Given that we’re spending billions of stimulus dollars to rebuild our highways, it makes sense to think about what we’ll be driving on them. For years to come, most of what we drive will be powered, at least in part, by diesel fuel or gasoline. To fuel that driving, we need access to oil. The less use we make of our own reserves, the more we will have to import, which leads to a number of harmful consequences. That means we need to drill here and drill now.
We rely on petroleum for much more than just powering our vehicles: It is essential in everything from jet fuel to petrochemicals, plastics to fertilizers, pesticides to pharmaceuticals. According to the Energy Information Administration, our total domestic petroleum consumption last year was 19.5 million barrels per day (bpd). Motor gasoline and diesel fuel accounted for less than 13 million bpd of that. Meanwhile, we produced only 4.95 million bpd of domestic crude. In other words, even if we ran all our vehicles on something else (which won’t happen anytime soon), we would still have to depend on imported oil. And we’ll continue that dependence until we develop our own oil resources to their fullest extent.
Those who oppose domestic drilling are motivated primarily by environmental considerations, but many of the countries we’re forced to import from have few if any environmental-protection laws, and those that do exist often go unenforced. In effect, American environmentalists are preventing responsible development here at home while supporting irresponsible development overseas.
My home state of Alaska shows how it’s possible to be both pro-environment and pro-resource-development. Alaskans would never support anything that endangered our pristine air, clean water, and abundant wildlife (which, among other things, provides many of us with our livelihood). The state’s government has made safeguarding resources a priority; when I was governor, for instance, we created a petroleum-systems-integrity office to monitor our oil and gas infrastructure for any potential environmental risks.
Alaska also shows how oil drilling is thoroughly compatible with energy conservation and renewable-energy development. Over 20 percent of Alaska’s electricity currently comes from renewable sources, and as governor I put forward a long-term plan to increase that figure to 50 percent by 2025. Alaska’s comprehensive plan identifies renewable options across the state that can help rural villages transition away from expensive diesel-generated electricity — allowing each community to choose the solution that best fits its needs. That’s important in any energy plan: Tempting as they may be to central planners, top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions are recipes for failure.
For the same reason, the federal government shouldn’t push a single, universal approach to alternative-powered vehicles. Electric cars might work in Los Angeles, but they don’t work in Alaska, where you can drive hundreds of miles without seeing many people, let alone many electrical sockets. And while electric and hybrid cars have their advantages, producing the electricity to power them still requires an energy source. For the sake of the environment, that energy should be generated from the cleanest source available.
Natural gas is one promising clean alternative. It contains fewer pollutants than other fossil fuels, it’s easier to collect and process, and it is found throughout our country. In Alaska, we’re developing the largest private-sector energy project in history — a 3,000-mile, $40 billion pipeline to transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas to markets across the United States. Onshore and offshore natural gas from Alaska and the Lower 48 can satisfy a large part of our energy needs for decades, bringing us closer to energy independence. Whether we use it to power natural-gas cars or to run natural-gas power plants that charge electric cars — or ideally for both — natural gas can act as a clean “bridge fuel” to a future when more renewable sources are available.
In addition to drilling, we need to build new refineries. America currently has roughly 150 refineries, down from over 300 in the 1970s. Due mainly to environmental regulations, we haven’t built a major new refinery since 1976, though our oil consumption has increased significantly since then. That’s no way to secure our energy supply. The post-Katrina jump in gas prices proved that we can’t leave ourselves at the mercy of a hurricane that knocks a few refineries out of commission.
Building an energy-independent America will mean a real economic stimulus. It will mean American jobs that can never be shipped overseas. Think about how much of our trade deficit is fueled by the oil we import — sometimes as much as half of the total. Through this massive transfer of wealth, we lose hundreds of billions of dollars a year that could be invested in our economy. Instead it goes to foreign countries, including some repressive regimes that use it to fund activities that threaten our security.
Reliance on foreign sources of energy weakens America. When a riot breaks out in an OPEC nation, or a developing country talks about nationalizing its oil industry, or a petro-dictator threatens to cut off exports, the probability is great that the price of oil will shoot up. Even in friendly nations, business and financial decisions made for local reasons can destabilize America’s energy market, since the price we pay for foreign oil is subject to rising and falling exchange rates. Decreasing our dependence on foreign sources of energy will reduce the impact of world events on our economy.
In the end, energy independence is not just about the environment or the economy. It’s about freedom and confidence. It’s about building a more secure and peaceful America, an America in which our energy needs will not be subject to the whims of nature, currency speculators, or madmen in possession of vast oil reserves.
Alternative sources of energy are part of the answer, but only part. There’s no getting around the fact that we still need to “drill, baby, drill!” And if those in D.C. say otherwise, we need to tell them: “Yes, we can!”
The British newspaper The Independent reported today that Gulf oil producers were negotiating with Russia, China, Japan and France to replace the dollar in pricing oil with a basket of currencies.[1] According to the Wall Street Journal, Arab oil officials have denied the story, but even the possibility of such a talk weakens the dollar and renews fears about its continued viability as an international reserve currency.[2] In fact, today a United Nations official called for a new global reserve currency to replace the dollar and end our “privilege” to run up huge deficits.[3] We can see the effect of this in the price of gold, which hit a record high today in response to fears about the weakened dollar.[4]
All of this is a result of our out-of-control debt. This is why we need to rein in spending, and this is also why we need energy independence. A weakened dollar means higher commodity prices. This will make it more difficult to pay our bills – including the bill to import oil.
In his book Architects of Ruin, Peter Schweizer points out that the Obama administration is focusing primarily on “green energy,” while ignoring our need to develop our domestic conventional energy resources.[5] We’re ignoring the looming crisis caused by our dependence on foreign oil. Because we’re dependent on foreign nations for our oil, we’re also at their mercy if they decide to dump the dollar as their trade currency. We can’t allow ourselves to be so vulnerable to the whims of foreign nations. That’s why we must develop our own domestic supplies of oil and gas.
Though the chant of “Drill, baby, drill” was much derided, it expressed the need to confront this issue head-on before it reaches a crisis point.
Bottom line: let’s stop digging ourselves into debt and start drilling for energy independence.
- Sarah Palin
[1] See http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.html
[2] See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125484066563367821.html
[3] See http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e272eaa74dccc30f21c6ff7638b0f37b.461&show_article=1
[4] See http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091006/ts_afp/commoditiesgoldmetalsprice_20091006144514
Congresslady extraordinaire Michelle Bachmann asked for citizens to come to the capital one week ago and wow did they come.
Michelle Bachmann
Our friends at FactReal.com put together a fabulous post with all of the pictures, videos and other goodies for you to view - LINK. So be sure to pay them a visit. FactReal also put together the following list of links to help get educated on the latest version of Pelosi/ObamaCare:
I saw the headline on the CBS web site “Statisticians: “Global Cooling” a Myth – Claims about Last 10 Years Are Deceptive; Temperatures Rise and Fall, But Overall Trend Is Higher”. Rest assured what is deceptive is this article that misrepresents what is already a bad study that stands in direct contradiction to a previous data set from the NCDC from January.
I was hoping that the Obama Administration had not politicized the National Climactic Data Center (NCDC) as they had the EPA when they suppressed a report showing how global warming skeptics are correct (LINK – LINK).
Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book.
Only one problem: It’s not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press.
Ok time to stop right there, as has been documented by us (one example we reported LINK) and others such as the Media Research Center (example LINK, LINK, LINK and I could fill a page of links with examples of this problem), that almost always, the people the elite media portray as “independent” are people who are known to the reporter or news organization, with a known point of view, who will say what the reporter wants to report. The same few “random experts” appear in the elite media over and over and over again. It is a main component of how the elite media editorializes the news and hide the fact that in reality it is the news organizations editorial point of view they are presenting.
Why is IPCC author Dr. John Christy not a common talking head in the elite media?
CBS/AP continues:
In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.
“If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect,” said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.
Yet the idea that things are cooling has been repeated in opinion columns, a BBC news story posted on the Drudge Report and in a new book by the authors of the best-seller “Freakonomics.” Last week, a poll by the Pew Research Center found that only 57 percent of Americans now believe there is strong scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 percent in 2006.
Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped – thus, a cooling trend. But it’s not that simple.
Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.
The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA’s climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.
[Oh wait, could they mean this, UK Telegraph: 2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved – UPDATED!. This was one of our little posts that went viral on the internet and got my little IUSB Vision Web Log pronounced the second most reviled web site on global warming by the Huffington Post. I really should buy Arianna a nice lunch for the publicity she gave me on that one - Chuck Norton]
Notice how they said that the study relies on ground sensors and pay special attention to the quote “recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA’s climate data center to re-examine its temperature data” …under NOOOOOO political pressure from the new administration I’m sure…
So I headed over to the WUWT blog to see if they had found the data that I was suspecting and sure enough. The data the story relies on comes from NOAA ground sensors and ignores the oceanic data sets and other important data sets. The NOAA ground censors have been discredited as controlled data because in a great many cases the NOAA censors are placed on or near asphalt, stone, heat vents, parking lots, surrounded by black tires in junk yards etc. all of which absorb heat during the day and release it at night. Also notice how the article states that they did not rely on satellite data that tends to show cooling and that presents another problem. According to alarmist global warming theory more warmth is trapped under the “greenhouse layer” of the atmosphere causing temperatures globally to rise. This layer of the atmosphere can be read by satellites and weather balloons (the John Christy method). So if you are to measure greenhouse warming according to the theory, that is the place to do it. However, measuring it that way does not give global warming alarmists the measurements they want.
This [AP] article, however, (which is not a true independent assessment if the study was completed by NOAA scientists) is not based on the much more robust metric assessment of global warming as diagnosed by upper ocean heat content. Nor does it consider the warm bias issues with respect to surface land temperatures that we have raised in our peer reviewed papers; e.g. see and see.
So as Pielke points out at WUWT, the “study” and the AP article doesn’t even address oceanic data sets. Nor does it address other data sets. It gets worse, would you like to see examples of NOAA ground sensors??
WUWT is up to part 91 of its “How not to measure temperature” series on these NOAA ground sensors.
Oh Look! Its a NOAA sensor in a junk yard with black tires.
Oh Look! Its a NOAA sensor next to that concrete porch and look to the left, its a grill. It has no cover so I guess it has been used pretty frequently.
Oh look! Its a NOAA sensor in a parking lot of asphalt. Would you like to walk barefoot on that on a warm summer day? I wonder how much heat the cars that park right next to it give off when the people who live in those apartments come home. Hey what is that a few yards behind the sensor? It's the heat pump for a home air conditioner!
But worry not scientific community and global warming alarmists, WUWT reports in “How not to measure temperature: Part 87” that NOAA “adjusts” for these types of anomalies….yup they adjust the temperatures DOWN in the PAST thus increasing the “current statistical warming trend”!! There are 91 of these ground sensors that WUWT has catalogued so far and they all seem to have one thing in common. They are placed in areas that will artificially make them read higher temperatures.
As we stated above, the new NCDC “study” ignored other data sets such as ITS OWN North American Temperature Data Set updated just last January… hmmm now what has happened between January and today….oh yes we have a new political administration that has already demonstrated that it has no problem trying to shut scientists up (LINK – LINK) who dare tell the truth about global warming.
Yet ANOTHER dataset showing the cooling of the last 10 years.
NCDC now has December 2008 in the database. Annual North American temperature since 1998 (11 years of data) is falling over the period at a rate of 0.78(F)/decade or 7.8(F)per century. At this rate we will be in an ice age within 5 decades. If you can get the graphic, the heavy black line is the average over the century 1901 to 2000.
This data set is a collection of this continent only, but it shows the same cooling trend that other global data sets have shown. Since 1998 the Earth is cooling and it happens to coincide with a similar period of unusually low solar activity.
Of course we realize that to many people, including many radicalized professors, global warming alarmism is almost like a religion. No data set or series of data sets is going to put a dent in those people. Fortunately there are still plenty of people who are not zealots who can appreciate the information. Thanks to the famed WUWT Blog for the heads up.
Maybe this article can get the Huffington Post to rank me the number one most reviled global warming columnist on the internet. Being number two just seems so second best.
Some have seen the original list of 26, but I felt compelled to few to add to my own to 46 and lets see if we can come up with a few more. I invite you to come up with some we missed in the comments section.
1. Offended the Queen of England.
2. Offended British PM By snubbing him and offering trade gifts that were a joke (25 DVD’s that wont play in England).
3. Offended the British People by returning a bust of Winston Churchill that they gave the United States (its like sending the Statue of Liberty back to France).
4. Offended the President of France by snubbing him multiple times.
5. Bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia.
6. Praised the Marxist Daniel Ortega.
7. Kissed Socialist Hugo Chavez on the cheek.
8. Endorsed the Socialist Evo Morales of Bolivia.
9. Sided with Hugo Chavez and Communist Fidel Castro against Honduras.
10. Announced we would meet with Iranians with no pre-conditions while they’re building their nuclear weapons.
11. Reneged on a missile shield agreement with Eastern Europe almost ending all relations with Poland and the Czech Republic.
12. Left the country of Georgia in the cold after the Russian invasion.
13. Gave away billions to AIG also without pre-conditions.
14. Expanded the bailouts.
15. Insulted everyone who has ever loved a Special Olympian.
16. Doubled our national debt.
17. Announced the termination of our new missile defense system the day after North Korea launched an ICBM.
18. Released information on U.S. Intelligence gathering despite urgings of his own CIA director and the prior four CIA directors.
19. Accepted without comment that five of his cabinet members cheated on their taxes and two other nominees withdrew after they couldn’t take the heat.
20. Appointed a Homeland Security Chief who identified military veterans and abortion opponents as “dangers to the nation.”
21. Ordered that the word “terrorism” no longer be used and instead refers to such acts as “man made disasters.”
23. Circled the globe to publicly apologize for America’s world leadership.
24. Told the Mexican president that the violence in their country was because of us.
25. Politicized the census by moving it into the White House from the Department of Commerce.
26. Appointed as Attorney General the man who orchestrated the forced removal and expulsion to Cuba of a 9-year-old whose mother died trying to bring him to freedom in the United States.
27. Salutes as heroes three Navy SEALS who took down three terrorists who threatened one American life and the next day announces members of the Bush administration may stand trial for “torturing” three 9/11 terrorists by pouring water up their noses.
28. Low altitude photo shoot of Air Force One over New York City that frightened thousands of New Yorkers.
29. Sent his National Defense Advisor to Europe to assure them that the US will no longer treat Israel in a special manner and they might be on their own with the Muslims.
30. Praised Jimmy Carter’s trip to Gaza where he sided with terrorist Hamas against Israel.
31. Nationalized General Motors and Chrysler while turning shareholder control over to the unions and freezing out retired investors who owned their bonds. Committed unlimited taxpayer billions in the process.
31. Passed a huge energy tax in the House that will make American industry even less competitive while costing homeowners thousands per year.
32. Quietly ended the Washington DC school voucher program dooming promising children to one of the worst school districts in the nation.
33. Reversed himself on his transparency pledges multiple times.
34. After promising lobbying reform he had a financial responsibility summit that ended up being a lobbyist meet up with government. He also signed an order relaxing the lobbyist rules.
35. Allowed multiple lobbyists in the administration after promising not to.
36. After promising a new era of bi-partisanship his party locks Republicans out of bill negotiations.
37. Helped protect the bonuses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
38. Signed a bill containing over 9,000 pork earmarks after promising earmark reform.
39. Instead of using the TARP bailout funds to buy peoples mortgages and renegotiate them with citizens as promised he used the money to buy up/nationalize banks and leave citizens in the cold.
40. Committed multiple violations of the Hatch Act (see HHS.GOV).
41. Declared War on Fox News.
42. Declared War on the Chamber of Commerce.
43. Suppressed an EPA Report showing that global warming skeptics are largely correct.
44. Participating in the dismantling of the Dollar as the world reserve currency.
45. Signed into law the reversal of Bill Clinton & Newt Gingrich’s very successful and hugely popular bi-partisan welfare reform (which was the main plank of Bill Clinton’s legacy).
46. Announced nationalized health care “reform” that will strip seniors of their Medicare, cut pay of physicians, increase taxes yet another $1 trillion, and put everyone on rationed care with government bureaucrats deciding who gets care and who doesn’t. Bloomberg: Daschle says, “Health care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them,” while former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm says seniors have “a duty to die.” If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just remember that the President, Senators and Congressmen have their own special gold plated health care plan which is guaranteed the remainder of their lives and they are not subject to this new law if they pass it.
Our friend Michael van der Galien at Poligazette posted a link to a study that explains the degree in which bad government can destroy wealth, kill jobs and raise the prices of everything you buy.
Poligazette explains that the total cost of regulation to the State of California is $492.994 billion per year. That is ‘almost five times the State’s general fund budget, and almost a third of the State’s gross product.’ 3.8 million jobs are lost because of overregulation which is a tenth of the State’s population. Furthermore:
Since small business constitute 99.2% of all employer businesses in California, and all of non-employer business, the regulatory cost is borne almost completely by small business. The total cost of regulation was $134,122.48 per small business in California in 2007, labor income not created or lost was $4,359.55 per small business, indirect business taxes not generated or lost were $57,260.15 per small business, and finally roughly one job lost per small business.
Some people feel better “when that rich guy” or “that business owner” gets taxed. Democrats play the class warfare game and tell us how they are going to “make them pay” etc… How does $500 Billion in lost wealth every year make you feel now? How many jobs could that money create? How many movie tickets bought, homes built, computers made, policeman trained, schools improved, cars repaired, and the list goes on?
It is important to keep in mind, every regulation is an arbitrary barrier to creating products, wealth and jobs. Getting rid of regulation does NOT mean getting rid of good policing. While rhetorically there may not be much difference between regulation and policing, in practice the difference is massive. We all want an active but limited government to protect us from fraud, abuse and crooks.
As I commented on Poligazette:
I hate to throw soot on a gloomy picture, but it is even worse.
Why does California, a state that has more ability to create wealth than most countries, have this level of regulation that is causing the state to fall apart and its population vote with their feet and leave?
For each of these regulations, someone benefits either monetarily or ideologically. Many of these regulations simply serve to pick winners and losers by tilting the scale to help some business while harming their competition; with the winners kicking money back to interest groups and legislators.
The California Legislature is so strapped with the corruption otherwise known as “political market economics” (aka corporatism light) that it is a wonder the state went this long before starting to fall apart economically. But until the people who vote there learn a lesson I do not expect things to change in any meaningful way.
These regulations keep coming and the latest proposals are to have the state ban certain colors from cars, mandate the color of the roof of buildings and even have your home thermostat connected to the internet so the state can control the temperature of your home.
UPDATE II – National Park Service: Largest DC event EVER – LINK and LINK.
UPDATE – More video of the crowds and University of Illinois has a method of using area to judge a crowd and estimated 1.7 million.
[Editor's Note - The fact that the UK papers cover American politics and some other domestic news better than our own elite media really is indicative of just how far ethical and professional standards have fallen in the United States.]
UK Daily Mail:
Up to two million march to US Capitol to protest against Obama’s spending in ‘tea-party’ demonstration
Up to two million people marched to the U.S. Capitol today, carrying signs with slogans such as “Obamacare makes me sick” as they protested the president’s health care plan and what they say is out-of-control spending.
The line of protesters spread across Pennsylvania Avenue for blocks, all the way to the capitol, according to the Washington Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency.
People were chanting “enough, enough” and “We the People.” Others yelled “You lie, you lie!” and “Pelosi has to go,” referring to California congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
That group is the Apollo Alliance. They are an elite group of people from ACORN, the SEIU union, and other groups.
The man in question today is Jeff Jones. So Obama has had dealings with not just one founder of the Weather Underground terror group, but two founders of it. This is a must see video.
Glenn Beck asks a prudent question, when Obama wrote in his books that he sought out marxist professors for guidance, when did he ever come out and renounce those views?
Democrat pollster Pat Cadell, ACORN and these groups that wrote the stimulus bill are looting the country:
So instead of getting some tax from forteigners they will get none from those who leave. A perfect example of why highter tax rates equals lower government revenue.
Aug. 26 (Bloomberg) — Andrew Wesbecher moved to London from New York in 2006 to sell software to banks and hedge funds. This month he joined the exodus of American expatriates fleeing high taxes and the city’s shrinking financial industry.
“I’m the last guy to leave that I know,” said Wesbecher, 29, who worked forTibco Software Inc. and lived in Notting Hill, the London neighborhood that’s home to billionaire Richard Branson and model Elle Macpherson. “We are all packing up.”
The number of U.S. citizens in Britain fell 3.8 percent to 126,000 in the 12 months through September, according to the Office for National Statistics.The trend probably continued this year, with the Confederation of British Industry estimating the U.K. financial industry will lose about 45,000 jobs in the first nine months of 2009, or 4.3 percent of the total.
Americans are heading home as Britain plans a 50 percent tax rate for those who earn more than 150,000 pounds ($248,000) a year and employers cut benefits for workers living abroad, reducing the allure of London. That comes a year after the U.K. said foreigners who have lived in the country for more than seven years must pay 30,000 pounds annually or give up the special status that shields overseas income from British taxes.
“Expats feel the tone has changed; it’s less welcoming,” said Mark Tilden, a consultant at CRA International Inc. who wrote a report for the City of London last year on the impact of taxation on corporate relocation decisions. “London’s ability to attract talent has gone down.”
‘We Are Fed Up’
The worst recession since World War II has left U.K. residents facing tax increases and spending cuts after Britain’s monthly budget deficit ballooned to a record 8 billion pounds in July. In addition, some employers are reducing benefits such as tax equalization, school tuition for children and cost-of-living allowances that supplement expatriate salaries.
Schools catering to international students report a drop in enrollment for the first time in seven years, and relocation companies say they are moving fewer people to Britain.
Janet Sherbow lives in London’s Chelsea district with her husband, Nikos Mourkogiannis, the former chief executive officer at the European arm of Cambridge, Massachusetts-based management consulting firm Monitor Co.The family plans to move to Greece after their daughter finishes high school next year.
“We are fed up with all the stealth taxes, the non-doms levy, and now the 50 percent tax rate,” Sherbow said. “Six American families have moved from my street in the last six months.”
Quality of Life
Forty-one percent of employers plan to review expatriate programs, according to a study by KPMG International. KPMG surveyed about 100 companies, 60 percent based in the U.S., and found that 22 percent had recalled overseas workers or turned them into local employees in the past 12 months.
Huddling under an umbrella during a July downpour, Wesbecher said he was no longer willing to put up with the frustrations of life in London after his commissions dropped and Palo Alto, California-based Tibco eliminated his expatriate benefits, cutting his take-home pay by 75 percent.
“This is what passes for summer in London,” he said, sipping an iced latte in the city’s main financial district. “The quality of life is a lot harder. Things are more expensive and the houses are smaller. Even public transport is cramped. A New York subway car is like real estate in comparison.”
The economic picture is also gloomier in Britain. The U.K. economy shrank 5.6 percent in the year through June, compared with 3.9 percent in the U.S. London’s financial industry lost 29,371 jobs, or 8.3 percent of the total, last year, according to the Centre for Economic and Business Research. Financial companies in New York cut 20,200 jobs, or 4.3 percent, data from the state Labor Department show.
‘Highly Competitive’
“The U.K. remains a highly competitive center for finance and investment and has excellent infrastructure for businesses,” the Treasury said in an e-mailed response to questions.
The American School in England, based outside London in Thorpe, Surrey, expects enrollment to fall 4 percent this year, the first drop since the Sept. 11 terror attacks, said Karen House, interim admissions director. The school charges about 29,000 pounds for boarders, and 70 percent of its 750 students are American.
Yet another example of what we have been saying since day one. Global warming hysteria would be used as an excuse to tax carbon dioxide, because almost every kind of economic activity produces or uses CO2. It would be used to tax and redistribute wealth around the world. The fact that the Earth has been cooling since 1998 means nothing to those who want this tax.
For 67 Billion a year would you say that you believed that man made global warming is a “crisis”?
ADDIS ABABA, Aug 24 (Reuters) – African leaders will ask rich nations for $67 billion per year to mitigate the impact of global warming on the world’s poorest continent, according to a draft resolution seen by Reuters on Monday.
Ten leaders are holding talks at African Union (AU) headquarters in the Ethiopian capital to try to agree a common stance ahead of a U.N. summit on climate change in Copenhagen in December.
Experts say Africa contributes little to the pollution blamed for warming, but is likely to be hit hardest by the droughts, floods, heatwaves and rising sea levels forecast if climate change is not checked.
The draft resolution, which must still be approved by the 10 leaders, called for rich countries to pay $67 billion annually to counter the impact of global warming in Africa.
For the first time in over two years of polling, voters trust Republicans slightly more than Democrats on the handling of the issue of health care. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that voters favor the GOP on the issue 44% to 41%.
Democrats held a four-point lead on the issue last month and a 10-point lead in June. For most of the past two years, more than 50% of voters said they trusted Democrats on health care. The latest results mark the lowest level of support measured for the party on the now-contentious issue.
Public support for the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low with just 42% of U.S. voters now in favor of it. That’s down five points from two weeks ago and down eight points from six weeks ago.
Overall, Republicans lead Democrats in terms of voter trust on eight out of 10 key issues for the second consecutive month, and the two are tied on one issue.
Republican candidates continue to hold a modest lead over Democrats for the seventh straight week in the Generic Congressional Ballot.
The GOP now holds a six-point lead on the top issue of the economy, an advantage that has changed little over the past four months.
Health care is not the only issue which the Republicans are enjoying a first-time lead. Voters now trust the GOP more than Democrats on the issue of education, 41% to 38%. This is also the first time in over two years the Republicans have held an advantage on that issue. Democrats led Republicans on education by three points in July and seven points in June.
Republicans lead Democrats on Social Security for the second straight month, this time by a 43% to 39% margin. Social Security is another issue where Democrats have enjoyed consistent leads in recent years.
The GOP maintains a strong 51% to 35% lead on taxes, after holding the same lead in July. Republicans have been trusted more by voters on the issue of taxes in every poll conducted since February.
We could be using this money to drill here. Check this out. Number one far left Democrat money man George Soros owns 811 million dollars worth of the company Obama is giving the money to. So it looks like Soros is getting the millions he spent on Democrats back courtesy of the US taxpayer.
YOUR TAX DOLLARS HARD AT WORK: FIRST CARS, NOW FOREIGN OIL.
Today’s Wall Street Journal contains some puzzling news for all Americans who are impacted by high energy prices and who share the goal of moving us toward energy independence.
For years, states rich with an abundance of oil and natural gas have been begging Washington, DC politicians for the right to develop their own natural resources on federal lands and off shore. Such development would mean good paying jobs here in the United States (with health benefits) and the resulting royalties and taxes would provide money for federal coffers that would potentially off-set the need for higher income taxes, reduce the federal debt and deficits, or even help fund a trillion dollar health care plan if one were so inclined to support such a plan.
So why is it that during these tough times, when we have great needs at home, the Obama White House is prepared to send more than two billion of your hard-earned tax dollars to Brazil so that the nation’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, can drill off shore and create jobs developing its own resources? That’s all Americans want; but such rational energy development has been continually thwarted by rabid environmentalists, faceless bureaucrats and a seemingly endless parade of lawsuits aimed at shutting down new energy projects.
I’ll speak for the talent I have personally witnessed on the oil fields in Alaska when I say no other country in the world has a stronger workforce than America, no other country in the world has better safety standards than America, and no other country in the world has stricter environmental standards than America. Come to Alaska to witness how oil and gas can be developed simultaneously with the preservation of our eco-system. America has the resources. We deserve the opportunity to develop our resources no less than the Brazilians. Millions of Americans know it is true: “Drill, baby, drill.” Alaska is proof you can drill and develop, and preserve nature, with its magnificent caribou herds passing by the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), completely unaffected. One has to wonder if Obama is playing politics and perhaps refusing a “win” for some states just to play to the left with our money.
The new Gulf of Mexico lease sales tomorrow sound promising and perhaps will move some states in the right direction, but we all know that the extreme environmentalists who serve to block progress elsewhere, including in Alaska, continue to block opportunities. These environmentalists are putting our nation in peril and forcing us to rely on unstable and hostile foreign countries. Mr. Obama can stop the extreme tactics and exert proper government authority to encourage resource development and create jobs and health benefits in the U.S.; instead, he chooses to use American dollars in Brazil that will help to pay the salaries and benefits for Brazilians to drill for resources when the need and desire is great in America.
Buy American is a wonderful slogan, but you can’t say in one breath that you want to strengthen our economy and stimulate it, and then in another ship our much-needed dollars to a nation desperate to drill while depriving us of the same opportunity.
The civilian militarized national security force… that’s a little scary isn’t it?
Glenn Beck discusses Obama at the six month mark and how he telegraphed how radical he was, including about how Obama said in his own words how he chose to associate with “marxist professors” and other radicals.
Beck says that Obama could not have been more clear about how radical he was. I disagree with this. While the information Beck points out was known to IUSB Vision Editor Chuck Norton and others who did the homework, the elite media shut almost all reporting of this down and combine this with the fact that Obama couched his campaign in conservative rhetoric using Reaganesque like style.
But looking back, Obama’s “yes we can” seems pretty empty when compared with the original.
Here is Part II of Beck on Obama’s first six months.
Reporter – Governor Palin what are your future plans?
Palin – I think it should be obvious by now…
You may be tempted to skip over this video because I did not produce a saucey headline to reel you in.
This video is a MUST see as it contains a great macro analysis of the politics of the last 10 years that is really eye opening.
The conversation about Bill Clinton, Sarah Palin and the changing mood of the country is very interesting. While Clinton was one scandal after another, one sexual peccadillo after another, and it was embarrassing for the country, the good thing about Bill Clinton was that he was willing to work with Republicans in the Congress to make real progress when other Democrat leaders were not. For most presidents their first term is when the meaningful work or damage gets done. Bill Clinton’s best term legislatively by far was his second term and he did work with Newt Gingrich and John Kasich very well. What is sad is that Welfare Reform, the piece of legislation Gingrich and Clinton got passed, which was the most popular and effective piece of legislation Clinton signed into law, was mostly undone by Obama and the Democrats with the Porkulus Bill. It wasn’t all roses, national security and nuclear proliferation had more problems under Clinton (save maybe Carter) than any other president in memory.
The nation’s governors, Democrats as well as Republicans, voiced deep concern Sunday about the shape of the health care plan emerging from Congress, fearing that Washington was about to hand them expensive new Medicaid obligations without money to pay for them.
The role of the states in a restructured health care system dominated the summer meeting of the National Governors Association here this weekend — with bipartisan animosity voiced against the plan during a closed-door luncheon on Saturday and in a private meeting on Sunday with the health and human services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius.
“I think the governors would all agree that what we don’t want from the federal government is unfunded mandates,” said Gov. Jim Douglas of Vermont, a Republican, the group’s incoming chairman. “We can’t have the Congress impose requirements that we are forced to absorb beyond our capacity to do so.”
In fact, the Times reports that this message was unanimous. Every one of the versions of ObamaCare in Congress at the moment expands Medicaid eligibility as a means to get to universal health care. The budgeting for these bills only reflect the federal responsibilities for this expansion, but it carries hefty costs for the states as well. Unless Obama wants to fund these mandates, the governors will universally oppose the reform, which gives opponents a powerful force in stopping it. And if Obama does absorb the costs to expand Medicaid, it will explode the federal deficit.
This exposes the shell game Obama has played with ObamaCare. He wants to argue that the de facto nationalization of the health-care industry will contain costs while expanding coverage and maintaining access, but that only can happen if the plan either rations services or shifts the costs elsewhere. The use of Medicaid instead of Medicare to cover the currently uninsured puts those costs on the backs of the states, which will have to find revenues to pay for their end of ObamaCare. In most cases, that will require state tax increases across a broad swath of the citizenry on top of the 5.4% surtax on the wealthy that Charlie Rangel proposes.
With the U.S. secretaries of energy and commerce in China this week, much of the attention focused on the standoff over emissions reductions or small breakthroughs in clean-tech cooperation.
But yesterday, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said something amazing—U.S. consumers should pay for part of Chinese greenhouse-gas emissions. From Reuters:
“It’s important that those who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of America — and it’s our own consumption activity that’s causing the emission of greenhouse gases, then quite frankly Americans need to pay for that,” Commerce Secretary Gary Locke told the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai.
Oh my gawd…. Apparently Secretary Locke doesn’t believe that China gets enough of our money so here is his plan for giving them more. Not only should we pay carbon taxes on what we produce, but since we buy and consume so many products from China, we should pay their would be carbon taxes for them too. How is that “hope & change” working out for you?
Says the Wall Street Journal, “China of course loves the idea.”
Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law. Unless revenues increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing budget deficits. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States. Over time, accumulating debt would cause substantial harm to the economy.
Congress’ budget watchdog warned Thursday that Democrats’ health care bills would not lower skyrocketing costs and would drive up government spending, undermining one of President Obama’s chief arguments for the overhaul.
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf said the plans already released by the House and Senate would keep costs rising at an unsustainable pace, fueling criticism from Republicans and some conservative Democrats that the overhaul will bankrupt the country.
The New York Times thought that this wasn’t news. See for yourself HERE.
UPDATE VII – Senator Rick Santorum on how the Obamacare bill is designed to dump you into the public option – LINK. They say that the public option is dead, but a fork hasn’t been stuck in the bill yet.
UPDATE VI – Congressman Ellison also states that the public option is just a path for government take over – LINK.
UPDATE IV – BUSTED: Obama says that his public option plan will eliminate employer based health insurance.
UPDATE III – Barney Frank: The public plan is designed to lead a total government takeover of health care
UPDATE II: Obama and other activists in their own words; the public option deception – Michael Barone comments on this video HERE.
UPDATE: Dr. Betsy McCaughey, Founder of Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths –
They promised that you would have health insurance choice, they promised that the so called “public option” would never be used to crowd out private insurers. It was all lies.
Congress: It didn’t take long to run into an “uh-oh” moment when reading the House’s “health care for all Americans” bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states:
“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington’s coverage.
The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, “fizzle out altogether.”
What wasn’t known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.
The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.
With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left’s expansion of the welfare state will be removed.
The public option won’t be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.
Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn’t be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans’ lives.
It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It’s scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we’ll come across in the final 1,002.
See this important update to this story HERE and HERE.
When FNC went through the cap & Trade Energy Tax scheme to see who is getting paid they discovered that Wall Street, Goldman Sachs and some Democratic doners will get rich, while you, the poor and small businesses will pay big time. The Democrats once again are transferring wealth from the middle class and poor to Wall Street and themselves. Click on the CORPORATISM category for more.
A very entertaining hour with three hunters talking hunting, ranching, machine guns, law and politics. Palin shows just how down to Earth and unpretentious she is.
Warning: If you are one of those pinheads on the second floor with a picture of Karl Marx on your wall, listening to these vids may make blood shoot from your eyes.
There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America’s unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won’t bring jobs. Our nation’s debt is unsustainable, and the federal government’s reach into the private sector is unprecedented.
Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:
I am deeply concerned about President Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.
American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.
There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy.
Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.
In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.
The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.
The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket.” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.
Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, “poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity.”
We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.
In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.
Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.
We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama’s plan will result in the latter.
For so many reasons, we can’t afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.
Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?
Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama’s energy cap-and-tax plan.
The first time we wrote of this it was when the state of Oregon proposed such a program (LINK) and Betsy Imholt of the Oregon state government responded to our piece and hid under her desk after our response.
Here is an excerpt of our response to Imholt:
Betsy,
I appreciate you writing but the problem with the program is a fundamental issue of trust and common sense and it is of little surprise to me that a bureaucrat like yourself just doesn’t get it.
People who have lost their jobs drive less; others are driving more fuel efficient cars to use less gas for economic as well as national security reasons as everyone has been talking about. So now that people are conserving more here comes the bureaucrat to punish them for it.
Everyone is getting by with less…. well not everyone… everyone except you. Here is a novel idea Betsy, everyone is getting by with less, so government should too.
And…
There are also privacy issues and the idea of “big brother”. Bureaucrats are famous for making sure that they are not held accountable for when things go wrong. Betsy, would you be willing to accept a provision in the law that would mandate 20 years in prison without possibility of parole, for you and your staff if these devices are ever used to track someone’s whereabouts. You won’t do it because if one thing is always consistent, it is that government breaks any and all promises when it comes to limiting its own power and influence.
Be sure to follow the link above and enjoy the rest.
The year is 2020 and the gasoline tax is history. In its place you get a monthly tax bill based on each mile you drove — tracked by a Global Positioning System device in your car and uploaded to a billing center.
What once was science fiction is being field-tested by the University of Iowa to iron out the wrinkles should a by-the-mile road tax ever be enacted.
Besides the technological advances making such a tax possible, the idea is getting a hard push from a growing number of transportation experts and officials. That is because the traditional by-the-gallon fuel tax, struggling to keep up with road building and maintenance demands, could fall even farther behind as vehicles’ gas mileage rises and more alternative-fuel vehicles come on line.
The idea of shifting to a by-the-mile tax has been discussed for years, but it now appears to be getting more serious attention. A federal commission, after a two-year study, concluded earlier this year that the road tax was the “best path forward” to keep revenues flowing to highway and transportation projects, and could be an important new tool to help manage traffic and relieve congestion.
The decision by the 15-member National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission was unanimous, which surprised Robert Atkinson, the group’s chairman. But he said it became clear as the commission’s work progressed that a road tax on miles traveled was the best option.
“If you’re committed to the system being improved then it was a no-brainer,” he said.
Agreed, these government types have no brains. Are the American people going to tolerate this crap?
When House Democratic leaders were rounding up votes Friday for the massive climate-change bill, they paid special attention to their colleagues from Ohio who remained stubbornly undecided.
They finally secured the vote of one Ohioan, veteran Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Toledo, the old-fashioned way. They gave her what she wanted – a new federal power authority, similar to Washington state’s Bonneville Power Administration, stocked with up to $3.5 billion in taxpayer money available for lending to renewable energy and economic development projects in Ohio and other Midwestern states.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, included the Kaptur project in a 310-page amendment to the legislation unveiled at 3 a.m. Friday, just hours before the bill was to be debated on the House floor. The amendment was packed with other vote-getting provisions, both large and small, that had been sought by dozens of wavering Democrats.
The wheeling and dealing proved successful. Mr. Waxman and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, backed by the personal lobbying of President Obama, won over enough lawmakers to pass the bill narrowly Friday evening, 219-212.
Miss Kaptur trumpeted her handiwork on her congressional Web site. She said the new federal authority would bring new economic development to Ohio and the struggling Great Lakes region and would also ensure “regional equity” with other parts of the country that already have such programs.
The Brookings Institution released their own analysis of analysis on the costs of cap and trade yesterday. Unlike Heritage’s recent Center for Data Analysis study, the Brookings effort does not analyze any particular bill, but does look at the economic costs of four policy scenarios. Their conclusions:
Welfare effects
Loss in Personal Consumption of $1 to $2 trillion present value
Incremental stringency produces high incremental cost, e.g. extra 8 % reduction increases costs 45%
US GDP in 2050 lower by 2.5%
Employment effect
-0.5% at peak in first decade
This Brookings study confirms what the EPA, IPCC, RFF, MIT, and The Heritage Foundation have all already reported: carbon cap and trade is a jobs and GDP killer.
Total bill looks like 9 Trillion according to some estimates. Brookings is a leftist/Democrat think tank.
Left wing parties are losing big all over Europe. The British sosiclists lead by Prime Minister Gordon Brown are in for a pasting in the near future. Brown’s Policies are very similar to the Obama Administration and have had more time to “work”. The result has been a very predictable disaster. The voters have had enough.
The center-right European People’s Party (EPP) held on to its position as the largest grouping in the European Parliament, with provisional results giving them 267, or around 36 percent, of the assembly’s 736 seats. The center-right’s showing was even better than indicated by the EPP’s results, as many euroskeptic members of the European Parliament are moving to other parliamentary groups.
The vote’s biggest loser is the center-left, with the Party of European Socialists (PES) winning just 159 seats, 56 fewer than in the 2004 election. “Tonight is a very difficult evening for Socialists in many nations in Europe,” Martin Schulz, lead candidate for Germany’s Social Democrats and the floor leader for the PES in the European Parliament, said on Sunday evening.
Just what we need to stimulate growth then, eh? More dirigisme, more red tape, more state control, more centralisation. And the markets have risen. Will you never learn, boys?
Recent history in Europe and the US has shown that doing nothing would have been better than what we have done, but smart people came up with ideas such as lowering the corporate income tax, buying up bad mortgage loans to renegotiate them with home owners, forgiving one years worth of student loan payments, forgiving the federal income tax for 9 months etc. These are ideas that would have injected big cash into the economy now. Only 23% of the stimulus was even designed to be spent before the end of 2010. The government spends money for political reasons, whereas citizens and families spend money and pay off debt for economic reasons.
Here we go again. Obama’s new nominee for Health & Human Services director is paying over $7,000 in back taxes that were owed. She is former governor Kathleen Sebelius. Of course, when your a Democrat you don’t have to pay all of the penalties, just as Tim Geithner.
We rely on petroleum for much more than just powering our vehicles: It is essential in everything from jet fuel to petrochemicals, plastics to fertilizers, pesticides to pharmaceuticals. According to the Energy Information Administration, our total domestic petroleum consumption last year was 19.5 million barrels per day (bpd). Motor gasoline and diesel fuel accounted for less than 13 million bpd of that. Meanwhile, we produced only 4.95 million bpd of domestic crude. In other words, even if we ran all our vehicles on something else (which won’t happen anytime soon), we would still have to depend on imported oil. And we’ll continue that dependence until we develop our own oil resources to their fullest extent.
Alaska also shows how oil drilling is thoroughly compatible with energy conservation and renewable-energy development. Over 20 percent of Alaska’s electricity currently comes from renewable sources, and as governor I put forward a long-term plan to increase that figure to 50 percent by 2025. Alaska’s comprehensive plan identifies renewable options across the state that can help rural villages transition away from expensive diesel-generated electricity — allowing each community to choose the solution that best fits its needs. That’s important in any energy plan: Tempting as they may be to central planners, top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions are recipes for failure.
Posted June 9th, 2009 at 1.27pm in 
