In a nutshell: Globalism is establishing a geographical policy where the entire world is considered to be suitable for a governments influence. To globalize is to apply this policy.
The question: In order to globalize the United States, how much of our independence, freedom, and self-government will be sacrificed?
LEAN TO THE LEFT, LEAN TO THE RIGHT, DO BOTH PARTIES PROMOTE GLOBALISM OVER SOVEREIGNTY? (Does it really matter if we end up in the same place?)
Lean to the Left. Largely speaking, when the left is talking about globalism, they are referring to global responsibility.
THE BIG SELL: Sustainable development through the green movement.
The green movement is commonly promoted using ecological responsibility as its selling virtue. However, is there a difference between acting responsibly to curb energy use versus embracing a “green scheme” that will ultimately lead to profiteering through carbon trade as well as increased government control? Could this be the ultimate alliance of agendas between the left and right? According to the United Nations’ Agenda 21, “The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries…” One of the ways this will be realized is through taxing “Carbon Footprints” via the Cap and Trade Bill (see Cap and Traitor) if it is passed. If the Copenhagen Treaty is signed and ratified, the United States will then answer to the United Nations. “Clause 33 on page 39 says that by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be at least $US67 billion ($73bn), or in the range of $US70bn to $US140bn a year.” The proposal for the Copenhagen Agreement states, “Implementation of the Copenhagen Climate Treaty will need significant financial resources. These commitments would be measured, reported and verified through the UNFCCC.” Among other objectives, funds will be used for “securing access to modern energy services for all people by 2025, without locking them into a high GHG intensity development path.” Is this promoting living green or is it green socialism when the taxpayers are paying via stimulus money to have SmartMeters™ installed in 40 million homes? Do SmartMeters cut down on energy use, are they installed so the government can eventually ration energy or will they be used as a tool to determine peak energy usage (ultimately resulting in increased rates based on consumption?) Unless utility companies come up with a pricing structure that benefits the consumer, “…the only sizable economic benefits are likely to be for the utilities themselves, not consumers, who are paying for the gizmos through higher utility rates. Mother nature is likely to get a fraction of the promised benefit.”
Lean to the Right. Broadly speaking, when the right is talking about globalism, they are referring to global economics.
THE BIG SELL: Globalizing companies will profit everyone.
But is that true, or is the main goal of global economics to increase corporate profits, as well as corporate power at the expense of everyone not in on the game? Some people feel the push for global oversight agencies/governments is desired specifically to eradicate that which hinders the operations of transnational companies. That is, if the world is governmentally globalized, they would be able to function more fluidly. If the United States works under and answers to global governments, business practices will be significantly easier to implement globally. Corporations can optimize their profits by having worldwide access to the cheapest labor and resources. Will the United States citizens prosper under these agreements? Globalism has and already is impacting US citizens. Major corporations currently have no borders. Through public-private partnerships, the United States is already quietly engaging in globalism. For instance, in 2005-07 a plan was developed with Mexico to have Kansas City taxpayers pay $3 million dollars to build the Kansas City Customs Port. The KCCP will serve as a Mexican customs office staffed by Mexican government customs officials. “The Kansas City Smart Port is designed to be a central hub in the planned international trade passing through the heart of the United States.” It has the potential to avoid using union labor to instead utilize nonunion Mexican railroads. In addition, “If Princeton economist Alan Blinder is correct; the United States will outsource an estimated 40 million jobs in the next two decades, largely to China and India.” While unemployment is heading into double digits, can American citizens maintain a standard of living if corporations offshore jobs because it is cheaper? In another example currently unfolding (in a deal that has almost been finalized), US stimulus funds will be given to Navistar/Modec to build energy efficient vehicles. ‘“I’m here today … to announce $2.4 billion in highly competitive grants to develop the next generation of fuel-efficient cars and trucks powered by the next generation of battery technologies, all made right here in the U.S. of A. Right here in America. Made in America,” Obama said inside Navistar’s Wakarusa, Ind., facility to a round of applause from local officials and factory workers. But while Navistar and Modec eventually plan to establish manufacturing facilities in the United States, the first batch of their battery-powered vehicles will come off the shop floor in England, not America.’ When Navistar was asked when the vehicles would start to be manufactured in the US, their spokesman would not say.
What is the price for globalism? Financial rights are violated through the constant redistribution of wealth and taxpayers are being obligated to increase the United States debt to fund projects for the world. In the end, will we end up paying the ultimate price? Will international globalization replace the sovereignty of America?
Sources: hbs.edu/research, America for Sale, Jerome Corsi,PhD.,www.aws.vcn.com,msnbc.msn.com, usnews-the_elkhart_project, sovereignty.net/p/sd/agenda21rpt.htm, australiannews.com 10/28/09, greenpeace.org, Copenhagen Treaty, Version 1, Forbes.com, Andy Stone, 10/21/09, smartmeters.com, newhorizons.org/future/botkin1htm, dictionary.com
UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
GHG: greenhouse gas
Sovereignty: Supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community
Friday, October 30, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
HEALTHCARE: SAY WHAT YOU MEAN, MEAN WHAT YOU SAY
Confusion surrounds health care reform. Is it because what is said is not what is meant?
In a nutshell: Why is health care being reformed, and what exactly does “Health Care Reform” mean? It is generally agreed that health care needs to be reformed based on the issues of capping annual out-of pocket expenses, ending practices that deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, and incentivizing preventative healthcare.
The basics: Recently, the 1,502 page Senate Finance Health Committee Bill passed with support (14-9). Next, Senate leaders will work to merge the bill with the Finance Committee’s bill, an 839 page document. Here is how the newly posted Senate bill begins: “A Bill. To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.” NOTE: “… and for other purposes.” Next, five pieces of legislation (2 from the Senate and 3 from the House) will need to be combined, and then there will be a debate between the full Senate and the House.
Is the bill clear…or is an agenda being advanced through deception?
WHAT THEY SAY: Health care will be reformed.
WHAT THEY MEAN: The bills transform and construct major policy changes.
WHAT THEY SAY: Americans want health reform.
WHAT “WE” MEAN: Although individuals support the notions of lowering expenses and covering pre-existing conditions, polls show there is not a majority support for the bill by the American citizens. According to the Pew Research Center, in October 2009, only 34% generally favor proposals in Congress, 47% oppose, and 19% don’t know. In addition, 66% of people surveyed found health care reform issues difficult to understand, while only 33% found it easy to understand.
WHAT THEY SAY: The bill has bipartisan support.
WHAT THEY MEAN: Only 1 republican supported the Senate Finance Committee bill. (If there is not enough support later, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can use a legislative option, “reconciliation” which would permit Democrats to pass a bill with 50 votes, not the usual 60.) Republican Senator Orrin Hatch said, "It will be hard to stop this from happening. Democrats have decided they have to pass a bill no matter how unpopular it is." He thinks Senate Democrats will pass “Obamacare” with the smallest possible margin out of the Senate and predicts that a House-Senate Conference then will make the bill much worse.”
WHAT THEY SAY: It will be mandatory to buy insurance.
WHAT THEY MEAN: If you do not purchase insurance you will be fined. Fines for individuals will begin in 2014, and will increase through 2017.
The question: “Will fines force people to buy insurance…or will they opt to pay the fine instead?” “If your household income is $66,000 a year, slightly above the national average, Obama’s healthcare bill will require you to spend 12 percent of your income — about $8,000 a year or almost $700 a month — to buy health insurance before you get any federal subsidy.” If you were this family would you pay a fine instead, particularly if you could obtain insurance at any time? Remember, the bill will end the practice of denying insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions.
If individuals opt to pay fines instead of purchasing insurance, what are the results? Can risk be distributed among a wider group, or would premiums be raised on individuals who are carrying insurance? “A Pricewaterhouse Coopers report commissioned by AHIP calculated that if the fines remain as described in the bill, health-insurance premiums will end up higher than if no reform bill is passed, because insurer will have to raise rates to pay for all the new sicker enrollees.”
The question: Would individuals sign up for insurance when they need a costly medical procedure and later drop coverage when the procedure is completed?
WHAT THEY SAY: Insurance will be “affordable” for all Americans.
WHAT THEY MEAN: “Affordable” is a pliable word. Your definition of “affordable” and the bill’s definition of “affordable” may not be the same. Affordable in the bill means a family with an income of only $44,000 a year will have to pay 7 percent ($3,000) of their income on insurance. If you are making only $33,000, you will be responsible to pay 4.5 percent of your income ($1,500) on health insurance.
WHAT THEY SAY: The bill will cost $829 billion and will not add to the deficit.
WHAT THEY MEAN: Senator Orin Hatch said he sees the true cost at $2 trillion over 10 years if the new measure for a $247 billion dollar Medicare “doctor fix” and inflation is included. “’Look, this is just another gimmick, he said, adding that Democrats claimed health care reform would be a deficit-neutral bill.”
This bill will change repeatedly. Not just while it is being passed, but through time. There is no transparency because it is being cobbled together behind closed doors. Remember when President Obama promised to negotiate the health care bill on C-SPAN?
“I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table. … what we’ll do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies… that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.” --- President Obama, Town hall meeting, 8/21/2008, Chester, VA.
THERE’S MORE…going on in health care reform. Up to 13 million illegal aliens do not have coverage and use emergency rooms for anything from rashes to needing advanced medical procedures. The Subsidized Medicare Advantage program will be cut to save costs, over Medicare. The elderly must then buy a “gap insurance” policy at a higher premium, as offered by the AARP. If health reform passes there are concerns that premiums will rise drastically. If a public option is included over time, will the public option eventually replace private options? The government will be able to exert more influence over individual rights than ever before. The health care reform can be the beginning of staggering changes for America. Will the final bill include exactly how it will be paid for? What will hold costs down? Who will pay for the coverage for illegal immigrants? Is there a provision that will prevent the government from dictating lifestyle choices?
A final and disturbing reflection: Will the health care reform bill be “too big to fail”? The current bill is over 1,500 pages, and includes language of intent, “and for other purposes”. Will anyone be able to read the final bill before it is signed with “other purposes”? Will the citizens of the United States be able to read it BEFORE it is voted on? President Obama, will you honor your promise that you “will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days?”
Sources: BusinessWeek, 10/16/90, CNN.com, Mesquite News 9/3/2009, League of American Voters, DickMorris.com, prescriptions.blogs.newyorktimes.com, WSJ,10/19/09, Politico.com, Townhall meeting, Cheston VA, politifact.com, obama ethics plan.
In a nutshell: Why is health care being reformed, and what exactly does “Health Care Reform” mean? It is generally agreed that health care needs to be reformed based on the issues of capping annual out-of pocket expenses, ending practices that deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, and incentivizing preventative healthcare.
The basics: Recently, the 1,502 page Senate Finance Health Committee Bill passed with support (14-9). Next, Senate leaders will work to merge the bill with the Finance Committee’s bill, an 839 page document. Here is how the newly posted Senate bill begins: “A Bill. To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.” NOTE: “… and for other purposes.” Next, five pieces of legislation (2 from the Senate and 3 from the House) will need to be combined, and then there will be a debate between the full Senate and the House.
Is the bill clear…or is an agenda being advanced through deception?
WHAT THEY SAY: Health care will be reformed.
WHAT THEY MEAN: The bills transform and construct major policy changes.
WHAT THEY SAY: Americans want health reform.
WHAT “WE” MEAN: Although individuals support the notions of lowering expenses and covering pre-existing conditions, polls show there is not a majority support for the bill by the American citizens. According to the Pew Research Center, in October 2009, only 34% generally favor proposals in Congress, 47% oppose, and 19% don’t know. In addition, 66% of people surveyed found health care reform issues difficult to understand, while only 33% found it easy to understand.
WHAT THEY SAY: The bill has bipartisan support.
WHAT THEY MEAN: Only 1 republican supported the Senate Finance Committee bill. (If there is not enough support later, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can use a legislative option, “reconciliation” which would permit Democrats to pass a bill with 50 votes, not the usual 60.) Republican Senator Orrin Hatch said, "It will be hard to stop this from happening. Democrats have decided they have to pass a bill no matter how unpopular it is." He thinks Senate Democrats will pass “Obamacare” with the smallest possible margin out of the Senate and predicts that a House-Senate Conference then will make the bill much worse.”
WHAT THEY SAY: It will be mandatory to buy insurance.
WHAT THEY MEAN: If you do not purchase insurance you will be fined. Fines for individuals will begin in 2014, and will increase through 2017.
The question: “Will fines force people to buy insurance…or will they opt to pay the fine instead?” “If your household income is $66,000 a year, slightly above the national average, Obama’s healthcare bill will require you to spend 12 percent of your income — about $8,000 a year or almost $700 a month — to buy health insurance before you get any federal subsidy.” If you were this family would you pay a fine instead, particularly if you could obtain insurance at any time? Remember, the bill will end the practice of denying insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions.
If individuals opt to pay fines instead of purchasing insurance, what are the results? Can risk be distributed among a wider group, or would premiums be raised on individuals who are carrying insurance? “A Pricewaterhouse Coopers report commissioned by AHIP calculated that if the fines remain as described in the bill, health-insurance premiums will end up higher than if no reform bill is passed, because insurer will have to raise rates to pay for all the new sicker enrollees.”
The question: Would individuals sign up for insurance when they need a costly medical procedure and later drop coverage when the procedure is completed?
WHAT THEY SAY: Insurance will be “affordable” for all Americans.
WHAT THEY MEAN: “Affordable” is a pliable word. Your definition of “affordable” and the bill’s definition of “affordable” may not be the same. Affordable in the bill means a family with an income of only $44,000 a year will have to pay 7 percent ($3,000) of their income on insurance. If you are making only $33,000, you will be responsible to pay 4.5 percent of your income ($1,500) on health insurance.
WHAT THEY SAY: The bill will cost $829 billion and will not add to the deficit.
WHAT THEY MEAN: Senator Orin Hatch said he sees the true cost at $2 trillion over 10 years if the new measure for a $247 billion dollar Medicare “doctor fix” and inflation is included. “’Look, this is just another gimmick, he said, adding that Democrats claimed health care reform would be a deficit-neutral bill.”
This bill will change repeatedly. Not just while it is being passed, but through time. There is no transparency because it is being cobbled together behind closed doors. Remember when President Obama promised to negotiate the health care bill on C-SPAN?
“I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table. … what we’ll do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies… that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.” --- President Obama, Town hall meeting, 8/21/2008, Chester, VA.
THERE’S MORE…going on in health care reform. Up to 13 million illegal aliens do not have coverage and use emergency rooms for anything from rashes to needing advanced medical procedures. The Subsidized Medicare Advantage program will be cut to save costs, over Medicare. The elderly must then buy a “gap insurance” policy at a higher premium, as offered by the AARP. If health reform passes there are concerns that premiums will rise drastically. If a public option is included over time, will the public option eventually replace private options? The government will be able to exert more influence over individual rights than ever before. The health care reform can be the beginning of staggering changes for America. Will the final bill include exactly how it will be paid for? What will hold costs down? Who will pay for the coverage for illegal immigrants? Is there a provision that will prevent the government from dictating lifestyle choices?
A final and disturbing reflection: Will the health care reform bill be “too big to fail”? The current bill is over 1,500 pages, and includes language of intent, “and for other purposes”. Will anyone be able to read the final bill before it is signed with “other purposes”? Will the citizens of the United States be able to read it BEFORE it is voted on? President Obama, will you honor your promise that you “will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days?”
Sources: BusinessWeek, 10/16/90, CNN.com, Mesquite News 9/3/2009, League of American Voters, DickMorris.com, prescriptions.blogs.newyorktimes.com, WSJ,10/19/09, Politico.com, Townhall meeting, Cheston VA, politifact.com, obama ethics plan.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
THE OBAMA BRAINWASH: SELLING TOXIC ILLUSIONS
If everything is so great, why does the Obama administration have to market it so heavily? The question is, are we subjected to media pressures that use gentle coercion to guilt us into accepting policies? Is this illusion insinuated through a constant barrage of media? Do we prefer to live in an illusion instead of reality?
TOXIC ILLUSION #1: HEALTH CARE
(Remember, whoever argues for this the loudest will likely benefit the most.)
Is it the American citizen who is clamoring for the Health Care Bill? The American citizens protested. They do not want the government to run healthcare. They do not want the government to sponsor healthcare. They do not want the government involved in healthcare. And they do not want a public option healthcare. The media has repeatedly alleged that these are not genuine protests and distorted the reporting to reflect ALL protesters in a negative light. Reality check: The majority of Americans do not want the government to run, control, or manage healthcare. Because the majority of American have a dissenting opinion, it is now seen as nothing more than an obstruction to getting health care “reform” passed.
"I think attacking citizens in our country for expressing their opinions about an issue of this magnitude may indicate some weakness in their position on the merits," McConnell said.” --Senator McConnell on Democrats attacking town hall meetings.
LET THE ILLUSION BEGIN: “President Obama yesterday rolled out the red carpet-and handed out doctors’ white coats as well, just so nobody missed his hard-sell health-care message. In a heavy handed attempt at reviving support for health-care reform, the White House orchestrated a massive photo op to buttress its claim that front-line physicians support Obama.” “The physicians, all invited guests, were told to bring their white lab coats to make sure that TV cameras captured the image.” --NYPost.
The question: If the Health Care Reform Bill is so fantastic, why is Obama marketing it so perniciously? Well, here is one part of the equation. The bill writer himself actually finds it necessary to market his bill! (This marketing campaign began with Obama’s presidential campaign!) “Sen. Max Baucus and the Center for American Progress Action Fund are announcing a new group on a conference call later this morning: Doctors for America, which is a reincarnation of Doctors for Obama, an arm of the Obama campaign that boasted more than 10,000 members.”
With all this time for advertising, surely it’s a great bill that we can get a chance to read, right? NO, we don’t get the chance to read the bill. According to Senator Baucus himself, “...even though President Obama promised us transparency there was an opportunity in the Senate last week that they put this bill online for 72 hours. Did you hear what Max Baucus' response was? 'He said, Well, it would take me two weeks to get the bill online.'”
Has a war been launched through the media to allocate more power to the government? Why is the government using advertising campaigns to advance their agendas when they are elected officials who are responsible to represent the citizens? Should we question how close this compares to brainwashing? "The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation". (Definition of brainwashing, American Heritage Dictionary.)
TOXIC ILLUSIONS #2,#3,#4,#5,#6,#7……..AND ON AND ON: THE STIMULUS PACKAGE, THE BAILOUT PACKAGE, THE CASH FOR CLUNKERS PACKAGE, THE HOUSING CREDIT, THE MORTGAGE WRITEDOWNS…. etc
Stimulus is branded as protection and empowerment for those in need. The Bailout Package was branded as “Financial Armageddon”, The Cash for Clunkers Program was branded as “Help the Economy”, The Housing Credit Crisis was “We have to, or your home will lose its value”, The Mortgage Writedowns was “The Home Affordable Program”. The American people are now being conditioned to think they're going to receive gifts from the government as in "where's MY bailout?"
If the government asks you to work for 100 days of the year and then give them the money you made so they could spend it in a way they deem fit without your approval, would you do it? Would you think that is unreasonable? Most citizens laugh at this question, but that is the current American way. We currently work 100 days of the year and give that money to the government for our individual share of the tax burden. (And this was BEFORE our current 12 trillion dollar debt. See usdebtclock.org) The government takes your earnings to redistribute the way they see fit. The government money is actually your money. When the government comes up with all these programs like paying for health insurance (for some), giving stimulus checks (for some), etc., the government knows people would revolt if they raised taxes more, so policies are branded and marketed as “cure all” packages for America’s woes. We are lulled into security by assurances like, “The government will take care of it.” The government IS taking care of it…by “stealing” trillions of dollars and indebting its citizens and future generations. When you do not pay through taxes, you are forced to pay through inflation.
Where are values of thrift, hard work and independence? These ethics are stealthily being replaced as the government uses the media to rebrand government spending and market it as their assurance to pay for "security and success for ALL". The problem is the current public policies are beneficial to one set of citizens at the expense of another. (For example, the Cash for Clunkers giveaway benefited the recipient $4,500, but cost the rest of the taxpayers $20,000! Remember, as a country we are broke so these “give-aways” cost substantially more when paid back.) There is no utopia--no matter what the government promises. The question is: What are the long term effects of these programs?
It appears this administration has a special talent for marketing their vision to the American citizen. If you don’t like what they sell the first go around, it comes out repackaged and rebranded. The fight is on now to persuade the American citizen to buy the “new American dream”. The “new American dream” will cost YOU nothing; the “new American dream” will always cost “the other guy”.
What if we begin to realize...we are the other guy?
Sources: Newt.org, NYPost, 10/06/09, Politico.com, Ben Smith
TOXIC ILLUSION #1: HEALTH CARE
(Remember, whoever argues for this the loudest will likely benefit the most.)
Is it the American citizen who is clamoring for the Health Care Bill? The American citizens protested. They do not want the government to run healthcare. They do not want the government to sponsor healthcare. They do not want the government involved in healthcare. And they do not want a public option healthcare. The media has repeatedly alleged that these are not genuine protests and distorted the reporting to reflect ALL protesters in a negative light. Reality check: The majority of Americans do not want the government to run, control, or manage healthcare. Because the majority of American have a dissenting opinion, it is now seen as nothing more than an obstruction to getting health care “reform” passed.
"I think attacking citizens in our country for expressing their opinions about an issue of this magnitude may indicate some weakness in their position on the merits," McConnell said.” --Senator McConnell on Democrats attacking town hall meetings.
LET THE ILLUSION BEGIN: “President Obama yesterday rolled out the red carpet-and handed out doctors’ white coats as well, just so nobody missed his hard-sell health-care message. In a heavy handed attempt at reviving support for health-care reform, the White House orchestrated a massive photo op to buttress its claim that front-line physicians support Obama.” “The physicians, all invited guests, were told to bring their white lab coats to make sure that TV cameras captured the image.” --NYPost.
The question: If the Health Care Reform Bill is so fantastic, why is Obama marketing it so perniciously? Well, here is one part of the equation. The bill writer himself actually finds it necessary to market his bill! (This marketing campaign began with Obama’s presidential campaign!) “Sen. Max Baucus and the Center for American Progress Action Fund are announcing a new group on a conference call later this morning: Doctors for America, which is a reincarnation of Doctors for Obama, an arm of the Obama campaign that boasted more than 10,000 members.”
With all this time for advertising, surely it’s a great bill that we can get a chance to read, right? NO, we don’t get the chance to read the bill. According to Senator Baucus himself, “...even though President Obama promised us transparency there was an opportunity in the Senate last week that they put this bill online for 72 hours. Did you hear what Max Baucus' response was? 'He said, Well, it would take me two weeks to get the bill online.'”
Has a war been launched through the media to allocate more power to the government? Why is the government using advertising campaigns to advance their agendas when they are elected officials who are responsible to represent the citizens? Should we question how close this compares to brainwashing? "The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation". (Definition of brainwashing, American Heritage Dictionary.)
TOXIC ILLUSIONS #2,#3,#4,#5,#6,#7……..AND ON AND ON: THE STIMULUS PACKAGE, THE BAILOUT PACKAGE, THE CASH FOR CLUNKERS PACKAGE, THE HOUSING CREDIT, THE MORTGAGE WRITEDOWNS…. etc
Stimulus is branded as protection and empowerment for those in need. The Bailout Package was branded as “Financial Armageddon”, The Cash for Clunkers Program was branded as “Help the Economy”, The Housing Credit Crisis was “We have to, or your home will lose its value”, The Mortgage Writedowns was “The Home Affordable Program”. The American people are now being conditioned to think they're going to receive gifts from the government as in "where's MY bailout?"
If the government asks you to work for 100 days of the year and then give them the money you made so they could spend it in a way they deem fit without your approval, would you do it? Would you think that is unreasonable? Most citizens laugh at this question, but that is the current American way. We currently work 100 days of the year and give that money to the government for our individual share of the tax burden. (And this was BEFORE our current 12 trillion dollar debt. See usdebtclock.org) The government takes your earnings to redistribute the way they see fit. The government money is actually your money. When the government comes up with all these programs like paying for health insurance (for some), giving stimulus checks (for some), etc., the government knows people would revolt if they raised taxes more, so policies are branded and marketed as “cure all” packages for America’s woes. We are lulled into security by assurances like, “The government will take care of it.” The government IS taking care of it…by “stealing” trillions of dollars and indebting its citizens and future generations. When you do not pay through taxes, you are forced to pay through inflation.
Where are values of thrift, hard work and independence? These ethics are stealthily being replaced as the government uses the media to rebrand government spending and market it as their assurance to pay for "security and success for ALL". The problem is the current public policies are beneficial to one set of citizens at the expense of another. (For example, the Cash for Clunkers giveaway benefited the recipient $4,500, but cost the rest of the taxpayers $20,000! Remember, as a country we are broke so these “give-aways” cost substantially more when paid back.) There is no utopia--no matter what the government promises. The question is: What are the long term effects of these programs?
It appears this administration has a special talent for marketing their vision to the American citizen. If you don’t like what they sell the first go around, it comes out repackaged and rebranded. The fight is on now to persuade the American citizen to buy the “new American dream”. The “new American dream” will cost YOU nothing; the “new American dream” will always cost “the other guy”.
What if we begin to realize...we are the other guy?
Sources: Newt.org, NYPost, 10/06/09, Politico.com, Ben Smith
Thursday, October 1, 2009
CAP AND TRAITOR: THE CONCEALED AGENDA OF CAP AND TRADE: I mean the Waxman-Markey Bill, I meant the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, er, the Boxer-Kerry Bill, uhhh, the Pollution Reduction…
The Nutshell: Seriously, if a bill needs to be renamed this many times can it really be earnest? This bill is HR2454, its new slogan “Pollution Reduction...” has been selected with the ambition to make you believe the world will be a better place if it is passed. (It is agreed that Americans value the earth and reducing pollution is generally a common goal accepted by most.)
The BIG question: Is the Pollution Reduction Bill about reducing pollution OR, is there much more going on? It’s being sold as a "green" feel-good bill to the American public. Originally, it passed by only 7 votes. Within the bill is a mandate for the United States to cut greenhouse gas emissions 20% by the year 2020; 38% by 2030; and finally 83% by 2050. Barbara Boxer said it won’t cost the government a cent. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (who has a reputation for prioritizing bureaucratic control) is ready to push this bill through...all 600-900+ pages of it!
We want to reduce pollution, but is it disingenuous to say it won’t cost? The question is: who pays and how much?
WINNERS VS. LOSERS
“We will not rebuild our economy on the old model of bubbles and busts. We'll only climb out of the current crisis by creating a new, sustainable foundation for our economy's future -- and make the tough choices to put our economy back on the road to long-term prosperity.” (Source: Barackobama.com) President Obama thinks this is a good bill. Do you?
American Electric Power CEO, Mike Morris, believes rates of electricity will go up 30-50%! Translation? American Electric will increase business costs...which will be passed on to you, the consumer.
(Winner American Electric Power VS. Loser the American citizen)
Concurring with that opinion is the CEO of Exelon, John Rowe, who explains that at a $10 increase in the price of cap and trade permits, Exelon will increase its annual revenue by $750 million dollars.
(Winner Exelon VS. Loser the American citizen.)
Obama touts this as a bill that puts the burden of cost on “carbon polluters” but in the end, the cost of the bill falls on citizens and small businesses. The American Petroleum Institute readily agrees, “The losers would be millions of Americans and American companies,” which is why they are in strong support of this bill. Senator James Inhofe says, “Farmers, families and workers have no way of gauging how acutely they will be affected from job losses, higher electricity, food and gasoline prices.”
It is estimated carbon trading can become a $2 TRILLION commodity market!
(Winner Wall Street VS. Loser the American Citizen.)
Who exactly is benefitting from this new asset bubble? There is no actual value of this bill as an asset, only the rights to emit carbon. Do you think that as a citizen you'll be bearing the costs of "carbon pollution" while for Wall Street, it might be yet another veiled opportunity to get even richer?
Al Gore has invested in Hara Environmental and Energy Management. Hara is a software services company that will assist companies and municipalities in calculating carbon emissions.
(Winner “Insider” Al Gore VS. Loser “the Outsider” the American Citizen.)
The Chicago Climate Exchange set up shop back in 2000. (Interesting side note: Barack Obama served on the board of the Chicago Climate Exchange, 2000-01.)
(Winner “Insider” the Chicago Climate Exchange VS. Loser “the Outsider” the American citizen.)
In the bill, even Freddie Mac is brought into the loop! With government sponsored energy-efficient and location-efficient mortgages that focus specifically on under-served markets targeting low-low and moderate income families, Freddie Mac is encouraged to make loans based on energy saving designs or improvements.
(Winner "Transfer of Taxpayer’s money to government selected places" VS. Loser "the Taxpayer through loss of money and the freedom to spend it".)
The free market is affected by the transfer of taxpayer money being re-allocated to sources they would normally not be spending $$$ on.
(Winner Socialism VS. Loser Democracy.)
Handpicked green upstarts have already been chosen.
(Winner "those selected" VS. Loser "free market enterprise".)
Other winners...politicians who were paid off to change their votes like: Bobby Rush (D), IL –$1 billion dollar earmark; Rep Alan Grayson (D), FL –$50 million for new national hurricane research center; Rep Marcy Kaptur (D), OH –$3.5 billion renewable energy projects and Rep Frank Kratovil (D), MD –$1 billion agriculture offsets.
Is the American citizen being brainwashed into thinking we are being environmentally active while the reality is that a new “bubble” is being created that will result in private gain? Are the politicians leveraging this agenda into expansion of government? “Obama called for speedy action on his economic recovery plan, which he said will put 460,000 Americans to work with clean-energy investments and double the capacity to generate alternative energy over the next three years.” While this may be true, would it also be true that as costs increase and profits decline companies will move to less developed countries?
Sources: News; Science and Environment, 9/20/2009; Americans for Prosperity; Barack Obama.com
The BIG question: Is the Pollution Reduction Bill about reducing pollution OR, is there much more going on? It’s being sold as a "green" feel-good bill to the American public. Originally, it passed by only 7 votes. Within the bill is a mandate for the United States to cut greenhouse gas emissions 20% by the year 2020; 38% by 2030; and finally 83% by 2050. Barbara Boxer said it won’t cost the government a cent. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (who has a reputation for prioritizing bureaucratic control) is ready to push this bill through...all 600-900+ pages of it!
We want to reduce pollution, but is it disingenuous to say it won’t cost? The question is: who pays and how much?
WINNERS VS. LOSERS
“We will not rebuild our economy on the old model of bubbles and busts. We'll only climb out of the current crisis by creating a new, sustainable foundation for our economy's future -- and make the tough choices to put our economy back on the road to long-term prosperity.” (Source: Barackobama.com) President Obama thinks this is a good bill. Do you?
American Electric Power CEO, Mike Morris, believes rates of electricity will go up 30-50%! Translation? American Electric will increase business costs...which will be passed on to you, the consumer.
(Winner American Electric Power VS. Loser the American citizen)
Concurring with that opinion is the CEO of Exelon, John Rowe, who explains that at a $10 increase in the price of cap and trade permits, Exelon will increase its annual revenue by $750 million dollars.
(Winner Exelon VS. Loser the American citizen.)
Obama touts this as a bill that puts the burden of cost on “carbon polluters” but in the end, the cost of the bill falls on citizens and small businesses. The American Petroleum Institute readily agrees, “The losers would be millions of Americans and American companies,” which is why they are in strong support of this bill. Senator James Inhofe says, “Farmers, families and workers have no way of gauging how acutely they will be affected from job losses, higher electricity, food and gasoline prices.”
It is estimated carbon trading can become a $2 TRILLION commodity market!
(Winner Wall Street VS. Loser the American Citizen.)
Who exactly is benefitting from this new asset bubble? There is no actual value of this bill as an asset, only the rights to emit carbon. Do you think that as a citizen you'll be bearing the costs of "carbon pollution" while for Wall Street, it might be yet another veiled opportunity to get even richer?
Al Gore has invested in Hara Environmental and Energy Management. Hara is a software services company that will assist companies and municipalities in calculating carbon emissions.
(Winner “Insider” Al Gore VS. Loser “the Outsider” the American Citizen.)
The Chicago Climate Exchange set up shop back in 2000. (Interesting side note: Barack Obama served on the board of the Chicago Climate Exchange, 2000-01.)
(Winner “Insider” the Chicago Climate Exchange VS. Loser “the Outsider” the American citizen.)
In the bill, even Freddie Mac is brought into the loop! With government sponsored energy-efficient and location-efficient mortgages that focus specifically on under-served markets targeting low-low and moderate income families, Freddie Mac is encouraged to make loans based on energy saving designs or improvements.
(Winner "Transfer of Taxpayer’s money to government selected places" VS. Loser "the Taxpayer through loss of money and the freedom to spend it".)
The free market is affected by the transfer of taxpayer money being re-allocated to sources they would normally not be spending $$$ on.
(Winner Socialism VS. Loser Democracy.)
Handpicked green upstarts have already been chosen.
(Winner "those selected" VS. Loser "free market enterprise".)
Other winners...politicians who were paid off to change their votes like: Bobby Rush (D), IL –$1 billion dollar earmark; Rep Alan Grayson (D), FL –$50 million for new national hurricane research center; Rep Marcy Kaptur (D), OH –$3.5 billion renewable energy projects and Rep Frank Kratovil (D), MD –$1 billion agriculture offsets.
Is the American citizen being brainwashed into thinking we are being environmentally active while the reality is that a new “bubble” is being created that will result in private gain? Are the politicians leveraging this agenda into expansion of government? “Obama called for speedy action on his economic recovery plan, which he said will put 460,000 Americans to work with clean-energy investments and double the capacity to generate alternative energy over the next three years.” While this may be true, would it also be true that as costs increase and profits decline companies will move to less developed countries?
Sources: News; Science and Environment, 9/20/2009; Americans for Prosperity; Barack Obama.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
