Another liberal mantra is the horrors of carbon dioxide and the fiendish things it does to the global atmosphere. What it actually does is increase the flora, which then increases the oxygen level as oxygen is a waste product of photosynthesis. As the fauna increases, the general health of the planet is improved.
Even if man could do something to “help” the “situation,” the certified climatologists indicate that it would take 1,000 years for there to be even an infinitesimal change. These same genuine climatologists tell us that the real villain in climate change/control is the activity of the sun. As the sun heats up one area of the Pacific, or if this same area cools slightly, then there is a resultant change in the weather. The liberals would have us believe:
1. The earth has never had a warming trend before; therefore, coal and oil in the poles just cannot exist.
2. The earth has never had a cooling trend; mastodons and their cousins just devised a cunning way to freeze themselves instantly.
3. Polar bears did not survive through this fictitious global warming trend or they came into being after that trend and key holed their arrival with the cooling trend that never happened after the warming trend that never happened.
4. Montana was never really a tropical inland sea area. Someone just snuck in all of those shells and fossils, not to mention all of the remains of the giant lizards in the dino family. One could go on and on, but you get the point.
It seems every time someone devises an alternate energy device someone else starts screaming that it is going to ruin the planet. Wind farms, for example, are sources of absolutely clean energy production. But the liberals/environmentalists start screeching that these farms will damage the pristine landscape.
Solar furnaces, such as the Sandia Laboratories, are capable of producing massive amounts of clean energy and they are shot down. Tidal currents are also a source of “free” energy. The list goes on and on and every suggestion is bad mouthed by one group or the other.
If we can use fossil energy, and they hate alternative energy sources, just what do they expect the people to do? It is rather like the enviro group who lobbied for use of the small fluorescent lights and now there is a problem with disposing with the mercury. Anyone want to shoot themselves in the foot?
Last Updated on Friday, 03 August 2012 12:43
America has a history of being known as a bastion of economic development and innovation. We have been known for what we produce, and the pride that we take in producing it. But we have veered away from being known as a producer and have instead become a nation of consumers — especially in regards to the one product that we depend on most, our energy.
The primary cause of our increasing dependence on foreign nations to meet U.S. energy demands is our own government policies. It is largely the shifts in tax code, the burdensome regulations, and the government red tape that have made it more difficult to develop our energy resources in a way that will allow us to lessen our dependency on our adversaries abroad.
Constant changes and increases in energy tax policy like the recent proposals to change the application of tax code Section 199 and the elimination of the dual capacity tax credit for members of the American energy industry are prime examples of what is making it so difficult to achieve energy independence.
Section 199 of the tax code allows businesses to utilize tax deductions for business expenses. A wide range of businesses in the United States benefit from this deduction, but the Obama administration is seeking to exclude American energy producers from benefiting from this provision. By doing this, President Obama is not only undermining one of the largest and most economically productive industries in the United States but is creating the very same high energy prices for which he attempts to blame our American energy producers.
Yet another punitive tax measure facing American energy companies is the elimination of the dual capacity tax credit. This specific credit allows American-based businesses that earn income overseas to pay taxes once, rather than having to pay taxes to both the nation where the income was earned as well as to the U.S. In short, it ensures that American companies are not double-taxed.
Taking away the ability of U.S. energy producers to utilize the dual capacity credit would not only cost an estimated 637,000 U.S. jobs, but would increase America’s reliance on foreign nations to meet our increasing energy needs. The dual capacity tax credit is a means of preserving a level playing field for American companies’ when competing with their international counterparts. By eliminating the dual capacity tax credit, President Obama would be giving our foreign competitors the upper hand in the global energy market.
Passing these measures will increase the tax burden on American energy companies, create greater unemployment, and will prolong economic recovery. The repeal of the dual capacity tax credit alone would cost the American economy 637,000 jobs (American Energy Alliance) and over the next 10 years will decrease household earnings by nearly $35 billion.
The bottom line is that if we want our economy to recover, if we want to once again be known as the bastion on economic development, and it we want to create jobs, we cannot continue to allow President Obama and his allies in Congress to continue to tie down American producers and job creators in red tape and tax increases.
Rep. Doug Kary
Last Updated on Friday, 03 August 2012 12:18
I was saddened when I heard that Andy Griffith died. I never used to miss his show when I was a kid. He was a REAL role model for many young people like myself.
Now, the TV shows are about sex, violence, homosexuality, liberalism, anti-Americanism, anti-Christianism, pro-abortionism, etc. Everything except something wholesome and decent for kids to emulate.
They insult your intelligence with shows that say something stupid, and play the laugh machine as if something was funny. I can’t stand to watch this garbage. I usually watch the news, which although it’s controlled by the Democratic party, is informative – if you watch it objectively. And, keep in mind it’s mostly liberal propaganda.
I wish the kids today had a good decent wholesome TV show to watch, like the “Andy Grifffith Show.” I don’t know of one. That is sad.
Andy, may you rest in peace. But, we need you now more than ever.
“Conservative Bill” Ackerley
Last Updated on Friday, 03 August 2012 12:17
Oh, the things we read or hear. In the Quarterly Medical Review, May 17 Outpost, it seems dirt may be good for you. We all know farmers and gardeners love playing in dirt and get some relaxation and health benefits from it.
In the early 1960s, several farmers had dairy cows, sold cream butter and sometimes milk to meet monthly expenses. Those who milked cows were immune to one of the poxes — either chicken or small — cannot remember which. They were exposed to cow pox in the hand milking process, producing an immunity. In the 1970s, “Organic Gardening” had articles against the processing of raw vegetables as they lose nutrients in cooking.
Heard on the radio recently, a study found children in Europe raised on farms had fewer allergies than their town neighbors. Another study found rice RNA in some Asian patients’ livers that attached itself to cancer cells.
Cows lick their noses to get bacteria that help the enzymes digest food in their stomach(s). In our sterile, germ-free environments, are we not creating more problems?
Babies need the bacteria in breast milk. We build up immunity by getting vaccinations or shots of virus, flu and all the childhood bugs. Yet, we can’t be exposed to nature’s enzymes, microbes, bacteria or germs.
I would love to get my hands on raw whole milk, real cream and raw fruits and vegetables.
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 July 2012 23:14
I just received a rebate check in the mail. Why?
Because the 80/20 rule in the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, requires that health insurance companies spend at least 80 percent of their premiums on health care services. Since my insurance company spent only 77 percent in 2011, it must rebate 3 percent of its $26 million of collected premiums back to its customers. The headline for this pleasant surprise should be “Act Already Actually Acting!”
This 80/20 “Medical Loss Ratio” rule is one component of many in the health reform law that earns a high public approval rating. The more that people learn about this legislation, the higher the approval ratings go. A friend just received a preventative care procedure at next to no cost. A neighbor’s daughter, a recent college graduate, can stay on her parents’ plan for a few more years. People with preexisting conditions cannot be turned away, and insurance companies cannot arbitrarily set upper limits on coverage. Millions of people are getting help with their prescription drug expenses. The list goes on.
Eight times as much money was spent demonizing the ACA than was spent promoting it. However, now that we are getting past “death panels,” “socialism,” and “unconstitutional” nonsense, the poll numbers are shifting dramatically. Dennis Rehberg’s claim that the ACA is a threat to Medicare is absurd! His claim is a ruse to deceive senior citizens. Indeed, if he and his ilk had their way, Medicare, Social Security, and every progressive advance of the past two centuries would be compromised – if not eliminated – along with the ACA.
The individual mandate aspect of the ACA was originally a conservative think-tank idea designed to promote personal responsibility. It is the centerpiece of Romneycare in Massachusetts. Now conservatives are railing against it as “a massive tax hike on the middle class.” What hypocrisy!
First of all, the tax is not massive. Second, it’s a payment for which people will receive decent health care coverage. Third, very few citizens will have to pay the so-called tax at all. Finally, tax credits and federal assistance will offset the cost of coverage for those who desperately need help.
The Republican slogan to “repeal and replace” is hollow. THE GOP has no replacement plan. Never did. Never will. Without the ACA, the costs to provide many millions of uninsured with medical treatment would just continue to trickle down to everyone else. So, I’ll toss this bone to the GOP: YOUR TRICKLE-DOWN THEORY DOES WORK – IN THIS CASE.
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 July 2012 23:13