About Me

Name: Bob Wood aka...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Cap and Tax: 'A pile of s--t' - Boehner

Updated: 06/30/09  (See Below)

On Friday evening, despite the Capital switchboard being clogged with callers (voters) urging their Congressmen to vote no, the House of non-representative Representatives voted 219-212 to pass the "American Clean Energy and Security Act."  I challenge anyone to tell me how this bill provides either.  Eight Republicans voted for this nonsense, while 44 Democrats voted against it.  Without those eight Republican votes, this bill wold have been defeated.

Thanks to Mark Levin, I finally discovered the identities of The 8 Republicans Who Gave America the Finger.

Quote:
The eight who voted for cap and trade are:
    Bono Mack (CA) 202-225-5330
    Castle (DE) 202-225-4165
    Kirk (IL) 202-225-4835
    Lance (NJ) 202-225-5361
    Lobiondo (NJ) 202-225-6572
    McHugh (NY) 202-225-4611
    Reichart (WA) 202-225-7761
    Chris Smith (NJ) 202-225-3765

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA, chairman of the committe that prepared the 900-page bill, admitted a week ago that he had no clue what was in the bill.  And he is the committee chairman.  And then at 3:09 am on Friday, the Democrats dump a 300-page Amendment to the bill in the hopper.  No Congressman has had an opportunity to read this 1200-page bill prior to voting on it.  That is pretty much the way the Democrats seem to be running the Peoples' House these days.
 
GOP Minority Leader Congressman John Boehner, after speaking for an hour on the House floor against it, weighed in and called this legislation exactly what it is. 

Boehner: Climate bill a 'pile of s--t'


First, the Democrat leadership morons (Pelosi, Reid, Obama, their Democrat minions and the eight Republicans named above) think that there is a problem with carbon dioxide levels, even though there is no scientific evidence. Are they so ignorant that they don't realize that our entire world and everything in it is carbon-based?

Second, the Democrat leadership morons think that the earth is getting warmer, even though there is no scientific evidence.  Investor's Business Daily quotes a previously suppressed EPA report that says the UN was wrong on global warming.
"Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."
Third, the Democrat leadership morons think that man (and let's not leave out woman, to be politically correct) can actually do something to affect these non-existent problems, unless we want to regulate the sun.  Quoting the EPA report further:
"A new 2009 paper by Scafetta and West," the report says, "suggests that the  United Nations' IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) used faulty solar data in dismissing the direct effect of solar variability on global temperatures. Their report suggests that solar variability could account for up to 68% of the increase in Earth's global temperatures."
The UN got it wrong by leaving out relevent data?  They wouldn't do that, would they?
Fourth, the Democrat leadership morons' solution involves making every American pay more for electricity, more for gasoline, more for natural gas, and more for every product that relies on these resources for its manufacuring and distribution. The cost of all four of these categories of items that we use every day will be further increased by the do-nothing accounting the gubmint will require to track "carbon offsets."

Fifth, the Democrat leadership morons' solution must create an agency to monitor "trades" of so-called "carbon credits" between various entities. More taxpayer dollars to pay for this new agency and all of its bureaucrats.

Sixth, the Democrat leadership morons actually think that overnight they can replace proven technology which made the United States the most advanced civilization on the planet with wind, solar, and battery technology which is not yet fully developed and needs time to be perfected.

All of this is supposed to be designed to reduce a problem which science says doesn't exist and in President Obama's words to "reduce our dependence on foreign oil." What a 'pile of s--t', to quote Leader Boehner.

Let's make a tangential shift of gears here.  If you want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, the answer is as simple as "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less."

If The Chosen One would just read a few choice words from his TelePrompTer stating that we were opening ANWR to oil drilling tomorrow, the price of oil on the world market would drop like a rock starting on Monday, and the price of gasoline at the pump would be below $1.75 per gallon by Labor Day, and still dropping. The United States is sitting on more oil than we can use in at least the next sixty years. Same goes for natural gas. (Thank you, Gov. Sarah Palin for getting construction started on that natural gas pipeline and getting Exxon-Mobil involved along with your Canadian partners.  For thirty years, politicians could not get this thing going, but you did it in just over two years as Governor.)

If PrezBHO were not so hell-bent on destroying the coal industry, he would find that the use of coal - one of our most abundant natural resources - is already much cleaner than it was just a few years ago. But The Anointed One knows a better way, having been schooled by the Saul Alinsky's and Bill Ayers' of the world. In order to have a "transformed" America, he must first destroy everything American that has been built over 200 years.

Congressman Boehner is absolutely correct about this bill. Let's hope and pray that the Senate kills it, as it should.

Do you want an energy policy that makes sense?

TrekTek's Energy Policy
    • Give ANWR back to Alaska, and free the State of Alaska to drill.
    • Open the Continental Shelf and give authority over it to the adjacent states.
    • With these two steps accomplished, the states can open bidding for drilling rights to United States oil and natural gas producers.
    • Eliminate the red tape that is keeping new refineries from being built in the United States.
    • Eliminate the red tape keeping electric utilities from building the cleanest and cheapest form of electricity production - nuclear power plants. (The biggest expense in money and time currently is compliance with the paperwork requirements just to build the damn things - not to run them!)
    • Provide appropriate tax credits to individuals and/or companies doing research into alternate energy sources, including battery systems.
    • Repeal all CAFE standards on the auto manufacturing industry.
The result would be a drastic reduction of foreign oil prices, employment of Americans to provide for their own requirements (not to mention a reduction of unemployment), and the eventual bankruptcy of those foreign nations that seek to control our economy. And that is the kind of platform the Republicans should run against the current crop of Democrats in the majority who are destroying our country with every new massive legislative bill they craft and then pass without reading.

This can not continue indefinitely.
 
UPDATE - 06/30/09
 
Henry Waxman, D-CA, weighs in on the Crap and Tax bill he crafted:

Waxman: GOP "Rooting Against Country" Because Of Energy Bill Vote

What a set of cajones this guy must have, accusing the Republicans of doing exactly what the Democrats did in trying to stifle every move of the Bush Administration to wage the War on Terrorists. Does he not remember that it was Democrats that tried to withhold funding from the troops in an effort to bring them home early? Give me a break! I remember!

Quote:
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) on Republicans voting against the energy plan and Rep. John Boehner's comments on the House floor Friday evening: "They [Republicans] want to play politics and see if they can keep any achievements from being accomplished that may be beneficial to the Democrats. They're rooting against the country and I think in this case, even rooting against the world because the world needs to get its act together to stop global warming."

And the Energy Czar hasn't read the bill.

Energy Czar Carol Browner Hasn't Read Cap & Trade Bill

Quote:
“I’ve read vast portions of it.” Vast portions? That would put her ahead of the Congressional curve, where 219 people — including eight Republicans who made the difference — voted for it without reading it at all. We know that because the House never produced a complete, up-to-date, and integrated copy of the bill to its members before the vote took place. - Ed Morrissey

Nothing like being an informed public official...  And that is the problem with all of these "czars" that have been created and appointed by The Annointed One without any Congressional oversight.  They are so well-qualified and well-informed.  Oh, and well paid, with our tax dollars...
What do you think?

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Comments about Bankrupting Coal Industry (UPDATED)

Obama Called Out for Comments about Bankrupting Coal Industry

Quote:
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (WSAZ) -- With only hours before election day, coal has become a major topic of Decision 2008.

Sunday an audiotape surfaced from an interview Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama did with the San Francisco Chronicle in January.

In the interview, Obama talks about the importance of coal. He went on to talk about his cap and trade proposal to help curb global warming.

"If somebody wants to build a coal power plant they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted," Barack Obama said to the San Francisco Chronicle in January.
 


 
This would be bad news for Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. And although he made those statements in January, they are just being reported now - two days before the election?

Where is the MSM? 

{Oh, yeah! In the tank!}

Quote:
The Obama campaign says the quote is being taken out of context and that Obama is actually from a coal state and is a strong supporter of the industry.

The campaign sent a statement today saying "the point Obama is making is that we need a transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies."

Talk about trying to have it both ways! It's a wonder this campaign doesn't have a permanent case of whiplash!

But is he being quoted out of context? ABC's Jake Tapper has the answer:

Quote:
Here’s the entirety of Obama’s remarks:

“I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote -- despite the fact that I’m a coal state and that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical.

“But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then we’re gonna still be working on alternatives.

“But ... let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal -- I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it, that I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal.

“The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we’re picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.”

Yes. Obama plans to "fine" the "polluters" (power companies) heavily which will do two things:
    • Make electricity more expensive to everyone.
    • Increase the likelihood of "rolling brownouts."
Just remember, when you tax something, you get less of it. If you like the fact that the light comes on when you flip the switch, Obama is definitely not for you!  And he wants us all to be driving electric cars.  Just how does he think we are going to charge the batteries.

And he won't let us build nuclear power plants, and that is the safest, cleanest form of energy production available. The United States Navy has safely deployed nuclear-powered aircraft carriers - the biggest ships in the fleet - around the world for fifty years.  And now, the Navy is planning to build and deploy nuclear-powered destroyers and battleships because...  It does not make sense that the central ship in a battle group only needs refueling every 30 years, and the support ships are running on convential fuels that must be replenished much more often.  (But that is probably part of Barney Frank's 25% cut in the military budget.)

And there are people planning to vote for Obama? How much evidence of the harm he can do is necessary?
 
UPDATE:
Here's the video of the entire Obama statement:
 
 
I can only marvel at the smoothness with which this man can say nothing that makes any sense.
As always, I welcome your comments...
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »