President Obama declared war
on oil and natural gas at the United Nations global warming summit, and he made
the same pitch to the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh,Jerome Corsi's Red Alert
"I will work with my
colleagues at the G20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better
address our climate challenge," he told the U.N.
In the draft final communiqué, the G20
nations agreed to phase out government subsidies to fossil fuels in the
"medium term," without specifying target dates, according to a report
published by Bloomberg.
The G20 draft document
also asked the finance ministers to keep working on the "climate finance" issue as part of the preparation for the global climate
summit scheduled for Copenhagen
The Environmental Law
Institute estimated that in the U.S.,
the biggest fossil fuel subsidies are tax breaks, the foreign tax credit and
the credit for production of nonconventional fuels that added up to $72 billion
over the seven year period studied, 2002 to 2008.
"Should Obama succeed,
the end result will be tantamount to imposing a new tax on oil and natural gas
production, with the outcome being that U.S. energy consumers will see
energy price increases," Corsi warned.
administration's budget request would strip essential capital from new American
natural gas and oil investment by radically raising taxes on American
production," Buddy Kleemeier, chairman of the
Independent Petroleum Association of America and the chief executive of
Oklahoma-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Company, told the Senate Finance Committee
on Sept. 10.
Corsi wrote, "Obama's actions are
based on what Red Alert believes amounts to nothing more than 'junk science,'arguing that manmade carbon-dioxide
emissions from the burning of oil and natural gas cause global warming."
He continued, "Unilaterally ending U.S. fossil fuel tax subsidies would have a
seriously negative impact on the U.S. economy."
Approximately 85 percent
of the energy that drives the U.S.
economy still comes from oil and natural gas.
"Simply put, why the
Obama administration would shut down 20 percent of our nation's oil production
and 12 percent of its natural gas is unfathomable," wrote Barry Russell, president
and chief executive of the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
"Why it would seek to
take away 25 to 40 percent of the capital that finds and produces American
natural gas – half of which comes from wells developed in the last four years –
is undecipherable," Russell continued. "Why it would choose to hand the nation's energy
future to foreign leaders like Hugo Chavez, whose hatred for our country is as
clear as the glistening spittle he spews in his anti-American speeches, is
clearly a tragic miscalculation."
Yet International Energy
Agency chief economist FatihBirol
claimed an agreement by the G20 to eliminate subsidies on fossil fuels to fight
climate change would be good news and should not take long to implement.
"This will improve
energy efficiency and therefore energy security, lifting the burden on government budgets and reducing carbon
dioxide emissions," Birol told the press.
Corsi said he believes Obama may be desperate
for tax revenue to cover the projected trillion-dollar federal budget deficits
the administration is planning to incur in the foreseeable future.
"Yet, eliminating fossil
fuel subsidies as part of a global-warming ideological agenda seems a particularly
strange way to stimulate the economy out of a recession," he wrote.
"Eliminating tax provisions that encourage U.S.
investment in oil and gas technology, exploration and production will certainly
dependence on foreign oil, with the resultant negative impact on our already negative balance
of international trade." Corsi asked, "How many jobs will Obama's move
The House and Senate health care bills would
increase government spending by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next
Abstract:Both the House
health care reform bill (H.R. 3200) and the bill authored by Senator Baucus
would increase government spending by hundreds of billions of dollars over
the next decade, even after assuming massive "savings" from cutting
waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid. If lawmakers can easily cut
nearly $1 trillion in waste from Medicare and Medicaid over the next 20
years, they should do so to reduce Medicare's $36 trillion unfunded
obligation, not to fund massive new health care benefits.
This year's $1.6 trillion budget deficit and President Barack Obama's
proposal to double the national debt over the next decade have made spending
restraint and deficit reduction vitally important. Despite the President's
pledges to "bend the curve" of health care spending growth downward
and to "not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits--either now
or in the future," the leading health care plans in Congress
would add trillions of dollars in new spending, even if they are deficit
These bills represent a staggering abandonment of fiscal responsibility and
would result in higher taxes and slower economic growth for current and
"Bending the Curve" the Wrong Way
President Obama has repeatedly emphasized that health care costs too much for
families, businesses, and the government. Focusing on soaring government
health spending, the President recently told a joint session of Congress,
health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers.... If we
do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending
more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program
combined." Thus, he has stated repeatedly that reform
should "bend the curve" of health care spending growth downward.
Yet the House health care bill (H.R. 3200) would actually increase
government costs. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that it
would add $823 billion in net spending (with gross spending much higher) over
the first 10 years. Similarly, the Lewin
Group estimates that it would add $626 billion in new spending in the first
decade and $2.1 trillion in the second decade. Even these figures assume
nearly $1 trillion in Medicare and Medicaid cuts over the two decades. Rather than bending the cost curve down, the
House bill would bend it up.
CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf has confirmed this. After surveying the
existing House and Senate health plans in July, but before the Baucus bill
was unveiled, he testified to the Senate Budget Committee:
In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the
sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory
of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the
legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care
The way I would put it is that the curve is being raised, so there is a
justifiable focus on growth rates because of course it is the compounding of
growth rates faster than the economy that leads to these unsustainable paths.
Nor would the House health plan reduce the growth of private
health spending. Providing more Americans with health insurance would induce
additional health care utilization. The Lewin Group
reports that the House bill would significantly raise health costs for
employers, which would then be passed down to employees through lower wages.
Both the public sector and the private sector would face higher health care
costs under the House bill.
According to a quick, non-comprehensive analysis by the CBO, the bill
authored by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) would increase net spending by at least
$365 billion in the first decade, which includes $409 billion in proposed
Medicare and Medicaid cuts. Because the Baucus bill would not fully
phase in the spending until 2014, nearly all of these 10-year costs would
occur in the last six years of the decade. These high annual costs would
likely make the second decade substantially more expensive. Despite these
costs, Senator Baucus's bill would still leave 25
million Americans without health insurance. Moreover, it would do nothing to address the
$36 trillion unfunded Medicare obligation.
Increasing Budget Deficits
President Obama has engaged in a rhetorical sleight of hand by asserting the
importance of reducing the growth of health care spending and then using
deficit neutrality as his standard of judgment. Deficit neutrality, which can
match steep tax hikes with steep spending hikes, is not the same as spending
neutrality. The House bill attempts to keep its deficits down by raising
income taxes on small businesses and upper-income families by $588 billion in
the first decade and by $1,148 billion in the second decade. However, large tax increases do not make
these large spending increases any more affordable.
Furthermore, these tax increases are not enough to bring deficit neutrality.
By beginning the tax increases in 2011, but not fully phasing in the spending
until 2014, the bill would create early surpluses that create the illusion of
fiscal responsibility. However, once the program is fully operational, it
would immediately begin running growing budget deficits. In the second
decade, the Lewin Group estimates that it would run
a $1 trillion budget deficit as the new tax revenues fail to keep pace with
soaring costs. By 2029, the new taxes would not even cover half of the $330
billion in annual net spending. Simply put, the House bill fails the
President's test of long-term deficit neutrality.
The CBO's rough projection of the Baucus bill,
absent its 500-plus amendments, shows potential deficit neutrality in the
first decade. However, this would depend on Medicare and Medicaid cuts that
may never materialize. Historically, such cuts have a poor track record:
Medicare "savings" enacted in 1992 and 1997 have been routinely
reversed when the required savings became painful. A long-term analysis of the Baucus bill has
not yet been released, so it is too early to determine whether it would run
budget deficits after the first decade.
Are the Medicare and Medicaid Offsets Real?
President Obama's health care reserve fund proposal includes $622 billion in
reductions in the growth of Medicare and Medicaid. The President claims that all of the
savings will come from cutting "waste and inefficiency" and thus
will not reduce benefits at all. Similarly, the Baucus bill would trim
Medicaid and Medicare by $409 billion in its first decade and the House bill
would trim it by $1 trillion over 20 years.
Yet if hundreds of billions of dollars in waste can be trimmed from these
programs without reducing benefits, why are lawmakers waiting for a health
care expansion bill to enact these changes? Medicare and Medicaid are already
growing unsustainably, and Congress and President Obama have an obligation to
taxpayers to eliminate waste and inefficiency regardless of the fate of these
particular health care bills.
In reality, government waste is easy to identify, but difficult to eliminate.
If lawmakers could easily cut nearly $1 trillion in waste from Medicare and
Medicaid, they would have done so already. Therefore, this spending is likely
either actual program benefits--such as Medicare Advantage--or waste that
lawmakers have not determined how to eliminate. Either way, lawmakers would
be irresponsible to make large, permanent spending commitments based on vague
promises to reduce waste and inefficiencies that may never materialize. At a
minimum, lawmakers should produce these savings before considering new
Even better, any Medicare and Medicaid savings should go toward shoring up
these programs' shaky finances. Medicare faces $36 trillion in unfunded
obligations, and Medicaid spending is set to double as a percentage of the
economy over the next three decades. Eliminating waste and inefficiency
from these programs would reduce these long-term costs. Otherwise, taxpayers
will be left with the same staggering funding shortfall for these programs
and one fewer option to begin plugging the hole.
A New Approach Is Needed
Earlier this year, Senate negotiators trimmed the "stimulus" bill
from $838 billion to $787 billion and portrayed this historically expensive
bill as a victory for fiscal responsibility. Now, lawmakers trimming the cost
of health reform to under $1 trillion over 10 years are portraying these
bills as similarly fiscally responsible. The better description would be that
the proposed bills would be slightly less destructive to the nation's
long-run fiscal health than the more costly bills would have been.
already faces soaring government spending, permanent trillion-dollar budget
deficits, and the Social Security and Medicare costs of 77 million retiring
baby boomers. Adding trillions of dollars in additional government spending
and budget deficits is not responsible. It would expand already massive
budget deficits, which would add more pressure towards higher interest rates,
and would lead to slower economic growth, and eventually steep tax increases.
The current health plans do not meet the President's goals of slowing health
care spending and not increasing the budget deficit. Congress should scrap
the current plans and seek a new approach that improves the health care
system based on real choice, competition, and transparency, while addressing
the unsustainable spending trends.
Brian M. Riedl is Grover M.
Hermann Fellowin Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe
Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Sheils and Haught, "Long-Term Cost of the American Affordable
Health Choices Act of 2009," pp. 7 and 27-30.
Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director,
Congressional Budget Office, letter to Senator Max Baucus, September 16,
2009). The CBO's analysis "does not constitute
a comprehensive cost estimate for the proposal," and CBO analysts
"have not taken into account all of the proposal's effects on spending
for other federal programs or estimated the federal government's
administrative costs for oversight and implementation that would be subject
to future appropriations." Ibid., pp. 6
Sheils and Haught, "Long-Term Cost of the American Affordable
Health Choices Act of 2009," pp. 19-20.
Ibid. These numbers represent net federal
cost minus Medicare and Medicaid savings.
Past legislative commitments for Medicare
savings, such as "Docfix," have a largely
unsuccessful history. See J. D. Foster, "Medicare's Financial Woes:
Bigger Than Official Estimates,"HeritageBackgrounder
No.2174, September 2, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg2174.cfm.
The New York Times released a new poll today finding that 55% of Americans believe President Obama has
not clearly explained his plans for changing the health care system and 59%
said they thought the health care changes under consideration in Congress were
confusing. In a follow-up interview, Paul Corkery, a
Democrat from Somerset,
N.J, said: “The Obama administration seems to have a plan, but I’m not understanding the exact details.” Corkery shouldn’t feel that bad. The Congressional Budget
Office (CBO), the
independent nonpartisan agency responsible for reviewing legislative
initiatives with budgetary implications, has no idea what is in the legislation either. During
yesterday’s Senate Finance Committee mark-up, the CBO realized only after the
vote, that they had made a $600 million mistake in scoring an amendment by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).
To ensure that the Senate would actually know what they were voting on, Sen.
Jim Bunning (R-KY) offered an amendment that would have required that actual
legislative text, as well as a final Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate
of the cost of the bill, be posted for 72 hours on the Senate Finance Committee
website for public review before the Senate Finance Committee could vote on its
final passage. The Bunning amendment was defeated on a largely party-line vote, with all Senate Democrats - with the exception of Senator
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)- voting against it.
Since proponents of Obamacare have shown themselves
to be completely indifferent to what their legislation will actually do to the
American people, conservatives have offered other amendments that would hold
President Obama accountable for his promise that Obamacare
would not cause Americans to lose their current doctor or health care coverage:
·Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) offered an
amendment that would have required the Secretary of HHS to certify that at
least 75 percent of the physicians in the United States would accept Medicaid
patients before the proposed mandatory Medicaid expansions are implemented. That amendment was defeated.
·Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) offered an amendment that would have
required the Secretary of HHS to certify Obamacare
would not cause more than 1,000,000 Americans to lose the current coverage of
their choice. That amendment failed on a party line vote.
·Another Hatch amendment provided that if the Medicare funding
reductions in the Medicare Advantage program were to result in a loss of
benefits for seniors using Medicare Advantage, those provisions would be
nullified. That amendment was also rejected.
The majority in the
Senate has completely gutted any semblance of transparency or accountability in
the health care debate. They refuse to provide the legislative language and
time necessary for the CBO to analyze their legislation and they have rejected
all measures that would protect the Americans people from Obama’s broken health
care promises. Common sense dictates that Congress needs to step back and start over instead of passing a plan that would reorganize one-sixth of
our entire economy without even understanding what the consequences to average
Americans would be.
Abstract: In the past 10
months, the leaders of the G-8 and G-20 nations have met three times at
elaborate and expensive summits to address the world's financial woes. But
far from providing remedies for ailing economies, the summits' standard
prescriptions for ever-more government intervention and regulations are
likely only to impede economic recovery. This paper explains why free markets
and limited government are the best responses to economic recession--and
argues that the best thing for economies around the world would be for the
fourth "G-Process" summit in Pittsburgh
to be the last.
Although they just met at the opening of the annual United Nations General
Assembly on September 23 in New York with 192 heads of state, the leaders of
20 of those nations could not resist tacking on another two-day meeting
beginning on the afternoon of September 24 in Pittsburgh--another G-20 summit
at the invitation of President Barack Obama.
The "G-Process" of annual summit meetings of the heads of state of
the world's leading economies began in 1975, when the G-7 (composed of the
major World War II allies--the U.S., U.K., France, and Canada--plus their
former enemies Germany, Italy, and Japan) met to consider how to respond to
the economic stagflation in their economies caused by the first "oil
shock." (In response to the October 1973 Arab-Israeli War, the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries [OPEC] had imposed production
cutbacks and restrictions on oil exports to the West and caused a dramatic
spike in oil prices.) After the Cold War ended, the addition of Russia
made it a less cozy G-8.
Meanwhile, a separate series of G-20 meetings of finance ministers from
Western nations and major emerging-market countries (China, India, Brazil,
South Korea, and Mexico), which was created in the late 1990s to address the
Asian financial crisis, was upgraded by President George W. Bush to summit
level in November 2008 as world leaders rushed to deal with the global
financial panic. Unfortunately, many of the more statist-oriented G-20
countries (China, Argentina,
and some in the EU) as well as multilateral organizations, such as the United
Nations, are using the G-20 process to push an anti-free-market agenda in
economies around the world.
The most immediate threat to economic freedom at this G-20 in Pittsburgh is
the concerted push toward global governance that may emerge from decisions
about the future role of international governance bodies, such as the
Financial Stability Board (FSB), a supranational regulator-in-waiting that
some fear may try to set global standards for pay structures and might begin to intervene aggressively in
the operations of private companies as well as tighten accounting standards
to the level of regulatory overkill.
There are, however, areas where G-20 leaders could go a long way toward
restoring growth and promoting prosperity. Most important is to reinvigorate
the process of trade liberalization. G-20 leaders should also strategize on
ways to reduce the many forms of government intervention and over-regulation
that contributed greatly to provoking the 2008 crisis.
At the Pittsburgh summit, President Obama
should call upon his fellow heads of state to reassert fiscal and monetary
discipline in their countries, avoid excessive government interference,
re-open their economies to trade by completing the Doha trade round, and preserve and protect
the free enterprise system by allowing private markets to self-correct.
There are, of course, moments in world affairs when governments need to stand
together in the face of threats to peace or prosperity. Certainly people
around the globe needed the reassurance that came from the first G-20 summit
in November 2008, when leaders took steps to stem the global panic that triggered
the meltdown, agreed on measures to calm and fortify world financial markets,
and attempted to mitigate the worldwide economic contraction. The
"G" summitry, however, has grown to ridiculous proportions.
Originally a Group of Six--France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, the United
Kingdom, and the United
States--with Canada added in 1977, the G-7
process attempted to deal with the OPEC oil shock-induced economic crises of
the 1970s as well as the need to re-design the post-World War II Bretton Woods international monetary system that had been
based on the gold standard.
G-7 leaders (who were also Cold War allies) gradually added other foreign
policy issues to their agenda. When the Soviet Union disintegrated, the G-7
countries invited the Russian Federation
to join in the hopes that the G-8 process could encourage Russia to
stay on the path to market-based democracy. Unfortunately, those hopes have
been dashed in recent years as Russia nationalized major
corporations, squeezed out Western competitors, allowed unprecedented
corruption in the law enforcement and court systems, and clamped down on
freedom of the press. With Russian membership, the G-8 is a far less
likeminded, cohesive, and effective group than the G-7.
G-20: An Imperfect Vehicle
Meanwhile, the annual "Group of Twenty" (G-20) meeting of finance
ministers and central bank governors was established formally in 1999, following the 1998 Asian financial crisis,
to bring together systemically important industrialized and developing
economies and discuss key issues in the global economy every year.
Given that leading emerging markets, such as Brazil, India, China, Mexico,
and South Korea, and market-based democracies, such as Spain, Australia, and
New Zealand, are members of the G-20-- and that all of those countries will need
to trade and invest with each other in order for the world economy to
recover--the G-20 was the handiest vehicle available to convene on an
emergency basis at the summit level so that heads of state could respond
quickly to the financial crisis that began in September 2008.
At 20 members, however, the group is starting to approach the size,
complexity, and divisiveness of other existing multilateral bodies, such as
the economic commissions and councils of the United Nations. Moreover, some
G-20 members are pursuing political philosophies that are diametrically
opposed to the principles of free markets and ordered liberty that are
enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
Argentina, for example, is presently led by Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner,
who succeeded her husband, Néstor, as President in
2007 and has continued his heavy-handed, statist, and interventionist
approach to governing, which was vividly illustrated by their seizure from
private citizens in November 2008 of $29 billion in private 401K-type pension
funds to replenish the public treasury they had depleted. The Kirchners,
who are allied with Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, have manipulated
official government statistics to report lower than actual inflation numbers
and have refused to cut "a deal with the holders of some $20 billion of
bonds who held out against a tough debt restructuring in 2005."
"G" Meetings as Far as the Eye Can See?
Counting the July 2009 Group of Eight (G-8) summit in Italy (which incorporated most members of the
G-20 in one way or another), the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh will mark the fourth G-process
meeting since the financial crisis began in September 2008. At a Rome press conference after the summit in Italy,
President Obama himself wondered "about the wisdom of so many G-Whatever
meetings in so many forums to so little effect." (An observation that did not diminish his
enthusiasm for such meetings, or for their questionable outcomes.)
In the past, dramatic high-level meetings had some impact because they were
rare. Now, publicity-hungry politicians have gone to the well too often. The
seemingly never-ending series of summits and high-level meetings have become
almost irrelevant in terms of rallying public opinion. The G-8 summit in Italy was largely a waste of the world's time,
as it was mostly an instant replay of the G-20 photo-op held just three
months before in London.
Consider the series of United Nations "Development Decades," first
proclaimed in 1961. The United Nations "Millennium
Declaration" 39 years later marked the fifth such
proclamation, yet the job never seems to get done.
Posted September 24th, 2009 at 5.26pm in American Leadership.
Pittsburgh is famous for its
Three Rivers. The city was founded in 1758 at the militarily and commercially
strategic point where the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers converge to form
the might Ohio.
It is somewhat ironic, then, that as the G-20 leaders arrive in Pittsburgh
this evening for a sumptuous dinner hosted by President and Mrs. Obama amidst
exotic flora and fauna at the Victorian-era, glass-walled Phipps
Conservatory, they bring with them three major proposals for discussion.
President Obama wants to impose upon China (and Americans) his “Framework for Sustainable and
Balanced Growth” which would demand that American consume less and
save more, while requiring the Chinese to ramp up domestic consumption and
reduce its trade surplus (presumably by revaluing upward the yuan and making Chinese exports less attractive).
Unfortunately the President did not consult fully with the American people
before he signed them up for this potential financial fitness regimen, nor
does he have any way to enforce his framework (short of ceding American
sovereignty to some sort of global UN police state). The President also fails
to take note in his framework of the massive, hemorrhaging fiscal deficits
his costly programs could create if they are all passed by Congress. The
President demands that American consumers do without and
save instead of spend, but pushes “negative savings” in the form of
huge Government deficit spending for as far as the eye can see. He could
achieve his goal so much more easily by simply cutting the deficit by $500
billion or so per year.
Meanwhile, the Chinese are responding by putting pressure on the President
Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Geithner
through the rumblings they are promoting abut looking for a replacement for
the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Of course, the reality is that
there is no replacement handy right now. The Chinese didn’t get very far six
months ago when the floated the idea of using Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) issued by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Finally, not to be ignored, the Euros are demanding that the world (read the U.S.) use
government regulations to put limits and controls on bankers’ compensation.
Funny how regulations come so easily to them, while trust in marketplace
discipline seems foreign.
Should be an interesting meeting……
[NOTE: The fact that
there are pro-baby killing professors at Notre Dame speaks to Notre Dame NOT
being institutionally Catholic BIG TIME! It is a scandalous disgrace that Notre
Dame allows the likes of Edward Manier to teach the
lies of the devil on a campus dedicated to the Mother of God! - Gary L. Morella]
Judge in Case of Arrested Notre Dame
Pro-Lifers is Married to Pro-Abortion ND Professor
By Kathleen Gilbert
SOUTH BEND, Indiana, September 28, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The
attorney representing the pro-lifers arrested while protesting Obama at Notre
Dame today repeated his request that the judge in the case, who is married to a
pro-abortion Notre Dame professor, be removed from the
Attorney Tom Dixon's motion provides detailed support for his assertion in a
previous recusal motion that there exists sufficient actual and perceived bias
that Judge Jenny Pitts Manier, the judge assigned to
the "ND 88" case, is required by Indiana state law to recuse herself in the matter. Dixon states that ever since Judge Manier has known her husband, Professor Edward Manier, he has been a well-known and outspoken advocate of
the pro-abortion position.
As his views were well-known and have largely defined his identity at Notre
argues, it seems implausible that Judge Manier could
claim to be unaware of his views on the "ND 88" case, which stem from
"the single biggest controversy in the history of the University of Notre Dame."
The case surrounds the arrest of 88 pro-lifers from across America who were charged with trespassing after peacefully witnessing
against the presence of President Obama at Notre Dame The university awarded
Obama with the commencement speech and an honorary law degree on May 17 of this
Arrestees were singled out for carrying pro-life messages onto campus -
including images of aborted children, a large cross, and images of Mary - while
several other trespassers with pro-Obama or pro-Notre Dame signage
were allowed to roam the campus.
Dixon argues that the career of Judge Manier's husband at Notre Dame was largely defined by the
very same controversies which prompted the pro-lifers to travel across America to ultimately land in the St. Joseph County court
room. In Indiana,
a judge must recuse himself or herself from a case in
the event of actual or perceived bias.
In the original recusal motion in August, Dixon
says that Judge
Manier refused to answer whether her husband had ever
written on the topic of abortion, saying only, "I'm not my
highlights several ways in which actual and perceived bias exists in the
"ND 88" case. In addition to several writings revealing his
pro-abortion beliefs, the professor donated "a significant sum of
money" to Barack Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign, as well as additional
donations to other pro-abortion rights candidates in the United States.
Manier, a supporter of the
production of "The Vagina Monologues" on Notre Dame's campus, also
attacked Pope Paul PaulVI's
pro-life encyclical Humanae Vitae as
one analyzes Edward Manier's political contributions
to pro abortion candidates and Political Action Committee, when one reads
Edward Manier's writings referencing members of the
Christian right, calling them 'fundamentalist mullahs' and 'jackleg
preachers,'" Dixon writes, "it is hard to comprehend how Judge Manier could derive from her husband's writings the notion
that he has no interest in the outcome of these cases."
Last week, University of Notre Dame law professor emeritus Charles Rice issued an open letter to University president
Fr. John Jenkins, saying that the school's attempts at reconstructing a
pro-life image were a "mockery" while yet refusing to request
leniency for the 88 pro-lifers awaiting trial.
Please watch this video preview
of Demographic Bomb. Once you see this preview of Demographic Bomb (the sequel to Demographic Winter),
I am sure you will agree that Demographic Bomb is even more compelling than
the first installment (Demographic
Winter) and that it tells a shocking story of a crisis that
cannot be ignored.
What would you do if you knew that large portions of the human race were hurtling toward
extinction ... not at some point in the distant future but during your
Such statements might sound a little far-fetched,
but what would you say if we told you that some of the world's most respected scientists, academicians,
economists, scholars and public policy experts have been sounding the alarm
for years... only to have their warnings fall on deaf ears?
And moreover, what would you do if you knew that this upheaval is
already happening... right now... that the worst is yet to come and that your
way of life — and the lives of your children and grandchildren — is already in dire peril?
What steps would you take... what steps could you
take right now... to protect yourself and your family from this social and
On the economic front, we warned you about
the financial crash of 2008 when we released the
ground-breaking documentary, Demographic Winter, over a year ago.
And on the societal front, our predictions were even more chilling.
We're proud to say that Demographic Winter was the first documentary to
critically examine the real root causes of this global crisis... the social
implications as well as the economic implications... before most people had
any inkling that there was a problem.
And now, with the release of the much-awaited
sequel, Demographic Bomb, we dig even deeper into the problem.
And this time around, we expose the real culprits and the inherently evil and
racist policies that set this global crisis into motion and put us on the
road to destruction. We explain why this global
crisis will only get worse if we refuse to act.
Demographic Bomb uncovers all the shocking details and
exposes how the United Nations, population-control advocates and others who
benefit from diminishing the role of the natural family in society, have
manipulated and exploited the weak... targeted the poor... promoted
inherently racist policies, viciously attacked human rights (under the guise
of promoting human rights)... and evaded political responsibilities for their
But more than that, Demographic Bomb
illustrates that the law of unintended consequences is very real and shows
exactly how the programs and policies that were set into motion by these
culprits back-fired on each and every one of us and why these programs
and policies pose an ever-increasing threat to those of us in the
developed world... more specifically... to you... to your family... and to
Who Is Harry Dent And How Does The Degradation Of The Natural
Family Affect My Future?
Harry Dent, Founder of H.S. Dent Investment
Management and formerly with Bane & Company, is just one of the many
renowned experts sounding the alarm in Demographic Bomb.
As for his credentials... Dent is the man who accurately predicted — over 20 years ago — the decade-long
Japanese economic downturn and the approximate date that the Dow Jones
Industrial Average (DJI) would break 10,000.
But what is really remarkable about Dent and those
specific predictions is that most experts thought — to the point of derision
directed at Dent in some cases — that both of the above events were highly
unlikely at the time that Dent made his pronouncements.
But Dent risked ridicule... stepped onto a ledge and not only proclaimed that
both events could happen but accurately predicted approximately when both
events would happen.
And Dent also predicted the economic
crash-and-burn of 2008. While the rationale and
methodology utilized in making this prediction is quite extensive, Dent
illustrates the basis of the prediction by imposing two distinct graphs on
top of each other.
The first graph (the green bars in the picture below)
is representative of the Dow Jones Industrial from the start of the
post-World War II baby-boom through 2008 (just prior to the crash of 2008).
The second graph (the blue and purple bars in the picture below)
is representative of birth rates in the United States from the start of
the 20th Century (approximately 50 years prior to start date of the first graph).
Dent obtained the representation in the picture below
by sliding the second graph (the blue and purple bars) to the right (along
the horizontal, or "X" axis) approximately 45-50 years.
And presto, the above picture appears to show a direct relationship
between the birth rate and the future Dow Jones.
In other words, fluctuations in the birth rate appear to directly correspond
to fluctuations in the Dow Jones... 45-50 years into the future.
Now, here's the bad news: If Dent's graphical
comparison is valid... what does the above picture say when it comes to the
future of the Dow Jones and the market in
And more importantly, what does the above picture
say about your
future job prospects... housing prospects... your retirement plan... your
future standard-of-living... your children's future?
Have We Betrayed Ourselves?
Is Dent's graphical representation just a
When you watch Demographic Bomb... when you are
confronted with the solid and empirical evidence from Dent and a host of
other renowned scholars, academicians and scientists...
you'll learn that Dent's graphical representation hit the bulls-eye.
You'll also learn that world-wide population
is only growing at present not because more children are being born but
because people are living longer.
And you'll learn that even more economic
hardship will be coming our way as fewer working-age people shoulder the
burden of supporting the ever-increasing population of elderly people.
Of course, that knowledge should raise more
How far will birth rates spiral down?
Will we ration health care for our elderly and infirmed?
Will euthanasia be encouraged?
Will we start to promote a culture of death?
The following chart should
lead any rational person to at least consider those questions.
Is it possible that population-control
advocates and opponents of the natural family were wrong when they advanced
the Malthusian-inspired argument that ever-increasing numbers of people would
compete for diminishing resources?
Or was Adam Smith, perhaps the greatest economist of
all time, right when he advanced the concept that prosperity is associated
with growing populations?
When you watch Demographic Bomb, you'll be shocked
at the compelling and irrefutable evidence supporting the latter.
And moreover, you may even come to the realization -
or at least acknowledge the possibility - that as we promoted a
culture of population-control abroad and devalued the status of the natural
family here at home... through no-fault divorce, abortion-on-demand,
birth-control, radical feminism, the promotion of sex-education to the very
young in our public schools and the celebration of behaviors that were
considered perverse and unnatural throughout history, we forced birth rates
below the replacement level at home and abroad. And in
doing so, we may have condemned ourselves and the rest of world to a hell of our
Is it possible that we have been failed by the progressive ideas we thought
would save us?
If you want to critically examine these questions,
then you owe it to yourself to get a copy of Demographic Bomb and study the empirical
evidence — evidence you're not getting in the Mainstream Media — yourself.
Just Who Are The Racists Here?
There are a lot of people that don't want you to watch
In fact, when we released Demographic Winter,
the prequel, to Demographic Bomb, those that did not want the message to
get out, launched pre-emptive and slanderous attacks against the message of
Some went so far as to imply "racism."
Kathryn Joyce, in an article published in The Nation—
derisively titled, "Missing, the 'Right' Babies"— at one point insultingly described the themes
explored in Demographic
Winter as, "modern
euphemisms for old-fashioned race panic."
And other detractors, noting that many of the
countries experiencing below replacement level birth rates are in Western Europe, falsely and scandalously claimed that
the documentary advocated fewer "brown babies" in the world.
Of course, such idiotic accusations ignore the facts...
mainly that many non-European countries are also experiencing below
replacement level birth rates, and that Europe
is drawing heavily upon the developing countries to replace laborers they are
not producing, socially and economically impacting these countries severely.
Moreover, such accusations also turn the obvious
premise of the documentary on its head — namely that all societies must work
to promote policies which will bring birth rates above the replacement level.
But the icing on the cake... the
ultimate irony at play here is that racism and
exploitation of the weak are traits that are historically tied to the
And we don't make such an accusation carelessly.
Demographic Bomb also explores the sordid history of the
population-control movement, and how the movement's proponents have repeatedly
exploited the weak... targeted the poor... promoted inherently racist
policies... viciously and repeatedly attacked human rights (under the guise
of promoting human rights)... and even committed genocide.
And we don't just scratch the surface. We connect
For example, one of the movements that is tied to population-control is eugenics, a movement
that sought to "improve" the human race by discouraging the "poor" and
the "racially inferior" from "breeding."
In fact, the spiritual mother
of the family-planning movement, Margaret Sanger — a women who is, without a
doubt, revered by many of those who sought to slander the message of the
documentary — promoted birth control within that context...
she was an advocate for eugenics, even bringing her message
personally to such organizations as the Ku Klux Klan.
And while Sanger's belief in eugenics may seem ironic to
the uninformed, in truth, it's not ironic at all.
In the United States, abortion and birth-control are
under the banner of "women's rights" — that's not by accident — but in much of the world, abortion
and birth-control are promoted through coercion... abortion and birth-control are mandated by the state.
Supreme Court Associate
Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, even admitted as much (albeit in a slightly
different context) to The New York Times on July 7, 2009:
"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was
decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in
populations that we don’t want to have too many of."
And yes, even today, the population-control movement
According to the May 24, 2009 edition of The London Times:
"Some of America’s leading
billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to
slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health
philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill
Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome
political and religious obstacles to change.
as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren
Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New
York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey."
And these individuals have a lot of economic clout. The Times
goes on to mention that the above named individuals have given over 45
billion British Pounds (approximately 75 billion US Dollars) since 1996 to a
variety of programs.
Buffett... Soros... Bloomberg... Turner... some of these
individual may actually be strong proponents of eugenics. Some of them may
simply be deceived... inadvertantly doing what they
believe is the right thing.
Far be it from us to judge what is in another
person's heart but such a sad state of affairs certainly begs the question...
just who are the racists in this debate?
And Our Elected Officials Still Don't Get It.
One of the main reasons we released Demographic Bomb
is because it contains a message which must be spread far and wide.
Sadly... even though we are already witnessing the start
of a monumental change that will cause poverty, pain and suffering across the
globe, a biased media and even many of our elected officials are still pushing
the discredited and inane policies which have already set off the demographic
On the day we released Demographic Bomb, the stock market was
still 40 percentage points below its all-time high from the previous year,
the housing market was still in a slump, the affordability and availability
of health care was a major concern to a great many people, and government
officials were haggling over business bailouts and the promotion of
environmental policies to supposedly encourage the conservation of resources.
The Internet blog, Visionforum.com, put our schizophrenic
national response in perfect perspective:
"Within one day of
taking office, the president gave his answer to the first question. He
would use the anniversary of Roe v. Wade to lift the ban on overseas
abortion funding. The message: In tough economic times, it is important for
taxpayer dollars to be spent preventing more life from coming into this
of the House Nancy Pelosi was even more creative in her baby-banning
agenda. In a national television interview, she made it clear that one
important way to stimulate the economy was for people to stop having
defended her plan to make tax-payer subsidized child prevention an
important part of the $825 billion economic stimulus package, explaining
that 'contraception will reduce the cost to the states and to the federal
government...no apologies. No. We have to deal with the consequences of the
downturn in our economy.'
We must control the population because children are a burden on the economy
— especially children from lower class families. The less of these
children, the less money the government will have to spend on schools and
It's sheer madness... lunacy... why are our elected
officials trying to solve a problem by pushing the very policies that played
a major role in causing the problem in the first place?
Republicans... Democrats... Liberals...
Conservatives... it doesn't really matter... to a certain extent,
our elected officials are all scurrying about trying to find solutions
without a fundamental understanding of the root causes of the problem.
Real solutions start with a fundamental
understanding of the problem.
Please view this trailer from Demographic Bomb
and forward this e-mail to everyone you know. Help us get the message out.
Do not take our word for it. We
invite you to use the "View the Trailer" button below to watch the
shocking and riveting trailer to The Demographic Bomb: Demography Is Destiny
viewing this riveting trailer for just a couple of minutes... if you agree
that Demographic Bomb is the most authoritative and shocking thing that you
have seen... if you agree that it exposes the lies that have been spoon-fed
to all of us for years... if you agree that we truly reap what we sow and
that there is now a clear-and-present danger to your way of life and your
children's and grandchildren's future... then please, spread the word,
forward this e-mail far-and-wide to your family and friends.
Jim Bob and
Michelle Duggar of D-Health fame are
expecting number nineteen, and the radical environmentalists,
feminists, and population controllers are aghast. But the Duggars have the better part.
With 19 You Get Heaven
by Steve Mosher
I am not a big fan of reality TV. My tastes
run instead to EWTN, FOX News and—because I travel a lot and have a
farm—The Weather Channel. But the news that D-Health
reality-show stars Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar
are expecting their 19th child somehow reached me through the
I cheered the news, as you might have expected. My wife and I
have a large family— albeit only half the size of the Duggars—and at PRI we encourage others to do
the same. One of my talks is entitled “Ten Great Reasons to
have Another Child.” There is plenty of room on God’s green
earth for all of us, I tell audiences.
The Left predictably responded to the new arrival with jeers.
Don’t you know that babies cause global warming,
Al Gore was heard to mutter, while David Letterman spewed his usual
ration of dirty jokes. For the population controllers at
Planned Parenthood it was no laughing matter, however. They
have a particular animus towards those couples who are generous in
welcoming children into their families. “Breeders,” they sneeringly
Looking at America
today, one would have to say that these anti-natalists
have won. American women average only 2.09 children.
But this average hides vast disparities in the birth rate,
from the latte-sipping singles who selfishly forswear children (and
marriage) altogether, to the Duggars at
the other extreme who believe that children are gifts from God.
At the time of America’s
founding, there were lots of families like the Duggars.
Even today, those of us in the pro-life movement average
three children, and most of us probably know at least one couple
who has ten or more. (The Moshers,
through no fault of their own, fell one short of double digits.)
Who are we, these generous-minded couples say with the Duggars, to reject any of God’s gifts?
Such generosity, however, comes at a heavy price. The Department of
Agriculture Department now estimates that it costs $207,800 to
raise a child from birth to age 18. Add to this the fact that the
government now takes more than 40% of the average family’s money, in
part to pay the cost of Social Security and Medicare for those who
have no children.
To those who look at this purely as a question of dollars and
cents, the Duggars are fools. They
are spending a small fortune to raise a passel of children.
Yet they will not personally benefit from the millions of
dollars in taxes that their grown children will one day pay to the
government. This money will instead go in part to make Social
Security and Medicaid payments to those who had few children, or none at all.
In 1940 there were 160 workers supporting each person on Social
Security. By 2006 this number had fallen to 3.3 workers per
pensioner. By 2034, there will be only 2.1 workers for each
person collecting a government retirement check. Instead of
mocking the Duggars for having so many
children, the barren Left ought to thank them—and all
pro-lifers—for helping to subsidize its retirement. (Don’t
hold your breathe waiting for an expression of gratitude, however.
It could be fatal.)
As for the Duggars, if they are anything
like the Moshers, they don’t really care
how the numbers work out. For they understand that, in the Divine
calculus, Love doesn’t divide, it multiplies.
And that it goes on multiplying forever.
Steven W. Mosher is the President
of the Population Research Institute.
Contact: Colin Mason
(540) 622-5240, ext. 209
2007 Population Research Institute. Permission to reprint granted.
Redistribute widely. Credit required.
PRI is a 501(c)(3) educational organization. If
you would like to make a tax-deductible donation to PRI,
please go to our Donations Page.
All donations (of any size) are welcomed and appreciated.
pro-life Population Research Institute is dedicated to ending human
rights abuses committed in the name of "family planning," and
counter-productive social and economic paradigms premised on the
"overpopulation." Find us at www.pop.org.
PRI, PO Box 1559,
Front Royal, VA22630USA
[DrFrank c] Get
Millions to Sign 'What's Good for the Goose is good for the Congress'
HealthCare Reform Petition
Subject: Get Millions to Sign 'What's Good for the Goose is good for the Congress'
HealthCare Reform Petition
Date: Sunday, September 27, 2009, 6:56 PM
Get Millions to Sign
'What's Good for the Goose is good for the Congress' HealthCare Reform Petition
On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted
12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment, courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn which
would require all Members of Congress and their staff members to enroll in any new
government-run health plan.
Congressman John Fleming has proposed an amendment that would require
Congressmen and Senators to take the same health care plan that they would force on us. (Under proposed
legislation they are exempt.)
Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go to his Website and sign his
petition. The process is very simple. I have done just that at: