Is it possible that only 8% of the Obama administration has any business background? And now he is demanding that the banks, big corporations and insurance companies do his bidding to save the economy?
What exactly do we call a government with a philosophy that " - - stands for centralized autocratic - - government"?
In case you missed it, on a recent Glenn Beck Show, he had a graph that illustrated the percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is... a real life businesses, not a government job. Here are the percentages presented by Glen Beck.
T. Roosevelt.............38%
Taft...........................40%
Wilson ..................... 52%
Harding................... 49%
Coolidge.................. 48%
Hoover ................... 42%
F. Roosevelt............. 50%
Truman.................... 50%
Eisenhower.............. 57%
Kennedy................... 30%
Johnson................... 47%
Nixon...................... 53%
Ford......................... 42%
Carter..................... 32%
Reagan................... 56%
GH Bush................. .51%
Clinton .................. 39%
GW Bush................ 55%
And the winner of the Chicken Dinner is..............Obama................. 8% !!!
Yep! That’s right! Only Eight Percent!!!..the least by far of the last 19 presidents!! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business? They know what's best for GM...Chrysler... Wall Street... and you and me?
How can the president of a major nation and society....the one with the most successful economic system in world history.... stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one?.. or about jobs when he has never really had one ?? !
And neither has 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers.! They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs.....or as "community organizers" ..when they should have been in an employment line.
MAY GOD HELP US THROUGH THIS TRIAL!!
Friday, February 05, 2010
Justice Is Found In Our Courts: Grandma Testifies
This is old, and has been around the horn a few times, but I think it bears reading once more as it identifies some of the problems that we have in our justice system.
Enjoy -
Heath Care by FORCE! : A Video
This video is fantastic by Rogers from Michigan on the insanity of ObamaCare. Please watch this as it is only 4 minutes long but lays out what we are facing if this bill ever passes into law.
Watch and then you decide!
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc
Watch and then you decide!
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Unions Taking Over/Controling Government Policy?
Little wonder Obama is courting the unions. What a quick way to get on-going control of the majority of Democrats in the government. The only saving grace here is that the "people" will find this intolerable and throw out the Democrats or anyone else that is a slave to the unions.
The problem with all this wishful thinking is will the Republicans and Conservatives turn over a new leaf and stand on principles, or will they do as they have done in the past, cave to the powers in Washington that want them to be just like everyone else, corrupt.
I have a bad feeling about all this as I don't trust the Republicans to act any differently than they have in the past - once in office, they want to be just like everyone else. They want to be liked so much by everyone and to get along, they abandoned their core principles to become whores for the Democrats.
Public-Union Ascendancy
Government union members now outnumber private for the first time.
2-3-10 WSJ
It's now official: In 2009 the number of unionized workers who work for the government surpassed those in the private economy for the first time. This milestone explains a lot about modern American politics, in particular the paradox that union clout with Democrats has increased even as fewer workers belong to unions overall.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported recently that 51.4% of America's 15.4 million union members, or about 7.91 million workers, were employed by the government in 2009. As recently as 1980, there were more than twice as many private as public union members. But private union membership has continued to decline, even as unions have organized more public employees. The nearby chart shows the historical trend.[1unions]
Overall unionism keeps declining, however, with the loss of 771,000 union jobs amid last year's recession. Only one in eight workers (12.3%) now belongs to a union, with private union employment hitting a record low of 7.2% of all jobs, down from 7.6% in 2008. Only one in 13 U.S. workers in the private economy pays union dues. In government, by contrast, the union employee share rose to 37.4% from 36.8% the year before.
In private industries, union workers are subject to the vagaries of the marketplace and economic growth. Thus in 2009 10.1% of private union jobs were eliminated, which was more than twice the 4.4% rate of overall private job losses. On the other hand, government unions offer what is close to lifetime job security and benefits, subject only to gross dereliction of duty.
Once a city or state's workers are organized by a union, the jobs almost never go away. This means government is the main playing field of modern unionism, which explains why the AFL-CIO and SEIU have become advocates for higher taxes and government expansion in cities, states and Washington.
Unions once saw their main task as negotiating a bigger share of an individual firm's profits. Now the movement's main goal is securing a larger share of the overall private economy's wealth, which means pitting government employees against middle-class taxpayers. And as union membership has grown in government, so has union clout in pushing politicians (especially but not solely Democrats) for higher wages and benefits. This is why labor chiefs Andy Stern (SEIU) and Rich Trumka (AFL-CIO) could order Democrats to exempt unions from ObamaCare's tax increase on high-cost health insurance plans.
To the extent Democrats have become the party of government, they have become ever more beholden to public unions. The problem for democracy is that this creates a self-reinforcing cycle of higher spending and taxes. The unions help elect politicians, who repay the unions with more pay and benefits and dues-paying members, who in turn help to re-elect those politicians. ( Slickster Highlite)
The political scientists Fred Siegel and Dan DiSalvo recently wrote in the Weekly Standard about the 2006 example of former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine shouting to a rally of 10,000 public workers that "We will fight for a fair contract." Mr. Corzine was supposed to be on the other side of the bargaining table representing /taxpayers/, not labor.
From time to time, usually requiring a fiscal crisis, middle-class taxpayers in the private economy will revolt enough to check this vicious political cycle. (See Scott Brown.) But sooner or later, the unions regain their political advantage because taxpayers have other concerns while unions have the most to gain or lose.This is why most Democrats once opposed public-sector unionism.
Such 20th-century liberal heroes as New York Mayor Fiorella LaGuardia and Franklin Roosevelt believed fervently in industrial unions. But they believed public employees had a special social obligation and could too easily exploit their monopoly position. How right they were.
As we can see from the desperate economic and fiscal woes of California, New Jersey, New York and other states with dominant public unions, this has become a major problem for the U.S. economy and small-d democratic governance. It may be the single biggest problem. The agenda for American political reform needs to include the breaking of public unionism's power to capture an ever-larger share of private income.
The problem with all this wishful thinking is will the Republicans and Conservatives turn over a new leaf and stand on principles, or will they do as they have done in the past, cave to the powers in Washington that want them to be just like everyone else, corrupt.
I have a bad feeling about all this as I don't trust the Republicans to act any differently than they have in the past - once in office, they want to be just like everyone else. They want to be liked so much by everyone and to get along, they abandoned their core principles to become whores for the Democrats.
Public-Union Ascendancy
Government union members now outnumber private for the first time.
2-3-10 WSJ
It's now official: In 2009 the number of unionized workers who work for the government surpassed those in the private economy for the first time. This milestone explains a lot about modern American politics, in particular the paradox that union clout with Democrats has increased even as fewer workers belong to unions overall.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported recently that 51.4% of America's 15.4 million union members, or about 7.91 million workers, were employed by the government in 2009. As recently as 1980, there were more than twice as many private as public union members. But private union membership has continued to decline, even as unions have organized more public employees. The nearby chart shows the historical trend.[1unions]
Overall unionism keeps declining, however, with the loss of 771,000 union jobs amid last year's recession. Only one in eight workers (12.3%) now belongs to a union, with private union employment hitting a record low of 7.2% of all jobs, down from 7.6% in 2008. Only one in 13 U.S. workers in the private economy pays union dues. In government, by contrast, the union employee share rose to 37.4% from 36.8% the year before.
In private industries, union workers are subject to the vagaries of the marketplace and economic growth. Thus in 2009 10.1% of private union jobs were eliminated, which was more than twice the 4.4% rate of overall private job losses. On the other hand, government unions offer what is close to lifetime job security and benefits, subject only to gross dereliction of duty.
Once a city or state's workers are organized by a union, the jobs almost never go away. This means government is the main playing field of modern unionism, which explains why the AFL-CIO and SEIU have become advocates for higher taxes and government expansion in cities, states and Washington.
Unions once saw their main task as negotiating a bigger share of an individual firm's profits. Now the movement's main goal is securing a larger share of the overall private economy's wealth, which means pitting government employees against middle-class taxpayers. And as union membership has grown in government, so has union clout in pushing politicians (especially but not solely Democrats) for higher wages and benefits. This is why labor chiefs Andy Stern (SEIU) and Rich Trumka (AFL-CIO) could order Democrats to exempt unions from ObamaCare's tax increase on high-cost health insurance plans.
To the extent Democrats have become the party of government, they have become ever more beholden to public unions. The problem for democracy is that this creates a self-reinforcing cycle of higher spending and taxes. The unions help elect politicians, who repay the unions with more pay and benefits and dues-paying members, who in turn help to re-elect those politicians. ( Slickster Highlite)
The political scientists Fred Siegel and Dan DiSalvo recently wrote in the Weekly Standard about the 2006 example of former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine shouting to a rally of 10,000 public workers that "We will fight for a fair contract." Mr. Corzine was supposed to be on the other side of the bargaining table representing /taxpayers/, not labor.
From time to time, usually requiring a fiscal crisis, middle-class taxpayers in the private economy will revolt enough to check this vicious political cycle. (See Scott Brown.) But sooner or later, the unions regain their political advantage because taxpayers have other concerns while unions have the most to gain or lose.This is why most Democrats once opposed public-sector unionism.
Such 20th-century liberal heroes as New York Mayor Fiorella LaGuardia and Franklin Roosevelt believed fervently in industrial unions. But they believed public employees had a special social obligation and could too easily exploit their monopoly position. How right they were.
As we can see from the desperate economic and fiscal woes of California, New Jersey, New York and other states with dominant public unions, this has become a major problem for the U.S. economy and small-d democratic governance. It may be the single biggest problem. The agenda for American political reform needs to include the breaking of public unionism's power to capture an ever-larger share of private income.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Obama's Jobs Creation Agenda Flawed
Before the election, Obama stated very clearly that he thought the Constitution was in error in that it stated only what the government 'could not do to you', he said it did not state what the government could do 'for' you.
I believe he is showing us just how he wants to make government the absolute controlling factor in our lives. Of course, that is, what lives we will have left after he accomplishes this won't be worth spit anyway, so what will it matter.
IF JOBS ARE JOB ONE: FIRST, DO NO HARM
Source: Josh Barro, "If Jobs Are Job One: First, Do No Harm," Investor's Business Daily, January 29, 2010.
The president could spur investment and job creation if he would calm the market's nervousness about policy changes. He should take steps to reassure markets about his intentions on taxes, health care and carbon, so investors do not have to speculate about what the government will do to their future profits, says Josh Barro, a Senior Fellow with the Manhattan Institute.
The clearest opportunity is on tax policy, says Barro:
President Obama has already made clear that he intends to let the Bush tax cuts for high earners sunset next year, restoring a top income-tax rate of 39.6 percent. But that's a floor -- investors don't know how high tax rates could go; for example, the House health care bill would take the top rate to 45 percent and also raise taxes on capital income.
Obama should announce that he will veto any bill that raises income taxes higher than Clinton-era levels, so investors and small- business people have clear expectations about how they will be taxed.
It would be best to also maintain the 15 percent capital gains tax set in 2003; but even a firm commitment to a 20 percent rate -- again, the Clinton-era level -- would provide valuable certainty.
The health care bill is also a source of market uncertainty, says Barro:
The primary risks to employment from the health care bill come from damaging tax provisions and potential increases in employee insurance costs.
So long as he holds the line on tax and cost-control measures -- essentially, insisting that the Senate bill remain as untouched as possible, with principal reliance on an insurance premiums tax instead of new income taxes -- Obama can greatly reduce investor nervousness (calming the restive electorate is a separate matter).
On carbon regulation, Obama should admit the obvious -- cap-and-trade is politically radioactive until the economy improves -- and put it on the shelf. Climate change is a long-range problem, and there is no need to attack it during a major recession when the electorate is least receptive to energy taxes.
We've heard enough about what the government will do to "create jobs." If President Obama really wants to spur job creation, he must start making promises about what the government will not do, says Barro.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=519423
I believe he is showing us just how he wants to make government the absolute controlling factor in our lives. Of course, that is, what lives we will have left after he accomplishes this won't be worth spit anyway, so what will it matter.
IF JOBS ARE JOB ONE: FIRST, DO NO HARM
Source: Josh Barro, "If Jobs Are Job One: First, Do No Harm," Investor's Business Daily, January 29, 2010.
The president could spur investment and job creation if he would calm the market's nervousness about policy changes. He should take steps to reassure markets about his intentions on taxes, health care and carbon, so investors do not have to speculate about what the government will do to their future profits, says Josh Barro, a Senior Fellow with the Manhattan Institute.
The clearest opportunity is on tax policy, says Barro:
President Obama has already made clear that he intends to let the Bush tax cuts for high earners sunset next year, restoring a top income-tax rate of 39.6 percent. But that's a floor -- investors don't know how high tax rates could go; for example, the House health care bill would take the top rate to 45 percent and also raise taxes on capital income.
Obama should announce that he will veto any bill that raises income taxes higher than Clinton-era levels, so investors and small- business people have clear expectations about how they will be taxed.
It would be best to also maintain the 15 percent capital gains tax set in 2003; but even a firm commitment to a 20 percent rate -- again, the Clinton-era level -- would provide valuable certainty.
The health care bill is also a source of market uncertainty, says Barro:
The primary risks to employment from the health care bill come from damaging tax provisions and potential increases in employee insurance costs.
So long as he holds the line on tax and cost-control measures -- essentially, insisting that the Senate bill remain as untouched as possible, with principal reliance on an insurance premiums tax instead of new income taxes -- Obama can greatly reduce investor nervousness (calming the restive electorate is a separate matter).
On carbon regulation, Obama should admit the obvious -- cap-and-trade is politically radioactive until the economy improves -- and put it on the shelf. Climate change is a long-range problem, and there is no need to attack it during a major recession when the electorate is least receptive to energy taxes.
We've heard enough about what the government will do to "create jobs." If President Obama really wants to spur job creation, he must start making promises about what the government will not do, says Barro.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=519423
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Lawyers Ready to Sue Everyone and Everything for Carbon Emssions
Great article on the insanity of global warming and energy production. Just think of the possibilities - the lawyers can sue every individual and everything that uses petroleum based products as a source to produce energy. Lawyers can make billions in fees - and guess who loses big time - the consumer, again.
Waiting to Exhale - Surprise! You’re a polluter.
Dave Hoopman (Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News)
"How about if we sue you for breathing,” The Wall Street Journal asked in a December 2009 editorial. Of course the idea seems absurd, but that’s not the same thing as saying prudent persons or businesses would bet their futures that the U.S. legal system is incapable of producing absurd results.
Since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) almost a year ago made clear its intention to declare carbon dioxide—the stuff we all exhale—a dangerous pollutant that threatens human health and welfare, federal appeals courts have shown themselves willing to entertain litigation that validates the logic of the Journal’s rhetorical question.
Twice in recent months, appellate courts have revived lawsuits with potential consequences ranging from an impact on the cost and reliability of electricity to monetary damages that would ultimately be paid by all consumers, based on a finding that someone’s emissions of carbon dioxide—not necessarily those of the defendants—could have caused or might eventually cause harm to plaintiffs or their interests.
Something Special from Wisconsin
When new uses were being invented for an old legal concept, Wisconsin was in on the ground floor. Six years ago this July, then-Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager joined Richard Blumenthal, still Connecticut’s attorney general, and six other A-Gs in a federal lawsuit alleging five of the nation’s largest electricity producers had created a “public nuisance” by allowing their power plants to emit carbon dioxide.
Named as defendants were Xcel Energy and four other utilities (only Xcel operates in Wisconsin) serving a total of 20 states. Lautenschlager got out a press release claiming the emissions threatened Wisconsin with “increased ozone and respiratory illness, more heat-related deaths and ailments, debilitated winter sports and tourist economy, reduced natural fishery stocks, decimated forests, lowered water levels in our Great Lakes…and intensified catastrophic droughts, storms, and floods…”
In September 2005 federal Judge Loretta Preska of the Southern District of New York decided the A-Gs were asking her court to rule on questions outside its authority. In her dismissal, Preska called the issues “transcendently legislative” and said the suit presented “non-justiciable political questions that are consigned to the political branches, not the judiciary.”
The following month, lead plaintiff Blumenthal said Preska should have asserted greater judicial powers rather than leave the environmental policy decision to elected legislators. He and his fellow A-Gs appealed, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to compel the five utilities to cap their CO2 emissions and then reduce them by an unspecified percentage annually for 10 years. Just over one year later with the appeal still pending, Wisconsin voters retired Lautenschlager.
Forgotten but not Gone
Until last September nothing more was heard of the lawsuit. Then, almost exactly four years after Preska’s dismissal, the Second Circuit reinstated the case. Wisconsin remains a plaintiff.
In an opinion that came close to saying the problem cited by Preska can’t occur, the appeals court wrote, “Given the checks and balances among the three branches of our government, the judiciary can no more usurp executive and legislative prerogatives than it can decline to decide matters within its jurisdiction simply because such matters may have political ramifications.”
Within days, Law Seminars International (LSI), a private-sector Seattle firm offering legal education and specializing in regulatory issues, was marketing a “telebriefing” on the case, saying its implications could spread far beyond the 20 states and five utilities originally sued.
Painting a picture of regulatory chaos, LSI claimed a decision favoring the plaintiffs “could result in numerous federal judges each setting different emission caps and reduction schedules for various groups of defendants.”
Obviously LSI has a commercial interest, but it’s undeniable that barely more than three weeks after the Second Circuit’s order, another federal appeals court breathed new life into a CO2 lawsuit previously dismissed.
Last October 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that District Judge Louis Guirola erred in his 2007 dismissal of a suit brought by a group of Mississippi property owners.
The plaintiffs accused some two-dozen defendants, including oil companies and electric utilities, of emitting carbon dioxide that intensified Hurricane Katrina, making its damage to their properties worse than it otherwise would have been.
Pushing the Judicial Envelope
Hearing transcripts quote District Judge Guirola saying the suit amounts to a “debate” about global warming “which has no place in this court until Congress enacts legislation which sets appropriate standards by which this court can measure conduct…and develops standards by which…juries can adjudicate facts and apply the law.” Guirola said the plaintiffs were “asking the court to develop those standards, and it is something that this court is simply not empowered to do.”
But the Fifth Circuit thought the court was empowered to hear the case. The defendants maintain it’s impossible to show their lawful actions harmed specific plaintiffs but the Fifth Circuit framed the issue, “not as an inquiry into whether a defendant’s pollutants are the sole cause of an injury but rather whether ‘the pollutant causes or contributes to the kinds of injuries alleged by the plaintiffs.’”
The plaintiffs cannot expect an easy win. Abundant research over the past few years has debunked the supposed link between global warming and more frequent, stronger storms. In January 2008, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published findings that warmer ocean temperatures worldwide tend to increase vertical wind shear, reducing the intensity of developing storms.
The court did not weigh the damage claims, saying, “Plaintiffs will be required to support these assertions at later stages in the litigation, [but] at this pleading stage we must take these allegations as true.”
Who’s on the Hook?
Big, plump, and to many people unsympathetic targets are the common thread connecting the 2004 nuisance suit and the Katrina case, but the reasoning in last October’s LSI promotion and in The Wall Street Journal editorial is that nothing says it will stay this way: Anyone could become a defendant.
In fact, the Journal echoed LSI’s warning about defendants being held to unpredictable standards, saying, “The courts would become a venue for a carbon war of all against all,” adding, “Judges would decide the remedies against specific defendants,” meaning “ad hoc command-and-control regulation” that could vary from one judicial district or lifetime-appointed federal judge to another.
The Journal quoted attorney David Rivkin’s friend-of-the-court brief in the Katrina case, saying, “There is no logical reason to draw the line at 30 defendants as opposed to 50, or 500, or even 10,000 defendants. These plaintiffs—and any others alleging injury by climatic phenomena—would have standing to assert a damages claim against virtually every entity and individual on the planet, since each ‘contributes’ to global concentrations of carbon dioxide.”We may be small-time polluters, but as long as we keep exhaling, polluters we are—in the eyes of the law.—
Waiting to Exhale - Surprise! You’re a polluter.
Dave Hoopman (Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News)
"How about if we sue you for breathing,” The Wall Street Journal asked in a December 2009 editorial. Of course the idea seems absurd, but that’s not the same thing as saying prudent persons or businesses would bet their futures that the U.S. legal system is incapable of producing absurd results.
Since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) almost a year ago made clear its intention to declare carbon dioxide—the stuff we all exhale—a dangerous pollutant that threatens human health and welfare, federal appeals courts have shown themselves willing to entertain litigation that validates the logic of the Journal’s rhetorical question.
Twice in recent months, appellate courts have revived lawsuits with potential consequences ranging from an impact on the cost and reliability of electricity to monetary damages that would ultimately be paid by all consumers, based on a finding that someone’s emissions of carbon dioxide—not necessarily those of the defendants—could have caused or might eventually cause harm to plaintiffs or their interests.
Something Special from Wisconsin
When new uses were being invented for an old legal concept, Wisconsin was in on the ground floor. Six years ago this July, then-Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager joined Richard Blumenthal, still Connecticut’s attorney general, and six other A-Gs in a federal lawsuit alleging five of the nation’s largest electricity producers had created a “public nuisance” by allowing their power plants to emit carbon dioxide.
Named as defendants were Xcel Energy and four other utilities (only Xcel operates in Wisconsin) serving a total of 20 states. Lautenschlager got out a press release claiming the emissions threatened Wisconsin with “increased ozone and respiratory illness, more heat-related deaths and ailments, debilitated winter sports and tourist economy, reduced natural fishery stocks, decimated forests, lowered water levels in our Great Lakes…and intensified catastrophic droughts, storms, and floods…”
In September 2005 federal Judge Loretta Preska of the Southern District of New York decided the A-Gs were asking her court to rule on questions outside its authority. In her dismissal, Preska called the issues “transcendently legislative” and said the suit presented “non-justiciable political questions that are consigned to the political branches, not the judiciary.”
The following month, lead plaintiff Blumenthal said Preska should have asserted greater judicial powers rather than leave the environmental policy decision to elected legislators. He and his fellow A-Gs appealed, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to compel the five utilities to cap their CO2 emissions and then reduce them by an unspecified percentage annually for 10 years. Just over one year later with the appeal still pending, Wisconsin voters retired Lautenschlager.
Forgotten but not Gone
Until last September nothing more was heard of the lawsuit. Then, almost exactly four years after Preska’s dismissal, the Second Circuit reinstated the case. Wisconsin remains a plaintiff.
In an opinion that came close to saying the problem cited by Preska can’t occur, the appeals court wrote, “Given the checks and balances among the three branches of our government, the judiciary can no more usurp executive and legislative prerogatives than it can decline to decide matters within its jurisdiction simply because such matters may have political ramifications.”
Within days, Law Seminars International (LSI), a private-sector Seattle firm offering legal education and specializing in regulatory issues, was marketing a “telebriefing” on the case, saying its implications could spread far beyond the 20 states and five utilities originally sued.
Painting a picture of regulatory chaos, LSI claimed a decision favoring the plaintiffs “could result in numerous federal judges each setting different emission caps and reduction schedules for various groups of defendants.”
Obviously LSI has a commercial interest, but it’s undeniable that barely more than three weeks after the Second Circuit’s order, another federal appeals court breathed new life into a CO2 lawsuit previously dismissed.
Last October 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that District Judge Louis Guirola erred in his 2007 dismissal of a suit brought by a group of Mississippi property owners.
The plaintiffs accused some two-dozen defendants, including oil companies and electric utilities, of emitting carbon dioxide that intensified Hurricane Katrina, making its damage to their properties worse than it otherwise would have been.
Pushing the Judicial Envelope
Hearing transcripts quote District Judge Guirola saying the suit amounts to a “debate” about global warming “which has no place in this court until Congress enacts legislation which sets appropriate standards by which this court can measure conduct…and develops standards by which…juries can adjudicate facts and apply the law.” Guirola said the plaintiffs were “asking the court to develop those standards, and it is something that this court is simply not empowered to do.”
But the Fifth Circuit thought the court was empowered to hear the case. The defendants maintain it’s impossible to show their lawful actions harmed specific plaintiffs but the Fifth Circuit framed the issue, “not as an inquiry into whether a defendant’s pollutants are the sole cause of an injury but rather whether ‘the pollutant causes or contributes to the kinds of injuries alleged by the plaintiffs.’”
The plaintiffs cannot expect an easy win. Abundant research over the past few years has debunked the supposed link between global warming and more frequent, stronger storms. In January 2008, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published findings that warmer ocean temperatures worldwide tend to increase vertical wind shear, reducing the intensity of developing storms.
The court did not weigh the damage claims, saying, “Plaintiffs will be required to support these assertions at later stages in the litigation, [but] at this pleading stage we must take these allegations as true.”
Who’s on the Hook?
Big, plump, and to many people unsympathetic targets are the common thread connecting the 2004 nuisance suit and the Katrina case, but the reasoning in last October’s LSI promotion and in The Wall Street Journal editorial is that nothing says it will stay this way: Anyone could become a defendant.
In fact, the Journal echoed LSI’s warning about defendants being held to unpredictable standards, saying, “The courts would become a venue for a carbon war of all against all,” adding, “Judges would decide the remedies against specific defendants,” meaning “ad hoc command-and-control regulation” that could vary from one judicial district or lifetime-appointed federal judge to another.
The Journal quoted attorney David Rivkin’s friend-of-the-court brief in the Katrina case, saying, “There is no logical reason to draw the line at 30 defendants as opposed to 50, or 500, or even 10,000 defendants. These plaintiffs—and any others alleging injury by climatic phenomena—would have standing to assert a damages claim against virtually every entity and individual on the planet, since each ‘contributes’ to global concentrations of carbon dioxide.”We may be small-time polluters, but as long as we keep exhaling, polluters we are—in the eyes of the law.—
Obama Loans Billions To Brazil for Off Shore Drilling - What?
What in the world is going on here? We are sitting on huge deposits of oil but we can't access it because of eco-fascists that have members of our government by the throat to do their bidding, but he can loan 2 billion to another country to drill off shore?
Obama will do what ever it takes to strangle our industries with high priced energy to bring down our economy. This is historic.
(This from the Wall Street Journal)
Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling
Too bad it's not in U.S. waters.
You read that headline correctly. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil.
The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro.
Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.
The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.
But look on the bright side. If President Obama has embraced offshore drilling in Brazil, why not in the old U.S.A.? The land of the sorta free and the home of the heavily indebted has enormous offshore oil deposits, and last year ahead of the November elections, with gasoline at $4 a gallon, Congress let a ban on offshore drilling expire.
The Bush Administration's five-year plan (2007-2012) to open the outer continental shelf to oil exploration included new lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. But in 2007 environmentalists went to court to block drilling in Alaska and in April a federal court ruled in their favor.
In May, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said his department was unsure whether that ruling applied only to Alaska or all offshore drilling. So it asked an appeals court for clarification. Late last month the court said the earlier decision applied only to Alaska, opening the way for the sale of leases in the Gulf. Mr. Salazar now says the sales will go forward on August 19.
This is progress, however slow. But it still doesn't allow the U.S. to explore in Alaska or along the East and West Coasts, which could be our equivalent of the Tupi oil fields, which are set to make Brazil a leading oil exporter. Americans are right to wonder why Mr. Obama is underwriting in Brazil what he won't allow at home.
Obama will do what ever it takes to strangle our industries with high priced energy to bring down our economy. This is historic.
(This from the Wall Street Journal)
Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling
Too bad it's not in U.S. waters.
You read that headline correctly. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil.
The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro.
Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.
The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.
But look on the bright side. If President Obama has embraced offshore drilling in Brazil, why not in the old U.S.A.? The land of the sorta free and the home of the heavily indebted has enormous offshore oil deposits, and last year ahead of the November elections, with gasoline at $4 a gallon, Congress let a ban on offshore drilling expire.
The Bush Administration's five-year plan (2007-2012) to open the outer continental shelf to oil exploration included new lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. But in 2007 environmentalists went to court to block drilling in Alaska and in April a federal court ruled in their favor.
In May, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said his department was unsure whether that ruling applied only to Alaska or all offshore drilling. So it asked an appeals court for clarification. Late last month the court said the earlier decision applied only to Alaska, opening the way for the sale of leases in the Gulf. Mr. Salazar now says the sales will go forward on August 19.
This is progress, however slow. But it still doesn't allow the U.S. to explore in Alaska or along the East and West Coasts, which could be our equivalent of the Tupi oil fields, which are set to make Brazil a leading oil exporter. Americans are right to wonder why Mr. Obama is underwriting in Brazil what he won't allow at home.
Obama's Vision of A Socialist State Will Fail
Where ever or when ever socialism is tried, it fails. England and Canada are perfect examples of this, but Obama plows ahead to make it happen in America.His intentions are clear - he wants to destroy the American dream of personal freedom and accomplishment, and install his own dream of what America should look like, an America of total dependency.
His vision is - all citizens must be dependent on the government for everything. He, of course, will be the supreme leader for life.
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A....
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that.
Remember, there is a mid-term election in 2010! Do not fall asleep and believe some one else will do the heavy lifting - you must decide the fate of our country!
Monday, February 01, 2010
Obama Gets Some Good Advice From Joe Friday
Joe Friday from "Dragnet" gives some good advice to Barack Obama!
Dogs Always Ready to Give More
How does the saying go, " Give and you will receive ten fold". Like all things in this life, your ego is the least important, so reach out and enjoy what comes your way. I guarantee the rewards are enormous.
(Great story here and words of wisdom - author unknown)
A Dog's Purpose
Being a veterinarian, I had been called to examine a ten-year-old Irish Wolfhound named Belker. The dog's owners, Ron, his wife Lisa, and their little boy Shane, were all very attached to Belker, and they were hoping for a miracle.I examined Belker and found he was dying of cancer.
I told the family we couldn't do anything for Belker, and offered to perform the euthanasia procedure in their home.As we made arrangements, Ron and Lisa told me they thought it would be good for six-year-old Shane to observe the procedure. They felt Shane might learn something from the experience.
The next day, I felt the familiar catch in my throat as Belker's family surrounded him. Shane seemed so calm, petting the old dog for the last time, that I wondered if he understood what was going on. Within a few minutes, Belker slipped peacefully away. We sat together for a while after Belker's death, wondering aloud about the sad fact that animal lives are shorter than human lives.
Shane, who had been listening quietly, piped up, ''I know why.''Startled, we all turned to him. What came out of his mouth next stunned me. I'd never heard a more comforting explanation. It has changed the way I try and live..He said, ''People are born so that they can learn how to live a good life....like loving everybody all the time and being nice, right? Well, dogs already know how to do that, so they don't have to stay as long.''
Remember, if a dog was the teacher you would learn things like:
When loved ones come home, always run to greet them.Never pass up the opportunity
to go for a joyride.
to go for a joyride.
Allow the experience of fresh air and the wind in your face
to be pure ecstasy.
to be pure ecstasy.
Take naps.
Stretch before rising.
Run, romp, and play daily.
Thrive on attention and let people touch you.Avoid biting when a simple growl will do..
On warm days, stop to lie on your back on the grass.
On hot days, drink lots of water and lie under a shady tree.
When you're happy, dance around and wag your entire body.
Delight in the simple joy of a long walk.
Be loyal.
Never pretend to be something you're not.
If what you want lies buried, dig until you find it.
When someone is having a bad day, be silent, sit close by and
nuzzle them gently.
nuzzle them gently.
AND ENJOY EVERY MOMENT OF EVERY DAY!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
