Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Upcoming Military Robot Could Feed on Dead Bodies
Upcoming Military Robot Could Feed on Dead Bodies
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
* Print
* ShareThis
Robotic Technology Inc.
EATR robots roam a barren landscape as an unmanned drone flies overhead in an artist's rendering.
EATR robots roam a barren landscape as an unmanned drone flies overhead in an artist's rendering.
*
*
*
*
It could be a combination of 19th-century mechanics, 21st-century technology — and a 20th-century horror movie.
A Maryland company under contract to the Pentagon is working on a steam-powered robot that would fuel itself by gobbling up whatever organic material it can find — grass, wood, old furniture, even dead bodies.
Robotic Technology Inc.'s Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot — that's right, "EATR" — "can find, ingest, and extract energy from biomass in the environment (and other organically-based energy sources), as well as use conventional and alternative fuels (such as gasoline, heavy fuel, kerosene, diesel, propane, coal, cooking oil, and solar) when suitable," reads the company's Web site.
That "biomass" and "other organically-based energy sources" wouldn't necessarily be limited to plant material — animal and human corpses contain plenty of energy, and they'd be plentiful in a war zone.
EATR will be powered by the Waste Heat Engine developed by Cyclone Power Technology of Pompano Beach, Fla., which uses an "external combustion chamber" burning up fuel to heat up water in a closed loop, generating electricity.
The advantages to the military are that the robot would be extremely flexible in fuel sources and could roam on its own for months, even years, without having to be refueled or serviced.
Upon the EATR platform, the Pentagon could build all sorts of things — a transport, an ambulance, a communications center, even a mobile gunship.
In press materials, Robotic Technology presents EATR as an essentially benign artificial creature that fills its belly through "foraging," despite the obvious military purpose.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
* ShareThis
Robotic Technology Inc.
EATR robots roam a barren landscape as an unmanned drone flies overhead in an artist's rendering.
EATR robots roam a barren landscape as an unmanned drone flies overhead in an artist's rendering.
*
*
*
*
It could be a combination of 19th-century mechanics, 21st-century technology — and a 20th-century horror movie.
A Maryland company under contract to the Pentagon is working on a steam-powered robot that would fuel itself by gobbling up whatever organic material it can find — grass, wood, old furniture, even dead bodies.
Robotic Technology Inc.'s Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot — that's right, "EATR" — "can find, ingest, and extract energy from biomass in the environment (and other organically-based energy sources), as well as use conventional and alternative fuels (such as gasoline, heavy fuel, kerosene, diesel, propane, coal, cooking oil, and solar) when suitable," reads the company's Web site.
That "biomass" and "other organically-based energy sources" wouldn't necessarily be limited to plant material — animal and human corpses contain plenty of energy, and they'd be plentiful in a war zone.
EATR will be powered by the Waste Heat Engine developed by Cyclone Power Technology of Pompano Beach, Fla., which uses an "external combustion chamber" burning up fuel to heat up water in a closed loop, generating electricity.
The advantages to the military are that the robot would be extremely flexible in fuel sources and could roam on its own for months, even years, without having to be refueled or serviced.
Upon the EATR platform, the Pentagon could build all sorts of things — a transport, an ambulance, a communications center, even a mobile gunship.
In press materials, Robotic Technology presents EATR as an essentially benign artificial creature that fills its belly through "foraging," despite the obvious military purpose.
Pro-Hate Bill Calls Flood Senate
Pro-Hate Bill Calls Flood Senate
* Text size
* Larger
* Smaller
Rev. Ted Pike
Infowars
July 14, 2009
One day before possible hate bill passage, the homosexual lobby has pulled out all stops in generating massive calling to the Senate in favor of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, S. 909. NPN’s poll for early afternoon EDT on Tuesday, July 14, shows calls in favor of the hate bill significantly outnumber calls against it in both Democrat and Republican offices.
featured stories Pro Hate Bill Calls Flood Senate
featured stories Pro Hate Bill Calls Flood Senate
Neither Focus on the Family nor Family Research Council sounded significant warnings before the hate bill passed the Senate in the fall of 2007. Photo: James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family.
Just at the moment when Christians/conservatives should be mobilizing for a final push to dissuade Senate Democrats from attaching a hate bill amendment to the arms bill, the religious right and conservatives are allowing the homosexual lobby to trump them. The pro-hate bill phoning campaign is being largely generated by the Human Rights Campaign.
A huge reason for such lack of activism, especially among millions of evangelicals, was the radio announcement last Thursday by Dr. James Dobson, Tom Minnery, and Tony Perkins that there is no chance to defeat the hate bill. Dr. Dobson did the same two summers ago, destroying tremendous momentum opposing the hate bill by announcing the hate bill was unbeatable, saying only Pres. Bush’s veto could deliver us. Neither Focus on the Family nor Family Research Council sounded significant warnings before the hate bill passed the Senate in the fall of 2007.
It is incredible that today the HRC website has center front a large flashing banner urging calls to the Senate while no such encouragement or direction is provided on the Focus or FRC websites.
* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
* efoods
It is astonishing that more than 24,000 people have viewed NPN’s recent video “Holder Admits: No Equal Justice under Hate Bill!” yet Republican offices today are reporting only “a few calls” against the hate bill! I asked Sen. Hatch’s office (which was receiving more than most) how many calls opposed the hate bill. Answer: “Less than 15!”
I know patriots are weary of the hate bill fight. Evidently, they are too weary to lift their forearm once again and call a tollfree number. But let me remind you how infinitely more wearying it will be to exist night and day, year after year, shivering and starving in the gulags of the New World Order. If we allow this bill to first take away our free speech, then all other freedoms are going down the drain. Once that happens, there will be nothing to restrain mass arrest, imprisonment, deportation, and murder of probably millions.
Call NOW! Literally, the day after tomorrow could be too late. Call toll-free 1-877-851-6437 or toll 1-202-225-3121 (names available at www.truthtellers.org).
Tell Senators: “Attorney General Holder says the federal hate bill, S. 909, will not protect members of America’s military. Yet Democrats are attaching it is an amendment to the arms bill this Wednesday. This is dishonest. The hate bill has nothing to do with the military.” You can add: “Have you watched the video at HYPERLINK “http://www.truthtellers.org” www.truthtellers.org in which Holder says soldiers are not protected under the hate bill?”
* Text size
* Larger
* Smaller
Rev. Ted Pike
Infowars
July 14, 2009
One day before possible hate bill passage, the homosexual lobby has pulled out all stops in generating massive calling to the Senate in favor of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, S. 909. NPN’s poll for early afternoon EDT on Tuesday, July 14, shows calls in favor of the hate bill significantly outnumber calls against it in both Democrat and Republican offices.
featured stories Pro Hate Bill Calls Flood Senate
featured stories Pro Hate Bill Calls Flood Senate
Neither Focus on the Family nor Family Research Council sounded significant warnings before the hate bill passed the Senate in the fall of 2007. Photo: James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family.
Just at the moment when Christians/conservatives should be mobilizing for a final push to dissuade Senate Democrats from attaching a hate bill amendment to the arms bill, the religious right and conservatives are allowing the homosexual lobby to trump them. The pro-hate bill phoning campaign is being largely generated by the Human Rights Campaign.
A huge reason for such lack of activism, especially among millions of evangelicals, was the radio announcement last Thursday by Dr. James Dobson, Tom Minnery, and Tony Perkins that there is no chance to defeat the hate bill. Dr. Dobson did the same two summers ago, destroying tremendous momentum opposing the hate bill by announcing the hate bill was unbeatable, saying only Pres. Bush’s veto could deliver us. Neither Focus on the Family nor Family Research Council sounded significant warnings before the hate bill passed the Senate in the fall of 2007.
It is incredible that today the HRC website has center front a large flashing banner urging calls to the Senate while no such encouragement or direction is provided on the Focus or FRC websites.
* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
* efoods
It is astonishing that more than 24,000 people have viewed NPN’s recent video “Holder Admits: No Equal Justice under Hate Bill!” yet Republican offices today are reporting only “a few calls” against the hate bill! I asked Sen. Hatch’s office (which was receiving more than most) how many calls opposed the hate bill. Answer: “Less than 15!”
I know patriots are weary of the hate bill fight. Evidently, they are too weary to lift their forearm once again and call a tollfree number. But let me remind you how infinitely more wearying it will be to exist night and day, year after year, shivering and starving in the gulags of the New World Order. If we allow this bill to first take away our free speech, then all other freedoms are going down the drain. Once that happens, there will be nothing to restrain mass arrest, imprisonment, deportation, and murder of probably millions.
Call NOW! Literally, the day after tomorrow could be too late. Call toll-free 1-877-851-6437 or toll 1-202-225-3121 (names available at www.truthtellers.org).
Tell Senators: “Attorney General Holder says the federal hate bill, S. 909, will not protect members of America’s military. Yet Democrats are attaching it is an amendment to the arms bill this Wednesday. This is dishonest. The hate bill has nothing to do with the military.” You can add: “Have you watched the video at HYPERLINK “http://www.truthtellers.org” www.truthtellers.org in which Holder says soldiers are not protected under the hate bill?”
Mandatory Vaccinations: Precedent and Current Laws
Mandatory Vaccinations: Precedent and Current Laws
* Text size
* Larger
* Smaller
Angie A. Welborn
Congressional Research Service
July 13, 2009
Editor’s note: This Congressional Research Service (CRS) report was originally posted on the Federation of American Scientists website as a PDF. The CRS is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress and its reports are highly regarded as in-depth, accurate, objective, and timely, but as a matter of policy they are not made directly available to members of the public. The document was last updated on January 18, 2005.
Summary
This report discusses the legal precedent for mandatory vaccination laws and provides a brief overview of state laws that require certain individuals or populations to be vaccinated against various communicable diseases. The role of both the federal and state governments with respect to public health emergency powers, including requiring the use of a vaccine, is discussed. This report will be updated as warranted.
History and Precedent
Historically, the preservation of the public health has been the responsibility of state and local governments, and the authority to enact laws relevant to the protection of the public health derives from the state’s general police powers.1 With respect to the preservation of the public health in cases of communicable disease outbreaks, these powers may include the institution of quarantine or the enactment of mandatory vaccination laws.2 Mandatory vaccination laws were first enacted in the early nineteenth century, with Massachusetts enacting the first such law in 1809.3
Jacobson v. Massachusetts is viewed as the seminal case regarding a state’s or municipality’s authority to institute a mandatory vaccination program as an exercise of its police powers.4 In Jacobson, the Supreme Court upheld a Massachusetts law that gave municipal boards of health the authority to require the vaccination of persons over the age of 21 against smallpox, and determined that the vaccination program instituted in the city of Cambridge had “a real and substantial relation to the protection of the public health and safety.”5 In upholding the law, the Court noted that “the police power of a State must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety.”6 The Court added that such laws were within the full discretion of the State, and that Federal powers with respect to such laws extended only to ensure that the state laws did not “contravene the Constitution of the United States or infringe any right granted or secured by that instrument.”7
The Court addressed the constitutional concerns raised by the petitioner in Jacobson, but remained unconvinced that his rights were “contravened” by the mandatory vaccination program. The petitioner argued that “his liberty is invaded when the State subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person.”8 The Court rejected the petitioner’s constitutional challenge and noted that “the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person, to be, at all times and in all circumstances wholly free from restraint.”9
State Mandatory Vaccination Laws
School Vaccination Requirements. State laws mandating vaccinations for children are very common. Every state has a law requiring children to be vaccinated before they enroll in a public or private school. Early statutes required vaccination against smallpox and were amended as new vaccines were introduced.10 Many modern school vaccination laws are the result of measles outbreaks in the 1960’s and 1970’s.11 Generally, states use the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s schedule of immunizations as a guide, and require children to be vaccinated against a number of diseases on the schedule, including diphtheria, measles, rubella, and polio.12
Despite the wide-spread imposition of school vaccination requirements, many states provide exemptions for medical, religious, and, to a lesser extent, philosophical reasons. These provisions vary by state, with medical exemptions for children who may suffer adverse effects from the vaccine being the most common. For example, in Colorado and most other states, an exemption from the vaccination requirements may be obtained by submitting to the school a certification from a licensed physician that “the physical condition of the student is such that one or more specified immunizations would endanger his or her life or health or is medically contradicted due to other medical conditions.”13 Almost all states also grant religious exemptions for persons who oppose immunizations for religious reasons.14 The statutes allowing religious exemptions vary, with some requiring only a statement of dissent from the student, parent, or guardian, and others requiring a more specific statement regarding the child’s membership in a religious denomination that opposes immunizations.15 Exemptions based on philosophical or moral convictions in opposition to immunization are less common, but are provided by more than a dozen states, including Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.16 States may specify that such religious or philosophical beliefs be “sincere” or “conscientiously held.”17
Vaccination Orders During a Public Health Emergency. Many states also have laws providing for mandatory vaccinations during a public health emergency or outbreak of a communicable disease. Generally, the power to order such actions rests with the governor of the state, the state board of health, or the state health officer. For example, in Hawaii, the Governor has the power to supplement the state’s existing compulsory vaccination programs and institute additional programs in the event of a civil defense emergency period.18 Arizona also authorizes the Governor, during a state of emergency or state of war emergency in which there is an occurrence or the imminent threat of smallpox or other highly contagious and highly fatal disease, “to issue orders that mandate treatment or vaccination of persons who are diagnosed with illness resulting from exposure or who are reasonably believed to have been exposed or who may reasonably be expected to be exposed.”19 In Florida, upon declaration of a public health emergency, the state health officer may order an individual to be vaccinated “for communicable diseases that have significant morbidity or mortality and present a severe danger to public health.”20
Other states have provisions for mandatory vaccinations, but provide exemptions similar to those for childhood vaccinations discussed above. For example, in Connecticut, a person may refuse a vaccination if a physician determines that “it would not be prudent on account of sickness.”21 In Virginia, vaccination requirements may also be waived if the vaccination would be detrimental to a person’s health, as certified by a physician.22 Wisconsin allows a person to refuse a vaccination for medical reasons and also for “reasons of religion or conscience.”23 However, if a person refuses to be vaccinated, he or she may be quarantined during the public health emergency giving rise to the vaccination order.24
Model State Emergency Health Powers Act. In addition to the current laws, many states are considering or have considered the provisions set forth in the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act. The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act was drafted by The Center for Law and the Public’s Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities.25 The Model Act seeks to “grant public health powers to state and local public health authorities to ensure strong, effective, and timely planning, prevention, and response mechanisms to public health emergencies (including bioterrorism) while also respecting individual rights.”26 It is important to note that this is intended to be a model for states to use in evaluating their emergency response plans, and passage of the Model Act in its entirety is not required. In fact, many states will likely use parts of the Model Act, but tailor their statutes and regulations to respond to unique or novel situations that may arise in their jurisdiction.
The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act addresses a number of issues likely to arise during a public health emergency and offers guidelines for states with respect to what powers may be necessary during such an emergency. With respect to vaccinations, the Act includes provisions similar to the current laws discussed above. Under the Model Act, during a public health emergency the public health authority would be authorized to “vaccinate persons as protection against infectious disease and to prevent the spread of contagious or possibly contagious disease.”27 The Act requires that the vaccine be administered by a qualified person authorized by the public health authority, and that the vaccine “not be such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual.”28 The Act recognizes that individuals may be unable or unwilling to undergo vaccination “for reasons of health, religion, or conscience,” and provides that such individuals may be subject to quarantine to prevent the spread of a contagious or possibly contagious disease.29
Role of the Federal Government
Under the Public Health Service Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority to make and enforce regulations necessary “to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.”30 While this language appears to confer broad authority to promulgate regulations necessary to prevent the spread of disease, the only regulations specifically authorized by the Act relate to the apprehension, detention, examination, or conditional release of individuals.31 The Act does not specifically authorize regulations related to mandatory vaccination programs, nor do there appear to be any regulations regarding the implementation of a mandatory vaccination program at the federal level during a public health emergency.32
As noted above, state and local governments have the primary responsibility for protecting the public health, and this has been reflected in the enactment of state laws pertaining to public health and establishing procedures during a public health emergency. Any federal mandatory vaccination program applicable to the general public would likely be limited to areas of existing federal jurisdiction, similar to the federal quarantine authority.33 Generally, federal regulations authorizing the apprehension, detention, examination, or conditional release of individuals are applicable only to individuals coming into a State or possession from a foreign country or a possession.34 This limitation on federal jurisdiction acknowledges that states have the primary responsibility for protecting the public health, but under certain circumstances, federal intervention may be necessary. Any federal mandatory vaccination program applicable to the general public would likely incorporate similar jurisdictional limitations.
1 See The People v. Robertson, 134 N.E. 815, 817 (1922).
2 For more information on state and federal quarantine authority, see CRS Report RL31333, Federal and State Responses to Biological Attacks: Isolation and Quarantine Authority.
3 Lawrence O. Gostin, Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint, p. 181 and n. 27. 4 197 U.S. 11 (1905).
4 Lawrence O. Gostin, Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint, p. 181 and n. 27. 4 197 U.S. 11 (1905).
5 Id at 31. The Massachusetts statute in questions reads as follows: “Boards of health, if in their opinion it is necessary for public health or safety, shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants of their towns, and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit five dollars.” ALM GL ch. 111, § 181 (2004).
6 Id at 25.
7 Id.
8 Id at 26.
9 Id.
10 James G. Hodge, Jr. and Lawrence O. Gostin, School Vaccination Requirements: Historical, Social, and Legal Perspectives, 90 Ky. L. J. 831, 867 (2001/2002).
11 Id at 868.
12 Id. See id at 869 for a complete list state laws regarding school vaccination requirements.
13 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-4-903(2)(a) (2004).
14 Only one state – West Virginia – appears to not provide for an exemption based on religious beliefs. W. Va. Code § 16-3-4 (2004). 15 See e.g., La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 17:170(E) (2004); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 72-5209(b)(2) (2003). 16 See supra note 10 at fn. 234. 17 See e.g., Massachusetts, ALM GL ch. 76, § 15 (2004); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 121A.15 (2003). 18 HRS § 128-8 (2003). State law authorizes the department of health to adopt rules “requiring and governing immunization against [communicable diseases], if a suitable immunizing agent is available for the disease and a need for immunization against it exists within the State.” HRS § 325-32 (2003).
15 See e.g., La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 17:170(E) (2004); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 72-5209(b)(2) (2003).
16 See supra note 10 at fn. 234.
17 See e.g., Massachusetts, ALM GL ch. 76, § 15 (2004); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 121A.15 (2003).
18 HRS § 128-8 (2003). State law authorizes the department of health to adopt rules “requiring
and governing immunization against [communicable diseases], if a suitable immunizing agent
is available for the disease and a need for immunization against it exists within the State.” HRS
§ 325-32 (2003).
19 A.R.S. § 36-787 (2004).
20 Fla. Stat. § 381.00315 (2004). 21 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-222 (2003). 22 Va. Code Ann. § 32.1-48 (2004). 23 Wis. Stat. § 252.041 (2004).
21 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-222 (2003). 22 Va. Code Ann. § 32.1-48 (2004). 23 Wis. Stat. § 252.041 (2004).
24 Id.
25 A copy of the Model Act can be found at [http://www.publichealthlaw.net/Resources/Modellaws.htm].
26 Id.
27 Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, Article VI, Sec. 603.
28 Id.
29 Id. Quarantine provisions are located in Section 604 of the Model Act.
30 42 U.S.C. 264. Originally, the statute conferred this authority on the Surgeon General; however, pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1966, all statutory powers and functions of the Surgeon General were transferred to the Secretary.
31 42 U.S.C. 264(c).
32 For more information on federal vaccination policy, see CRS Report RL31694, Smallpox Vaccine Stockpile and Vaccination Policy.
33 See supra note 2.
34 42 U.S.C. 264(c). However, such regulations may provide for the apprehension and examination of “any individual reasonably believed to be infected with a communicable disease in a qualifying stage and (A) to be moving or about to move from a State to another State; or (B) to be a probable source of infection to individuals who, while infected with such disease in a qualifying stage, will be moving from a State to another State.” 42 U.S.C. 264(d).
* Text size
* Larger
* Smaller
Angie A. Welborn
Congressional Research Service
July 13, 2009
Editor’s note: This Congressional Research Service (CRS) report was originally posted on the Federation of American Scientists website as a PDF. The CRS is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress and its reports are highly regarded as in-depth, accurate, objective, and timely, but as a matter of policy they are not made directly available to members of the public. The document was last updated on January 18, 2005.
Summary
This report discusses the legal precedent for mandatory vaccination laws and provides a brief overview of state laws that require certain individuals or populations to be vaccinated against various communicable diseases. The role of both the federal and state governments with respect to public health emergency powers, including requiring the use of a vaccine, is discussed. This report will be updated as warranted.
History and Precedent
Historically, the preservation of the public health has been the responsibility of state and local governments, and the authority to enact laws relevant to the protection of the public health derives from the state’s general police powers.1 With respect to the preservation of the public health in cases of communicable disease outbreaks, these powers may include the institution of quarantine or the enactment of mandatory vaccination laws.2 Mandatory vaccination laws were first enacted in the early nineteenth century, with Massachusetts enacting the first such law in 1809.3
Jacobson v. Massachusetts is viewed as the seminal case regarding a state’s or municipality’s authority to institute a mandatory vaccination program as an exercise of its police powers.4 In Jacobson, the Supreme Court upheld a Massachusetts law that gave municipal boards of health the authority to require the vaccination of persons over the age of 21 against smallpox, and determined that the vaccination program instituted in the city of Cambridge had “a real and substantial relation to the protection of the public health and safety.”5 In upholding the law, the Court noted that “the police power of a State must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety.”6 The Court added that such laws were within the full discretion of the State, and that Federal powers with respect to such laws extended only to ensure that the state laws did not “contravene the Constitution of the United States or infringe any right granted or secured by that instrument.”7
The Court addressed the constitutional concerns raised by the petitioner in Jacobson, but remained unconvinced that his rights were “contravened” by the mandatory vaccination program. The petitioner argued that “his liberty is invaded when the State subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person.”8 The Court rejected the petitioner’s constitutional challenge and noted that “the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person, to be, at all times and in all circumstances wholly free from restraint.”9
State Mandatory Vaccination Laws
School Vaccination Requirements. State laws mandating vaccinations for children are very common. Every state has a law requiring children to be vaccinated before they enroll in a public or private school. Early statutes required vaccination against smallpox and were amended as new vaccines were introduced.10 Many modern school vaccination laws are the result of measles outbreaks in the 1960’s and 1970’s.11 Generally, states use the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s schedule of immunizations as a guide, and require children to be vaccinated against a number of diseases on the schedule, including diphtheria, measles, rubella, and polio.12
Despite the wide-spread imposition of school vaccination requirements, many states provide exemptions for medical, religious, and, to a lesser extent, philosophical reasons. These provisions vary by state, with medical exemptions for children who may suffer adverse effects from the vaccine being the most common. For example, in Colorado and most other states, an exemption from the vaccination requirements may be obtained by submitting to the school a certification from a licensed physician that “the physical condition of the student is such that one or more specified immunizations would endanger his or her life or health or is medically contradicted due to other medical conditions.”13 Almost all states also grant religious exemptions for persons who oppose immunizations for religious reasons.14 The statutes allowing religious exemptions vary, with some requiring only a statement of dissent from the student, parent, or guardian, and others requiring a more specific statement regarding the child’s membership in a religious denomination that opposes immunizations.15 Exemptions based on philosophical or moral convictions in opposition to immunization are less common, but are provided by more than a dozen states, including Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.16 States may specify that such religious or philosophical beliefs be “sincere” or “conscientiously held.”17
Vaccination Orders During a Public Health Emergency. Many states also have laws providing for mandatory vaccinations during a public health emergency or outbreak of a communicable disease. Generally, the power to order such actions rests with the governor of the state, the state board of health, or the state health officer. For example, in Hawaii, the Governor has the power to supplement the state’s existing compulsory vaccination programs and institute additional programs in the event of a civil defense emergency period.18 Arizona also authorizes the Governor, during a state of emergency or state of war emergency in which there is an occurrence or the imminent threat of smallpox or other highly contagious and highly fatal disease, “to issue orders that mandate treatment or vaccination of persons who are diagnosed with illness resulting from exposure or who are reasonably believed to have been exposed or who may reasonably be expected to be exposed.”19 In Florida, upon declaration of a public health emergency, the state health officer may order an individual to be vaccinated “for communicable diseases that have significant morbidity or mortality and present a severe danger to public health.”20
Other states have provisions for mandatory vaccinations, but provide exemptions similar to those for childhood vaccinations discussed above. For example, in Connecticut, a person may refuse a vaccination if a physician determines that “it would not be prudent on account of sickness.”21 In Virginia, vaccination requirements may also be waived if the vaccination would be detrimental to a person’s health, as certified by a physician.22 Wisconsin allows a person to refuse a vaccination for medical reasons and also for “reasons of religion or conscience.”23 However, if a person refuses to be vaccinated, he or she may be quarantined during the public health emergency giving rise to the vaccination order.24
Model State Emergency Health Powers Act. In addition to the current laws, many states are considering or have considered the provisions set forth in the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act. The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act was drafted by The Center for Law and the Public’s Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities.25 The Model Act seeks to “grant public health powers to state and local public health authorities to ensure strong, effective, and timely planning, prevention, and response mechanisms to public health emergencies (including bioterrorism) while also respecting individual rights.”26 It is important to note that this is intended to be a model for states to use in evaluating their emergency response plans, and passage of the Model Act in its entirety is not required. In fact, many states will likely use parts of the Model Act, but tailor their statutes and regulations to respond to unique or novel situations that may arise in their jurisdiction.
The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act addresses a number of issues likely to arise during a public health emergency and offers guidelines for states with respect to what powers may be necessary during such an emergency. With respect to vaccinations, the Act includes provisions similar to the current laws discussed above. Under the Model Act, during a public health emergency the public health authority would be authorized to “vaccinate persons as protection against infectious disease and to prevent the spread of contagious or possibly contagious disease.”27 The Act requires that the vaccine be administered by a qualified person authorized by the public health authority, and that the vaccine “not be such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual.”28 The Act recognizes that individuals may be unable or unwilling to undergo vaccination “for reasons of health, religion, or conscience,” and provides that such individuals may be subject to quarantine to prevent the spread of a contagious or possibly contagious disease.29
Role of the Federal Government
Under the Public Health Service Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority to make and enforce regulations necessary “to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.”30 While this language appears to confer broad authority to promulgate regulations necessary to prevent the spread of disease, the only regulations specifically authorized by the Act relate to the apprehension, detention, examination, or conditional release of individuals.31 The Act does not specifically authorize regulations related to mandatory vaccination programs, nor do there appear to be any regulations regarding the implementation of a mandatory vaccination program at the federal level during a public health emergency.32
As noted above, state and local governments have the primary responsibility for protecting the public health, and this has been reflected in the enactment of state laws pertaining to public health and establishing procedures during a public health emergency. Any federal mandatory vaccination program applicable to the general public would likely be limited to areas of existing federal jurisdiction, similar to the federal quarantine authority.33 Generally, federal regulations authorizing the apprehension, detention, examination, or conditional release of individuals are applicable only to individuals coming into a State or possession from a foreign country or a possession.34 This limitation on federal jurisdiction acknowledges that states have the primary responsibility for protecting the public health, but under certain circumstances, federal intervention may be necessary. Any federal mandatory vaccination program applicable to the general public would likely incorporate similar jurisdictional limitations.
1 See The People v. Robertson, 134 N.E. 815, 817 (1922).
2 For more information on state and federal quarantine authority, see CRS Report RL31333, Federal and State Responses to Biological Attacks: Isolation and Quarantine Authority.
3 Lawrence O. Gostin, Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint, p. 181 and n. 27. 4 197 U.S. 11 (1905).
4 Lawrence O. Gostin, Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint, p. 181 and n. 27. 4 197 U.S. 11 (1905).
5 Id at 31. The Massachusetts statute in questions reads as follows: “Boards of health, if in their opinion it is necessary for public health or safety, shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants of their towns, and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit five dollars.” ALM GL ch. 111, § 181 (2004).
6 Id at 25.
7 Id.
8 Id at 26.
9 Id.
10 James G. Hodge, Jr. and Lawrence O. Gostin, School Vaccination Requirements: Historical, Social, and Legal Perspectives, 90 Ky. L. J. 831, 867 (2001/2002).
11 Id at 868.
12 Id. See id at 869 for a complete list state laws regarding school vaccination requirements.
13 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-4-903(2)(a) (2004).
14 Only one state – West Virginia – appears to not provide for an exemption based on religious beliefs. W. Va. Code § 16-3-4 (2004). 15 See e.g., La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 17:170(E) (2004); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 72-5209(b)(2) (2003). 16 See supra note 10 at fn. 234. 17 See e.g., Massachusetts, ALM GL ch. 76, § 15 (2004); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 121A.15 (2003). 18 HRS § 128-8 (2003). State law authorizes the department of health to adopt rules “requiring and governing immunization against [communicable diseases], if a suitable immunizing agent is available for the disease and a need for immunization against it exists within the State.” HRS § 325-32 (2003).
15 See e.g., La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 17:170(E) (2004); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 72-5209(b)(2) (2003).
16 See supra note 10 at fn. 234.
17 See e.g., Massachusetts, ALM GL ch. 76, § 15 (2004); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 121A.15 (2003).
18 HRS § 128-8 (2003). State law authorizes the department of health to adopt rules “requiring
and governing immunization against [communicable diseases], if a suitable immunizing agent
is available for the disease and a need for immunization against it exists within the State.” HRS
§ 325-32 (2003).
19 A.R.S. § 36-787 (2004).
20 Fla. Stat. § 381.00315 (2004). 21 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-222 (2003). 22 Va. Code Ann. § 32.1-48 (2004). 23 Wis. Stat. § 252.041 (2004).
21 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-222 (2003). 22 Va. Code Ann. § 32.1-48 (2004). 23 Wis. Stat. § 252.041 (2004).
24 Id.
25 A copy of the Model Act can be found at [http://www.publichealthlaw.net/Resources/Modellaws.htm].
26 Id.
27 Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, Article VI, Sec. 603.
28 Id.
29 Id. Quarantine provisions are located in Section 604 of the Model Act.
30 42 U.S.C. 264. Originally, the statute conferred this authority on the Surgeon General; however, pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1966, all statutory powers and functions of the Surgeon General were transferred to the Secretary.
31 42 U.S.C. 264(c).
32 For more information on federal vaccination policy, see CRS Report RL31694, Smallpox Vaccine Stockpile and Vaccination Policy.
33 See supra note 2.
34 42 U.S.C. 264(c). However, such regulations may provide for the apprehension and examination of “any individual reasonably believed to be infected with a communicable disease in a qualifying stage and (A) to be moving or about to move from a State to another State; or (B) to be a probable source of infection to individuals who, while infected with such disease in a qualifying stage, will be moving from a State to another State.” 42 U.S.C. 264(d).
CLIMATE BILL SPELLS “SKYROCKETING” ENERGY RATES, UNEMPLOYMENT, LESS FREEDOM
CLIMATE BILL SPELLS “SKYROCKETING” ENERGY RATES, UNEMPLOYMENT, LESS FREEDOM
By Sarah Foster
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
July 14, 2009
© 2009 NewsWithViews.com
WASHINGTON – It was close, but late Friday, June 26, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the highly controversial H.R. 2998 (originally H.R. 2454): The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) -- called informally the “Waxman-Markey Global Warming Bill” after its cosponsors Henry Waxman, Calif., and Ed Markey, Mass., both Democrats. The bill now awaits action by the Senate.
This was the first time either house of Congress had approved legislation designed to curb “greenhouse gases” that many believe contribute to “global warming” and climate change. The vote was 212-219. Forty-four Democrats voted No, and without the Yes-votes of eight Republicans it would have gone down in defeat.
President Obama hailed the historic passage, as did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who led the charge in ramming the bill through the House, determined to secure approval by July 4.
“We passed transformational legislation, which will take us into the future,” Pelosi boasted at a press conference following the roll call.
And in a derisive slap at the grassroots opposition that bombarded congressional offices with emails, faxes and phone calls, she declared: “For some it was a difficult vote because the agents of the status quo were out there full force, jamming the lines in their districts and here [in D.C.], but [the representatives] withstood that.”
It would definitely be “transformational.” Waxman-Markey is arguably the most sweeping, far-reaching measure Congress has ever considered in terms of its impact on the U.S. economy, industry and standard of living – and the most costly.
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio called it “the biggest job-killing bill that has ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives.”
Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), describes it as “a massive tax hike that would vastly expand the federal government’s power over the economy. Indeed, [Waxman-Markey] would be the largest tax increase in world history, [would] transfer vast wealth from consumers to big-business special interests.
“And it would put Washington in charge of people’s lives in a way not seen since the Second World War – which was the last time Americans needed ration coupons to buy gasoline, food and other commodities,” he warned.
Yet despite its magnitude, the Democrat-controlled House voted to allow just three hours of debate for the bill itself, plus half an hour for a 309-page Manager’s Amendment (H.R. 2998) by Waxman that was dropped in the hopper at 3 a.m. that morning.
Nobody had read the entire measure, let alone the amendment, when they voted: copies weren’t even available. Moreover, it had grown from about 950 pages to an eyeball-glazing 1,510 in the five days before the vote (that’s including the amendment).
“Unfortunately, this is the New World Order,” said Andrew Moylan, Director of Government Affairs at the National Taxpayers Union (NTU). “Where we have bills that are written in secret, are debated in no time at all, get passed into law – and we find out what little cookies are in there for us after the fact.”
(For lists of some of the hundreds of “cookies” in the Manager’s Amendment click here and here.)
The High Cost of Going Green
The goal of Waxman-Markey is to decrease the level of carbon dioxide and five other “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere. These gases occur naturally (CO2, in particular, is necessary for plant life), but levels are said to be increased by the burning of carbon-based fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas) during energy production that provides 85 percent of U.S. electricity.
That increase is alleged to contribute to “global warming” – though this is widely disputed, as is the theory that there’s any global warming at all. Contrary to claims of Waxman-Markey supporters, such as former Vice President Al Gore, the scientific community is divided over whether there is global warming and if there is, what causes it and what to do about it.
[Read: "Global Warming Challenged" by Willian Hunt]
The bill mandates that 20 percent of U.S. electricity comes from “renewable” sources. Electric and gas utilities, refineries, cement plants, steel foundries and other companies would be required to lower the amount of CO2 emitted from their smokestacks 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and down to 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.
This will be done through an elaborate permitting process called cap-and-trade that requires companies to have one emission permit – in effect, a ration coupon -- for every ton of CO2 emitted from their smokestacks. The government will set a cap for the maximum amount of CO2 emission, and ratchet the cap down over time -- in theory, forcing companies to invest in lower-carbon technologies such as wind and solar.
Critics predict huge hikes in the cost of lighting, heating, air cooling, and transportation – any activity that depends on electricity or gasoline – plus increases in the price of food and consumer goods and serious unemployment. Overall costs are estimated to range anywhere from $2 trillion to $9 trillion.
“We’re talking about adding hundreds of billions of dollars per year in added costs to energy,” Moylan told NewsWithViews. “That’s something that people are not going to have a choice about if they want to keep the lights on, drive to work and get the kids to school.”
Just before the vote the Congressional Budget Office released figures purporting to show that the cost to the average household would be only $175 a year by 2020. An earlier estimate by CBO had set the tab at $1,600 a year.
Except for this conveniently released report by the CBO, there are virtually no one is claiming that Waxman-Markey is going to be cheap – not even the president for whom it’s a top priority measure.
Obama: “Electricity Rates Will Skyrocket”
In a famous interview with editors of the San Francisco Chronicle (Jan. 17, 2008), then-Senator Obama admitted the price of electricity would go up. Way up. In his words:
“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket … because I’m capping greenhouse gases -- coal power plants, natural gas, you name it -- whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money; they will pass that [cost] on to consumers.”
Obama further explained how it would be necessary to persuade the American people that although there would be “some increase” in electricity rates, “over the long term -- because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, and changing light bulbs, more efficient appliances, but also technology in proving how we can produce clean energy -- the economy will benefit.”
He did not promise that rates would eventually come down or even that it would be possible to develop the necessary technology. He only said that the economy would “benefit” and the argument must be made “persuasively enough” for Americans to accept the plan.
At the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, researchers crunched numbers and came up with some specifics about the first 23 years of a project that’s planned to go on for the next 90 years.
According to Heritage findings, under Waxman-Markey the cost of electricity will soar 90 percent between 2012 and 2035; gasoline prices will rise 58 percent; and residential natural gas, 55 percent. A family of four can expect its annual energy bill to be raised by $1,241. (Figures are adjusted for inflation, and assume a 36 percent cut in energy use by consumers trying to adjust to escalating costs.)
That $1,241 yearly energy bill is just the direct increase in energy prices. As energy prices go up, the costs of making consumer goods will follow and businesses will pass these along in the form of higher prices. From the Heritage Foundation's analysis:
“As the higher production costs ripple through the economy, household pocketbooks get hit again and again. When all the direct and indirect energy tax impacts have been added up, family-of-four costs will rise by $2,979 per year on the average over the 2023-2035 timeframe. In 2035 alone, the cost is $4,609.”
With the slowing of the economy, unemployment will go up on average 1,145,000 a year in lost jobs, with peak years seeing unemployment of over 2.4 million jobs gone.
Then there’s the national debt: “By 2035 Waxman-Markey will have driven the national debt 26 percent above what it would be without the legislation, and that represents an additional $28,728 per person, or $114,915 for a family of four.”
Energy Rationing Ahead?
Steve Milloy, co-director of the Free Enterprise Project at the National Center for Public Policy Research and publisher of JunkScience.com, foresees a particularly bleak future of contrived shortages, a higher cost of living, and less personal freedom.
“Worse than the increased cost of energy, perhaps, is that the Waxman-Markey bill will essentially result in artificial limits on energy production and, ultimately, electricity rationing,” Milloy predicts. “The bill will create a permanent energy crisis.”
This will necessarily lead to restrictions on personal activities. “A nation’s standard of living is ultimately based upon the use of energy, be it for work or play,” writes naturalist William Hunt, in a piece for NewsWithViews.
Cooking, heating one’s house, mowing the lawn, cooking, driving to the grocery store, going to the beach on the weekend – “All of these represent freedoms, both nationally and personally. The ability to get into a car and drive is an incredible freedom that most of the world does not have,” Hunt observes.
If the price of gasoline is artificially increased 58 percent, low-income families and individuals would be hard-pressed to pay for it and forced to change their driving habits, perhaps giving up driving altogether.
“These, and indeed all other measures suggested by politicians, regulators and NGOs to deal with global warming [cap and trade, carbon taxes] are about controlling what you do with your life by controlling energy,” says Hunt. “All such things do is to raise the price consumers have to pay for basic needs. They harm the poor most of all by hitting them by raising the costs for basic costs like heat, light, water, sewer, food, gasoline for commuting to work, and every consumer good— clothes, soap, cars, everything.”
Waxman-Markey vs. the Laws of Thermodynamics
“What they’re doing is raising the cost of traditional energy so high that it would be feasible to invest in alternate technologies,” says Andrew Moylan.
“Today, alternative technologies – as great as they may seem to people – are very expensive. It’s not that people desperately want to destroy the environment that they’re not investing in them. They don’t invest in them because they’re extremely expensive. So if you raise the cost of traditional energy so high that it makes other technologies more palatable in terms of cost, there’s going to be more investment in those.”
Whether these will work or not is another question.
Keith Rattie, CEO of Utah-based Questar Corp., is one of the many global-warming skeptics who doesn’t think they will, and he explained why in a talk he gave to the graduating class of Utah Valley University this April.
Said Rattie: “Why has my generation failed to develop wind and solar? Because our energy choices are ruthlessly ruled, not by political judgments, but by the immutable laws of thermodynamics. In engineer-speak, turning diffused sources of energy such as photons in sunlight or the kinetic energy in wind requires massive investment to concentrate that energy into a form that’s usable on any meaningful scale.
“What’s more, the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. Unless or until there’s a major breakthrough in high-density electricity storage – a problem that has confounded scientists for more than 100 years – wind and solar can never be relied upon to provide base load power.”
The Fundamental Question
And in the end, will it be worth it?
“That’s the issue,” said Moylan. “I’m no climate expert, but the folks who are say that even if everything goes according to their plan – which is unlikely – global temperatures might be reduced by one-tenth of one degree by the year 2050.
“I guess that’s the fundamental question: Is one-tenth of one degree reduction in temperature under the best of circumstances worth $2 trillion in costs? I would say no. I would hope that most rational people say the answer is no. But it seems symbolism has been elevated above science in the debate.”
Selected Earlier Stories
1 - Marc Morano: Moonwalkers Defy Al Gore's Claim. July 11, 2009
2 - Devvy Kidd: Cap-and-Trade Rape Passed – What Must be Done Next. June 29, 2009
3 - William Hunt: Control and Loss of Freedom – Ultimate Goal of the Global Warming Lobby. June 1, 2009
4 - Tom DeWeese: What If There is No Man-Made Global Warming? Mar. 2, 2009
5 - Devvy Kidd: Solution to Global Warming and Disappearing Polar Bears. June 5, 2008
6 - Michael Coffman: Scientists Disclaim Role of CO2 in Global Warming. Mar. 8, 2008
7 - Michael Coffman: Global Warming or Global Governance? Aug. 13, 2007
8 - William Hunt: What Environmentalists Don't Want You to Know. Mar. 14, 2007
9 - William Hunt: The Nonsense of Global Warming. Jan. 22, 2007
More Reading / Resources
1 - Henry Waxman: H.R. 2454 and H.R. 2998: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
2 - Heritage Foundation: Cap-and-Trade/Global Warming Bill Page
3 - Nicolas Loris and Ben Lieberman: Cap and Trade: A Handout for Corporations and a Huge Tax on Consumers: Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2476. June 10/17, 2009.
4 - William Beach, David Kreutzer, Karen Campbell and Ben Lieberman: Son of Waxman-Markey: More Politics Makes for a More Costly Bill: Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2450, May 18/June 16, 2009
5 - Government Bytes: Official Blog of the National Taxpayers Union
6 - Steven Milloy: Waxman's Economy Killer. Human Events, June 25, 2009. Milloy is co-director of the Free Enterprise project at the National Center for Public Policy Research and founder/publisher of JunkScience.com (“All the junk that’s fit to debunk”)
7 - Barack Obama interview by SF Chronicle: Segment (audio). Jan. 17, 2008
8 - Barack Obama interview by SF Chronicle: Page of links (audio) to entire interview and segments. Jan. 17, 2008
9 - Wall Street Journal (no byline): The Cap and Tax Fiction. WSJ Online, June 26, 2009
10 - Keith O. Rattie: Energy Myths and Realities: Commencement Address, Utah Valley University, Apr. 2, 2009. Rattie is chairman, president and CEO of Questar Corporation, a natural gas utility in Utah.
11 - Marc Morano’s website: ClimateDepot.com.
© 2009 NWV - All Rights Reserved
By Sarah Foster
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
July 14, 2009
© 2009 NewsWithViews.com
WASHINGTON – It was close, but late Friday, June 26, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the highly controversial H.R. 2998 (originally H.R. 2454): The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) -- called informally the “Waxman-Markey Global Warming Bill” after its cosponsors Henry Waxman, Calif., and Ed Markey, Mass., both Democrats. The bill now awaits action by the Senate.
This was the first time either house of Congress had approved legislation designed to curb “greenhouse gases” that many believe contribute to “global warming” and climate change. The vote was 212-219. Forty-four Democrats voted No, and without the Yes-votes of eight Republicans it would have gone down in defeat.
President Obama hailed the historic passage, as did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who led the charge in ramming the bill through the House, determined to secure approval by July 4.
“We passed transformational legislation, which will take us into the future,” Pelosi boasted at a press conference following the roll call.
And in a derisive slap at the grassroots opposition that bombarded congressional offices with emails, faxes and phone calls, she declared: “For some it was a difficult vote because the agents of the status quo were out there full force, jamming the lines in their districts and here [in D.C.], but [the representatives] withstood that.”
It would definitely be “transformational.” Waxman-Markey is arguably the most sweeping, far-reaching measure Congress has ever considered in terms of its impact on the U.S. economy, industry and standard of living – and the most costly.
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio called it “the biggest job-killing bill that has ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives.”
Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), describes it as “a massive tax hike that would vastly expand the federal government’s power over the economy. Indeed, [Waxman-Markey] would be the largest tax increase in world history, [would] transfer vast wealth from consumers to big-business special interests.
“And it would put Washington in charge of people’s lives in a way not seen since the Second World War – which was the last time Americans needed ration coupons to buy gasoline, food and other commodities,” he warned.
Yet despite its magnitude, the Democrat-controlled House voted to allow just three hours of debate for the bill itself, plus half an hour for a 309-page Manager’s Amendment (H.R. 2998) by Waxman that was dropped in the hopper at 3 a.m. that morning.
Nobody had read the entire measure, let alone the amendment, when they voted: copies weren’t even available. Moreover, it had grown from about 950 pages to an eyeball-glazing 1,510 in the five days before the vote (that’s including the amendment).
“Unfortunately, this is the New World Order,” said Andrew Moylan, Director of Government Affairs at the National Taxpayers Union (NTU). “Where we have bills that are written in secret, are debated in no time at all, get passed into law – and we find out what little cookies are in there for us after the fact.”
(For lists of some of the hundreds of “cookies” in the Manager’s Amendment click here and here.)
The High Cost of Going Green
The goal of Waxman-Markey is to decrease the level of carbon dioxide and five other “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere. These gases occur naturally (CO2, in particular, is necessary for plant life), but levels are said to be increased by the burning of carbon-based fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas) during energy production that provides 85 percent of U.S. electricity.
That increase is alleged to contribute to “global warming” – though this is widely disputed, as is the theory that there’s any global warming at all. Contrary to claims of Waxman-Markey supporters, such as former Vice President Al Gore, the scientific community is divided over whether there is global warming and if there is, what causes it and what to do about it.
[Read: "Global Warming Challenged" by Willian Hunt]
The bill mandates that 20 percent of U.S. electricity comes from “renewable” sources. Electric and gas utilities, refineries, cement plants, steel foundries and other companies would be required to lower the amount of CO2 emitted from their smokestacks 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and down to 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.
This will be done through an elaborate permitting process called cap-and-trade that requires companies to have one emission permit – in effect, a ration coupon -- for every ton of CO2 emitted from their smokestacks. The government will set a cap for the maximum amount of CO2 emission, and ratchet the cap down over time -- in theory, forcing companies to invest in lower-carbon technologies such as wind and solar.
Critics predict huge hikes in the cost of lighting, heating, air cooling, and transportation – any activity that depends on electricity or gasoline – plus increases in the price of food and consumer goods and serious unemployment. Overall costs are estimated to range anywhere from $2 trillion to $9 trillion.
“We’re talking about adding hundreds of billions of dollars per year in added costs to energy,” Moylan told NewsWithViews. “That’s something that people are not going to have a choice about if they want to keep the lights on, drive to work and get the kids to school.”
Just before the vote the Congressional Budget Office released figures purporting to show that the cost to the average household would be only $175 a year by 2020. An earlier estimate by CBO had set the tab at $1,600 a year.
Except for this conveniently released report by the CBO, there are virtually no one is claiming that Waxman-Markey is going to be cheap – not even the president for whom it’s a top priority measure.
Obama: “Electricity Rates Will Skyrocket”
In a famous interview with editors of the San Francisco Chronicle (Jan. 17, 2008), then-Senator Obama admitted the price of electricity would go up. Way up. In his words:
“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket … because I’m capping greenhouse gases -- coal power plants, natural gas, you name it -- whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money; they will pass that [cost] on to consumers.”
Obama further explained how it would be necessary to persuade the American people that although there would be “some increase” in electricity rates, “over the long term -- because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, and changing light bulbs, more efficient appliances, but also technology in proving how we can produce clean energy -- the economy will benefit.”
He did not promise that rates would eventually come down or even that it would be possible to develop the necessary technology. He only said that the economy would “benefit” and the argument must be made “persuasively enough” for Americans to accept the plan.
At the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, researchers crunched numbers and came up with some specifics about the first 23 years of a project that’s planned to go on for the next 90 years.
According to Heritage findings, under Waxman-Markey the cost of electricity will soar 90 percent between 2012 and 2035; gasoline prices will rise 58 percent; and residential natural gas, 55 percent. A family of four can expect its annual energy bill to be raised by $1,241. (Figures are adjusted for inflation, and assume a 36 percent cut in energy use by consumers trying to adjust to escalating costs.)
That $1,241 yearly energy bill is just the direct increase in energy prices. As energy prices go up, the costs of making consumer goods will follow and businesses will pass these along in the form of higher prices. From the Heritage Foundation's analysis:
“As the higher production costs ripple through the economy, household pocketbooks get hit again and again. When all the direct and indirect energy tax impacts have been added up, family-of-four costs will rise by $2,979 per year on the average over the 2023-2035 timeframe. In 2035 alone, the cost is $4,609.”
With the slowing of the economy, unemployment will go up on average 1,145,000 a year in lost jobs, with peak years seeing unemployment of over 2.4 million jobs gone.
Then there’s the national debt: “By 2035 Waxman-Markey will have driven the national debt 26 percent above what it would be without the legislation, and that represents an additional $28,728 per person, or $114,915 for a family of four.”
Energy Rationing Ahead?
Steve Milloy, co-director of the Free Enterprise Project at the National Center for Public Policy Research and publisher of JunkScience.com, foresees a particularly bleak future of contrived shortages, a higher cost of living, and less personal freedom.
“Worse than the increased cost of energy, perhaps, is that the Waxman-Markey bill will essentially result in artificial limits on energy production and, ultimately, electricity rationing,” Milloy predicts. “The bill will create a permanent energy crisis.”
This will necessarily lead to restrictions on personal activities. “A nation’s standard of living is ultimately based upon the use of energy, be it for work or play,” writes naturalist William Hunt, in a piece for NewsWithViews.
Cooking, heating one’s house, mowing the lawn, cooking, driving to the grocery store, going to the beach on the weekend – “All of these represent freedoms, both nationally and personally. The ability to get into a car and drive is an incredible freedom that most of the world does not have,” Hunt observes.
If the price of gasoline is artificially increased 58 percent, low-income families and individuals would be hard-pressed to pay for it and forced to change their driving habits, perhaps giving up driving altogether.
“These, and indeed all other measures suggested by politicians, regulators and NGOs to deal with global warming [cap and trade, carbon taxes] are about controlling what you do with your life by controlling energy,” says Hunt. “All such things do is to raise the price consumers have to pay for basic needs. They harm the poor most of all by hitting them by raising the costs for basic costs like heat, light, water, sewer, food, gasoline for commuting to work, and every consumer good— clothes, soap, cars, everything.”
Waxman-Markey vs. the Laws of Thermodynamics
“What they’re doing is raising the cost of traditional energy so high that it would be feasible to invest in alternate technologies,” says Andrew Moylan.
“Today, alternative technologies – as great as they may seem to people – are very expensive. It’s not that people desperately want to destroy the environment that they’re not investing in them. They don’t invest in them because they’re extremely expensive. So if you raise the cost of traditional energy so high that it makes other technologies more palatable in terms of cost, there’s going to be more investment in those.”
Whether these will work or not is another question.
Keith Rattie, CEO of Utah-based Questar Corp., is one of the many global-warming skeptics who doesn’t think they will, and he explained why in a talk he gave to the graduating class of Utah Valley University this April.
Said Rattie: “Why has my generation failed to develop wind and solar? Because our energy choices are ruthlessly ruled, not by political judgments, but by the immutable laws of thermodynamics. In engineer-speak, turning diffused sources of energy such as photons in sunlight or the kinetic energy in wind requires massive investment to concentrate that energy into a form that’s usable on any meaningful scale.
“What’s more, the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. Unless or until there’s a major breakthrough in high-density electricity storage – a problem that has confounded scientists for more than 100 years – wind and solar can never be relied upon to provide base load power.”
The Fundamental Question
And in the end, will it be worth it?
“That’s the issue,” said Moylan. “I’m no climate expert, but the folks who are say that even if everything goes according to their plan – which is unlikely – global temperatures might be reduced by one-tenth of one degree by the year 2050.
“I guess that’s the fundamental question: Is one-tenth of one degree reduction in temperature under the best of circumstances worth $2 trillion in costs? I would say no. I would hope that most rational people say the answer is no. But it seems symbolism has been elevated above science in the debate.”
Selected Earlier Stories
1 - Marc Morano: Moonwalkers Defy Al Gore's Claim. July 11, 2009
2 - Devvy Kidd: Cap-and-Trade Rape Passed – What Must be Done Next. June 29, 2009
3 - William Hunt: Control and Loss of Freedom – Ultimate Goal of the Global Warming Lobby. June 1, 2009
4 - Tom DeWeese: What If There is No Man-Made Global Warming? Mar. 2, 2009
5 - Devvy Kidd: Solution to Global Warming and Disappearing Polar Bears. June 5, 2008
6 - Michael Coffman: Scientists Disclaim Role of CO2 in Global Warming. Mar. 8, 2008
7 - Michael Coffman: Global Warming or Global Governance? Aug. 13, 2007
8 - William Hunt: What Environmentalists Don't Want You to Know. Mar. 14, 2007
9 - William Hunt: The Nonsense of Global Warming. Jan. 22, 2007
More Reading / Resources
1 - Henry Waxman: H.R. 2454 and H.R. 2998: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
2 - Heritage Foundation: Cap-and-Trade/Global Warming Bill Page
3 - Nicolas Loris and Ben Lieberman: Cap and Trade: A Handout for Corporations and a Huge Tax on Consumers: Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2476. June 10/17, 2009.
4 - William Beach, David Kreutzer, Karen Campbell and Ben Lieberman: Son of Waxman-Markey: More Politics Makes for a More Costly Bill: Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2450, May 18/June 16, 2009
5 - Government Bytes: Official Blog of the National Taxpayers Union
6 - Steven Milloy: Waxman's Economy Killer. Human Events, June 25, 2009. Milloy is co-director of the Free Enterprise project at the National Center for Public Policy Research and founder/publisher of JunkScience.com (“All the junk that’s fit to debunk”)
7 - Barack Obama interview by SF Chronicle: Segment (audio). Jan. 17, 2008
8 - Barack Obama interview by SF Chronicle: Page of links (audio) to entire interview and segments. Jan. 17, 2008
9 - Wall Street Journal (no byline): The Cap and Tax Fiction. WSJ Online, June 26, 2009
10 - Keith O. Rattie: Energy Myths and Realities: Commencement Address, Utah Valley University, Apr. 2, 2009. Rattie is chairman, president and CEO of Questar Corporation, a natural gas utility in Utah.
11 - Marc Morano’s website: ClimateDepot.com.
© 2009 NWV - All Rights Reserved
Soldier balks at deploying; says Obama isn’t president
Soldier balks at deploying; says Obama isn’t president
Says he shouldn’t have to go to Afghanistan because Obama is not a U.S. citizen
By Lily Gordon
Add to My Yahoo!
Bookmark and Share
email this story to a friend E-Mail print story Print
Comments (937) | Recommend (90)
Text Size:
tool name
close
tool goes here
U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, set to deploy to Afghanistan, says he shouldn’t have to go.
His reason?
Barack Obama was never eligible to be president because he wasn’t born in the United States.
* March 2009 dismissal of complaint
* October 2008 dismissal of complaint
Cook’s lawyer, Orly Taitz, who has also challenged the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency in other courts, filed a request last week in federal court seeking a temporary restraining order and status as a conscientious objector for his client.
In the 20-page document — filed July 8 with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia — the California-based Taitz asks the court to consider granting his client’s request based upon Cook’s belief that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Cook further states he “would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President’s command. ... simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties.”
Cook, a reservist, received the orders mobilizing him to active duty on June 9.
According to this document, which accompanies Cook’s July 8 application for a temporary restraining order, he has been ordered to report to MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., on Wednesday. From there, the Florida resident would go to Fort Benning before deploying overseas.
Documents show Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, two years after it became a state.
A hearing to discuss Cook’s requests will take place in federal court here Thursday at 9:30 a.m
Says he shouldn’t have to go to Afghanistan because Obama is not a U.S. citizen
By Lily Gordon
Add to My Yahoo!
Bookmark and Share
email this story to a friend E-Mail print story Print
Comments (937) | Recommend (90)
Text Size:
tool name
close
tool goes here
U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, set to deploy to Afghanistan, says he shouldn’t have to go.
His reason?
Barack Obama was never eligible to be president because he wasn’t born in the United States.
* March 2009 dismissal of complaint
* October 2008 dismissal of complaint
Cook’s lawyer, Orly Taitz, who has also challenged the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency in other courts, filed a request last week in federal court seeking a temporary restraining order and status as a conscientious objector for his client.
In the 20-page document — filed July 8 with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia — the California-based Taitz asks the court to consider granting his client’s request based upon Cook’s belief that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Cook further states he “would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President’s command. ... simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties.”
Cook, a reservist, received the orders mobilizing him to active duty on June 9.
According to this document, which accompanies Cook’s July 8 application for a temporary restraining order, he has been ordered to report to MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., on Wednesday. From there, the Florida resident would go to Fort Benning before deploying overseas.
Documents show Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, two years after it became a state.
A hearing to discuss Cook’s requests will take place in federal court here Thursday at 9:30 a.m
ALEX JONES VIDEO CLIPS
ALEX JONES VIDEO CLIPS
Pat Robertson: Nothing Wrong With Big Brother
VP Dick Cheney talks to the CFR
patriots & traitors of 9/11 truth
Martial Law: June 3rd '05 @ The Alamo Drafthouse Cinema
WinMedia Quicktime
Martial Law: June 8th '05 @ The Alamo Drafthouse Cinema
WinMedia Quicktime
Martial Law: Selected Clips
WinMedia Quicktime
Get Martial Law DVD
Martial Law Trailer
WinMedia Quicktime
Check out Austintollparty.com for more information
Starwars Satire
WinMedia Quicktime
Read Alex's In-depth Analysis of The Starwars Films
Alex Jones Confronts Congressman Lloyd Doggett
[Watch the Clip]
Get America Destroyed By Design
Alex Jones Refuses to Thumbscan for Drivers License
[Watch the Clip]
Get America Destroyed By Design
Martial Law Trailer
WinMedia Quicktime
Get Martial Law DVD
Alex Jones Confronts Janet Reno
[Watch the Clip]
Get Police State II: The Takeover
Jones Interviews
Lone Gunmen Star Dean Haglund
WinMedia Quicktime
Buy 911 The Road to Tyranny on DVD
Hard Copy "Black Helicopter Hell"
[Watch the Clip ]
Alex on Extra about Waco [Watch the Clip]
Alex Jones appears on Austin's KLBJ morning show [Watch the Clip]
From 9/11 The Road to Tyranny: The Globalist Elite Maniacs
[Watch the Clip]
From 9/11 The Road to Tyranny: The United Nations Takes Control of American Property Rights
[Watch the Clip]
American Dictators
Watch the first forty minutes.
Get American Dictators DVD Online
9-11 The Road to Tyranny
WinMedia Quicktime
Buy 911: The Road to Tyranny DVD
Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove
WinMedia Quicktime
Buy the Order of Death & Bohemian Grove DVD
Police State III
WinMedia Quicktime
Low
Low
High
High
Matrix Of Evil
WinMedia Quicktime
Low
Low
High
High
Alex Talks with Kevin Booth About the Waco Massacre
Watch the Clip
Watch the Clip
Get A Copy of Wake up or Waco Today!
Pat Robertson: Nothing Wrong With Big Brother
VP Dick Cheney talks to the CFR
patriots & traitors of 9/11 truth
Martial Law: June 3rd '05 @ The Alamo Drafthouse Cinema
WinMedia Quicktime
Martial Law: June 8th '05 @ The Alamo Drafthouse Cinema
WinMedia Quicktime
Martial Law: Selected Clips
WinMedia Quicktime
Get Martial Law DVD
Martial Law Trailer
WinMedia Quicktime
Check out Austintollparty.com for more information
Starwars Satire
WinMedia Quicktime
Read Alex's In-depth Analysis of The Starwars Films
Alex Jones Confronts Congressman Lloyd Doggett
[Watch the Clip]
Get America Destroyed By Design
Alex Jones Refuses to Thumbscan for Drivers License
[Watch the Clip]
Get America Destroyed By Design
Martial Law Trailer
WinMedia Quicktime
Get Martial Law DVD
Alex Jones Confronts Janet Reno
[Watch the Clip]
Get Police State II: The Takeover
Jones Interviews
Lone Gunmen Star Dean Haglund
WinMedia Quicktime
Buy 911 The Road to Tyranny on DVD
Hard Copy "Black Helicopter Hell"
[Watch the Clip ]
Alex on Extra about Waco [Watch the Clip]
Alex Jones appears on Austin's KLBJ morning show [Watch the Clip]
From 9/11 The Road to Tyranny: The Globalist Elite Maniacs
[Watch the Clip]
From 9/11 The Road to Tyranny: The United Nations Takes Control of American Property Rights
[Watch the Clip]
American Dictators
Watch the first forty minutes.
Get American Dictators DVD Online
9-11 The Road to Tyranny
WinMedia Quicktime
Buy 911: The Road to Tyranny DVD
Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove
WinMedia Quicktime
Buy the Order of Death & Bohemian Grove DVD
Police State III
WinMedia Quicktime
Low
Low
High
High
Matrix Of Evil
WinMedia Quicktime
Low
Low
High
High
Alex Talks with Kevin Booth About the Waco Massacre
Watch the Clip
Watch the Clip
Get A Copy of Wake up or Waco Today!
Alex Jones
More live streams (from Genesis Communications Network)
Listen 16kbs Stream 2: Windows Media Stream | MP3 Stream | RealAudio Stream
Listen 16kbs Stream 4: Windows Media Stream | MP3 Stream | RealAudio Stream
Shortwave
M-F 11:00am - 1:00pm on 12.160MHz
M-F 9:00pm - 12:00am on 5.070MHz
Tuesday-Saturday 12:00am - 3:00am on 3.215MHz
All central times
If you don't have personal Internet access or a shortwave radio, you can always catch the show by tuning into one of the AM/FM affiliate stations in your area.
All Alex's pertinent interviews are posted in the audio section of his website, Prison Planet.com.
Thank you for your support. If you are interested in helping our affiliate relations department get Alex's show on a station in your area, please Email Genesis Communications Network with information on that station(s), or leave a voice message at 512-291-5750.
Infowars podcast
Alex Jones Show Podcast
Now you can stay up-to-date with the latest news and information from the front lines of the Info War with the brand new daily podcast of The Alex Jones Show. Because there's a war on for your mind, Veteran Broadcaster, Filmmaker, and Media Analyst Alex Jones brings you thought-provoking interviews and takes an in-depth look at the news between the daily headlines.
Already Have iTunes?
Subscribe to the Alex Jones Show Podcast NOW
(Firefox Users Select "Launch Application" if prompted)
Download iTunes
Podcast Applications
Cross Platform
Windows, Mac, Linux
Juice - http://juicereceiver.sourceforge.net/index.php
Perl - renko - http://rasterweb.net/raster/code/renko.html
Windows
Nimiq - http://www.nimiq.nl/
iPodder.NET - http://ipoddernet.sourceforge.net/
Doppler - http://www.dopplerradio.net/
jPodder - http://jpodder.com/
Now Playing - A windows iTunes Plugin - http://brandon.fuller.name/archives/hacks/nowplaying/
Macintosh
iPodderX - http://ipodderx.com/
Unix
bashpodder - http://linc.homeunix.org:8080/scripts/bashpodder/
Listen 16kbs Stream 2: Windows Media Stream | MP3 Stream | RealAudio Stream
Listen 16kbs Stream 4: Windows Media Stream | MP3 Stream | RealAudio Stream
Shortwave
M-F 11:00am - 1:00pm on 12.160MHz
M-F 9:00pm - 12:00am on 5.070MHz
Tuesday-Saturday 12:00am - 3:00am on 3.215MHz
All central times
If you don't have personal Internet access or a shortwave radio, you can always catch the show by tuning into one of the AM/FM affiliate stations in your area.
All Alex's pertinent interviews are posted in the audio section of his website, Prison Planet.com.
Thank you for your support. If you are interested in helping our affiliate relations department get Alex's show on a station in your area, please Email Genesis Communications Network with information on that station(s), or leave a voice message at 512-291-5750.
Infowars podcast
Alex Jones Show Podcast
Now you can stay up-to-date with the latest news and information from the front lines of the Info War with the brand new daily podcast of The Alex Jones Show. Because there's a war on for your mind, Veteran Broadcaster, Filmmaker, and Media Analyst Alex Jones brings you thought-provoking interviews and takes an in-depth look at the news between the daily headlines.
Already Have iTunes?
Subscribe to the Alex Jones Show Podcast NOW
(Firefox Users Select "Launch Application" if prompted)
Download iTunes
Podcast Applications
Cross Platform
Windows, Mac, Linux
Juice - http://juicereceiver.sourceforge.net/index.php
Perl - renko - http://rasterweb.net/raster/code/renko.html
Windows
Nimiq - http://www.nimiq.nl/
iPodder.NET - http://ipoddernet.sourceforge.net/
Doppler - http://www.dopplerradio.net/
jPodder - http://jpodder.com/
Now Playing - A windows iTunes Plugin - http://brandon.fuller.name/archives/hacks/nowplaying/
Macintosh
iPodderX - http://ipodderx.com/
Unix
bashpodder - http://linc.homeunix.org:8080/scripts/bashpodder/
Alex Jones Tv (Sunday Edition) 5/10:Obama's Mad Science Advisor Calls For Forced Eugencis Program
Alex Jones Tv (Sunday Edition) 5/10:Obama's Mad Science Advisor Calls For Forced Eugencis Program
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)