Daily Archives: October 1, 2009

Not "Rape Rape"? Whoopie, Woody and Hollywood Give Polanski a Pass

by Rees Lloyd
Regarding the child molester, rapist, and fugitive from justice Roman Polanski, it should be understood that this is not a case where guilt has to be proved: He pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Thus, this is a deadbang statutory rape case — she was only 13.Transcript here.

He took the deal, which was offered because her mother didn’t want the child to have to testify. The original charges were not limited to sexual intercourse. He was charged with rape by sexual intercourse, oral copulation (him on her), and sodomy. He sodomized that kid. Mayor Adams might be called to testify to the joys of that, but the child was terrified. Have those who are signing petitions for Polansky to be pardoned seen the girl’s grand jury testimony? In it, the victim, then 13, describes w she told Polansky she wanted to go home, but he pressed her to say, gave champagne, drugs, then orally copulated her, perpetrated sexual intercourse, and then sodomized her. She also testified of how frightened she was of this 44-year-old man who had her alone in actor Jack Nicholson’s house, with no one to come to her aid.
There is really one basic question to ask of those calling begging pardon for Polanski: What if this was your daughter?
Under California law, every touching is a mandatory 8-year-sentence. That is, if in the course of achieving intercourse, he touched her breasts or vagina, each touch is an automatic, mandatory 8-year sentence. In short, every touch in the course of the rape to any private (sexual) part of her body is a mandatory 8-year sentence. He would have been in prison for over 100 years.
It is unfortunate that the judge even allowed the plea. I understand the problem of her not wanting to testify at a public trial. But, when the witness is unavailable to testify, the grand jury testimony, which is given behind closed Grand Jury doors, becomes admissible.
For Polanski to state, as he did on the tape which has been played repeatedly, that it “took a long time” for him to believe what he did was wrong because “no one was hurt” demonstrates, I believe, the necessity for concluding his plea deal: He was allowed to plead out to a much lesser charge. He underwent the standard psychiatric examination. He was allowed freedom after that examination and before sentence, and he chose to become a fugitive from justice.
There is no “statute of limitations” he pleaded guilty, waving all rights to trial. All that was left was to be sentenced. There is no statute of limitations applicable.
Any non-celebrity defendant would have been given the maximum sentence in this case — one involving use of alcohol and drugs by a 44-year-old man to orally copulate, rape further by sexual intercourse and sodomy, a 13-year-old girl.
The fact that the victim is now and adult, has forgiven her rapist, and does not want to have to relive the rape by testifying if Polanski is brought to justice, should have no impact whatsoever on the issue of whether this convicted child molester who chose to become a fugitive from justice — and was able to escape justice for some thirty years because of his wealth and celebrity — should be brought back to fulfill the plea agreement he wanted rather than risk trial. Further, there is no need for the victim to testify: Polanski has been convicted; he pleaded guilty.
Moreover, Finally, it has to be remembered that criminal prosecutions are not brought in the name of the victim, but in the name of “the People” of the state in which the criminal prosecution, or “the People of the United States in federal court. “We, the People,” should not countenance the abuse of this child or any child, no matter how much wealth the perpetrator has, nor his or her celebrity, Hollywood, ethnic, religious, or political connections. When Polanski raped that little girl, he committed a most foul offense not only of her, but the “People of California” and of the United States. That he was rich and connected enough by his Hollywood fame to run off to Europe to hide, does not change the outrage of his rape of that little girl, nor of the people of this country.
The fact that so many Hollywood celebrities are calling for Polanski to receive unequal justice, i.e., preferential discriminatory justice in his favor, because he made a couple of movies that critics praised and made money, is a moral perversion indicating why the political opinions of these people — who spend their lives playing “lets pretend” and then give each other awards for “playing less pretend” better than others — should be utterly disregarded.
The narcissism of Polanski and all these Hollywood celebrities calling him to be excused from the law applicable to us mere morals, is at once utterly manifest and utterly disgusting.
How ironic it is that so many of those signing the petition for Polanski to be pardoned for his rape of a 13-year-old, also signed petitions and made public statements calling upon Americans to listen to them and follow their judgment that we all should vote for Barack Hussein Obama.
How further ironic that they beg a pardon for Polanski from Obama, the ambulatory embodiment of narcissism, who appointed as his “Safe Schools Czar” a morally corrupt bureaucrat. Kenneth Jennings once responded to the plea for help of a teenager who was the victim of homosexual rape that the teenager should in future encounters with the homosexual monster who was raping him be careful to “use condoms.”
That homosexual rapist was never prosecuted because the future-“Safe Schools Czar” of America didn’t meet his duty as a mandatory reporter to report the homosexual rapist.
That is an outrage.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Obama Lied While More Troops Die


It has been 30 days since General Stanley McChrystal sent Defense Secretary Robert Gates a war assessment calling for reinforcements in the fight in Afghanistan; the very war Obama has said, “must be won.”

It has been six months since Obama announced a “comprehensive new strategy” for Afghanistan saying,

“I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan and to prevent their return to either country in the future.”

August 17, Obama made a speech before the VFW Convention held in Phoenix, Arizona where he again made some tall promises.

“As President, my greatest responsibility is the security and safety of the American people.”

“We need to keep our military the best-trained, the best-led, the best-equipped fighting force in the world.”

“We will equip our forces with the assets and technologies they need to fight and win.”

“This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is a — this is fundamental to the defense of our people.”

“And going forward, we will constantly adapt to new tactics to stay ahead of the enemy and give our troops the tools and equipment they need to succeed.”

According to Reuters News Service, Robert Gibbs, Propaganda Minister now says Obama intends to “take several weeks reviewing his strategy.”

In spite of being the only one actually involved with the Troops in Afghanistan, Gen McChrystal is but one Obama is listening too, as the others, mostly civilians who never served, argue back and forth on what to do.

Obama, the candidate who swore “I will listen to the Generals,” wrings his hands, devises methods to push Obamacare through on the public and flies off to Copenhagen to stump for the 2016 Olympics to be brought to crime riddled Chicago, instead of meeting with Gen. McChrystal and as a true leader should, making a firm decision and following through.

In the meantime, 43 Troops have lost their lives in Afghanistan since Gen. McChrystal submitted his assessment and requested reinforcements 30 days ago, while Obama flies around the globe to stump for Chicago.

I’m sure I’m not the only one who misses George W. Bush.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Oregon Democrats Lead Way: Kill Business Thru CO2 Regulation. Quick, Don’t Breathe!

When the US Supreme Court allowed the EPA to consider CO2 a “pollutant” and a “danger” (based on global warming washing away Massachusetts beaches (?!)),” we knew we were in for it, but now the Oregon DEQ officials have decided to jump the gun and insist all Oregon busineses toe the line and reduce their CO2 output before the EPA issues its guidelines (note Oregon was a petitioner in the case. Here.) The comment period for the CO 2 is expected to be reopened.
As you can see below in the discussion of the Waxman Markey Boxer Kerry bills (hereinafter r
eferred to as the global warming bills) the effect on energy production, farming, and manufacturing will result in more job loss and a slowing of the productivity (duh) of Oregon businesses. Consider, for instance, the reduction in CO2 in the past two years. This reduction is solely due to the recession being responsible for closing businesses and curbing productivity. This is the Democrats’ permanent plan for America. They’re starting in Oregon.
Oregon vacillates between having the highest and
4th highest unemployment rate in the country. A ruling such as this would only —do I even need to make this point?–exacerbate this. Some Oregon counties have seen their unemployment rates double in a year (here). More job losses would –I don’t know–kill entire towns? Communities? Maybe that’s in the Democrats’ plan, too.
The Democrats know they’re killing jobs. They’re willing to sacrifice Oregon growth and productivity (i.e. your job) for their uptopian view of th
e world. And, as we see from the previous post, what is the net gain for killing industry in Oregon and the rest of the country? From their OWN CLIMATOLOGISTS:

All of these costs accrue in the first 25 years of a 90-year program that, as calculated by climatologists, will lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century.

Ah, yes, hundredths of a degree reduction in global warming. Eventually, in a hundred years, we might even work our way up to 2/10’s of a percent difference.
From the Zero today:

That landmark environmental law applies to facilities that annually emit 250 tons of certain pollutants. But literally millions of places, from schools to farms, release that much carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas. So the EPA settled on a threshold for greenhouse gases of 25,000 tons per year.In Oregon, that threshold captures at least 33 facilities, according to the state Department of Environmental Quality.

So what happens to Oregon under this new DEQ rule? According to the Zero today it would make electricity coming from the Boardman coal fired power plan higher because of the cost of retrofitting, hurt Legacy Meridian Park Hospital, and cause Oregon State University to do something with its brand new power plant that it just installed.
Great. Higher costs for energy, health care and higher education. Thanks Democrats!
Right now, I’m told, they’re trying to figure out a way to implement their draconian plans AND blame George Bush for it.
Remember, if they’re willing to consider CO2 a pollutant, there’s no stopping them from dictating every breath you take. Maybe not today. But tomorrow.
Personal carbon credit cards, anyone?

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

JunkMan Calls for Boycott of Nike Over Global Warming Stance

Junkman info here. Nike quit its board position on the US Chamber of Commerce because the Chamber is against the Waxman-Markey global warming bill. I can’t imagine why the Chamber would be against Waxman Markey. I mean, after all, it’s only described as “National Economic Suicide,” it only guts its member businesses’ bottom lines, results in more job loss, slows down the economy and…lookie here at what else both Waxman Markey and Boxer Kerry do to the economy (below). All for a measly 2/10 of 1% of a degree reduction in global warming in 100 years**. The question is, why is Nike in FAVOR of either one of these man made global warming bills? How brainwashed are these guys? CO2 as a pollutant?! Phonied up Al Gore science?! Do these folks–read?
Story here about the pull out of Nike.

  • Heritage numbers about both CO2/CAP AND TAX BILLS:
  • Over the 2012-2030 timeline, job losses average over 1.1 million. By 2035, a projected 2.5 million jobs are lost below the baseline (without a cap and trade bill).
  • • The average Gross Domestic Product (GDP) lost is $393 billion, hitting a high of $662 billion in 2035. From 2012-2035, the accumulated GDP lost is $9.4 trillion.
  • • The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. The increase in family-of-four debt, solely because of Waxman-Markey, hits an almost unbelievable $114,915 by 2035.
  • • The average of the climate tax revenue, what the government gets to spend or give away, is $236 billion from 2012 through 2035 and adds up to $5.7 trillion in tax collections.
  • Waxman-Markey reduces gross domestic product by an average of $393 billion annually between 2012 and 2035, and cumulatively by $9.4 trillion. In other words, the nation will be $9.4 trillion poorer with Waxman-Markey than without it.
  • The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that by 2035 gasoline prices would increase 58 percent, natural gas prices would increase 55 percent, home heating oil would increase 56 percent, and worst of all, electricity prices would jump 90 percent.
  • But the direct tax on household energy use is just the beginning. The energy tax also hits producers. As the higher production costs ripple through the economy, the household pocketbooks get hit again and again. When all the tax impacts have been added up, the average per-family-of-four costs rise by $2,979 per year. In the year 2035 alone, the cost is $4,609. And the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035 are $71,493.

Oh, I see why Nike’s in favor it this now. Oh, wait…

Does Nike actually MANUFACTURE anything around here anymore? Maybe that’s why they’re willing to throw other jobs under the bus.

**All of these costs accrue in the first 25 years of a 90-year program that, as calculated by climatologists, will lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

UPDATE ******* How Do You Die if You Don’t Have Health Insurance? How Does One Arrive at That Number?

Sounds like the unions are making up statistics again. We have emergency care on demand, so where do these guys derive their numbers. Rep Grayson (see Lew’s post below) says the lack of health insurance results in 44,000 deaths a year and then equates that with the holocaust. How do you derive that number? Don’t people die of any number of things? How do you decide that they died for lack of health insurance?
Even so, I’m on a quest to find out where these guys are getting the number Grayson (see Lew’s post below) was touting on the floor of the US House of Reps this week.
Can you hep me? Hep! Hep!

Here’s a Reuters story about that statistic. It’s not a peer reviewed journal (just fyi) and they’re doctors who are in support of universal, government controlled health care. See also what the scientists on the other side say about their methodology:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year — one every 12 minutes — in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.

We’re losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined,” Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters. (whose inaction? the patients who choose not to get medical help?)

Overall, researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage.

The findings come amid a fierce debate over Democrats’ efforts to reform the nation’s $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare industry by expanding coverage and reducing healthcare costs.

President Barack Obama’s has made the overhaul a top domestic policy priority, but his plan has been besieged by critics and slowed by intense political battles in Congress, with the insurance and healthcare industries fighting some parts of the plan.

The Harvard study, funded by a federal research grant, was published in the online edition of the American Journal of Public Health. It was released by Physicians for a National Health Program, which favors government-backed or “single-payer” health insurance.

An similar study in 1993 found those without insurance had a 25 percent greater risk of death, according to the Harvard group. The Institute of Medicine later used that data in its 2002 estimate showing about 18,000 people a year died because they lacked coverage.

Part of the increased risk now is due to the growing ranks of the uninsured, Himmelstein said. Roughly 46.3 million people in the United States lacked coverage in 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau reported last week, up from 45.7 million in 2007.

Another factor is that there are fewer places for the uninsured to get good care. Public hospitals and clinics are shuttering or scaling back across the country in cities like New Orleans, Detroit and others, he said. (wonder why? illegal aliens?)

Study co-author Dr. Steffie Woolhandler said the findings show that without proper care, uninsured people are more likely to die from complications associated with preventable diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.

Some critics called the study flawed.

The National Center for Policy Analysis, a Washington think tank that backs a free-market approach to health care, said researchers overstated the death risk and did not track how long subjects were uninsured.

Woolhandler said that while Physicians for a National Health Program supports government-backed coverage, the Harvard study’s six researchers closely followed the methodology used in the 1993 study conducted by researchers in the federal government as well as the University of Rochester in New York.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Not "Rape Rape"? Whoopie, Woody and Hollywood Give Polanski a Pass

by Rees Lloyd
Regarding the child molester, rapist, and fugitive from justice Roman Polanski, it should be understood that this is not a case where guilt has to be proved: He pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Thus, this is a deadbang statutory rape case — she was only 13.Transcript here.

He took the deal, which was offered because her mother didn’t want the child to have to testify. The original charges were not limited to sexual intercourse. He was charged with rape by sexual intercourse, oral copulation (him on her), and sodomy. He sodomized that kid. Mayor Adams might be called to testify to the joys of that, but the child was terrified. Have those who are signing petitions for Polansky to be pardoned seen the girl’s grand jury testimony? In it, the victim, then 13, describes w she told Polansky she wanted to go home, but he pressed her to say, gave champagne, drugs, then orally copulated her, perpetrated sexual intercourse, and then sodomized her. She also testified of how frightened she was of this 44-year-old man who had her alone in actor Jack Nicholson’s house, with no one to come to her aid.
There is really one basic question to ask of those calling begging pardon for Polanski: What if this was your daughter?
Under California law, every touching is a mandatory 8-year-sentence. That is, if in the course of achieving intercourse, he touched her breasts or vagina, each touch is an automatic, mandatory 8-year sentence. In short, every touch in the course of the rape to any private (sexual) part of her body is a mandatory 8-year sentence. He would have been in prison for over 100 years.
It is unfortunate that the judge even allowed the plea. I understand the problem of her not wanting to testify at a public trial. But, when the witness is unavailable to testify, the grand jury testimony, which is given behind closed Grand Jury doors, becomes admissible.
For Polanski to state, as he did on the tape which has been played repeatedly, that it “took a long time” for him to believe what he did was wrong because “no one was hurt” demonstrates, I believe, the necessity for concluding his plea deal: He was allowed to plead out to a much lesser charge. He underwent the standard psychiatric examination. He was allowed freedom after that examination and before sentence, and he chose to become a fugitive from justice.
There is no “statute of limitations” he pleaded guilty, waving all rights to trial. All that was left was to be sentenced. There is no statute of limitations applicable.
Any non-celebrity defendant would have been given the maximum sentence in this case — one involving use of alcohol and drugs by a 44-year-old man to orally copulate, rape further by sexual intercourse and sodomy, a 13-year-old girl.
The fact that the victim is now and adult, has forgiven her rapist, and does not want to have to relive the rape by testifying if Polanski is brought to justice, should have no impact whatsoever on the issue of whether this convicted child molester who chose to become a fugitive from justice — and was able to escape justice for some thirty years because of his wealth and celebrity — should be brought back to fulfill the plea agreement he wanted rather than risk trial. Further, there is no need for the victim to testify: Polanski has been convicted; he pleaded guilty.
Moreover, Finally, it has to be remembered that criminal prosecutions are not brought in the name of the victim, but in the name of “the People” of the state in which the criminal prosecution, or “the People of the United States in federal court. “We, the People,” should not countenance the abuse of this child or any child, no matter how much wealth the perpetrator has, nor his or her celebrity, Hollywood, ethnic, religious, or political connections. When Polanski raped that little girl, he committed a most foul offense not only of her, but the “People of California” and of the United States. That he was rich and connected enough by his Hollywood fame to run off to Europe to hide, does not change the outrage of his rape of that little girl, nor of the people of this country.
The fact that so many Hollywood celebrities are calling for Polanski to receive unequal justice, i.e., preferential discriminatory justice in his favor, because he made a couple of movies that critics praised and made money, is a moral perversion indicating why the political opinions of these people — who spend their lives playing “lets pretend” and then give each other awards for “playing less pretend” better than others — should be utterly disregarded.
The narcissism of Polanski and all these Hollywood celebrities calling him to be excused from the law applicable to us mere morals, is at once utterly manifest and utterly disgusting.
How ironic it is that so many of those signing the petition for Polanski to be pardoned for his rape of a 13-year-old, also signed petitions and made public statements calling upon Americans to listen to them and follow their judgment that we all should vote for Barack Hussein Obama.
How further ironic that they beg a pardon for Polanski from Obama, the ambulatory embodiment of narcissism, who appointed as his “Safe Schools Czar” a morally corrupt bureaucrat. Kenneth Jennings once responded to the plea for help of a teenager who was the victim of homosexual rape that the teenager should in future encounters with the homosexual monster who was raping him be careful to “use condoms.”
That homosexual rapist was never prosecuted because the future-“Safe Schools Czar” of America didn’t meet his duty as a mandatory reporter to report the homosexual rapist.
That is an outrage.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Oregon Democrats Lead Way: Kill Business Thru CO2 Regulation. Quick, Don’t Breathe!

When the US Supreme Court allowed the EPA to consider CO2 a “pollutant” and a “danger” (based on global warming washing away Massachusetts beaches (?!)),” we knew we were in for it, but now the Oregon DEQ officials have decided to jump the gun and insist all Oregon busineses toe the line and reduce their CO2 output before the EPA issues its guidelines (note Oregon was a petitioner in the case. Here.) The comment period for the CO 2 is expected to be reopened.
As you can see below in the discussion of the Waxman Markey Boxer Kerry bills (hereinafter r
eferred to as the global warming bills) the effect on energy production, farming, and manufacturing will result in more job loss and a slowing of the productivity (duh) of Oregon businesses. Consider, for instance, the reduction in CO2 in the past two years. This reduction is solely due to the recession being responsible for closing businesses and curbing productivity. This is the Democrats’ permanent plan for America. They’re starting in Oregon.
Oregon vacillates between having the highest and
4th highest unemployment rate in the country. A ruling such as this would only —do I even need to make this point?–exacerbate this. Some Oregon counties have seen their unemployment rates double in a year (here). More job losses would –I don’t know–kill entire towns? Communities? Maybe that’s in the Democrats’ plan, too.
The Democrats know they’re killing jobs. They’re willing to sacrifice Oregon growth and productivity (i.e. your job) for their uptopian view of th
e world. And, as we see from the previous post, what is the net gain for killing industry in Oregon and the rest of the country? From their OWN CLIMATOLOGISTS:

All of these costs accrue in the first 25 years of a 90-year program that, as calculated by climatologists, will lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century.

Ah, yes, hundredths of a degree reduction in global warming. Eventually, in a hundred years, we might even work our way up to 2/10’s of a percent difference.
From the Zero today:

That landmark environmental law applies to facilities that annually emit 250 tons of certain pollutants. But literally millions of places, from schools to farms, release that much carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas. So the EPA settled on a threshold for greenhouse gases of 25,000 tons per year.In Oregon, that threshold captures at least 33 facilities, according to the state Department of Environmental Quality.

So what happens to Oregon under this new DEQ rule? According to the Zero today it would make electricity coming from the Boardman coal fired power plan higher because of the cost of retrofitting, hurt Legacy Meridian Park Hospital, and cause Oregon State University to do something with its brand new power plant that it just installed.
Great. Higher costs for energy, health care and higher education. Thanks Democrats!
Right now, I’m told, they’re trying to figure out a way to implement their draconian plans AND blame George Bush for it.
Remember, if they’re willing to consider CO2 a pollutant, there’s no stopping them from dictating every breath you take. Maybe not today. But tomorrow.
Personal carbon credit cards, anyone?

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

JunkMan Calls for Boycott of Nike Over Global Warming Stance

Junkman info here. Nike quit its board position on the US Chamber of Commerce because the Chamber is against the Waxman-Markey global warming bill. I can’t imagine why the Chamber would be against Waxman Markey. I mean, after all, it’s only described as “National Economic Suicide,” it only guts its member businesses’ bottom lines, results in more job loss, slows down the economy and…lookie here at what else both Waxman Markey and Boxer Kerry do to the economy (below). All for a measly 2/10 of 1% of a degree reduction in global warming in 100 years**. The question is, why is Nike in FAVOR of either one of these man made global warming bills? How brainwashed are these guys? CO2 as a pollutant?! Phonied up Al Gore science?! Do these folks–read?
Story here about the pull out of Nike.

  • Heritage numbers about both CO2/CAP AND TAX BILLS:
  • Over the 2012-2030 timeline, job losses average over 1.1 million. By 2035, a projected 2.5 million jobs are lost below the baseline (without a cap and trade bill).
  • • The average Gross Domestic Product (GDP) lost is $393 billion, hitting a high of $662 billion in 2035. From 2012-2035, the accumulated GDP lost is $9.4 trillion.
  • • The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. The increase in family-of-four debt, solely because of Waxman-Markey, hits an almost unbelievable $114,915 by 2035.
  • • The average of the climate tax revenue, what the government gets to spend or give away, is $236 billion from 2012 through 2035 and adds up to $5.7 trillion in tax collections.
  • Waxman-Markey reduces gross domestic product by an average of $393 billion annually between 2012 and 2035, and cumulatively by $9.4 trillion. In other words, the nation will be $9.4 trillion poorer with Waxman-Markey than without it.
  • The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that by 2035 gasoline prices would increase 58 percent, natural gas prices would increase 55 percent, home heating oil would increase 56 percent, and worst of all, electricity prices would jump 90 percent.
  • But the direct tax on household energy use is just the beginning. The energy tax also hits producers. As the higher production costs ripple through the economy, the household pocketbooks get hit again and again. When all the tax impacts have been added up, the average per-family-of-four costs rise by $2,979 per year. In the year 2035 alone, the cost is $4,609. And the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035 are $71,493.

Oh, I see why Nike’s in favor it this now. Oh, wait…

Does Nike actually MANUFACTURE anything around here anymore? Maybe that’s why they’re willing to throw other jobs under the bus.

**All of these costs accrue in the first 25 years of a 90-year program that, as calculated by climatologists, will lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com