Like the Kyoto Treaty that no one much paid attention to some years back, Copenhagen has produced another document so that everyone can “just keep talking.” Very productive. At least the POTUS got to see a charming city.
HT: WSJ.
Cross-posted at RudyCarrera.com.
Like the Kyoto Treaty that no one much paid attention to some years back, Copenhagen has produced another document so that everyone can “just keep talking.” Very productive. At least the POTUS got to see a charming city.
HT: WSJ.
Cross-posted at RudyCarrera.com.
Here are the December 9th and December 15th Joe the Plumber editions of YGC Radio. Enjoy!
Joe the Plumber: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | DownloadHere are the December 2nd and 11th editions of YGC Radio. Enjoy!
December 2nd YGC: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download December 11th YGC: Play Now | Play in Popup | DownloadAt one of her recent press conferences, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s was asked by a CNS News reporter, “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” the Speaker was clearly agitated by the question and responded, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” The reporter said, “Yes, yes, I am.” Without commenting further, Pelosi shook her head in disgust and took a question from another reporter. Later on, the Speaker’s press spokesman Nadeam Elshami told CNSNews.com about its question regarding the constitutionality of socialized medicine that “You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”
Like every member of Congress, Pelosi takes this sacred oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” She swears to defend the Constitution, but does not take this question seriously? The arrogance or ignorance is amazing. The question is legitimate, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution lists the enumerated powers of Congress and there is no provision for health care. Furthermore, the Tenth
Amendment makes it explicitly clear that the powers not listed in the Constitution are to be left to the states and the citizens.
For decades government has gone well beyond it Constitutional responsibility and has become more cavalier about the role of government. Essentially our government is on auto-pilot and simply picks up new duties as it deems fit.
I have said often on my radio show that to be for the Constitution is simply not “cool” and you will not be taken serious in Washington. I have had friends — both Democrat and Republican — smugly smile at me and say that arguments about the Constitution are laughable. Discussions about a “strict constructionist” view can only be academic.
I must ask the question, by what standard than are we going to judge government? If not the Constitution, what will be our measure of whether government is serving us properly? It cannot be popular opinion, because the masses can be convinced to believe anything. That is why the Founding Fathers put such safe guards against pure democracy.
This is why I have grown frustrated by the “liberal” versus “conservative” debate. All these two views argue is the pace towards socialism. Liberals ask why we are not fully under government control while conservatives want to argue to slow down the pace. What is there to “conserve” any more? Massive deficits and debts? Taxation out of control? A regulatory system that is hostile to freedom? If we are serious about the Constitution we should drop the conservative label and state we wish to restore the Constitution.
Until we have a serious debate about the Constitution we can only expect our freedoms to further disappear while are political leaders show extreme joy on the left or slight discomfort on the right. The leaders in Washington believe there is nothing government cannot do and they intend to only prove that in the years to come.
Economist Walter Williams recently noted that “in each new session of Congress since 1995, John Shadegg, (R-Ariz.,) has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act, a measure ‘To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.’ The highest number of co-sponsors it has ever had in the House of Representatives is 54 and it has never had co-sponsors in the Senate until this year, when 22 senators signed up. The fact that less than 15 percent of the Congress supports such a measure demonstrates the kind of contempt our elected representatives have for the rules of the game — our Constitution.”
How has your member of Congress stood on this important first step in restoring Constitutional government? Instead of arguing with politicians on specific policies, let us make them defend their view of the document they swore to defend.
Unemployment is devastating on both people and governments. Not only do people feel the stress of wondering how needs will be met, they often take serious efforts of curtailing spending ,which has a direct impact on consumer spending. Governments suffer too. Local, state, and federal governments find unemployment is a drain on them as they are often unable to collect as much revenue as they could in more prosperous economies and those who are unemployed will often depend on agencies to help through these difficult times.
With that, President Obama recently had a Job Summit and he told those in attendance if there is “anything” the government can do to help increase employment, let him know. With US unemployment at the highest levels in a quarter of a century, “anything” should be taken quite seriously. Our situation has become urgent and steps should be made to act quickly. These include:
Our situation is dire, the answers to our problems are in the market place and not in the halls of government or in job creation summits. These type of actions would have the government give the type of “stimulus” the nation really needs.
As the states desperately try to pass legislation to protect themselves from the many potentially adverse effects of the President’s health care proposal, the federal government is working all the harder to make sure state governments do the heavy lifting for the bill’s funding.
According to a recent article by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, the amount of spending required for the new Medicaid package is so staggering, it requires state as well as federal funding. Southern states have tended to try to contain costs by keeping Medicare spending in check. The Obama administration is planning on forcing states to bring more dollars to the table.
The authors cite the following examples:
The impact may include political tones, since for many of the states represented by swing senators in the health care debate, the required increases in state spending are likely to be quite high, say Morris and McGann:
These increases in spending do not include the direct cost that will have to be carried by Americans in federal tax. This bill remains complicated and the extent of the financial injury it provides only grows daily.
Back in the Dark Ages, doctors were known for bleeding patients to reduce fever and cracking skulls to relieve headaches. Everything old is new again as the Obama Administration pursues excessive taxes on job creators on both Wall Street and Main Street in order to create new jobs.
Elizabeth MacDonald brings the Administration’s current efforts to light in a column at FoxBusiness.com. She points out that “A House bill now being drafted would raise $150 billion each year to pay for new manufacturing jobs by taxing securities transactions such as stocks, options, derivatives and futures…But the effect here would be the polar opposite-it would hurt job creation and even though Congress says they’ll exempt trades made for retirement savings, chances are slim that will happen, and the fees will get passed along. And jobs in the finance sector, already flattened, will fly overseas if the US is the only country with this taxing regime.”
MacDonald’s article points out the obvious. Politicians develop and implement policies as if we were trees. They believe we will take a tax, regulation, or other cost of doing business without blinking. Unfortunately for government, we are not trees. I do not know about you, but if someone attacks me with an axe I am either going to fight or take flight. That is the same thing that happens in public policy. When government attacks with a tax on job creation, that job creator is either going to fight (which in this country requires a long term strategy that includes changing the people in power) or they are going to run (which is much easier to do in our current political environment and our abilities thanks to technology).
Where and how do people run? We have many examples of this in recent years and the Internet makes it very easy for people to move their money and the rest of their lives, wherever they need to go to do business.
For example, a recent study from the Empire Center for New York State Policy is showing that the state is suffering from a similar fate. The authors of the studies — E.J. McMahon and Wendell Cox — point out that between the years 2000 and 2008 and following massive tax increases for those with higher incomes, the families that have been leaving have income levels that were 13 percent higher than those arriving to the Empire State. In Manhattan and the New York County area, the impact was even more profound. Those leaving the Big Apple had an average income of $93,264, which was approximately 28 percent higher than those who were arriving (which made $72,726 on average).
What is most ironic about these type of policies is that they not only fail to create jobs, but also fail to generate new revenues. They simply do not work. The old saying remains true, “the more you tax something, the less you get of it.” If you heavily tax job creators, you will lose them and the jobs they create. MacDonald believes that the bill being argued in this Congress will actually force some job creators out of the country. They, in turn would likely take the jobs with them. It is time to abandon ancient practices that do not work and pursue policies that simply make sense.
Conspiracy theorists have argued for years that government officials who support the massive regulation of industry in the name of environmentalism, do so in order to pursue even greater government control It is not about a cleaner environment, but a more powerful government. Meanwhile, scientists who have advocated Global Warming have often been accused of being professional “Chicken Littles,” who make a living predicting that the sky is falling. After all, if research studies had indicated that things were fine or temperature changes were cyclical, there would be no need for future research and the funding that comes with it. There is a business side to everything, including environmental research, and fear has proved to be a successful element in obtaining increased funding.
The media has been quick to defend those in government and science in the alarmist camp, creating a powerful and effective troika supporting an ambitious agenda. They have apologized for the many exaggerations and have gone to great lengths to defending the most outrageous of claims. The recent release of some rather incriminating emails are embarrassing to the media, scientists, and government officials behind the Global Warming movement. Forget embarrassing, the movement is now on life support.
The Wall Street Journal discusses the content and the implications of the emails in question, quoting several including one stating that “The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”
“So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world’s leading climate scientists, in a 2005 email to ‘Mike.’ Judging by the email thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Center. We found this nugget among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU’s servers were hacked and messages among some of the world’s most influential climatologists were published on the Internet.”
“The ‘two MMs’ are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions-a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service. Mr. Jones did not return requests for comment and the university said it could not confirm that all the emails were authentic, though it acknowledged its servers were hacked.”
The emails in question are in the thousands and the thread demonstrates a similar theme and are most enlightening. The Wall Street Journal article goes on to point out that “In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a ‘unified’ view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the ‘common cause’; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to ‘hide the decline’ of temperature in certain inconvenient data.”
In essence, the world has been duped by scientists driven by the desire of prestige and funding, politicians driven by a lust for control and power, and a media that makes a living by creating alarm. The cost of pursuing a battle plan against these false problems has cost countries like Spain millions of jobs in its “cap and trade” style legislation and countries through out Western Europe and the United States billions of dollars in regulations to date. What will these false prophets receive for their crimes against economies? Probably Pulitzers and Nobel prizess. What a strange world indeed.
The Times of London states the obvious:
Confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb.
The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.
An Asian intelligence source last week confirmed to The Times that his country also believed that weapons work was being carried out as recently as 2007 — specifically, work on a neutron initiator.
The technical document describes the use of a neutron source, uranium deuteride, which independent experts confirm has no possible civilian or military use other than in a nuclear weapon. Uranium deuteride is the material used in Pakistan’s bomb, from where Iran obtained its blueprint.
Cross-posted at RudyCarrera.com.
