Since Nov 29, 2000
Why are the leftist democrats proposing a growing control over our whole economy with new, high taxes on energy use, a refusal to want to expand our new found shale oil and gas, and new reliance on very expensive solar, wind and other alternative energy sources, which really do not work as solutions to our energy needs.
Has the Global Warming industry been a backdoor attempt by the leftist democrats to take control of our economy even further than they already have? Is it not ironic that Al Gore, the biggest political backer of Global Warming has become a billionaire based upon the carbon exchange business empire he was given control of by his big business cronies?
Also, the Leftist Democrats insisted upon hobbling our nuclear industry decades ago. Yet, nuclear energy is the only alternative to oil, gas and coal, which works. Solar and wind just do not cut it. They are expensive, have costly maintenance, and cost a lot of traditional energy just to construct the projects. They kill lots of wildlife, and change the landscape significantly. They are ONLY intermittent energy sources, AND require complete backup systems of gas fired, coal fired electric generation plants for when the sun doesn't shine or the wind does not blow. The mirrors need constant maintenance, and the wind turbines need to be replaced at great cost every 15 years or so.
So, the Global Warming hypothesis has FAILED to be proven (SORRY, the global warming hypothesis, according to regular scientific procedures, has failed as a hypothesis....those are the facts), we are plausibly heading for more global cooling, yet we are supposed to TRANSFORM our industry, our lives, greatly increase our costs and lower our competitiveness compared to other countries which are simply not going to act on this Global Warming drivel, all to make the leftist democrats happy so that they can gain ever increasing control over our industries, impose huge new taxes which you know are going to end in the pockets of their cronies, and allow them to control the energy industry and create feather bed jobs for their leftist cronies, as well.
Sorry, I object! ]
It's not the AMOUNT of Obama's executive orders, it's that his orders have reached far beyond the authority granted to a single branch of government.
An executive order is an INTERNAL memorandum, meant to guide HIS staff when interpreting law. For those who don't understand the very unconstitutional nature of an EO, perhaps you should try reading the constitution. There is NO constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders. There is only a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1, and a small blurb in Article II, Section 3 (Presidential Responsibilities) which says, "He shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed." EO's have always been generally accepted by the other three branches because they usually don't affect anything but the executive branch, and are simply there to help guide how the executive staff conducts operations.
This president however, seems to be under the impression that EO's give monarch like authority to rewrite entire portions of laws that have already been ratified.
No, he's not the first president to abuse this power and overreach his authoritative limitations, but just because someone else did it, doesn't make it right.
Really take some time to let what Rachel Maddow said sink in. First, a pair of crafty & nefarious rich guys concoct a terrible plan that contradicts their 3-4 decade support for numerous organizations which advocate decriminalization of drugs (look up Cato, IHS, Libertarian Party, Reason, etc.). In spite of the fact that they've also argued for decades for a reduction in government power, and lower government spending, the plan they concocted involves drug-testing for welfare recipients, which did nothing but increase spending in Florida while offering no clear path to reducing welfare rolls. But once they'd come up with their plan to institute drug-testing for welfare recipients in Florida, they needed to find a way to get it into the Florida legislature... And for rather inexplicable reasons, they wanted to make sure that nobody but an Ace Reporter (tm) like Rachel Maddow could trace the policy back to them...
So this is how they chose to do it: Step 1: Give money to the Institute for Humane Studies, a classical liberal and pro-drug legalization organization that educates young people on the value of individual liberty (and which runs the Learn Liberty project, which recently had a video Upworthied about overpopulation of prisons and the drug war).
Step 2: Establish a summer fellowship program for young people who are working at policy shops and other organizations around the country to come to IHS and participate in classes and seminars. Do not pre-select the organizations from which KSFP interns will be taken.
Step 3: Discover KSFP intern working in the state of Florida.
Step 4: Get nefarious plot to introduce drug-testing legislation to said intern by untraceable means? Step 5: ??? Step 6: Legislation passed!!! Seems legit."
The question is not whether humans affect climate, including average global temperature. The question is whether anthropogenic effects are significant relative to other factors that influence global temperature. And given that global temperature has been essentially static over the past 15 years (and the human activities that influence it have only increased), the answer suggested by physical reality is that humans have a negligible influence relative to non-human factors, no matter how blue a pie chart some superficial scanning of the literature yields.
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls our climates.
3. The earth is a rock.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
Progressives are religious.Their god is the state. Their idea of helping the poor is to force more people to give more of their money to that violent entity, rather than encouraging them to help out the poor voluntarily and of their own free will--which many Americans of all classes do, BTW. (Indeed, Americans are among the most generous people in the world, when it comes to making donations to the less fortunate.)
As for the 'Affordable Care' Act being a 'three year old law now', what of it? No law, no matter how old, is permanent. All can be repealed, reformed or replaced. That Jim Crow laws were many years old and well-established didn't stop activists from fighting for their repeal.
George W. Bush, after the capture of Saddam Hussein:
"The success of yesterdays mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq . The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictators footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them."
Barack Obama, after the death of bin Laden:
"And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as I continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by my intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan . And finally, last week, I determined that I had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad , Pakistan."
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws"
Left wing fundamentalists want the established law and process of this country to be overturned so they can punish those they hate. Progressive Obama supporters will not accept the rule of law, will not accept due process, will not accept evidence, will not accept the results of a jury, will not accept anything that in any way disagrees with what the progressive left wants to push.
These are the things that civilize our society. Barack Obama and the left are demanding they be suspended so the left gets its way. They truly want a one-party system. They are my enemy.
Obama took a health care system that was working for most people and complicated it, while jeopardizing insurance coverage for responsible working citizens. He could have simply found a way to offer affordable coverage to those who lacked it, but NO, he had to enact a huge federal takeover of 1/6th of the economy. Repeal Obamacare and start over. There are too many problems with this messy, disastrous law.
On one hand re correct that the ACA will shift patients out of the ER and into doctor's offices; at least most of them (I suspect for illegal aliens, who number in the millions in the U.S., the ER will continue to be their only method of healthcare).
However, even if going to a doctor's office is a 50% savings over the cost of an office visit (just to throw a figure out there), that is counterbalanced by the influx of previously-uninsured patients who now have insurance who are now visiting doctors for their everyday care that they would have previously not gone to the ER for. So that eats of any savings. The secondary problem with the ACA is that it does NOTHING to rein in healthcare costs in this country. We still pay 18% of our GDP on healthcare today. Australia pays 9%. A month of the drug Lipitor in the U.S. is $124. In New Zealand the government pays Pfizer $7 for a month's worth. A hip replacement in Belgium costs $18k. In the U.S. it usually costs over $100k.
Is this because we have BETTER healthcare in the U.S.? Hardly. Our outcomes are the same or worse than most modern industrialized nations. The difference is, those countries NEGOTIATE the cost of drugs artificial hips, etc. from the manufacturers. The U.S. has no such negotiating program and such a program isn't included in the ACA.
So in other words, the ACA will DO NOTHING to rein in healthcare costs. All the ACA did was throw all the uninsured into a big government subsidy pool, and ask all the rest of us to pay for it. We already TODAY BEFORE THE ACA went live pay $3,000 per capita on healthcare in this country. That's more than Germany, more than the U.K., more than New Zealand, more than Canada and more than Japan, all of whom have what is generally considered to be excellent, high quality healthcare.
I have no problem with providing every American with health insurance. I have A BIG PROBLEM with the ACA because it did nothing to actually make such coverage affordable in any meaningful way that won't bankrupt this country.