Members of Congress passed an incredibly expensive and destructive cap-and-trade bill on Friday, without reading its 1,200-plus pages, says author David Limbaugh. The bill “has little prayer of accomplishing what it sets out to accomplish but satisfies their urgent need to pay homage to their liberal ideology and secular humanist worldview,” Limbaugh wrote. He says President Obama and his congressional cohorts “will wreak untold destruction on the economy and get little benefit in return.” He continues:

I’m not exaggerating here. Doesn’t it make sense that before enacting legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the purpose of reducing man-made global warming, Congress would investigate whether significant man-made global warming is occurring (as opposed to watching Al Gore’s propaganda film and simply declaring, by fiat, that scientists have reached a consensus on the issue when they clearly have not)?And if, after a thorough and balanced inquiry, they determine that it is occurring, shouldn’t they next examine whether their proposed legislative remedy is likely to significantly ameliorate the problem?But they not only have not conducted a bona fide examination of the man-made warming issue but also have not attempted to examine, in any remotely scientific way, how much their proposed bill would reduce global warming (assuming it exists to the extent they contend) or whether any such reductions would make any difference at all to humanity’s short- or long-term health or happiness or anything else.All of this would be outrageous enough if there were no economic costs associated with their proposal. But in fact, the costs would be astronomical and way beyond the calculations they are presenting—fraudulently—to the American people to stunt the opposition they’d encounter if the truth were revealed.The truth is that there is no crisis, and all the hysteria they’re generating is solely for the purpose of ramrodding this odious bill through Congress ….

Limbaugh goes on to refer to data from the Heritage Foundation’s senior policy analyst for energy and environment, Ben Lieberman, that details the trivial impact on greenhouse gases that the proposed bill would have, even assuming the problem is valid. As for the economic cost, Limbaugh says:

But what would the costs be for this quixotic legislative paean to earth goddess Gaia? Contrary to the flawed analyses being advanced by the bill’s proponents, Heritage estimates that the direct costs would be an average of $829 per year for a household of four …. But when considering the total cost as reflected in the cost of allocations and offsets, the average cost to that family unit would be $2,979 annually from 2012 to 2035. Adding insult and hypocrisy to injury, the bill would hurt the poor the worst because they would bear a disproportionate burden of the higher energy costs the bill would trigger.Now here’s the kicker. The bill is also projected to harm the manufacturing sector and cause estimated “net” job losses, averaging about 1.15 million between 2012 and 2030. The overall gross domestic product losses would average $393 billion per year from 2012 to 2035, and the cumulative loss in gross domestic product would be $9.4 trillion by 2035. The national debt for a family of four would increase by $115,000 by 2035.

The proposed cap-and-trade legislation will likely be one more major nail in the coffin of the struggling U.S. economy. Read Ron Fraser’s articles “Global Cooling Is Coming!” and “The Politics of Carbon Footprints” for analysis on the politics and science of global warming—and who stands to benefit from carbon trading.

Also, read Robert Morley’s next column on Tuesday for more on the Trumpet’s take on what this climate change bill will really do to the U.S. economy.

Quiet Crackdown Weakens Iran Dissidents

While Tehran’s brutal crackdown on Iranians protesting against the country’s June 12 election results, which has largely succeeded in clearing the streets, has received extensive media coverage around the world, the Iranian authorities have been conducting another crackdown behind the scenes that is perhaps more consequential. Associated Press reports that while attention has been focused on the crowds, the Iranian government has been seizing and detaining hundreds of activists, journalists and students across the nation in a targeted crackdown on key dissidents—the most extensive since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This has the potential to not only shut down immediate protests, but opposition to the regime for years to come. The ap reported yesterday:

Even as unprecedented protests broke out on the streets after the June 12 disputed presidential election, the most stinging backlash from authorities has come away from the crowds through roundups and targeted arrests, according to witnesses and human rights organizations. They say plainclothes security agents have also put dozens of the country’s most experienced pro-reform leaders behind bars. …The arrests have drained the pool of potential leaders of a protest movement that claims President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole the election by fraud. …Many of those rounded up during demonstrations have been released within days.But most of those detained in raids against potential opposition remain in custody. That has spread fear among Mousavi supporters and left the opposition movement reeling. …The crackdown appears to have grown bolder as the government escalated its use of force on the streets.

It could even be that the mullahs ruling Iran in fact welcomed the public unrest as cover to silence their opposition within the country.

Meanwhile, the Iranian propaganda machine has swung into full force, with state television “broadcasting purported confessions of street protesters who say they acted on behalf of Britain and other Western nations in a bid to destabilize the government” (ibid.).

At the end of the day, as columnist Joel Hilliker wrote several days after the elections, “This is not the herald of a new age of moderation in Iran. In the end, the protests will flame out. Nothing will change. The Islamic Republic will roll on toward its goal of regional dominance and general mayhem in the name of Allah. It will keep supporting terror and pursuing nuclear weapons.”

Israel Hands Over More Control to PA

Israeli officials have agreed to turn over more authority to Palestinian forces in the four major West Bank cities of Ramallah, Qalqilya, Bethlehem and Jericho. According to the New York Times, the agreement “implies a reduction in Israeli military activity in those areas as the Western-backed Palestinian forces assert more control.” The Times also noted that several West Bank checkpoints have been dismantled.

Although Palestinians have limited control over three other West Bank cities currently, Ramallah, Qalqilya, Bethlehem and Jericho will be the first where Palestinian forces will operate around the clock without Israeli involvement. Israeli forces will now limit their involvement in the four cities to urgent security needs only.

Palestinian authorities remain dissatisfied, claiming that the agreement did not go far enough. “What is required is a full cessation of military raids in Palestinian Authority areas,” said Salam Fayyad Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority.

Though Israeli officials claim it was not a direct result of U.S. pressure, the agreement has come amid increasing pressure on Israel from the U.S. to cease settlement activity. Israel pulled out of the four major population centers in the 1990s under the Oslo arrangement, but reentered after a Palestinian-led intifida in late 2000. The Trumpetwrote in January:

A Palestinian state, of sorts, already exists: in the Gaza Strip. Israel conceded that territory in pursuit of “peace,” gifting it to Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah government. Then Hamas staged a coup, and Fatah fled the scene and retreated to the West Bank. Hamas proceeded to transform Gaza into a terrorist haven from which it regularly launches missiles into Israeli territory.If America insists that the West Bank form the bulk of a new Arab nation—the U.S. president says he wants the state of Palestine to be “viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent”—what’s to prevent Hamas from taking over there as well? The West Bank is hardly a bastion of Fatah support: The unofficial capital city, Ramallah, recently elected a Hamas mayor. Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar says it’s “only a matter of time” before his organization conquers the West Bank—and history is on his side. At present, Fatah’s only guarantor of survival against Hamas is Israeli security forces.That’s right: Fatah presently relies on Israel to protect it from being overrun by an Iranian-sponsored terrorist group. And still Washington says Israel will be more secure if Fatah is given statehood. Logic has been hurled over the cliff.

The Ugly Effects of Abortion Culture

Abortions among young girls and repeat abortions are reaching record levels in Britain, according to the Department of Health.

Between 2005 and 2008, hundreds of 13-year-old girls and twenty-three 12-year-olds received abortions in England and Wales. Fifty-two teens aborted four or more pregnancies before they reached age 18.

Across all age groups, a record 64,715 women got a repeat abortion last year alone—a 22 percent rise from a decade ago. Forty-six women received what was at least their eighth abortion.

“A proposal to reduce the legal limit for termination for abortion from 24 weeks was defeated last year following a fierce parliamentary debate and the new figures showed a sharp rise in terminations after at least 26 weeks,” the Telegraph reported. “There were 241 between 2005 and 2008, a rise of 16 percent from the previous three years.”

These tragic figures show the heartbreaking effects of a culture that has tried to systematically separate sex from procreation—a culture that pretends that physical capability should be the only prerequisite to copulation—a culture that has convinced itself that abortion is a simple medical procedure with no moral implications. Our society has taught these girls and women that killing the unborn is an acceptable and consequence-free form of birth control. It’s a damnable lie.

Can anyone think on such statistics without becoming saddened, sickened or even angered? If so, they well illustrate Paul’s prophecy in 2 Timothy 2 that “in the last days” people would be “without natural affection.”

More British Economic Woes

Last week saw a lot more bad news for the British economy. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (oecd) downgraded its forecast for Britain, saying that its economy would shrink by 4.3 percent of its gdp, as opposed to the 3.7 percent that it forecasted in March. For 2010 it predicted no growth. The Times writes, “The oecd’s grim assessment deals a heavy blow to rising hopes in the City and the markets that Britain is on course to emerge faster, earlier, and more strongly from recession than some of its leading competitor countries.”

The oecd also warned that Britain could face unemployment of 3 million. The oecd’s economists warned that “public finances have deteriorated sharply,” and stated that government debt would reach ₤203.5 billion—14 percent of gdp. That’s ₤30 billion more than the British government’s prediction.

Another report by rating’s agency Fitch showed that one in ten people in the UK owe more money on their mortgage than what their house is actually worth. The proportion of people in negative equity could rise to one in three if house prices continue to fall.

A report by the European Association for People Management (eapm) and the Boston Consulting Group warned that times ahead could be especially hard for those graduating from university. “We’ve seen in the past, and we’re seeing now, how companies will over-recruit when times are good, and then shut the tap off when things get more difficult,” said Stephanie Bird, a board member of eapm.

“The graduate population has doubled—but the number of graduate jobs certainly hasn’t. There are now 40 or 50 graduates chasing every job in the market,” warned Martin Birchall, managing director of High Fliers.

Cyberwarfare

“The Internet now plays a vital role in virtually every aspect of our lives. It is from this dependency on computer systems that a new realm of conflict—cyberwarfare—is emerging,” writes Misha Glenny in Britain’s Guardian. The ultimate nightmare on this virgin battlefield is known by nicknames such as cybergeddon or the Digital Pearl Harbor. The effects of a cyberattack could be devastating, Glenny points out:

The cost of cybercrime attacks around the world runs into tens of billions of pounds every year—it is the fastest growing sector of criminal syndicates. But it is often impossible to identify if an attack is criminal in nature or has military implications. Already, the Pentagon is registering tens of millions of attempted attacks on its systems every day.

To counter the threat, the British government published its first national cyber security strategy this week. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has also announced plans to set up a cyber defense command under a four star general at the Pentagon. But these efforts come late in the day, compared to countries like Russia, China and Germany. For more information on how a cyberwar could unfold, see our article “Target: America.”

Elsewhere on the Web

“Enough of the fluff already! Give me the real news,” bemoans Belinda Kasmiersky at American Thinker. Mainstream reporting on the deaths of Farah Fawcett and Michael Jackson overwhelmed coverage of some very serious events this past week. “One of the most serious events was the fact that Harold Koh was confirmed by the Senate on Wednesday June 24 as the State Department’s legal adviser. His transnationalist views promote blending international and domestic law. Indeed, this is particularly scary knowing that he believes traditional sovereignty is obsolete. What are all those people thinking in the Senate who voted for him at a 62-35 vote?” She also talks about the passage of a UN document that will require the U.S. to devote more money to foreign aid. “Both of these events will seriously impact America in the near future and it is journalism’s duty to inform the American public what this could mean to our country. Did we hear about these events? Did you?”

Federal prosecutors recommended on Friday that Bernard L. Madoff be sentenced to 150 years in prison for conducting what was the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. Mr. Madoff has also been ordered to pay over $170 billion. The order will strip Mr. Madoff of all his property, but leaves $2.5 million in assets for his wife. Although Madoff may officially have run the largest scam ever, sadly, the biggest unofficial ponzi scheme in history is actually run by the U.S. government. Read: “The United Ponzi States of America.”

“Britain’s strictures to foreign governments are being mocked from Iran to the Turks and Caicos islands, as world leaders seize on stories about MPs’ bloated expenses claims as evidence of moral decay in the UK,” wrote the Financial Times on Saturday. The article stated that Lord Malloch-Brown, the foreign office minister, had to change the speech he gave earlier this month in Mozambique. Britain no longer preaches good governance to other nations for fear of being hypocritical. For more on the damage the British corruption scandal is doing, see our article “How Bogus Expenses Bring Britain Down.”

The first cell phone specifically targeted at pre-school children is already on sale in Ireland, and will go on sale in Britain by the end of the year. While the idea might seem ridiculous, studies show that 52 percent of UK children ages 5 to 9 already have a cell phone. This is just the latest gadget in a growing trend to commercialize childhood, Daisy Goodwin, writing in the Daily Mail, says.

And Finally …

Another sign of the economic times: shrinking homes. Median home sizes in America grew steadily since World War ii—from less than 1,000 square feet in the 1950s to over 2,400 square feet in 2004. Last year, however, that figure dipped to 2,200 square feet, and has fallen further this year. “Home buyers have lost their enthusiasm for the sprawling houses that cropped up across U.S. suburbs over the past decade,” reported Reuters. “Having learned that property values can go down as well as up, they are flocking to smaller homes that are cheaper to buy, furnish and heat.” Hmm … living within one’s means. Probably not a bad side effect, come to think of it.