http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/sep/mexico-asks-u-s-stop-deporting-serious-criminals
Mexico Asks U.S. To Stop Deporting Serious Criminals
Last Updated: Mon, 09/27/2010 - 11:14am
In a flabbergasting request, a coalition of Mexican lawmakers
has asked the United States to stop deporting illegal immigrants
who have been convicted of serious crimes in American courts.
The preposterous demand was made at a recent southern
California conference in which the mayors of four Mexican cities
that border the U.S. gathered to discuss cross-border issues. The
only American mayor who attended the biannual event was San
Diego’s Jerry Sanders, evidently because his city hosted it this
year at a fancy downtown hotel.
Among the cross-border topics that were addressed at the
conference was the deportation of Mexican citizens who have
committed violent crimes in the U.S. The felons are persona
non grata in their communities, say the mayors of Tijuana,
Ciudad Juarez, Nogales and Nuevo Laredo. They want U.S.
officials to stem the deportation of such convicts to their cities,
according to a local newspaper report that covered the conference.
To support the request, the mayor (Jose Reyes Ferriz) of Mexico’s
most violent city, Ciudad Juarez, pointed out that of 80,000
people deported to his community in the past three years nearly
30,000 had committed serious crimes in the U.S. Around 7,000
had served sentences for rape and 2,000 for murder. The criminal
deportees have contributed to the escalating drug-cartel violence
in his city, Mayor Ferriz said, so he wants the U.S. to make other
arrangements when prison sentences are completed.
If this seems unbelievable, consider that a few years ago Mexico’s
government formally complained that too many Mexicans had
been repatriated from the U.S. and that the entire country was
overwhelmed with demands for housing, jobs and schools.
Various Mexican legislators publicly chastised the U.S. for
sending illegal immigrants back, explaining that the country
could not accommodate the “repatriated.”
The Obama Administration seems to be heeding to Mexico’s
request by openly halting the deportation of hundreds of thousands
of illegal immigrants. Additionally, the administration has a “backdoor
amnesty” plan to legalize millions of undocumented aliens in case
Congress doesn’t pass legislation to do it.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
.22 Long Rifle
The .22 Long Rifle: one of our oldest calibers
continuously improves
Guns Magazine, March, 2005 by Charles E. Petty
There are so many choices in factory ammo for
today's shooter that it is almost impossible to keep
them straight. So let's begin where almost all of us
did with the .22 Long Rifle. Even though some folks
look down on it, the undeniable fact is that more
.22 ammo is consumed in this country than all the
other choices combined. Billions--several of them--
annually. More than 50 percent of the total U.S.
output of ammo is rimfire and the overwhelming
majority of that is the .22 Long Rifle.
Of course, the entire rimfire family is much larger
with CBs, BBs, shorts and longs, extra longs, WRFs,
Magnums and now the .17s. Even the Long Rifle is
subdivided into at least four categories: match,
standard velocity, high velocity and hyper velocity.
At first there was only standard, but somewhere
in the teens high-speed ammo came along. Today,
high velocity is most common and where .22 Shorts
used to be my favorite because they only cost half
as much, nowadays you pay extra for everything
other than high speed.
The normal .22 Long Rifle is a 40-grain lead bullet
at 1,255 fps. Hollowpoints usually weigh 36 grains
and go 1,280 fps. Standard velocity is around 1,070.
In order to get it to go lots faster--hypervelocity
in other words--bullet weights are reduced to 32
or 33 grains and the speed winner--CCI Stinger is
listed at 1,640 fps. The standard test barrel length
is 24" and this brings us to a difficult situation. Very
few .22s these days have 24" barrels and an awful
lot of ammo goes through handguns. Winchester
does show velocities for 6" barrels in their catalog,
but you don't see herds of those either. So what I
did was go find as many different barrel lengths
as I could and shoot them all with the same ammo.
I chose CCI as representative and used standard,
MiniMag and Stinger amino to cover the basic
velocity groups. Match ammo is customarily
loaded to standard velocities, so I didn't use a
separate category although we do need to know
that different manufacturers may have slightly
different specifications. All were chronographed
with a new PACT Professional Chronograph with
the screens 15' from the muzzle. I also recorded
standard deviation, but there wasn't two cents
worth of difference so that was not included in
the table. Here's what I found:
It is interesting to note that velocities seem to
increase in line with barrel length until we get
to 24" where the velocities take a marked drop.
Of course this means that we have gotten all the
acceleration possible from the powder by 20"--
probably even less--and friction is taking over
and slowing things down. The two autoloaders
do seem to benefit a little by not having a
barrel/cylinder gap but we really can't say
that is a rule. I've also seen cases where a
revolver gave higher velocities than a pistol
with the same length barrel.
The .22 Long Rifle remains one of shooting's
greatest bargains. In my childhood I measured
my wealth by how many I had and one of my
most treasured birthday and Christmas presents
was a whole brick of ammo. The amazing thing
is that you can still buy .22s for a couple of
pennies a round or you can pay a whole lot
more. The big box stores brought about the
bulk package of 500 to 550 cartridges and I
daresay that these account for a substantial
chunk of the total.
But today's shooter has a lot more choices than
I did as a kid. Back then the color of the box was
the major decision. Now we have an enormous
variety of both domestic and imported brands
from which to choose and how we make that
decision is not always easy. Many, many
shooters only want the most bang for the buck
and theirs is the easy choice because price alone
is easy to see. But if our requirements expand a
bit to include accuracy, life just got a lot more
complicated. There aren't too many laws
concerning the behavior of guns, but one of
the very stubborn rules is that .22's rarely
follow one another around and just because
something shot well in this gun is no reason
to even think it will shoot in that one. One
generalization that seem to hold true is that
accuracy decreases as velocity increases. There
are exceptions, but standard velocity is almost
always more accurate than high speed. But we
need to be sure to define the type of accuracy
we need. If the target is a soda can at a matter
of a few yards match-grade accuracy is not
required so even though our gun might shoot
better with it we simply don't need it.
Once upon a time I did a serious accuracy test
with dozens of different .22 loads and came to
two conclusions: one I've already stated is that
standard velocity is almost always more accurate
and the other was that the only way to find out
was shoot it. So my suggestion is to define your
needs and buy the cheapest stuff that meets them.
BARREL
FIREARM LENGTH VELOCITY AMMUNITION
(MAKE) (INCHES) (FPS) (BRAND)
CCI CCI CCI
STANDARD MINIMAG STINGER
S&W317 3" 843 923 1,138
S&W 34 4" 872 980 1,154
Kimber 1911 5" 910 1,037 1,264
S&W K-22 6" 897 1,023 1,232
S&W 41 7" 959 1,125 1,422
Remington 504 20" 1,100 1,266 1,576
Remington 12-C 24" 1,005 1,150 1,506
COPYRIGHT 2005 Publishers' Development Corporation
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group
continuously improves
Guns Magazine, March, 2005 by Charles E. Petty
There are so many choices in factory ammo for
today's shooter that it is almost impossible to keep
them straight. So let's begin where almost all of us
did with the .22 Long Rifle. Even though some folks
look down on it, the undeniable fact is that more
.22 ammo is consumed in this country than all the
other choices combined. Billions--several of them--
annually. More than 50 percent of the total U.S.
output of ammo is rimfire and the overwhelming
majority of that is the .22 Long Rifle.
Of course, the entire rimfire family is much larger
with CBs, BBs, shorts and longs, extra longs, WRFs,
Magnums and now the .17s. Even the Long Rifle is
subdivided into at least four categories: match,
standard velocity, high velocity and hyper velocity.
At first there was only standard, but somewhere
in the teens high-speed ammo came along. Today,
high velocity is most common and where .22 Shorts
used to be my favorite because they only cost half
as much, nowadays you pay extra for everything
other than high speed.
The normal .22 Long Rifle is a 40-grain lead bullet
at 1,255 fps. Hollowpoints usually weigh 36 grains
and go 1,280 fps. Standard velocity is around 1,070.
In order to get it to go lots faster--hypervelocity
in other words--bullet weights are reduced to 32
or 33 grains and the speed winner--CCI Stinger is
listed at 1,640 fps. The standard test barrel length
is 24" and this brings us to a difficult situation. Very
few .22s these days have 24" barrels and an awful
lot of ammo goes through handguns. Winchester
does show velocities for 6" barrels in their catalog,
but you don't see herds of those either. So what I
did was go find as many different barrel lengths
as I could and shoot them all with the same ammo.
I chose CCI as representative and used standard,
MiniMag and Stinger amino to cover the basic
velocity groups. Match ammo is customarily
loaded to standard velocities, so I didn't use a
separate category although we do need to know
that different manufacturers may have slightly
different specifications. All were chronographed
with a new PACT Professional Chronograph with
the screens 15' from the muzzle. I also recorded
standard deviation, but there wasn't two cents
worth of difference so that was not included in
the table. Here's what I found:
It is interesting to note that velocities seem to
increase in line with barrel length until we get
to 24" where the velocities take a marked drop.
Of course this means that we have gotten all the
acceleration possible from the powder by 20"--
probably even less--and friction is taking over
and slowing things down. The two autoloaders
do seem to benefit a little by not having a
barrel/cylinder gap but we really can't say
that is a rule. I've also seen cases where a
revolver gave higher velocities than a pistol
with the same length barrel.
The .22 Long Rifle remains one of shooting's
greatest bargains. In my childhood I measured
my wealth by how many I had and one of my
most treasured birthday and Christmas presents
was a whole brick of ammo. The amazing thing
is that you can still buy .22s for a couple of
pennies a round or you can pay a whole lot
more. The big box stores brought about the
bulk package of 500 to 550 cartridges and I
daresay that these account for a substantial
chunk of the total.
But today's shooter has a lot more choices than
I did as a kid. Back then the color of the box was
the major decision. Now we have an enormous
variety of both domestic and imported brands
from which to choose and how we make that
decision is not always easy. Many, many
shooters only want the most bang for the buck
and theirs is the easy choice because price alone
is easy to see. But if our requirements expand a
bit to include accuracy, life just got a lot more
complicated. There aren't too many laws
concerning the behavior of guns, but one of
the very stubborn rules is that .22's rarely
follow one another around and just because
something shot well in this gun is no reason
to even think it will shoot in that one. One
generalization that seem to hold true is that
accuracy decreases as velocity increases. There
are exceptions, but standard velocity is almost
always more accurate than high speed. But we
need to be sure to define the type of accuracy
we need. If the target is a soda can at a matter
of a few yards match-grade accuracy is not
required so even though our gun might shoot
better with it we simply don't need it.
Once upon a time I did a serious accuracy test
with dozens of different .22 loads and came to
two conclusions: one I've already stated is that
standard velocity is almost always more accurate
and the other was that the only way to find out
was shoot it. So my suggestion is to define your
needs and buy the cheapest stuff that meets them.
BARREL
FIREARM LENGTH VELOCITY AMMUNITION
(MAKE) (INCHES) (FPS) (BRAND)
CCI CCI CCI
STANDARD MINIMAG STINGER
S&W317 3" 843 923 1,138
S&W 34 4" 872 980 1,154
Kimber 1911 5" 910 1,037 1,264
S&W K-22 6" 897 1,023 1,232
S&W 41 7" 959 1,125 1,422
Remington 504 20" 1,100 1,266 1,576
Remington 12-C 24" 1,005 1,150 1,506
COPYRIGHT 2005 Publishers' Development Corporation
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Genetically modified foods to avoid
http://www.drmercola.info/
7 Genetically Modified Foods to Avoid
Posted by natural health guru | Friday, September 3, 2010
Genetically modified crops were first introduced in the early 1990s. That was two decades after the technology to insert the genes of one species into the DNA of an unrelated species was developed.
Tampering with DNA is never a good idea. The process of creating genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can cause all sorts of side effects. Dr. Mercola explains that inserting foreign genes into a plant can create proteins that confer new traits such as herbicide tolerance or pesticide production could yield proteins that have never been in the food supply.
GMOs can be engineered with genes from animals, bacteria, viruses, or even humans. This is what makes GM food potentially dangerous to your health. They can be allergenic, carcinogenic, and toxic, Dr. Mercola warns.
The U.S. does not require companies to reveal the type of food used on their labels, so you could be eating GMOs without you knowing it!
Dr. Mercola enumerates the seven major genetically modified (GM) food crops available on the market and the problems they pose:
1. Soy
GM soy is highly allergenic and accounts for about 90 percent of soybeans planted in the U.S. It is present in about 70 percent of all food products found in American supermarkets. Rats fed GM soy had increased mortality, lower birth weight, and damaged sperm and reproductive ability.
2. Corn
Rats fed GM corn approved for human consumption developed signs of liver and kidney toxicity. In Germany and the Philippines, GM corn was blamed for the deaths of buffaloes, cows, horses, and poultry.
3. Cottonseed (used in vegetable cooking oils)
Sheep that grazed on GM cotton eventually died after developing severe irritation and black patches in their intestines, and enlarged bile ducts.
4. Canola
Three different mutant weeds resistant to three common herbicides – Monsanto's Roundup, Cyanamid's Pursuit, and Aventis' Liberty – were produced when Canadian farmers began planting GM canola seeds.
5. Sugar from sugar beets
Sugar beets easily cross pollinate, meaning GM beets could “infect” organic varieties and destroy their value.
6. Hawaiian papaya
GM papaya was introduced in 1998. After six years, a test was conducted on 20,000 papaya seeds. Eighty percent were taken from organic farms. Half of the seeds were found to be genetically modified! This means that it’s virtually impossible to safeguard non-GM crops from GM crops.
7. Zucchini and yellow squash
GM squash contains 68 times less beta-carotene and four times more sodium than non-GM varieties.
Dr. Mercola strongly believes that we should take a cue from animals, as they virtually will never willingly eat GM food if conventional food is available. They will avoid GM food to the point of starvation – a clear sign that they have an intuitive sense of the danger inherent with this food.
7 Genetically Modified Foods to Avoid
Posted by natural health guru | Friday, September 3, 2010
Genetically modified crops were first introduced in the early 1990s. That was two decades after the technology to insert the genes of one species into the DNA of an unrelated species was developed.
Tampering with DNA is never a good idea. The process of creating genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can cause all sorts of side effects. Dr. Mercola explains that inserting foreign genes into a plant can create proteins that confer new traits such as herbicide tolerance or pesticide production could yield proteins that have never been in the food supply.
GMOs can be engineered with genes from animals, bacteria, viruses, or even humans. This is what makes GM food potentially dangerous to your health. They can be allergenic, carcinogenic, and toxic, Dr. Mercola warns.
The U.S. does not require companies to reveal the type of food used on their labels, so you could be eating GMOs without you knowing it!
Dr. Mercola enumerates the seven major genetically modified (GM) food crops available on the market and the problems they pose:
1. Soy
GM soy is highly allergenic and accounts for about 90 percent of soybeans planted in the U.S. It is present in about 70 percent of all food products found in American supermarkets. Rats fed GM soy had increased mortality, lower birth weight, and damaged sperm and reproductive ability.
2. Corn
Rats fed GM corn approved for human consumption developed signs of liver and kidney toxicity. In Germany and the Philippines, GM corn was blamed for the deaths of buffaloes, cows, horses, and poultry.
3. Cottonseed (used in vegetable cooking oils)
Sheep that grazed on GM cotton eventually died after developing severe irritation and black patches in their intestines, and enlarged bile ducts.
4. Canola
Three different mutant weeds resistant to three common herbicides – Monsanto's Roundup, Cyanamid's Pursuit, and Aventis' Liberty – were produced when Canadian farmers began planting GM canola seeds.
5. Sugar from sugar beets
Sugar beets easily cross pollinate, meaning GM beets could “infect” organic varieties and destroy their value.
6. Hawaiian papaya
GM papaya was introduced in 1998. After six years, a test was conducted on 20,000 papaya seeds. Eighty percent were taken from organic farms. Half of the seeds were found to be genetically modified! This means that it’s virtually impossible to safeguard non-GM crops from GM crops.
7. Zucchini and yellow squash
GM squash contains 68 times less beta-carotene and four times more sodium than non-GM varieties.
Dr. Mercola strongly believes that we should take a cue from animals, as they virtually will never willingly eat GM food if conventional food is available. They will avoid GM food to the point of starvation – a clear sign that they have an intuitive sense of the danger inherent with this food.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
You will need a federal license to sell your house
http://tinyurl.com/2ehwcp8
The Federal Observer
04.19.10 UPDATE:
Thinking about selling your house? - A look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill)
rear_window_blog1This is unbelievable! Only the beginning… ..
Editor’s Note - 04.19.10: ARE YOU PEOPLE STUPID, OR WHAT??? READERS - NO MATTER WHICH SIDE OF THIS ISSUE YOU STAND ON - YOU MUST ALL BE THICK! FIRST OF ALL, THIS WAS PROPOSED LEGISLATION DURING THE 2009 CONGRESSIONAL YEAR HELLO! THIS IS 2010.
I DO NOT UPDATE EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE, WHICH I HAVE EVER POSTED IN 9 YEARS. THIS WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED OCTOBER 1, 2009.
THE LANGUAGE IN ALL BILLS IS CHANGES AS IT GOES ALONG. WHAT HAS BEEN POSTED, WAS BASED UPON INFORMATION, WHICH WAS AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME.
If you are unable to understand this after numerous comments left by me on the column, and emails sent to a large number of brain-dead individuals - then you never will.
I grow weary of people who can not understand this.
WAKE THE HELL UP - AND GET A LIFE!!!!!
END OF DESCUSSION!!!!!! (JB)
Editor’s Note - 04.09.10: For those of you, who feel that we are stumping for the Republicans in the 2010 election cycle - not a Republican nor Democrat supporter am I.
What becomes most interesting about all of this, is that no one is going after the original source:
www.govtrack.us
I realize that much writing out there - no matter from which side, leads to much interpretation, and subsequently - the range of differing comments and opinions on this column.
Now, see the following, as updated comments continue to come in….
CAP’N TRADE IS GOING BACK TO 1984 (JB)
Wow! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!!! Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act.
H.R. 2454, the “Cap & Trade” bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced. The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded. However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.
But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it.
Probably the worst one is this: A year from now you won’t be able to sell your house.
Yes, you read that right. The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes (”mobile homes”) are included.
In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.
To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements. Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a “label” in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner If you don’t get a high enough rating, you can’t sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act.
The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009″) and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he alone determines to be in the government’s best interest. Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year. The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time.
Sect. 202:
Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America.
Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (i.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements if you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants. You should expect requirements such as “can’t have an income of more than $50K per year”, “home selling price can’t be more than $125K”, or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that’s YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants Most of us won’t get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more “change you can believe in.”
Sect. 204:
Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for “at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.” This means that within five years, 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year. Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label. And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often - maybe every year. But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program.
Sect. 304:
Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d) that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.
H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454
Tags:
This entry was posted by The Publisher on Thursday, October 1st, 2009 at 10:59 PM and is filed under • Rear Window.
The Federal Observer
04.19.10 UPDATE:
Thinking about selling your house? - A look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill)
rear_window_blog1This is unbelievable! Only the beginning… ..
Editor’s Note - 04.19.10: ARE YOU PEOPLE STUPID, OR WHAT??? READERS - NO MATTER WHICH SIDE OF THIS ISSUE YOU STAND ON - YOU MUST ALL BE THICK! FIRST OF ALL, THIS WAS PROPOSED LEGISLATION DURING THE 2009 CONGRESSIONAL YEAR HELLO! THIS IS 2010.
I DO NOT UPDATE EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE, WHICH I HAVE EVER POSTED IN 9 YEARS. THIS WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED OCTOBER 1, 2009.
THE LANGUAGE IN ALL BILLS IS CHANGES AS IT GOES ALONG. WHAT HAS BEEN POSTED, WAS BASED UPON INFORMATION, WHICH WAS AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME.
If you are unable to understand this after numerous comments left by me on the column, and emails sent to a large number of brain-dead individuals - then you never will.
I grow weary of people who can not understand this.
WAKE THE HELL UP - AND GET A LIFE!!!!!
END OF DESCUSSION!!!!!! (JB)
Editor’s Note - 04.09.10: For those of you, who feel that we are stumping for the Republicans in the 2010 election cycle - not a Republican nor Democrat supporter am I.
What becomes most interesting about all of this, is that no one is going after the original source:
www.govtrack.us
I realize that much writing out there - no matter from which side, leads to much interpretation, and subsequently - the range of differing comments and opinions on this column.
Now, see the following, as updated comments continue to come in….
CAP’N TRADE IS GOING BACK TO 1984 (JB)
Wow! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!!! Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act.
H.R. 2454, the “Cap & Trade” bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced. The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded. However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.
But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it.
Probably the worst one is this: A year from now you won’t be able to sell your house.
Yes, you read that right. The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes (”mobile homes”) are included.
In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.
To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements. Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a “label” in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner If you don’t get a high enough rating, you can’t sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act.
The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009″) and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he alone determines to be in the government’s best interest. Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year. The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time.
Sect. 202:
Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America.
Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (i.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements if you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants. You should expect requirements such as “can’t have an income of more than $50K per year”, “home selling price can’t be more than $125K”, or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that’s YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants Most of us won’t get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more “change you can believe in.”
Sect. 204:
Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for “at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.” This means that within five years, 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year. Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label. And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often - maybe every year. But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program.
Sect. 304:
Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d) that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.
H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454
Tags:
This entry was posted by The Publisher on Thursday, October 1st, 2009 at 10:59 PM and is filed under • Rear Window.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)