From climate change scams to massive costs, Proposal 3 is bad for Michigan

The environmentalists and their supporters are pushing for passage of Proposal 3, which would amend Michigan's state Constitution to establish a standard for renewable energy. Hopefully facts will trump emotion and Proposal 3 will be soundly defeated. Why? For one, it would increase electricity rates exorbitantly through an arbitrary 25 percent mandate for politically favored energy sources. Two, it wouldn't really make energy more efficient since it would depend largely on unreliable wind turbines and solar panels for energy production. Three, it lies about the number of jobs it would create, and finally, Proposal 3 relies on the false premise of the global warming hoax to sway voters to pass it.  

Simply put, Proposal 3 would amend the Michigan constitution to require that at least 25% of each electricity provider’s annual retail electricity sales in Michigan to be derived from the generation or purchase of electricity produced from clean renewable electric energy sources (wind and solar) by 2025.  But Michigan electric utilities already are required to get 10 percent of their generation supply from renewable resources by 2015. The cost of constructing the additional renewable resources required by the new proposal is expected to exceed $12 billion. This will surely raise everyone’s utility rates. 

Megan Brown, spokesperson for the CARE for Michigan Coalition recently commented on ads promoting Proposal 3 saying, “What the proponents of Proposal 3 don’t tell voters is amazing. They don’t tell voters that their $12 Billion energy mandate will not only cost families and businesses thousands of dollars, but it will increase their sales tax costs on utility bills. No other state has placed this in a state constitution." (despite commercial ads claiming that 30 other states have passed similar measures). "They have no plan whatsoever on how this $12 billion scheme will work. Instead of running these ads...they should be providing facts and complete details on what will really happen to the people of Michigan.”

CARE points out that the ad praising Proposal 3 claims, "Studies show renewable energy will reduce the cost of your utility bills.  The Michigan Public Service Commission found renewable energy is now cheaper than new coal." 

That is simply not true. For one, renewable generation is considerably more expensive than existing traditional energy generation. In fact, according to a Public Sector Consultants report, renewable energy is at least 67% higher than conventional energy. 

The ad also claims, "Proposal 3 protects consumers by prohibiting utility companies from raising rates more than one percent." Again, that's not true. Analysis from the Citizens Research Council found that Proposal 3 “will not keep increases in total electric utility bills to one percent per year.” Guess who'll be paying for these cost increases? Us - including the poor and the elderly. 

The fact that Proposal 3 relies mostly on renewable energy sources like wind turbines and solar panels should be especially worrisome to Michigan consumers since these sources rely on two key things: wind and sunshine. 

If we needed to rely on wind turbines to power things like air conditioners, the time when we would need wind the most - such as in the steamy, hot days of August -- is the same time that Michigan has the lowest wind averages of the year. Charts from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show Detroit's overall average wind speed as of Oct. 10, 2012 to be about 11.7 mph. For large and small wind turbines, this average wind speed would generate such a small amount of power on average, that wind turbines would be virtually useless.  

Other concerns about wind turbines involve the high maintenance requirements to keep them from over-spinning during high winds and stormy weather.  As pointed out by a retired Ford and Visteon climate control engineer with 41 years' experience, "If these turbines are not maintained, the blades can fly apart with the potential of injury and even death to someone nearby...and also kill birds flying through the spinning blades." To see a short video of turbine failure, click here.  

From merely a common sense perspective, picture what thousands and thousands of wind turbines would do to the visual landscape of Michigan. It would be ugly indeed. And this would be just for DTE alone. Add to that the additional thousands of turbines for Consumers Power, and you would be seeing ugly turbines just about everywhere you look - and you'd here them everywhere, too. Also, considering we're in a big bird migration zone, think of the bird carnage. As the Ford/Visteon engineer put it, "We'll become the Cuisnart of the Great Lakes."

As for solar panels, data from the U.S. Solar Radiation Resource Maps show that, "a south facing panel inclined at 42.4 degrees generates about four to five kilowatt hours of energy per square meter (about 1.2 square yards) per day.  Solar panels are only about 19% efficient so this equates to around 0.76 to 0.95 kilowatts per square meter of solar panel produced power in a day.  Simple panels installed flat against a roof would not meet the angle and orientation for most houses so the efficiency would be considerably less than 19%." And the underlying fact is these panels need sunshine to function. Anyone living in Michigan knows we don't always have sunny days - and if they're covered in snow, they generate no power at all.  

Other misleading information from the Proposal 3 ad is where it says 94,000 jobs will be created in Michigan if the ballot initiative passes. First of all, most of the jobs would be temporary - lasting only as long as it takes to construct wind turbines and solar panels. Second, since there are only about 85,000 "green" jobs in all the of United States combined, where on earth do Proposal 3 proponents assume 94,000 jobs will be created in Michigan alone? 

It is another untruth - just like the climate change scam that Proposal 3 relies on to scare people into thinking we need this suffocating noose around our Constitution.  Not only is there a stunning lack of scientific evidence to show that things like global warming even exist -- especially as a result of human actions -- scientists at the Climate Research Unit in England even admitted that they were deliberately suppressing evidence that proved global warming is a myth. Climate fluctuations have been happening as a normal cycle since we started measuring data on the topic, but alarmists want us to believe that disaster looms. As recently as the 1970s, they warned us about a coming Ice Age, and now they claim we're going to melt right off the planet from escalating heat. 

For an alternative take on climate issues, read the synopsis by Burt Rutan, an engineer and test pilot who designed the first airplane to fly completely around the world without refueling. The Nature Climate Change journal also published a scientific study on climate change that shows no meaningful changes other than normal patterns - except for the fact that temperatures were warmer during Roman Times. The main takeaway is that climate alarmists are just that - fear-mongering alarmists who use a lot of bogus information to fuel fears and to justify measures that will increase our taxes, regulations and dependence on government, while reducing our freedoms by controlling the way we live. But Proposal 3 proponents prey on fear to convince voters to change our Constitution for something that will only benefit the special interest groups supporting it, and which does nothing to help our environment or the humans who inhabit it.  

Our Constitution is not the place for passing independent laws for special interest groups by granting them controlled power. We have a legislature whose job it is to enact energy and other policies for the people of Michigan. Mandating over 12 years ahead of time to spend billions on unreliable energy sources, regardless of need, economic conditions, or even usefulness, just doesn’t make sense. Get the facts - and then vote “no” on Proposal 3. 

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

 

Does voting for a candidate who supports evil make one complicit in that evil?

With the election just weeks away, candidates are doing a final push to inform the public of where they stand on the issues. Still, it can sometimes be difficult to know just who the better candidate is, especially on "values" issues, like the poor and the unborn. Christians and other religious people are often especially conflicted in how they should vote on these matters.

For instance, one candidate may talk more about helping the poor obtain a better quality of life - a very noble goal indeed that all Christians should embrace. On the other hand, another candidate may also want to help the poor, but puts additional emphasis on human life itself, especially that of the most helpless - the unborn and the elderly. So which matters more: quality of life, or life itself? For true Christians, the answer must be life itself, for if we don't value the sanctity of life for its inherent worth, then there can be no real quality of life anywhere.

But there is another reason we should consider in putting life itself above all else: the idea that to support a candidate who supports evil such as abortion and euthanasia can make us complicit in that evil.

The following is an excellent homily delivered recently by a very holy and wise man, Deacon Joe Hulway. He graciously granted me permission to share with you his wonderful and eloquent explanation of why Christians must solemnly consider the candidates they support, and do all they can to choose good over evil. 

----From Deacon Hulway (partially excerpted):

...In the Book of Numbers, Moses says…“Would that all the people of the Lord were prophets! Would that the Lord might bestow his spirit on them all!”

Moses spoke wise words. And Jesus implemented those words. All the people of the Lord have been bestowed with the Holy Spirit through their baptisms. All are called to be prophets…

But what is a prophet? We sometimes think of a prophet as someone who foretells the future, and sometimes God spoke through prophets of old with exactly that intention. But more generally, a prophet is someone, guided by the Spirit, who can read the signs of current events and can interpret the will of God for the community or society.

And this is something we should all strive to do. It is not only a part of our baptismal call, it is also part of the U.S. Bishops’ call to evangelization. The bishops gave us three evangelization goals for the United States. The third goal is: “To foster gospel values in our society, promoting the dignity of the human person, the importance of the family, and the common good of our society, so that our nation may continue to be transformed by the saving power of Jesus Christ.”

In case anyone hasn’t watched TV, read a newspaper, listened to the radio, or logged onto the Internet, let me inform you that we have a very important election coming up in just over a month. The results of this election will impact our ability to meet the bishops’ goal, the goal to foster gospel values in our society. As we prepare for the election, we need to be prophets. We need to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and interpret the will of God for our country, our state, and our local community.

And there will always be differences in political views because different people have different interests, different experiences, and different approaches to solving problems. We can agree that we want peace in the world, but disagree whether that is best accomplished by increasing military power or reducing it. We can agree that we want to reduce poverty, but disagree whether government assistance or job creation through free market policies is the best means to this end. We can agree that education needs to be improved, but disagree whether it is a funding or an accountability problem.

All these differences are acceptable ones for Christians, for Catholics, to debate. We can have common goals, but some take a conservative approach to reaching those goals, and some prefer a liberal approach. And based on our preferred approach, we can debate which political party, or which individual candidate  is the best one for our community.

But there are some issues to consider where one of the proposed solutions is not morally acceptable. And many of these issues are the ones that pertain to life: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research. For example, we must deal in our society with the fact that many children are conceived unintentionally. The current government administration in Washington proposes two solutions to this situation. First, offer free, that is taxpayer-funded, contraception. And when that fails, provide taxpayer-funded access to abortion services.

We are being forced to pay for two morally unacceptable approaches which contradict our religious beliefs. And to make matters worse, much of this is being done by presidential mandate without any checks and balances from Congress.

I cannot stand up here and tell you which party or which candidate you should support and vote for. You need to pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit. But I can make sure you are aware of positions of candidates and parties that are in conflict with Catholic Christian teaching. Bishop John Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois issued a letter in his diocesan paper. It says many things better than I can. He wrote: “My job is not to tell you for whom you should vote. But I do have a duty to speak out on moral issues. I would be abdicating this duty if I remained silent out of fear of sounding ‘political’ and didn’t say anything about the morality of these issues.”

The bishop notes that, since 1992, the Democratic Party has stated that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Which is bad enough, but this year the party platform removed the word rare and also states that it “supports the right to abortion regardless of the ability to pay.” Again this means taxpayer-funded. He points out that: “The Democratic Party Platform also supports same-sex marriage, recognizes that ‘gay rights are human rights,’ and calls for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law signed by President Clinton in 1996 that defined marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.”

Bishop Paprocki recognizes that there is much good in the Democratic platform as well. He says: “There are many positive and beneficial planks in the Democratic Party Platform, but I am pointing out those that explicitly endorse intrinsic evils.” With regard to the other party, he writes: “I have read the Republican Party Platform and there is nothing in it that supports or promotes an intrinsic evil or a serious sin.”

The bishop wraps up his letter with these words: “Again, I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against, but I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy. I pray that God will give you the wisdom and guidance to make the morally right choices. May God give us this grace. Amen.”

Bishop Paprocki is performing his duty as a prophet. What about you and me? Roughly 50% of people who identify themselves as Catholics, plan on voting in such a way as to make themselves “morally complicit” with intrinsic evil, to putting their eternal salvation in serious jeopardy. You may pass around mass political emails, you may post articles on Facebook, but the only ones who read them are like-minded people.

Instead, consider sending thoughtful personal emails to friends and relatives who may be disillusioned with the whole political process, who may be inclined to vote differently than you or tempted to sit the election out. Explain to them your concerns in a loving way. Better yet, give them a call. Get involved; be a prophet. Get others involved; get out the vote. More importantly, save souls.

We have two presidential candidates to choose from. One claims to be a Christian, but many of his values appear to be anti-Christian, and are definitely anti-Catholic. The other is a Mormon, technically not a Christian, but his views are much more in-line with Catholic teaching. Jesus said: “There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me. For whoever is not against us is for us.” 

(For the full context of Bishop Paprocki's letter, click here.)

------

These moving words by Deacon Hulway give us a lot to consider. While neither presidential candidate is planning to deny help for the poor, one wants openly supports certain evil actions like abortion into the ninth month, and wants to force Christians to pay for things they find morally reprehensible like contraception, including those that induce abortion. Doesn't voting for that candidate knowing full well what he supports make one complicit in that evil? 

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

 

Don't be fooled by bogus unemployment numbers; Contractors told to postpone layoff notices until after election

According to the Labor Department, the U.S. unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent last month, dropping below 8 percent for the first time in nearly four years. It also reports that 114,000 jobs were added in September. Great news, right? Except for the fact that for the rate to fall to 7.8 percent, that means at least 700,000 people suddenly and miraculously found work, not 114,000. So why the faulty math by our Labor Department, the one headed by Obama-appointee Hilda Solis? Simple. The Democrats have a presidential election to win in November and, unfortunately, lies are the only way they can hope to do that.

If the Obama administration were to be more truthful in their numbers, they would have to admit that the only reason unemployment numbers would go down is because more people have simply given up looking for work, or because they're counting part time and temporary workers. With the actual number of people out of work being about 23 million people by some estimates, and fewer and fewer of these people being counted in the unemployment numbers, then naturally "unemployment" is less. But in reality, there are millions of people who are no longer collecting unemployment benefits -- and a person is only counted as "unemployed" as long as they draw benefits -- so they are not counted in the numbers.

In other words, the numbers put forth by the Labor Department today are impossibly fake numbers. It takes about 150,000 new jobs per month just to keep pace in general, and even by the Labor Department's own admission we only had 114,000 new jobs. The numbers just don't add up. These are obviously fabricated numbers for political reasons.

What's more, the Obama administration is so desperate to win re-election that it recently told Lockheed Martin to disobey a federal law, the WARN Act — Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act — which requires “employers with 100 or more employees to provide notification to employees 60 calendar days in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs" - or face major fines.

Lockheed has recently stated it would have to issue layoff notices to thousands of employees due to looming defense cuts set to begin to take effect after Jan. 2. To meet the 60 day requirement, those notices would have to be issued by Nov. 2 - four days before the presidential election. So the Obama administration told Lockheed to ignore the law and that our own federal government would cover their fines. The reason is obvious: layoffs don't gel well with an incumbent president trying to convince people to give him four more years to destroy our country. Breaking the law in order to secure election at the expense of the families who deserve notice of a layoff is immaterial to our president.

In a statement last Friday, Senators  John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte stated Obama is putting “his own reelection ahead of the interests of working Americans and our national security by promising government contractors that their salary and liability costs will be covered at taxpayer expense if they do not follow the law that requires advance warning to employees of jobs that may be lost due to sequestration…apparently, President Obama puts politics ahead of American workers by denying them adequate time to plan their finances and take care of their families. The people who work in the defense industry and other government contracting companies deserve as much notice as possible that they are on track to lose their jobs.”

But of course, with this president, who cares about the well being of people when there is an election to be won?

The other question is, why does the mainstream media continue to swoon over Obama rather than give the public the truth? America is at serious risk and yet Obama and his complicit media lackeys offer up half truths of propaganda that serve only their interests at our valuable expense.

The bottom line is, it is just plain criminal the way the Democrats are lying to us. For those who plan to vote for Obama, since we all know the new numbers were created to bolster him at the polls, does the fact these unemployment numbers are an obvious lie influence your vote? Does the fact that the Obama administration is actually telling a company to ignore a law at the expense of workers for the sake of re-election matter? Or are Obama's supporters simply just fine with voting for the most corrupt president in the history of our great nation no matter what he does?

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.