Ideological vendettas cloud rational thinkingabout ‘torture’ techniques

We have been hearing a lot about torture recently, specifically questioning whether the Bush administration employed torture methods against terrorists to extract valuable national security information.

Merriam-Webster defines torture as “the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure.” Another is contained in Article 1 of the Declaration against Torture adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in December 1975, which states: “torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes of obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act he committed, or intimidating him or other persons.”

Historically, torture includes such truly horrible things as boiling, flaying, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement, crushing, stoning, burning, dismemberment, sawing, beating, breaking limbs and bamboo shoots shoved under the fingernails. Is that what is being charged against the Bush administration?

Honestly, hardly any Americans defend the use of torture under any circumstances, and especially as a matter of routine interrogation practice, or against mere “foot soldiers.” A dilemma arises, however, when a terrorist with critical knowledge of planned terrorist attacks, perhaps an imminent attack, is captured; the “ticking bomb” scenario. How can we get that crucial, life-saving information?

The acts that the Bush administration is being pilloried for are 10 things identified in the memos President Obama foolishly declassified and released for everyone in the world to read: wall standing, stress positions, cramped confinement, walling, facial hold, cramped confinement, facial slap, sleep deprivation, attention grasp and water-boarding. These acts don’t result in “severe pain or suffering” or lasting physical or psychological damage, are usually attended by medical personnel to see that the terrorists aren’t harmed, and quite frankly, most of them are no more severe than fraternity initiation pranks and basic military training activities; as far from real torture as Earth is from Pluto.

Imagine asking a victim of impalement just before he expires, “How glad are you that you weren’t subjected to cramped confinement, sleep deprivation or water-boarding instead of merely being impaled on spears?” His likely response, were he able to utter one, would be unprintable.

This is one of an increasing number of topics, like global warming, where ideological zealots have hijacked the debate, and when discussing torture sleep deprivation is equated with flaying and boiling in oil; there is no middle ground. But, calling those 10 things torture is not just inaccurate, it is dishonest.

The word torture must be used accurately, to describe actual torture, not mere discomfort. In the quirky world we live in today sleep deprivation and putting people in stress positions become be equated with disembowelment and sawing someone slowly in half.

It’s a wonderful thing to hold to high-minded ideals, and to place ourselves above such things as torture. But when the chips are down and American lives are in danger, and we have captured someone who has information that can prevent their injury or death, what are the high-minded going to do?

Under the current rules we are allowed to politely ask terrorists something like: “OK, Mr. Terrorist, you know where a bomb is that will kill Americans. If you cooperate and tell us where it is, we’ll go easy on you.” We might even be able to use some intimidation and threats. But if the terrorist answers with something like, “You’ll find out soon enough,” we’ve done all we can do under the rules, and people’s lives are left to the fates.

Some people in this country would be content with that, to let people die without further effort. But if our child or spouse was in danger, most of us — those with a soul — would do whatever it took to get the information, even if it meant water-boarding the terrorist, or actually torturing him. And we wouldn’t bat an eye in doing so, because we want to save our loved one from injury or death; that is more important. We will do well to remember that these techniques worked and prevented several terrorist attacks after 9-11, one of which was in Los Angeles and another in London.

Interestingly, in the memos that tell the world the techniques we used to extract critical information from terrorists, the attacks those techniques prevented are blacked out.

But these are strange times we live in, and there is a faction of Americans who hate George Bush so much that they are willing and eager to prosecute members of his administration for doing things that saved the lives of untold numbers of Americans and other innocents.

Protecting American lives is one of the few legitimate functions of our government, and Barack Obama seems ready to penalize people for actions that were undertaken with the best of intentions to do just that. And so will begin a process of criminalizing the actions of previous administrations that has never been done before in this nation.

And after his presidency, Mr. Obama may find himself looking over his shoulder, and wondering why.

Click Here to Comment

Barack Obama: The vindictive President

The current silliness taking place in the third ring of the circus that is Washington, DC over the Bush administration’s successful efforts to defend the nation against additional terrorist attacks after 9-11-01 would be laughable, were it not so absurd and so un-American.

A very good and on-point analysis of that situation appeared in a recent column by Wesley Pruden, a portion of which follows:

The president's on-again, off-again, maybe-he-will and maybe-he-won't decision to punish someone who loosened tongues of Islamist terrorists at Guantanamo suddenly threatens not only the CIA interrogators and Justice Department lawyers, but even members of Congress. Maybe it won't stop there: if the lawyers who offered legal opinions are at risk of punishment for their legal advice, why not the members of Congress who knew what was going on? Why not the secretaries who typed up the transcripts? Why not the interns who fetched the coffee? All were accessories either before or after the fact.

We're on unfamiliar ground now. No president before has sought to punish his predecessor for policy decisions, no matter how wrong or wrong-headed. Lyndon B. Johnson's management of the Vietnam War was often ham-handed, as anyone who was there could tell you, and his policy makers sometimes verged on criminal incompetence. But Richard Nixon was never tempted to send LBJ or any of those presidential acolytes to prison. Abraham Lincoln, by his lights, would have had ample opportunity to hang Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, but even the rabid Republicans who survived the assassination stopped short of putting Davis in the dock, finally releasing him from imprisonment at Fort Monroe when judgment overcame lust for revenge. Lee was never touched.

Exacting revenge for unpopular policies is the norm in the third world, heretofore more likely in Barack Obama's ancestral Kenya than in America, more in the tradition of gangland Chicago than in Washington, where we count on cooler heads to prevail when raw emotion threatens to overwhelm sobriety and the undisciplined senses. We recall perceived national mistakes with the sadness of regret and even gratitude for lessons learned, not the frenzied catharsis of a St. Valentine's Day Massacre. Mr. Obama, having won the White House fair and square, is entitled to change any presidential policy he chooses, but the vindication of a national election does not entitle any president to exact mindless revenge.

It is getting more and more difficult to endure the Obama presidency without acknowledging the need for numerous impeachments and firings.

Click Here to Comment

Thousands attend hundreds of tea parties; send liberals into a frenzy!

Political protests in the United States are an integral part of the political process, and one of the most famous in our history was the Boston Tea Party in 1773, where colonists dressed up like Indians and threw cases of tea into Boston Harbor to protest a tea tax they felt was unjust. A hundred years later came the protest with the gravest consequences, when six southern states seceded from the Union over issues of state’s rights, leading to the Civil War.

Since then, there have been many protests, against wars, civil rights injustices, and other issues arousing the genuine concerns of a segment of the American people who want their grievances addressed. All of those protests received at least polite and respectful coverage by the media.

Hundreds of “tea party” demonstrations, at least one in every state in the Union, took place Wednesday, April 15, Tax Day. The purpose of these non-partisan demonstrations was to protest what participants regard as misbehavior by our government, its out-of-control spending, and the obscene debt this spending creates. Like other protests in our history, this one was based on the legitimate concerns of many Americans.

Reaction has been heavily polarized: supporters think they are a wonderful demonstration of concern, and opponents are ridiculing them, and the media joined sides with the opponents.

Just when you think the mainstream media has debased itself as much as possible, along comes some new example of further debasement, like when CNN’s Anderson Cooper used a term for a homosexual act to describe the protesters. Proving it can be just as sleazy and disgusting as CNN, MSNBC picked up the slur and used it. What a horrible lesson for budding young journalists.

This reprehensible episode reflects, perhaps better than any so far, just how biased mainstream journalism is, and how unprincipled and unprofessional its purveyors have become. Is it any wonder major newspapers are on the brink of bankruptcy and viewers are leaving the networks and major cable channels in droves?

On the aforementioned MSNBC, one guest said: “Which, let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes … This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of [homosexual act] rednecks. And there is no way around that.”

That analysis was offered by someone named Janeane Garofalo who is reportedly a comedian and former co-host for an unsuccessful radio talk show on the failed Air America network. If you’ve never heard of her, perhaps these comments explain why: she isn’t funny and hasn’t a clue what these tea parties are all about. A typical left-winger, she cannot imagine that intelligent individuals don’t agree with her, and she doesn’t know how to deal with it, except by insulting them. The behavior of liberals like Ms. Garofalo and the inappropriate and dishonest reporting of the media say far more about them than about the protesters and their concerns.

As idiotic and bizarre as the comments of Cooper and Garofalo were, some of the criticism leveled at these festivities is valid. There were some signs on display with crass messages, and children were used in the protests. Children are pawns in such displays; they have no idea what is going on, despite the fact that the debt being run up by our elected leaders will fall on their shoulders.

But for every objectionable message, there was at least one pretty good one. For example, one sign said: “Give me liberty, or give me debt.” Another said: “Liberty! All the stimulus we need.” And there was Ronald Reagan’s great quote: “Government does not solve problems. It subsidizes them.”

By some measures the tea parties were successful. There were hundreds of events, a few of them drew more than 10,000 participants each, and the one in San Antonio drew more than 20, 000. Estimates put the grand total anywhere from 300,000 to more than 750,000, but no total attendance figure has been confirmed.

And, reports say that the gatherings were peaceful and that there was little or no trouble and few if any arrests at the hundreds of sites. That is not always the case when you have a lot of people gathered to protest something.

The best measure of success will be if the demonstrations generate some sort of follow-up activity. Maybe they will produce a response from government, or perhaps they might generate a substantial increase in the number of people who take up the cause.

The tens of thousands of people attending the tea parties believe that it is time to stand up and say “Enough!” to the unprecedented level of encroachment by their government into the lives and business of the people from whom it derives its power. Like their predecessors in 1773 and the other protests throughout history, they’re objecting to the actions of their government, which has become an increasingly out of control, distant, and arrogant federal monstrosity.

And they won’t be shouted down by either a liberal media or intolerant left-wing fanatics.

Click Here to Comment

Intercepted communiqué to Somali pirate leaders

Dear pirates,

We are not at war with pirates. We actually like pirates. We have many sports teams named after pirates. Examples are: the Pittsburgh Pirates; the Tampa Bay Buccaneers; the Oakland Raiders, just to name a few.

We make movies about pirates. You remember “Pirates of the Caribbean?”

This is an unfortunate situation and we will not handle it like the last arrogant administration.

I will be creating a new cabinet position named: "The Initiative to Spread the Maritime Wealth." We will put a key pirate in this position. I am sure, like with other cabinet positions, I will have no problem finding a non-tax paying pirate candidate.

You can be assured that the pirate we captured while we were handling this event will have the best lawyers our taxpayers can afford, and he will have as many rights as our citizens; and the same rights as terrorists.

You can trust me, as I just gave the terrorists these same rights a few weeks ago.

Yours truly,

B. H. Obama,

President

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Piracy, Politics, Democrats

Global Warming is Primarily Caused By...

According to a Rasmussen Poll, one year ago 47 percent of those surveyed believed human activity was the primary cause of global warming, and 34 percent believed planetary trends were the primary cause.

Today, those numbers are reversed, with 48 percent now believing that planetary trends are the primary cause, and the belief for that point of view has been generally growing since last April.

This shift in popular opinion is due to the fact that finally the debate among climate scientists has begun to leak out into the general information pool, regular people are beginning to hear both sides of the story, and they are learning that the global warming fear mongering is so much crap.

However, even as the American people are rejecting the “man causes global warming” theory, the Obama energy plan is firmly grounded in a global warming theory that has been effectively debunked.

Meanwhile the Associated Press has reported two events not comforting to champions of conventional energy production, and the responses to them from the American Petroleum Institute, which follow.

Item I:

AP - A program to expand oil and gas drilling off the Alaska coast has been canceled by a federal appeals court because of environmental concerns.

A three-judge panel in the District of Columbia says the Bush administration's Interior Department failed to consider the offshore environmental impact and marine life before approving an oil and gas leasing program in the Beaufort, Bering, and Chukchi (CHOOK-chee) seas.

API - The American Petroleum Institute is reviewing the implications of the federal appeal court’s decision vacating and remanding the 2007-2012 five-year leasing program.

It would be a disservice to all Americans - and a devastating blow to the economy - if this decision were to delay further the development of vital oil and natural gas resources.

America’s oil and natural gas industry is the backbone of the economy. Development in federal waters off the nation’s coast provides thousands of well-paying jobs, government revenues and the fuel needed to run America’s cars and factories, heat our homes and the feedstock needed to make the materials we use every day."

Item II:

AP - The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare. It is the first step to regulating pollution linked to climate change.

Congressional sources told The Associated Press that EPA will announce its proposed finding Friday and begin a comment period before issuing a final ruling. The EPA also will say tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles contribute to climate change. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the finding hasn't been announced.

The action was prompted by a Supreme Court ruling two years that said greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and must be regulated if found to be a human health danger.

API - The proposed endangerment finding poses an endangerment to the American economy and to every American family. It could lead to greenhouse gas regulations under a law fundamentally ill-suited to addressing the challenge of global climate change. The regulations could impose complex, costly requirements on restaurants, colleges, schools, shopping malls, bakeries and many other businesses and institutions. The Clean Air Act was created to address local and regional air pollution, not the emission of carbon dioxide and other global greenhouse gases.

Click Here to Comment

MSNBC Poll on Barack Obama

Here are the results of a MSNBC Live Vote poll on President Obama right after I voted early this afternoon. The question was: "If you were grading Barack Obama on his performance as president, what would he get?"


With 2,105,016 responses, these were the results:

He gets an A - 28%

He gets a B - 6.1%

He gets a C - 5.6%

He gets a D - 15%

He gets an F - 45%

The link to the poll.

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Obama, Politics, Democrats

Are we witnessing the Europeanization of the United States?

After World War I the Axis powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan were determined to regain or increase their power and control by taking over neighboring countries. They lulled the trusting and peace-obsessed democracies of Western Europe into a false sense of security by promoting themselves as the defense mechanism against Communism. Consequently, the countries of Western Europe paid little attention to the Axis’ early aggressive actions, and before long, they were immersed in World War II.

The Axis brought death and destruction to Europe and the Pacific, and the nations of Western Europe could not stop them. And then in 1941 the Japanese made a crucial mistake and attacked the US Naval base at Pearl Harbor, bringing America into the war. Three years later the US and the Allies ended the war in Europe. The Japanese refused to give up, however, despite the fact that its navy had been decimated in the Pacific. It took the US dropping atomic bombs on two of their cities to convince the Japanese to surrender.

Western Europe was too trusting. It sacrificed its national security for the dream of unattainable peace, and it paid a terrible price for that naïve position.

You might expect that horrible experience to have taught Western Europe to be more vigilant, more sensitive to threats and more protective of their national security. And perhaps things might have worked out that way, had the United States not become the world’s guardian for the next 65 years.

The nation that saved Europe from itself in WWII became the most powerful nation in the world, the nation most responsible for defending the free world from aggression by evildoers. The Europeans, with the exception of our dependable ally Great Britain, were content for the US to defend their interests during the Cold War and against every other threat, while they lived in peace and comfort.

But even as the US protected them, many Europeans resented us. Some observers have suggested that for them to give the United States its due, they would have to admit their own fecklessness, and Europe was much too proud for that.

Since the mid-1940s Europeans have lived in a cozy little world, free of threats from rogue nations, under the protection of the US and NATO. In this soft, comfortable environment, the strong and venerable cultures of Europe have devolved into a secular mush, their natural-born citizens dying away and being replaced with immigrants from the Middle East, some of them militant Islamists. Europe is weak and complacent, unaware of the threats staring it down, unwilling and militarily unprepared to do anything about them once they are recognized.

While Europe condemns us from its position of comfort and security, the US and its few allies are left to protect the world from harm.

But the bad guys are never far away, and as April dawned North Korea, in contravention of a United Nations resolution, threatened to launch a missile supposedly carrying a communications satellite. Experts suspect that they were really testing an ICBM with the capacity to deliver a nuclear warhead to a target thousands of miles away.

And what did the world’s guardian do? Prior to the launch President Obama issued a strongly worded statement warning North Korea to obey the UN resolution. "Rules must be binding,” he said. “Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response."

Predictably, North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong Il, ignored both the UN and the President and launched the missile. And the strong response from the international community, the UN, and the US was … nothing.

As then-vice presidential candidate Joseph Biden said during the campaign, "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they (sic) did John Kennedy. The world is looking.” Mr. Biden’s words are not always so prescient and sensible.

A Rasmussen poll of voters shows that 39 percent are very concerned, and 73 percent are at least somewhat concerned, that once North Korea develops nuclear weapons it will use them against the US. And North Korea’s closest neighbors, Japan, China and South Korea, are very concerned about their security.

Mr. Obama’s recent rhetoric while groveling abroad indicates he views the world more like the Europeans who regard the US with disdain. He is embarrassed by our success and stature in the world, and apologized for it at every stop on his tour. This performance is a dramatic departure from the strong American leaders who built and maintained US dominance, and who successfully opposed threats like the Soviet Union in the Cold War.

Europe is still too complacent to distinguish threats and impotent to do anything about them. The free world cannot survive Barack Obama abandoning the leadership position the United States earned through strength, toughness and sacrifice, and turning it into a European Mini-Me. Too much depends upon the US President knowing how to be strong, understanding why it is important to be strong, and having the courage to be strong.

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: National Security, Politics, America, Liberalism

Environmental debate heats up; global warming fears are melting away

Proponents of man-made global warming say that burning fossil fuels to produce electricity, power manufacturing processes and fuel motor vehicles is seriously harming the environment. However recent evidence shows that to be a flawed theory.

Data show that the Earth cooled last year rather than warmed, following a trend that began in 2000, and in light of this evidence much of the doomsday talk has quieted down. However, while activists still cling to their flawed theory, they have replaced the term “global warming” with “climate change,” using the same theory to now account for any change that occurs, warming or cooling.

Scientists do not speak with one voice on this issue. Ivar Giaever is a Nobel Laureate in Physics, and is one of 650 dissenting scientists who argued against this theory at the United Nations global warming conference in Poland last December. “I am a skeptic,” he said. “Global warming has become a new religion.”

Other opponents have made similar comments, like former NASA official, atmospheric scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, who declared, “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly … As a scientist I remain skeptical.” Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires commented that, “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” Colorado State University hurricane expert William Gray was more direct, calling global warming “a big scam.”

Whether or not man causes atmospheric changes is no mere peripheral argument; a lot hangs in the balance. We must know beyond any reasonable doubt that human activities are actually harming the environment before we take the drastic actions that environmental activists tell us we need to take. We do not know beyond a reasonable doubt that man-made “climate change” is real, and as time passes the evidence that it isn’t real continues to mount.

Studies show that cutting greenhouse gas emissions would be extremely costly and would produce an insignificant affect on global temperatures. The Congressional Budget Office reports that a 15 percent cut in emissions would increase average household energy costs by $1,300 annually. That’s a lot of money.

But is there any reason to increase household energy costs even $1 per year in the absence of overwhelming evidence that burning fossil fuels seriously damages the environment? No.

What we need is a sensible energy policy. We must continue the development of solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative and renewable energy sources, but we also must not rush their development and implementation, forcing these technologies into use before they are ready. When they are efficient, effective and economical, they will thrive of their own accord, without the use of scare tactics or government edicts.

In the meantime, let’s open known or highly likely areas of oil and natural gas supplies to responsible development by energy companies. Let’s refuse to increase, and in fact scale back punitive taxation and regulations on coal, oil and natural gas so the price of these energy sources does not further escalate.

And let’s get past the irrational fear we have of nuclear power, and take fuller advantage of this safe and inexpensive energy source. In more than 12,700 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries there have been only two noteworthy accidents: Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, and Chernobyl, Ukraine.

Our fear of nuclear power is based largely upon a gross exaggeration of the problems caused by the radiation released at Three Mile Island 30 years ago. In an analysis for the Heritage Foundation, Jack Spencer and Nicolas Loris tell us that “the steam leakage released a radiation dose equivalent to that of a chest X-ray scan, about one-third of the radiation humans absorb in one year from naturally occurring background radiation. No damage to any person, animal, or plant was ever found.”

The far more serious accident at Chernobyl seven years later was the result of human error, a poorly designed system, and technology that was far less well developed than that of the United States at that time. While there was an increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer in the region after the accident, nothing remotely close to the number of deaths the World Health Organization said might result from the radiation release have occurred in the 23 years since the accident.

What has passed for “discussion” of these critical issues is something far removed from what is needed. Like fossil fuels, the use of which we have been told is going to kill the planet, nuclear power has been the victim of a concerted effort to create fear among the citizenry. As Spencer and Loris wrote, “the propagation of ignorance by anti-nuclear activists has caused more harm to the affected populations than has the radioactive fallout from the actual accident.”

The American people deserve a free, honest and balanced discussion of energy issues that will produce an energy policy based upon facts, and free of ideological bias. Fear-mongering and demagoguery have no place in this discussion, but that may be beyond the abilities of the politicians and the media.

Click Here to Comment

The Obama Dilemmas

Imagine, if you can, being President Barack Obama, having to face the myriad of problems that that evil and incompetent George Bush left for him.

The economy; the North Koreans; the Iranians; Gitmo; the (non) war on (non) terror; evil corporate executives; outrageous healthcare costs; budget deficits; … the list goes on. This would be a plateful for even the most seasoned statesman/politician.

Imagine what it must be like for the least experienced statesman/politician ever to occupy the Oval Office. How do you know what to do to properly represent the United States of America in the eyes of the world?

You are visited by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, our most devoted ally through thick and thin, who brings with him thoughtful and valuable gifts. What do you give him in return? But that’s far too easy a problem, isn’t it?

Here’s one that’s a little trickier: In an effort at good will you deliver a message to the Iranian people and the Iranian government tells you to take a hike. Now what?

The North Koreans are determined to launch a rocket that could be a test of a missile-carrying ICBM, and everyone knows they can’t be allowed them to have nuclear weapons or the means to deliver them. What do you do?

You are about to meet the King of Saudi Arabia face to face. When you meet His Excellency and shake his hand, do you also bow at the waist in proper deference?

Clearly Mr. Obama needs outside help, since neither the inexperienced President nor his inexperienced staff knows what to do in these tricky and important cases. So here’s a little unsolicited, but very dependable advice: Mr. President, when confronted with these dilemmas, always ask yourself: What Would John Wayne Do? You won’t go wrong.

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: America, Politics, Obama

Ron Paul Worker Harassed and Detained by TSA

Thanks to Faultline USA for a heads-up on this issue.

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Freedom, Politics, War on Terror, Government

Political Sleight of Hand on Tax Relief for the Oppressed Middle Class

Nicolas Loris and Ben Lieberman, writing for Heritage.org, note that President Obama’s budget blueprint, titled "The New Era of Responsibility," outlines his spending plans for Fiscal Year 2010 and beyond, and shows the President’s energy policy to be “a costly and economically harmful one.”

The plan increases the budgets for the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in line with the President’s “green” ideals, but most damaging is his cap-and-trade proposal to reduce carbon emissions 14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and approximately 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

Loris and Lieberman say that this plan claim it will produce $646 billion that Mr. Obama calls “climate revenue,” but which is in fact an energy tax that will be paid by every American through higher prices for electricity and other goods that require electricity, oil, gas or coal in their production.

They report that the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that the climate revenue for 2012–2019, will be between $1.6 trillion and $1.9 trillion, which will produce even higher taxes on the consumer than the $646 billion figure.

Of that $646 billion in the Obama blueprint, $150 billion would be allocated for clean energy investments each decade. Say Loris and Lieberman, “This is old, tired thinking: The notion of government investing in clean energy technologies through tax breaks, incentives, and subsidies is tantamount to Washington picking winners and losers, which penalizes successful sources of energy that Americans use every day to subsidize unsuccessful ones.”

This plan will raise energy prices on everybody by taxing the cheaper, conventional and dependable energy sources to raise money to invest in the new, undeveloped and unproven sources preferred by the President.

Americans will soon learn, if they haven’t already, that the tax relief promised them by Mr. Obama will be given to them by his left hand and taken back from them by his right hand.

Click Here to Comment