By Andrew Bolt

Professor Sinclair Davidson contrasts what Kevin Rudd says his huge emissions taxes will cost against what Treasury told him they’d cost:

Another problem with the Prime Minister’s argument is jobs. Rudd says

Treasury modelling also demonstrates that all major employment sectors grow over the years to 2020 – substantially increasing employment from today’s levels. Treasury modelling also projects that clean industries will create sustainable jobs of the future – in fact by 2050 the renewable electricity sector will be 30 times larger than it is today.

Unfortunately that is not what the Treasury modelling indicates. At page 151 we read,

… real wages are assumed to adjust in the long run to ensure the labour market remains in equilibrium. As output slows slightly in response to emission pricing, firms’ demand for labour also slows slightly. In the short run, real wages are assumed to be sticky, taking up to 10 years to adjust, resulting in some temporary unemployment. However over time, real wage growth slows, demand for labour increases, returning employment to reference case levels …

The Treasury indicates that Australia will experience ‘up to 10 years’ of ‘temporary unemployment’ before real wages decline. Treasury forecasts that real wages might decline by anywhere between 5.4% and 11% relative to the reference case. That is why there is no unemployment; Treasury assume it away by imagining that real wages fall. At the same time, Treasury assume the green jobs and green technology into existence. That is not at all what Rudd told the Lowy Institute.

The CPRS is turning out to be a lot more expensive than first promised.

That is putting it mildly.

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog

From The Endive – The News Leader of the Known Universe

In a speech to Germans today, President Barack Obama expressed his theory that the mysterious Berlin Wall was actually a calendar used by the ancient druids.

“I think it’s obvious, by that, I mean, plain and simple,” said Obama, “By the way those big crazy stones were placed, that the druids used the Berlin Wall as a way to tell what year it was. I think they also did some sacrifices there, and would occasionally gather to play Bingo and attend to Shriner-like functions.”

Obama credits his extensive knowledge of ancient history and the Berlin Wall to multiple meetings with Jimmy Carter and Mikhael Gorbachev.

“Furthermore,” said Obama, “The Berlin Wall fell at the hands of George Washington, and his oft-quoted confession to his father – ‘I cannot tell a lie, Mr. Gorbachev, I tore down that wall.’”

Thousands of Germans in attendance, though perplexed by the President’s assertions, cheered wildly thanks to Obama’s masterful tone and cadence.

“What a great speaker he is,” said German citizen Helmut Ochs, “I remember when Kennedy came here. This guy makes John F. Kennedy look like Nipsy Russell.”

Kennedy is most famous among Germans for inadvertently referring to himself as a jelly doughnut when he misspoke an attempt to proclaim himself a “Berliner.”  Kennedy’s gaff was all but forgotten today as President Obama continued to explain how the druids desperately awaited the destruction of the Berlin wall so that everyone could “drive through to the town of Humbolt in their Government-issued Pontiac Aztecs.”

Later, in a private chat with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama was asked why he left out the role of Ronald Reagan in the destruction of the Berlin Wall.

“Ronald Reagan?” Replied Obama, “Oh yeah. He’s the guy who left all those freaking jelly beans in the White House.”

“By the way, Gordon,” added Obama, “Did you know that the druids of the Berlin Wall used to sacrifice live ferrets in order to appease the gaping mouth of a young Ethel Merman? Most people don’t know that about Ethel. She had a career before that guest spot on The Love Boat, you know.”

Obama then began to sing his own rendition of Merman’s “Everything’s Coming Up Roses” for Prime Minister Brown, who smiled and clapped along with what onlookers described as a ‘starry’ look in his eyes.

Read more Satire at The Endive

By Conn Carroll

When President Barack Obama was pitching his $787 billion economic stimulus package, the White House produced a report claiming their plan would keep unemployment under a peak of 8%.

Reality has not been kind to President Obama’s promises. On November 6, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released their Employment Situation Summary showing that the nation’s unemployment rate had soared from 9.8% to 10.2% in October. You can see how President Obama’s promises compare to reality to the right.

Reading the BLS report more closely, Heritage fellows Rea Hederman and James Sherk note:

Jobs losses in October–190,000–were higher than expected. … The unemployment rate for males is 10.7 percent while the teenage unemployment rate is 27.6 percent. These are the highest levels of unemployment for these groups since the Great Depression.

The unemployment rate increased even as 31,000 potential workers left the labor force. The labor force participation rate has now fallen to 65.1 percent–the lowest since 1986. When people reenter the labor market to find work, the unemployment rate will further increase.
…
Despite this ongoing deterioration in the job market, the Obama Administration continues to argue that the $800 billion stimulus bill has improved the economy. On October 30, the Administration released data claiming that the stimulus has created or saved 640,000 jobs. These claims are mistaken, as demonstrated by the 2.8 million jobs that have been lost since the stimulus became law. The Administration’s figures greatly exaggerate the positive effect of the stimulus for two reasons:

1. The data used to create these estimates contains serious flaws. The Administration provided unclear guidelines for how to report jobs created or saved. Media analyses of these jobs reports have found severe errors. For instance, the Associated Press found that two-thirds of the 15,000 jobs one agency reported creating or saving did not really exist. Rather, the agency reported workers who received raises with stimulus funding as having their jobs “saved.” In another case, a shoe store in Kentucky that provided nine pairs of boots to the Army Corps of Engineers for $889.60 reported saving nine jobs. Such errors pervade the stimulus job creation estimates.
2. A deeper problem with the Administration’s numbers is that they estimate the wrong figures. The Administration estimates the jobs directly funded by stimulus spending. However, they ignore the jobs that the money spent on the stimulus would have otherwise created. Congressional spending does not create wealth; it redistributes it. Had Congress not passed the stimulus bill, the private sector would have used those funds on other projects that would have also created jobs.

Conn Carroll is the Assistant Director of Strategic Communications at The Heritage Foundation and is also an Editor at The Foundry.

Read more from The Heritage Foundation at The Foundry

By Kasie Hunt and Anna Edney, with other contributors  (See others at the end of this article. Al)

Even as the Senate comes back for a brief session this week before Wednesday’s Veterans Day holiday, the stage is largely set for the rest of the year’s legislative agenda in the wake of House passage of a landmark healthcare overhaul bill late Saturday night.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

The House voted 220-215 to pass its version of health reform, but that milestone victory marks only the continuation of the bill’s long journey from the House to the president’s desk.

Action — or what passes for action — now moves to the Senate, where Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has already declared the House bill “dead on arrival.”

But Senate Majority Leader Reid’s office signaled he will try to complete a healthcare overhaul bill this year, even if it means weekend work.

“We will be in as much as necessary to get a bill done,” Reid spokesman Jim Manley said.

Reid indicated last week the overhaul’s passage might slip into next year.

Because CBO has not yet issued scores on overhaul proposals Reid sent scorekeepers two weeks ago, Manley said the Veterans Day recess is not in jeopardy.

Thanksgiving Day recess could see lawmakers putting in some extra hours, though that is not Reid’s preference. “He is inclined to give everyone Thanksgiving week off,” Manley said.   —-

If the Senate does pass a bill, it is likely to be drastically different from the one the House passed, setting up a contentious conference and forcing Democrats to rehash difficult fights over abortion and immigration.

But after months of town hall meetings and careful political calculation, House Democrats will spend a recess week in their districts finding out just how their votes play back home. The liberal advocacy group Health Care for America Now planned to meet members at their home airports over the weekend congratulating members who voted their way.

Even before the vote was cast Saturday night, Democrats and Republicans were provided by their leaders with recess packages with talking points.

Republicans intend to depict the bill as a “freight train” of runaway spending, bloated bureaucracy, higher taxes and federal mandates.

Democrats will hammer home a depiction of the bill as adding more stability and lowering medical costs for all Americans without adding to the deficit.

Democrats also were provided district-by-district impact fact sheets prepared by the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Democrats will be able to claim the vote was bipartisan — barely. Rep. Anh (Joseph) Cao of Louisiana was the only Republican to join with Democrats on Saturday.

All eyes will be on moderate Democrats in swing districts, no matter how they voted. Opposition to the bill was largely geographic, with the largest bloc of Democratic “no” votes coming from members in southern states, including Virginia, Arkansas and Alabama.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)

House Speaker Pelosi did well in the Midwest — every single Indiana Democrat, including Blue Dog Rep. Baron Hill, voted with her. Nearly all of Ohio’s Democrats — with the exception of Reps. John Boccieri, a moderate in a swing district, and Dennis Kucinich, who bucked the party from the left — voted for the bill.

While many will face serious political pressure from Republicans and interest groups back home, the vote is an acknowledgment that failing to pass healthcare could set up serious problems for members in swing districts in 2010.

“I think there’s a political imperative to pass health care. I ran on that,” said Rep. Zack Space, D-Ohio, a Blue Dog who voted for the bill.

Bringing those moderates on board required leaders to grant concession after concession at the expense of liberal Democrats who say they carried Obama to the Oval Office last year.

A last-minute deal forced Pelosi to allow Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., a floor vote to add Hyde Amendment language to the overall bill, codifying restrictions on federal abortion funding in statute for the first time.

Abortion rights groups are furious, and Democrats on both sides of the issue could get hammered at home: Those who voted with Stupak for betraying the party and those who voted against for failing to stand up to the pressure.

Manley said CBO’s analysis of the Senate proposal might come this week. Once Reid gets the scores, he will cobble together the Senate’s final overhaul bill based on the proposals that will produce the desired outcome of a cost under $900 billion that does not add to the deficit.

Reid has kept the content of those proposals secret except announcing he would include in the final bill a public option that will allow states to opt out if they choose.

Moderate senators are working on trying to change that. Many support a proposal from Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, to make participation in the public option dependent on a trigger mechanism measuring private insurers’ ability to provide affordable coverage.

Senate Democratic leaders this week hope to finish work on the $133.9 billion, FY10 Military Construction-VA Appropriations bill before recessing for Veterans Day, which is Wednesday.

“It is very important that we finish this bill before Veterans Day,” Reid said Friday. “I think that would send a very good message to the veterans of our country.”

That gives the Senate today and Tuesday to finish the measure. Reid said he hopes the Senate will be able to begin voting on amendments to the bill this evening.

Reid said that, in the past, the bill has been finished quickly by the Senate, and he hoped Republicans would cooperate.

“We need to get through this bill,” Reid said. “We have a lot to do before the year ends.”

Subcommittee Chairman Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD)

Military Construction-VA Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Tim Johnson, D-S.D., said Friday he plans to offer an amendment to the bill to add $50 million to VA funding to renovate empty buildings and VA medical campuses to provide housing and services to homeless veterans.

Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said he intends to offer an amendment to add $6 million to the VA’s Grant and Per Diem program, which provides capital and operational resources to assist homeless veterans. The amendment would boost funding in the program to $150 million.

Johnson said he intends to accept Udall’s amendment.

Senate consideration of the bill comes after the White House late last week issued a Statement of Administration Policy supporting the Senate bill.

The $133.9 billion of total funding in the measure is $7.1 billion over the $126.8 billion provided in FY09. The measure includes $76.7 billion in discretionary spending, which is $439 million more than requested by President Obama.

The bill appropriates $109 billion total for the Veterans Affairs Department, including $53.2 billion in discretionary funding, $150 million above Obama’s request.

Total funding for the department’s medical care accounts for FY10 would be $44.7 billion, $4.2 billion over FY09.

The legislation also approves $23.2 billion total for military construction projects, $286 million more than Obama’s request.

The measure includes an advanced appropriation of $48.2 billion for FY11 for the VA’s medical program to ensure uninterrupted funding, the first time the measure has done so.

To date, Congress has sent the president five of the 12 annual spending bills. The House has cleared its versions of all 12 bills, while the Senate has passed eight, including the $64.9 billion, FY10 Commerce-Justice-Science spending bill, which was approved Thursday.

Along with the C-J-S bill, House and Senate negotiators are working to reconcile differences between their versions of the FY10 Defense bill, and the FY10 Transportation-HUD bill.

Senate Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye said last week he hoped to finish work on the Defense and Transportation-HUD bills this week.

* The Senate meets today at 2 p.m. for morning business. Afterward, the chamber will resume consideration of the Military Construction-VA Appropriations bill.

* The House is not in session.

DEFENSE

House and Senate negotiators will continue to work behind closed doors this week to resolve remaining differences in the chambers’ versions of the FY10 Defense Appropriations bill.

Congressional staffers have been working for weeks on the bill and have largely completed the legislation. But the schedule for a formal conference on the $636 billion measure remains uncertain.

At issue is whether to use the must-pass defense spending measure as a vehicle for other legislation, including a bill to increase the national debt limit.

The Defense Department has said the military’s immediate bills are covered through the continuing resolution. The Pentagon ultimately will need the annual appropriations bill to pay for raises for military personnel and award contracts for programs.

ENVIRONMENT

Following last week’s approval of climate change legislation by the Environment and Public Works Committee despite a boycott by Republicans, two panels considered more moderate and representative of the Senate will examine potential details of a bill Tuesday.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-MT

The Finance Committee — chaired by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a key coal-state senator — looks at how jobs could be affected. The panel will hear from union and nuclear energy officials, as well as conservative and industry critics of a Senate cap-and-trade bill co-sponsored by Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry and Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer. That bill was reported out Thursday in Boxer’s panel without participation from the committee’s seven Republicans, who were seeking additional cost analysis from EPA.

Baucus was the only Democrat to oppose reporting it out, though he has predicted a bill would be approved this Congress. He opposes the Kerry-Boxer bill’s requirement for U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Baucus filed an amendment lowering that requirement to 17 percent, with a trigger of up to 20 percent depending on emission reductions agreed to by other nations. But the protest from Republicans prevented any of the roughly 80 amendments Democrats filed from being considered.

The Energy and Natural Resources Committee Tuesday will hold a hearing on policy options for addressing climate change, not limited to creating a cap-and-trade program.

The panel in June approved an energy bill backed by the committee’s leaders in both parties and which Reid wants to merge with a cap-and-trade strategy. Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Lisa Murkowski is a potential Republican backer of a cap-and-trade bill but has pushed for the debate to include alternatives.

She said last week’s move by Boxer’s panel “dooms that particular legislation” and might stall the climate debate in the Senate. Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman and Murkowski supported a cap-and-trade bill last Congress that had less aggressive targets than the Kerry-Boxer bill.

FINANCE

Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd is slated to unveil this week his draft for revamping the financial regulatory system without the support of Banking ranking member Richard Shelby, who wants to move at a slower pace.

The Dodd draft is likely to mirror a package that has been offered by House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank. One notable difference is Dodd will call for greater consolidation among banking regulators than the Obama administration or Frank has proposed by merging the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency with the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Dodd wants to further consolidate by merging the bank supervision duties of the Federal Reserve, which has jurisdiction over large bank holding companies and state-chartered banks, and the FDIC, which has oversight over most state-chartered banks, into the proposed agency. Frank contends such consolidation is politically unrealistic given opposition by the small-bank lobby.

The Senate panel will hold a Tuesday hearing on Dodd legislation that would rein in bank overdraft fees, which are expected to total $38.5 billion this year. The Dodd bill would require banks to get a customer’s consent before enrolling them in an overdraft protection program limit overdraft fees banks to one per month and six per year, and require the fees to be proportional to processing cost.

HOMELAND SECURITY

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee plans to vote Tuesday on the nomination of Erroll Southers to head the Transportation Security Administration.

The Senate Commerce Committee approved his nomination last month. “If confirmed, I will work to improve TSA’s ability to counter the terrorist threat to our transportation systems, while also safeguarding and enhancing the travel of people and the flow of goods,” Southers told the committee.

Southers said he has worked on public safety and counterterrorism matters at the federal, state and local levels for 30 years. He has served as assistant chief in charge of security and intelligence at Los Angeles International Airport’s police department since 2007.

He is also a former FBI agent and served as deputy director of the California Office of Homeland Security.

“To protect our transportation systems, it is critical to work with all our partners, including other federal agencies, state, local and tribal governments, private industry, our international partners, and most important of all, the traveling public,” he said. “By engaging these partners, we will more effectively protect the nation’s vital transportation systems to ensure the free flow of U.S. commerce and the free movement of the American people.”

JUDICIARY

The Supreme Court today will consider what types of business methods qualify for patent protection in a case with ramifications for the software, biotechnology and financial services industries.

In what is expected to be the most significant intellectual property case before the high court this term, the justices will review a lower court’s decision that narrowed the class of patentable inventions, excluding some innovations that do not have a physical component.

At issue is the Patent and Trademark Office’s rejection of an application by inventor Bernard Bilski, who tried to patent what some believe is an abstract idea to reduce risk in buying and selling commodities. The case marks the first time since 1981 the Supreme Court has ruled on the types of innovations covered by the U.S. Patent Act.

WHITE HOUSE

The president leaves Wednesday for an Asian swing through four countries. He will be in Japan on Thursday and Friday, where he is scheduled to deliver a major foreign policy speech. Later Friday, he will head to Singapore for the three-day Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum and meetings with other leaders. He heads to China on Sunday, then to South Korea, the final stop on his tour, on Nov. 18.

By Kasie Hunt and Anna Edney, with Billy House, Humberto Sanchez, Megan Scully, Darren Goode, Bill Swindell, Chris Strohm, Andrew Noyes and George E. Condon Jr., contributing

Read more timely articles at Congress Daily

With all the talk currently about the massive Health Care Bill, those other 2 Bills regarding the ‘perceived’ threat of Carbon Dioxide emissions may slide a little into the background. We need reminding that just because they are not at the forefront of the news, they are still important. Those two Bills, the Waxman Markey sponsored Bill in the House, and the Kerry Boxer Bill in the Senate may not be getting much in the way of news currently, but the importance attached to them still remains current, and while media attention focuses on the Health Care Bill, we still need to keep our eyes on the ball with respect to these Carbon Cap and Trade (Tax) Bills.

Australian Senator Barnaby Joyce (LNP-QLD)

Here in Australia, we have a similar Bill. It’s called the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. (CPRS) The name of the Bill is in itself anachronistic.

‘Carbon Pollution’

It’s another example of Government misdirection, using the language to ‘con’ the public, in effect trying to paint them as stupid, the thought being of how could anyone oppose something that has such a pure intent, and that the Carbon they mention in that title as pollution is Carbon Dioxide, a tiny trace gas in the Atmosphere, essential for all life here on Earth.

Currently, the CPRS Bill has become more of a political tool, and really has nothing at all to do with the Environment. That political situation is complex, and needs some explanation of the background.

The current Government is from the Labor side of politics, and for reference, this Party is from the Left, and in the U.S. the party with similar views is the Democratic Party.

The former Government was from the Conservative side of politics, and was a coalition of two similar parties, the Liberal Party and the National Party. Where I say the word Liberal here, don’t be confused, because in the U.S. that word liberal is associated with the Left, and the Democrats, while here in Australia, the Liberal Party is the main Conservative Party, and has similar views to the Republicans in the U.S. Unlike the U.S. where you have dedicated 4 year terms, here in Australia, the Government is loosely tied to 3 year terms, that 3 years being the maximum with a little leeway over that allowed. However, The Government can effectively choose the time to go to the people at any time during those three years, by calling for an early election, and this in fact has happened on numerous occasions in the past.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his Deputy Julia Gillard.

Currently the Labor Government has control of the main House of Representatives where they have quite a large majority of sitting members. There are 150 members and Labor currently has 83 of those members. The (Conservative) Coalition has 55 Liberal members and 9 from the National Party, and there are 3 Independents. The Senate however is different. Senators are elected for a six year term. At a constituted Federal Election, all members from the Representatives are up for re-election, and half the Senators are up for re-election. This is a good system in that it negates in a way the possibility of one Party which is popular at the time of the election not winning outright control of both the full houses, thus effectively making the Senate a virtual ‘rubber stamp’. Hence, only half the Senators are up for election, and if the Senate is balanced, then the Party that gains a majority of that popular vote will still not have complete control of the Senate. The main States have a complement of 10 Senators, and at each election 5 Senators are elected from each of those main States. The Senate has a total complement of 76, and currently the Labor Government has 32 Senators. The Liberal Party also has 32 and their Coalition partners, the  National Party have 4 Senators. There are 5 Greens, and also 3 other Senators from minor parties and Independents. So While Labor has 32 Senators, there are in effect 44 Non Labor Senators, so while the Labor Government controls the lower House, they do not have that control in the Senate. As a matter of interest, voting in Australia is compulsory for all persons over the age of 18, and not an optional thing as it is in the U.S.

So, why has the CPRS Bill become a political tool?

Following the 2007 election when Labor took office, they then proceeded to draw up and to introduce legislation for their plank that they ran on. One of those pieces of Legislation was this CPRS. That Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives, and underwent some fierce debate, all of which was a little academic really, because with the numbers, it was certain to pass through that House.

When the Bill reached the Senate however, it was an entirely different thing altogether. It was roundly opposed by the Non Labor side of the Senate. The Liberal and National Senators opposed it for their reasons, mainly that it was an iniquitous new tax passed directly to the people, that it was a job destroyer, exporting Australian jobs to what are deemed Developing Countries, in the main China, and that it was counter productive for the farming and grazing community in regional Australia. The Greens opposed it because they said it didn’t go far enough, and the Independents opposed it for their own reasons. There was again fierce and quite long debate, and the Bill was put out to Committee as well. Labor was always going to have trouble with the numbers stacked against it, and the Bill was voted down when it did come to a vote.

That however was not the end of it. The Bill was sent back to the lower House. The intent was that it would undergo a phase of Amendment where non Labor parties might add amendments to make the Bill more acceptable to the Senate, well, hopefully anyway.

The Labor Government has made great play in calling for these amendments, in good faith they say. They keep pressing the line that the Conservative side of the fence has no real policy on the matter. Again that is more spin than anything, because it is the Government who sets policy, not the Opposition. If the Opposition was to attempt to introduce policy, the Government would not just say, “well, okay, we’ll do that then.” No Governments set policy not Oppositions, so that is patently just out and out spin on their part, and aimed specifically for the media, which, as in the U.S. leans also to the left.

They have called for amendments and say that they will consider them. Again that is also spin. because the two sides are diametrically opposed on some parts of the legislation, there is no way known they will even consider approving those amendments, be they from the Conservative Coalition, the Greens or the Independents. There are already rumblings from the Government that those amendments are not being done in good faith, which is just Government code for ‘They can propose whatever they want to. We’re not going to accept them anyway’.

So, after this process, the Bill will go back to House of Representatives for debate, Committee, and then a vote, and I can tell you now what the result of that vote will be. It will be passed easily on the Government numbers where they have that considerable majority.

Then, the Bill will be sent back to the Senate for another round. This is where it gets a little complicated now, and again I need to offer some explanation.

If a Bill has been rejected twice by the Senate, that provides the Government with a trigger for a Double Dissolution election. This means that all members in the Lower House come up for re-election, and instead of half the Senate, a Double Dissolution means that ALL senators come up for election.

What this then means is that the Party riding high in the popularity stakes when the election is called has the distinct probability of comfortably winning both the House and the Senate. This effectively means that the Senate then does become just that rubber stamp, and at the next election when it reverts back to a half Senate election, then the incumbent Government would still hold a comfortable majority in the Senate even if things do go against them. What it most effectively accomplishes is that it cements control in the Senate for one side of politics. They can then safely gain passage for whatever they want, no matter how good or bad it is, and no matter what the public thinks. They are in effect entrenching their own Party into the Senate. Not looking after the interests of the people or the Country, but strengthening their own political power, only looking out for themselves.

So then, let’s go back now to the CPRS Bill.

The Government is ’subliminally’ threatening a Double Dissolution election if this Bill fails in the Senate. They tell us that this Bill just HAS to be passed prior to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference.

So let’s put it into the context of that trigger for a Double Dissolution election. There are 27 days until that Conference in Copenhagen, three weeks.

This CPRS Bill is in the amendment phase right now. After that it will go to the House for Debate etc and that rubber stamp vote in that House. Then it will be sent to the Senate where that procedural process will again be carried out. If it fails there again, and that is highly likely, then the Government has its trigger. It calls the Double Dissolution election, and this will mean at the shortest, a sharp two week snap campaign. After the election, the Government then has to be legally constituted. Then the Government has to convene in both Houses and go through the whole process again, taking the new Bill before both houses. This will take considerably longer than the three week lead up to Copenhagen.

So the Government has cynically used this CPRS Bill, not for the sake of the Environment which it so often tells us at interminable length, but in an effort to find a way to strengthen their own power.

This is the single most disgusting abuse of power that could ever be imagined.

Senator Penny Wong, Australian Government Minister for Climate Change and Water. To hide the Thumbnails, click on the white arrow on the right.

All the indicators are that the Minister for Climate Change, Senator Penny Wong is angling directly for just this purpose. She is saying all the right things for the benefit of the media, things like ‘we are listening’, ‘we are working together’, ‘we are trying to find an amicable solution’, ‘we are listening to their proposals’. However, in the same breath, small snippets are coming out like ‘they are not really serious’, ‘we can’t agree with some points’, and on it goes. All this is just code for ‘Who cares what they propose. We’re the Government, and we’ll do what WE want’.

They’ll send the New Revised Bill to the House, who will knock the amendments on the head, after debate, committee, and a vote, and then send it to the Senate, who will reject it again, thus giving them their desired trigger, and then saying that it was not their fault, and that this was forced on them. It is patently transparent for all to see just what is happening.

DO NOT TRY AND TELL ME THIS IS FOR THE SAKE OF THE ENVIRONMENT.

That same Senator Wong with the help of her minions in the government funded media network, the ABC, are actively seeking to marginalise those non Labor members, branding them with the epithets of sceptics and deniers.

One of those non Labor Senators actively arguing against passage of this iniquitous Bill is Senator Barnaby Joyce from my home State of Queensland. He is one of those who actively oppose the Government on this matter, and is not afraid to come out and say so, and to be seen saying so. His is one voice among a growing chorus of non Labor politicians who are lining up against passage of this Bill.

Senator Joyce has in fact implemented an online petition where Australians can voice their opposition to this horrendous new tax that is passed off in the guise of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. That petition is currently in the process of going ‘viral’, and has literally thousands of entries in the short time it has been posted. Here is the link to that petition, so you can see for yourself.

For some background on Senator Joyce, take this link to this earlier post where I did some background on him, and this is the link to his home page and this link is for his Bio.

So, in Australia, just like in the U.S. the  passage of a Bill to place a Cap and Trade Tax on Carbon Dioxide emissions has very little, if anything at all to do with the Environment. It’s just for the sake of politics and the money that can be made from it.

by Darren Goode

Two EPA employees who posted a YouTube video critical of the Obama administration’s support of a House-passed climate bill are weighing whether to challenge the agency’s demand that they remove or edit the video.

According to the two attorneys — a married couple who work in EPA’s San Francisco office – EPA ordered them to either take down or remove any references that they work for the agency in a 10-minute critique they posted on the administration’s backing of the House bill. The order came Thursday, and the couple had one day to comply, they said.

The decision might spark an unprecedented legal battle based on two factors: the increased use of YouTube and other online video servers as a communication tool and the argument over whether the EPA attorneys, Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel, have the “ability to speak as private citizens about what they’re doing on the job,” said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “This is all a brand new world.”

According to a copy of an EPA directive provided by PEER, the two were ordered to either take down the video by close of business the next day or remove language referencing their connection to the agency.

It also states that future requests for approval for “an outside writing activity must be accompanied by a draft of the document” so that it can be determined whether it complies with government ethics rules and regulations. It also threatens that “your failure to follow my instructions could lead to disciplinary action.” The PEER copy does not indicate who at the agency sent the notice.

An EPA spokesman declined to comment by presstime.  (Video Link on next page. —ed)   —-

After Williams and Zabel complied with EPA and took down their video Friday, PEER reposted it on the site.

Ruch said Williams and Zabel are deciding whether they should challenge the agency’s order in the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent, quasi-judicial executive agency.

The two EPA attorneys were able to initially have their video approved by agency ethics officials in the San Francisco office, but officials, possibly those in the Washington office, re-examined the video after the two wrote an Oct. 31 op-ed in The Washington Post that covered similar ground as in the video and provided a link to the video itself, Ruch said.

In the video titled “The Huge Mistake,” Williams said they are “speaking out as parents, citizens, a married couple and attorneys.”

Zabel then added: “Our opinions are based on more than 20 years each working as attorneys at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the San Francisco regional office.”

“However, nothing in this video is intended to represent the views of EPA or the Obama administration,” he continued.

The video starts with Williams saying, “Congress is about to make a huge mistake on climate change,” and that the House bill the administration supports is “fatally flawed.”

Zabel then says: “The push to launch this climate bill reminds us of the ill-fated launch of the Space Shuttle Challenger” in that those responsible for the launch “refused to listen to the rocket designers with the experience to know the shuttle was fatally flawed. This failure to listen resulted in tragedy.”

The two go on to recommend the adoption of phased-in carbon fees and monthly rebates to consumers to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions instead of cap-and-trade programs established in the House bill and a companion measure pending in the Senate.

Read more timely articles at Congress Daily

Video by Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel

According to the two attorneys — a married couple who work in EPA’s San Francisco office – EPA ordered them to either take down or remove any references that they work for the agency in a 10-minute critique they posted on the administration’s backing of the House bill. …

…The video starts with Williams saying, “Congress is about to make a huge mistake on climate change,” and that the House bill the administration supports is “fatally flawed.”…

Read more about it here EPA Lawyers Say Agency Quashed Video

by Billy House

At her celebratory news conference after Saturday’s narrow passage of the healthcare bill, Speaker Pelosi was asked if the grueling vote might have left her Democratic Caucus unable or unwilling to tackle other difficult issues, such as immigration reform.

“Are you Scrooge early?” Pelosi responded sharply. “I reject your premise. No.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

But Pelosi’s healthcare victory this weekend marks the second time in four months – along with the climate-change vote in July – that she has pushed, prodded and bullied House Democrats to move ahead of the Senate on a politically difficult bill.

The Senate has yet to act on climate-change legislation and is not likely to do so until next year. Senate Majority Leader Reid is suggesting Senate action on a health bill might not come until December at the earliest.

Pelosi said she can’t worry about the Senate’s timetable, even though some rank-and-file House Democrats are out on a limb politically and angry at being pushed into potentially career-threatening votes.

And hearing Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and others declare the House bill dead on arrival in the Senate can only rub salt in their wounds.

“I don’t think there’s any question about that,” said Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla., who voted against the health bill but backed the climate bill and became a target of local protests. Boyd said he views himself as among those being on the hot seat at home.

Other Democrats, including some of Pelosi’s closest allies, describe a feeling of being burned in Saturday night’s rush to pass a bill.   —

Abortion-rights leaders in the Democratic Caucus are upset the bill they voted on Saturday night included an amendment that they say will effectively ban abortion coverage in all health plans, private and public. It was a late concession by Pelosi to maintain the votes needed for passage.

“Such a terrible, last-minute amendment to a critical, historic piece of legislation is a shame,” said the co-chairwomen of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, Reps. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., and Diana DeGette, D-Colo.

For Pelosi, it all appears to be the cost of moving the process forward and trying to get the Senate to act.

At the same time, she seemed to make it clear Saturday night that the health bill being passed is just a first step, something on which “we will continue to seek common ground,” including on the abortion language.

Other Democrats who voted in favor of the health bill acknowledge a similar sentiment. Some say they voted for the bill to get the Senate moving, not because they like the legislation all that much.

“My vote is not an endorsement of all the provisions of the bill because I find much of the bill to be deeply flawed,” said Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn. “My reason for voting yes is to advance the cause of healthcare reform by forcing the Senate to act.”

If the House didn’t act, Cooper said, “the Senate could delay reform indefinitely.”

Read more timely articles at Congress Daily

The Patriot Post -  Monday Brief

The Foundation

Saturday Night Special -- "transparency" in action

“History affords us many instances of the ruin of states, by the prosecution of measures ill suited to the temper and genius of their people. The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy.” –Benjamin Franklin

Political Futures

“The push to get a health care reform bill through the U.S. House over the weekend was a classic political maneuver called ‘changing the narrative.’ It worked. Last week was a really, REALLY, bad news week for the Obama Administration. There was so much bad news that one story cascaded over another and, ultimately, they cancelled each other out. … The decision to press for a Saturday vote on health care was formulated as soon as the Obama Administration realized how bad the job numbers were going to be. When the election results came in Tuesday night, that made the need to change the narrative even more important. After the Fort Hood horror, it became imperative. Among those voting for the health care bill was the new Congressman from NY-23, Bill Owens, who had said during the campaign that he was opposed to the public option. … No matter how much the popular press pretends that the vote shows real momentum for a major overhaul of the nation’s health care system, it was approved with a [five]-vote margin which does not sound like a choo-choo train racing across the Capitol Rotunda toward the Senate Chamber. The narrative may have changed for now, but the problems facing the Obama Administration continue to grow.” –political analyst Rich Galen

We Depend on You

“We should never despair, our Situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times.” –George Washington

Readers, our 2009 Annual Fund support campaign is under way. Our team of writers, editors and support staff depend on your financial support so that we may continue to offer The Patriot Post, free of charge, to countless thousands of our military, collegiate and mission field readers.

As with other mission-based, donor-supported organizations, we raise most of our budget in the last two months of each year. At latest accounting, we still must raise $302,786 before year’s end.

If you have not already done so, please take a moment to support The Patriot today with a secure online donation — however large or small. If you prefer to support The Patriot by mail, please use our printable donor form.

Every dollar you contribute provides a free subscription for someone serving our nation, or a young person who will fill a family, community and national leadership role in the next generation.

I thank you for the honor and privilege of serving you as editor and publisher of The Patriot Post. On behalf of your Patriot staff and National Advisory Committee, thank you and may God bless you and your family.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

Liberty

“Can Washington Make You Buy Health Insurance? Yes, yes, says White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Congress has the power to make everyone buy health insurance. ‘I don’t believe there’s a lot of case law that would demonstrate the veracity’ of comments to the contrary. Thank you, Mr. Justice Gibbs. We’ll see about all that when — if — the matter of Congress’ power over private commercial judgments of this nature gets to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile the knock-down, drag-out over health insurance ‘reform’ shouldn’t be allowed to fuzz up another immensely vital question; to wit, how in James Madison’s name have we reached the point that Congress can so much as contemplate telling you, and you, and you, and all of us that we’ll buy health insurance, like it or not, Buster? Why do we have to? Because the government says so, isn’t that reason enough? For Mr. Justice Gibbs, and the people who employ him, it is. Just about anything Congress decides to do in the name of uplift seems to be constitutional: In other words, in accord with written stipulations as to what the national government may and may not do. Several problems arise concerning this fine theory: — It’s nonsense. It contravenes the whole constitutional concept of divided powers: particular functions reserved to particular branches of government. And other powers divided between states and the national government. — It threatens liberty. A government that knows no limits to its power can be counted on to step more and more heavily on citizens’ rights and privileges. All for the ‘general good’ naturally! — It divides the citizens. On the one hand, those who want particular favors from government; on the other hand, those who deny that government has the right to dispense such favors. The Obama administration, which desperately wants health care to pass, brushes off such concerns as cranky and relevant mainly to wild-eyed Limbaugh and Palin fans, when in fact concerns about the rightful exercise of government power should inform every legislative debate. Those it doesn’t inform are likely to end badly. Majority support of this or that initiative doesn’t legitimize the initiative.” –William Murchison, senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation

For the Record

“Does the U.S. Constitution stand for anything in an era of government excess? Can that founding document, which is supposed to restrain the power and reach of a centralized federal government, slow down the juggernaut of czars, health insurance overhaul and anything else this administration and Congress wish to do that is not in the Constitution? The Framers created a limited government, thus ensuring individuals would have the opportunity to become all that their talents and persistence would allow. The Left has put aside the original Constitution in favor of a ‘living document’ that they believe allows them to do whatever they want and demand more tax dollars with which to do it. Can they be stopped? Some constitutional scholars think the Tenth Amendment offers the best opportunity. The Tenth Amendment states: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ … Constitutional Attorney John Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, tells me, ‘Although the states surrendered many of their powers to the new federal government, they retained a residuary and inviolable sovereignty that is reflected throughout the Constitution’s text. The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and federal governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Court’s jurisprudence makes clear that the federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.’ Lawyers are busy writing language only they can understand which seeks to circumvent the intentions of the Founders. But it will be difficult to circumvent the last four words of the Tenth Amendment, which state unambiguously where ultimate power lies: ‘…or to the people.’ Americans who believe their government should not be a giant ATM, dispensing money and benefits to people who have not earned them, and who want their country returned to its founding principles, must now exercise that power before it is taken from them. The Tenth Amendment is one place to begin.” –columnist Cal Thomas

The Gipper

“Great nations which fail to meet their responsibilities are consigned to the dust bin of history. We grew from that small, weak republic which had as its assets spirit, optimism, faith in God and an unshakeable belief that free men and women could govern themselves wisely. We became the leader of the free world, an example for all those who cherish freedom. If we are to continue to be that example — if we are to preserve our own freedom — we must understand those who would dominate us and deal with them with determination.” –Ronald Reagan

Marine Corps Birthday

On Nov. 10, 1775, the Second Continental Congress resolved to create two battalions of Continental Marines for the War of Independence from Britain. In 1798, President John Adams signed the Act establishing the United States Marine Corps. The 13th Commandant of the Marine Corps, General John A. Lejeune, issued Marine Corps Order No. 47, Series 1921, directing that on Nov. 10 every year, in honor of the Corps’ birthday, the Order’s summary of the history, mission and tradition of the Corps be read to every command.

We at The Patriot offer our thanks for a job well done. For those interested in great items bearing the Marine Corps’ insignia, please visit The Patriot Shop. Semper Fi!

Government

“One of the strongest talking points of those who want a government-run medical care system is that we simply cannot afford the high and rising costs of medical care under the current system. First of all, what we can afford has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of producing anything. We will either pay those costs or not get the benefits. Moreover, if we cannot afford the quantity and quality of medical care that we want now, the government has no miraculous way of enabling us to afford it in the future. If you think the government can lower medical costs by eliminating ‘waste, fraud and abuse,’ as some Washington politicians claim, the logical question is: Why haven’t they done that already? Over the years, scandal after scandal has shown waste, fraud and abuse to be rampant in Medicare and Medicaid. Why would anyone imagine that a new government medical program will do what existing government medical programs have clearly failed to do? If we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical drugs now, how can we afford to pay for doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical drugs, in addition to a new federal bureaucracy to administer a government-run medical system?” –economist Thomas Sowell

Culture

“Those of us who are not true believers in expanded government are certain of the following: If the 1,990-page House Health Care Bill becomes law, the average American will receive worse health care, American physicians will decline in status and income, American medical innovation will dramatically slow down and pharmaceutical discoveries will decline in number and quality. And, of course, the economy of the United States will deteriorate, perhaps permanently. However, we are also certain that there is one American group that will thrive — trial lawyers. The very existence of a 1,990-page law guarantees years of, if not more or less permanent, lawsuits. And the law actually specifies that states that do not limit attorneys’ fees in cases of medical malpractice shall be financially rewarded. … Nothing better illustrates the reorientation — indeed, the transformation — of values that will take place if the Democrats’ health care legislation is passed. … No rational person argues that society doesn’t need law or lawyers, or that all lawyers, even trial lawyers, do no good. That is certainly not what is being argued here. But it does say something about a society when those who sue physicians and hospitals make as much or more money than those who heal disease. It says something about a society when it glorifies and rewards those who litigate while it demonizes and punishes those who produce the drugs and devices that keep its citizens alive and well. This is part of the upside-down world the left is bequeathing to us and our children in the name of health care ‘reform.’” –radio talk-show host Dennis Prager

Re: The Left

“If Obama can deny that a charge is a tax even when it’s collected by the IRS and identified as a ‘tax’ in the legislation creating it, he surely sees nothing tax-like in the money people are required to spend if they want to avoid that charge. Yet forcing people to buy insurance they do not want so their premiums can subsidize other people’s health care looks a lot like a tax-funded welfare program, even if the money does not flow through the public treasury. Furthermore, when businesses buy government-required health insurance or pay a penalty for failing to do so, that money comes at the expense of employee compensation. … ‘What we are saying,’ House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., explained last week, ‘is everybody will contribute … to making sure that health care options are available to all of our citizens.’ So we’re talking about a legally required contribution that will be used to provide a government-arranged benefit. If only there were a shorter way of expressing that concept.” –columnist Jacob Sullum

Reader Comments

“The Patriot Post is an awesome conservative read that I always look forward to and I appreciate that it is dedicated to the memory of our great former president, Ronald Reagan. I am honored to support Mr. Alexander and his staff in their efforts and I consider them irreplaceable to our constitutional republic and our continuing freedom. (Your ad-free presentation is also a definite plus). I can sense a deep patriotic current running through the pages of the Post, one which would not hesitate to physically defend our republic if needed. Know that many of us among your subscribers feel a kinship with you in that respect.” –Esther

“Mr. Alexander, while I’m glad you are saying what you are saying, there is no way I’ll donate to you. You’ve come aboard too late to the liberty movement. You had your chance during the previous election cycle to prove that you are not all words. You let true conservatism down. Not as bad as Newt who supported the establishment RINO. Well so did you. McCain, Rudy, Huckbeee and even Fred Thompson were all frauds. Albeit Thompson not as bad as the rest. I’ll send my donations to true patriots.” –Jim

“You guys are the best. I can do without to donate $26.00 just because your mission is so important. Seriously, if I had it, I’d personally donate the entire $325,000.00, just so you could have a chance to reach that many more people. And to ‘Jim’: I’m curious exactly what true patriots you’re going to send you’re money to. Is there someone who can reach more people? Is there some other organization that’s exposing the lies and corruption? Is there someone else out there who is providing patriotic quotes, columns and news, and trying to organize people? If so, who are they?” –Billy396

“The groundswell of patriotic conservatism now building in our country is like a gentle spring breeze that comes after a long hard winter. It reminds me of the early days of WW11 when we gathered around the family radio hoping for some good news, which rarely came during 1941 and 1942. When the tide finally began to turn in our favor it raised the spirits of all of us and gave us hope for the future. I have that same feeling now.” –John

Opinion in Brief

“In the aftermath of last year’s Obama sweep, we heard endlessly about its fundamental, revolutionary, transformational nature. How it was ushering in an FDR-like realignment for the 21st century in which new demographics — most prominently, rising minorities and the young — would bury the GOP far into the future. One book proclaimed ‘The Death of Conservatism,’ while the more modest merely predicted the terminal decline of the Republican Party into a regional party of the Deep South or a rump party of marginalized angry white men. This was all ridiculous from the beginning. 2008 was a historical anomaly. A uniquely charismatic candidate was running at a time of deep war weariness, with an intensely unpopular Republican president, against a politically incompetent opponent, amid the greatest financial collapse since the Great Depression. And still he won by only seven points. Exactly a year later comes the empirical validation of that skepticism. … What happened? The vaunted Obama realignment vanished. … The Obama coattails of 2008 are gone. The expansion of the electorate, the excitement of the young, came in uniquely propitious Democratic circumstances and amid unparalleled enthusiasm for electing the first African-American president. November ‘08 was one-shot, one-time, never to be replicated. Nor was November ‘09 a realignment. It was a return to the norm — and definitive confirmation that 2008 was one of the great flukes in American political history.” –columnist Charles Krauthammer

The Last Word

“These are the times that try conservatives’ souls. A liberal president wants funding for defense slashed. Congress aims to increase taxes and regulate just about everything. Activist judges create new ‘rights’ while ignoring long-standing precedent. So why remain upbeat? Because our country still has the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They’re the touchstones of our liberty — and the conservative trump cards in the battle of ideas. ‘We don’t need to remake America, or discover new and untested principles,’ writes scholar Matthew Spalding in his latest book. ‘The change we need is not the rejection of America’s principles but a great renewal of these permanent truths about humanity, politics, and liberty — the foundational principles and constitutional wisdom that are the true roots of our country’s greatness.’ In short, we need a roadmap back to where our country should be. … Every American should know the founding principles of our country. ‘The meaning and power of these ideas will be lost in the course of a lifetime if they are not taught to each generation of students,’ Spalding warns. … The principles of our Declaration and our Constitution must again become ‘an expression of the American mind,’ as Thomas Jefferson once said. We can — and must — insist that our leaders again abide by true constitutional principles. But we also must rediscover these principles as a people if we are to reclaim our future.” –Edwin J. Feulner, president of The Heritage Foundation

Read more informative articles at The Patriot Post.US

By Alan Caruba

I am always wary of conspiracy theories. Most can be explained away as shared ideologies which, in the case of the current and recently past Congresses and White Houses, can be described as socialism. It did not and does not matter which Party was or is in power.

The other explanation for the national car wreck we’re in is just plain “stupidity.” Another way of describing this is “willful ignorance.” Both apply when the President, Senators or Representatives say things that have no basis in fact either historically or empirically.

We all know, for example, that it is getting colder no matter where we live, but the President has been lying about “global warming” and “greenhouse gas emissions” for some time now.

Similarly, Congress, going back to 1979 or so, has been doing everything in its capacity to thwart access to the tremendous reserves of energy in America, thus forcing Americans to pay more for imported oil and to subsidize the worst possible way to generate electricity, wind and solar power.

It has banned the manufacture or import of incandescent light bulbs starting in 2010.

It determines how much water can be used to flush your toilet.

It determines the content of every gallon of gasoline, requiring that ethanol be a component even though ethanol ensures less mileage and more carbon dioxide emissions from the tailpipe. It also drives up the cost of all foods made from corn or the livestock to which it is fed.

What kind of nation fails the most essential element of a modern society, the maintenance of its infrastructure? America’s roads, bridges, ports and other elements of infrastructure are sorely in need of repair or replacement. It’s not happening along with the failure to build a single new nuclear plant, nor refinery in three decades.

Meanwhile, following a Bush “stimulus” effort and an Obama “stimulus” bill, the economy remains mired in the doldrums. Unemployment has risen above 10%, the worst since 1983. Things like this don’t happen without a cause and, as Ronald Reagan used to say, “Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem.”

In a similar fashion, during a 1959 interview with Mike Wallace, the author Ayn Rand said, “A free economy will not break down. All depressions are caused by government interference and the cure that is always offered…is more of the same poisons that caused the disasters.”

Rand was referring to the Great Depression, an economic disaster made infinitely worse and longer by all the government prescriptions applied by both President Hoover and, in particular, President Franklyn D. Roosevelt. It is now understood that FDR and his economic advisors literally stretched out the Great Depression to ten year’s duration by choking off the free flow of capital and trade.

There is an interesting comparison between FDR and President Obama. Neither had any experience in the world of business and commerce. Neither ever ran a business or met a payroll. A political campaign is not a business enterprise. It is a short-term fund raising effort. It produces nothing except a candidate who either wins or loses. Obama’s economic advisors have been prescribing the same awful “remedies” as FDR’s.

The present dilemma is that Obama is an ideologue, a “red diaper” baby raised on the socialist belief in the “redistribution of wealth” which essentially means taking money from productive wage earners and investors, and giving it to “the poor.” The problem with that is that there has always been about 14% of the population that have been and will be poor. Giving them other people’s money does not make them less poor; only more dependent on government.

This transfer of wealth in exchange for getting their vote comes with no guarantees. The large percentage of Blacks who voted for Obama in 2008 did not bother to return to the polls in this year’s elections. Neither did the worshipful youth who helped elect him by a slim seven points.

As for those youth and everyone else who has passed through the U.S. education system since the 1960s, the bad news is that you received some of the worst education available in any nation on Earth. That’s why you don’t understand much about what is happening in your life or in the world around you. The curriculum has been dumbed down to ensure your ignorance of things graduates in 1950 understood even if you do not.

The good news is the swift plunge in Obama’s popularity among all voters. He has proved himself to be spectacularly ill-prepared for the presidency on the basis of its ideology, his experience, and his judgment. One almost expects him to show up on “Dancing with the Stars” any day.

So what or who is wrecking America? A lot of very stupid people.

Only a Congress that openly admits it does not read the bills put before it votes on them could be so indifferent to the public will or the public good.

Two bills will wreck the economy beyond recognition. There is no public support for either healthcare reform or the energy cap-and-trade bill. Yet both are the keystone legislative goals of the White House.

Beyond stupidity, there is ideology.

The environmental movement, a quasi-religious cult, is fighting every form of energy production except solar or wind. It is engaged in a war on private property. It regards all chemicals as poisons despite the fact that the human body is a virtual chemical processing factory. It is the megaphone for “global warming”, the largest hoax—other than Communism—in modern history.

It’s just too easy to beat up the news and entertainment media, particularly the latter. What passes for entertainment is too stupid, too childish, and too vulgar for words. As for news, Americans are increasingly finding their own sources on the Internet and/or relying on sources such as The Wall Street Journal and others they trust.

So, if you are looking around for an answer to what or who is wrecking America, just keep looking around you. It’s Congress. It’s the White House. It’s people who believe the Democrat Party cares what they think. It’s people who think Islam is a religion of peace. It’s people who follow news of “celebrities.” It’s Nancy Pelosi. It’s Harry Reid. It’s Barney Frank. It’s Barack Hussein Obama.

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at Warning Signs. A business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

Read more thought provoking articles at Warning Signs

By Nina Owcharenko

Current efforts by Congress to “reform” the health care system are centered on several flawed policy initiatives that will transfer more power and decisions to Washington and away from patients and families.

Rather than create a massive government-based health care system and dislocate people from their existing private coverage, policymakers should focus on putting the health care system on a path where individuals and families are in control of their health care dollars and decisions.

Shortfalls of the Health Care Bills

The following five provisions are the cornerstone of the House and Senate bills and unavoidably result in legislation taking health care reform in the wrong direction.

1. New Public Plan and Federal Exchange. Both the House and Senate bills would create a new government-run health care plan through the establishment of a federally run national health insurance exchange. The result: widespread erosion of private insurance and substantial consolidation of federal control over health care through the exchange.[1] As is evident in the details of the House bill (H.R. 3200), there is no level playing field for competition between the government plans and private health plans. Plus, the incentives in the legislation guarantee that millions of Americans will lose their existing employer-based coverage.

2. Federal Regulation of Health Insurance. Both the House and Senate bills would result in sweeping and complex federal regulation of health insurance. Moreover, it would take oversight away from states and concentrate it in Washington.[2]

3. Massive New Taxpayer-Funded Subsidies. Both the House and Senate would expand eligibility for Medicaid, but they would also extend new taxpayer-funded subsidies to the middle class. Such commitments would result in scores of Americans dependent on the government to finance their health care.[3] This is unfortunate because Congress could have reformed the tax treatment of health insurance to enable people to keep their existing private coverage and buy better private coverage if they wished to do so.

4. Employer Mandate. Both the House and Senate bills would impose an employer mandate for employers who do not offer coverage and for those whose benefits do not meet a new federal standard. An employer mandate would hurt low-income workers the most and would also stifle much-needed economic growth.[4] Employer mandates are passed on to workers in the form of reduced wages and compensation. This is exactly the wrong prescription for businesses, especially during a recession.

5. Individual Mandate. Both the House and Senate bills would require all people to buy health insurance. There is no doubt that such a mandate would result in a tax increase on individuals and families whose health insurance does not meet the new federally determined standards. This means that Congress will, for the first time, force Americans to buy federally designed packages of health benefits, even if they do not want or need those benefits.

It also means that health benefits will tend to become increasingly costly as powerful special interest groups and representatives of the health industry lobby intensively to expand the legally mandated health benefits, medical treatments and procedures, and drugs that all Americans must buy under penalty of law.

A Better Direction for Health Care Reform

Congress should stop and take a step back from these divisive House and Senate measures. Instead of trying to overhaul one-sixth of the American economy and seize an unprecedented amount of political control over health care decisions and dollars, policymakers should consider proceeding with smaller, incremental improvements. Policymakers need to proceed slowly and deliberately, making sure that the initial steps they take are not disruptive of what Americans have and want to keep, actually work, and do not result in costly and damaging and unintended consequences. There are three broad areas where Members can and should find consensus:

1. Promote State Innovation. Congress should preserve the states’ autonomy over their health care systems and give them greater legal freedom to devise solutions that meet the unique characteristics of their citizens. In addition, individuals should also have the freedom to purchase coverage from trusted sources and not be restricted by where they happen to live. This means that Americans should be able to buy better coverage across state lines. Congress should respect and encourage personal freedom and diversity.

2. Establish Fairness in the Tax Treatment of Health Insurance. There is little disagreement that today’s health care tax policy–which favors coverage obtained through the workplace–distorts the market and is inequitable. Instead of expanding government-run programs like Medicaid, policymakers should offer tax relief to those individuals who purchase private health insurance on their own, regardless of where they work.

At the same time, Congress should make sure that tax relief goes only to taxpayers. Congress should also devise a voucher program, giving low-income citizens the opportunity to get private coverage if they wish to do so. There is a broad bipartisan consensus that Congress should help low-income working families with direct assistance to enable them to get health insurance.

3. Get Serious About Entitlement Reform. Medicare and Medicaid, the giant health care entitlement programs, are not only increasingly costly, but they are also not delivering value to the taxpayers. The best way to secure value to patients (not government officials) is to compel health providers to compete directly for consumer dollars by allowing seniors and the poor to choose the coverage that is right for them using the money that is already available to them in these programs. This will “bend the cost curve” while at the same time allowing private-sector innovation to flourish.

Consumer-Driven Reform

Americans want to fix the problems in the health care system–but not at the expense of their own coverage. It is time policymakers recognize the lack of support for a major overhaul. But instead of continuing to protect the status quo, Congress should advance improvements that put the health care system on a path to reform.

Such improvements should be focused on increasing choice and competition not by turning control over to Washington but by empowering individuals and families to control their health care dollars and decisions.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Nina Owcharenko is Deputy Director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Read more excellent articles from Family Security Matters

By Andrew Bolt

TonyfromOz prefaces …..

The heading says ‘Our‘ TV Stations, and this refers to the free to air Majors here in Australia. We have four majors, The Seven Network, The Nine Network, and Network Ten, and the slightly smaller publicly funded National Broadcaster, the ABC. (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which has no affiliation at all with the U.S. ABC Network.) There is also an even smaller broadcaster, SBS which started life as a publicly funded foreign language network. Each of the large coverage areas also has smaller networks, each tied to one of those three Majors, and with some local content, mainly News, while the ABC has Australia wide coverage. There is also a pay TV sector as well, where programing is taken from sources outside of Australia, with one further Australian provider in that Pay TV sector.

Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News didn’t merely fill a cultural gap left by the Left-leaning mainstream media:

Fox is supplanting the role long played by the New York Times and the Ochs-Sulzberger family that owns the 88% of the paper. For nearly 50 years, the Times has sent out its headline for the next day out on the wire and newspapers and broadcasters have en masse synchronized their own stories to whatever the NYT decided to cover. . . . Now Fox has stolen the crown. Even people who hate Fox now find themselves forced to react to it. Politicos and pundits who want to reach half of the cable news audience have to show up on Fox. Other news organizations are forced to cover the same stories as Fox just to remain relevant.

Once again, you can only marvel that Australia’s TV stations and Sky News have not learned from the astonishing rise of Fox.

There would be no show on TV, other than perhaps Sky News Agenda, more in need of inspiration from Fox than this one.

But Rove has certain political views, of course, as do his team.

(The Rove mentioned here is Australian TV personality Rove McManus. TonyfromOz)

(Via Instapundit.)

UPDATE

Evidence:

Fox News topped Nov. 3 election night coverage that featured Republican gubernatorial upsets in Virginia and New Jersey.

From 8-11 p.m. when returns were trickling in, Fox News averaged 4 million total viewers with 1.1 million among news’ target demographic of 25-54 year olds, according to Nielsen.

MSNBC was second in total viewers attracting 974,000. But the network was edged out in the demo by HLN (341,000 to 308,000). HLN was third in total viewers with 842,000. CNN was fourth in both categories averaging 826,000 total viewers and 227,000 in the demo.

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog

I have never been one to be “politically correct.”

And I am not about to break the pattern with this article, so be forewarned.

There are two factors that led to the shooting rampage at Fort Hood.

One is political correctness, the other is a severely flawed U. S. military policy.

As far back as six months ago, the alleged Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan was brought to the attention of the FBI over suspected comments he had made on a website.

It is now coming to light that Hasan had also been known to make some of the same sorts of remarks to his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood.

Among these were such red-flags as:

Describing the U.S. Army as the aggressor in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory.”
It’s being said that he had compared a soldier who died smothering a grenade blast to “suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers.”

Now if both the FBI and the military both knew, or even suspected, that these were the beliefs of this man, why was nothing done about it?

Have we gone this far down the path of fearing being charged with ethnic profiling that we allow a man who appears to have radical Islamist ideals to be a member of our armed forces?

During a time of war, Hasan should have been investigated, brought up omn charges under the UCMJ (Uniform Code Of Military Justice, and dishonorably discharged.

President Obama has promised a full investigation of the circumstances that led to this tragedy, and I hope he starts with the chain-of-command at Fort Hood, and at any other military base where Hasan may have been stationed.

Read the rest of this entry

Today’s music video is ‘You Needed Me’ from Anne Murray.

This video was posted to You Tube by happysun3000

There are some wonderful female voices out there, and Anne Murray can be ranked in with them. She is one of those legion of good singers to come out of Canada. She was the first Canadian to earn a Gold Record in the U.S. with her breakthrough single ‘Snowbird’ released in 1970, and she is credited as paving the way for female singers from Canada who followed, Celine Dion, Shania Twain, Sarah McLachlan, and k.d. lang to name just a few. Anne has won 4 Grammy Awards over her long career, and her soft vocals hit a spot not only with audiences, but also with those actually shelling out their hard earned for singles and albums. She has produced more than 30 studio albums in a career spanning  nearly 40 years. From those albums, 75 singles were lifted, and many of those made the mainstream charts, five of them in fact into Top Ten Positions, with one of them going to Number 1, while her hits on the U.S. Country Charts have been even more prolific with 26 in the Top Ten, and 10 of those going to Number 1, while in her home of Canada, even more of those went to the top.

Singers have their favourite songs and you might think that the one that brings you the most success would be the favourite, but Anne’s personal favourite song, ‘I Just Fall In Love Again’ only made Number 4 on the big Country charts, and she had numerous hits that did better than that.

This song ‘You Needed Me’ was that song that went to Number One on most mainstream charts around the World, and this was far and away her biggest hit. Written by Randy Goodrum in 1978, Anne sent it into the hearts of everyone who has ever heard this song, and if you don’t like this song, then don’t tell your partner. A wonderful song from a lady with a wonderful voice, her signature song.

Satire by  Shawn Goodwin

The name Afghanistan means “land of the allied tribes” in Sanskrit. Apparently, those ancient tribesmen have a flair for the ironic. Afghanistan has several local tribes, but most of them get along as well as David Axelrod and FOX News. Interestingly, the name Obama is African for “slightly bent,” which President Obama surely was this week when he called to congratulate Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai on his reelection. The American president has little love for his Afghan counterpart, and had the unmitigated gall to suggest that Afghanistan’s August 20th election was rife with voter fraud and ballot stuffing.

This accusation comes from a man who cruised to an election victory with the help of nightstick-wielding Black Panthers manning the polls in Philadelphia. Note to Philadelphia: unless their name is Steven Seagal, most election overseers are not dressed in black paramilitary uniforms with berets. Anyone who really confused these toads with official poll watchers should immediately be deported to Burkina Faso. Not only did President Obama not punish these Thugocrat election observers, he rewarded the morons by dropping all criminal charges against them. Hope. Change. Anarchy.

Of course, Barack Obama would never let facts get in the way of a good dressing down, so he broke out the Rolodex, ordered one of his manservants to dial Karzai’s direct line, and flexed his spindly arms in front of a much-needed ally in the War on Terror.

After looking out an Oval Office window to make sure that he was still thousands of miles away, the most powerful man in the world – after David Hasselhoff – put on “Mr. Angry Face” and talked tough to the Afghan president.

President Barack Obama greeted Hamid Karzai’s election victory with as much admonishment as praise on Monday, pointedly advising America’s partner in war he must make more serious efforts to end corruption in Afghanistan’s government and prepare his nation to ultimately defend itself.

“I emphasized that this has to be a point in time in which we begin to write a new chapter,” Obama said in describing his phone call to the Afghan president. When Karzai offered back assurances, Obama said he told him that “the proof is not going to be in words. It’s going to be in deeds.”

Words. Just words. Barack Obama repeated this mantra ad nauseam during the 2008 presidential election, and promised swift action and decisive leadership upon his ascendancy to power. Since his inauguration, he has signed legislation ordering the withdraw of troops from Iraq – there are still about 100,000 American soldiers there – and the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay – it’s still open 24 hours a day for all of your late-night barbed wire needs. The president then approved a $787 billion; yes billion with a “b,” stimulus package that apparently helped one man from New Mexico land a job as a ski instructor. Snow, however, will not be appropriated until the next stimulus plan is signed. Considering the president’s track record, he should probably not be lecturing Hamid Karzai on the difference between words and deeds.

Unfortunately, this administration does not know when to quit while it is behind. If it was an amateur move to show up the Afghan president on his big day, it was certifiably bush league – no pun intended – to do so again through Obama’s flunky, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. This man is as arrogant as Simon Cowell, with half the talent:

The White House made clear that the election gave Karzai legal legitimacy but not necessarily any new boost of credibility.

“Nobody has ever made the accusation that credibility was going to be had simply out of one election,” Gibbs said.

Well, nobody but you and your boss, anyway. After reading Robert Gibbs’ comments, he and President Obama should familiarize themselves with a few famous words: “Physician heal thyself.” The Obama administration demanded credibility the moment the last fraudulent ballot was cast, and held up acknowledgments from ACORN and Daily Kos as examples of true bipartisan support. Right. That is like Ben Stiller expecting an Oscar nomination for Zoolander because Owen Wilson had fun working alongside him. The fact of the matter is that few presidents in American history were less prepared for the job than Barack Obama, but at least those few had the good sense not expect to be treated like John Adams. Besides, John Adams did not make a point of publicly humiliating his allies. Well, except the French, but they usually deserve it.

Despite Obama’s protestations, the fact of the matter is that as Afghan president, Hamid Karzai is locked in an almost untenable situation. Afghanistan is a war zone, and there are many forces – Americans, British, Taliban, al Qaeda, and possibly Martian – battling at the same time. He is getting no help from neighboring Pakistan, and rumor has it that they are harboring al Qaeda leaders as well as late ‘70s-early ‘80s Latin entertainer Charo. Karzai’s fellow politicians, like many here in the States, are either incompetent, corrupt, or both. Like Michael Moore at an all-you-can-eat buffet, Karzai has a full plate. The last thing the man needs is some rookie American politico poking him with a stick.

If Hamid Karzai is worth his mettle, he will recognize President Obama’s posturing for what it is: an empty threat from an empty suit.

FamilySecurityMatters.org’s official satirist, Shawn Goodwin, is a blogger and police detective from Philly.

Read more excellent articles from Family Security Matters

By Alan Caruba

I have long harbored strong doubts about the knowledge that most Americans possess regarding the sources of energy they largely take for granted. We flip a switch and the lights go on. We pull up to the gas pump and drive away. We use machines that are totally dependent on having enough electricity to power entire cities as well as rural communities.

Since all successful economies depend on abundant, affordable energy, why is the Congress preparing to pass a cap-and-trade bill, renamed to suggest “clean energy” and “national security” has anything to do with a huge tax on the use of energy by all Americans?

There are some fundamental facts about energy in America you need to know. The Congressional Research Service recently released a report on U.S. energy reserves. To begin:

The U.S. has 1,321 billion barrels of oil (or barrels of oil equivalent for other sources of energy) when combining its recoverable natural gas, oil and coal reserves. This is oil known to exist and oil estimates in fields as yet untapped. Between Alaska and the continental offshore potential, we could literally be self-sufficient.

Keep in mind, however, oil represents less than 40% of our energy use, nor do we import most of that from the Middle East. Two-thirds of our oil consumption comes from North America with Canada and Mexico being major providers. By expanding domestic production, we could reduce dependency on the Middle East even further.

That said, since the days of Jimmy Carter, the White House and Congress has gone out of its way to make it difficult, if not impossible, to tap domestic reserves. When a windfall profits tax was imposed on November 9, 1978, it sent a message to U.S. oil companies they were not welcome here.

While ExxonMobil is the favorite target of environmental organizations such as Friends of the Earth or the Sierra Club, the fact is that it is no longer in the seven top oil producers in the United States. The “big” domestic oil companies are now Aera Energy, Anadarko, and Occidental. ExxonMobil looks for oil in overseas locations.

Astonishingly, other oil producing nations whose reserves are ranked behind the U.S. are Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, and Canada. The only oil “shortage” in the U.S. is one created by Congress and the energy policies of a succession of past presidents. An estimated 87% of our oil reserves remain untouched.

When it comes to coal, the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal with 28% of all the world’s coal reserves. Russian comes in second with 19%. Coal represents more than 50% of all the electricity produced in America and the Obama administration has declared war on it.

The cap-and-trade bill before Congress puts all of its emphasis on the two worst, most expensive, and job-killing forms of energy, wind and solar. Combined they represent a pathetic 1% of electricity. They are unreliable sources, dependent on whether the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. Moreover, though never mentioned, they require backup sources of traditional energy production. You cannot have wind or solar energy without also having a coal-fired, hydroelectric, or nuclear plant to ensure a steady source.

As reported in Newsweek, “Each year as much as $100 billion is spent by governments and consumers around the world on green subsidies to encourage wind, solar, and other renewable energy markets.”

The result, in the U.S. is a virtually army, “1,150 lobbying groups that spent more than $20 million to lobby the U.S. Congress as it was writing the Clean Energy bill (which would create a $60 billion annual market for emissions permits by 2012.)”

The Newsweek article said, “It’s a genetic defect that not only guarantees great waste, but opens the door to manipulation and often demonstrably contravenes the objectives that climate policy is supposed to achieve.”

We do not have a climate policy in the United States. We have a huge scheme to enrich a small group of people who will control the exchanges for utterly bogus “carbon credits”, nothing more than the right to emit carbon dioxide as the natural result of burning fuel for energy. It is not, however, such industrial and other uses that represents the largest emitter of carbon dioxide. The Earth itself is responsible for 95% of the CO2 in the atmosphere and that CO2 represents 3.618%.

By comparison, nuclear energy does not produce CO2 emissions and yet there hasn’t been a new nuclear reactor built in the United States for some thirty years.

The same is true for the building of a single new oil refinery in America. Since it takes about a decade from start to finish on these huge engineering projects and a billion dollar investment, it would be 2020 before one was in full production if begun next year. The real question is, if you were an oil company CEO, would you invest that kind of money when the U.S. won’t let you explore or extract oil on or offshore?

What no one is telling you is that CO2 does not “cause” global warming and there is no global warming. The Earth is actually in a natural cycle of cooling that began in 1998 and is anticipated to last at least two to three decades.

Europe’s experience with “renewable” energy has been a disaster. Great Britain is facing blackouts that will make economic growth impossible and wreak havoc on the daily lives of the English. As with other European nations, it has driven up the cost of electricity.

The American energy consumer is being lied to and stolen from in the form of the cap-and-trade bill under consideration and other obstacles.

The nation as a whole is being put at risk for lack of access to our own vast energy reserves, coal, oil, and natural gas, as well as nuclear power that will be needed to reverse the present recession, unemployment, and the ability to grow our way back to prosperity.

Editor’s Note: To read the report, click on
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=f7bd7b77-ba50-48c2-a635-220d7cf8c519

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at Warning Signs. A business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

Read more thought provoking articles at Warning Signs

By Andrew Bolt

How many billions does (Australian Prime Minister) Kevin Rudd promise to pay this man?

The video shows Yvo de Boer, executive secretary for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate, setting out the demands that countries such as Australia must fulfil at the UNFCC’s Copenhagen meeting next month. De Boer is speaking at the end of this week’s preliminary meeting at Barcelona, attended by Australian delegates, to help reach the deal that Rudd says is vital.

Check out points three and four. De Boer wants Rudd to promise within the next couple of weeks how much cash he will hand over, and how. De Boer also goes on to explain the need for an “architecture” – a new UN body to take the cash, and fine countries which don’t pay up or don’t cut their gases.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

How much does the UN want? It suggests 0.7 per cent of GDP every year - which in Australia works out to $7 billion a year, given to the UN to hand to countries such as China and Pakistan, minus its handling fees, of course.

How much of our cash and powers will Rudd hand over? He refuses to say, and has only attacked me for using ”back of the envelope” figures.

Well, if not $7 billion, Prime Minister, then how much? You see the man in the video make his demands; now give him – and us – your answer.

UPDATE

Meanwhile:

It will come as little surprise to most New Zealanders that the country shivered through the coldest October in 64 years.

And:

October 2009 3rd Coldest for US in 115 Years

Be aware that this is not just a localised cold snap for one town, city, locality, or State, but the overall picture from the WHOLE of the U.S.

UPDATE 2

(Australian) Senator Cory Bernardi is running a petition against signing the Copenhagen treaty.

UPDATE 3

The grassroots reject Malcolm Turnbull’s disastrous decision to back what he should fight – and to turn a weapon into a suicide pill:

CLIMATE change sceptics … dominated debate on climate change in a meeting of the Victorian division of the Liberal Party yesterday.

One rank-and-file Liberal (Liberal here means the major Conservative Party here in Australia) member was given rousing applause when he said global warming was a natural phenomenon and the theory that human activity had caused it was ‘’absolute rubbish’’.

Another speaker said those proposing action on climate change were working towards creating a ‘’world government’’, while a third said any engagement on the issue would signal that the Liberals had ‘’raised the white flag’’.

The climate is indeed changing. The intellectual and political climate, that is, and the Liberal leadership should now lead what they’re so slow in following.

Peter Garrett

UPDATE 4

Changing climate indeed. ABC journalist Eleanor Hall asked (Australian Government) Environment Minister Peter Garrett on Meet The Press this morning whether he’d been wrong to peddle a scare with his claim that global warming could soon cause the seas to rise 6 metres. He refused to even try to justify his patently false figure. Sadly, though, there was no follow-up question asking him to correct the record.

Garrett simply rabbitted about warnings that the IPCC had given. In fact, the IPCC, despite being alarmist, suggests sea level rises this century on now more than 59cms at worst. Not Garrett’s 6 metres.

TonyfromOz adds …..

Andrew runs his own Blog in Australia, and as I mentioned yesterday, our Blog here is in the category of Very Large Blogs. Andrew’s Blog is also in that same category, although his is even bigger again than ours, and in fact, probably ranks as the largest Blog in Australia. At this years Weblog Awards in the Category ‘Best Australian or New Zealand Blog’, Andrew’s Blog is far and away the most nominated so far.

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog

While Congress has overstepped it’s authority on numerous occasions in the past, this one takes the cake. At the behest of Nancy “Astroturf” Pelosi, HR 3962 was barely passed by a vote of 220-215. One lone RINO, Joseph Cao, a newb and apparently not going to be incumbent for long, sided with the sell-outs.

On Facebook, my crowd of friends were watching the debate on C-Span most of the day and leaving comments.

The one thing they all have in common is the call to remove any and all traitors who do not acknowledge or comprehend the Constitution, specifically, Amendment 10, which reads,

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.“

The specific powers of Congress are enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 under the 10th Amendment. Nowhere does it say Congress can engage in a hostile government takeover of health care.

Finally, good luck passing this muck bill through the Senate.

Have fun in the unemployment line, Congress. You take over the people’s House while ignoring our pleas for freedom, you will pay dearly at the polls.

By James Carafano, PhD

Weather changed. People died. They called it the “Little Ice-Age,” a period that spanned the mid-1600s.

As global temperatures dropped, the number and frequency of wars rose. Worldwide mortality rates increased. Famines struck across Asia. The pattern of human misery seemed so significant that, about 300 years later, historian Eric Hobsbawm labeled it “the 17th century crisis.”

This summary is not meant as a cautionary tale about the grave dangers of climate change. Quite the opposite. It’s offered as a warning not to run lemminglike off a cliff as we grapple with global warming.

What history actually teaches us is that trying to predict the long-term consequences of changes between humans and their environment is a march of folly.

The 17th-century crisis is a good example. It was not a century of nonstop crisis. It was, in fact, a mixed bag.

Yes, the tempo of war increased. But the era also experienced an explosion of scientific and intellectual creativity. And it ushered in an economic expansion and increased political stability that produced future superpowers like Britain and France.

Furthermore, after studying “the century” for centuries, scholars are still not sure what caused what. The failure to construct a compelling explanation of the past has left many skeptical of any “social-scientific” explanation of history, let alone the ability of such theories to predict the future.

Jared Diamond’s highly regarded history, “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed,” explains why predictions are folly. Diamond lists a daunting 12 factors that historically contributed to the collapse of a society. And, he can explain how they affected one another in each of his case studies only with the hindsight gained through hundreds of years of historical and archaeological research.

“Collapse” illustrates the immense difficulty of mapping cause and effect in complex human-environment systems. Additionally, our ability to apply these “lessons” to the future is greatly complicated by the fact that both human institutions and the natural environment
are continually changing and changing each other.

In short, it is virtually impossible to predict the long-term consequence of humans and climate change. That ought to give Congress pause when it hears arguments it must pass a cap-and-trade bill or bear the blame for sparking Armageddon.

The premise behind cap and trade is that the United States must impose a complex energy tax scheme to penalize businesses and other outfits (like, say, schools and nonprofit hospitals) that emit “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide. Proponents argue that this highly expensive approach to reducing man-made carbon emissions is needed to avoid adverse climate changes.

Failure to do so, they claim, will leave us to the mercy of future natural disasters that will yield unprecedented humanitarian crises. These, in turn, will cause some nations to fail and lead others to engage in chronic combat over remaining resources.

The House passed a cap-and-trade bill earlier this year. But the measure has become increasingly controversial as the economic consequences of the legislation have become more apparent. A study by The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis finds that the law would make the U.S. about $9.4 trillion poorer by 2035.

Much of this decline would be from reduced economic productivity and job loss. Despite all the talk about “green jobs” galore, Heritage found the bill would actually retard net employment by 1.15 million jobs.

To distract Americans from the economic catastrophe the bill would cause, proponents have turned to arguing that passing the bill is an imperative for national security. The reality, however, is it is too difficult to predict over the long term how the interactions between humans and the environment will turn out.

But here is what we do know. In the short term, the negative economic effects of the bill will create a “21st century crisis.” A collapse in U.S. economic growth would result in even more draconian cuts to the defense budget, leaving America with a military much less prepared to deal with future threats. Indeed, if America’s military power declines, there would probably be more wars, not fewer.

Likewise, a steep drop in American economic growth would lengthen and deepen the global recession. That in turn will make other states poorer, undermining their ability to protect themselves and recover from natural disasters. Now that is something to worry about.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is a leading expert in defense affaires, intelligence, military operations and strategy, and homeland security at the Heritage Foundation.

Read more excellent articles from Family Security Matters

By William Warren

See more Cartoons by William Warren, and Great Articles at NetRight Nation Blog