Posted on 01/22/2003 10:22:50 PM PST by JohnHuang2
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:00:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
America has turned its back on Americans. Even illegal aliens count higher with the American government than native-born, taxpaying, loyal U.S. citizens, who are regarded by their government as nothing but resources to be exploited.
American taxpayers now are expected to shoulder the burden of paying for university educations for illegal aliens. When U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, said recently that illegal aliens should be deported, not given in-state tuition, Karl Rove, the Power Behind the Bush, told Mr. Tancredo never again to darken the steps of the White House.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
No… it’s fully baked.
I live in NJ. The wife and I went over to Allentown to watch the fireworks this 4th. The crowd was enormous and I would guess one out of ten people I passed were speaking English. Never would have expected that in Allentown. The immigration issue is out of control.
On the lighter side, it’s nice to hear that there are still conscientious business owners like yourself who are not willing to break the law to save a few bucks an hour.
As far as voting in the next election, I’m a conservative republican and realize that W isn’t to blame for starting all the current economic woes but he is the man at the wheel and it’s his responsibility to figure out what to do about it now. I hate that I might be throwing my vote away by going 3rd party but don’t like the idea of being pigeon-holed into having to vote for him because he’s not as bad as the whomever the dem’s foist on us.
Interesting question that brings up other question(s) in my unique mind.
What is the 'official' definition of first, second, third world? Is there a fourth world, etc.?
I remember my favorite radio talk show host saying that the USA was 'slipping and sliding toward third worldism' about 20 years ago or more and never fully understood what he meant. Maybe someone more knowledgeable than me on these matters can finally set me straight.
Thanx in advance.
So true. Comparatively, the USSR was a spectacular implosion, an avalanche, where we just kinda limped away, like a dying elephant.
We may have to start eating these imported workers if nothing else works.
And I'm tired of intelligent people being naive.
President Clinton signed an Executive Order that FORCED every single federal agency to conduct every single internal and external action **as if** the Kyoto Treaty had been ratified. To win bids with federal agencies, companies were being compelled to show how they were in compliance with Kyoto's reduced CO2 requirements, for instance.
But hey, the Senate didn't ratify Kyoto so we were all OK, weren't we?!
Sheesh...
Please provide a cite for this executive order, preferable the EO number.
The order, designed to put the government at the forefront of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, will save taxpayers $1 billion a year when it is fully implemented, administration sources told CNN.
The U.S. government is the world's largest consumer of energy, spending more than $8 billion a year to heat, cool and light its buildings. It uses 32 percent more energy per square foot than the average private sector building in the United States.
Some 500,000 buildings will be affected by the new policy, from local Social Security offices to the Pentagon. But the Defense Department will be affected the most, since it accounts for 75 percent of the energy used by the federal government.
The directive does not apply to energy uses for transportation, or many military or other activities tied to national security, officials said.
Clinton will recommend a number of ways for agencies to cut energy consumption and will unveil a new program called "energy savings performance contracts."
The program calls for contractors to conduct energy-saving audits at government agencies and take steps to reduce costs. The contractors would initially fund the improvements -- eliminating any up-front cost to the government -- and then be paid over time from the savings generated by lower energy costs.
The savings could be achieved through improvements in insulation, lighting, air conditioning and boilers. With less electricity consumed, utilities produce less power, thereby reducing the emissions of generating plants.
Carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is a principal greenhouse gas that scientists believe is causing a warming of the earth as it accumulates in the atmosphere.
The Kyoto climate agreement reached in December, 1997 calls for the United States to reduce greenhouse gases 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.
Although the administration signed the Kyoto treaty, the White House has come under increased criticism in recent months from environmentalists for not moving more aggressively to curtail heat-trapping emissions. The treaty has not been ratified by Congress.
Clinton will unveil his new proposal at a White House event and then discuss it during a Cabinet meeting, highlighting a Pentagon effort to have a contractor retro-fit five military installations in the Washington area.
The new policy is being pushed by the Alliance to Save Energy -- a coalition of business, government, environmental and consumer leaders who promote efficient and clean use of energy worldwide. The group was formed in 1977 after the Arab oil embargo.
"We are very impressed. The government is finally plugging some energy leaks," said Mark Hopkins, ASE vice president. The group was briefed about the executive order Wednesday afternoon.
Clinton's order -- coming at a time when many environmentalists have chided the administration for not doing enough to address climate change -- will be announced at a Cabinet meeting Thursday.
Officials said Clinton would also use the Cabinet meeting to air his differences with Republicans on an array of budget and spending issues.
Correspondent John King, The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/02/clinton.energy/
Clinton’s Biomass Program
In an obvious attempt to buy support from farmers for its global warming policies, the Clinton Administration has unveiled its latest scheme to reduce energy emissions. On August 12 President Clinton issued an executive order calling for an increase in the use of biomass to produce energy. The executive order sets a goal of tripling the use of biomass for energy generation in various industries by 2010.
The administration is claiming that the new executive order will result in $15 to $20 billion in new farm income by 2010 as a result of increasing the use of farm products as a fuel source. In a speech announcing the new plan President Clinton said, "One hundred years from now, people will look back on this time and compare it to the time when Mr. Burton (a chemist who launched the modern petrochemical industry) figured out how to get more out of every petroleum molecule – if we do our jobs." It’s far more likely that this will be remembered like all other government energy projects: a massive boondoggle wasting billions of hard-earned tax dollars (New York Times, August 12, 1999). http://www.globalwarming.org/polup/pol8-22-99.html
President Clinton signed an Executive Order that FORCED every single federal agency to conduct every single internal and external action **as if** the Kyoto Treaty had been ratified. To win bids with federal agencies, companies were being compelled to show how they were in compliance with Kyoto's reduced CO2 requirements, for instance.
There was some conjecture as to whether Clinton's federalism EO 13083 would have given him the power to implement such guidelines by EO - but there never was anything specific that I could see, unless you can provide an EO number.
I provided at least four EO links above, and no, you won't see CNN publicly admitting that the sum of Clinton's EO's implemented the Kyoto Treaty via the back door, if that sort of overt admission is what you are searching for. But the **sum** of Clinton's EO's did indeed force all federal agencies to behave as though Kyoto had been ratified. Certainly the framework is there in the links that I provided, and there are another 20 or so such EO's/links, I would speculate.
I researched it myself, and there was nothing as broad as what you are claiming. There was conjecture as to the possible implications of EO 13083 as initially offered by Clinton (and, as I recall, that one was significantly watered down after considerable public outcry) - but nothing resembling a concrete requirement as you stated. And, this all shows that there are limits to what can be done by EO - sooner or later someone notices and takes action.
Yeah, we put a President in office who put a stop to that nonsense. Clinton's Kyoto EO's are now dead.
President Clinton signed an Executive Order that FORCED every single federal agency to conduct every single internal and external action **as if** the Kyoto Treaty had been ratified.
And then, when challenged to support your contention, suddenly said it was several EOs:
But the **sum** of Clinton's EO's did indeed force all federal agencies to behave as though Kyoto had been ratified.
However, the only ones I saw were about federal agencies reducing energy and some biomass nonsense that Bob Dole would appreciate, being Senator Ethanol and all.
Kyoto was DOA. Bush simply read it last rites, and that was good. But I will pay a lot closer attention to what you claim as fact from now on.
And just what did you think was contained inside the Kyoto Treaty, if not targets for reducing energy emissions and engaging in biomass nonsense?!
Starting to walk more and eat less now (I'll save cutting back on Yuengling if things require drastic action).
Dude, you claimed this:
To win bids with federal agencies, companies were being compelled to show how they were in compliance with Kyoto's reduced CO2 requirements, for instance.
You provided nothing to back it up. And biomass was around before Kyoto and afterwards, in the form of ethanol subsidies, which politicians of all stripes renew year after year, so don't even go there. And as for the fedgov using 30 percent less energy, that's not a bad idea, as that means they'll be foisting 30 percent or so less nonsense on us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.