this the change the American people were hoping for?