When Orson Wells broadcast on the radio that we were under attack by Martians many people believed him and a near panic erupted. Switchboards in the 1930's were swamped with calls from worried citizens seeking help. Despite scant evidence of an extraterrestrial invasion Americans accepted the possibility with little question. Why then do so many Americans fail to understand the present day real world threat Islam poses on the world when there is so much evidence of this? Why is it easier to believe Martians are attacking us than Muslims?
Are Americans simply exhausted with the idea of war after WW II, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq? If so, they forget that the last three were caused by Muslims attacking others. Or is it a matter that Americans don’t understand Islam and its quest for a world with Islam as the only religion and political system?
It is wrong to think of Islam as a cult. Islam is a comprehensive system where worship and law (Sharia) are merged. The distinction between the secular and religious or spiritual realms is not new to Christianity but it is alien to Islam and Muslims. For Muslims it is essential to accept the concept of duality in life. Muslims believe that Allah is the sole Creator and Sustainer of the World. One who "…takes account of every single thing (Qur'an 72:28); that He is omnipotent and omniscient; that His mercy and bounties encompasses everyone and suffice for all. Muslims believe Allah revealed His divine guidance to humanity, made certain things permissible and others prohibited. Allah commanded people to observe His injunctions and to act according to them. If they do not do so, then they have committed disobedience and transgression, and risk death.
To Muslims Islam is a unique way of life (religion) where the life of this world is not all important because paradise awaits them if they follow Islam perfectly. The relative importance of this world is described in the Qur’an, "O our Lord! Give us in this world that which is good and in the Hereafter that which is good, and save us from the torment of the Fire" (Qur’an, 2:201). Allah says "This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion (way of life)" (Qur’an 5:3). Islam as a complete code of life and Muslims believe it is the only hope in the pathetic state of affairs that mankind finds itself today.
The Islamic Sharia is a complete scheme of life and an all-embracing social order where nothing is superfluous and nothing lacking. Therefore there is no separation between state and church. This is an artificial separation from an Islamic perspective, though totally foreign to the western world and antithetical to freedom as we know it.
Problems develop in western countries because Islam allows Muslims to live anywhere in the world provided they fulfill their fundamental religious duties but too often this is contrary to the laws of the countries into which they immigrate. Western civilizations welcome them, not realizing what's in store for them.
Here is how Islam intrusion works as summarized from the CIA in the World Fact Book:
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country, they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. Countries currently in this category include: United States - Muslim 1.0%; Australia - Muslim 1.5%; Canada -Muslim 1.9%; Italy - Muslim 1.5%, and Norway - Muslim 1.8%.
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from jails and street gangs: Denmark - Muslim 2%; Germany - Muslim 4%; United Kingdom - Muslim 3%; and Spain - Muslim 4%.
From 5% on they exercise an influence out of proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of Halal (Clean By Islamic Standards) food and in supermarkets to feature it on shelves, accompanied by threats for non compliance: France - Muslim 10%; Philippines - Muslim 5%; Sweden - Muslim 5%; Switzerland - Muslim 4.3%; and The Netherlands - Muslim 5 to 7%. At this point Muslims will try to get the government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia Law.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness to complain about their conditions (which are due to themselves), e.g. Paris car burnings. Any action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats, e.g. Danish Mohammed Cartoons, and even in Russia - Muslim 10 to 15% (the school take-over by Chechen Muslims).
After Reaching 20% the host country can expect rioting, jihad actions, sporadic killings and church and Synagogue burning as in Ethiopia - Muslim 33%.
At 40% there will be wide spread massacres, chronic terror attacks and on going Muslim militia warfare: Chad - Muslim 53%; Lebanon - Muslim 60%.
Over 60% there will be persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and "Jizya", the tax placed on Infidels: Albania - Muslim 70%; Malaysia - Muslim 60%; and Sudan - Muslim 70%.
Beyond 80% there is state run ethnic cleansing and genocide: Egypt - Muslim 90% (remember the Coptic?); Gaza - Muslim 99%; Indonesia - Muslim 86% Iran - Muslim 98% Iraq - Muslim 97%; Jordan - Muslim 92%; Palestine - Muslim 99%; and Syria - Muslim 90%.
The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia Law over the entire World.
When a country is 100% Muslim, there is supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim as in Afghanistan - Muslim 100%; Saudi Arabia - Muslim 100%; and Somalia - Muslim 100% (is Somalia peaceful?). Of Course, that's not the case because Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons. As Leon Uris wrote in ‘The Haj’: "…before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life; it was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel."
Muslims do not integrate into the community at large therefore they have more power than their numbers would otherwise indicate. Nonetheless, the world continues to cater to and negotiate with Muslims not realizing that the Muslim goal is to destroy our freedom in a politically correct way; whether it is freedom of speech or freedom of religion. We accept this so as not to offend our Muslim "brothers" whose goal is to replace our freedom with universal Islam. If we allow this, we will have no one else to blame but ourselves.
It’s time to wake up America! Muslims are worse than Martians; it's not Orson Wells spoofing, it's the real thing.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Saturday, June 7, 2008
The truth about oil prices
The price of oil is given by the cost of one barrel of oil. A barrel of oil is 42 gallons. At an oil price of $138 a barrel, the price of oil is $3.29 a gallon. Yet we wonder why gasoline costs $4 a gallon.
With gasoline prices in the range of $4 a gallon, this leaves about $0.70 (70 cents) a gallon for oil to be processed into gasoline and other derivative products and for gasoline to be delivered and sold at the local gasoline station. Costs that must come out of the $0.70 include transportation to oil refineries, actual oil processing in accordance with environmental regulations, delivery to the gas station and ultimately to the pump.
Taxes also are part of the price of gasoline at the pump. To begin the tax calculation, the federal tax on gasoline is $0.184 per gallon (18.4 cents). State taxes vary from state-to-state, from a low of $0.08 a gallon in Alaska to a high of $0.32 per gallon in Wisconsin. Gasoline taxes in most states are in the 18 to 25 cents a gallon range but New York state gasoline tax is 32 cents a gallon and in Pennsylvania the gasoline tax is 31 cents a gallon.
Now recall that we started with $0.70 (70 cents) a gallon over the oil price for processing, etc. the oil and for bringing gasoline to the pump at the gas station, and all together the gasoline price of $4.00 a gallon includes state and federal taxes for a total of $0.27 per gallon in Alaska to $0.51 in Wisconsin. This leaves a potential "profit" maximum of $0.33 (33 cents a gallon) in Alaska and $0.19 (19 cents a gallon) in Wisconsin.
The profit for the oil company and the gas station must come out of the 33 cents or 19 cents. However both the oil company and gas station have costs that must be added to costs they incur before setting the gasoline price to you at the pump. These costs vary but there isn’t a lot of room for oil company stockholders and gas station owners to reap the benefit of their investments.
The obvious question then is how come oil companies are reporting such large profits if the numbers show the profit potential per gallon of oil to be so relatively low. The answer is volume.
Huge amounts of oil are needed to fuel the economic engines of all countries and the demand for oil continually grows. The latest forecast from the International Energy Agency calls for global oil demand of 87.2 million barrels a day this year. That would be an increase in consumption of 1.3 million barrels a day from 2007 despite a U.S. economic slowdown and soaring oil prices.
Just when oil is getting more expensive to produce, the oil industries in three key countries, Mexico, Russia and Nigeria, lack the money or will to maintain or increase levels of oil production and global oil production in general is headed into a decline.
The Russian oil industry, for example, announced that production had fallen 1% in the first quarter of 2008. According to the Russian energy ministry, oil production for the full year could be lower than in 2007. Any decline would mark a huge reversal. Russian production has grown steadily over the past 10 years, and in its supply-and-demand projections the International Energy Agency has been counting on growth in Russian production of 5% by 2012 to offset big declines in older fields in the North Sea and Mexico.
The International Energy Agency now estimates that worldwide production from older existing fields is now falling each year by about 4.5 million barrels a day. To stay even, let alone to meet rising demand from the new automobile drivers of Russia, China and other countries, the world has to increase annual production by 4.5 million barrels a day.
While all this is happening Democrats in government and environmentalists are standing in the way of the United States' ability to increase the supply of oil. Left-leaning politicians and, unfortunately too many Republicans, are more concerned with erroneous beliefs in man-made global warming to focus on the real needs of our country. As we switch light bulbs, create a huge additional bureaucracy for cap-and-trade "carbon credits, and make inferior additions to dilute the gasoline fuel, our economy will undergo an enormous destructive effect and our way of life will be irreversibly altered for the worse.
The United States is blessed with an almost limitless capability to produce oil but we are prevented from recovering and producing it. Proven technology can be harnessed to extract oil from abundant coal reserves and large amounts of oil in place remain untapped. Americans have proven to be able to rise to national emergencies and overcome all obstacles by unleashing a market economy on any problem but American success is artificially thwarted by socialists masquerading as environmentalists.
The only thing that can be done is for Americans to waken to the threats we face and take all possible action to change the direction our leaders are taking us; God help us all if we don’t.
With gasoline prices in the range of $4 a gallon, this leaves about $0.70 (70 cents) a gallon for oil to be processed into gasoline and other derivative products and for gasoline to be delivered and sold at the local gasoline station. Costs that must come out of the $0.70 include transportation to oil refineries, actual oil processing in accordance with environmental regulations, delivery to the gas station and ultimately to the pump.
Taxes also are part of the price of gasoline at the pump. To begin the tax calculation, the federal tax on gasoline is $0.184 per gallon (18.4 cents). State taxes vary from state-to-state, from a low of $0.08 a gallon in Alaska to a high of $0.32 per gallon in Wisconsin. Gasoline taxes in most states are in the 18 to 25 cents a gallon range but New York state gasoline tax is 32 cents a gallon and in Pennsylvania the gasoline tax is 31 cents a gallon.
Now recall that we started with $0.70 (70 cents) a gallon over the oil price for processing, etc. the oil and for bringing gasoline to the pump at the gas station, and all together the gasoline price of $4.00 a gallon includes state and federal taxes for a total of $0.27 per gallon in Alaska to $0.51 in Wisconsin. This leaves a potential "profit" maximum of $0.33 (33 cents a gallon) in Alaska and $0.19 (19 cents a gallon) in Wisconsin.
The profit for the oil company and the gas station must come out of the 33 cents or 19 cents. However both the oil company and gas station have costs that must be added to costs they incur before setting the gasoline price to you at the pump. These costs vary but there isn’t a lot of room for oil company stockholders and gas station owners to reap the benefit of their investments.
The obvious question then is how come oil companies are reporting such large profits if the numbers show the profit potential per gallon of oil to be so relatively low. The answer is volume.
Huge amounts of oil are needed to fuel the economic engines of all countries and the demand for oil continually grows. The latest forecast from the International Energy Agency calls for global oil demand of 87.2 million barrels a day this year. That would be an increase in consumption of 1.3 million barrels a day from 2007 despite a U.S. economic slowdown and soaring oil prices.
Just when oil is getting more expensive to produce, the oil industries in three key countries, Mexico, Russia and Nigeria, lack the money or will to maintain or increase levels of oil production and global oil production in general is headed into a decline.
The Russian oil industry, for example, announced that production had fallen 1% in the first quarter of 2008. According to the Russian energy ministry, oil production for the full year could be lower than in 2007. Any decline would mark a huge reversal. Russian production has grown steadily over the past 10 years, and in its supply-and-demand projections the International Energy Agency has been counting on growth in Russian production of 5% by 2012 to offset big declines in older fields in the North Sea and Mexico.
The International Energy Agency now estimates that worldwide production from older existing fields is now falling each year by about 4.5 million barrels a day. To stay even, let alone to meet rising demand from the new automobile drivers of Russia, China and other countries, the world has to increase annual production by 4.5 million barrels a day.
While all this is happening Democrats in government and environmentalists are standing in the way of the United States' ability to increase the supply of oil. Left-leaning politicians and, unfortunately too many Republicans, are more concerned with erroneous beliefs in man-made global warming to focus on the real needs of our country. As we switch light bulbs, create a huge additional bureaucracy for cap-and-trade "carbon credits, and make inferior additions to dilute the gasoline fuel, our economy will undergo an enormous destructive effect and our way of life will be irreversibly altered for the worse.
The United States is blessed with an almost limitless capability to produce oil but we are prevented from recovering and producing it. Proven technology can be harnessed to extract oil from abundant coal reserves and large amounts of oil in place remain untapped. Americans have proven to be able to rise to national emergencies and overcome all obstacles by unleashing a market economy on any problem but American success is artificially thwarted by socialists masquerading as environmentalists.
The only thing that can be done is for Americans to waken to the threats we face and take all possible action to change the direction our leaders are taking us; God help us all if we don’t.
Friday, June 6, 2008
“Mama don’t let your little boys grow up to be cowboys”; Mama please let your little boys (and girls) grow up to be trial attorneys.
There is a song that goes something like this, "Mama don’t let your little boys grow up to be cowboys"; but someone should write a sequel, "Mama please let your little boys (and girls) grow up to be trial attorneys."
In a two-inch article on page 5 of my local newspaper there was a report that several homeless people in Fresno (California) who claimed their belongings were wrongfully seized reached a $2.3 million settlement with the city and state. The "aggrieved" victims will receive $1.4 million and the attorney gets $850,000, not bad for a little boy who grew up to be a trial attorney.
This report inspired me to look into the matter of attorney fees; and it was shocking, but not surprising, what I found.
First of all, an aspiring trial attorney can by a book, "Attorney Fee Awards" for $496.00 (free shipping included) "which is an easy to read book that any attorney can use in any practice area." Here are some of the benefits that the Attorney Fee Awards book gives to prospective trial lawyers:
"Alerts you to the many opportunities today to request an award of attorney fees -- despite the law they told you in law school."
"Tells you The Top Four Elements of Good Time Records -- which you need to know if you want time records that clients, courts, and juries rush to pay, and leave adversaries unable to dispute your request as excessive."
"Shows you how on the defense you can attack time records, and make judges distrustful of your opponent's request."
"Provides defendants with traps to lay in settlement negotiations (unless the plaintiff's counsel has read this handbook or is a veteran fee award litigator)."
"Provides plaintiffs with fee award leverage in settlement."
"Warns you of potential pitfalls in presenting an award for fees."
"Gives you forms for deposing the adversary's expert witness on fees, and for doing the direct examination of your own fee expert at deposition or trial."
It seems many attorneys must have purchased these instructions for how to make yourself rich at the expense of your injured clients and the poor tax payers who support local and state governments.
Starting small, by trial attorney standards, consider a civil rights action where a plaintiff claimed "police framed him" in the city of Harvey (Illinois), the jury verdict awarded him $25,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages, the trial judge awarded more than $500,000 in attorney’s fees, twice the amount awarded to the alleged "victim."
In another case, the ACLU and People for the American Way requested and received a total of $488,601.10 in attorney fees and costs in their suit against the Loudoun County (Virginia) public library for using software that filters out Internet pornography. Judge Binkema ruled against the library, on motions for summary judgment, without a trial. "It is not at all outside the range of normal legal fees," said Ann Beeson, of the ACLU. "It is fairly standard."
This award is outrageous enough, but if you consider that the ACLU uses paid staff attorneys, not outside counsel in their law suits, it is a fraud on the public in general and, more specifically the tax payers involved, of immense proportions.
As an aside, this case is a prime example of how the ACLU uses the courts to intimidate defendants into settlements without appealing court verdicts. They initially sued the both the library, and the individual board members who voted for the policy. This would have left these people personally liable for the attorneys’ fees payment unless the case was settled.
Without doubt the most heinous examples of trial attorney excesses are in the area of class action law suits. There are advantages of class action lawsuits because they aggregate a large number of individualized claims into one representational lawsuit. In some cases this is an efficient way to deal with legitimate claims of injured parties but it can also be the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for trial attorneys.
There are several criticisms of class action lawsuits. Class members often receive little or no benefit from class actions. Examples cited for this include large fees for the attorneys, while leaving class members with coupons or other awards of little or no value; unjustified awards are made to certain plaintiffs at the expense of other class members; and confusing notices are published that prevent class members from being able to fully understand and effectively exercise their rights.
For example, in the United States, class lawsuits sometimes bind all class members with a low settlement. These "coupon settlements" (which usually allow the plaintiffs to receive minimal benefit such as a small check or a coupon for future services or products with the defendant company) are a way for a defendant to forestall major liability by precluding a large number of people from litigating their claims separately, to recover reasonable compensation for the damages. Although "injured parties" in a class action law suits often receive little or no compensation, trial lawyers win the lottery.
Consider also the tobacco class action suits filed against the tobacco industry for failing to warn or prevent smokers from getting ill, usually from cancer. Although there is hardly anyone in the world not aware of smokers’ perils, and all who can read can see from warnings on cigarette packages, class action law suits against tobacco companies were a windfall for lawyers and the smokers on the whole received virtually nothing directly.
All together nation wide tobacco settlements required tobacco companies to pay $206 billion to 46 states (some estimates are $246 billion) but the total over 25 years is $346 billion * (that’s billion with a "b"); the smokers won’t get this money, it goes to the states to implement various education campaigns but generally the money goes into government coffers to allow state governments to give away even more money rather then reduce budgets or taxes.
After the tobacco cases were concluded, a panel of mediators in Washington voted 2-1 to award $ 8 billion in fees to attorneys who filed lawsuits against tobacco companies in Florida, Texas and Mississippi. Florida attorneys received $ 3.4 billion, Texas attorneys received $ 3.3 billion and Mississippi attorneys received $ 1.45 billion. In what is the understatement of the last and current centuries, attorneys involved in the case said "It is the largest award for legal fees in history."
Of course the attorneys downplayed the number of zeroes that appeared on their paychecks. ''I had a nice shack in Palm Beach before this happened,'' said West Palm Beach's Bob Montgomery, who lives in an oceanfront mansion and drives a Rolls-Royce, after stepping off the golf course, ''It's not going to change my lifestyle at all.''
On the other hand, putting the attorney fee award somewhat into perspective, ''Nobody has taken in this much loot since Hannibal sacked Rome,'' said Bill Herrle, Florida Director of the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
Trial attorneys in California involved with the tobacco cases also benefited well for their "public service". The group of lawyers involved in California cases received $1.3 billion in court awarded fees.
Tobacco companies got off lightly in a second hand smoke case, but once again trial lawyers didn’t do badly. In the recent flight attendants' second hand smoke lawsuit, the tobacco industry agreed to pay $300 million to a research foundation -- not the workers -- and $49 million to the lawyers.
Not surprisingly, the attorney fee issue splits politicos along partisan lines. Many of the lawyers involved in the lawsuits against the tobacco industry were well-known large contributors to the Democratic Party. Public records show lawyers from 13 firms involved with tobacco cases made over $3 million in political contributions with most of that going to Democratic Party committees or candidates.
* Base annual payments -- 25-year total face value is $358.5 billion (figures are subject to inflation protection and to volume adjustments)
In a two-inch article on page 5 of my local newspaper there was a report that several homeless people in Fresno (California) who claimed their belongings were wrongfully seized reached a $2.3 million settlement with the city and state. The "aggrieved" victims will receive $1.4 million and the attorney gets $850,000, not bad for a little boy who grew up to be a trial attorney.
This report inspired me to look into the matter of attorney fees; and it was shocking, but not surprising, what I found.
First of all, an aspiring trial attorney can by a book, "Attorney Fee Awards" for $496.00 (free shipping included) "which is an easy to read book that any attorney can use in any practice area." Here are some of the benefits that the Attorney Fee Awards book gives to prospective trial lawyers:
"Alerts you to the many opportunities today to request an award of attorney fees -- despite the law they told you in law school."
"Tells you The Top Four Elements of Good Time Records -- which you need to know if you want time records that clients, courts, and juries rush to pay, and leave adversaries unable to dispute your request as excessive."
"Shows you how on the defense you can attack time records, and make judges distrustful of your opponent's request."
"Provides defendants with traps to lay in settlement negotiations (unless the plaintiff's counsel has read this handbook or is a veteran fee award litigator)."
"Provides plaintiffs with fee award leverage in settlement."
"Warns you of potential pitfalls in presenting an award for fees."
"Gives you forms for deposing the adversary's expert witness on fees, and for doing the direct examination of your own fee expert at deposition or trial."
It seems many attorneys must have purchased these instructions for how to make yourself rich at the expense of your injured clients and the poor tax payers who support local and state governments.
Starting small, by trial attorney standards, consider a civil rights action where a plaintiff claimed "police framed him" in the city of Harvey (Illinois), the jury verdict awarded him $25,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages, the trial judge awarded more than $500,000 in attorney’s fees, twice the amount awarded to the alleged "victim."
In another case, the ACLU and People for the American Way requested and received a total of $488,601.10 in attorney fees and costs in their suit against the Loudoun County (Virginia) public library for using software that filters out Internet pornography. Judge Binkema ruled against the library, on motions for summary judgment, without a trial. "It is not at all outside the range of normal legal fees," said Ann Beeson, of the ACLU. "It is fairly standard."
This award is outrageous enough, but if you consider that the ACLU uses paid staff attorneys, not outside counsel in their law suits, it is a fraud on the public in general and, more specifically the tax payers involved, of immense proportions.
As an aside, this case is a prime example of how the ACLU uses the courts to intimidate defendants into settlements without appealing court verdicts. They initially sued the both the library, and the individual board members who voted for the policy. This would have left these people personally liable for the attorneys’ fees payment unless the case was settled.
Without doubt the most heinous examples of trial attorney excesses are in the area of class action law suits. There are advantages of class action lawsuits because they aggregate a large number of individualized claims into one representational lawsuit. In some cases this is an efficient way to deal with legitimate claims of injured parties but it can also be the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for trial attorneys.
There are several criticisms of class action lawsuits. Class members often receive little or no benefit from class actions. Examples cited for this include large fees for the attorneys, while leaving class members with coupons or other awards of little or no value; unjustified awards are made to certain plaintiffs at the expense of other class members; and confusing notices are published that prevent class members from being able to fully understand and effectively exercise their rights.
For example, in the United States, class lawsuits sometimes bind all class members with a low settlement. These "coupon settlements" (which usually allow the plaintiffs to receive minimal benefit such as a small check or a coupon for future services or products with the defendant company) are a way for a defendant to forestall major liability by precluding a large number of people from litigating their claims separately, to recover reasonable compensation for the damages. Although "injured parties" in a class action law suits often receive little or no compensation, trial lawyers win the lottery.
Consider also the tobacco class action suits filed against the tobacco industry for failing to warn or prevent smokers from getting ill, usually from cancer. Although there is hardly anyone in the world not aware of smokers’ perils, and all who can read can see from warnings on cigarette packages, class action law suits against tobacco companies were a windfall for lawyers and the smokers on the whole received virtually nothing directly.
All together nation wide tobacco settlements required tobacco companies to pay $206 billion to 46 states (some estimates are $246 billion) but the total over 25 years is $346 billion * (that’s billion with a "b"); the smokers won’t get this money, it goes to the states to implement various education campaigns but generally the money goes into government coffers to allow state governments to give away even more money rather then reduce budgets or taxes.
After the tobacco cases were concluded, a panel of mediators in Washington voted 2-1 to award $ 8 billion in fees to attorneys who filed lawsuits against tobacco companies in Florida, Texas and Mississippi. Florida attorneys received $ 3.4 billion, Texas attorneys received $ 3.3 billion and Mississippi attorneys received $ 1.45 billion. In what is the understatement of the last and current centuries, attorneys involved in the case said "It is the largest award for legal fees in history."
Of course the attorneys downplayed the number of zeroes that appeared on their paychecks. ''I had a nice shack in Palm Beach before this happened,'' said West Palm Beach's Bob Montgomery, who lives in an oceanfront mansion and drives a Rolls-Royce, after stepping off the golf course, ''It's not going to change my lifestyle at all.''
On the other hand, putting the attorney fee award somewhat into perspective, ''Nobody has taken in this much loot since Hannibal sacked Rome,'' said Bill Herrle, Florida Director of the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
Trial attorneys in California involved with the tobacco cases also benefited well for their "public service". The group of lawyers involved in California cases received $1.3 billion in court awarded fees.
Tobacco companies got off lightly in a second hand smoke case, but once again trial lawyers didn’t do badly. In the recent flight attendants' second hand smoke lawsuit, the tobacco industry agreed to pay $300 million to a research foundation -- not the workers -- and $49 million to the lawyers.
Not surprisingly, the attorney fee issue splits politicos along partisan lines. Many of the lawyers involved in the lawsuits against the tobacco industry were well-known large contributors to the Democratic Party. Public records show lawyers from 13 firms involved with tobacco cases made over $3 million in political contributions with most of that going to Democratic Party committees or candidates.
* Base annual payments -- 25-year total face value is $358.5 billion (figures are subject to inflation protection and to volume adjustments)
Thursday, June 5, 2008
"Hate crimes" have a special place in the idiocy of political correctness
The concept of a "hate crime" has a special place in the idiocy of political correctness. We have had to put up with all sorts of nonsense forced upon us by the pressure of special interest groups but the idea a crime is somehow made worse by the intent of the criminal is absurd in the extreme. Among the many problems with attempting to explore a criminal’s motivation is that law enforcement and courts have to become psychologists to determine whether a hate crime has been committed. But far worse is the politically correct expansion of what can be construed as a hate crime.
In Canada a priest is being investigated as a potential criminal under a federal "hate crimes" law for quoting from the Bible, and he's being targeted using a Canadian provision under which no defendant ever has been acquitted, according to a new report. A canon lawyer and Catholic journalist, Pete Vere, has reported the prosecution of Father Alphonse de Valk, a pro-life activist, by the Canadian Human Rights Commission – "a quasi-judicial investigative body with the power of the Canadian government behind it" – (see CatholicExchange.com).
As reported by WorldNet Daily, according to Vere, "Father defended the [Catholic] Church's teaching on marriage during Canada's same-sex 'marriage' debate, quoting extensively from the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II's encyclicals. Each of these documents contains official Catholic teaching. And like millions of other people throughout the world and the ages – many of whom are non-Catholics and non-Christians — Father believes that marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman."
This case is reminiscent of the problem facing columnist and author Mark Steyn, and Maclean's magazine which published an excerpt from his "America Alone" book, is on trial before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal for similar "offenses." Faisal Joseph, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Steyn dispute, said in a LifeSiteNew.com report, "We know under the Supreme Court of Canada [and] under tribunals of this country that there are reasonable limits [to freedom of expression.]"
In the Steyn case it is asserted that he depicted Muslims as "a violent people" with a religion that is "violent." This apparently came as a shock to Canadian authorities who must have lived in a cave inaccessible to news of the past 30 years and of Islamic history.
In the case of Father Alphonse de Valk the question is raised whether Canada now considers morality a "hate crime." Peter Vere asks "If one, because of one's sincerely held moral beliefs, whether it be Jew, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, opposes the idea of same-sex marriage in Canada, is that considered 'hate'?". It seems that Vere got a response from Mark van Dusen, a spokesman for the federal human rights prosecution office; it is shocking:
"We investigate complaints; we don't set public policy or moral standards. We investigate complaints based on the circumstances and the details outlined in the complaint. And … if … upon investigation, deem that there is sufficient evidence, then we may forward the complaint to the tribunal, but the hate is defined in the Human Rights Act under section 13-1. Our job is to look at it, compare it to the act, to accumulate case law, tribunal and court decisions that have reflected on hate and decide whether to advance the complaint, dismiss it or whether there is room for a settlement between parties."
What is amazing is the admission that unjustified complaints are subject to a decision as to whether a case will be brought; this means a case can be dismissed, yet the case against de Valk has continued now for more than six months.
"In other words" wrote Vere (according to WMD), "individual Jews, Muslims, Catholics and other Christians who, for reasons of conscience, hold to their faith's traditional teaching concerning marriage, could very well be guilty of promoting hate in Canada. The same is true of any faith community in Canada that does not embrace this modern redefinition of one of the world's oldest institutions – a redefinition that even the highly secularist France rejects."
The "Catholic Insight" magazine that "bases itself on the Church's teaching and applies it to various circumstances in our time," is accused by a homosexual of promoting "extreme hatred and contempt". The priest is simply following the teachings in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II's encyclicals. "Each of these documents contains official Catholic teaching. And like millions of other people throughout the world and the ages – many of whom are non-Catholics and non-Christians — Father believes that marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman.”
WMD points out that these cases are not the only ones dealing with complaints of alleged hate crimes, other cases already have substantiated the Canadian precedent that Christian beliefs can be evidence for convictions.
A Knights of Columbus council was fined in 2005 more than $1,000 for refusing to allow its facility to be used for a lesbian "wedding," and before that printer Scott Brockie was fined $5,000 for declining to print homosexual-themed stationery. In Saskatchewan, Hugh Owens was fined thousands of dollars for quoting Bible verses in a newspaper and London, Ontario, Mayor Diane Haskett was fined $10,000 for refusing to proclaim a homosexual pride day.
WMD also notes the situation has been described by Bishop Fred Henry as "a new form of censorship and thought control." Those are the same words leading Christians in the United States have used to describe the most recent "hate crimes" plan before the U.S. Congress, which specifically targeted for elimination criticism of alternative sexual lifestyles.
The net affect in the Steyn case and the other cases described is that a Canadian human rights tribunal now has the ability to prosecute a case against an American citizen based upon what he wrote and other expressions of faith posted to a mainstream American Catholic website. What passes for mainstream Catholic discussion is now the basis for a hate complaint in Canada.
Although the legal actions taken in Canada are reprehensible, the United States is not immune to such absurdity either. There was a case in New Mexico where a photographer fined $6,600 for refusing to meet the demands of a lesbian to take pictures at a "wedding."
Perhaps the worst of all is that California has enacted a state law banning the introduction of anything but "positive" information about alternative sexual lifestyles, including homosexuality, in its public schools.
It has also been reported a verbal dispute between two men on a street in Champaign, Ill., resulted in a self-proclaimed homosexual facing no charges while the other, an 18-year-old Christian student, is facing felony "hate crimes" counts.
Is Canadian law discriminating against people on the basis of their religious faith, or even against God himself, who gave us the laws to live by? Will the politically correct leftists in the United States succeed in duplicating here the Canadian hate crimes model, just as they would with health care?
In Canada a priest is being investigated as a potential criminal under a federal "hate crimes" law for quoting from the Bible, and he's being targeted using a Canadian provision under which no defendant ever has been acquitted, according to a new report. A canon lawyer and Catholic journalist, Pete Vere, has reported the prosecution of Father Alphonse de Valk, a pro-life activist, by the Canadian Human Rights Commission – "a quasi-judicial investigative body with the power of the Canadian government behind it" – (see CatholicExchange.com).
As reported by WorldNet Daily, according to Vere, "Father defended the [Catholic] Church's teaching on marriage during Canada's same-sex 'marriage' debate, quoting extensively from the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II's encyclicals. Each of these documents contains official Catholic teaching. And like millions of other people throughout the world and the ages – many of whom are non-Catholics and non-Christians — Father believes that marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman."
This case is reminiscent of the problem facing columnist and author Mark Steyn, and Maclean's magazine which published an excerpt from his "America Alone" book, is on trial before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal for similar "offenses." Faisal Joseph, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Steyn dispute, said in a LifeSiteNew.com report, "We know under the Supreme Court of Canada [and] under tribunals of this country that there are reasonable limits [to freedom of expression.]"
In the Steyn case it is asserted that he depicted Muslims as "a violent people" with a religion that is "violent." This apparently came as a shock to Canadian authorities who must have lived in a cave inaccessible to news of the past 30 years and of Islamic history.
In the case of Father Alphonse de Valk the question is raised whether Canada now considers morality a "hate crime." Peter Vere asks "If one, because of one's sincerely held moral beliefs, whether it be Jew, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, opposes the idea of same-sex marriage in Canada, is that considered 'hate'?". It seems that Vere got a response from Mark van Dusen, a spokesman for the federal human rights prosecution office; it is shocking:
"We investigate complaints; we don't set public policy or moral standards. We investigate complaints based on the circumstances and the details outlined in the complaint. And … if … upon investigation, deem that there is sufficient evidence, then we may forward the complaint to the tribunal, but the hate is defined in the Human Rights Act under section 13-1. Our job is to look at it, compare it to the act, to accumulate case law, tribunal and court decisions that have reflected on hate and decide whether to advance the complaint, dismiss it or whether there is room for a settlement between parties."
What is amazing is the admission that unjustified complaints are subject to a decision as to whether a case will be brought; this means a case can be dismissed, yet the case against de Valk has continued now for more than six months.
"In other words" wrote Vere (according to WMD), "individual Jews, Muslims, Catholics and other Christians who, for reasons of conscience, hold to their faith's traditional teaching concerning marriage, could very well be guilty of promoting hate in Canada. The same is true of any faith community in Canada that does not embrace this modern redefinition of one of the world's oldest institutions – a redefinition that even the highly secularist France rejects."
The "Catholic Insight" magazine that "bases itself on the Church's teaching and applies it to various circumstances in our time," is accused by a homosexual of promoting "extreme hatred and contempt". The priest is simply following the teachings in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II's encyclicals. "Each of these documents contains official Catholic teaching. And like millions of other people throughout the world and the ages – many of whom are non-Catholics and non-Christians — Father believes that marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman.”
WMD points out that these cases are not the only ones dealing with complaints of alleged hate crimes, other cases already have substantiated the Canadian precedent that Christian beliefs can be evidence for convictions.
A Knights of Columbus council was fined in 2005 more than $1,000 for refusing to allow its facility to be used for a lesbian "wedding," and before that printer Scott Brockie was fined $5,000 for declining to print homosexual-themed stationery. In Saskatchewan, Hugh Owens was fined thousands of dollars for quoting Bible verses in a newspaper and London, Ontario, Mayor Diane Haskett was fined $10,000 for refusing to proclaim a homosexual pride day.
WMD also notes the situation has been described by Bishop Fred Henry as "a new form of censorship and thought control." Those are the same words leading Christians in the United States have used to describe the most recent "hate crimes" plan before the U.S. Congress, which specifically targeted for elimination criticism of alternative sexual lifestyles.
The net affect in the Steyn case and the other cases described is that a Canadian human rights tribunal now has the ability to prosecute a case against an American citizen based upon what he wrote and other expressions of faith posted to a mainstream American Catholic website. What passes for mainstream Catholic discussion is now the basis for a hate complaint in Canada.
Although the legal actions taken in Canada are reprehensible, the United States is not immune to such absurdity either. There was a case in New Mexico where a photographer fined $6,600 for refusing to meet the demands of a lesbian to take pictures at a "wedding."
Perhaps the worst of all is that California has enacted a state law banning the introduction of anything but "positive" information about alternative sexual lifestyles, including homosexuality, in its public schools.
It has also been reported a verbal dispute between two men on a street in Champaign, Ill., resulted in a self-proclaimed homosexual facing no charges while the other, an 18-year-old Christian student, is facing felony "hate crimes" counts.
Is Canadian law discriminating against people on the basis of their religious faith, or even against God himself, who gave us the laws to live by? Will the politically correct leftists in the United States succeed in duplicating here the Canadian hate crimes model, just as they would with health care?
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Clothespins for sale!
American conservative have political heartburn. We are forced once again to choose the lesser evil when we vote for president in November. Though this itself is not unusual in many election decisions, it is especially egregious this year because the Republican candidate eschews so many principles important to the conservative segment of the Republican Party and the Democrat opponent is as close to a socialist as we have had in over two hundred years. For this reason some conservatives have suggested sitting out this election to let the Democrats mess things up so badly that that Republicans will be a shoo-in two or four years.
But is this a good idea? Even just four years of such a president when combined with a congress that shares his beliefs may very well transform our country to such an extent that the changes made may be impossible to reverse.
If a Democrat president together with a Democrat congress appoint and approve liberal judges who serve for their lifetimes, the liberal Democrat legacy will continue for decades and long after any potential Republican resurgence. There are many examples throughout the country where such judges have over turned the will of a majority of voters on very skimpy grounds to advance a liberal agenda. In many cases liberal judges make law from the bench and over rule previous court decisions and legislative action. The power of the judiciary has increased far beyond the constitutional expectation of checks and balances among the three branches of government.
In another area of great importance federal government departments and presidential appointees of cabinet positions approved by a Democrat-controlled Senate would run the extensive array of government agencies and would be in charge of federal rule making. All government Departments: Health, Energy, Homeland Security, Interior, Commerce, Labor, Defense, Treasury, Agriculture, Veteran Affairs, Interior, Education, Transportation, Housing, and the office of Attorney General, would be in Democrat hands. I didn’t mention the State Department because it is difficult to see how much difference there would be between the current Department of State and the one run by a Democrat appointee, and in any case it is likely it would reflect the policy set by the Democrat president. These departments exert enormous independent authority over lives of Americans and will execute the socialist agenda of the Democrat president.
In addition to these top positions, cabinet Secretaries appoint a myriad of secondary department leadership positions that actually handle day-to-day management and they also exert enormous power over people’s lives. Then there are the FTC, FCC, and the thousands of other federal agencies. The FCC alone has significant authority over radio and TV and could enact rules to stifle conservative access to the air ways; remember the "fairness doctrine"? How about the EPA? This agency will lead any global warming initiative passed by congress and signed by whoever is president because both the Democrat and Republican nominees support the idea of controlling carbon dioxide emissions and how we can run our cars and electric power plants.
If you think dealing with hurricane Katrina was expensive, consider that according to The Heritage Foundation, the economic damage of the Lieberman-Warner bill would equal the cost of "660 hurricanes -- 35 per year -- for two decades." The price tag of Lieberman-Warner is more than hundreds of hurricanes, and Democrat bureaucrats will have no trouble spending the Lieberman-Warner largess.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says Lieberman-Warner would effectively raise taxes on Americans by more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years, and these policies would be in the hands of Democrat socialists under a Democrat president administration.
The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that the Lieberman-Warner bill would result in huge annual reductions of U.S. gross domestic product and that gas prices would increase by $0.53 per gallon in the near term to $1.40 per gallon later on, just due to the changes required by Lieberman-Warner and not considering other cost factors. These increases are on top of the over $4 per gallon price of gasoline we pay today.
Climatologist Patrick Michaels thinks Lieberman-Warner would have virtually no effect on the climate, perhaps 0.013 degrees (Celsius) of "prevented" warming.
Also, let’s not forget "Hillary care". If you remember the Hillary Clinton health-care plan of 1993, you will recall that under the façade of providing health care to everyone, it would have nationalized one-seventh of the American economy. The current version is really a universal health insurance scheme and is favored by the Democrat presidential nominee and congressional Democrats. Although the media may try to sell this bill as a solution to health care availability to all, it is actually an attempt to mandate by government how much and what kind of medical care we may have; a typical socialist dream.
Such is what is at stake in the November presidential election; do we hold our collective nose and vote for the ‘unconservative’ Republican, or do we risk sliding father down the socialist ramp to government control? I have clothespins for sale.
But is this a good idea? Even just four years of such a president when combined with a congress that shares his beliefs may very well transform our country to such an extent that the changes made may be impossible to reverse.
If a Democrat president together with a Democrat congress appoint and approve liberal judges who serve for their lifetimes, the liberal Democrat legacy will continue for decades and long after any potential Republican resurgence. There are many examples throughout the country where such judges have over turned the will of a majority of voters on very skimpy grounds to advance a liberal agenda. In many cases liberal judges make law from the bench and over rule previous court decisions and legislative action. The power of the judiciary has increased far beyond the constitutional expectation of checks and balances among the three branches of government.
In another area of great importance federal government departments and presidential appointees of cabinet positions approved by a Democrat-controlled Senate would run the extensive array of government agencies and would be in charge of federal rule making. All government Departments: Health, Energy, Homeland Security, Interior, Commerce, Labor, Defense, Treasury, Agriculture, Veteran Affairs, Interior, Education, Transportation, Housing, and the office of Attorney General, would be in Democrat hands. I didn’t mention the State Department because it is difficult to see how much difference there would be between the current Department of State and the one run by a Democrat appointee, and in any case it is likely it would reflect the policy set by the Democrat president. These departments exert enormous independent authority over lives of Americans and will execute the socialist agenda of the Democrat president.
In addition to these top positions, cabinet Secretaries appoint a myriad of secondary department leadership positions that actually handle day-to-day management and they also exert enormous power over people’s lives. Then there are the FTC, FCC, and the thousands of other federal agencies. The FCC alone has significant authority over radio and TV and could enact rules to stifle conservative access to the air ways; remember the "fairness doctrine"? How about the EPA? This agency will lead any global warming initiative passed by congress and signed by whoever is president because both the Democrat and Republican nominees support the idea of controlling carbon dioxide emissions and how we can run our cars and electric power plants.
If you think dealing with hurricane Katrina was expensive, consider that according to The Heritage Foundation, the economic damage of the Lieberman-Warner bill would equal the cost of "660 hurricanes -- 35 per year -- for two decades." The price tag of Lieberman-Warner is more than hundreds of hurricanes, and Democrat bureaucrats will have no trouble spending the Lieberman-Warner largess.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says Lieberman-Warner would effectively raise taxes on Americans by more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years, and these policies would be in the hands of Democrat socialists under a Democrat president administration.
The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that the Lieberman-Warner bill would result in huge annual reductions of U.S. gross domestic product and that gas prices would increase by $0.53 per gallon in the near term to $1.40 per gallon later on, just due to the changes required by Lieberman-Warner and not considering other cost factors. These increases are on top of the over $4 per gallon price of gasoline we pay today.
Climatologist Patrick Michaels thinks Lieberman-Warner would have virtually no effect on the climate, perhaps 0.013 degrees (Celsius) of "prevented" warming.
Also, let’s not forget "Hillary care". If you remember the Hillary Clinton health-care plan of 1993, you will recall that under the façade of providing health care to everyone, it would have nationalized one-seventh of the American economy. The current version is really a universal health insurance scheme and is favored by the Democrat presidential nominee and congressional Democrats. Although the media may try to sell this bill as a solution to health care availability to all, it is actually an attempt to mandate by government how much and what kind of medical care we may have; a typical socialist dream.
Such is what is at stake in the November presidential election; do we hold our collective nose and vote for the ‘unconservative’ Republican, or do we risk sliding father down the socialist ramp to government control? I have clothespins for sale.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Once again congress ignores the will of the people to further a deceptive global warming agenda
Even though no one expects it to become law this year, a desperate effort is underway to enact the so-called "Climate Security Act", the brainchild of Senators Lieberman and Warner. As I have written before, among other horrors it would impose "cap-and-trade" mandates on anything that generates carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and that pretty much includes everything in our daily lives from electricity to cars.
Every time the words "security" or "independence" appear in the title of a Democrat sponsored bill (and I consider Joe Lieberman a Democrat even though the Democrat party threw him under the bus), you can be sure neither security nor independence are involved. You may recall the "Energy Security and Independence Act" passed into law not long ago did not provide security or independence, just a mandate to use compact fluorescent bulbs instead of the ones like Thomas Edison invented.
The same thing will happen after the Lieberman-Warner bill becomes law, not in this administration but surely the next. Just what "climate security" is remains an unanswerable question. The bill being discussed this week is based on the hopelessly false premise that mankind actually has the ability to change the planet’s climate in one way or another. If we really had such power wouldn’t we dispense with hurricanes, tornados, droughts and other nasty weather conditions? Why stop at changing the earth’s temperature?
What these political global warming useful idiots ignore is the earth is actually in a cooling cycle that even government agencies have acknowledged. Furthermore the simple scientific truth is that the earth’s atmosphere contains 0.038% carbon dioxide and water vapor makes up most of the rest. If the earth is warming, and obviously it has not during the last decade, any role played by carbon dioxide is negligible. But of course the politicos and leftists won’t accept that because their entire agenda depends on selling it to a gullible public.
Not long ago more than 31,000 real scientists, not the political kind, signed petitions declaring global warming to be a hoax; over 9,000 of them were PhDs and all of them were ignored.
It seems the only opposition in congress, such as it is, concerns the costs of implementing the Lieberman-Warner bill rather than on questioning the basic premise of the global warming claimants. Although the economic arguments are sound, it is incredible that even opponents are fearful of challenging the idea that discussion on the merits is closed because of the political ramifications of telling the world the Emperor has no clothes.
It is of course true that the costs of combating global warming by implementing Lieberman-Warner are high. A study by the Heritage Foundation predicts the following:
"The impact on the economy would be horrendous. Heritage estimates that cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses of at least $1.7 trillion that could reach $4.8 trillion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars)."
"Single-year GDP losses of at least $155 billion could exceed $500 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars)."
"Annual job losses that would exceed 500,000 before 2030 and could exceed a million."
"The annual cost of emission permits to energy users to cost at least $100 billion by 2020."
"The average household will pay $467 more each year for its natural gas and electricity (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars). That means that the average household will spend an additional $8,870 to purchase energy over the period 2012 to 2030."
It is absolutely amazing that congress thinks it is sound to destroy our economy in the name of the false premise behind the impetus for enacting some kind of law to be in lock-step with the international community and avoid their political slings and arrows. Just as we are trying to recover from the sub prime mortgage debacle and are facing huge increases in the price of gasoline (don’t tell me it's still cheaper than in Europe, we can do better than that if left to our own devices), we will be hugely burdened by taxes placed on productive business fulfilling basic living needs.
It is common for law makers to ignore the will of the majority of voters who put them in office; the illegal immigration and border issues being just one example. But the fact is that a majority of Americans also oppose the higher energy costs that Lieberman-Warner would impose. A press release from the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) reported a poll that found 65% of Americans reject spending even a penny more for gasoline in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The number rejecting raising gas prices in an effort to combat global warming has increased by 17 percentage points -- or 35% -- in just over two months since the previous poll in February. An additional 13% oppose spending more than 5% more for gasoline (at $4 a gallon that’s just 20 cents) to attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Regarding electricity costs, the NCPPR found that 71% of Americans reject spending more for electricity at all, and16% opposing spending any more than 12% extra for electricity.
[The National Center is a non-profit, non-partisan educational foundation based in Washington, DC established in 1982. It is an independent foundation; approximately 99% of its funding comes from some 72,000 active donors. The poll referenced here was conducted by Wilson Research Strategies, which surveyed 802 people who are likely to vote in the 2008 general elections. It included 37% registered Democrats, 30% Independents and 29% Republicans. It has a margin of error of +-3.46% at 95% confidence interval.]
The Lieberman-Warner bill if enacted into law would increase petroleum prices by 5.9% by 2015, according to Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions but other studies indicate prices would increase even more.
The American Council for Capital Formation and the National Association of Manufacturers jointly conducted a study which estimated that the Lieberman-Warner bill would increase electricity prices by between 13% and 14% by 2014. Other economic studies indicate that Lieberman-Warner would push electricity costs even higher.
When gasoline and electricity price increases are taken together, 90% of Americans reject Lieberman-Warner's costs -- even the low-range of the projected costs.
As incredible as it sounds that 90% of Americans reject the Lieberman-Warner plan's costs, according to the National Center the actual number who reject it may be even higher. Electricity and gasoline price hikes are only two of the costs of this bill.
David A. Ridenour, vice president of NCPPR said:
"The price for food and consumer goods would also be pushed higher and many Americans would lose their jobs. You can't merely accept energy price increases and opt out of all the other costs. As amazing as it is that 90% of the public agrees on anything, is the fact that all three of the major presidential candidates -- Senators Clinton, McCain and Obama -- favor a proposal the public appears to be almost unanimously against. Americans oppose Warner-Lieberman".
Ridenour noted three separate studies were conducted with some predicting somewhat lower cost increases but he added "Just 6% would be willing to accept the gasoline and electricity price increase ranges forecast by any of the three studies."
The Lieberman-Warner plan would increase petroleum prices by 5.9% by 2015, according to Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. Other studies indicate the plan would drive prices even higher. The survey also found that 71% of Americans reject spending more for electricity, with 16% opposing spending any more than 12% extra for electricity to "cure" global warming.
These estimated, but realistic, costs form the basis of the current opposition to Lieberman-Warner. However, Lieberman-Warner should fail not only because of the outrageous impact on our country's economy, but because it is a product of one of the greatest frauds in the history of the world; it ranks right up there with communism and other schemes in the socialist Pandora's
Box.
Every time the words "security" or "independence" appear in the title of a Democrat sponsored bill (and I consider Joe Lieberman a Democrat even though the Democrat party threw him under the bus), you can be sure neither security nor independence are involved. You may recall the "Energy Security and Independence Act" passed into law not long ago did not provide security or independence, just a mandate to use compact fluorescent bulbs instead of the ones like Thomas Edison invented.
The same thing will happen after the Lieberman-Warner bill becomes law, not in this administration but surely the next. Just what "climate security" is remains an unanswerable question. The bill being discussed this week is based on the hopelessly false premise that mankind actually has the ability to change the planet’s climate in one way or another. If we really had such power wouldn’t we dispense with hurricanes, tornados, droughts and other nasty weather conditions? Why stop at changing the earth’s temperature?
What these political global warming useful idiots ignore is the earth is actually in a cooling cycle that even government agencies have acknowledged. Furthermore the simple scientific truth is that the earth’s atmosphere contains 0.038% carbon dioxide and water vapor makes up most of the rest. If the earth is warming, and obviously it has not during the last decade, any role played by carbon dioxide is negligible. But of course the politicos and leftists won’t accept that because their entire agenda depends on selling it to a gullible public.
Not long ago more than 31,000 real scientists, not the political kind, signed petitions declaring global warming to be a hoax; over 9,000 of them were PhDs and all of them were ignored.
It seems the only opposition in congress, such as it is, concerns the costs of implementing the Lieberman-Warner bill rather than on questioning the basic premise of the global warming claimants. Although the economic arguments are sound, it is incredible that even opponents are fearful of challenging the idea that discussion on the merits is closed because of the political ramifications of telling the world the Emperor has no clothes.
It is of course true that the costs of combating global warming by implementing Lieberman-Warner are high. A study by the Heritage Foundation predicts the following:
"The impact on the economy would be horrendous. Heritage estimates that cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses of at least $1.7 trillion that could reach $4.8 trillion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars)."
"Single-year GDP losses of at least $155 billion could exceed $500 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars)."
"Annual job losses that would exceed 500,000 before 2030 and could exceed a million."
"The annual cost of emission permits to energy users to cost at least $100 billion by 2020."
"The average household will pay $467 more each year for its natural gas and electricity (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars). That means that the average household will spend an additional $8,870 to purchase energy over the period 2012 to 2030."
It is absolutely amazing that congress thinks it is sound to destroy our economy in the name of the false premise behind the impetus for enacting some kind of law to be in lock-step with the international community and avoid their political slings and arrows. Just as we are trying to recover from the sub prime mortgage debacle and are facing huge increases in the price of gasoline (don’t tell me it's still cheaper than in Europe, we can do better than that if left to our own devices), we will be hugely burdened by taxes placed on productive business fulfilling basic living needs.
It is common for law makers to ignore the will of the majority of voters who put them in office; the illegal immigration and border issues being just one example. But the fact is that a majority of Americans also oppose the higher energy costs that Lieberman-Warner would impose. A press release from the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) reported a poll that found 65% of Americans reject spending even a penny more for gasoline in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The number rejecting raising gas prices in an effort to combat global warming has increased by 17 percentage points -- or 35% -- in just over two months since the previous poll in February. An additional 13% oppose spending more than 5% more for gasoline (at $4 a gallon that’s just 20 cents) to attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Regarding electricity costs, the NCPPR found that 71% of Americans reject spending more for electricity at all, and16% opposing spending any more than 12% extra for electricity.
[The National Center is a non-profit, non-partisan educational foundation based in Washington, DC established in 1982. It is an independent foundation; approximately 99% of its funding comes from some 72,000 active donors. The poll referenced here was conducted by Wilson Research Strategies, which surveyed 802 people who are likely to vote in the 2008 general elections. It included 37% registered Democrats, 30% Independents and 29% Republicans. It has a margin of error of +-3.46% at 95% confidence interval.]
The Lieberman-Warner bill if enacted into law would increase petroleum prices by 5.9% by 2015, according to Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions but other studies indicate prices would increase even more.
The American Council for Capital Formation and the National Association of Manufacturers jointly conducted a study which estimated that the Lieberman-Warner bill would increase electricity prices by between 13% and 14% by 2014. Other economic studies indicate that Lieberman-Warner would push electricity costs even higher.
When gasoline and electricity price increases are taken together, 90% of Americans reject Lieberman-Warner's costs -- even the low-range of the projected costs.
As incredible as it sounds that 90% of Americans reject the Lieberman-Warner plan's costs, according to the National Center the actual number who reject it may be even higher. Electricity and gasoline price hikes are only two of the costs of this bill.
David A. Ridenour, vice president of NCPPR said:
"The price for food and consumer goods would also be pushed higher and many Americans would lose their jobs. You can't merely accept energy price increases and opt out of all the other costs. As amazing as it is that 90% of the public agrees on anything, is the fact that all three of the major presidential candidates -- Senators Clinton, McCain and Obama -- favor a proposal the public appears to be almost unanimously against. Americans oppose Warner-Lieberman".
Ridenour noted three separate studies were conducted with some predicting somewhat lower cost increases but he added "Just 6% would be willing to accept the gasoline and electricity price increase ranges forecast by any of the three studies."
The Lieberman-Warner plan would increase petroleum prices by 5.9% by 2015, according to Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. Other studies indicate the plan would drive prices even higher. The survey also found that 71% of Americans reject spending more for electricity, with 16% opposing spending any more than 12% extra for electricity to "cure" global warming.
These estimated, but realistic, costs form the basis of the current opposition to Lieberman-Warner. However, Lieberman-Warner should fail not only because of the outrageous impact on our country's economy, but because it is a product of one of the greatest frauds in the history of the world; it ranks right up there with communism and other schemes in the socialist Pandora's
Box.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
The greatest threat to freedom since communism
"The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity," warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, "is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."
Why does it take someone from Czechoslovakia to express the obvious; are there no sensible people left in congress? Rush Limbaugh calls them "environmental communists"; no wonder Vaclav Klaus recognizes these people for what they are after having lived under the yoke of communism for so long. Do Americans have to live under the American version of communism such as pronounced by Barack Obama and John McCain (insofar as his acceptance of the global warming premise is concerned) before they wake up to what is at stake here? If so, heaven help us.
On the basis of speculation alone and without actual scientific evidence, environmental activists, supported by some purporting to be scientists but who live on the dole from government in return for preaching the prescribed orthodoxy, and opportunistic politicians and business men, are advocating radical economic and social regulation.
If you doubt their arrogance, you haven't seen articles such as appeared in Newsweek that declared the global warming debate is over. It requires religious fervor to believe that global warming, which is unsupported by scientific evidence and is more complex than made out to be, is a closed issue despite over 31,000 scientists who believe to the contrary.
Why is it declared closed; because by declaring it closed all skeptics are dismissed and multi-national mega businesses can profit enormously from legislation based on this hoax wending its way through congress even now. But worst of all, it also greatly re-empowers the intellectual left and gives mega profits to big business. (See my article "Carbon credit markets open for business, and there is big money to be made.")
For decades an unscrupulous devious, arrogant, elite class of social planners, scientists, intellectuals, self proclaimed experts and their left-wing political allies and their accomplices in the press took upon themselves the right to rule by dictate either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more acceptable form (socialism). They did this by virtue of their self attributed superior high intelligence and a phony desire to achieve social progress by means of state planning using their knowledge of "what is best" for the rest of us.
In the recent past under Ronald Reagan and Madam Thatcher of England communism and socialism were regulated to the dust heap of failed political systems in history; we thought they died and were buried forever, how little did we know that like a Phoenix they would rise from the dead. The intellectual left has been handed a gift and their ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Under this new religion experts will regulate your life not in the name of communism or socialism but in the name of saving the planet from the excesses of mankind’s comfortable living. Why should a few benefit from their ingenuity and hard work when so many around the world don’t?
Al Gore, the first prominent high priest of the new religion, gave us the "roadmap to the environmentalist’s salvation of the world." The answer to saving plane earth was patently obvious, since all of life’s luxuries are the product of "greenhouse gas emissions", the leading one being carbon dioxide (CO2), we must have, what Charles Krauthammer labeled "carbon chastity". To accomplish this condition, legislation has been introduced and will likely be passed (unless the public wakes from its slumber) that will tell you how your car will be fueled, what kind of light bulbs you can and cannot have, and how much more you will have to pay for the privilege of having electricity and heat for your home.
If you don’t believe the extremes to which governments will go, look at what Krauthammer reported "…[there is] a British parliamentary committee proposal that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe".
Americans rose up in arms at the prospect of granting illegal aliens’ amnesty and citizenship, the present threat is even more dangerous because it cannot be undone and will last our lifetimes. We must therefore mount a greater effort to challenge congress and whoever is the next president to not inflict this cure which is worse than the disease on us.
Why does it take someone from Czechoslovakia to express the obvious; are there no sensible people left in congress? Rush Limbaugh calls them "environmental communists"; no wonder Vaclav Klaus recognizes these people for what they are after having lived under the yoke of communism for so long. Do Americans have to live under the American version of communism such as pronounced by Barack Obama and John McCain (insofar as his acceptance of the global warming premise is concerned) before they wake up to what is at stake here? If so, heaven help us.
On the basis of speculation alone and without actual scientific evidence, environmental activists, supported by some purporting to be scientists but who live on the dole from government in return for preaching the prescribed orthodoxy, and opportunistic politicians and business men, are advocating radical economic and social regulation.
If you doubt their arrogance, you haven't seen articles such as appeared in Newsweek that declared the global warming debate is over. It requires religious fervor to believe that global warming, which is unsupported by scientific evidence and is more complex than made out to be, is a closed issue despite over 31,000 scientists who believe to the contrary.
Why is it declared closed; because by declaring it closed all skeptics are dismissed and multi-national mega businesses can profit enormously from legislation based on this hoax wending its way through congress even now. But worst of all, it also greatly re-empowers the intellectual left and gives mega profits to big business. (See my article "Carbon credit markets open for business, and there is big money to be made.")
For decades an unscrupulous devious, arrogant, elite class of social planners, scientists, intellectuals, self proclaimed experts and their left-wing political allies and their accomplices in the press took upon themselves the right to rule by dictate either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more acceptable form (socialism). They did this by virtue of their self attributed superior high intelligence and a phony desire to achieve social progress by means of state planning using their knowledge of "what is best" for the rest of us.
In the recent past under Ronald Reagan and Madam Thatcher of England communism and socialism were regulated to the dust heap of failed political systems in history; we thought they died and were buried forever, how little did we know that like a Phoenix they would rise from the dead. The intellectual left has been handed a gift and their ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Under this new religion experts will regulate your life not in the name of communism or socialism but in the name of saving the planet from the excesses of mankind’s comfortable living. Why should a few benefit from their ingenuity and hard work when so many around the world don’t?
Al Gore, the first prominent high priest of the new religion, gave us the "roadmap to the environmentalist’s salvation of the world." The answer to saving plane earth was patently obvious, since all of life’s luxuries are the product of "greenhouse gas emissions", the leading one being carbon dioxide (CO2), we must have, what Charles Krauthammer labeled "carbon chastity". To accomplish this condition, legislation has been introduced and will likely be passed (unless the public wakes from its slumber) that will tell you how your car will be fueled, what kind of light bulbs you can and cannot have, and how much more you will have to pay for the privilege of having electricity and heat for your home.
If you don’t believe the extremes to which governments will go, look at what Krauthammer reported "…[there is] a British parliamentary committee proposal that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe".
Americans rose up in arms at the prospect of granting illegal aliens’ amnesty and citizenship, the present threat is even more dangerous because it cannot be undone and will last our lifetimes. We must therefore mount a greater effort to challenge congress and whoever is the next president to not inflict this cure which is worse than the disease on us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
