1
Politics & Religion / Re: Law Enforcement
« on: May 26, 2011, 12:58:52 PM »
I see it has been well covered nice read tanks.
Boyo
Boyo
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1] 2
2
Politics & Religion / Re: Law Enforcement
« on: May 24, 2011, 02:31:09 PM »
Has anybody else heard about this ?
Supreme Courts Affirm The Police State
May 23, 2011 by Bob Livingston
Our descent into a police state is complete, as evidenced by rulings by the Indiana and U.S. Supreme Courts which, last week, effectively and finally abolished the 4th Amendment.
No longer are American citizens “secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” thanks to the two rulings affirming police authority to bash down your door and enter your home without a warrant. Resisting such an incursion is now a crime. If it weren’t obvious before that we live in a fascist system under guise of Democracy, surely, it must be now.
In Indiana, the Supreme Court ruled 3-2 “that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.” The U.S. Supreme Court’s 8-1 ruling affirmed that officers can kick down a door if they smell marijuana or hear noises indicative of the destruction of evidence. (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, writing, “Police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”) The fact that the door they kicked in was not the door their suspect had entered was irrelevant to the court.
Of course, we told you a couple of weeks ago about the case of Maryanne Godboldo, who had a Detroit Police SWAT team crash into her home and remove her daughter because Godboldo made the perfectly reasonable and rational choice to determine what medication her daughter should take.
And we’ve previously told you about the assault on the 4th Amendment by the Department of Homeland Security through the porn show/gropefest at the airports and, just as egregious, the home peepshow enabling the Z Backscatter Van™ that is now rolling on American streets.
But the court rulings are among the first to affirm the police state. And they open us up to a system where the police have carte blanche to do as they please.
Think this is an overreaction? Tell it to the citizens of Newton County, Ind., whose sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., told the Mike Church radio show on Thursday that random house-to-house searches are now possible because of the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling.
“(H)e emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house (sic) checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal,” according to a posting on Church’s website. By Thursday afternoon there was a Facebook page calling for Hartman’s removal from office.
The Founders are surely weeping for an America they no longer recognize.
Our country became great and prosperous because its citizens were allowed to own property. The Founders subscribed to the theory of John Locke that “if (a person) be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power?”
The elites understand this as well. That is why there is an assault on property rights, like in the ruling in Kelo v. The City of New London. It’s why a system based on property taxes is so egregious, because the State forces you to pay for the right to own your own property and can take it away at the force of a gun if, through some financial hardship or error, you don’t pay the tax in a timely manner.
The fascist elites in government are winning. We have become the despotism of an oligarchy, which Thomas Jefferson warned about when he wrote: “It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all Constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
We have told you before of the folly of expecting any of the ruling class to do anything or make any laws or rulings that would deny them more power. The President, members of Congress, the bureaucrats who occupy the offices of government, the justices, judges, lawyers, accountants and officers of the court system are employees of and for government. Their desire is to accumulate more power for government and more power and prestige for themselves. It is a desire that knows no party affiliation.
John Adams wrote: “… because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
That is where we are. We as a nation have rejected God and spat upon his principles. We have put in power people who see themselves as gods — elitists who think they know more than we and who think they know better than we how we should live our lives. We’ve allowed them to dictate what kind of cars we drive, what kind of light bulbs we can use, how much water our toilets flush, what foods we can eat, what doctors we see, what drugs we can — or must — take and what harmful chemicals can be placed in our water. And then we sat back as the oligarchy banned any and every mention of God in schools and public places.
We have rejected the teachings of our fathers. We have turned our backs on liberty and accepted the perceived safety net of tyranny. We slept while the Constitution burned.
The 1 percent in government controls the 99 percent. Of those 99 percent, 49.5 percent are perfectly content to be controlled as long as the “free” money comes their way. The remaining 49.5 percent is divided among those who are so unaware that they are unaware they are unaware, those who are aware but don’t know what to do, and those who know what’s coming and have been preparing.
Those who are aware but don’t know what to do scream at the top of their lungs that things are wrong. They don’t know exactly what things are wrong, or why, just that they are.
They have been blinded by the 1 percent, which controls through gross deception. They are being stolen from and lied to. They are being herded like sheep to the slaughter, and the last vestige of hope in the court system has betrayed them.
Failing regimes respond in their death throes by engaging in perpetual wars, debasing their currency and clamping down on the freedoms of their people. As the power elites try to hold on to their last vestiges of control, they enslave their subjects through the tyranny of a police state.
We live in a country that once threw off the shackles of tyranny. Our Founders chose not to tolerate a police state that allowed armed soldiers of the crown to enter homes at will, ransack, pillage and abuse. They understood such practices violated hundreds of years of law that established that a man’s home was his castle and not subject to invasion by the regime.
Such abuses were so egregious to the Founders that they were among the ones specifically mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
The system is collapsing. All around the world — from China to Europe to the Middle East — the proletariat is rising up. People are protesting rising food prices and lack of freedom and clamoring for a form of democracy. The regimes respond to the protests with violence, sometimes aided and abetted by the United States and its form of humanitarianism.
In America, the proles still sleep, but they are stirring. Those who are aware are finding their legs and their voices, as evidenced by last November’s elections. Every day, more of the unaware are waking from the fog of conventional wisdom.
If you have not yet begun to prepare for the coming storm, you have waited almost too long. The winds are against you now. Gold tells the story of the rapid descent of the system. It takes almost twice as many fiat dollars to purchase an ounce today as it did just two years ago.
But gold remains a bargain. Silver, too. Store food and water for the hard times, which are nearer than you think. The ride is getting bumpy. It will get worse before it gets better. For most, life will soon be very difficult.
Boyo
Supreme Courts Affirm The Police State
May 23, 2011 by Bob Livingston
Our descent into a police state is complete, as evidenced by rulings by the Indiana and U.S. Supreme Courts which, last week, effectively and finally abolished the 4th Amendment.
No longer are American citizens “secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” thanks to the two rulings affirming police authority to bash down your door and enter your home without a warrant. Resisting such an incursion is now a crime. If it weren’t obvious before that we live in a fascist system under guise of Democracy, surely, it must be now.
In Indiana, the Supreme Court ruled 3-2 “that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.” The U.S. Supreme Court’s 8-1 ruling affirmed that officers can kick down a door if they smell marijuana or hear noises indicative of the destruction of evidence. (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, writing, “Police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”) The fact that the door they kicked in was not the door their suspect had entered was irrelevant to the court.
Of course, we told you a couple of weeks ago about the case of Maryanne Godboldo, who had a Detroit Police SWAT team crash into her home and remove her daughter because Godboldo made the perfectly reasonable and rational choice to determine what medication her daughter should take.
And we’ve previously told you about the assault on the 4th Amendment by the Department of Homeland Security through the porn show/gropefest at the airports and, just as egregious, the home peepshow enabling the Z Backscatter Van™ that is now rolling on American streets.
But the court rulings are among the first to affirm the police state. And they open us up to a system where the police have carte blanche to do as they please.
Think this is an overreaction? Tell it to the citizens of Newton County, Ind., whose sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., told the Mike Church radio show on Thursday that random house-to-house searches are now possible because of the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling.
“(H)e emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house (sic) checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal,” according to a posting on Church’s website. By Thursday afternoon there was a Facebook page calling for Hartman’s removal from office.
The Founders are surely weeping for an America they no longer recognize.
Our country became great and prosperous because its citizens were allowed to own property. The Founders subscribed to the theory of John Locke that “if (a person) be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power?”
The elites understand this as well. That is why there is an assault on property rights, like in the ruling in Kelo v. The City of New London. It’s why a system based on property taxes is so egregious, because the State forces you to pay for the right to own your own property and can take it away at the force of a gun if, through some financial hardship or error, you don’t pay the tax in a timely manner.
The fascist elites in government are winning. We have become the despotism of an oligarchy, which Thomas Jefferson warned about when he wrote: “It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all Constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
We have told you before of the folly of expecting any of the ruling class to do anything or make any laws or rulings that would deny them more power. The President, members of Congress, the bureaucrats who occupy the offices of government, the justices, judges, lawyers, accountants and officers of the court system are employees of and for government. Their desire is to accumulate more power for government and more power and prestige for themselves. It is a desire that knows no party affiliation.
John Adams wrote: “… because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
That is where we are. We as a nation have rejected God and spat upon his principles. We have put in power people who see themselves as gods — elitists who think they know more than we and who think they know better than we how we should live our lives. We’ve allowed them to dictate what kind of cars we drive, what kind of light bulbs we can use, how much water our toilets flush, what foods we can eat, what doctors we see, what drugs we can — or must — take and what harmful chemicals can be placed in our water. And then we sat back as the oligarchy banned any and every mention of God in schools and public places.
We have rejected the teachings of our fathers. We have turned our backs on liberty and accepted the perceived safety net of tyranny. We slept while the Constitution burned.
The 1 percent in government controls the 99 percent. Of those 99 percent, 49.5 percent are perfectly content to be controlled as long as the “free” money comes their way. The remaining 49.5 percent is divided among those who are so unaware that they are unaware they are unaware, those who are aware but don’t know what to do, and those who know what’s coming and have been preparing.
Those who are aware but don’t know what to do scream at the top of their lungs that things are wrong. They don’t know exactly what things are wrong, or why, just that they are.
They have been blinded by the 1 percent, which controls through gross deception. They are being stolen from and lied to. They are being herded like sheep to the slaughter, and the last vestige of hope in the court system has betrayed them.
Failing regimes respond in their death throes by engaging in perpetual wars, debasing their currency and clamping down on the freedoms of their people. As the power elites try to hold on to their last vestiges of control, they enslave their subjects through the tyranny of a police state.
We live in a country that once threw off the shackles of tyranny. Our Founders chose not to tolerate a police state that allowed armed soldiers of the crown to enter homes at will, ransack, pillage and abuse. They understood such practices violated hundreds of years of law that established that a man’s home was his castle and not subject to invasion by the regime.
Such abuses were so egregious to the Founders that they were among the ones specifically mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
The system is collapsing. All around the world — from China to Europe to the Middle East — the proletariat is rising up. People are protesting rising food prices and lack of freedom and clamoring for a form of democracy. The regimes respond to the protests with violence, sometimes aided and abetted by the United States and its form of humanitarianism.
In America, the proles still sleep, but they are stirring. Those who are aware are finding their legs and their voices, as evidenced by last November’s elections. Every day, more of the unaware are waking from the fog of conventional wisdom.
If you have not yet begun to prepare for the coming storm, you have waited almost too long. The winds are against you now. Gold tells the story of the rapid descent of the system. It takes almost twice as many fiat dollars to purchase an ounce today as it did just two years ago.
But gold remains a bargain. Silver, too. Store food and water for the hard times, which are nearer than you think. The ride is getting bumpy. It will get worse before it gets better. For most, life will soon be very difficult.
Boyo
3
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Environmental issues
« on: April 22, 2011, 01:15:30 PM »
Happy Earth(Lenin's birth)day
[youtube]http://youtu.be/67dcK5sjHsE[/youtube]
Boyo
[youtube]http://youtu.be/67dcK5sjHsE[/youtube]
Boyo
4
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters)
« on: January 13, 2011, 12:03:54 PM »
Here is something by Walter Williams I found interesting...
A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2011
What Our Constitution Permits
Here's the House of Representatives new rule: "A bill or joint resolution may not be introduced unless the sponsor has submitted for printing in the Congressional Record a statement citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution." Unless a congressional bill or resolution meets this requirement, it cannot be introduced.
If the House of Representatives had the courage to follow through on this rule, their ability to spend and confer legislative favors would be virtually eliminated. Also, if the rule were to be applied to existing law, they'd wind up repealing at least two-thirds to three-quarters of congressional spending.
You might think, for example, that there's constitutional authority for Congress to spend for highway construction and bridges. President James Madison on March 3, 1817 vetoed a public works bill saying: "Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled 'An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,' and which sets apart and pledges funds 'for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,' I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States and to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated."
Madison, who is sometimes referred to as the father of our Constitution, added to his veto statement, "The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers."
Here's my question to any member of the House who might vote for funds for "constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses": Was Madison just plain constitutionally ignorant or has the Constitution been amended to permit such spending?
What about handouts to poor people, businesses, senior citizens and foreigners?
Madison said, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
In 1854, President Franklin Piece vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. (To approve the measure) would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
President Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill for charity relief, saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
Again, my question to House members who'd vote for handouts is: Were these leaders just plain constitutionally ignorant or mean-spirited, or has our Constitution been amended to authorize charity?
Suppose a congressman attempts to comply with the new rule by asserting that his measure is authorized by the Constitution's general welfare clause. Here's what Thomas Jefferson said: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
Madison added, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
John Adams warned, "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." I am all too afraid that's where our nation stands today and the blame lies with the American people.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
Boyo
A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2011
What Our Constitution Permits
Here's the House of Representatives new rule: "A bill or joint resolution may not be introduced unless the sponsor has submitted for printing in the Congressional Record a statement citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution." Unless a congressional bill or resolution meets this requirement, it cannot be introduced.
If the House of Representatives had the courage to follow through on this rule, their ability to spend and confer legislative favors would be virtually eliminated. Also, if the rule were to be applied to existing law, they'd wind up repealing at least two-thirds to three-quarters of congressional spending.
You might think, for example, that there's constitutional authority for Congress to spend for highway construction and bridges. President James Madison on March 3, 1817 vetoed a public works bill saying: "Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled 'An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,' and which sets apart and pledges funds 'for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,' I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States and to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated."
Madison, who is sometimes referred to as the father of our Constitution, added to his veto statement, "The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers."
Here's my question to any member of the House who might vote for funds for "constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses": Was Madison just plain constitutionally ignorant or has the Constitution been amended to permit such spending?
What about handouts to poor people, businesses, senior citizens and foreigners?
Madison said, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
In 1854, President Franklin Piece vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. (To approve the measure) would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
President Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill for charity relief, saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
Again, my question to House members who'd vote for handouts is: Were these leaders just plain constitutionally ignorant or mean-spirited, or has our Constitution been amended to authorize charity?
Suppose a congressman attempts to comply with the new rule by asserting that his measure is authorized by the Constitution's general welfare clause. Here's what Thomas Jefferson said: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
Madison added, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
John Adams warned, "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." I am all too afraid that's where our nation stands today and the blame lies with the American people.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
Boyo
5
Politics & Religion / Re: How to cut government spending
« on: January 12, 2011, 12:25:22 PM »
Here is something by Walter Williams I found interesting...
A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2011
What Our Constitution Permits
Here's the House of Representatives new rule: "A bill or joint resolution may not be introduced unless the sponsor has submitted for printing in the Congressional Record a statement citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution." Unless a congressional bill or resolution meets this requirement, it cannot be introduced.
If the House of Representatives had the courage to follow through on this rule, their ability to spend and confer legislative favors would be virtually eliminated. Also, if the rule were to be applied to existing law, they'd wind up repealing at least two-thirds to three-quarters of congressional spending.
You might think, for example, that there's constitutional authority for Congress to spend for highway construction and bridges. President James Madison on March 3, 1817 vetoed a public works bill saying: "Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled 'An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,' and which sets apart and pledges funds 'for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,' I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States and to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated."
Madison, who is sometimes referred to as the father of our Constitution, added to his veto statement, "The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers."
Here's my question to any member of the House who might vote for funds for "constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses": Was Madison just plain constitutionally ignorant or has the Constitution been amended to permit such spending?
What about handouts to poor people, businesses, senior citizens and foreigners?
Madison said, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
In 1854, President Franklin Piece vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. (To approve the measure) would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
President Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill for charity relief, saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
Again, my question to House members who'd vote for handouts is: Were these leaders just plain constitutionally ignorant or mean-spirited, or has our Constitution been amended to authorize charity?
Suppose a congressman attempts to comply with the new rule by asserting that his measure is authorized by the Constitution's general welfare clause. Here's what Thomas Jefferson said: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
Madison added, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
John Adams warned, "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." I am all too afraid that's where our nation stands today and the blame lies with the American people.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
Boyo
A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2011
What Our Constitution Permits
Here's the House of Representatives new rule: "A bill or joint resolution may not be introduced unless the sponsor has submitted for printing in the Congressional Record a statement citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution." Unless a congressional bill or resolution meets this requirement, it cannot be introduced.
If the House of Representatives had the courage to follow through on this rule, their ability to spend and confer legislative favors would be virtually eliminated. Also, if the rule were to be applied to existing law, they'd wind up repealing at least two-thirds to three-quarters of congressional spending.
You might think, for example, that there's constitutional authority for Congress to spend for highway construction and bridges. President James Madison on March 3, 1817 vetoed a public works bill saying: "Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled 'An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,' and which sets apart and pledges funds 'for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,' I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States and to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated."
Madison, who is sometimes referred to as the father of our Constitution, added to his veto statement, "The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers."
Here's my question to any member of the House who might vote for funds for "constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses": Was Madison just plain constitutionally ignorant or has the Constitution been amended to permit such spending?
What about handouts to poor people, businesses, senior citizens and foreigners?
Madison said, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
In 1854, President Franklin Piece vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. (To approve the measure) would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
President Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill for charity relief, saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
Again, my question to House members who'd vote for handouts is: Were these leaders just plain constitutionally ignorant or mean-spirited, or has our Constitution been amended to authorize charity?
Suppose a congressman attempts to comply with the new rule by asserting that his measure is authorized by the Constitution's general welfare clause. Here's what Thomas Jefferson said: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
Madison added, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
John Adams warned, "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." I am all too afraid that's where our nation stands today and the blame lies with the American people.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
Boyo
6
Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« on: December 04, 2010, 06:49:47 PM »
This is really REALLY interesting!!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A[/youtube]
Enjoy Boyo
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A[/youtube]
Enjoy Boyo
7
Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism:
« on: August 19, 2010, 12:31:19 PM »
Here ia the Trailer for Indoctrinate U
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-zz1HwxIjg[/youtube]
Boyo
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-zz1HwxIjg[/youtube]
Boyo
8
Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism:
« on: August 19, 2010, 12:29:09 PM »
Then explain to me the lack of security or caring ,on the balance of protestors vs speakers ,when say it is Ann Coultre speaking or David Horowitz speaking on a campus. Not only are they shouted down in the auditorium but are often physically attacked and the people who pay money to listen often do not get refiunds and the "protestors" are ignored unless there is an attack.. The Bush incident was heated but to my knowledge not physical....Agian freedom of speech if it is the right kind of speech and approved by the state or its appointed reps .
Check out the documentary from 2007 called Indoctrinate U it is quit eye opening about the treatment of dissent on campus.
Boyo
Check out the documentary from 2007 called Indoctrinate U it is quit eye opening about the treatment of dissent on campus.
Boyo
9
Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism:
« on: August 17, 2010, 05:20:55 PM »
So what seems to be true, based on the above posts ,free speech is a myth unless approved by the state , in an approved location and at an approved time. On every odd thursday of every even month in every odd year...that is agian if it is approved by the state. 
Boyo
Boyo
10
Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism:
« on: August 14, 2010, 05:53:31 AM »
Couldn't find a good spot for this but I think it fits under liberal Facism. Free spech is good on college campuses as long as it is approved otherwise they call out the thought police and you go to jail. That is why the rule for conservitives and libertarians in college is go along get along and get out !
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gr1BIDi97M[/youtube]
Boyo
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gr1BIDi97M[/youtube]
Boyo
11
Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People
« on: August 01, 2010, 03:29:14 PM »
GM
I love the onion they are a scream. I was in tears reading that.Also like the info on the US Marshals( learn something new everyday thanks)..See they(US Marshals) were already doing the job that home land secruity is doing and the ATF plus some other jobs.Think of it like the SEC ,and the financial collapse, they didin't enforce the regs that were already in place( actually encouraged bad loans do in part to the FM's) the govt in order to solve the problem creates more govt. Namely the finance reform bill more regulations and yet another govt agency involving enforcement of regulations.the govt that governs best governs least..believe that is Jeffereson.I believe the answer is always less govt be it regulations or agencies.
Boyo
Ps sorry about the scatter shot ideas above trying to get out and teach.JKD
I love the onion they are a scream. I was in tears reading that.Also like the info on the US Marshals( learn something new everyday thanks)..See they(US Marshals) were already doing the job that home land secruity is doing and the ATF plus some other jobs.Think of it like the SEC ,and the financial collapse, they didin't enforce the regs that were already in place( actually encouraged bad loans do in part to the FM's) the govt in order to solve the problem creates more govt. Namely the finance reform bill more regulations and yet another govt agency involving enforcement of regulations.the govt that governs best governs least..believe that is Jeffereson.I believe the answer is always less govt be it regulations or agencies.
Boyo
Ps sorry about the scatter shot ideas above trying to get out and teach.JKD
12
Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People
« on: July 31, 2010, 11:05:10 AM »
That is all well and good, but I still see the ATF as a redundant ,unneeded agency whose job could be handled locally and by the states just as well. These agencies might also have an increase in funding if they didn't have the ATF acting as a middle man.Plus what do you do with the FBI ,DEA, US Marshalls , Home Land security and the Sercret Service?These are all federal law enforcement agencies that could also be contacted not to mention other states or localities.I'm just saying that the ATF or maybe one of the others need to go away like the Dept of energy and the Dept of education.As far as regulations go , there is the second amendment that is all the federal regulations you need ,as far as firearms go, and for the rest let the states deal with it ,like they are already doing with sate liquor boards and tobacco laws. That is why I say the ATF is not needed but don't get me started on Home land security. 
Boyo
Boyo
13
Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People
« on: July 31, 2010, 05:31:26 AM »
GM
I see the BATF as an unneeded national police force. To begin with alcohol ,Tobacco and Firearms are all legal and are regulated locally by sates and communities( Montana no not enforcing federal gun laws or Mi and Ca smoking bans). Also why should the BATF be a middle man funneling off tax dollars just to return it to local and state law enforcement? Most major cities and states have bomb squads and swat teams and investigating arson is better suited to the fire dept ,they specialize in that stuff then turn it over to local authorities.
Now I am not taking away from the risk of the individuals perform doing thier jobs .I am just saying that the BATF is redundant federal agency whose job could be handled better locally via the states or local agencies saving the tax payer money and getting rid of a layer of regulations.
Boyo
I see the BATF as an unneeded national police force. To begin with alcohol ,Tobacco and Firearms are all legal and are regulated locally by sates and communities( Montana no not enforcing federal gun laws or Mi and Ca smoking bans). Also why should the BATF be a middle man funneling off tax dollars just to return it to local and state law enforcement? Most major cities and states have bomb squads and swat teams and investigating arson is better suited to the fire dept ,they specialize in that stuff then turn it over to local authorities.
Now I am not taking away from the risk of the individuals perform doing thier jobs .I am just saying that the BATF is redundant federal agency whose job could be handled better locally via the states or local agencies saving the tax payer money and getting rid of a layer of regulations.
Boyo
14
Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People
« on: July 30, 2010, 06:21:49 AM »
Do we really need an ATF?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2sWiZ8BizI[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTThAHtQWOA[/youtube]
This last isn't funny and speaks more towards gun safety..Always make sure the gun is NOT LOADED!!!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uADb3NyYlSA[/youtube]
Boyo
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2sWiZ8BizI[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTThAHtQWOA[/youtube]
This last isn't funny and speaks more towards gun safety..Always make sure the gun is NOT LOADED!!!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uADb3NyYlSA[/youtube]
Boyo
15
Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America and the rest of the western hemisphere
« on: June 14, 2010, 12:36:15 PM »
we are all going to musilms soon.NOT! check out the guys T shirt at the 2 min 22 sec point , very telling.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj2i3IwiAAc[/youtube]
Boyo
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj2i3IwiAAc[/youtube]
Boyo
16
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Music
« on: May 17, 2010, 12:58:35 PM »
One of my faves to train to. 
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liyaXjf_WSI[/youtube]
Boyo
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liyaXjf_WSI[/youtube]
Boyo
17
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Movies
« on: May 10, 2010, 12:40:51 PM »
Saw Iron man 2 really enjoyed it. Then came across this article. In the New York Post 
Little did Aaron Sorkin suspect, when he wrote the lefty drama "A Few Good Men," that the only thing anyone would ever remember about it was Jack Nicholson’s Col. Jessep speech, which Sorkin accidentally made more convincing than any liberal argument he ever offered: "Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. You want me on that wall — you need me on that wall. My existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives."
Col. Jessup, shake hands with your 21st-century equivalent: Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark.
Tony Stark -- hands off my business
In "Iron Man 2," not only is Stark’s existence grotesque to a prosecutorial senator in Washington even as he protects American lives, but the movie shows how much we need Tony Stark on another crucial wall — the wall between private industry and statism. The movie is written by Justin Theroux, but ideologically it brings to mind a slightly older screenwriter — Ayn Rand.
"Iron Man" shows its mettle early on when Tony is hauled before Congress to face down a snotty senator (Garry Shandling) who demands that he surrender his rights to Iron Man technology. Tony jokes that he isn’t interested in "indentured servitude or prostitution," echoes Col. Jessup when he notes, "I’d love to leave my door open, but this ain’t Canada" and sternly informs the senator, "You want my private property. You can’t have it." He adds, "I’ve successfully privatized world peace ... what’s wrong with these assclowns?"
Stark is threatened by the only force on earth comparable to his — what Rand’s John Galt called "the unpredictable power of the arbitrary whims of hidden, ugly little bureaucrats."
"Iron Man 2" is thrillingly aware that today’s disputes about the role of government in business are as critical as Cold War arguments ever were. The film is to economics what "The Dark Knight" is to national security.
It even features the best Barack Obama joke yet to appear in a movie: A spoof of the "iconic" (to liberals) Shepard Fairey "HOPE" poster. This one has an illustration of the heavy-metal superhero with the simple legend, "IRON MAN."
Liberals may read this as an homage to their idol, but it’s a wicked takedown — because Iron Man is so obviously everything Obama isn’t. He represents the profit-hungry corporation heedless of "responsibility," military saber-rattling rather than soothing placation, America first rather than just one of the pack, individualism rather than the committee and the community, the super-rich spending their money on toys rather than spreading the wealth — and impish wit instead of sonorous self-importance. (Quick: Name the five funniest one-liners Obama ever delivered off the cuff. Okay, name even one.)
Boyo
Little did Aaron Sorkin suspect, when he wrote the lefty drama "A Few Good Men," that the only thing anyone would ever remember about it was Jack Nicholson’s Col. Jessep speech, which Sorkin accidentally made more convincing than any liberal argument he ever offered: "Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. You want me on that wall — you need me on that wall. My existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives."
Col. Jessup, shake hands with your 21st-century equivalent: Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark.
Tony Stark -- hands off my business
In "Iron Man 2," not only is Stark’s existence grotesque to a prosecutorial senator in Washington even as he protects American lives, but the movie shows how much we need Tony Stark on another crucial wall — the wall between private industry and statism. The movie is written by Justin Theroux, but ideologically it brings to mind a slightly older screenwriter — Ayn Rand.
"Iron Man" shows its mettle early on when Tony is hauled before Congress to face down a snotty senator (Garry Shandling) who demands that he surrender his rights to Iron Man technology. Tony jokes that he isn’t interested in "indentured servitude or prostitution," echoes Col. Jessup when he notes, "I’d love to leave my door open, but this ain’t Canada" and sternly informs the senator, "You want my private property. You can’t have it." He adds, "I’ve successfully privatized world peace ... what’s wrong with these assclowns?"
Stark is threatened by the only force on earth comparable to his — what Rand’s John Galt called "the unpredictable power of the arbitrary whims of hidden, ugly little bureaucrats."
"Iron Man 2" is thrillingly aware that today’s disputes about the role of government in business are as critical as Cold War arguments ever were. The film is to economics what "The Dark Knight" is to national security.
It even features the best Barack Obama joke yet to appear in a movie: A spoof of the "iconic" (to liberals) Shepard Fairey "HOPE" poster. This one has an illustration of the heavy-metal superhero with the simple legend, "IRON MAN."
Liberals may read this as an homage to their idol, but it’s a wicked takedown — because Iron Man is so obviously everything Obama isn’t. He represents the profit-hungry corporation heedless of "responsibility," military saber-rattling rather than soothing placation, America first rather than just one of the pack, individualism rather than the committee and the community, the super-rich spending their money on toys rather than spreading the wealth — and impish wit instead of sonorous self-importance. (Quick: Name the five funniest one-liners Obama ever delivered off the cuff. Okay, name even one.)
Boyo
18
Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants
« on: April 22, 2010, 12:26:03 PM »
Here is something I found. Wasn't sure where to put it.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeMZGGQ0ERk[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeMZGGQ0ERk[/youtube]
19
Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants
« on: April 19, 2010, 11:42:03 AM »
Putting this here because it fits with my previous post :
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHq2F_QA6cc[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHq2F_QA6cc[/youtube]
20
Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants
« on: April 19, 2010, 11:31:03 AM »
This is a good overview of progressivism from Reason.com
Progressive History 101 (Minus All that Uncomfortable Racism, Sexism, and Support for Eugenics)
Damon W. Root | April 19, 2010
Shortly after Barack Obama was elected president, I wrote an article criticizing many of his left-leaning supporters for labeling themselves as progressives, arguing that “what the current vogue for the term progressive fails to acknowledge is that the original progressives embraced the worst abuses of state power in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.”
In response, I received a number of angry emails stating that today’s progressives had nothing to do with the sins of the first progressives, and that to conflate the two was intellectually dishonest and just plain mean. Perhaps some of my correspondents will now direct their outrage to the left-wing Center for American Progress, which just released a new monograph entitled “The Progressive Intellectual Tradition in America.” This paper argues that today’s progressives are the direct inheritors of an unbroken progressive tradition, one that brought glorious benefits to all Americans by doing away with the evils of limited government. Here’s a sample paragraph:
Progressives sought above all to give real meaning to the promise of the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution—“We the people” working together to build a more perfect union, promote the general welfare, and expand prosperity to all citizens. Drawing on the American nationalist tradition of Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln, progressives posited that stronger government action was necessary to advance the common good, regulate business interests, promote national economic growth, protect workers and families displaced by modern capitalism, and promote true economic and social opportunity for all people.
As far as history lessons go, this is laughably biased and incomplete. For starters, the original progressives most certainly did not “promote true economic and social opportunity for all people.” In the Jim Crow South, as historian David Southern has documented, disfranchisement, segregation, race baiting, and lynching all "went hand-in-hand with the most advanced forms of southern progressivism." Economist John R. Commons, a leading progressive academic and close adviser to high-profile progressive politicians—including “Fighting” Bob Lafollette, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson—authored a 1907 book entitled Races and Immigrants in America, where he called African Americans “indolent and fickle” and endorsed protectionist labor laws since "competition has no respect for the superior races."
There’s also the matter of sexism. Exhibit A is future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis’ famous “Brandeis Brief,” submitted to the Supreme Court in the case of Muller v. Oregon (1908). At issue was a state law limiting the working hours of female laundry employees. In his brief, Brandeis collected a parade of statistics, arguments, and journalistic accounts, all “proving” that women required special protection from the state. In fact, Brandeis argued, since women were responsible for bearing future generations, their bodies were in some sense collective property. "The overwork of future mothers," he wrote, "directly attacks the welfare of the nation." The Supreme Court agreed, declaring that, "As healthy mothers are essential to vigorous offspring, the physical well-being of woman becomes an object of public interest and care in order to preserve the strength and vigor of the race." Feminist legal scholars have long criticized Brandeis for introducing that bit of sexist paternalism into the law, though you wouldn’t learn anything about it by reading this monograph.
Finally, “The Progressive Intellectual Tradition in America” is totally silent about the progressives’ widespread support for the theory and practice of eugenics. As Princeton University economist Tim Leonard has chronicled, "eugenic thought deeply influenced the Progressive Era transformation of the state's relationship to the American economy." Despite the fact that this monograph favorably cites progressive hero Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes for his famous dissent in the economic liberty case Lochner v. New York (1905), the authors make no mention of Holmes’ notorious majority decision in Buck v. Bell, where Holmes and his colleagues (including Louis Brandeis) upheld the forced sterilization of those who “sap the strength of the State.”
In sum, the Center for American Progress has produced a fairy tale version of history, one that highlights what the authors see as the accomplishments of progressivism while totally ignoring anything that might detract from their lopsided narrative. Anyone interested in actually learning about the origins and history of the progressive movement should look elsewhere.
Boyo
Progressive History 101 (Minus All that Uncomfortable Racism, Sexism, and Support for Eugenics)
Damon W. Root | April 19, 2010
Shortly after Barack Obama was elected president, I wrote an article criticizing many of his left-leaning supporters for labeling themselves as progressives, arguing that “what the current vogue for the term progressive fails to acknowledge is that the original progressives embraced the worst abuses of state power in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.”
In response, I received a number of angry emails stating that today’s progressives had nothing to do with the sins of the first progressives, and that to conflate the two was intellectually dishonest and just plain mean. Perhaps some of my correspondents will now direct their outrage to the left-wing Center for American Progress, which just released a new monograph entitled “The Progressive Intellectual Tradition in America.” This paper argues that today’s progressives are the direct inheritors of an unbroken progressive tradition, one that brought glorious benefits to all Americans by doing away with the evils of limited government. Here’s a sample paragraph:
Progressives sought above all to give real meaning to the promise of the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution—“We the people” working together to build a more perfect union, promote the general welfare, and expand prosperity to all citizens. Drawing on the American nationalist tradition of Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln, progressives posited that stronger government action was necessary to advance the common good, regulate business interests, promote national economic growth, protect workers and families displaced by modern capitalism, and promote true economic and social opportunity for all people.
As far as history lessons go, this is laughably biased and incomplete. For starters, the original progressives most certainly did not “promote true economic and social opportunity for all people.” In the Jim Crow South, as historian David Southern has documented, disfranchisement, segregation, race baiting, and lynching all "went hand-in-hand with the most advanced forms of southern progressivism." Economist John R. Commons, a leading progressive academic and close adviser to high-profile progressive politicians—including “Fighting” Bob Lafollette, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson—authored a 1907 book entitled Races and Immigrants in America, where he called African Americans “indolent and fickle” and endorsed protectionist labor laws since "competition has no respect for the superior races."
There’s also the matter of sexism. Exhibit A is future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis’ famous “Brandeis Brief,” submitted to the Supreme Court in the case of Muller v. Oregon (1908). At issue was a state law limiting the working hours of female laundry employees. In his brief, Brandeis collected a parade of statistics, arguments, and journalistic accounts, all “proving” that women required special protection from the state. In fact, Brandeis argued, since women were responsible for bearing future generations, their bodies were in some sense collective property. "The overwork of future mothers," he wrote, "directly attacks the welfare of the nation." The Supreme Court agreed, declaring that, "As healthy mothers are essential to vigorous offspring, the physical well-being of woman becomes an object of public interest and care in order to preserve the strength and vigor of the race." Feminist legal scholars have long criticized Brandeis for introducing that bit of sexist paternalism into the law, though you wouldn’t learn anything about it by reading this monograph.
Finally, “The Progressive Intellectual Tradition in America” is totally silent about the progressives’ widespread support for the theory and practice of eugenics. As Princeton University economist Tim Leonard has chronicled, "eugenic thought deeply influenced the Progressive Era transformation of the state's relationship to the American economy." Despite the fact that this monograph favorably cites progressive hero Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes for his famous dissent in the economic liberty case Lochner v. New York (1905), the authors make no mention of Holmes’ notorious majority decision in Buck v. Bell, where Holmes and his colleagues (including Louis Brandeis) upheld the forced sterilization of those who “sap the strength of the State.”
In sum, the Center for American Progress has produced a fairy tale version of history, one that highlights what the authors see as the accomplishments of progressivism while totally ignoring anything that might detract from their lopsided narrative. Anyone interested in actually learning about the origins and history of the progressive movement should look elsewhere.
Boyo
21
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Humor/WTF
« on: April 18, 2010, 11:37:35 AM »
Good stuff Freki..Klavan is always a riot!!!
Boyo
Boyo
22
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Humor/WTF
« on: April 14, 2010, 04:19:02 PM »
Best Movie line ever!!!![youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkzV5AIK8iM[/youtube]
Boyo
Boyo
23
Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care
« on: March 13, 2010, 06:17:23 AM »
Good summary of right vs service/commodity by Walter E. Williams.
A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010
Is Health Care a Right?
Most politicians, and probably most Americans, see health care as a right. Thus, whether a person has the means to pay for medical services or not, he is nonetheless entitled to them. Let's ask ourselves a few questions about this vision.
Say a person, let's call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?
You say, "Williams, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay." You're right. Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another. Congress' use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American.
True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.
For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.
To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true.
None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010
Is Health Care a Right?
Most politicians, and probably most Americans, see health care as a right. Thus, whether a person has the means to pay for medical services or not, he is nonetheless entitled to them. Let's ask ourselves a few questions about this vision.
Say a person, let's call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?
You say, "Williams, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay." You're right. Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another. Congress' use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American.
True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.
For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.
To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true.
None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
24
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Science vs. God
« on: February 06, 2010, 06:12:26 AM »
One last thing : I didn't make the game I just gotta play by the rules.
Boyo
Boyo
25
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Science vs. God
« on: February 06, 2010, 06:04:52 AM »Random thoughts on the topic:
The problem with science is that they try to define God on man's terms not God's.So what is a billion years to God if time is relative ?If you are closer to the point of creation would time not pass differently than it does now?Much like it would when you are closer to a piont of intense gravity.If there is a limited gene pool would not genetic deffects be expected over time?Why do the scientists in guro crafty's first post sound more like extreme preachers trying to establish a new religion than scientists?
They ridicule people for a belief in GOD but yet there are elements on the periodic table that are theorized about .They say that a belief in something bigger than ones self like God is silly yet they get all giddy about string theory.
Faith in God gives people hope and comfort while a belief in "thier" science not all is hard empty and hollow much like religion can be when compaired to faith .
I guess the question really boils down to can we do something vs should we do something?If we could "cure" homo sexuality in the womb using genetics would we or should we?
Boyo
PS. I have a BS from Eastern Michigan University in Earth Science and a minor in Chemistry and am endorsed to teach both but currently work in an enviromental chem lab as an analyst.
26
Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics
« on: February 06, 2010, 05:22:50 AM »
This is a good story...Who do you all think is the plastic duck junkie?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXPtdQYOgw8[/youtube]
Boyo
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXPtdQYOgw8[/youtube]
Boyo
27
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science
« on: January 08, 2010, 11:31:45 AM »
Found this interesting:
New NRDC Film is Propaganda, Says SPPI
http://news.wooeb.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=155091&ret=AccountSummary.aspx
Washington, DC 1/07/2010 08:21 PM GMT (TransWorldNews)
The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) – a DC think tank – has produced a science-based critique of a recent film produced by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The SPPI paper is entitled Acid Test: The Global Challenge of Ocean Acidification – A New Propaganda Film by the National Resources Defense Council Fails the Acid Test of Real World Data
In late 2009, NRDC released a short 21-minute film entitled Acid Test: The Global Challenge of Ocean Acidification. Featuring Sigourney Weaver as its narrator, the film highlights the views of a handful of scientists, a commercial fisherman, and two employees of the NRDC, as they discuss what they claim is a megadisaster-in-the-making for Earth's marine life.
The villain of the story is industrial man, who has "altered the course of nature" by releasing large quantities of carbon dioxide or CO2 into the air via the burning of the coal, gas and oil that has historically fueled the engines of modern society. Once emitted into the atmosphere, a portion of that CO2 dissolves into the surface of the world’s oceans, where subsequent chemical reactions, according to the NRCD, are lowering the pH status of their waters. This phenomenon, they theorize, is reducing marine calcification rates; and if left unchecked, they claim it will become so corrosive that it "will cause sea shells to dissolve" and drive coral reefs to extinction "within 20 to 30 years."
“Typically, the NRDC chose to present an extreme one-sided, propagandized view of ocean acidification in their film,” says SPPI president, Robert Ferguson. “The part of the story that they clearly don't want the public and policy makers to know was just released in our newest review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature,” added Ferguson.
Written by Dr. Craig D. Idso for the Science and Public Policy Institute, the new review reveals that an equally strong, if not more persuasive, case can be made that the ongoing rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration will actually benefit calcifying marine life. As such, the NRDC's portrayal of CO2-induced ocean acidification as a megadisaster-in-the-making is seen, at best, to be a one-sided distortion of the truth or, at worst, a blatant attempt to deceive the public and their elected represenatives.
According to Dr. Idso, "Surely, the NRDC and the scientists portrayed in their film should have been aware of at least one of the numerous peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support a catastrophic – or even a problematic – view of the effect of ocean acidification on calcifying marine organisms; and they should have shared that information with the public. If by some slim chance they were not aware, they should be called to task for not investing the time, energy, and resources needed to fully investigate an issue that has profound significance for the biosphere and public policy making. And if they did know the results of the studies we have discussed, no one should ever believe a single word they may utter or write in the future."
The full report can be accessed at:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/acid_test.html
Additional studies on the topic can be found here:
CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs: Prospects for the Future
Effects of Ocean Acidification on Marine Ecosystems
?
Boyo
New NRDC Film is Propaganda, Says SPPI
http://news.wooeb.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=155091&ret=AccountSummary.aspx
Washington, DC 1/07/2010 08:21 PM GMT (TransWorldNews)
The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) – a DC think tank – has produced a science-based critique of a recent film produced by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The SPPI paper is entitled Acid Test: The Global Challenge of Ocean Acidification – A New Propaganda Film by the National Resources Defense Council Fails the Acid Test of Real World Data
In late 2009, NRDC released a short 21-minute film entitled Acid Test: The Global Challenge of Ocean Acidification. Featuring Sigourney Weaver as its narrator, the film highlights the views of a handful of scientists, a commercial fisherman, and two employees of the NRDC, as they discuss what they claim is a megadisaster-in-the-making for Earth's marine life.
The villain of the story is industrial man, who has "altered the course of nature" by releasing large quantities of carbon dioxide or CO2 into the air via the burning of the coal, gas and oil that has historically fueled the engines of modern society. Once emitted into the atmosphere, a portion of that CO2 dissolves into the surface of the world’s oceans, where subsequent chemical reactions, according to the NRCD, are lowering the pH status of their waters. This phenomenon, they theorize, is reducing marine calcification rates; and if left unchecked, they claim it will become so corrosive that it "will cause sea shells to dissolve" and drive coral reefs to extinction "within 20 to 30 years."
“Typically, the NRDC chose to present an extreme one-sided, propagandized view of ocean acidification in their film,” says SPPI president, Robert Ferguson. “The part of the story that they clearly don't want the public and policy makers to know was just released in our newest review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature,” added Ferguson.
Written by Dr. Craig D. Idso for the Science and Public Policy Institute, the new review reveals that an equally strong, if not more persuasive, case can be made that the ongoing rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration will actually benefit calcifying marine life. As such, the NRDC's portrayal of CO2-induced ocean acidification as a megadisaster-in-the-making is seen, at best, to be a one-sided distortion of the truth or, at worst, a blatant attempt to deceive the public and their elected represenatives.
According to Dr. Idso, "Surely, the NRDC and the scientists portrayed in their film should have been aware of at least one of the numerous peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support a catastrophic – or even a problematic – view of the effect of ocean acidification on calcifying marine organisms; and they should have shared that information with the public. If by some slim chance they were not aware, they should be called to task for not investing the time, energy, and resources needed to fully investigate an issue that has profound significance for the biosphere and public policy making. And if they did know the results of the studies we have discussed, no one should ever believe a single word they may utter or write in the future."
The full report can be accessed at:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/acid_test.html
Additional studies on the topic can be found here:
CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs: Prospects for the Future
Effects of Ocean Acidification on Marine Ecosystems
?
Boyo
28
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science
« on: November 24, 2009, 03:41:00 PM »
DougMacG, These guys also should be fired with out hesitation.I work as a chemist in an eviromental lab and if I ever got caught falsifying data or omitting data to get a result.I wouldn't even be shown the door ,I'd be thrown thru it.LOL maybe.Now these guys have been doing this apparently for the better part of 20 years.
I do wonder if this will have any effect on any policy decision coming up.You know cap and trade or the Copenhagen thing.I also hope they bring back real light bulbs.LOL
Boyo
I do wonder if this will have any effect on any policy decision coming up.You know cap and trade or the Copenhagen thing.I also hope they bring back real light bulbs.LOL
Boyo
29
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science
« on: November 24, 2009, 01:02:11 PM »
Another inconvienient truth on the man made global warming hoax.
Apparently NASA and the Goddard institute are about to be sued for not releasing data under the freedom of info. act .Now remember NASA is were James Hanson(sp) works. He is the climatologist that got caught falsifying data twice .The latest being, he reported sept 2008 temps for oct 2008 to show a warming trend when there wasn't one.
Boyo
PS he was one of Al Gores big sources for his movie.
Apparently NASA and the Goddard institute are about to be sued for not releasing data under the freedom of info. act .Now remember NASA is were James Hanson(sp) works. He is the climatologist that got caught falsifying data twice .The latest being, he reported sept 2008 temps for oct 2008 to show a warming trend when there wasn't one.
Boyo
PS he was one of Al Gores big sources for his movie.
30
Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care
« on: November 21, 2009, 07:19:37 PM »
I have a question...
What happens to a religous hospital ,once a govt run healthcare sysytem is in place, when they refuse to perform abortions?The Roman Catholic Council of Bishops have said they will not kill the unborn or euthanise the elderly and now with the Manhattan declaration being signed by religous leaders from around the country ....are battle lines being drawn? And what ever happened to the seperation of church and state thingy ,guess that only works one way.
Boyo
What happens to a religous hospital ,once a govt run healthcare sysytem is in place, when they refuse to perform abortions?The Roman Catholic Council of Bishops have said they will not kill the unborn or euthanise the elderly and now with the Manhattan declaration being signed by religous leaders from around the country ....are battle lines being drawn? And what ever happened to the seperation of church and state thingy ,guess that only works one way.
Boyo
31
Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants
« on: November 06, 2009, 03:04:44 PM »
Hey guys it really is sooo simple, here is a 9 min cartoon that explains what the czars in washington and any other progressive don't under stand.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVh75ylAUXY[/youtube]
watch and be astounded in 9 min.
boyo
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVh75ylAUXY[/youtube]
watch and be astounded in 9 min.
boyo
32
Politics & Religion / Re: Free Speech vs. Islamic Fascism (formerly Buy DANISH!!!)
« on: October 19, 2009, 04:13:46 PM »
Good post ccp. I believe footage of Gilchrist's 2006 appearence actually made it into the documentary.The really telling part is the handling of a conservative muslim on a campus (in Tenn. I believe) that wrote an editorial challenging the student gov't selections of guest speakers.He wanted more consevatives ,OOPS. 
Boyo
Boyo
33
Politics & Religion / Re: Iran
« on: October 17, 2009, 12:10:43 PM »
Guro
You are correct when you say Iran is a long reach for them. but if an accident does occur then did the Isrealis really do it? Now the ideal is a regime change like CCP stated that would be in every ones best interest.However that ship may have set sail already and the obama intentionally missed the boat by not backing the protesters in Iran when he had the chance.It would be unfortunate to have an accident happen in a population center but should Iran get nukes and "blow the heart out of Isreal", to qoute the Iranian president , which would be worse in Isreals eyes?
Boyo
You are correct when you say Iran is a long reach for them. but if an accident does occur then did the Isrealis really do it? Now the ideal is a regime change like CCP stated that would be in every ones best interest.However that ship may have set sail already and the obama intentionally missed the boat by not backing the protesters in Iran when he had the chance.It would be unfortunate to have an accident happen in a population center but should Iran get nukes and "blow the heart out of Isreal", to qoute the Iranian president , which would be worse in Isreals eyes?
Boyo
34
Politics & Religion / Re: Iran
« on: October 17, 2009, 06:40:29 AM »
Well there are 2 obvious courses of action .The first being unleash the Isrealis the second being act like we got a pair.They are simplistic yes but the simplest answer is usually the correct one.the chinese and the Russians are never going to help willingly and now that the obama has shown just how far over his head /naive he is I think the Isrealis are all alone.they are going to have to act and in my opinion the sooner the better.I bet they act or the Iranians have some kind of "accident" before the new year.Or I could be talking out my ass.It wouldn't be the first time.
Boyo
Boyo
35
Politics & Religion / Re: Free Speech vs. Islamic Fascism (formerly Buy DANISH!!!)
« on: October 17, 2009, 06:31:13 AM »
Free speech or the diversity of ideas is a myth on college campuses Check out the entire documentary but here is the trailer:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-zz1HwxIjg[/youtube]
Boyo
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-zz1HwxIjg[/youtube]
Boyo
36
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Environmental issues
« on: October 17, 2009, 04:10:45 AM »
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5rGpDMN8lw[/youtube]
check the rest out on youtube
Boyo
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5rGpDMN8lw[/youtube]
check the rest out on youtube
Boyo
37
Politics & Religion / Re: Iran
« on: October 17, 2009, 03:48:05 AM »
This is from the Heritage Foundation:
Iranian Official Promises a Diplomatic Slowdown and Gloats: “Time is on our side”Share
Yesterday at 10:22pm
Hopes for a quick diplomatic breakthrough in the long-running stalemate over Iran’s nuclear weapons program have been dimmed by Iranian backtracking on a tentative agreement reached on October 1 in Geneva and Iran’s foot-dragging on future negotiations. Reuters today quoted an anonymous senior Iranian official as saying “Time is on our side” and declaring that Iran plans to slow-walk the diplomatic negotiations that will resume on October 19 by sending junior officials who do not have the authority to make firm commitments.
This confirms previous suspicions that Tehran will exploit the P5+1 talks to engage in a diplomatic filibuster that will defuse momentum for further international sanctions while Iran continues to move forward on its nuclear program.
The value of the “agreement in principle” reached in Geneva on October 1 also has been substantially downgraded by a blockbuster revelation publicized today in a Washington Post column by David Ignatius. Ignatius cited an article in Nucleonics Week that reported that Iran’s supplies of low-enriched uranium appear to be contaminated by impurities that could wreck centrifuges if Tehran tries to boost it to weapons grade fissile material. Ignatius wrote:
You’ve got to hand it to the Iranians, though, for making the best of what might be a bad situation: In the proposal embraced in Geneva, they have gotten the West to agree to decontaminate fuel that would otherwise be useful only for the low-enriched civilian nuclear power they have always claimed is their only goal.
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal today reported that U.S. intelligence officials are considering whether to rewrite the controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear activities. The findings of that NIE, which concluded that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003, have been disputed by intelligence agencies from Britain, France, Germany and Israel. Even IAEA officials, who have long treated Iran with kid gloves and accorded it the benefit of the doubt, have been critical of the NIE’s findings. The recent revelation of Iran’s secret uranium enrichment facility hidden inside a mountain near Qom also has cast further doubt on the NIE.
Congressional pressure is building to review the flawed 2007 NIE. Last week Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, urged Congress to establish an independent “red team” of outside experts to review the 2007 NIE in light of disturbing recent revelations about the Iranian nuclear program. Rep. Hoekstra is right: a re-evaluation of the NIE is long overdue.
For more on the 2007 NIE, see: The Iran National Intelligence Estimate: A Comprehensive Guide to What Is Wrong with the NIE
For more information on the Iran nuclear program see: Iran Briefing Room
Boyo
Iranian Official Promises a Diplomatic Slowdown and Gloats: “Time is on our side”Share
Yesterday at 10:22pm
Hopes for a quick diplomatic breakthrough in the long-running stalemate over Iran’s nuclear weapons program have been dimmed by Iranian backtracking on a tentative agreement reached on October 1 in Geneva and Iran’s foot-dragging on future negotiations. Reuters today quoted an anonymous senior Iranian official as saying “Time is on our side” and declaring that Iran plans to slow-walk the diplomatic negotiations that will resume on October 19 by sending junior officials who do not have the authority to make firm commitments.
This confirms previous suspicions that Tehran will exploit the P5+1 talks to engage in a diplomatic filibuster that will defuse momentum for further international sanctions while Iran continues to move forward on its nuclear program.
The value of the “agreement in principle” reached in Geneva on October 1 also has been substantially downgraded by a blockbuster revelation publicized today in a Washington Post column by David Ignatius. Ignatius cited an article in Nucleonics Week that reported that Iran’s supplies of low-enriched uranium appear to be contaminated by impurities that could wreck centrifuges if Tehran tries to boost it to weapons grade fissile material. Ignatius wrote:
You’ve got to hand it to the Iranians, though, for making the best of what might be a bad situation: In the proposal embraced in Geneva, they have gotten the West to agree to decontaminate fuel that would otherwise be useful only for the low-enriched civilian nuclear power they have always claimed is their only goal.
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal today reported that U.S. intelligence officials are considering whether to rewrite the controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear activities. The findings of that NIE, which concluded that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003, have been disputed by intelligence agencies from Britain, France, Germany and Israel. Even IAEA officials, who have long treated Iran with kid gloves and accorded it the benefit of the doubt, have been critical of the NIE’s findings. The recent revelation of Iran’s secret uranium enrichment facility hidden inside a mountain near Qom also has cast further doubt on the NIE.
Congressional pressure is building to review the flawed 2007 NIE. Last week Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, urged Congress to establish an independent “red team” of outside experts to review the 2007 NIE in light of disturbing recent revelations about the Iranian nuclear program. Rep. Hoekstra is right: a re-evaluation of the NIE is long overdue.
For more on the 2007 NIE, see: The Iran National Intelligence Estimate: A Comprehensive Guide to What Is Wrong with the NIE
For more information on the Iran nuclear program see: Iran Briefing Room
Boyo
38
Politics & Religion / Re: Energy Politics & Science
« on: September 28, 2009, 01:54:15 PM »
this just makes me say WTF:
John Kerry: ‘Cap-and-trade’ is out
September 28, 2009 Democrats are trying yet another name change in their quest to cripple the American economy with greenhouse gas regulations.
Sen. John Kerry announced last week that the Senate climate bill due out this week will be a “pollution reduction” bill not a “cap-and-trade” bill. According to E&E Daily, Kerry said,
“I don’t know what ‘cap and trade’ means. I don’t think the average American does. This is not a cap-and-trade bill, it’s a pollution reduction bill.”
So the Democrats have gone from “global warming” to “climate change” to “clean energy” because the public doesn’t buy what they’re selling. Now they’re jettisoning “cap-and-trade” hoping that some other name will stick to the wall.
While Democrats can call economically disastrous carbon caps whatever they want, they can’t buff the cap-and-trade turd or any other carbon cap regime into a public policy popsicle.
Hey John, why don’t you just call it the “Free Candy for Everybody Act of 2009″?
John Kerry: ‘Cap-and-trade’ is out
September 28, 2009 Democrats are trying yet another name change in their quest to cripple the American economy with greenhouse gas regulations.
Sen. John Kerry announced last week that the Senate climate bill due out this week will be a “pollution reduction” bill not a “cap-and-trade” bill. According to E&E Daily, Kerry said,
“I don’t know what ‘cap and trade’ means. I don’t think the average American does. This is not a cap-and-trade bill, it’s a pollution reduction bill.”
So the Democrats have gone from “global warming” to “climate change” to “clean energy” because the public doesn’t buy what they’re selling. Now they’re jettisoning “cap-and-trade” hoping that some other name will stick to the wall.
While Democrats can call economically disastrous carbon caps whatever they want, they can’t buff the cap-and-trade turd or any other carbon cap regime into a public policy popsicle.
Hey John, why don’t you just call it the “Free Candy for Everybody Act of 2009″?
39
Politics & Religion / Re: Energy Politics & Science
« on: September 28, 2009, 11:32:19 AM »
This comes from the Heritage Foundation:
President Obama’s speech to the UN on climate change last Tuesday points to an interesting and fairly recent shift in the left’s environmentalist philosophy: the definition of “pollution” has changed. Even ten years ago, concerns for pollution centered around problems of smog, litter, and toxins in the air and water. However, such concerns for largely visible pollution have been trumped recently by a concern for invisible pollution which Obama claims is the most dangerous of all: “greenhouse gas pollution” and “carbon pollution.”
While most visitors to the state of Wyoming marvel at miles of sparsely populated natural beauty, rolling mountains, open spaces, and clean air and water, environmentalists do not praise Wyoming but censure the state for its heavy coal development. In fact, Jeremy Nichols of WildEarth Guardians disapprovingly called the state “ground zero for greenhouse emissions.”
Ironically, one of the cleanest and most beautiful states in the union is labeled by environmentalists as the most persistent offender of the environment.
Wyoming produces the most coal in the United States, even though many other states have much greater coal reserves: Montana, for instance, has a lot more coal reserves but Wyoming produces ten times more coal. Wyoming also produces three times more coal than West Virginia - the second highest coal producing state.
Wyoming happens to have one of the healthiest economies in the union, and much of this economic success is due the energy development industry. Although the economy fluctuates with energy markets, Wyoming’s unemployment rates are consistently low; in August it was 5.7% compared to the 9.5% of the country. Wyoming also enjoyed a budget surplus in 2003 and 2005 and it continues to do well, achieving a balanced budget in 2009.
Wyoming may be “ground zero for greenhouse emissions” yet it is a state that has managed to wed clean air and water with a healthy economy. In the wake of onerous cap and trade philosophies, which will severely tax oil and coal production, dramatically raise energy prices, serve a huge blow to the economy, and only cool the earth’s temperature by a fraction of a degree, Wyoming provides us with food for thought on how we can be environmentally clean and economically prosperous.
Katie Brown contributed to this post.
Boyo
President Obama’s speech to the UN on climate change last Tuesday points to an interesting and fairly recent shift in the left’s environmentalist philosophy: the definition of “pollution” has changed. Even ten years ago, concerns for pollution centered around problems of smog, litter, and toxins in the air and water. However, such concerns for largely visible pollution have been trumped recently by a concern for invisible pollution which Obama claims is the most dangerous of all: “greenhouse gas pollution” and “carbon pollution.”
While most visitors to the state of Wyoming marvel at miles of sparsely populated natural beauty, rolling mountains, open spaces, and clean air and water, environmentalists do not praise Wyoming but censure the state for its heavy coal development. In fact, Jeremy Nichols of WildEarth Guardians disapprovingly called the state “ground zero for greenhouse emissions.”
Ironically, one of the cleanest and most beautiful states in the union is labeled by environmentalists as the most persistent offender of the environment.
Wyoming produces the most coal in the United States, even though many other states have much greater coal reserves: Montana, for instance, has a lot more coal reserves but Wyoming produces ten times more coal. Wyoming also produces three times more coal than West Virginia - the second highest coal producing state.
Wyoming happens to have one of the healthiest economies in the union, and much of this economic success is due the energy development industry. Although the economy fluctuates with energy markets, Wyoming’s unemployment rates are consistently low; in August it was 5.7% compared to the 9.5% of the country. Wyoming also enjoyed a budget surplus in 2003 and 2005 and it continues to do well, achieving a balanced budget in 2009.
Wyoming may be “ground zero for greenhouse emissions” yet it is a state that has managed to wed clean air and water with a healthy economy. In the wake of onerous cap and trade philosophies, which will severely tax oil and coal production, dramatically raise energy prices, serve a huge blow to the economy, and only cool the earth’s temperature by a fraction of a degree, Wyoming provides us with food for thought on how we can be environmentally clean and economically prosperous.
Katie Brown contributed to this post.
Boyo
40
Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care
« on: September 19, 2009, 07:56:43 AM »
If the obama healthcare plan passes and everybody has "healthcare" can some one explain to me why it is that we would continue to need medicade,medicare,the VA or that childerens plan(s-chip I believe it is called).Since everyone would allegedly(lol) have care why would these redundant agencies continue to exist and absorb money better spent else where?
Boyo
Boyo
41
Politics & Religion / Re: Energy Politics & Science
« on: September 12, 2009, 06:55:38 AM »
SPPI’s Monthly CO2 Report is now posted:http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monthly_report/august_co2_report.html
No heat buildup in the oceans = no global warming:
SPPI’s authoritative Monthly CO2 Report for August 2009 announces the publication of a major paper by Professors David Douglass and Robert Knox of the Physics Department in the University of Rochester, New York, demonstrating that the heat buildup in the oceans that is a necessary fingerprint of manmade global warming is not occurring. This is another mortal blow to the alarmist cause in the climate debate. Report, page 4.
“Science should be done by observation, meditation, calculation, and verification. Politicized science cannot usefully inform political decisions.” Editorial comment: Page 3.
The IPCC assumes CO2 concentration will reach 836 ppmv by 2100, but, for almost eight years, CO2 concentration has headed straight for only 570 ppmv by 2100. This alone halves all of the IPCC’s temperature projections. Pages 5-6.
Since 1980 temperature has risen at only 2.3 °F (1.4 °C)/century, not the 7 F° (3.9 C°) the IPCC predicts. Pages 7-9.
Sea level rose just 8 inches in the 20th century, and has scarcely risen since 2006. The oceans are not warming. Pages 10-11.
Arctic sea-ice extent is currently at its summer low, but there is more summer ice than there was in 2007 or 2008. In the Antarctic, sea ice extent reached a record high in 2007. Global sea ice extent shows little trend for 30 years. Pages 12-15.
Hurricane and tropical-cyclone activity is almost at its lowest since satellite measurement began. Pages 16-17.
The Sun is still very quiet. There were no sunspots in August at all. Page 18.
The (very few) benefits and the (very large) costs of the Waxman/Markey Bill are illustrated at Pages 19-21.
Science Focus this month reprints a paper giving the reasons why the great ice sheets will not collapse. Pages 22-28.
As always, there’s our “global warming” ready reckoner, and our monthly selection of scientific papers. Pages 29-34.
And finally, a Technical Note explains how we compile our state-of-the-art CO2 and temperature graphs. Page 35.
No heat buildup in the oceans = no global warming:
SPPI’s authoritative Monthly CO2 Report for August 2009 announces the publication of a major paper by Professors David Douglass and Robert Knox of the Physics Department in the University of Rochester, New York, demonstrating that the heat buildup in the oceans that is a necessary fingerprint of manmade global warming is not occurring. This is another mortal blow to the alarmist cause in the climate debate. Report, page 4.
“Science should be done by observation, meditation, calculation, and verification. Politicized science cannot usefully inform political decisions.” Editorial comment: Page 3.
The IPCC assumes CO2 concentration will reach 836 ppmv by 2100, but, for almost eight years, CO2 concentration has headed straight for only 570 ppmv by 2100. This alone halves all of the IPCC’s temperature projections. Pages 5-6.
Since 1980 temperature has risen at only 2.3 °F (1.4 °C)/century, not the 7 F° (3.9 C°) the IPCC predicts. Pages 7-9.
Sea level rose just 8 inches in the 20th century, and has scarcely risen since 2006. The oceans are not warming. Pages 10-11.
Arctic sea-ice extent is currently at its summer low, but there is more summer ice than there was in 2007 or 2008. In the Antarctic, sea ice extent reached a record high in 2007. Global sea ice extent shows little trend for 30 years. Pages 12-15.
Hurricane and tropical-cyclone activity is almost at its lowest since satellite measurement began. Pages 16-17.
The Sun is still very quiet. There were no sunspots in August at all. Page 18.
The (very few) benefits and the (very large) costs of the Waxman/Markey Bill are illustrated at Pages 19-21.
Science Focus this month reprints a paper giving the reasons why the great ice sheets will not collapse. Pages 22-28.
As always, there’s our “global warming” ready reckoner, and our monthly selection of scientific papers. Pages 29-34.
And finally, a Technical Note explains how we compile our state-of-the-art CO2 and temperature graphs. Page 35.
42
Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics
« on: September 07, 2009, 04:10:44 PM »
Barack Obama accused of making 'Depression' mistakes
Barack Obama is committing the same mistakes made by policymakers during the Great Depression, according to a new study endorsed by Nobel laureate James Buchanan.
By Edmund Conway( U.K. Telegraph)
Published: 9:55PM BST 06 Sep 2009
History repeating itself? President Obama has been accused by some economists of making the same mistakes policymakers in the US made in the Great Depression, which followed the Wall Street crash of 1929, pictured Photo: AP
His policies even have the potential to consign the US to a similar fate as Argentina, which suffered a painful and humiliating slide from first to Third World status last century, the paper says.
There are "troubling similarities" between the US President's actions since taking office and those which in the 1930s sent the US and much of the world spiralling into the worst economic collapse in recorded history, says the new pamphlet, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs.
In particular, the authors, economists Charles Rowley of George Mason University and Nathanael Smith of the Locke Institute, claim that the White House's plans to pour hundreds of billions of dollars of cash into the economy will undermine it in the long run. They say that by employing deficit spending and increased state intervention President Obama will ultimately hamper the long-term growth potential of the US economy and may risk delaying full economic recovery by several years.
The study represents a challenge to the widely held view that Keynesian fiscal policies helped the US recover from the Depression which started in the early 1930s. The authors say: "[Franklin D Roosevelt's] interventionist policies and draconian tax increases delayed full economic recovery by several years by exacerbating a climate of pessimistic expectations that drove down private capital formation and household consumption to unprecedented lows."
Although the authors support the Federal Reserve's moves to slash interest rates to just above zero and embark on quantitative easing, pumping cash directly into the system, they warn that greater intervention could set the US back further. Rowley says: "It is also not impossible that the US will experience the kind of economic collapse from first to Third World status experienced by Argentina under the national-socialist governance of Juan Peron."
The paper, which recommends that the US return to a more laissez-faire economic system rather than intervening further in activity, has been endorsed by Nobel laureate James Buchanan, who said: "We have learned some things from comparable experiences of the 1930s' Great Depression, perhaps enough to reduce the severity of the current contraction. But we have made no progress toward putting limits on political leaders, who act out their natural proclivities without any basic understanding of what makes capitalism work."
Boyo
Barack Obama is committing the same mistakes made by policymakers during the Great Depression, according to a new study endorsed by Nobel laureate James Buchanan.
By Edmund Conway( U.K. Telegraph)
Published: 9:55PM BST 06 Sep 2009
History repeating itself? President Obama has been accused by some economists of making the same mistakes policymakers in the US made in the Great Depression, which followed the Wall Street crash of 1929, pictured Photo: AP
His policies even have the potential to consign the US to a similar fate as Argentina, which suffered a painful and humiliating slide from first to Third World status last century, the paper says.
There are "troubling similarities" between the US President's actions since taking office and those which in the 1930s sent the US and much of the world spiralling into the worst economic collapse in recorded history, says the new pamphlet, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs.
In particular, the authors, economists Charles Rowley of George Mason University and Nathanael Smith of the Locke Institute, claim that the White House's plans to pour hundreds of billions of dollars of cash into the economy will undermine it in the long run. They say that by employing deficit spending and increased state intervention President Obama will ultimately hamper the long-term growth potential of the US economy and may risk delaying full economic recovery by several years.
The study represents a challenge to the widely held view that Keynesian fiscal policies helped the US recover from the Depression which started in the early 1930s. The authors say: "[Franklin D Roosevelt's] interventionist policies and draconian tax increases delayed full economic recovery by several years by exacerbating a climate of pessimistic expectations that drove down private capital formation and household consumption to unprecedented lows."
Although the authors support the Federal Reserve's moves to slash interest rates to just above zero and embark on quantitative easing, pumping cash directly into the system, they warn that greater intervention could set the US back further. Rowley says: "It is also not impossible that the US will experience the kind of economic collapse from first to Third World status experienced by Argentina under the national-socialist governance of Juan Peron."
The paper, which recommends that the US return to a more laissez-faire economic system rather than intervening further in activity, has been endorsed by Nobel laureate James Buchanan, who said: "We have learned some things from comparable experiences of the 1930s' Great Depression, perhaps enough to reduce the severity of the current contraction. But we have made no progress toward putting limits on political leaders, who act out their natural proclivities without any basic understanding of what makes capitalism work."
Boyo
43
Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants
« on: September 05, 2009, 04:19:49 PM »
This is in reponse to those screwhead hollywood types and thier rediculous pledge to serve the obama.[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a61fPIgJfgs[/youtube]
enjoy Boyo
enjoy Boyo
44
Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care
« on: August 05, 2009, 04:13:29 PM »
The Perfect Solution to Senior Health Care
While discussing the upcoming Universal Health Care Program with my sister-in-law the other day, I think we have found the solution. I am sure you have heard the ideas that if you're a senior you need to suck it up and give up the idea that you need any health care. A new hip? Unheard of. We simply can't afford to take care of you anymore. You don't need any medications for your high blood pressure, diabetes, heart problems, etc. Let's take care of the young people. After all, they will be ruling the world very soon.
So here is the solution. When you turn 70, you get a gun and 4 bullets. You are allowed to shoot 2 senators and 2 representatives. Of course, you will be sent to prison where you will get 3 meals a day, a roof over your head and all the health care you need!!! New teeth, great!!! Need glasses, no problem. New hip, knee, kidney, lung, heart? Well bring it on. And who will be paying for all of this. The same government that just told you that you are too old for health care. And, since you are a prisoner, you don't have to pay any income tax.
I really think we have a Perfect Solution!!!
Boyo
While discussing the upcoming Universal Health Care Program with my sister-in-law the other day, I think we have found the solution. I am sure you have heard the ideas that if you're a senior you need to suck it up and give up the idea that you need any health care. A new hip? Unheard of. We simply can't afford to take care of you anymore. You don't need any medications for your high blood pressure, diabetes, heart problems, etc. Let's take care of the young people. After all, they will be ruling the world very soon.
So here is the solution. When you turn 70, you get a gun and 4 bullets. You are allowed to shoot 2 senators and 2 representatives. Of course, you will be sent to prison where you will get 3 meals a day, a roof over your head and all the health care you need!!! New teeth, great!!! Need glasses, no problem. New hip, knee, kidney, lung, heart? Well bring it on. And who will be paying for all of this. The same government that just told you that you are too old for health care. And, since you are a prisoner, you don't have to pay any income tax.
I really think we have a Perfect Solution!!!
Boyo
45
Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care
« on: July 22, 2009, 01:28:01 PM »
Hey Igot this fromdefendyourhealthcare.us
O'S BROKEN PROMISES
HEALTH BILLS V. PREZ'S WORDS
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
July 17, 2009 - President Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests.
Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.
And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).
When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).
It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.
Nowhere does the legislation say how much health plans will cost, but a family of four is eligible for some government assistance until their household income reaches $88,000 (House bill, p. 137). If you earn more than that, you'll have to pay the cost no matter how high it goes.
The price tag for this legislation is a whopping $1.04 trillion to $1.6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office estimates). Half of the tab comes from tax increases on individuals earning $280,000 or more, and these new taxes will double in 2012 unless savings exceed predicted costs (House bill, p. 199). The rest of the cost is paid for by cutting seniors' health benefits under Medicare.
There's plenty of waste in Medicare, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates only 1 percent of the savings under the legislation will be from curbing waste, fraud and abuse. That means the rest will likely come from reducing what patients get.
One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."
This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues?
Shockingly, only a portion of the money accumulated from slashing senior benefits and raising taxes goes to pay for covering the uninsured. The Senate bill allocates huge sums to "community transformation grants," home visits for expectant families, services for migrant workers -- and the creation of dozens of new government councils, programs and advisory boards slipped into the last 500 pages.
The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.
They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.
Congress should pursue less radical ways to cover the uninsured. We have too much to lose with this legislation.
Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York.
Check it out
Boyo
O'S BROKEN PROMISES
HEALTH BILLS V. PREZ'S WORDS
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
July 17, 2009 - President Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests.
Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.
And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).
When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).
It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.
Nowhere does the legislation say how much health plans will cost, but a family of four is eligible for some government assistance until their household income reaches $88,000 (House bill, p. 137). If you earn more than that, you'll have to pay the cost no matter how high it goes.
The price tag for this legislation is a whopping $1.04 trillion to $1.6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office estimates). Half of the tab comes from tax increases on individuals earning $280,000 or more, and these new taxes will double in 2012 unless savings exceed predicted costs (House bill, p. 199). The rest of the cost is paid for by cutting seniors' health benefits under Medicare.
There's plenty of waste in Medicare, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates only 1 percent of the savings under the legislation will be from curbing waste, fraud and abuse. That means the rest will likely come from reducing what patients get.
One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."
This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues?
Shockingly, only a portion of the money accumulated from slashing senior benefits and raising taxes goes to pay for covering the uninsured. The Senate bill allocates huge sums to "community transformation grants," home visits for expectant families, services for migrant workers -- and the creation of dozens of new government councils, programs and advisory boards slipped into the last 500 pages.
The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.
They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.
Congress should pursue less radical ways to cover the uninsured. We have too much to lose with this legislation.
Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York.
Check it out
Boyo
46
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers:
« on: July 06, 2009, 03:18:14 PM »
Every age and generation must be free to act for itself, in all cases , as the ages and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave , is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies
Thomas Paine
Boyo
Thomas Paine
Boyo
47
Politics & Religion / Re: Latin America
« on: June 29, 2009, 03:20:30 PM »
Well chavez ,castro and obama have all stated their verbal support of the imprisoned zelaya.
boyo
boyo
48
Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics
« on: June 28, 2009, 09:22:14 AM »
This fits in several catagories but since its main thrust is economic I will post it here:
Green Stimulus Money Costs More Jobs Than It Creates, Study Shows
Monday, April 13, 2009
By Josiah Ryan, Staff Writer
President Barack Obama exits Air Force One. (AP Photo) (CNSNews.com) - Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration.
President Obama, in fact, has used Spain’s green initiative as a blueprint for how the United States should use federal funds to stimulate the economy. Obama's economic stimulus package,which Congress passed in February, allocates billions of dollars to the green jobs industry.
But the author of the study, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said the United States should expect results similar to those in Spain:
"Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created,” wrote Calzada in his report: Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.
Obama repeatedly has said that the United States should look to Spain as an example of a country that has successfully applied federal money to green initiatives in order to stimulate its economy.
“Think of what’s happening in countries like Spain, Germany and Japan, where they’re making real investments in renewable energy,” said Obama while lobbying Congress, in January to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. “They’re surging ahead of us, poised to take the lead in these new industries.”
“Their governments have harnessed their people’s hard work and ingenuity with bold investments — investments that are paying off in good, high-wage jobs — jobs they won’t lose to other countries,” said Obama. “There is no reason we can’t do the same thing right here in America. … In the process, we’ll put nearly half a million people to work building wind turbines and solar panels; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to new jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.”
Included in the stimulus package, for example, was $4.5 billion to convert government buildings into high-performance green buildings.
According to the Calzada’s study, Spain is a strong example of the government spending money on green ideas to stimulate its economy.
“No other country has given such broad support to the construction and production of electricity through renewable sources,” says the report. “The arguments for Spain’s and Europe’s ‘green jobs’ schemes are the same arguments now made in the U.S., principally that massive public support would produce large numbers of green jobs.”
But in the study’s introduction Calzada argues that the renewable jobs program hindered, rather than helped, Spain’s attempts to emerge from its recession.
“The study’s results show how such ‘green jobs’ policy clearly hinders Spain’s way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil,” says Calzada. “This study marks the very first time a critical analysis of the actual performance and impact has been made."
Pat Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, a free market group, told CNSNews.com that the study’s conclusions do not surprise him. He added that the United States should expect similar results with the stimulus money it spends on green initiatives.
“There is no reason to think things will be any different here,” Michaels said. “In the short run you have to ask who is doing the hiring, and in the long run how efficient is it to have people serving technology such as windmills. We are creating inefficiencies.”
Michaels also said he was not surprised by the study’s finding that only one out of 10 jobs were permanent.
“That doesn’t surprise me,” said Michaels. “When we see how imperfect wind energy is and how expensive it is to maintain -- I think many of those jobs will become impermanent here in the U.S. as well.”
Inquiries for comment to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for American Progress were not answered before this story went to press.
Hello green jobs good by real jobs.
Boyo
PS In order to keep the GM plant in lake orion Mi. open congressman Gary Peters (Dem) sold his vote and supported cap and trade .In doing so he saved 1200 jobs in Oakland county Mi. but long term it is estimated that he burned about 4,000 jobs in Oakland county . If or should I say WHEN cap and trade is enacted.Nice vision for the future there congressman peters.
Green Stimulus Money Costs More Jobs Than It Creates, Study Shows
Monday, April 13, 2009
By Josiah Ryan, Staff Writer
President Barack Obama exits Air Force One. (AP Photo) (CNSNews.com) - Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration.
President Obama, in fact, has used Spain’s green initiative as a blueprint for how the United States should use federal funds to stimulate the economy. Obama's economic stimulus package,which Congress passed in February, allocates billions of dollars to the green jobs industry.
But the author of the study, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said the United States should expect results similar to those in Spain:
"Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created,” wrote Calzada in his report: Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.
Obama repeatedly has said that the United States should look to Spain as an example of a country that has successfully applied federal money to green initiatives in order to stimulate its economy.
“Think of what’s happening in countries like Spain, Germany and Japan, where they’re making real investments in renewable energy,” said Obama while lobbying Congress, in January to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. “They’re surging ahead of us, poised to take the lead in these new industries.”
“Their governments have harnessed their people’s hard work and ingenuity with bold investments — investments that are paying off in good, high-wage jobs — jobs they won’t lose to other countries,” said Obama. “There is no reason we can’t do the same thing right here in America. … In the process, we’ll put nearly half a million people to work building wind turbines and solar panels; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to new jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.”
Included in the stimulus package, for example, was $4.5 billion to convert government buildings into high-performance green buildings.
According to the Calzada’s study, Spain is a strong example of the government spending money on green ideas to stimulate its economy.
“No other country has given such broad support to the construction and production of electricity through renewable sources,” says the report. “The arguments for Spain’s and Europe’s ‘green jobs’ schemes are the same arguments now made in the U.S., principally that massive public support would produce large numbers of green jobs.”
But in the study’s introduction Calzada argues that the renewable jobs program hindered, rather than helped, Spain’s attempts to emerge from its recession.
“The study’s results show how such ‘green jobs’ policy clearly hinders Spain’s way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil,” says Calzada. “This study marks the very first time a critical analysis of the actual performance and impact has been made."
Pat Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, a free market group, told CNSNews.com that the study’s conclusions do not surprise him. He added that the United States should expect similar results with the stimulus money it spends on green initiatives.
“There is no reason to think things will be any different here,” Michaels said. “In the short run you have to ask who is doing the hiring, and in the long run how efficient is it to have people serving technology such as windmills. We are creating inefficiencies.”
Michaels also said he was not surprised by the study’s finding that only one out of 10 jobs were permanent.
“That doesn’t surprise me,” said Michaels. “When we see how imperfect wind energy is and how expensive it is to maintain -- I think many of those jobs will become impermanent here in the U.S. as well.”
Inquiries for comment to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for American Progress were not answered before this story went to press.
Hello green jobs good by real jobs.
Boyo
PS In order to keep the GM plant in lake orion Mi. open congressman Gary Peters (Dem) sold his vote and supported cap and trade .In doing so he saved 1200 jobs in Oakland county Mi. but long term it is estimated that he burned about 4,000 jobs in Oakland county . If or should I say WHEN cap and trade is enacted.Nice vision for the future there congressman peters.
49
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science
« on: June 28, 2009, 06:52:12 AM »
Well now that cap and trade has past the house I think it time that all martial artists get on board and help stop global warming via their own personal CO2 emissions. this easily translates into STOP TRAINING. When you stop training you save the planet and make America safer because you people who train regularly probally own guns and are domestic terrorists like Ron Paul supporters,Tea party attendees and the most nafarious group of all military vets.
So do your part and stop training save mother earth because if you don't the obamites will find you and you will be punished.
Boyo
So do your part and stop training save mother earth because if you don't the obamites will find you and you will be punished.
Boyo
50
Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care
« on: June 26, 2009, 03:51:07 PM »
Public employees unoinizing is actually sort of silly.In Michigan it is illegal for public employees to strike, a good example are teachers or the national guard .Both have unions but they are forbidden from striking.So why bother.Oh, I know as payback to the unions.
boyo
boyo
Pages: [1] 2