More environmental scare-mongering July 12, 2009

Remember how, after 9/11, liberals attacked former President Bush for “fear mongering” in dealing with radical Islam (which has said, time and again, that it wants to destroy the West and subjugate the world under an Islamic theocracy and shari’a law)…but then they turn around and do the same thing.

Sen. Barbara Boxer warns (as radical environmentalists have for years, having been proven wrong time and again) that the world is going to end if they don’t tax the very air we breathe:

From Yahoo! News:

WASHINGTON — If the Senate doesn’t pass a bill to cut global warming, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more.

She says there’s a huge upside, however, if the Senate does act: millions of clean-energy jobs, reduced reliance on foreign oil and less pollution for the nation’s children.

Boxer is engaged in her biggest sales job ever. The stakes couldn’t be higher as she faces one of the toughest high-profile acts of her lengthy career: getting Congress to sign off on historic legislation to lower greenhouse-gas emissions.

“For Barbara Boxer , it’s both the opportunity and a challenge of a lifetime,” said Frank O’Donnell , the president of Clean Air Watch .

As the Senate’s top-ranked environmentalist, Boxer heads the influential committee that began hearings on the issue this week. She’s aiming to get her panel to pass a bill by the end of September. For months now, she’s been meeting with senators one on one and hosting a group of about 30 senators for “Tuesday at 12” meetings to develop a strategy to win 60 votes, enough to overcome a Republican filibuster.

With a House of Representatives bill already approved, all eyes are on Boxer, who must overcome plenty of skepticism on Capitol Hill among her fellow Democrats.

That skepticism is justified.  Why?  A few things (courtesy Green Hell Blog):

• There has been no global warming since 1998.  See this graph.
• Levels of sea ice are greater today than they were 30 years ago.

And more at Global Warming Hoax.  Also remember the EPA report that was held back until after the House voted on cap and trade.  It would almost seem as if radical environmentalists are…hiding something.  Doesn’t it?

They are.  They are attempting to create a climate of panic, fear, and urgency in order to have your obedience in turning over control of your life to them and their radical agenda.

DON’T LET THAT HAPPEN.

Contact the Senate.

Next target: the Internet

From CNN.com:

(CNN) — Twenty milligrams; that’s the average amount of carbon emissions generated from the time it took you to read the first two words of this article.

Now, depending on how quickly you read, around 80, perhaps even 100 milligrams of C02 have been released. And in the several minutes it will take you to get to the end of this story, the number of milligrams of greenhouse gas emitted could be several thousand, if not more.

This may not seem like a lot: “But in aggregate, if you consider all the people visiting a web site and then all the seconds that each of them spends on it, it turns out to be a large number,” says Dr. Alexander Wissner-Gross, an Environmental Fellow at Harvard University who studies the environmental impact of computing.

Wissner-Gross estimates every second someone spends browsing a simple web site generates roughly 20 milligrams of C02. Whether downloading a song, sending an email or streaming a video, almost every single activity that takes place in the virtual environment has an impact on the real one.

As millions more go online each year some researchers say the need to create a green Internet ecosystem is not only imperative but also urgent.

I repeat a question I asked earlier: What part of your life isn’t subject to radical environmentalists’ agenda?

How cap and trade costs jobs

Of politicians, for now.

From Michelle Malkin, news that Rep. Mark Kirk (IL) is seriously considering dropping out of the race to win Obama’s vacant Senate seat:

Illinois media outlets are reporting that GOP Rep. Mark Kirk — a member of the GOP Cap and Tax 8 — is dropping out of the running for President Obama’s Senate seat.

I say good. The Republicans need a candidate who can actually distinguish himself from his job-killing, junk science-peddling opponents.

And yes, it looks like the cap-and-tax protests made a difference, according to the Washington Post.

Good…

In case you need a reminder, Rep. Kirk was one of 8 GOP Congressional reps that voted for the cap and trade bill that would cripple the American economy, destroy your family budget, and probably cost you your job.

Contact the Senate. Keep the pressure on Senators to tell them to STOP this bill now.

Let’s get to work… July 7, 2009

I hope you all had a wonderful 4th of July.

But now it’s time to put our noses to the grindstone and really focus on stopping cap and trade in the Senate.  Michelle Malkin kicks off the hard work with this post, detailing who we need to target in the Senate to stop this catastrophe of a bill:

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee begins hearings on Tuesday.

Spruiell and Williamson have an excellent rundown of Waxman-Markey’s garden of piggish delights. The unions get a cap-and-pay-off. Heritage must-read research and analysis here.

Which senators to target? Here:

Democrats and the two independents who caucus with them control 60 Senate seats. But more than a dozen have expressed concern over costs. They include Democrats from industry-heavy Ohio and Michigan, coal-dependent Indiana and oil-rich Louisiana.

Only a few Republicans appear open to emissions limits, notably two moderates from Maine — Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe — and Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who championed emissions limits in his presidential campaign (though he has expressed reservations about the House bill).

The Senate bill will emerge from several committees — including the finance, foreign relations, commerce and agriculture committees — with dramatically different memberships and priorities.

The energy committee already has approved its chunk with wide bipartisan support. It includes a requirement to produce more electricity from renewable sources, but also expands drilling — a possible deal-breaker for environmentalists.

Boxer’s committee will center its work on cap and trade. The House bill would cut U.S. emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% by 2050. Environmentalists expect Boxer, who said she was “looking closely” at those limits, to strengthen them.

And one Senator to focus on is failed presidential candidate John McCain (AZ), who has – sadly – bought into this global warming hysteria hook, line, and sinker.

CONTACT THE SENATE HERE.

Contact John McCain at one of his several offices:

Phoenix Office:
5353 North 16th Street
Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Main: 602-952-2410
Fax: 602-952-8702

Tempe Office:
4703 South Lakeshore Drive
Suite 1
Tempe, AZ 85282
Main: 480-897-6289
Fax: 480-897-8389

Tucson Office:
407 West Congress Street
Suite 103
Tucson, AZ 85701
Main: 520-670-6334
Fax: 520-670-6637

Washington Office:
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Main: 202-224-2235
Fax: 202-228-2862

A gentle reminder, perhaps, that this is one of the reasons a lot of conservatives were underwhelmed by McCain’s candidacy is in order.

And here is another list of Senators to target (via Temple of Mut).

“Placeholders” in the cap and trade bill July 1, 2009

Two days ago, I reported that a good portion of the cap and trade bill hasn’t even been written, despite it passing the House and being one step closer to the law of the land.

Michelle Malkin reports today about “placeholders” in the bill – citations that note things will be added at a later date.  The thing is, will they be added before the Senate votes on cap and trade?  Why – after Obama’s pledge of transparency and that bills would be online for 5 days prior to a vote – were these things not in the bill when the House voted on it?

When I live-blogged the House debate on cap-and-tax last Friday, I noted the existence of a “placeholder” in the bill. Rep. Joe Barton mentioned it was unprecedented to have such a mechanism (allowing bill-writers to insert language to be determined after the law was approved) in a bill up for final passage. Later, I noted that Barney Frank explained on the floor on Friday that the placeholder in the cap and trade bill apparently will deal with regulations of financial derivatives market associated with reducing carbon emissions. Frank said he was confident a “good system will be in place.”

Well, I looked up the placeholder in Waxman’s late-night, 300-page manager’s amendment.

I’m no great shakes at law, since they clearly are thousands upon thousands of pages, but it really can’t be legal for our government to pass a law that isn’t even written.  I mean they could put pretty much anything in this bill and say it was approved and get away with it.

And a very astute commenter notes:

So I ask these morons in the Senate…. would they sign a loan agreement that had a “placeholder” in it?

Exactly.  Would YOU sign a loan agreement or any sort of contract before reading the thing in full and completely knowing the terms?

I think not.  It could spell financial ruin for you.

But that’s how our government operates.  They can now throw anything into this bill and get it turned into law.

Inhofe still says cap and trade dead

But don’t rest on your laurels.  Just don’t.  Contact your Senators at (202) 224-3121.

With yesterday’s ruling that Al Franken will be a Senator (gag), that gives Democrats a filibuster-proof majority of 60 Senators.  Which means at least 11 have to turn – and all Republicans have to vote “nay” – to kill cap and trade for now.

From Michelle Malkin:

U.S. Jim Inhofe, who earlier said a criminal investigation “probably should be’’ conducted into allegations the EPA suppressed a climate change report, conceded Tuesday he is not qualified to make that determination.

“I have no way of knowing,’’ the Oklahoma Republican said.

Inhofe, however, stood by his prediction that a historic climate change bill narrowly approved by the House last week faces certain defeat in the Senate.

“It’s dead in the water,’’ he said.

Inhofe said the much-anticipated conclusion of a Senate race in Minnesota that will give Democrats the 60 votes needed to overcome Republican filibusters would not be enough to save the climate change bill.

“I’ll tell you what a lot of people are thinking, and that is it looks like things are going to be over and we are going to get the clown from Minnesota,’’ he said.

“They are not going to get more than 35 votes.’’

Asked if he was referring to Al Franken as the clown from Minnesota, Inhofe confirmed he was.

“I didn’t mean to be disrespectful. I don’t know the guy, but … for a living he is a clown,’’ the senator said.

“That’s what he does for a living.’’

But I repeat – I implore you – DO NOT REST ON YOUR LAURELS.  Do not let this news make you feel in any way comfortable.  It is a glimmer of hope, and nothing more.

You need to make your voice heard.

Poll: 56% don’t want to pay more

From Rasmussen:

Fifty-six percent (56%) of Americans say they are not willing to pay more in taxes and utility costs to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, taken since the climate change bill was passed on Friday, finds that 21% of Americans are willing to pay $100 more per year for cleaner energy and to counter global warming. Only 14% are willing to pay more than that amount.

Fifty-two percent (52%) of all adults say it is more important to keep the cost of energy as low as possible than it is to develop clean, environmentally friendly sources of energy. But 41% disagree and say developing cleaner, greener energy sources is the priority.

Sixty-three percent (63%) rate creating jobs as more important than taking steps to stop global warming. For 22%, stopping global warming is more important.

For the 35% who are willing to pay $100 or more per year, you’ll get your wish.

For the rest of us – especially the majorities who worry about energy costs and creating jobs – the House just gave you the collective finger last week.  Will you contact the Senate and tell them what a majority of you have told Rasmussen?

United States Capitol switchboard – (202) 224-3121.

Remember my discussion on language?

Well, this explains how a bribe becomes “sweetener” to help undecided politicians vote in favor of something like cap and trade.

The thing is, this isn’t private money exchanging hands.  It’s taxpayer dollars – YOUR MONEY – that’s bribing people to vote to put you out of work, into poverty, and with skyrocketing costs*

CONTACT THE SENATE.  Tell them your tax dollars are not bribe money.

Selling your home? Not if you don’t satisfy cap and trade.

From Examiner.com, cap and trade provisions that allow government beaureaucrats into your home to make sure it toes the “green” line…before they allow you to sell it.

Yeah.  You read that right.  The house you own, the house you work to pay for, the house that’s your property is subject to strict government regulation and inspection before YOU can do something with it!  You know, like sell it.

Within cap and trade is a provision which mandates a national building code for energy efficiency. This national building code would override all state provisions already in place. By 2012, new buildings are to be 30% more efficient than they are under current regulations. By 2016, new buildings are to be 50% more efficient, and so on. “New buildings” include new homes, thus making new homes more expensive which will only serve to hamper the housing market.

Also, the bill stipulates that state codes match the national codes, or the said state codes will be nullified, and states will lose federal funding and carbon allowances. Remember, in this new world of cap and trade, the federal government has the authority to “allow” businesses within a state or community to conduct operations and emit carbon. Thus, millions of private sector jobs would be politicized under cap and trade. This type of politicization can only be found throughout history in societies governed by tyrants.

Perhaps President Obama and Nancy Pelosi are taking advantage of the foolish anti-business climate prevalent in America today. If one argues on behalf of business, he or she is part of the old, racist, rich, fascist, balding, all white male club. So maybe explaining how cap and trade will kill businesses and jobs is not so advantageous. However, homeowners have also been made the target of further regulations under cap and trade.

In this economy, selling a home may be the last ditch effort of someone trying to keep his or her head above water. Perhaps an individual or a family has to move on short notice but can only do so if the house they own is sold. Or, even more common nowadays, people are downsizing and are attempting to sell their house in order to buy something more in line with personal budget concerns. Whatever the case may be, Americans ought to be able to sell their houses whenever they want, and in whatever condition they want to sell it in, so long as the buyer agrees to the deal. That idea is not good enough for our federal government, instead, through cap and trade they will exact control through federal inspections of your home before you are allowed to sell.

So, new homes will be more expensive, thus limiting who can afford a new home, and further depressing the housing market. Now what of this inspection business? Yes, the cap and trade bill that passed through congress allows for somebody from the government to come into your house and inspect your windows, appliances, A/C, furnace, and anything else that you can think of to make sure your house is on par with the new national building codes. Not only will they inspect your house, but they will then be able to mandate that you, the seller, provide the necessary remedies regardless of cost, within a certain amount of time BEFORE YOU MAY SELL YOUR OWN HOUSE. So unless you bought a house that is seen as suitable through the eyes of the federal government, you can expect to spend plenty of money remaking your house, even if selling your house is a matter of economic survival for you.

You WILL pay more!

From Stephen Spruiell at National Review Online, who writes:

Krugman Does Our Work For Us [Stephen Spruiell]

Fresh off his thundering condemnation of “treason against the planet,” Paul Krugman has a written a blog post on the subject of that trade provision in the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. Here’s the shorter version of Krugman’s argument:

The goal of Waxman-Markey is make the cheapest form of energy we have more expensive, consequently making everything produced in this country more expensive. It would defeat the purpose of this legislation to allow U.S. consumers to evade this energy tax by purchasing products from countries like China that choose not to adopt a similar tax. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to restrict Americans’ access to products from these countries, and the president is wrong to oppose such restrictions. What about that don’t you dumb hicks understand?

To which I reply: Please, please keep making this argument. As loudly as you can.

If you don’t understand Spruiell’s summation of Krugman’s argument, it’s this:  We Americans need to be punished financially and economically.  Krugman wants Obama to make it illegal to purchase products from China because it will save us money after cap and trade doubles the price of pretty much everything made in America.

As Spruiell says:  Let’s make sure everyone in America knows what Krugman thinks.  I doubt many people out there can afford to have everything but their salaries double with cap and trade.

More on the topic from FoxNews.com.