5 Minute Politics

WOULD YOU PAY YOUR EMPLOYEE MORE THAN YOURSELF? (well, you do!!!)

2010-01-12T16:58:00.000-08:00

The question: You pay the salaries of federal employees. Do you want to pay them more than you make yourself? Do you want to use your money to fund them with better benefits and better retirement packages than you have?

In a nutshell: Federal employees are paid through Federal Tax Revenue. You pay the Federal Tax Revenue. Federal employee pay has outpaced private sector pay at an alarming rate and continues to increase (steadily). Data shows that including benefits, federal civilians earn double compared to private industry. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, in 2006, of the 1.8 million federal civilian workers, the average pay was $111,180 (including wages and benefits.) In 2008, the average pay was even higher!

(Chart from Cato Institute, Chris Edwards,http://www.cato-at- liberty.org/2009/08/24/federal-pay-continues-rapid-ascent/)

-From 2000-2008, wages for federal civilian employees went up 53.7%, while the private sector rose only 28.5%!

-Wages continue to climb. In December 2009, President Obama issued an executive order to increase pay for federal employees by 2% effective Jan 1, 2010.

According to Ilana Mercer, “The average worker in the US pays $10,000 in income taxes; enough to keep one federal work in style for one month! There are upward of 20 million… in 87,000 different institutions in government and public education, where the payrolls are always lard-laden in comparison to private-economy paysheets.”

NOT ONLY ARE YOU PAYING THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES EXTRAVAGANTLY, YOU WILL SOON BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING MORE OF THEM! BEWARE --- THE NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS IS INCREASING — WHICH MEANS YOU WILL NEED TO PAY MORE EMPLOYEES! In the second quarter of 2009, the government added OVER 500,000 workers while the private sector lost more than 1 million.

HOW YOU PAY: The top 50% of wage earners with a threshold of $32,879 and up paid 97.11% of Federal personal income tax. (Source: Internal Revenue Service) 45% of Federal Tax Revenue for 2008, was from INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX, 36% was from PAYROLL TAXES, and only 12% was from Corporate Income Tax. (Source: Congressional Budget Office)

Should you care? The government has an undisciplined accessibility to an income source — YOU! The government has the ability not only to tax, but to acquire money through debt. Either way, the taxpayers are responsible to pay. The government is employed by you and paid out of taxes. It is clear that the more the government expands, the more it will debilitate the taxpayer. Your money will be their money. You can save for your own retirement OR you can pay federal employees lavish benefits. Agreeing with Ms. Mercer, "The larger the parasite gets, the weaker the host will grow."

Sources: www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/24/federal-pay-continues-rapid-ascent/, govexec.com,fedsmith.com, Ralph smith, 8/2/07, wnd.com, 9/25/2009, Ilana Mercer, Tax Policy Center Urban Institue and Brookings Institution, ntu.org,monkeychimp.com

PROGRESSIVISM: Is it PROGRESS or a PROBLEM?

2010-01-05T16:09:00.000-08:00

The question: What is progressivism and how does it differ from, “Change We Can Believe In”...uhhh, I mean Social Progressivism? Both types of progressivism view the transformation of laws and policies as “societal progress” and therefore are termed progressive.

In a nutshell: Social Progressives are using the idea of Progressivism to advance an oppressive amount of government control that will result in loss of personal freedom.

PROGRESSIVISM: So, what IS the description of Progressivism?

The original intention of progressivism is defined as using social changes to provide a better standard of life for the average working person.

• Progressive movements have supported women’s voting rights, the minimum wage law, and child labor laws.
• Progressives have rallied against wide-ranging corporate power and influence.
• Progressives distrust US foreign policy because they relate it to economic motivations.
• Progressivism emphasizes support to conserve and shield nature. According to progressliving.org, “The fourth Progressive movement is associated with the Green Party and the Nader presidential candidacy.”

ON THE OTHER HAND

SOCIAL PROGRESSIVISM: What is the description of Social Progressivism?

Social Progressives champion the idea that social justice is achieved through government domination, providing services (which are seen as “rights”), and by sharing the costs of the “rights” through taxation.

• Social Progressivism uses techniques to advance their agenda, specifically to exert control of the people through government. (The constitution is unclouded when it states there should be limited government and individual freedom should be protected.)

IMPORTANT NOTE: Although the current administration wears the hat of Social Progressivism to advance government control and government reliance through social programs, President Obama also caters heavily to Wall Street as evidenced by his Economic Team.

Should you care? YES, if you believe in democracy, freedom, and individual rights. “There are ten easy steps toward a progressive-socialist-Marxist civil society:

1) change the popular consensus
2) destroy Christianity, the traditional family, and existing social mores
3) transform the culture
4) install a radical Left mind-control;
5) attain political power
6) impose strict control of the military and law enforcement
7) restrict freedom
8) socialize the economy
9) erase American sovereignty
10) embrace a world without borders”, (restates Robert Chandler on Gramsci’s formula).

Is social progressivism on the right track, or will it “progress” America into Socialism?

Sources: Aim Report, Robert Chander, 4/6/09, How Obama Revolution Came to America, Allexperts.com/e/p/pr/progressivism, Americanthinker.com 8/17/09, “I Don’t Accept the Premise”, Andie Brownlow, 12/12/09, The End of Liberalism, Danny Huddleston, Progressiveliving.org

OBAMA’S G-SPOT: THE FUTURE OF THE UNITED STATES IS TO IMPLEMENT GLOBALISM

2009-10-30T19:39:00.000-07:00

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

HEALTHCARE: SAY WHAT YOU MEAN, MEAN WHAT YOU SAY

2009-10-20T21:09:00.000-07:00

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.

THE OBAMA BRAINWASH: SELLING TOXIC ILLUSIONS

2009-10-08T15:34:00.000-07:00

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

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…

2009-10-01T18:07:00.000-07:00

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

VALERIE JARRETT: THE OTHER WOMAN WHO WHISPERS SWEET NOTHINGS IN OBAMA’S

2009-09-26T15:13:00.000-07:00

"”I trust her completely.’ --Barack Obama, describing his relationship with Jarrett (Chicago Tribune, July 27, 2008)”

The nutshell: Valerie Jarrett has enormous influence to determine the path of democracy in the United States. How much do you know about her? When you get to know her, will you feel confident she is an advocate of your views as well as the values of America?

Valerie Jarrett has been a part of President Obama’s life for 17 years. Currently, she is Senior Advisor and Assistant to President Obama. Prior to that, she served as co-chair of the Obama-Biden campaign as well as Senior Advisor to Obama’s presidential campaign. She is seen as Obama's "other woman", and also closely advises Michelle Obama. He relies heavily on her input and approval in his decision making.

White House staff have distinguished her as one of two women Obama does not say "no" to, the second woman being his wife, Michelle Obama. When a person has this much influence on the President of the United States it makes you wonder, what exactly are her aspirations for our country?

Valerie Jarrett was born in Shriaz, Iran, and speaks both Persian and French. She spent her early childhood in Iran and London. As a teen she dedicated her summers to traveling to Ghana, Nigeria and Egypt. She was Vice President, and in 2007, became President and CEO of Habitat Co., where she served a total of 12 years. Her parents currently live 2 blocks down from Obama’s Hyde Park home in Chicago.

QUESTION: DO YOU AGREE THAT LIFE EXPERIENCES (CONSCIOUSLY OR UNCONSCIOUSLY) INFLUENCE WHO YOU ARE TODAY? IF YOU DO, ARE PARENTS ONE OF YOUR INFLUENCES?
Valerie Jarrett’s mother, Barbara Taylor Bowman helped to create the Erikson Institute, which created the Head Start program. How would you feel knowing that the father of radical William C. Ayers was on the Board of Trustees? It’s true! Bill Ayers was the leader of the Weather Underground Organization, the American radical left organization most remembered for enacting and carrying out a "Declaration of a State of War" assault on the US government! Weather Underground Organization bombings include the US Capital in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972, and the Department of State building in 1975. (Note: Bill Clinton pardoned Bill Ayers. The question is...why?)

HOW ELSE DOES JARRETT USE HER INFLUENCE?

Jarrett drove hard to create the position of Chief Diversity Officer/FCC, which was filled by Mark Lloyd (see: Who Is Mark Lloyd and why should I care). (Among the concerns on Lloyd are his admiration of Hugo Chavez and his belief that public radio needs to be regulated which would assault freedom of speech rights.)
Jarrett herself interviewed and is familiar with Van Jones and trumpeted hiring him. (After video tapes of him were played on the news where he declared himself an avowed Communist, (in addition to other radical views and associations with radical left policies), he stepped down from his White House position. HE HAS NOT PUBLICLY DENOUNCED HIS STATEMENT ABOUT COMMUNISM.)
Jarrett also was pleased to endorse inviting Jamel Jaffer to the White House Ramadan dinner (to celebrate the Islamic holy month of Ramadan). (Jaffer, a citizen of Canada, is lauded by admirers for his career litigating against, yes, AGAINST the United States of America! He litigates in support of terrorists and radical Islamists, among other incomprehensible criminals. Although Valerie Jarrett had numerous other options of people to invite to the event, she absolved to have Jaffer on the List.)
Jarrett also can claim the honor for recruiting Obama's friend Cass Sunstein (see: Cass Sunstein...in a nutshell) who now holds extreme power.

IN THE END IT LEAVES THE INDIVIDUAL TO QUESTION:
Why does she hire and choose anti-Americans to senior level positions of staff, as well as choose to invite them to Presidential functions?

As Obama’s chosen prominent advisor, are HER views HIS views?

Why does he seek her influence and how much will it determine the conceptual framework of the United States of America?

How will our country emerge after she exerts her convictions?

Sources: American Spectator 9/8/09, White House. gov, Huffingtonpost.com (interview with Katie Couric), Time. com, washingtimes.com

THE IMF…FRIEND, FOE, OR JUST A FACADE FOR THE ELITE?

2009-09-24T15:45:00.000-07:00

In a nutshell: The IMF stands for the International Monetary Fund. Briefly,

the IMF is comprised of 186 countries who give money to the IMF in order to create a pool of money that struggling countries can borrow from on a temporary basis.
the IMF is an agency of the United Nations but has its own charter, government structure, and finances.
"through its economic surveillance the IMF keeps track of its member countries".
the IMF is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and has a staff of 2,478.
the current director for the U.S. is Tim Geithner. The alternate director is Ben Bernanke. They have a 20% voting right.

WHY WOULD YOU CARE?
Because they use your tax money! In May, the IMF asked for $750 billion dollars to assist developing countries. In June, Obama approved an additional $100 billion dollar credit line to the IMF. Obama also gave the green light for the sale of gold for the IMF. Both of these authorizations were put in the supplemental war bill passed by the House and Senate. Transparency? What transparency?
Land is owned/propertied by “elites” usually at a 50% rent by the oligarchies. The IMF picks the winners/losers. “Reginald McKenna, former British Chancellor of the exchequer said, ‘They who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of governments and hold in their hands the destiny of the people.’”’ Money is combined with the power of politics. “America’s financial leaders seamlessly move from Wall Street to Washington and back to Wall Street”.

Is what is good for Wall Street, good for America? Are they spending your money the way you want them to? In other words, if they asked you to vote to give money to a 3rd party that is not accountable to you, would you vote yes? Is there a concentration of too much power when Tim Geithner is the U.S. Director with voting rights? Some believe the IMF is only a facade for Wall Street commercial interests. Natural resources become “privatized”, meaning foreigners buy mines and oil fields at low prices, particularly when the countries default.

HOW IS DEBT HANDLED?
When loans go bad they are socialized. Entire populations have to pay them off (which includes you, the U.S. citizen.) There is an average of 111 “conditionality’s” to abide by in order to obtain a loan from the IMF. These include trade policies. When the IMF dictates who gets the loans and under what conditions, they are taking U.S. citizens taxpayer money, giving it to a third party, and deciding whether or not these countries are required to pay back the debt. So maybe country x needs money, but the people of the United States think, “no, we can’t give you the money because we are 2 trillion dollars in debt”…Obama gives it to the IMF under “social justice” directives, and the IMF then can “lend” it out, and erase its debt obligation.

Why are so many countries who borrow from the IMF under astounding debt instead of catapulted into prosperity as a result of the lending? Huge loans are given to countries under conditions; contracts are awarded to U.S. corporations. The countries are then unable to repay their debts…then, civilian consultancies, (such as Chas T. Main, based in Boston) go in and say, “Hey, since you can’t pay the loan back you need to give us your rainforest, which is filled with oil.” Unbelievable, but this is indeed the case.

THE BOTTOM LINE, WHAT TO THINK ABOUT:
Currently, the United States is no longer the chief source of capital. The world’s top 3 banks are now Chinese. America’s bank is down at Number 5. Why then does the US contribute the most to the IMF? Who really reaps the benefits from the IMF? One might come to the conclusion that the IMF is a system that under the guise of social justice is really a FACADE to benefit the oligarchies that end up with the resources; while the countries who borrow and the taxpayers who pay, end up losing. Why are we heavily indebting ourselves to China yet still borrowing more just to lend it out? Through the IMF, will China end up increasing and ultimately having the most influence on global economic policy? China’s economic and political power seems to rise each and every day the United States increases our debt obligation. Some say the United States government is no longer working for the people; instead it now works for itself.

Sources: encyclopedia.com, Vanity Fair, July 2009, Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winning economist, Professor Columbia University, IMF.org

CA farmers only receiving 10% of their water supply!

2009-09-19T07:06:00.000-07:00

The question: Is our nation's breadbasket being turned into a dustbowl because of radical environmentalists?

The nutshell: San Joaquin Valley, CA, is our nation's most fertile farming area and produces 13% of our produce. Due to less snow over the last few years the area has less water. However, it is said the real hazard of the moment is due to a "man-made drought". The pumps have been turned off and water is being diverted to rivers and the ocean.

Why? The delta smelt is on an environmental protection list and it is harmed when it gets sucked through the pumps. The solution is to turn down the pumps which results in the farmers only receiving 10% of their water supply.

Should you care? You will if you like red sauce--40% of the worlds processing tomatoes come from this area, pizza sauce, ketchup, tomato paste etc., will all be affected. How about almonds? 99% of almonds are grown in this region. You might care if you enjoy lettuce, strawberries, cantaloupe, the list goes on.

Does it matter? Imagine if our produce will have to be imported from China. “That will never happen” you might think, but this is currently happening for the 30,000 people standing in food collection lines in Fresno. Will we become overly dependent on foreign countries for our food?

What has been done to remedy this situation? There have been 7 attempts made in Congress to turn on the water and 7 times House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has turned it down! Governor Schwarzenegger has said, "this is a terrible crisis", "self-inflicted", "the Federal Government has done this to us", "There are Federal judges for salmon, smelt, where is the Federal judge for the farmers?" So Obama found time for a beer summit for Professor Gates, but he hasn't come out to see this.

Currently, the revenue loss to the farmers is close to 1 billion, 30,000 people are out of work, and unemployment in the area is 40%. How long can CA continue to produce 40% of the world's processing tomatoes, and 13% of our nations produce with the water turned off? But—thank goodness the smelt are safe.

There is such an easy solution-- turn the water back on. Cass Sunstein (see Cass Sunstein...in a nutshell) is now in charge so we can't help but wonder--are radical environmentalists transforming the nation?

Sources: Devin Nunes (R), Congressman CA; George Radanovich (R), Congressman CA; Jim Costa (D), Congressman CA; Governor Schwarzenegger, CA.

Who is Mark Lloyd and why should I care?

2009-09-14T16:34:00.000-07:00

The spotlight is on FCC Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd (his official title is not "czar"). Who is Mark Lloyd and why should I care?

-He fundamentally is against any private media ownership.
-He is on record, on videotape, praising Hugo Chavez for taking over media in Venezuela to execute his takeover of Venezuela. He says the United States supported this.
-Diversity defined is not about diversity of opinions.
-He wants private radio to fund public radio, dollar for dollar.
-He is a Senior Fellow from the Center for American Progress. (They represent ultra-leftist views.)
-On the radio an overwhelming number of people prefer to listen to conservative and Christian radio. Mark Lloyd wants to "fix" the problem the free market created.

The questions are: Is our government moving toward regulating free speech and do you want them to?

If the media controls what you hear, will you only hear what the administration decides?

Finally, if the government is going to regulate the media don't the people have a say in who the regulator will be? After all, wasn't that what Congress and the Senate were put there for?

Czars...what you should know

2009-09-14T16:27:00.000-07:00

CZARS: What are they? Who are they?

In a nutshell, Czars are people in high level positions that are appointed through presidential executive orders that require no Senate approval (Cass Sunstein is the exception). The Senate does not review them, no questions, no background checks, no vetting process. As of today, there are approximately 33 "czars" (also referred to as Special Advisors) working for Obama. The czars work behind the scenes, "the shadow government", and are not accountable to Congress. Past presidents have appointed Czars, but never as many as our current president. (Note: Obama's key Czars all have Cabinet counterparts already in place.)

Czars do not need to represent the views of the American people since they are not approved. They may reflect your opinions, or they may not. They may love the Constitution or they may define themselves as a Communist follower. Van Jones the appointed "Green Czar" resigned after videos of his radical views began circulating on the news. This was just one appointed "czar" out of many, and many have radical views.

The question becomes who is making policy decisions?

The problem is these people need to be held accountable for their decisions.

Why are citizens concerned over Obama's choices? Because his czars play by different rules and have different ethics from the constitution.

Cass Sunstein...in a nutshell

2009-09-11T16:44:00.000-07:00

In 5 minutes you'll know Cass Sunstein.

Here’s the scoop. He was voted in yesterday to be the Head of White House Regulatory Affairs. He now is one of the most powerful men in our nation because he has the ability to take all laws past, present, and future and "tweak" them. The question is, as an American do you agree with his views? In 2004, he wrote a book on animal rights.
-Animals should be permitted to bring suit with humans as representatives.
-He does not believe our nation should eat meat.
-He wants to ban all hunting, it should be allowed only if it is for sport.
-He believes everyone must be an organ donor. (His viewpoint is the law of our current explicit consent will be changed to "presumed consent.")
-Americans cannot remove rats from your home because it causes them pain.
-He does not believe in the 2nd Amendment, "individual rights to bear arms are wanted only by aggressive and social movements."

He is viewed as one of America's largest threats because he can tweak or "nudge" our country as he sees fit, in order to align our nation with his views. This can happen for example through not banning meat but changing laws ie, grazing land options, feed for cows etc., to make it prohibitively more expensive. He can transform our nation in subtle ways working with the USDA to take meat and dairy out of school lunches. He will be targeting farmers.

Off topic: Recently, in CA, which provides 13% of the produce for the nation, water has been rationed to farmers (see: CA farmers only receiving 10% of their water supply). Doesn't sound too bad until you find out they cut water 90%! Doesn't make too much sense either, it is NOT on the news--the farmers are protesting, but the nation has no idea. Crazy right?

One might ask, “Well wouldn't Congress, the Senators put a stop to this? 3 Senators did put a hold on this vote, and in an unprecedented turn they rammed it through. This vote which now also gives Obama unprecedented power over making choices for this nation, happened on the same night the hoopla for healthcare went on.

Many believe he is an incredible intellectual academic.... with radical views that can change America.

I think that was less than 5 mins of info, but that's it...in a nutshell.