Attend climate debate 4/8

Centennial Institute, Colorado Christian University’s public policy think tank, invites you to attend a debate on “Global Warming: Is the Kyoto Agenda Warranted?” James White of CU-Boulder says yes. Christopher Horner of CEI in Washington says no. They will face off at 730pm on Wednesday, April 8, at the Lakewood Cultural Center, 470 S. Allison Parkway, Lakewood, CO. The two sides on global warming don’t often directly engage, so this will be a notable occasion for civic dialogue. Tickets are free but space is limited. Click here for reservations. Then read below for details.

The Issue

The Kyoto Agenda to address alleged global warming is contained in the 1997 treaty of that name which has been ratified by 183 countries – but not the United States. The agenda involves overall reduction of worldwide carbon emissions by about 5% from 1990 levels. The proposed cap-and-trade bill in Congress is President Obama's response to the Kyoto Agenda. Proponents warn of catastrophic harm to ecosystems and human civilization if Kyoto is not implemented quickly and fully. Opponents argue that implementing Kyoto would hurt the poor by slowing economic growth while only negligibly reducing temperature increases (if any; they cite data that global cooling has begun). What does the data say? What should be done?

The Forum

Two nationally respected scholars on global climate issues – Dr. James White, Director of INSTAAR at University of Colorado-Boulder, and Christopher Horner, Fellow at Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. – will debate this important topic. The Kyoto question is not often argued head-to-head as a result of former Vice President Al Gore and other proponents insisting the time for discussion is over; the time for action is now. The Centennial Institute and CCU, as seekers of truth, believe that free inquiry and debate in human affairs are never out of order. Our April 8 forum is offered in that spirit.

The debate is open to the public and free of charge, but space is limited. to reserve seats for the debate call 303-963-3424 or e-mail Centennial@ccu.edu.

Three threats to our liberties from BHO

After considering Obama's campaign promises and policy statements, one can make these disturbing prognostications. They are related and inescapable if we are to believe what the President-elect and Democratic Leadership claim as their goals. I believe them. Number 1. Criminalize fee for service. Universal health care has implications and consequences that are seen and unseen. Adding the claimed 47 million "uninsured" to our non-emergency system will dictate rationing of care and when any service is rationed, wealth and power work to over come the ration. Politicians will not participate in the rationing of care so only wealth will remain as an alternative mechanism. Prevention of that option requires that the government criminalize the acquisition of medical services by those with the ability to pay. As soon as universal health care is crafted by Congress, hidden within will be the end of American medical excellence.

Number 2. When President Obama signs into law the rebuilding of our nation's interstate highway system he will include a user fee technology that will tax all private cars based upon highway miles and mpg. The case will be made that global climate change and auto industry bailout mandates dramatic action to change our methods of travel and private automobile use. Technology will give the Federal government the option of tracking every mile of interstate highway and transferring a tax statement to private car on the system. Gone will be the free movement of Americans across our own land.

Number 3. Global warming is a fraud. It is not happening. Debate would demonstrate that but the forces of President Obama will foresware any and all debate. They will claim debate has been heard and time is now. Carbon Cap and Trade will be installed. With that Federal mandate, 5 million new "green" jobs will be required as union employees and they will be a voting block directly attached to the fraud of green house gas. With 5 million additional votes there will be no option for coming national elections. The governing class will be forever installed.

Beware of cheap gasoline prices

Remember this past summer when gasoline and diesel prices were paralyzing the country? Liberal acquaintances and relatives of mine were screaming that, as usual, it was entirely the fault of Bush/Cheney. After all, they both are oil barons, on the receiving end of bucket loads of money at our expense, right? These same folks were completely unmoved a couple weeks before the election when a very select few media sources released the Obama statements that anybody could go ahead and build a coal energy plant if they chose, but he'd bankrupt them with taxes and regulation. A few people talked about the devastation such an energy policy would create---trickle down job losses in trucking, railroad, etc. (similar to what we hear now about the auto industry). There was no outrage or debate in the halls of Congress. Unfortunately, the top leadership of the coal and electric industries did not race to microphones to plead with the American people to stop the coming doom. If my memory serves me correctly, I did not hear any labor union executives speaking out about pending loss of jobs and benefits. Instead, we witnessed another crucial element that in a normal cycle would have turned the election.

Fuel prices are back to a reasonable, and for most, a quite comfortable place. But as many of our fellow citizens are explaining this away as the market reaction to the ousting of the Bush Administration, I fear we are being lulled into a false sense of euphoria in terms of what we pay at the pump.

Post-election, have you noticed the TV commercials on energy? All of them are in compliance, of course, with Sen. Obama's 'energy policy'. There's a crusty old fellow supposedly from Tuscon, Arizona, touting wind and solar, and using folksy rhetoric such as, "God's green acre". Clearly, his message is directed toward the pick-up truck, hick types that according to liberals, aren't smart enough to just quietly follow all phases of the progressive movement in lockstep. This commerical was produced not just to keep momentum going about alternative energy, but it clearly wants to debunk Sarah Palin and the "Drill, Baby, Drill" crowd. They attempt to propagandize us into the belief that real, card-carrying rednecks are onboard for wind and solar. The gentleman in the commercial does everything but tell us, "Fossil fuels are going to heck in a hand basket, don't ya know?"

Another commercial I've seen frequently is the one about clean coal. Viewers are taken on a 'tour' of a clean coal production plant, which is simply barren land with nothing happening on it except the growth of sage brush. Again, this is a slam toward any of us moron's who would like to see the production of clean coal increased. The 'progressive' viewers probably are loving these examples of Hollywood production brillance. Since these commercials are very expensive to put on the air, and since they reflect perfectly the policies of the incoming administration, dare we ask who is behind the funding? There are websites given quickly at the end and you can visit them and read a little bit about the organization, but the bottom line remains---who is really behind the funding?

Current gas prices are a luxury. Congress and the new president seek to gain complete control of Detroit and the automaking industry. They will renew off-shore drilling bans, probably come January (look for that as part of the "First 100 Days" phrase Pelosi loves to use). There will be no exploration, coal mining will be decreased, not increased, the new president will likely carry through on another campaign relevation of having our electricity 'skyrocket', and more. The New, New Deal says nothing about building nuclear plants to get us moving quicker toward cleaner and increased electricity, yet we are all supposed to go buy an electric car as soon as they are mass produced.

Energy independence as defined by the 'moronic' group of which I am a proud member, would mean aggressively going after our massives amounts of coal and oil to sustain our energy needs, and at the same time, integrating alternatives as they become affordable and reliable. I fear the plan is to greatly restrict any fossil fuel usage while we wait for alternatives to come on line. The result would be a vast decrease in commerce and industry. Our way of life would change dramatically and a once great nation would be not just hobbled, but incapacitated. What would our government do without the huge tax receipts from the evil oil companies? If the oil industry is burdened with more and more tax and regulation, they will go the way of the American auto makers.

There are many among us that are full of hope, but I'm more fearful than anything. I foresee $4.00 gallon gasoline again, possibly higher, sooner than later. Don't be fooled into thinking that the federal government is not concerned about the decrease in gas taxes that are a result of this drop in the price of oil. Low gas prices with subsequent freedom to travel, take a job further away from home, etc., are not options the Congressional leadership and incoming administration want we morons to enjoy.

If fossil fuel powered cars are going to soon be a part of the past, and the average family can't afford a pricey electric car, the result will be we either don't go anywhere or we take public transportation. That works if you live in a city where that is available and if government-run transportation happens to go where you need it to go. As the theme song in another commercial goes, "What kind of world do you want.........?"

Dishonest denial of nuclear energy

Denver Post readers were recently treated to some of Ted Turner's advice to Obama ("Address causes of climate change", Nov. 30). Turner wrote as chairman of the United Nations Foundation, which manyColoradans will remember has as its president former U.S. Sen. Tim Wirth (D-CO).

So I went to the foundation's website to see what it has to say about energy. Right at the top is a recent article by Wirth, blather that could have come out of the environmental movement 35 years ago supplemented only by mention of the new bugaboo, that nasty carbon stuff.

In close to 900 words, this man who long ago drank the global warming Kool-Aid never mentions "nuclear." Nuclear-electric power has achieved a safety record unmatched by any other industry since the Industrial Revolution, and the plants do not emit any of the so-called "greenhouse gases" that are blamed (falsely) for global warming (that may no longer be occurring).

Here's the deal: Tim Wirth, Ted Turner, Al Gore, et al, have the resources to know that nuclear energy must be used far more extensively if they are serious about a transition away from fuels that produce carbon dioxide. Until they advocate nuclear energy, their worry about global warming should be considered a flat-out lie and ignored.

Crafty like a fox

After a bit more than a month away from the partisan battles, I'm back in my blogger chair. I've had a chance to ruminate on the 2008 election results, and to my great surprise, the sun continues to rise in the East and set in the West (though I'm sure global warming alarmists will soon say that this, too, is in mortal danger). The real impact, of course, of the decisive Democrat victory won't be seen for years to come. I have to hand it to the President-elect -- he's crafty like a fox. His early appointments were designed to give him cover from attacks from the right, and reflect the sober reality he now faces in dealing with both the financial downturn and the ever-present terrorism and security threat. His appointments of Geithner and Summers were reassuring to the financial markets which are now expecting a high-level of government intervention. For those of us who still believe in free markets, its not good news, of course.

The financial bailout undertaken by the Bush Administration and Paulson/Geithner before the election has ushered in a whole new era of government intrusion into the private sector. And Barack Obama, with his predilection for "spreading the wealth around" is just the guy to take maximum advantage of it. The government will own banks, auto makers and insurance companies before it is all through -- and tax payers will be on the hook for it all in the end.

Of course, Obama's early appointments don't give a full picture of what is yet come -- for his next appointments will surely be grist for the far left of the party, still smarting over Obama's decision to keep Bush Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Interior, Energy, EPA -- all of these will be given to a left-wing ideologue who will seek to roll back environmental regulations in pursuit of greenhouse gas restrictions. All that "Drill here, Drill now"? You can forget about all that; now that gas is back to $1.50 a gallon, you can bet we'll be returning to the days of alternative energy investments and ever stricter emission standards -- all just as the auto makers are seeking a multi-billion bailout. Makes no sense -- but, then again, the global warming religion is based on faith, not facts.

Take a look at this piece in the Wall Street Journal -- a great example of the above:

Mr. Obama...(is) a student of the late radical thinker Saul Alinsky, who argued that you do or say what's necessary in a democracy to gain power, while keeping your true aims to yourself. Mr. Obama's novel contribution has been to turn this exploitation on his supporters on the left (who admittedly are so wedded to their hero that, so far, they don't seem to mind).

His next big challenge is an upcoming conference updating the Kyoto targets. Mr. Obama has not backed off his overwrought climate rhetoric, but listen carefully to Al Gore. Now that Democrats are on the verge of power, he's backing off cap-and-trade and carbon-tax proposals (i.e. visible energy price hikes for consumers) in favor of a new approach -- massive government subsidies for 'green technology'.

That's right -- open up the spigot. As long as we're spending a few $Trillion on the banks, bad mortgages and all, why not throw a few tens-of-billions at alternative energy? Start the presses! It's only paper, after all!!

In the end, of course, there will be a limit to all this largesse -- and it will come when taxes rise to support the massive debt we are now taking on for our children to deal with. Remember when "balanced budget" was the cry in Washington? Those days are long, long gone. In its place we have socialism in all its European glory.

And of course, don't forget health care -- the next great socialist experiment that is coming your way, like it or not. As the WSJ again shows in a brilliant editorial today, Tom Daschle is going to reform your health care -- like it or not:

Tom Daschle, the former Senate Majority Leader who Barack Obama has tapped to run Health and Human Services. "I think that ideological differences and disputes over policy weren't really to blame," he writes of 1994 in his book "Critical," published earlier this year. Despite "a general agreement on basic reform principles," the Clintons botched the political timing by focusing on the budget, trade and other priorities before HillaryCare.

President-elect Obama will not make the same mistake. Congressional Democrats are already deep into the legislative weeds, while Mr. Daschle is organizing the interest groups and a grassroots lobbying effort. Mr. Obama may be gesturing at a more centrist direction in economics and national security, but health care is where he seems bent on pleasing the political left.

According to Mr. Daschle, because of the Clintons' hesitation, "reform opponents succeeded in confusing and even frightening Americans about what change might mean," and this time the Democrats mean to define the debate. Consider the December 2 letter to us from Senator Max Baucus, who is upset that a recent editorial on his health-care plan did not use his favorite terms of art (his style being surrealism). "It will require affordability, but premiums will not be set," he writes. So the government will merely determine "affordability" -- which might as well be the same thing.

You see the pattern here: the issue in health care reform is style, not substance. Forget any discussion of the merits, the 1993 initiative failed because it wasn't sold properly, not because there are any inherent flaws in the concept. And lest you think that there will be proper study and debate before such a bill reaches the President's desk for signature, think again -- for the Democrats, so sure are they in the righteous of their cause, aren't wasting any time:

Most disturbingly, Democrats are talking up "budget reconciliation" to pass a health overhaul. This process was created in 1974 and allows legislation dealing with government finances to be whisked through Congress on a simple majority after 20 hours of debate. In other words, it cuts out the minority by precluding a filibuster. Mr. Daschle writes that reform "is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol," and Mr. Baucus has said he's open to the option.

Any taxpayer commitment this large ought to require a social consensus reflected in large majorities, but Democrats are determined to plow ahead anyway. They know that a health-care entitlement for the middle class will never be removed once it is in place; and that government will then dominate American health-care choices for decades to come. That's all the more reason for the recumbent GOP to get its act together.

Like Saul Alinsky and the other radicals in Obama's background, the ends always justifies the means. Ram it through at all costs -- the goal of social justice can't be hung up on the niceties of dissent and debate.

Yes, elections have repercussions. And this one more than most.

As I've said many times, folks: Hang on to your wallets!