OBAMA TO FORCE INCREASE IN GAS PRICES

Any person who understands the impact of gasoline and diesel prices have on the costs of food and almost every product sold in stores. Will be disturbed to know that Obama has knukled under to the "tree huggers" and Environmental movement by canceling a Bush directive, and announcing that he may punish oil refiners who do not meet his standards of reducing emissions from the refineries that produce the life blood of our economy.

Overall, U.S. demand is down to 18.8 million barrels a day, almost 2 million barrels below demand in the first quarter of 2007. But within the general picture, there has been falling demand for distillates, mainly consumed by industry, which reflects the general industrial gloom, along with steady to robust demand for gasoline.It also should make the "glbal warming zealots happy!

According to the International Energy Agency, global demand for oil this year will be 83.2 million barrels a day, 3 percent or 2.6 million barrels below last year. Global supply in April was 83.6 million barrels a day.

The White House suspended a ruling signed by President George W. Bush four days before he left office that found refiners were adequately controlling benzene and other cancer- causing gases, said Cathy Milbourn, a spokeswoman at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Obama is trying to convince the populace that way to renewed prosperity is through elimination of the oil industry and substituting new energy sources such as LED lighting, new concrete products that last longer than conventional concrete.
Obama held a press conference yesterday, and he said we must not look backwards, but change how we produce energy, rather than continue to rely on old ideas.
Of course,He is still blaming Bush for the state of the economy, despite the fact that people are getting tired of waiting for the stimulus programs to show positive results on the economy and unemployment rate.The problem is that his nw way is a march toward government control and socialism!

A perfect example of how Obama will force the increase in the cost of gasoline at the pump is this story from Bloomberg.com
" While U.S. law doesn’t cap toxic emissions from refineries, which convert crude oil into gasoline and diesel fuel, it does require plants to match what the best refiners are achieving at reducing hazardous pollution. Thirteen of the 20 largest refineries are in Texas and Louisiana, according to the U.S. Energy Department.

Standards were last set in 1995. If Obama finds those measures insufficient, the government may take six to nine months to propose new requirements and a similar amount of time after that to adopt them, Walke said.

Valero Energy Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp. and other oil companies together spent $100 billion from 1990 to 2007, and $8.3 billion in 2008, to cut pollution at refineries, according to the American Petroleum Institute. Further regulation may increase refiners’ costs and raise the gasoline prices paid by consumers, according to the lobbying group. You would think that a reasonable person would take this as a good faith effort to comply with environmental concerns, but apparently not Obama!

Fumes from refineries, factories and utilities account for about a quarter of man-made emissions in the U.S. that are claimed to be potentially hazardous to human health, the EPA has said. While it’s impossible to estimate the potential cost of new rules the agency may propose, additional pollution controls will add to the cost of making gasoline, said Howard Feldman, the API’s director of regulatory and scientific affairs.

“It’s hard to attribute any final retail price to any specific control but it certainly does impact the cost of manufacturing, which ultimately will impact the cost of fuel,” Feldman said in an interview. It doesn't take an economic genious to realize that any additional costs to the refineries will either be passed on to the consumer, or will force the refinery to shut down!

Limits on carbon dioxide emissions blamed for global warming were adopted by the House on June 26 in a 219-212 vote. ConocoPhillips Chief Executive Officer Jim Mulva said the legislation may lead to the “potential shutdown of refineries and investment and, ultimately, employment.” This will mark the begining of a slide toward a third world power for the once proud USA!

TO DATE OBAMA AND CONGRESS HAVE VIOLATED THE 4TH, 9TH AND 10TH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

The fourth amendment to the Constitution guarantee that contracts legally made are enforceable and non-violate. When Obama and his henchman the Car Czar put the interests of the auto workers union before the interests of the bond holders of Chrysler corporation, he violated the fourth amendment of the Constitution.
Thus began the litany of violations of the oath of office of the President that includes the duty to uphold and defend the Constitution!

The 4Th amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.The key word is "seizures". By putting the Union ahead of the bond holders . Obama in effect seized the bonds out of the hands of their lawful owners and gave the rights intrinsic in the bonds to the union!


In the House bill, the health insurance exchange, governed by a commissioner, would be a national institution and function as a powerful regulatory agency. Combined with federal benefit setting and a public plan, it would effectively limit personal choice and reduce competition, as the federal government would erode private coverage and limit the kind of plans that could enter and compete in the market. States could only set up a state-based exchange with federal permission.

Under the House bill, Congress would not forge a federal-state partnership; rather, it would enact federal domination of the states. It would also undermine, not advance, state innovation in the provision of new health insurance options.

Contrary to the House sponsors' claims, it is hard to imagine a "level playing field" where Congress creates a special government plan to compete against private health plans while also creating the rules for its competitors.

The 9TH amendment states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And the 10TH amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.In plain English this amendment to the Constitution says that the Federal government should not abrogate the God given rights that are too numerous to list.
The 10th specifically states that if the Constitution does not delegate to the President, Congress or the Supreme Court the right to carry out specific duties. It is the States rights that apply.

The 10TH amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.Source: Wikapedia


No where in the Constitution is there a listing of the right of the Federal Government to decide who shall treat a citizen who is sick, or to limit the treatment for the individual for the sake of saving money or to gain power over the citizens.The Obama and Congressional Health plans are nothing less than a power grab of socialistic proportions!

While the House bill would set up an account within the Treasury for the deposit of start up funds and premiums, the bill would also require taxpayers to retain the risks and depend on Congressional restraint in the appropriation of additional taxpayer funds for the public plan. In light of recent Congressional bailouts of automakers and financial institutions, belief in such restraint would amount to a triumph of imagination over experience.

And if the fact that the Federal govt. has no constitutional right to enact a universal health care scheme. This fact may be enough to convince open minded people that all the proises and statements that this debacle can be funded by taxing only the rich is a lie. Consider this. "When Medicare was set up in 1965, the politicians projected its cost in 1990 to be $3 billion -- which is equivalent to $12 billion when adjusted for inflation to 1990 dollars. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion -- eight times as much." Source:Patriot Post

UNION SPOILS SYSTEM REARS IT'S UGLY HEAD!!

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

The best chance for compromise legislation on health care may be a plan under construction in the Senate Finance Committee that would pay for a public plan in part by taxing some worker health benefits.

But the union workers who helped Democrats win Congress and the White House and whose support will be key in getting a health bill signed into law would not pay the tax.

With cost estimates already as high as $1.6 trillion, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., has proposed paying for the bill in part by taxing health care benefits for workers who earn more than $100,000, or $200,000 for married couples, according to those familiar with the discussions.Just like all taxes they will begin taxing only those earning over 100K, but when they admit the tax reciepts will not bring in enough money. They will report the crisis as a threat to the health plan now in force, and tax all wage earners!

Baucus is also weighing a tax based on the value of health care benefits that exceed a yet-to-be determined cap. A tax on benefits that exceed the cap by a mere $3,000 could amount to $750 in taxes annually for a worker who earns as little as $34,000, say experts.
The key words are " not yet determined". They are asking us to buy a "pig in a Polk"!

But those union members serving under collective bargaining agreements would not be subjected to the tax, according to proposals under discussion. Another pay off to the Union movement. Are Americans ready to accept this pay off to unions?

Union workers enjoy some of the most extensive and costliest health benefits, and union officials complained their members would be unfairly burdened by a health care tax because their contracts cannot be changed quickly enough to avoid it. This is an absurd claim made by the group that was necessary in the days of Samuel Gompers, but has made the Auto Industry and many others non-competative due to their absured salary and bnefit demands.This is no more or no less than a payoff for poiltical support in the last two elections!

Union members represent one of the biggest and most powerful Democratic constituencies and their support of any health care reform proposal is viewed as essential to getting a bill passed in Congress.Who is the Congress of the United States responsible to the general population, or the Unions?

Baucus has proposed the tax threshold on health care benefits be set higher than the cost of policies available to federal employees and he has proposed exempting until 2013 those plans negotiated as part of union contracts.

“It’s a means of making sure that unions are foursquare behind any reform bill that comes out,” said Henry Aaron, a health care policy expert at Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

I believe the Baucus proposal to exempt unions from a health care benefits tax ,could be used to lure into unions employees who are anxious to avoid the benefits tax.Another unintended perk for a select group that is not available to the general population.

President-elect Obama during his campaign pledged to build a health care system in which Americans can be assured of access to affordable health insurance. He guaranteed Americans who already have insurance that nothing would change except that their coverage would be less expensive. He pointed to the health system that Members of Congress have as your model for expanding coverage. And he agreed that choice of doctor and care is a basic principle. These laudable themes struck a chord with Americans.But it appears to be just another lie that Obama is telling to the guilable American public.

Even worse than congressionally mandated benefits would be mandatory coverage designed by the powerful Federal Health Board proposed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, former Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD). Daschle envisions a remote board of "experts," perhaps modeled on the Federal Reserve Board. This board, he says, would be "insulated from politics. Congress and the White House would relinquish some of their health-policy decisions to it." Shielded from public opinion and from representative government, it would have "teeth," says Daschle, potentially deciding such things as premiums and appropriate services, and "all federal programs would have to abide by [its recommendations]." He also imagines that the board would "link the tax exclusion for health insurance to insurance that complies with the Board's recommendations."

Tom Daschle's Federal Health Board would have enormous power over medical decisions affecting every American. This is unacceptable, and would break Obama's pledge to give Americans choice. This scheme should be rejected!!
Source: Thomas Sowell

THE CAP AND TRADE SCAM OF THE CENTURY

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan
Despite the fact that Obama campaigned on having an open and transparent administration when elected. This president has been anything but open in the way he "governs" the administration. He and his fellow travelers have passed two bills that no one got to read, and to add insult to injury. The Democrats added 300 pages to the already 1000 plus Cap and Trade bill in the dead of night. And when a group of Republicans asked to have a copy of the additional pages they were denied the pages!

Obama has appointed 14 Czars without consulting Congress, and made them his private sub-cabinet, responsible to no one but him! He violated the 4TH amendment of the Constitution when he put the auto workers union interests before the interests of the Bond holders when he reorganized the Chrysler auto bankruptcy. In my mind an impeachable offense that will never happen.

So it is not surprising that his administration suppressed a report that would have influenced the close vote on Cap and Trade in the House of Representatives.

Ben Lieberman, produced a stellar paper on the Cap and Trade bill. Based on available evidence and analysis, Lieberman concludes 'that both the seriousness and imminence of anthropogenic global warming has been overstated.' But even if we assume the problem is as bad as the hysterics claim, the proposed bill 'would have a trivial impact on future concentrations of greenhouse gases.
The bill would reduce the earth's future temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degree C by 2100, an amount too small to even notice.

The bill would bind only the U.S., not other nations, many of which, like China, are 'polluting' at a record pace. Also note that many European nations that have already imposed similar emissions restrictions have seen their emissions rise. But what would the costs be for this quixotic legislative paean to earth goddess Gaia? Contrary to the flawed analyses being advanced by the bill's proponents, Heritage estimates that the direct costs would be an average of $829 per year for a household of four, totaling $20,000 between 2012 and 2035. But when considering the total cost as reflected in the cost of allocations and offsets, the average cost to that family unit would be $2,979 annually from 2012 to 2035. Adding insult and hypocrisy to injury, the bill would hurt the poor the worst because they would bear a disproportionate burden of the higher energy costs the bill would trigger. Now here's the kicker. The bill is also projected to harm the manufacturing sector and cause estimated 'net' job losses, averaging about 1.15 million between 2012 and 2030. The overall gross domestic product losses would average $393 billion per year from 2012 to 2035, and the cumulative loss in gross domestic product would be $9.4 trillion by 2035. The national debt for a family of four would increase by $115,000 by 2035. Enough already. Throw the bums out." Source: David Limbaugh

If that is not enough to make your head spin think on this. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote, "As I watched the (global warming) deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason -- treason against the planet."Sounds like a writer for Nazi Germany in 1939!
Don't get me wrong. It's not really newsworthy when leftists incline toward criminalizing their political opponents. Both Krugman and his colleague Frank Rich wrote columns last month essentially blaming President Barack Obama's critics for the murders of abortion doctor George Tiller and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum security guard.

While President Obama says that global warming "science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear" and Krugman says the "warming deniers" have "contempt for hard science," the record reveals a different story. If anyone has contempt for hard science, it is the Krugman leftists, who, either because of their political agenda or ideological predispositions, refuse to acknowledge -- let alone consider -- opposing opinions, even when they come from "hard scientists."

One way they deal with the very real fact that there is significant opposition to their dogmatic conclusions is to personally attack their opponents, usually saying evil corporations with vested interests in destroying the planet have bought them off. Just as often, they simply out-yell, ridicule, ignore or attempt to silence them. Remember when MIT's Richard Lindzen acknowledged that many scientists refuse to publicize their dissent to make "their lives easier"?

I would like to know how Krugman and Obama would explain away the fact that more than 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a petition urging the United States government to reject the global warming agreement known as Kyoto -- "and any other similar proposals" -- because the "the proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind." Another 100 scientists have endorsed a newspaper ad by the Cato Institute challenging the president's "facts" on global warming.

But these authoritarian leftists don't just scoff at the hard science contradicting their conclusions about global warming and the extent to which man is contributing to it. In their close-minded arrogance, they completely ignore any scientific inquiry into whether cap and trade legislation would have any appreciable impact on the alleged problems.

But if they are so sure of their scientific position, why are we reading reports from the CBS Political Hotsheet, that "the Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages"?

That's correct! the Hotsheet reports that "less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty 'decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.'"

So much for honesty and transparency in the Obama administration. It is past time that Americans wake up and realize that Obama is He## bent on destroying the Capitalist system and our freedoms so he can have better America. A socialist one!!

IS HOLBROOKES DECISION O.K. WITH OBAMA?

The Obama administration has been busy reversing or nullifying most of ex-president Bush's policies, but the latest decision by the US envoy to Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke to stop destroying the poppy fields has me wondering if this decision came down from the Oval Office in D.C., or was it a unilateral decision by Holbrooke?

If Holbrooke made the decision he should be removed from his position as envoy, but if Obama directed him to stop the eradication of the poppy fields, that produce a major portion of the heroine that is sold on the streets of the USA. Then an investigation should be begun on the reasons why Obama decided to stop destroying these field of misery and death! Who put pressure on Obama to stop doing what stops heroine producing at the source?

The London Telegraph has a story on the Net today that explains Great Britain's decision to continue eradication of the poppy fields despite the decision by Holbrooke.

The British Government said destroying poppy fields remained a key deterrent to growers and one of the "seven pillars" of its anti-opium strategy in Helmand province, just a day after Richard Holbrooke, the US envoy to Afghanistan, said that destroying the crop only drove poor farmers to join the insurgency.

In a reversal of policy, he said the United States would stop funding poppy eradication and instead concentrate on encouraging farmers to grow alternative crops.It sounds to me like one of the continuing policies of the erudyte talker we elected a president, who thinks we can talk anyone out of doing things we percieve as bad.
It is a fallacious argument, and planting agricultural products is a lot harder and requires proper cultivation. Whereas the planting of poppies is a simple and money making crop the Afgans have been doing for decades. I doubt talking will make them change. Destroying the crops make sure that the heroine does not get made, and the Britts realize that!

The Afghan government backed Britain's stance and defended its previous efforts, which relied heavily on ripping up or flattening poppy plants, as "perfect

General Khodaidad, Afghan minister for counter narcotics, said his strategy had been "the right path".

"We are happy with our strategy and we are working according to our strategy. I don't see any deficiencies in our strategy, our strategy is perfect, our strategy is good."

Mr Holbrooke's reversal is the latest change in policy as the US struggles to stem a growing Taliban-led insurgency.Unfortunately the only way to stop the Taliban is to kill as many as we can. Talking and teaching them to grow crops will not stop those who hate us from trying to kill us. All out war including destruction of towns and hamlets that are known hiding places of Taliban leaders must be done! Else we are fighting a war of attrition like Viet Nam, and should leave for home now!

Ten thousand US troops have arrived in Helmand this month with commanders admitting overstretched British troops are at a "stalemate".

International governments have repeatedly disagreed on how to tackle Afghanistan's rampant opium business which supplies more than 90 per cent of the world's heroin and feeds hundreds of millions of dollars to insurgent fighters.

Britain and other Nato allies strongly opposed former US plans to destroy poppies with crop-spraying planes saying it would only strengthen the increasing insurgency.

Mr Holbrooke, speaking at a Group of Eight summit dedicated to Afghanistan, said he now felt eradication was "a waste of money". He said it "might destroy some acreage, but it didn't reduce the amount of money the Taliban got by one dollar".

He added: "The farmers are not our enemy, they're just growing a crop to make a living. It's the drug system. So the US policy was driving people into the hands of the Taliban."

Britain leads international reconstruction efforts in Helmand province, where 60 per cent of the Afghan opium crop is produced.

The British government is spending more than £290 million on a three-year-programme of eradication, support for farmers and pursuit of drug barons and traffickers.

And the British have good reason to want to eradicate thepoppy fields.According to the NHS report, most new heroin users are aged 18 to 35, but a significant number are between 14 and 16.
In some areas, children between 10 and 12 have even been trying the drug.
Heroin use is spreading out of inner cities across the country due to cheap and easily available supplies, said the report.
Users are both smoking the drug and injecting it.

British officials denied there was tension with the US over the policy change and said the detail had not been decided.But they made the right decision!

A spokeswoman at the Department for International Development said: "Eradication is a key part because of the deterrent effect, not because we are going to destroy the whole crop." She said eradication targeted big growers rather than poverty-stricken small farmers.
What I want to know is why did we change our policy. The reason that they will join the Taliban if we destroy their crop of poppies doesn't wash. What are they using as statistics to back up their disastrous decision to stop eradication?