Author Archive
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Viewing Options List View Grid View

OBAMA’S COMMISSION; THE TAXER IN THE RYE

Beware President Obama’s newly proposed bipartisan commission on the deficit.  Mr. Obama’s deficit creation was a solo performance.  It was as effortless for him as a touchdown pass is for Peyton Manning — or perhaps Drew Brees.  That is because he is a statist, a person who believes that government is omnipotent.  Reasonable minds will differ as to the question of whether his creation of such an unprecedented deficit is by design, or merely the obvious consequence of the huge government expansion that he — and all other statists – ambitiously seek to create.  Simply put, government costs money.

Suddenly, however, Mr. Obama has decided that his solo performance might be complemented by a chorus . . . a bipartisan chorus.  Make no mistake.  Mr. Obama is a soloist.  His feigned desire to create a bipartisan commission has a much more self-serving motive.  It is time for him to do that which every nonrevolutionary socialist must eventually do . . . pay the bill.  Government does not, nor has it ever, generated revenue.  Rather, it devours it from those who earn it . . . us.  The bigger the government, the greater the cost.  The bill for growing government is paid by taxes.

Mr. Obama now seeks to wash the consequences of his huge government spending and resulting deficits in bipartisanism.  He is looking for a scapegoat when the taxpayers get the news that their taxes are going to skyrocket.

In the same way that the original ObamaCare plan was touted as being bipartisan when two Republican Senators (0ut of 40) joined in the bill, the deficit commission’s obvious purpose is to remove Obama from culpability and, instead place him in the convenient role of the surprised President who; although, shocked by their predictable recommendation of tax increases, will play Pollyanna and then appear objective as he taxes us into financial ruination and generational servitude.  Who would have guessed that record deficit spending would ultimately result in a huge bill to the taxpayers?  We shall see whether  Mr. Obama can hide his culpability for our inevitable financial destruction in the commission’s rye.

EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT: THE NAME GAME

 The Name Game is legislative brainwashing; the process by which governments and/or special interests tag a name to proposed legislation which intentionally camouflages its true function.

If I asked what you thought about the “Employee Free Choice Act,” one who was not acquainted with that proposed legislation would likely respond based upon the only information they had; the name.  That is what the Progressive/Statist movement has relied upon for decades.  Employee Free Choice sounds like a concept with which no one could disagree.  After all, freedom is good.  Freedom of choice is good.  Why shouldn’t employees have freedom of choice?

The problem is that the Act would not only impinge on an employee’s freedom of choice, it would open the door to coercion and intimidation by union promoters and fellow employees who desire to unionize.  That pressure would result in an employee losing the free choice about unionization that she currently enjoys.  Currently, an employee’s vote as to whether or not to unionize is private.  The EFCA would remove that privacy by making your vote known to the union promoter and fellow employees, many of whom may be in favor of unionizing. 

Where state versions of the EFCA have been tried, it has resulted in intimidation of those employees who vote against unionizing.  As an employee, your vote would be made known to the union and your fellow employees.  There are cases of harassment by fellow employees after they learn who voted against unionizing.  This harassment has occurred at work and at the homes of those employees who opposed unionizing.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_3Luhe-bk8&NR=1

Your intimidation does not require thugs.  Rather, it could simply be your fellow employee who earnestly believes that unionizing is the best option for him and thinks that you should agree.  His belief that your vote against unionizing stands in the way of his perceived advantage of unionization can result in his invasion of your rights.  If, ontheotherhand, your vote was unanimous and secret, his disappointment about his fellow employees’ vote against unionization will not be able to be directed at you and your family.  Your unanimity also protects you from reprisals from union persuaders.

Whether you are for or against unions, we can all agree that an employee’s vote should be kept confidential and unanimous.  Even beyond unions, are we a nation that exposes how a person votes?  Isn’t the whole idea of secrecy to encourage a person to vote their belief(s) freely without fear of reprisals?  The EFCA would change that in the workplace.  That is what it is intended to do, and that is in fact what it would do.  Its proponents (unions) favor it for that very reason. 

How then can it be named ”The Employee Free Choice Act?”  Actually, the question is not how, but why?  The answer is self-evident.  Unions favor unionization.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Bigger union membership means greater power, and more money in union dues.  Currently, federal law requires secret ballot voting on unionization and thereby promotes freedom of choice.  However, the misleading naming of the proposed EFCA presumes that Americans will not look behind its title. 

Americans are the hardest-working people on earth.  When we are not working, we want to be with our families, or engaging in some other activity that is entertaining and/or relaxing.  We do not have the time to pay attention to politics.  We trust that our elected representatives are doing that for us.  But, be advised that that is the surest way to losing our freedom.  Unfortunately, a freedom must be constantly guarded.  In a free society it is yet another obligation on top of the many in which we already toil.  The nightly news can only notify us of so much; especially when the latest Britney Spears story occupies 15 minutes.  If you watch the news, you do it to stay informed, right?  But how much have you heard about the EFCA, which — if enacted — could affect every employee in the United States?

The Name Game: “Separation Of Church & State”

This is both the reason and the danger of misleading titles on proposed legislation.  The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has made this into an art form.  For example, if you were asked to define the constitutional provision guranteeing ”separation of church and state,” you would probably say that it guarantees the separation of the church and the state.  You might also be surprised that “separation of church and state” does not exist in the Constitution.  Let me repeat: the U.S. Constitution does not say anything about “separation of church and state.” 

This title is yet another example of perversion of thought through perversion of language.  “Separation of church and state” is instead a misleading title given to the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment, but that truth does not matter after millions of Americans are sold on the phrase “separation of church and state.” 

The truth requires you to unlearn that phrase, and most of us simply don’t have the time or perhaps the interest.  So, when we hear about a local school under attack from the ACLU over a single picture of Jesus Christ which has been hanging there for 40 years (since the time of the common sense generations), we may be believers, but the phrase “separation of church and state” forces us into a false choice. 

Ultimately, many of us conclude that, although, we may believe in Jesus Christ, our Constitution says the picture should be removed because the church (picture of Jesus) must be separated from the state (public school).  Thus, the ACLU has succeeded in brainwashing millions of Americans into a false choice simply by the name game which changes our thought by changing the language.

The Name Game: “Economic Stimulus”

Another example is President Obama’s “Economic Stimulus” plan.  Judging that plan by its name is dangerous because the name is misleading.  Once it is named, even your trusted news outlet refers to it by that name.  So, when you hear about the economic stimulus, doesn’t that name answer the very question you should have about its rationale and purpose?  Gee, the economy is dragging, what does it need?  I know, a “stimulus!”  But, the devil is in the details, not merely the title.  The “stimulus” plan was to print and borrow money and use it to hire new government workers?  Who pays the salaries and benefits of government workers?  You.  Does that stimulate your economy?  If more of your money is taken to pay for new government workers, don’t you have less money?  Can we agree that if taxpayers have less money, their economic situation is worse?  After all, the economy is a measurement of financial well-being.  That is why government jobs are never a plus to the economy.  Rather, they are a drag on it.  Many government workers are necessary because of the services they provide such as military protection, and law enforcement, but that is different than the question as to whether they add to the economy.  They do not.  They add to your tax burden.

The Name Game: “Global Warming” Morphs into “Climate Change”

A matter of equal concern is the recent name change from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change.”  This is more than an inocuous name change.  Rather, it is the conscious reponse from Global Warming proponents whose message is being defeated daily with record cold temperatures.  In fact, the earth has been in a cooling cycle for years, but it has taken a back seat to Gobal Warming’s disinformation campaign.  Ironically, we have this brutally cold winter to thank for catapulting the climate facts into the headlines. 

But don’t expect the Warmers to give up that easily.  House Minority Whip Eric Cantor has said that it will not stop snowing until Al Gore yells “uncle!”  Interestingly, the Global Warming proponents have already begun to re-brand their movement.  If you listen closely, you will notice that its proponents now refer to the “phenomenon” as “Climate Change.”  This Orwellian adaptation tells you everything you need to know about this crowd.  They are snake oil salesmen who are more interested in manipulating us than in any kind of global phenomenon.  For example, before the re-branding, Warmers sought to explain the 10-year cooling cycle which was occurring at the same time as their movement was gaining ground.  They sought to reckoncile the cooling by taking the position that Global Warming was resulting in global cooling.  Folks, if you’re willing to buy that, then you are living proof that some people can be fooled all of the time.

For a discussion of the ”phenomenon” of Global Warming, see the Post entitled, The Global Warming Masquerade.

Upcoming Events

Who is going to cpac this year?  Glenn Beck is speaking there.  www.cpac.org

On March 15, 2010, Hugo Chavez is sending the Venezuelan Military’s troops out to its people’s houses to forcibly change people’s lightbulbs with energy-efficient CFL bulbs because a drought has reduced their hydroelectric production.  The comparisons between Obama (and American Progressives) and Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez are frighteningly similar.  What would you think if the U.S. Military were ordered to enter your home and confiscate all of your lightbulbs?  The Progressives reading this would think: “Great!  We can finally get our Energy Hogs under control by force.”  You should be afraid to share a country with people who think like that.   There are other lessons here.  Look at what happens when a nation is dependent upon hydroelectric power only . . . or wind power.  When the rain doesn’t fall, or the wind doesn’t blow, the lights go out.  The refirgerators fail and everyone starves . .  . in the dark.  It may surpirose you to know that our Democratically controlled Congress has already outlawed incandescent lightbulbs (the monofilament type invented by Thomas Edison); however, they are not illegal until 2014.  Will our military, or law enforcement be sent to enforce compliance?  Well, Obama has already implemented his plan to inspect all homes before they are permitted to be sold to ensure that they comply with green policies such as light bulbs, etc.  What happens if you don’t want to let them in?  Well, what happens if you don’t pay the ObamaCare fines?  Imprisonment for 1-5 years.  If you think imprisonment is off the table for green offenses think again.  When the interests of the collective are placed higher than those of the individual, individuals are crushed for the greater good.  History has shown this.  In the U.S.S.R., Stalin executed virtually all farmers because his confiscation of their crops after they had worked their entire lives to farm was undersrtandably met with some resistance.  The farmers were executed and the resistance ended . . . so did the productivity of the farms.  The point is that Statism (socialism, communism, Marxism) is the belief that the collective leaves no room for the individual; not even enough room for their right to live.

FOLLOW THE GREENBACK TO CAP & TRADE

For all of  Cap & Trade’s lofty prose designed to seduce the typical college-aged individuals who haplessly supplant thinking in favor of feeling, this proposed legislation is not virtuous.  It is purely destructive.  It is not unlike the Kyoto Treaty which was the pathological environmentalist’s dream come true until President Bush (41)  was elected and refused to sign it.  The Kyoto Treaty would have relegated sovereign nations to the control of other Kyoto-bound nations by ceding control of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the collective signator nations.  Thus, all CO2-generating activity would be controlled by the Kyoto nations.  This would have been fatal to the United States because almost everything generates CO2.

The Cap & Trade bill is another swipe at the control of CO2, not because of legitimate environmental concerns, but because he who controls CO2, has unlimited power to regulate every facet of life.  But there is an even more vile motive for its passage; a motive which is particularly reviled by the purist environmentalist . . . money . . . billions of dollars in payoffs.

Carbon Credit Billionaires

As indicated, in the post discussing Cap & Trade, the emitting business must purchase enough carbon credits to get it through each year, or shut down operations for the balance of the year.  But from whom must it purchase these fictitious, intangible units of nothing called carbon credits?  Well, that’s where things get interesting.  Al Gore is predicted to be the world’s first “carbon credit billionaire” because he owns one of the largest carbon credit clearing houses. 

Legislative Self-Dealing

Two high-profile members of the U.S. Congress are heavily invested in the sale of carbon credits as well.  Thus, they have a vested interest in passing Cap & Trade.  In fact, their enterprises are worthless unless government enacts Cap & Trade.  Some would argue that a conflict of interest arises when legislators have a pecuniary interest in seeing that Cap & Trade is passed.  No matter your position on Cap & Trade, when our nation’s lawmakers consider legislation, their primary concern should not be their own investments.  In fact, it is disconcerting that these particular investments — the carbon trade industry — in an industry which cannot even exist in the absence of Cap & Trade becoming law, have even been made prior to Cap & Trade’s enactment.

CAP & TRADE: A SMOG & MIRRORS SHELLGAME

Cap & Trade is a system for fixing a maximum emission standard for many industries.  Those standards will be an amount which is less than the amount the particular industry already emits through its manufacturing/producing.  In subsequent years, the amount of permissible emissions will continue to be reduced. 

What is the Economic Impact of Cap & Trade?

A factory/producer which meets its emissions limit will have a choice to make.  Either it can cease operations, or it can purchase “carbon credits” from a kind of carbon credit broker or clearing house.  These carbon credits are fictitious, intangible units which are akin to a license to permit the business’s continued operation over and above the emissions limit.  In short, it is a tax extorted from a business to purchase its right to continue operations after the point in each year where it meets the emissions threshold.

How does requiring businesses to purchase carbon credits help the environment? 

It does not.  Under the Cap & Trade regime, the money from purchasing carbon credits is paid to Al Gore or some other authorized seller of carbon credits, and to third world countries who have yet to industrialize.  The money paid to these third world countries is called “climate debt” in Cap & Trade parlance.  Yes.  That’s right, it is eco-reparations.  It is a well-concealed fact — even from eco activists — that Cap & Trade does absolutely nothing to protect the environment except in the worst case scenario where the burden it imposes causes the financial ruination of the perceived polluter-business.  Rather, it enriches our insider politicians — who have already cornered a market that has yet to be — and third world countries which have produced an exceptionless record of despotism and poverty with all other forms of aid heretofore.  Thus, even if you desire Cap & Trade, you should at least take the time to recognize that you are not doing it for the climate, the trees because their well-being has nothing to do with it unless you seek the collapse of all carbon-emitting enterprises.  If that is what you seek, you have more to learn than this post can teach.  In that event, I should like to point you to the post under the category “Usurpations & Abuses.”  I should then suggest that you be careful what you wish for, because we may be on the precipice of returning to the 18th century and you should buy many warm blankets.  Believers in Cap & Trade who truly seek the destruction of the energy industry may soon get to see which practice emits more pollutants; a free-market energy supply, or millions of Americans scurrying feverishly to build make-shift fires independently to avoid cold and starvation.   The irony of Cap & Trade is that while it would rain a considerable amount of eco-reparations dollars onto third world countries, it will ultimately reduce our standing of living to more closely resemble them.  As then presidential candidate, Barack Obama reported to wealthy, liberal San Francisco donors, Cap & Trade will bankrupt coal-fired energy plants, and necessarily cause energy costs to “skyrocket” for consumers.  The frightening thing is that he intends that very result and, obviously so did the donors.

Carbon Credit Billionaires

As indicated, a CO2-emitting business must purchase enough carbon credits to get it through each year, or shut down operations for the balance of the year.  But from whom must it purchase these fictitious, intangible units of nothing called carbon credits?  Well, that’s where things get interesting.  Al Gore is predicted to be the world’s first “carbon credit billionaire” because he owns one of the largest carbon credit clearing houses. 

Legislative Self-Dealing

Two high-profile members of the U.S. Congress are heavily invested in the sale of carbon credits as well.  Thus, they have a vested interest in passing Cap & Trade.  In fact, their enterprises are worthless unless government enacts Cap & Trade.  Some would argue that a conflict of interest arises when legislators have a pecuniary interest in seeing that Cap & Trade is passed.  No matter your position on Cap & Trade, when our nation’s lawmakers consider legislation, their primary concern should not be their own investments.  In fact, it is disconcerting that these particular investments — the carbon trade industry — in an industry which cannot even exist in the absence of Cap & Trade becoming law, have even been made prior to Cap & Trade’s enactment.

THE GLOBAL WARMING MASQUERADE

If you are upset or scared by the notion of global warming, you may feel better after reading this.  Consider the following questions.  First, we must ask whether it is a man-made phenomenon?  If it is not, our remedies are probably limited.  Second, if we believe in global warming and we believe that it is man-made, then we must also believe that man has the capability to reduce it or any talk of a solution is a waste of our carbon-emitting breath. 

For example, if man has caused global warming through the emission of green-house gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane, you may believe that a reduction in those emissions would reduce global warming.  If you are correct, you would need to know what amount of reduction would be necessary to return the earth to its optimal temperature — whatever that is. 

The earth absorbs approximately 33 million tons of CO2 emissions per day.  It does this because CO2 is a necessary component to all green plant life.  Without CO2, plants could not engage in photosynthesis, the process by which they convert CO2 and sunlight into energy.  As part of that process, they emit oxygen, a necessary component to the lives of all humans and animals.  That is either the greatest of cosmic coincidences, or it is a harmonious interdependence of life that demonstrates the complexity of a planet and ecosystem that man is presently incapable of comprehending — let alone diagnosing.

Because we are carbon-based life forms, even our decomposing bodies release CO2 after we die.  In fact, this is the basis for a discovery called “carbon-14 dating,” the discovery of which revolutionized archaeology and gave scientists the power to date fossils they discovered.   Carbon-14 dating works on the principle that carbon is emitted from almost everything.  Scientists know the rate at which carbon is released.  Knowing this, they are able to tell the age of a Woolly Mammoth or other fossils including ancient man.  Other things that emit CO2 are breathing, the tilling of soil (soil is full of CO2 as it too is organic), decomposing plants and animals, and almost every other thing that takes place on a planet inhabited by carbon-based life forms. 

If we could eliminate all CO2 emissions, plants and trees would die because they cannot live without it.  Climatologists such as Lord Monckton, a leading scientist in the study of climate change, can scientifically demonstrate that there is no such thing as man-made global warming. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0  In fact, the only evidence of warming at all is that the earth has warmed about one degree fahrenheit in the last 100 years.  Lord Monckton can mathematically demonstrate that if you apply the data and method subscribed to by Al Gore, the United Nations, and other promoters of global warming snake-oil, man would have to eliminate allCO2 for a period of 30 years to reduce the earth’s temperature by one degree Fahrenheit.  Thus, all animals, humans, and other carbon-emitting creatures and organic material, would have to be removed from the earth for a period of 30 years to reduce the temperature one degree.  Lord Monckton is an extremely eloquent, and extremely learned scientist on climate change and his enlightening lectures can be found on youtube by typing “Lord Monckton”.   You will also discover from him that a scientist at MIT recently developed a method for measuring the amount of radiation that enters the earth’s atmosphere as well as the amount that exits it.  The difference is negligible.  Thus, objective evidence now exists which proves that there is no green-house effect.

This begs the question as to why the global warming snake-oil salesmen continue to peddle their fraudulent product.  The answer may be that they seek a concentration of power in government the likes of which we have never seen.  This is becoming a familiar motive in Washington, D.C. these days for the expansion of government.  Remember Obamacare? 

Reluctantly, you should be aware that there is another motive which is far more predictable than the climate.  It is money . . . lots of it.  Al Gore is predicted to become the world’s first global warming billionaire because if the world is duped into the Ponzi scheme of “Cap & Trade,” he already has a franchise stake in the selling of “carbon credits”, a fictitious mandate that must be purchased from two other lucky souls aside from Al Gore.  They presently enjoy two seats in Congress.  The three of them will have monopolies on the virtual, fictional, and government-created currency called “carbon credits.”

Thus, the final question is even if you believe that the earth is warming, and that man is the cause, what is our government prescribing for this man-made earth-fever?  The answer is “Cap & Trade,” a treatment which is undoubtedly worse than the cure and which is, in fact, no treatment at all.

A matter of equal concern is the recent name change from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change.”  This is more than an inocuous name change.  Rather, it is the conscious reponse from Global Warming proponents whose message is being defeated daily with record cold temperatures.  In fact, the earth has been in a cooling cycle for years, but it has taken a back seat to Gobal Warming’s disinformation campaign.  Ironically, we have this brutally cold winter to thank for catapulting the climate facts into the headlines. 

But don’t expect the Warmers to give up that easily.  House Minority Whip Eric Cantor has said that it will not stop snowing until Al Gore yells “uncle!”  Interestingly, the Global Warming proponents have already begun to re-brand their movement.  If you listen closely, you will notice that its proponents now refer to the “phenomenon” as “Climate Change.”  This Orwellian adaptation tells you everything you need to know about this crowd.  They are snake oil salesmen who are more interested in manipulating us than in any kind of global phenomenon.  For example, before the re-branding, Warmers sought to explain the 10-year cooling cycle which was occurring at the same time as their movement was gaining ground.  They sought to reckoncile the cooling by taking the position that Global Warming was resulting in global cooling.  Folks, if you’re willing to buy that, then you are living proof that some people can be fooled all of the time.

But, how does Cap & Trade work?  For an explanation, see the category entitled “Energy Policy.”

UPDATE: IN ITS NEW CLIMATE REPORT, THE UNITED NATIONS IPCC HAS FINALLY ADMITTED THAT IT REMOVED (THAT’S RIGHT) THE 200-YEAR PERIOD KNOWN AS “THE MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD). THAT HAS LONG BEEN THE CLAIM BY MANY CLIMATOLOGISTS. IF YOU REMOVE THAT 200-YEAR PERIOD, EVERYTHING THE U.N. IPCC HAS EVER PUBLISHED IS A LIE. EVER WONDER WHY THE CLIMATE ALARMISTS ARE CHANGING THE NAME FROM “GLOBAL WARMING” TO “CLIMATE CHANGE”? WITH THE NEW NAME CHANGE, EVEN COLDER CLIMATES CAN BE BLAMED ON GLOBAL WARMING! DON’T BELIEVE IT? TRY THIS ONE ON FOR SIZE: THE IPCC’S NEW REPORT ALSO INDICATES THAT WE HAVE HAD A 7% INCREASE IN CO2 OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS, BUT TEMPS WENT DOWN DURING THAT SAME PERIOD. FORTUNATELY, THE GENIUSES AT THE U.N. RECONCILED THIS “ANOMALY” STATING THAT THE GLOBAL COOLING OVER THE PAST 15 YEARS ACTUALLY MASKED THE OTHERWISE TREMENDOUS GLOBAL WARMING. HUH?!?! THAT’S RIGHT! IT WOULD HAVE GOTTEN REALLY HOT ON EARTH IF IT WEREN’T FOR THE FACT THAT IT GOT SO COLD!?!?! UNBELIEVABLE.

Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Viewing Options List View Grid View