Be a Constitutional Watchdog for America

After reading this article, please click here (or on the link at the bottom of this post) to visit this article in its original context on GlennBeck.com. Thank you.

August 1, 2009 – 0:09 ET
By Glenn Beck

We need you to keep watch over the most perfect political document ever given to mankind. Heaven knows our politicians aren't doing it.

I’ve been telling you lately I am no longer searching for answers about what is going on with this administration. I believe I now know exactly what they’re doing. They are putting a structure in place, around our existing government.

An exoskeleton is being built around our Republic. And rather than support and protect, as exoskeletons are designed do in the animal kingdom, this one is designed to feed off its host. At the same time, the host is being attacked from every direction, also by design.

The attack agents are cap-and-trade; health care reform; card check; the collapsing dollar; bailouts; stimulus bills; “cash for clunkers”; gigantic, unsustainable debt, and on and on.

Remember, the only thing you need to know about Barack Obama: He is a community organizer. ACORN, SEIU and their 300-plus affiliate organizations, along with AmeriCorp, with the help of Barack Obama, have embedded themselves into the structure of this government. If and when they can overwhelm the system to the point it finally collapses, they already have the new system built, already in place, to restart it and “fundamentally transform the United States of America.”

In the movie “Contact,” a space-travel machine was built using alien technology. Everyone knew they would face widespread public opposition to the plan: It was wildly expensive and no one even knew if it would work. So, when the machine was destroyed, it was revealed to the nation and the world, that there just happened to be a second machine, already built and ready to go, that no one knew about:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ACTOR JOHN HURT AS S.R. HADDEN: First rule in government spending: Why build one when you can have two at twice the price? Only, this one can be kept secret.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

We need to stop that machine from being put into place.

The question I am asked more than anything else — well, other than, “when the studio lights get really hot, do you actually sweat gravy?” And by the way, the answer is yes — that’s why I always keep a gravy boat handy under the desk here at FOX. But the second most-asked question is: “Glenn, what can I do?”

You can be a “Constitutional Watchdog” for America. I’m shifting my focus to another project: I’ll still be here, doing my shows on TV and radio, but our attention will be on something else, which I’ll tell you about when I can.

So we need you to keep watch over the most perfect political document ever given to mankind. Heaven knows our politicians aren’t doing it. Go to my Web site — GlennBeck.com — and look for the shield you see here at the bottom of the screen for more details.

Briefly here it is: Don’t try to pay attention to everything — it’s impossible. As we’ve discussed, they’re throwing so much at us at once — again, by design — that it’s just too much to assimilate. Find something that you know about or have interest in. Watch what Congress is doing on that. If it’s cap-and-trade, look for everything you can find on that issue. Whatever it is, when something comes up that doesn’t sound right, start barking loudly, like the Constitutional Watchdog you are.

Send me an e-mail or tweet and we’ll highlight the story you’ve uncovered. When you see the Watchdog Shield, you’ll know that it wasn’t us who found the story — it was one of our Watchdogs.

I am more optimistic — more hopeful — now than I’ve been in a long time, that, together, we can wake up enough Americans to stop what I firmly believe is an attempt to “fundamentally transform America.”

— Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on FOX News Channel

Here’s that link I mentioned at the beginning of this article.

Climate Change: The Link Between “Global Governance,” Al Gore and Jacques Chirac

By Noel Bagwell
July 13, 2009

Al Gore, Creator of the Internet and Global Warming Climate Change Guru, “brings good news” to our “friends” overseas about President Obama’s securing of massive amounts of taxpayer dollars to fund so-called “green industry,” likening the fight against climate change to the fight against the Nazis and calling for “global governance.”

I love how we’re all saying “Climate Change,” now, instead of “Global Warming.” Remember, back in the 1970s, when all the greenies were talking about “Global Cooling“? Well, that was a load of crap, now, wasn’t it? And after that hoax was exposed, the environmentalists switched gears and, instead, started talking about “Global Warming.” Al Gore, for years, talked about Global Warming this and Global Warming that. But NOW… it’s “Climate Change” all of a sudden. Why is that, do you think?

Professor Don J. Easterbrook of the Department of Geology at Western Washington University is just one scientist who has published compelling “Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Three Decades.”

Professor Easterbrook writes:

Despite no global warming in 10 years and recording setting cold in 2007-2008, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC) and computer modelers who believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming still predict the Earth is in store for catastrophic warming in this century. IPCC computer models have predicted global warming of 1° F per decade and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100 (Fig. 1), which would cause global catastrophe with ramifications for human life, natural habitat, energy and water resources, and food production. All of this is predicated on the assumption that global warming is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 and that CO2 will continue to rise rapidly.

However, records of past climate changes suggest an altogether different scenario for the 21st century. Rather than drastic global warming at a rate of 0.5 ° C (1° F) per decade, historic records of past natural cycles suggest global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030 to about 2060, and renewed global cooling from 2060 to 2090 (Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008a, b); Easterbrook and Kovanen, 2000, 2001). Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling, on a general rising trend from the Little Ice Age.

Environmentalists don’t care about the science behind “global warming” or “global cooling,” because, to them, science – or, rather, pseudoscience – is just a propaganda tool they use to push their progressive, socialist, big-government agenda. The Cap-and-Trade Legislation that recently passed the U.S. House of Representatives is evidence of this. Take, for example, the EPA’s consideration of taxing cow farts; it wouldn’t stop the cows from producing gas, but it would hurt businesses that depend on cattle and dairy products. Many of these policies – including Cap-and-Trade – will have little or no effect on “climate change,” but they will have an incredibly negative effect on our economy and will drastically increase the size of our federal government and bureaucracy.

And, if these “warning signs” aren’t enough for you, just listen to what French President Jacque Chirac says about how “climate change” legislation is “a genuine instrument of ‘global governance.’”

French President Jacque Chirac:

“Your Majesty, Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,

For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organisation which France and the European Union would like to see established.

The time has come for an effort of the will. Admittedly, we won’t solve every problem in The Hague. But we must go as far forward as possible in inventing mechanisms to guarantee that our efforts are effective and enduring.

This is a time for clear-sightedness and solidarity. It is for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren that we are working here. Our responsibility is to make decisions that will safeguard the chances of future generations. Let us revive the pioneering spirit that inspired the Hague Declaration of 1989.

This is a time for collective ambition. It is up to us to mobilise all of the different actors in society, starting by giving greater effect to our fellow-citizens involvement. As consumers, employees and shareholders, they are perfectly equipped to ensure the triumph of new life styles and less polluting modes of production. That is why, from the very earliest age, we should make environmental awareness a major theme of education and a major theme of political debate, until respect for the environment comes to be as fundamental as safeguarding our rights and freedoms.

By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace. We are demonstrating our capacity to assert control over our fate in a spirit of solidarity, to organise our collective sovereignty over this planet, our common heritage. We are working to give practical expression to the ethical demands of our peoples. That is the measure of the immense issues entailed by an agreement, here, in The Hague. It is the measure of the burning obligation on us to succeed.

Your Majesty, Mr. Chairman, Ladies, Gentlemen, I thank you.”

- Jacque Chirac, President of France in a speech to the 6th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, The Hague. Monday, November 20, 2000

This is a clear threat to American sovereignty, but if you ask Al Gore, that’s “good news.”

THE BASIC MATH IN HR 2454, THE CAP-AND-TRADE BILL THAT PASSED IN CONGRESS, DOES NOT ADD UP!

CAP-AND-TRADE PASSED WITHOUT THE HOUSE HAVING A CHANCE TO READ THE BILL

What is wrong with Congress?! Why do they keep passing legislation without reading it? That’s their job! Their job is to read the legislation BEFORE passing it. They’re not doing their job.

They didn’t even provide copies for the Congressmen to read, prior to consideration of the bill on the floor!

Vote the bums out!

Water and Energy Rationing a Direct and Necessary Result of Cap-and-Trade

Without nuclear energy, the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade bill regulations would necessarily lead to water and energy rationing. Click here to watch this video clip for more information.

Who Stands to Benefit From Cap-and-Trade?

Monday , June 29, 2009

By Glenn Beck

While most of the media was watching more coverage of Michael Jackson, the cap-and-trade bill passed in the House late Friday night 219-212 — proving once again that the one thing we should all be paying attention to is whatever the mainstream media is ignoring.

I’ll get to the eight Republicans who voted for this bill and the special interests they represent in just a moment, but first I want to show you what nearly everybody missed.

. . .

---

Actually, here’s a video about the eight Republicans who voted for H.R. 2454 (Waxman-Markey’s Cap-and-Trade / Cap-and Tax bill)

---

. . .

For about an hour last Friday evening, House Minority Leader John Boehner railed against his fellow lawmakers for not reading the 341 pages of amendments added at 3 a.m. on the morning of the vote.

He started by pulling out a chart, which shows the ridiculously complicated web of regulation this 1,300-page bill introduces. Boehner also ticked off some of the highlights from the bill, which he calls a tax “on anyone who drives a car, buys an American-made product or flips on a light switch.”

The bill doles out almost a trillion dollars worth of grants (aka “bribes”) with the government acting as middleman between citizens and businesses. Here are just a few examples:

• On page 45: All of California’s housing standards must be imposed on every American community

• On page 92: Make sure buildings have a place to plug-in an electric-hybrid vehicle

• On page 112: Additional credit for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac housing goals for energy-efficient and location efficient mortgages

There’s even establishment of something called “green banking” centers. What’s that? Good question — wish I could tell you.

We’re also going to require that every car sold in America has an engine capable of operating on alternative fuel — which shouldn’t be a problem given that we now own GM (though it may very well be a problem for GM’s bottom line).

If all these additions snuck in under cover of darkness weren’t bad enough, here are two more inconveniently overlooked fun-facts:

First, a 98-page EPA study on climate change, which shows global temperatures will decline until 2030, has been suppressed. By the way, the White House came out Monday and said it wasn’t suppressed. Of course, that’s just like how Ben Bernanke never threatened the Bank of America into buying Merrill Lynch; how Chrysler’s bondholders really wanted to take that deal with Fiat, and, of course, Rick Wagoner really wanted to step down from GM.

And second, we could have learned our lesson by looking at the countries we’re trying to emulate.

Take Germany, which most would say has been very successful when it comes to cap-and-trade. Germany has been able to cut emissions by 18.4 percent below 1990 levels, meeting the benchmark used by the Kyoto Protocol and in Europe. Except, The Washington Post says that half of their decrease was due to sagging industrial output in the former East Germany after reunification. The downside: German homeowners pay 25 percent more for electricity than they did before, even as their utility companies earn record profits.

When your personal liberty and our sovereignty are being stolen out from under our noses, it pays for everyone to be extra-vigilant.

Who stands to benefit from cap and trade? Why do we need to do it now? What does a “green banking center” have to do with cooling the Earth?

And, most importantly, is there still a chance to stop this insanity in the Senate or will our politicians there simply wait for the next celebrity death before once again convening in the middle of the night to sell America out to highest bidder.

— Watch “Glenn Beck” weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on FOX News Channel

Obama: “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”

Barack Obama:

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” (January 2008)

VOTE “NO” ON WAXMAN-MARKEY CAP-AND-TAX!

Call your Congressman at 202.225.3121 or 202.224.3121 and tell them to VOTE “NO” on H.R. 2454, also known as the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.” You can read about the bill at OpenCongress.org. If you do, you’ll have done more than your Congressman probably has.

This is another case of them passing massive legislation, under pressure from special interest groups, without reading it, and it will increase your taxes and the cost of everything in this country incredibly, raising inflation and driving the country into a whole new recession!

The Big Chill

Congress shouldn’t fight global warming by freezing the economy.

June 19, 2009
By PETE DU PONT

Two months ago this column offered an analysis of the Waxman-Markey global warming bill, its enormous cost and its practical impossibilities.

Sometime in the next few weeks Congress will begin consideration of the bill, one of the priorities of the Obama administration and the Al Gore enthusiasts who think that Earth will die unless the governments of the world regulate our electricity, energy, autos, economies and backyards.

They do not seem to believe that energy is of any significance to our economy or our people. But the truth is it matters to all of us–to those who drive, heat our houses and run businesses, cities, towns, hospitals and schools.

So they have put together the “cap and trade” bill, the goal of which is to control the annual amount of CO2 emissions that will be permitted. First comes setting the “cap,” the amount a business is permitted to emit, and then “trade,” allowing them to buy permits to emit more CO2 or sell permits if their emissions are lower. It will be the largest and widest intervention by government into the lives of Americans since the 1940s.

The Manhattan Institute’s Jim Manzi concludes that the benefits of Waxman-Markey would not be much. Historical data show that the average rate of warming in the 30 years from 1977 to 2007 was just 0.32 degree Fahrenheit per decade. The expected warming in the next hundred years is estimated to be about 0.50 degree Fahrenheit per decade, and the new bill is estimated to lower global temperatures by about 0.18 degree Fahrenheit by 2100. Manzi estimates the additional economic costs of the bill would be 0.8% of gross domestic product, while the economic benefits would be just 0.08%–so the costs would be 10 times the benefits.

The cost of reducing emissions turns out to be greater than the cost they impose on societies. According to a 1999 Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas estimate, the emissions cuts the Kyoto Protocol would have required in 2010 were likely to reduce America’s GDP by $275 billion to $468 billion, or $921 to $1,565 per person, and of course Kyoto does not apply to fast-growing developing countries such as China and India.

An April study by Charles River Associates tells us that if the Obama proposal to reduce CO2 emissions becomes law, it will have a serious impact on the availability and cost of energy. By 2025, just 16 years from now, the cost of natural gas would rise 56%, electricity 44% and motor fuel 19%. Annual household purchasing power would annually decline by an average of $1,827. And America will lose 3.2 million jobs.

There are alternatives. Earlier this month the National Center for Policy Analysis (for which I serve as policy chairman) issued a global warming analysis titled “10 Cool Global Warming Policies.” Among them: eliminating energy subsidies and barriers to nuclear power, establishing biotech crops, reducing automobile pollution and developing new technology.

The starting point is the scope of our government’s existing energy subsidies. They total nearly $17 billion annually–including $4.9 billion for renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric), $3.3 billion for coal, $2.1 billion for natural gas and petroleum liquids, $1.3 billion for nuclear power, and $1.2 billion for electricity. Many of these subsidies actually encourage carbon emissions by reducing the cost of energy from coal and petroleum. Eliminating them would be a good first step in letting the market, as opposed to the government, control energy emission costs.

Nuclear power is the only emission-free energy technology that can significantly reduce carbon emissions. America’s nuclear plants avoid nearly 700 million metric tons of CO2 emissions each year. But the government has made the construction of nuclear plants almost impossible. Of those currently operating in the U.S., the newest one was built starting in 1977. Of the 45 nuclear power plants now under construction world-wide, only one is in America.

Energy use is of course a source of greenhouse gas emissions. As the study says, “Petroleum used in transportation and industrial production accounts for 44 percent of energy related CO2 emissions; coal accounts for 36 percent, and natural gas for 20 percent.” Unfortunately the popular modern energy priorities–corn based ethanol (which government subsidizes at 51 cents a gallon for the 36 billion gallon production the Congress has required by 2022) instead of reducing carbon emissions increases them over time, and wind and solar power–good ideas that we should keep working on–only supply electricity 30% to 40% of the time.

Energy development and creation have been essential to America’s success over the past several centuries, and they are important for America’s future. But the Obama-Waxman-Markey legislation has it backwards: By reducing energy availability, their proposals would kill jobs, reduce purchasing power, shrink the economy, and raise the cost of every fuel we use.

All of which would have almost zero impact on global warming. America cannot go forward successfully with this kind of thinking. We need nuclear power, more oil and gas to support our increasing energy needs, and a clear understanding that depriving us of energy, as this bill would do, would be a very substantial mistake.