Climate Change Bill: Moving America to...

Under the cover of all the hoopla happening on Friday, the House of Representatives slipped in an hour to vote on and pass the historic mammoth 1500 page Climate Change Bill, of course, which almost no one had read.

A big win for the environment, which speaker Pelosi calls “A move to the future.” But as we learned, or hopefully learned, from the Kyoto Accord, the promise of the bill needs to match the process designed to meet that promise, which was its weakness.

Amidst the craziness that some are calling “Cap and Trade” include:

· A mandatory 20% reduction of fossil fuels by 2020 replaced by yet unknown alternative energy (nuclear not included)

· US companies buying an allotment of Pollution Permits from the government, let alone being forced to also purchase Al Gore’s venture capital invested carbon measuring software.

· A doubling of many household’s utility bills

· Other oddities added to the bill, probably in the 300 pages added at the last minute:

· All houses must conform to California housing standards

· Houses but be pre-approved by a federal energy efficiency inspection before it can be sold.

· And even something about shower police??

· Bottom line, it is, regardless of what side of the political spectrum you lie, the biggest tax hike in US history.

After the historic victory Obama said, “It's a bold and necessary step that holds the promise of creating new industries and millions of new jobs, decreasing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil."

So obviously there are more questions:

Does the US need the Government to create new markets and new jobs?

If dependence on foreign oil is such a big deal, why don’t we just use what we already have and are not using?

Since government will create the market and therefore these jobs, who will pay for it? Is this another FORCED distribution of wealth, opposed to consumer driven consumption?

The allotted permits are determined by what and who? Isn’t this simply more government getting involved in economical matters? One could assume more arbitrary carrots to dangle in front of corporations to do the bidding of the government. “Sure, we’ll give you more allotments, if you…..” But I’m SURE that would never happen…

Why is the government pushing through MAJOR legislation that drastically affects the future of our nation without letting not only the public at large, but even those voting the chance to read it?

How will US companies, already fighting an uphill battle against foreign competition do better? What is to keep them from just moving? For example in the last 8 months, AT&T cancelled up to 12.000 US jobs at about an average of 38,000 USD per year. Many of those went to Slovakia where they pay less than 1/3^rd that amount.

A couple insights, first, if you’re not into day-trading it wouldn’t be a bad idea to get familiar with it, as more and more companies move operations overseas to stay competitive, meaning less work available, day-trading I predict will be the best option for self-employment .

There is a strange desire to emulate Europe. This is the US, which has led the world in most things developmentally since its inception. It is European to imitate, while American style is to innovate. Our government today acts more like older European leadership then even the current European leadership.

A previously White House suppressed EPA report has recently surfaced claiming that the Earth temperatures since 2001 have stayed the same or cooled while CO2 emissions have gone up. An investigation has already been called in the Senate.

The US is unique in that is truly is not only the land of opportunity, but the ONLY land of opportunity.

That being true, the US as the strongest most successful economy in the history of the WORLD, should just take advantage of that which made us strong, which is opportunity through potential, not this limitation through penalty.

The president believes he can FORCE change on Americans rather than simply incentivize them, provide opportunity and potential in the direction you want to head, and American will COMPETE to get there first. But you would need to be raised American to understand that. Clearly, the administration doesn’t get it, or just doesn’t care.

I agree with Pelosi in that this bill is a move…maybe not to the future as she foresees it.

If you haven’t experienced other cultures (outside of US boarders of course) I’ll explain in detail what this last point means in the next blog.

Above the Law?

More facts about the Honduran ouster of former President Zelaya have emerged today, and tell us a lot about our current administration.

According to the Wall Stree Journal:

After the supreme court denied Zelaya the allowance to seek a constitutional referendum (Honduras has a history of dictators) he went ahead anyway with the vote getting ballots from ….Venezuela.

When ordering the military to carry out the voting logistics, the commander felt obligated to follow the supreme court’s ruling and not comply.

Mr. Zelaya fired him.

The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated, Mr. Zelaya refused.

He broke into the military installation with a mob stealing the ballots and having them distributed regardless of the attorney general making it clear that anyone carrying out the referendum would be prosecuted.

Under court order, the military arrested Mr. Zelaya and exiled him to Costa Rica, which means this was not a military coup as the international media is promoting.

The response from the President of the United States, the world’s leader and protector of democracy, liberty, and freedom. ”We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there.”Later, he added ”It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition, rather than democratic elections.”

I’m still at a loss here, Honduras defended their own constitution. A country whose history is riddled with tyranny and dictators, now threaten by a coalition with Chavez and his boys. They react according to the law of the land against their elected leader who blatantly tried to defy the law.

What exactly is illegal about it? What other options did they have?

Why stand against those who followed the law and with those to openly defied it?

Yes he was the democratically elected president and in democracies, the people's chosen their leaders are not changed by militaries. But this isn’t freshmen level politics. Although democratically elected, it doesn’t give carte blanche to do anything or does our President believe that? What amazes me is that he was a constitutional lawyer.

The 80/20 on the matter, is that possibly Obama is using politics to deal with Latin America on a larger scale. However, I don't see how going against EVERYTHING we as America stands for to soothe the problem children of the South benefits us.

In short, the President’s response to this matter is telling, scary, and quite revealing. It shows the possibility that he believes, he has four years to do whatever, and there's little anyone can do about it.

American’s better start paying better attention.

Is the President above the Constitution?

Unless you haven’t overcome the shock of the tragic death of the king of pop, you know the Honduran Military has ousted the sitting President. Condemnation has poured in from leaders around the globe, even President Obama expressed immediate deep concern.
Here are the facts as I currently know them:

1. The now ousted President Zelaya has been in office since 2006

2. According to the Honduran constitution, presidents are allowed only one term of four years

3. Zelaya wanted to hold a referendum to change the constitution giving him the potential to extend his hold of power

4. The Supreme Court of Honduras had deemed the referendum illegal

5. Despite this, Zelaya pushed for the referendum

6. Hours before the polls were supposed to open, the military stepped in and removed Zelaya from office

If I have my facts wrong, please feel free to correct me.

If they are correct then there are a lot of questions:

President Obama urged Honduras to “respect the rule of law.” Isn’t the constitution of a nation and the Supreme Court which rules on it THE rule of law for a land?

The European Union called for a “swift return to constitutional normality.” Isn’t that what the military move was attempting to do?

Is the president of any land above the law? Above the Supreme Court? Above the Constitution?

If any sitting president in power can simply change the foundation of a land to suit his/her individual needs, on what foundation can the land exist?

Why was it so important for Mr. Zelaya to force his country into chaos simply for one more term? Who is to blame here?

Is this about ousting a democratically elected president, or saving the nation and dealing with what was deemed by the supreme court to be a criminal act?

What would happen in the US or any country, should the president, with congressional power, decide to change the Constitution to fit his/her agenda?

Are we familiar enough with our constitution to know when it is being attacked?

Which do we defend? Which takes precedence, the President or the Constitution?