Tag Archives: cap and trade

Even Democrats realize Cap and Trade = economic disaster

CA dems re-think cap and tradeFor years, economists have been saying that cap-and-trade would be an economy killer. Now, a group of California Democrats has come to the same conclusion in a letter to the head of California’s air resources board.

The 16 Democrats have requested a delay or change to the rules that would put gasoline under the same cap-and-trade rules as power stations have been suffocating under. The rules are set to take effect in 2015.

In the letter, the group warned that “fuel prices for consumers are going to be driven up once fuel is covered under cap-and-trade at the start of next year, weakening the economy just as California is recovering from the last recession, and hurting the most vulnerable members of our communities who must commute to work and drive long distances for necessary services like medical care.”

Now they suddenly understand that their policies are hurting working people and families?

Everyone remembers Obama’s famous “necessarily skyrocket” remarks. Cap-and-trade is intended to make sure that energy prices do just that. Shortsightedness may be getting the better of the progressive left.

The higher prices are intended to curb demand, but that doesn’t work on a necessity. Families have to attend school meetings, go to work, go get groceries and such. That requires fuel or electricity.

If fuel and energy prices rise, that trip to the grocery store will cost more and leave less for non-essential spending. Whether the fuel price hikes result in bus fare increases, train ticket price increases or a higher price at the pump won’t matter – the trip will now cost more and leave families with less.

It appears that Obama is following Jimmy Carter’s economic plan .. and getting the same results.

EPA Mandates Cap and Trade 3.0/ Congress Remains Irrelevant

The Extreme Political Activists, (also known as the EPA, or Environmental Protection Agency) of the Obama administration recently announced new carbon emissions limits for all future coal-fired power plants in the U.S.  that will require all new coal-fired power plants to cut their carbon emissions by approximately 50%.  Just how does EPA head environmental activist Lisa Jackson propose that these power plants acquire such a drastic reduction in carbon emissions?   By using CCS technology that requires the capturing of carbon dioxide, and storing it underground, which is a technology that in her own words, will not even be commercially available for 10 years. “Every model that we’ve seen shows that technology as it develops will become commercially available certainly within the next 10 years”, stated Jackson.  Apparently, back in 2008 while campaigning for President, when Barack Hussein Obama told a reporter that under his plan “energy prices would necessarily skyrocket” he certainly meant it.

Lord Moncton summed up the CCS technology Obama’s EPA is using as it’s main weapon in their war on affordable energy today as follows:

There are clear remedies that could be applied to conventional pollutants. The particulate issue can be rectified by covering stockpiles of coal, dampening and more efficient transportation. The toxic trace elements issue could be resolved by the introduction of ultrasuper-critical coal technology. This technology is not only greatly more efficient than all other forms of energy production but because it operates at such high temperatures it eliminates most of the real pollutants such as the oxides and mercury.

Coal companies are making a strategic error here. They should acknowledge and rectify the well-known coal-related pollutants, and argue the lack of merit of AGW theory, instead of hiding behind the chimera of Clean Coal or carbon capture technology [CCS]. The problems of CCS are obviously insurmountable: the energy required to capture the CO2 emissions when the coal is burnt requires about as much energy as the coal produces. Secondly, the final sludge containing the captured CO2 requires a storage space about 30 times the size of the quarry from which the coal was mined. To date CCS has cost the Australian taxpayers and the coal industry about $400 million. The coal industry could have solved the particulate problem and made a start on introducing ultrasuper-critical technology.
 The White House claims that the new rules will impact only new plants. But in fact, in the past three years, the Obama administration has hit the utility industry with new regulations on mercury emissions and cross-border pollution as well. This latest episode is just one of the many elements of the Obama administration’s war on affordable energy that will snowball into extremely expensive energy prices for the entire nation in the next decade. The Extreme Political Activists of the Obama administration must be reigned in immediately by the currently irrelevant [supposed] lawmakers of Congress. That starts with defeating Barack Obama in the November elections, and electing new members of Congress that will take a stand against the EPA’s unconstitutional mandating of Cap and Trade laws that were voted down by Congress in 2009.

Newt Gingrich's Record: Uncomfortable But True

I’m going to say something uncomfortable to many of you, but it has to be said:

Newt Gingrich has a history of flip-flopping on issues which rivals that of Mitt Romney.

There, I said it. I’m not the only one to say it, either.

Let’s look at Gingrich’s record:

On global warming: He supported government sponsoring of alternative energy programs. He supported cap-and-trade. He supported ethanol subsidies. “Green” was the fad, people were spellbound by it, and Newt being the clever politician he is, he got behind it, too.

And then there’s Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When asked about his lobbying efforts on their behalf, he lied. He claimed he never lobbied for them. When proof of payment from them to him was made public, he claimed he worked for them as an historian. Do people seriously believe this? A financial institution hires an historian about as often as the Marine Corps hires an interior decorator.

And then there’s the substance of the “historical analysis” he allegedly gave them (from the National Review link two paragraphs below):

It wasn’t obvious until 2007… Initially, it wasn’t Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Initially, it was things like Countrywide, but the minute you started getting people who could buy houses with no credit, no money down, I mean, these things are insane. And I was cheerfully saying that in my public speeches.

Gingrich contradicts himself here: It certainly was obvious, long before 2007, that a policy of government guarantee of loans without proof of the borrower’s ability to repay was a bad idea (and defies basic common sense). The existence of this program was well-known within government circles and by “policy wonks” (such as yours truly), but largely ignored by the media and the public at large. I have also criticized Herman Cain for the same failure of common sense in this regard.

On government-run medicine, Gingrich’s record rivals that of many prominent Democrats. He was an early champion of the individual mandate, more than a decade before Romneycare. He now excuses himself from the criticism Romney recieves, claiming that his endorsement of an individual mandate was an effort “to block Hillarycare“. Let’s state this another way: Gingrich’s response to a massive government healthcare initiative was to offer a slightly less-massive initiative of his own.

Gingrich was also one of the minds behind Medicare Part D. Newt again excuses himself from criticism for this multi-trillion-dollar giveaway, claiming that it helped reduce the cost of government-provided health care by subsidizing medicines in lieu of more-expensive surgeries, ignoring one of the basic principles of government interference in the market: Subsidizing a product makes it more expensive in the long-run. If the government gives people a dollar to buy an apple, the cost of an apple goes up by a dollar.

Gingrich, in keeping with his long-standing record of favoring greater government intervention in the health care industry, described Paul Ryan’s proposal to convert Medicare into a premium support plan as “right-wing social engineering“. Of course, Gingrich changed his tune when he caught flak for saying this, and has spent the last six months crafting an “alternative history” of his 17+ year record of supporting socialized medicine.

Jacob Sullum from Reason made an excellent point on this topic: Gingrich’s rhetoric actually endangers real reforms while giving the public a painless-sounding but totally ineffective placebo of “cutting waste, fraud and abuse”- a rhetoric he (along with numerous Democrats) also applies to other areas of government spending by advocating ‘modernization’, rather than actual cutbacks, as his primary concept for controlling the cost of big-government programs, as if new computers will make big government acceptable.

In sum: I’m frankly disturbed by the recent fascination with Gingrich and the amnesia regarding his record. Somehow, conservatives have developed a belief that intellectualism and con artistry are mutually exclusive. Voters have been lulled by the superficially-impressive nature of his speeches.

This means the Tea Party effort to push out slick salesmen in favor of principled, fiscally-minded, small-government representatives is failing. And “slick salesman” is an apt description of Gingrich’s career: People wanted free medication for Grandma and Grandpa, and Newt delivered. People wanted a house they couldn’t afford, and Newt delivered. Gingrich will give the public whatever they want, and sound convincingly principled while doing it. The fact that Newt also participated in welfare reform and budget balancing isn’t a demonstration of his bona fides, it’s merely another thing the public asked for and got (for a brief period).

The notion that Gingrich is the ideal “not-Romney” candidate is wholly misguided: Newt Gingrich is Mitt Romney without running shoes.

Progressive Senators Gang Up on Rand Paul to Allow EPA to Apply Cap and Trade by Fiat

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky submitted a resolution in the U.S. Senate on Thursday which would have stopped the EPA ( as in Extreme Political Activists) from enforcing the very same cap and trade laws that were previously voted down in Congress. The EPA regulations Senator Paul was trying to block is just the latest one titled, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.(CSAPR) This new rule will become the law of the land on Jan. 1st, 2012 for the main category of mandated pollution regulations, and May 1st, 2012 for the remaining categories, as you can see in the EPA above link.

Not only did all Senate Democrats vote this resolution down, but the progressive puppets of the Republican party also joined in to allow the EPA to ignore our Congress and pass cap and trade laws by executive fiat. The vote failed by a tally of 56-41, with Republican Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire; Scott Brown of Massachusetts; Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine; Mark Kirk of Illinois; and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee all voted against Paul’s resolution. If your Senator is on this list, give them a call and ask them just why they chose to allow the EPA to bypass Congress and once again illegally pass cap and trade laws by executive fiat?

Whether you agree with the new regulations or not, the U.S. Constitution declares that it is Congress, and only Congress, who is authorized to pass laws onto the people. Check out How a bill become law. In it we see the following facts:

Under the chairmanship of George Washington, the Constitutional Convention established a strong federal government in 1871. Lawmaking powers were vested in a national congress.

Article I of the Constitution gave “all legislative powers” to Congress, and specified that laws could originate either in the House or the Senate. The only exception was revenue bills, which had to originate in the House. ( emphasis mine)

The conservative grassroots movement that elected the likes of Scott Brown and Kelly Ayotte to the U.S. Senate in the 2010 elections apparently did not help to get conservatives into office, but instead elected Progressive Republicans – a great example of how politicians will say anything to get elected today, and when they get a whiff of power, they turn their backs on the very people whom elected them. Brown and Ayotte campaigned on a platform of government that obeys the U.S. Constitution, yet they vote to allow the EPA to trample that very same constitutional law that says only Congress will pass laws in this country.

The new Cross-State Air Pollution law that will be forced onto Americans in 2012, resulting in Barack Obama’s promised “skyrocketing electricity prices” surely must apply to every state in the country right? It is based on air pollution blowing across state lines, so it must apply to all states. Not quite, as the following map shows us. Is your state on that map?

When looking at the above map of states whom will see skyrocketing electricity prices next year, we must use common sense in asking two very simple questions:

First, why isn’t the smog capital of the United States being put under these new illegal cap and trade laws? That’s right,the Liberal Obama-supporting state of California isn’t getting slapped with these new pollution regulations. Are we so ignorant as to not see the problem with that fact here today? The new laws are based on pollution blowing from one state to another. Does the EPA expect us to believe that California’s world famous smog will stay in California and somehow not blow into, say Arizona?

Secondly, what about Mexico’s pollution blowing into Texas? Are the wizards of the EPA telling us that they can control that too?

Lastly, let’s move on to the blatant false propaganda that the EPA website contains about the massive costs to the American people that this law will create. Senator Paul’s above-linked informative site says this:

These new regulations will cost over $2 billion and over a course of a decade or more may well exceed $100 billion. We add these new regulations to over $2 trillion worth of regulations already on the books.

To which the EPA tries to deny with false and very impossible-to-prove statistics about supposed savings in healthcare that will result form the CSAPR in the following chart:

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule provides cleaner air and healthier lives for millions of Americans

“Estimated Annual Number of Adverse Health Effects Avoided Due to Implementing the Proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)

Health Effect Number of Cases Avoided Premature mortality 13,000 to 34,000 ( between 13k and 34k? Talk about guesswork there)    Non-fatal heart attacks15,000     Hospital and emergency department visits19,000    Acute bronchitis19,000    Upper and lower respiratory symptoms420,000    Aggravated asthma400,000    Days when people miss work or school1.8 million (yes, I took the liberty to correct the spelling mistakes the geniuses of the EPA have on their info-site)

So, we are being led to believe that this new EPA law will save between 13,000 and 34,00 lives by 2014, simply by supposedly regulating state to state air pollution.  What happens if a hurricane blows into the U.S from South America and brings all that pollution with it from countries who basically have no pollution laws? What happens to those false numbers then? What happens if the Gulf of Mexico winds blow all of their pollution into Texas for say, 10 straight months? How many lives will this farce of a stealth cap and trade law save then? Yes , as we see right here, the CSAPR is all built upon one massive cap and trade lie, period. There are no concrete, proven savings that can be counted from this scam. The one thing that all Americans that live in the EPA cherry-picked states that this new law applies to next year can count on is fewer jobs and skyrocketing electricity prices. Look at the bright side, there’s one promise Obama has kept.  

Get ready folks, the man who says he will not tax the middle class and poor just did just that, and it is coming in two short months in the form of skyrocketing electricity costs, thanks to the U.S. Senate Progressives of both parties allowing the EPA to pass this cap and trade law illegally.

2012 just can’t get here fast enough !

 

United States Postal Ponzi Scheme

Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe appeared before The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee on Tuesday to inform the current wizards of Congress that the U.S. Postal Service is drowning in red ink. They will not be able to avoid a total default by the end of September if structural changes are not made immediately. I refer to the wizards of Congress as such, simply because it is none other than the U.S. Government that has caused this most recent “crisis” that threatens to shut down the USPS. In the words of the Postmaster General himself, we see glimpses of the big government intervention causing the collapse of  what was once a proud, viable U.S. Mail delivery system:

“The Postal Service is in a crisis today because it operates within a restrictive business model and has limited flexibility to respond to a changing marketplace,” To which he added, “We need the ability to operate more as a business does. This applies to the way we provide products and services, allocate resources, configure our retail, delivery and mail processing networks and manage our workforce.” (emphasis added)

Welcome to the world of big government regulations, over-bearing restrictions, forced race-based social engineering in hiring practices, and Government-sanctioned Union pension plans too big too fail, Mr. Donahoe. The wizards of Congress worked hard to bankrupt a U.S. Institution that has been a source of pride in the United States of America since Benjamin Franklin was named the first postmaster general in 1775.  It is also commonly referred to as “an independent agency of the United States Government.” So just what happened to this independent agency to put it on the brink of insolvency ? Big government overreach and meddling is what has happened here once again, proving the dangers of a too powerful government full of a corrupt, misguided bunch of misfits in Congress and their never ending pursuit to “fix things.” Once again the power-hungry bureaucracy of Washington D.C. has created a major crisis that they themselves are currently holding hearings in Congress in order to “fix” the USPS. This is the direct result of uniformed voters electing fake lawyers and assorted con men/women into positions of power within our government(s) that have never faced the reality of  actually working for a living in the private sector.

While it is true that the volume of mail the USPS handles due to the current recession and the evolution of the Internet email system resulted in decreases in profits, there are two recent revelations that pushed this situation into the government favored major serious crisis mode:

Again, I refer to P.G. Donohoe’s statements to congress on Tuesday:

“Without legislative change this year, the Postal Service faces default, as available liquidity at the end of this month will be insufficient to meet our financial obligations. Even our unavoidable default on the required (by Congress) $5.5 billion RHB, ( pre-paying retirement health benefits to Union members) pre-payment and the suspension of our employer contribution to the defined benefit portion of the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS) will not stave off financial disaster,” Donahoe said. “After reimbursing the Department of Labor (DOL) $1.3 billion for workers’ compensation payments in October 2011, we will have liquidity equal to approximately one week’s operating expenses. Foregoing the RHB pre-payment this year, without fundamental changes in the funding schedule, will likely only forestall insolvency until this time next year.” ( emphasis added)

Mr. Donahoe is not asking for a direct taxpayer bailout here, like the Union vote-buying, pay for play schemes that have become standard operational procedures in DC today. Instead, Mr. Donahoe would like the return of 6.9 billion USPS dollars in overpayment to the the Federal Employees Retirement System the government has collected from them this year alone. Billions in over payments? Where is this money going? While researching the current USPS Collective Bargaining Agreement that was signed in May of this year, these huge over-payments seems to be a pattern. From the USPS CBA announcement page linked in previous sentence we see some astounding truths:

“Independent actuarial studies have concluded that as a result of improper funding formulas, the USPS has overpaid the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) by $50 billion to $75 billion. Overpayments to the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) are estimated at $6.9 billion.” ( emphasis added)

Wouldn’t the repayment of all those billions of dollars in over-payments avoid the crisis at USPS is currently facing immediately? A better question would be, “ is the United States Government trying to bankrupt the USPS to facilitate a complete takeover ?”  The evidence above detailing the government’s involvement in pushing the USPS to the point of default certainly points in that direction.

This brings us to the reason for the title of this article containing the words Ponzi Scheme.By definition, a ponzi scheme, according to Answers.com  is defined as : A fraud disguised as an investment opportunity, in which initial investors and the perpetrators of the fraud are paid out of funds of later investors who lose all funds invested.

There are many forms of investments that can result in Ponzi schemes enriching the original investors at the expense of the later investors. In the case of the USPS bankruptcy, we see the workers investing decades of work,( paying into the scheme) for a promised payment ( retirement) that may or may not be there for them when they retire. Exploding Union pension and health-care costs for millions of retirees will, in effect result in the latest investors having their initial investment, (a pension paid for with decades of work) stolen from them. There simply will not be enough money to pay the USPS pensions that thousands of workers have paid into and invested their hard work into.  Without reforms in labor practices and innovative initiatives in how they do business to increase revenue, the ponzi scheme of the big government regulators and mathematically challenged legislators that have railroaded the USPS into bankruptcy will eventually collapse like a house of cards. Unless of course, Congress uses YOUR money to bail out and completely take over the USPS.

To pay for the USPS crisis that the wizards of Congress have created, somehow, some way, they will eventually have to TAX the people more. Every major money-making entity in America today has been undermined and attacked by the big government nanny-state worshipers, from the Auto companies, to big banks, to the housing mortgage sector, to the energy sector, to the water rights, to stealing Social Security funding for other Congressional ponzi schemes, right up to the point that they actually want to charge us for the air we breathe through fake climate change/ cap and trade schemes.  Big government has put the once proud USPS on the brink of insolvency, and with just one more bailout they intend to finish it off. Due directly to government regulation and incompetence the once reliable USPS mail delivery system has now become the butt of more government failure jokes.  In the end the nasty joke is on the people who willingly pay for big government  ponzi schemes where people are taxed and robbed at an ever-increased rate, and that will result in the now prevalent reduction in the freedom from tyranny that made America the land of the free for over 200 years. Wake up people.

Mother Nature’s At The End Of Her Rope


All mother’s have had “one of those days!”  There’s no specific rhyme or reason for what is the “straw that broke the camel’s back”, but invariably it happens. It may be something so insignificant that everyone around her wonders if she’s lost her marbles. Rarely is it something of real importance that is the final tipping point.

No one really knows exactly what it was that tipped the scales for Mother Nature, but this past Tuesday she had “had it up to here!”,  as the saying goes!

Maybe it’s just that e the “little things” have been piling up for so long and she finally decided enough is enough.

For years she’s listened to to Al Gore as he rants about about “global warming“, “climate change“, or whatever they are calling it this month. She just rolls her eyes at his ridiculous drama. Just like any Mother, she can recognize a snow job a mile away! She knows Al isn’t concerned about what mankind is or isn’t doing to affect the future, and all he cares about is making money. It’s just another one of those gimmicks! As any mother knows, actions speak louder than words. ABC News let her in on the inconvenient truth about Al’s wasteful habits! In 2006 he spent more than 20 times the national average of on gas and electricity for his home. For a man who supposedly cares so much about her, he sure doesn’t mind being wasteful! Typical politician!

So we know it wasn’t anything to do with that argument that set her off on Tuesday.

Over the years, she’s had numerous “Come To Jesus Meetings” with a few people here and there, but she’s not really blown her stack.

Until this week!

She’s tried to give these people the famous “Mother Look”-  from time to time, as a reminder that they were getting close to crossing the line with her! You know the looks I’m talking about!. She never had to say a word- she said it all with the look in her eyes. They knew they were in trouble. They would settle down for a bit. They started getting out of line again, and the beginning of this year she sent several blizzards around the country to let everyone know she just needed some time to cool off!

While things really did not get any better, she had to decide how to approach things this time. She finally decided what to do. Fine, she thought- they think this global warming mess is so wonderful, let me just show them! So she sent this record breaking heat wave across the nation. That really should have done the trick! She covered the extreme cold and the extreme heat.

But evidently they needed a little bit more to get their attention.

That’s when she decided to give them a little bit of a warning in Denver. She threw a bit of a wrinkle in the earth’s surface Tuesday morning with a 5.3 magnitude earthquake in Colorado. Oh, I know… earthquakes happen every year, right? But they are not frequent in Denver.

But she realized that Denver wasn’t getting her message across.

The idea was to make sure she got everyone’s attention so they would all know she means business!

Since Denver’s earth shaking didn’t get enough national media attention, she decided to really shake things up. Tuesday afternoon, she hit the East Coast. It was a “business as usual” kind of day. Meetings were going on, a commercial was being shot, Congress was meeting, there was a press conference going on with some kind of “official Washington business”. She had everyone right where she wanted them. One thing she did not think about was how many people would have flashbacks of the worst day in modern American history when the affects of her temper tantrum were initially felt. She had a moment of regret immediately after her 5.8 magnitude earthquake rattled the entire East coast. She apologizes for not thinking about that, and realizes she should have stopped to think about the fact that we are just a couple of weeks or so from the 10 years anniversary of September 11, 2001! She realizes now that her timing wasn’t perfect, she just wants everyone to know she means business!

But as usual, one of the main people she wanted to get the attention of was not in the place she hoped would get her message loud and clear! She is kicking herself in the butt that she didn’t check her calendar, because President Cap and Trade was chillaxin’ on the green in Martha’s Vineyard, not in the nation’s capital! She really wanted to see his face, to see if he was going to listen to her this time! He is the leader of the one of the two most blessed nation’s on earth! Dang that Martha! She got to witness his reaction in private! But that’s OK, Mother Nature still got Washington’s attention! These politicians are so hard headed! Maybe this will make them stop and think before they start messing with her again!

Then again, maybe not.

As is typical, there’s always a smarty-pants in the bunch. She’s wondering if this jokester realizes he’s playing a dangerous game with a Mother who’s very close to the edge.

That’s ok. They may think this is something to laugh about now, but if they are not careful they may get more than they bargained for with Mother Nature! She really does seem to be at the end of her rope!

She’s thankful that hopefully she did get her message across to at least a few people. She’s overheard various discussions, and is quite proud to hear that some of them actually “get it.” Maybe the “Come To Jesus Meeting” helped after all!

One person commented that the founding father’s collectively rolled over in their grave, causing the earthquake. Just like any good mother, there’s room to credit the fathers as well. They’re all in this together!

She heard another comment that Jay Carney said it was the weight of Obama’s approval rate hitting the ground. She’s ok with that explanation. If he would only listen to reason, he would know his policies are not what will help matters! She’s tried to tell him she’s stored up plenty of energy, he just needs to take Sarah’s advise and DRILL BABY DRILL! But no, he just won’t listen! She’s tired of wasting her breath on him. He’ll figure it out, or he won’t. It’s his choice.

Someone else said that so many who voted for Obama in the last election changed sides, tipping the balance, causing the ground to give way. Like Larry the Cable Guy says, “that’s just funny there, I don’t care who ya are!”

But all joking aside- these are the ones that actually “got it” before she decided to shake things up a bit.

All the others who are not getting the point better tread lightly with her! She’s not afraid to get real drastic if the need arises! She’s serious when she’s said she’s had enough! I’m hoping to get the message out to everyone to watch out. WHATEVER you do, you DO NOT want to make her count to three! That very well may be disastrous for us all!

She’s already talked with Irene who’s making her way up the East Coast. She knows everyone is watching the news. She’s hoping she will not have to have Irene help her out with this one. She wonders, “Why, oh why won’t children listen and learn their lesson?!”

She’s trying to warn them- they best listen up! She really doesn’t want to have to ask Irene unleash her wind and rain! But if they keep pushing her……..

Who says a Mother’s not in control of herself?!

It’s what you call tough love! It’s not easy, but any good Mother knows that’s what it takes sometimes!

_________

Source: 

ABC News

Taking the Red Pill: Believing Eyes & Liberal Lies

My four-year-old daughter loves these gummy vitamins we get at Costco.  They come in a huge jar with multiple colors.  She loves the red ones.  She begs me to pick a red one every morning.  But being a practical mother, I’m not about to go rooting around in a jar of vitamins just so my baby can have a red one.  She gets what comes out on the first tip.  Realizing she wasn’t going to get her wish of a red vitamin every time, my daughter devised a very mature plan: she would just pretend every gummy she got was red.  I think she’s pretended for so long that now she genuinely does see a red vitamin in her hand every day.  It doesn’t matter what color it really is.  If its orange, yellow, green – it’s still red.  She says, “This looks orange, but I don’t think its orange. Its really red”.

Today as we went through the typical red vitamin routine, it struck me that perhaps my daughter’s coping mechanism isn’t all that unique.  As I watch our President campaigning this week, I see him applying the very same techniques to his view of the economy and Americans in general.  Barack Obama has figured out a way to see the red vitamin every time he tips the jar.

This week we’ve heard sound bite after sound bite of the President lamenting the “slow” economy.  He has been making the typical Washington promises of better governing and more helpful programs, and asserting that he understands the plight of the typical American family right now.  Of course, those of us who actually are typical Americans understand that everything this administration has done over the last two and a half years has been antithetical to capitalism and prosperity.  A giant “healthcare” bill that few people wanted and even fewer actually read, disastrous financial reform that’s added new burdens to the business community, extending unemployment to nearly 2 years, a drilling moratorium, a war in Libya, prosecuting Arizona for prosecuting illegal immigration, a government takeover of GM/Chrysler, an 800 billion dollar stimulus package – all of these Obama-led “solutions” have guided us right into 9.6% unemployment (which we know is an artificially low figure thanks to government math), as high as 24% in the Black community.  Any working, thinking American can see that spending more money than we bring in is a recipe for disaster, and we are reaping the first harvests of that disaster currently.  However, Obama has amazingly been able to turn all that gray, garbage-colored mess into a nice, shiny red pill.  Its not QE1, QE2, or even QE3 that’s responsible for rapid inflation, it was the earthquake in Japan.  Its not the drilling moratorium that makes it impossible for us to produce our own oil that is causing sky-high gas prices, it was the oil spill in the Gulf last year.  Its not the 4 trillion in deficit spending his administration will have added by the end of its first term, it’s the House GOP spoilsports backed by infamous terrorists such as the Tea Party and their hobbit minions. Also, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush.  Obama has found a way to deny the reality of this poison pill and make his eyes see a healthy, red vitamin.

This isn’t a quality unique to our President.  Indeed, most liberals are steeped in LDS – not the church.  Liberal Denial Syndrome.  I should know, I once suffered from the same thing.  Its most disturbing symptom is the ability to ignore or deny glaring facts and information and replace them with good intentions and wishful thinking.  Despite continually rising unemployment numbers and foreclosures last year, Liberals still trumpeted the Summer of Recovery as proof Obama-ism was working.  Leaked emails from global warming researchers at East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (which gives recommendations to the UN regarding climate policy) have exposed global warming as a massive hoax based on doctored research and billions of dollars in financing.  The jig is up and yet the liberals are still supporting the UN’s call for a global Climate Change tax and business-killing Cap and Trade here at home.  The polar bear population has increased beyond endangered species parameters, but tell that to any liberal and they will passionately assert that oil and cow flatulence have all but destroyed their natural habitat and they are drowning one by one in the melting Arctic.  One needs only look as far as the IRS’s own website data to see that lower taxes bring increased revenue, but every liberal will tell you with absolutely no embarrassment that the only way to prosperity for more people is to increase taxes.

Provable facts mean nothing to the liberal suffering from LDS.  They mean nothing to Barrack Obama.  These are people who have spent a lifetime practicing up as down and down as up.  They want their good intentions and naïve utopian dreams to be enough to for them to be considered good people.  They want it so badly they are willing to make their eyes see what they wish so badly for in their hearts.  They choose to see the healthy red vitamin, while those of us rooted in reality know it’s really a cyanide pill.

Social Justice Sophisticates Assault Prosperity

Leaders that value self determination and independence are denigrated by those who idolize the memory of a former president who said “Ask not what your country can do for you”—and then lowered taxes. John F. Kennedy allowed people more freedom and control over their lives, which conflicts with grandiose notions of governmental entitlement. He certainly knew that helping those in need is a high moral endeavor, but “helping” men become dependent debases and destroys them. Sophisticates who adhere to modern social-justice belief systems (the social-justice sophisticates) strive to make whole populations succumb to such “help”, by whatever means necessary. Our current president declares the constitution to be fundamentally flawed because it does not dictate what the government must do for you. The insidious effect of such a culture of dependence includes suffering that spans generations. Look to your children; will you tolerate such “help” being forced upon them?

In a televised interview democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York observed that many of us believed that the socioeconomic system of the Soviet Union is the way of the future—right up to its fall. He had earlier been criticized from both major parties and academia for declaring Soviet decline and likely collapse. After Soviet collapse, devotees to social-justice belief systems (the social justice acolytes) were in disarray. Years later it became increasingly clear that China would not follow suit, so it again became possible to proselytize social-justice belief systems in the US. While China retains a totalitarian government and its economy works, this successful version of China has more in common with fascism than western notions of social justice or communism. Young Chinese compete as they grow and a child who falls short becomes a child left behind. Such vigorous competition adds to the prosperity of China and all Chinese, but the Chinese are neither free nor social-justice acolytes. Senator Moynihan did not live to see the recent ascendency of social-justice belief systems, but as a sociologist and public official he ascribed Soviet failure to its economic and social systems and reminded everyone that he predicted collapse. Despite predictable failure, social-justice belief systems promote financial dependence of whole populations on governments. This must be recognized as a direct attack on prosperity as well as freedom.

By promotion of governmental dependence and other means our American prosperity is under attack, and our freedom hangs in the balance. Even though many consider prosperity unimportant or even inherently undesirable, on our present course we will accept tyranny and suffering in hopes of regaining it. Growing numbers of Americans seek to forestall this suffering by removing those who threaten prosperity and freedom from positions of power and influence in all areas of society, which is increasingly seen as the only means by which to halt progressive use of the state to impose destructive beliefs on us all. These state belief systems directly assault prosperity and promote the deterioration of our system of rules, decimating it and ultimately destroying it. Threats to American security and freedom demand universal attention to prosperity; with our eye on the prosperity imperative we can neutralize missionaries of state belief systems found in our schools and other public venues, especially the social-justice sophisticates. At the ballet box and on juries, we must demand rational promotion of the public welfare, including a willingness to create and apply rules without notions of situational ethics, relative truth, and moral relativism that make those rules ineffective or worse. We may avoid the experience of many millions in diverse societies, including the sad experience of facing our own children as they plead to understand how we could have had so much and left them so little. If we strive to remove social-justice sophisticates and other sophisticates from positions of power and influence, we may meet this challenge, and America may remain a prosperous land of the free.

The desirability of prosperity was formerly unquestioned, but today prosperity is openly condemned together with free markets and capitalism, which are collectively credited with ills both real and imagined. Open attacks occur in numerous forums including our public schools, and are obvious because they are direct. Proxy targets like global warming are taken up in determined but less direct attacks; these antagonists of prosperity find it merely inconvenient that considerable carbon science is a mirage. Fraudulent though they may be, proxy target attacks unavoidably inspire true believers who introduce unintended economic and political consequences; for example, nuclear energy would reduce carbon emissions and thus interest those who honestly believe the carbon “science”, but solutions that might actually produce energy economically and promote prosperity run counter to the anti-prosperity crowd who created the proxy targets.

However convoluted, cloaked, or supported by political power the assaults on prosperity may be, in theory they ultimately must fail and so are destined for well populated trash heaps.  Markets and economies press forward organically by independent actions of individuals. After the Soviet political collapse, Chinese and later Russian prevailing wisdom embraced key market tenants; notably, only market societies reliably compete with market societies. China emerged after many generations of economic obscurity with a functioning market.  In contrast, the West’s reaction to the Soviet collapse includes notions of a new world order where competitive and market-based societies are not an issue because they are simply not allowed. So while China has evolved to embrace market competition, considerable intellectual energy of the formerly prosperous and competitive West is engaged in denying those principles. Social-Justice belief systems are central to such deteriorating thought.

Ongoing economic leveling between EU nations encourages and manifests western visions of equal outcomes and unequal opportunity, for it is impossible to provide equal outcomes without holding many individuals and the society collectively back. Entire nations demand equalization in the EU as necessary to meet some loosely defined requirement for fairness or social justice. Support exists for forced leveling at granularities of nations, races, regions, individuals, and every other conceivable division. Promoters promise leveling to all possible divisions, so adherents are expected to simultaneously deliver on all of them. According to the theory, lower rungs are raised to the benefit of all, but outcomes fall short of the vision. The Chinese may view the rise of these notions in the West as curiosities or problems; but from experience they know that the problems are mainly ours, just as their former unsuccessful principles and plans for markets were mainly theirs. While Chinese were starving by the millions, Americans lived in a competitive, vibrant society—the situation is reversing.

In social-justice economic systems someone else pays—another country, class, race, region, etc.—but ever and always someone else. When there is no one else who can be made to pay or who can pay, then desperation and despair typically lead through generations of suffering to eventual rejection of social-justice belief systems and a renewed reach for prosperity. According to the old theory, an economy based on social-justice belief systems will increase productivity as a natural consequence of removing unfairness, and greater prosperity for all inevitably follows. Thus formerly, the adherents to social-justice belief systems could have been said to honestly differ with non-believers about how to achieve the greatest prosperity.

Though not always sophisticates, devotees to social-justice belief systems (the social-justice acolytes) sacrifice prosperity imperatives in favor of political nirvana (i.e., a blissful oblivion that results from government-enforced “social justice”) that has no possibility of prosperity as we have known it. According to this new belief system, the fall of the Soviet Union was not inevitable because countries like the United States at the time of the fall are simply not allowed. When social-justice acolytes say that they want prosperity, they mean that they want it in the same form as the Soviet Union, and not as we have known it. The past prosperity of America is undesirable and to be actively prevented. Unlike its predecessor, this new belief system avoids honest exposure of its intentions regarding prosperity.  A major means of subterfuge is to masquerade as its predecessor unaltered. Many social-justice acolytes thus do not recognize that increased prosperity has been thrown under the bus.

But those sufficiently aware and honest with themselves have been forced by collective human experience to reexamine such beliefs; the social-justice belief systems and adherent states have resulted in untold millions of deaths from starvation, and millions more from mass killings of non-believers. A social-justice belief system spreads using any “necessary” means, and non-believers are assimilated or eradicated; this is the only way that adherents can bring about their nirvana. Nevertheless, honest assessment of the data demands rejecting expectations of higher prosperity in a social-justice belief system. In contrast to other belief systems, the new and old social-justice belief systems demand nirvana here and now. In order to retain their notions of political nirvana, remaining adherents to social-justice belief systems have overtly or covertly, wittingly or unwittingly, dropped prosperity imperatives. They demand that others to do the same. Many are more than willing to impose their social-justice belief system on the masses with full knowledge and expectation of its destructive effects on prosperity.

This contradiction between the true and purported goals dampens efforts to find and interest new adherents. However, the ability of belief systems to engender contradictions in the minds of men is historically unbounded. Fuzzy philosophical notions like situational ethics, moral relativism, and “relative truth” have rescued social-justice believers from considerations of absolute truth and overwhelming evidence against the workability of social-justice belief systems; so many have dumped the notion that absolute truth exists. These fuzzy ideas had already come a long way when President Clinton’s widely followed legal defense managed to redefine the most common two-letter verb (“is”). Adherents to these ideas form a creed that denies its own existence and eschews labels. We call adherents to this creed the sophisticates since they self-declare their personal sophistication and that of their ideas. Many of those who are today members of the so-called “ruling class” are sophisticates.

Evolution of social-justice belief systems from ones promoting prosperity to ones that renounce truth is not too surprising; from long human experience we know that sane notions of truth are often sacrificed to retain otherwise unsupportable beliefs. Many social-justice acolytes became adherents to the largest sophisticate sect today, the Social-Justice Sophisticates, who are now at the core of a pervasive and aggressive state-promoted belief system. This sect avoids “separation of church and state” issues by shunning something as basic as a name while at the same time existing within state organs. It seeks to in fact control the state and in some important ways it becomes the state. Its meeting houses are the state organs and necessary societal institutions, which includes universities, media organizations, primary and secondary schools, state and national governmental bodies, and both political parties. Heresy against this state belief system is punished relentlessly; there are no heathens—only heretics.

The social-justice sophisticates have become self-absorbed and drunk with power. Not only do they use state property to promote their belief system, they use state power directly and openly to suppress non-believers. They have proposed that government operatives secretly infiltrate and influence groups who do not share their belief system. Incredibly, one of their assigned tasks is to pose as group members and put forth notions that the social-justice sophisticates are not engaged in conspiracies! Success of that activity incongruously requires convincing the populace that the infiltration activity itself does not exist.

Societies can be unaware that they hamper or destroy prosperity. There were no prosperity haters to welcome the Great Depression, yet through ignorance prosperity was lost and the depression perpetuated. Only global war restored it.  While individuals who strive are found in all times and cultures, conditions necessary for general prosperity are often absent. However prosperity is achieved, it requires societal stability in which governments play an important role. Some believe that America’s past prosperity is a consequence of self-governance and rule of law, but whether or not self-governance and the rule of law are present, prosperity is hampered without general responsibility and reliable accountability based on rational rules. Unfortunately, rules ensure neither economic freedom nor prosperity; at times they are no more than window dressing over seething corruption.  Direct and proxy attacks in concert with the acts of elected social-justice acolytes have considerable negative effects on prosperity, but until recently these effects have paled when compared with effects of a continuing breakdown in rational rule-based accountability. Direct attacks on prosperity, including the social-justice attacks, are easier to recognize than those that proceed from the spread of situational ethics, relative truth, and moral relativism, which contributes to making our rules ineffective and thereby profoundly decimates prosperity. The rules have become so ineffective that it has even become necessary to justify notions that rules are central to prosperity.

As America proceeds in its decline into debt and corruption, which no sane nation should want to duplicate, Americans persist in lecturing China and others on how to prosper through the rule of law. Yet we assault prosperity through disdain for our rules and so hasten our decline, precisely as the theory we externally tout predicts.

When we enforce rules it is generally untimely; few ascribe the old dictionary meaning of “justice” to what now happens in our law enforcement and court systems. As a society we have become progressively uninterested in effective rules and accountability. Lack of interest notwithstanding, the speed, integrity, and surety of accountability can either encourage or discourage rule breaking. Today, at all levels, rule breaking is tolerated and insidiously encouraged, which correlates with breakdowns in our societal drive toward prosperity. Breakdown of the rules will ultimately lead to tyranny, which may be momentarily necessary to restore a semblance of order and productivity. While tyranny has its own negative effects on prosperity, it does not always destroy prosperity immediately, which is one reason we will accept it. However, if we accept tyranny from the social-justice acolytes, then we will have ruthless application of rules and neither freedom nor prosperity. By long experience the human race knows that such tyranny and suffering can last for generations.

Societal rules are subject to sophisticate thinking in courtrooms, classrooms, and street-corner discussions. To support sophisticate views, sophisticate guardians of the rules may break them by improperly launching investigations, audits, or writing improper indictments and rulings; they may also improperly fail to do those things. Action is all to the good if it promotes a sophisticate sect. Many sophisticates feel that ordinary honest folk ought to fail—after all they believe naïve, self-defeating, and unsophisticated things. Sophisticate acts are rarely presented with their honest motivations—that would be unsophisticated. Instead they may make straightforward assertions that proper procedures were followed, thereby justifying injustice. At such times sophisticates typically promote illusions that they defend process or tradition, and that they have merely applied procedural rules with worshipful rigidity, which is precisely opposite to what they actually do. When necessary they write sophisticate derivations built upon earlier sophisticate derivations, with no ultimate foundation, which might amuse if the effects did not wound the common wellbeing so grievously. They appear unaware of the naïveté that their audience sees in them when they point to America as they advise a country like China on prosperity by rule of law.

Our increasing disregard for rules forced its way into the public consciousness during the Bush era, when rule breaking and its consequences bruised America’s self-image.  We see in our American president a reflection of our own condition, but with Bush II it was more; he is widely quoted and alleged to have said that the constitution “is only a piece of paper”.  America hoped that change at the head of the fish might begin a new era, so President Obama was elected. We had been disappointed before, but this time we had a new president unsullied by compromise with evil forces. Our euphoria supported collective visions of glorious transformation. Mere anticipation of withering rot and corruption was for those too cautiously optimistic.  The planet itself was in rapture and the human race barely noticed when appointees to high office were tax-cheats and participants in public failure. Then, not to be outdone by the previous administration’s disdain for the constitution, our new guardians assert that reading and reciting the constitution presents a danger to the republic.

Sophisticate candidates are not obliged to inform—the citizenry showers votes in exchange for inaccurate and accurate campaign promises alike. While making promises is important, keeping them is not so important because voters are intellectually inferior and incompetent—i.e. not sophisticates. Accordingly, Bush I raised taxes; his promises to the contrary are only of concern to the foolish. Bush II created “no child left behind”, a ridiculous program without resemblance to campaign promises, and scattered the public coffers like rain over even less worthy notions. The Bush family presidents know that campaign promises matter—during the campaign. President Obama in turn promised many contradictory things. Within weeks of the election almost no one publicly risked sophisticate ridicule by recalling them. While it would have seemed impossible, Obama appears less accurately described by his campaign promises than the Bush presidents. How can an electorate express their will if they cannot know what the candidates honestly intend to do? To sophisticates this is precisely the point, the electorate is not supposed to express its will; it is more than enough that they vote.

Each dawn brings new awareness that the Bush era hastened our decline most by unfortunate effects on our choice of its replacement. The newly elected or appointed may be more disinterested, cynical, incompetent, or corrupt than their predecessors. Rot at the head of the fish is increasingly perceived, and erosion of support steeper than anyone remembers.

Political and economic wisdom are not the only casualties; the creed with no name has spread to science. When evidence of corruption and general rule-breaking by carbon science researchers in England was made public, the messenger was scorned while sophisticate scientists were justified by peer, politician, and reporter alike. The non-event status that the media assigned to such rule-breaking belies impressions that it was unexpected. Instead, bringers of truth are made to fear—an unbreakable rule of the unnamed creed is that their own rule breaking is not to be exposed. Participation in rule-breaking is demanded of scientists, who generally depend on sophisticate-controlled government support. While non-participation in the sophisticate creed may be naïve, some scientists surely are nostalgic for former notions of scientific truth. They may long for a colleague with stature who risks everything to expose this corruption, perhaps a modern Galileo. But they know that he would be and perhaps already has been silenced by sophisticates. Social-justice sophisticates are more thorough and wide ranging suppressors of truth than the Pope of Galileo’s time could have imagined. Scientific integrity is now a public illusion, truth relative, and ethically situational; scientists have become masters of long-standing sophisticate staples: disappearing evidence and “I don’t recall”. To observers of this scientific farce, it has become conceivable that truth-speaking will not be protected in America, not even officially, for scientists or anyone else.

Overt Acorn-style rule-breaking is also expected by the media. These elected, appointed, and self-appointed guardians of the public welfare are more likely to persecute a messenger than demand accountability.  In this sophisticate situational ethic, evidence of repeated conspiracy to finance importation of underage Latina girls for sexual exploitation warrants no prosecution and only passing scrutiny. In the sophisticate creed, this rule-breaking also is justified as part of the broad promotion of a “greater good”. Nevertheless, public exposure offends sophisticate sensibilities, and that is what must be discouraged in the most unambiguous manner.

Attacks on prosperity introduced earlier were categorized as direct, proxy, social-justice, and sophisticate.  There are many in positions of power and influence that engage vigorously in all four; i.e. it is common for social-justice sophisticates to engage in direct and proxy attacks as well. Such persons often hold professorial positions at universities, positions as judges, and other positions as elected or appointed officials. Seemingly single-issue promoters such as Al Gore actually engage in all four categories of attack. The most subtle of these forms of attack, and the most damaging in the U.S. (at least until fairly recently), are the sophisticate attacks that undermine our system of rules.

Sophisticate speeches, lectures, and publications laud the dependency of prosperity on a system of rules. Making more rules is a fundamental tenant of the sophisticate creed, which means that existing rules must be defective and violated. Thus sophisticates become hypocrites, making rules ineffective, then lauding and taking credit for new rules as they are made. They propose ever more rules, often to remedy defects seen only by sophisticates and expounded in esoteric theories. The sophisticate more-rules imperative entails perpetual exercises in inadequacy of rules; in this way sophisticates insist that there are no viable solutions, just ever and always more rules. Indecipherable piles of rules have proven inadequate to satisfy sophisticate imperatives. Those who make rules now propose individual rules described in thousands of pages, and reading just one rule is unwanted and perhaps unrealistic. Even the sophisticate rule makers do not read them. It is no coincidence that elected officials declare citizens who read or recite the constitution to be clear and present dangers to the republic.

So instead of reading and understanding rules, citizens are expected to leave complicated matters like rules, including the constitution itself, to sophisticates. But understanding rules, as the public understands the meaning of “understanding”, is not what sophisticates do. It is not even intended that there should be substantial understanding—it is subject to relativism and changes from one sophisticate theory to the next. The public may indeed be collectively incapable of a sophisticate grasp of reality—after all they generally aren’t sophisticated enough to realize that attempts to fathom the rules are naïve. Such sophistication may be a delusion created by intelligent but nevertheless unsound minds, and shared with others similarly limited. Thus there may be nothing overtly difficult about sophisticate thought that actually requires understanding. It is nevertheless important to understand the direct cost of ever increasing numbers of sophisticate attendants required by ever increasing piles of indecipherable rules.

It is difficult to imagine a greater danger to rule-of-law notions than the sophisticates, and the evidence is almost everywhere; we have discussed their general disdain for the rules, and there is a seemingly endless parade of egregious examples. They include:

  • As part of the recent “financial reform” and financial “transparency” act, the SEC is no longer subject to public disclosure requirements, i.e. the Freedom of Information Act.
  • California grossly miscalculated pollution levels by 340 percent in a “scientific” analysis used to toughen the state’s clean-air standards. When caught, the Air Resources Board blamed the difference on the economic slump!
  • Fraudulent carbon science is being used as the basis of innumerable rules and regulations.
  • The New Black Panther party, its leader, and two of its members were successfully accused of voter intimidation, a charge that they did not even attempt to defend, but the DoJ dropped the case before sentencing. Naturally, the attorneys who found the intimidation criminal have been attacked as biased.
  • The Acorn conspiracies and subsequent non-enforcement of rules became an issue because they generated bad public relations, never mind that what was done is wrong.

These examples amongst many illustrate just how far we have come in this sophisticate-led disconnect from reality. Considerable damage is done when rules specifically meant to promote prosperity go unenforced, and so are made ineffective or worse. Some rules promote the general economic welfare by limiting economic behavior detrimental to prosperity. These rules have become largely ineffective by sophisticate design.

Rules protecting intellectual property, suppressing monopolistic practices, and enforcing contracts are intended to promote prosperity directly. These rules promote the economy in part by encouraging and protecting innovation-driven progress, a key component of American prosperity. Monopolies by nature tend to suppress innovation; they typically ignore intellectual property rights and intimidate parties to contracts that they do not and may never have intended to keep. Innovators with a “new thing” are routinely asked by investors how their business will survive market attacks by an interested monopoly, and the attack is presumed to use the full power of the monopoly—rules notwithstanding. Innovations whose inventors have no ready answer may not come to market. Innovations that never occurred go entirely unknown. Their potential markets lie in that part of the economy subject to the monopoly’s control, i.e. in the monopoly’s kill-zone where their economic nukes work. A monopoly’s kill-zone is studiously avoided by many investors and hence innovators. A monopoly’s nukes may include intellectual property acquisition-by-infringement, redesigning their products to make others’ innovations unusable, intimidation of those who might do business with targeted innovators, combinations of the above, and similar business practices. Monopolies can and do economically nuke what annoys them in their kill-zone, even though such practices are nominally against the rules.

Monopolies often need not innovate. Their inside talent is frequently competent to copy, but even copying is often unnecessary unless a would-be competitor has the temerity to put himself in the kill-zone. The desired effect is often achieved for a particular innovation without overtly improper acts—having nuked others with impunity may be enough to intimidate and achieve cheap acquisition of intellectual assets. For a monopoly, knowing when and how to nuke depends on accurate understanding of market dynamics and a target’s resources, especially its revenue sources. They must also recognize the boundaries of their kill-zones, the areas within which their nukes will work. While a monopoly may misjudge such things, it has the power of its monopoly to extract excessive prices from the public and with those resources attack competitors again and again.

This leads us to a major example of rule ineffectiveness—the endlessly farcical Microsoft antitrust case. It ought to be a cause célèbre of social-justice acolytes; but those in power are also sophisticates—who apparently see neither personal nor sophisticate sect gains from factual pursuits of justice. The US Attorney General and his lieutenants know the Microsoft case well; they created it during the Clinton administration. But now it has done its work: sophisticates have made millions in fees and salaries and now it becomes just another case of failed rules, and perhaps evidence that we need new rules. Microsoft lost the case, yet their operating profit margins have increased, their revenues have more than doubled, and their overall profit margins have remained the same since 2003. While Apple now has revenue almost equal to Microsoft, Microsoft’s profits are almost equal to those of Apple and Google combined.

Nevertheless, the court sanctioned judgment in the case has almost run its course, and a central question before the court is whether Microsoft has complied—as they agreed to do several years ago. A naïve observer might assume that the court records would answer that question, but the court records instead contain nebulous weaseling statements that surround the phrase “substantially complete”, and redefine it as meaningless. There is also an agreement with the US Department of Justice (DoJ) that the oversight will shut down if Microsoft deals with some known bugs in its documents. To help them in that effort, the DoJ, the New York/Maryland group, and the California group of states have agreed that the oversight committee will conveniently stop adding bugs to the statistics on January 1, 2011. Who does not instinctively understand that the poorest products have the largest numbers of bugs? Given the absurdity of a bugs-fixed measure, why the DoJ doesn’t just cook nice statistics for the court is an obvious question—but then again perhaps they have done so.

Whatever the mechanism is for generating irrelevant but pretty bug statistics for the court, Microsoft has these many years missed golden marketing opportunities. If a federal judge will buy the fixed-bugs story, then Microsoft could honestly have advertised that they fixed more bugs in Vista than any would-be competitor had imagined, and doubled their market share by sucking in the judicial system. Less sophisticated consumers are purportedly even more susceptible to technical gobbledygook than Federal Judges. Microsoft may have infected the plaintiffs and the Court with the idea that they are done because it is time to be done; i.e. they outlasted the government. The plaintiffs may be tired of fighting Microsoft over their documents, since the executive and judicial branches of government together are apparently incapable of actually enforcing much against so powerful a corporation.  Instead they create the kind of scenario that the judge requires to finally end this unseemly display of governmental impotence and farcical enforcement.

Easily snookered though the court may be, the sitting administration ought to have desired social-justice at least insofar as the facts and the rules support it; instead, its sophisticate imperatives trump any need for facts and rules based outcomes, even where a final judgment is already in place and where social-justice sits on the balance. If in-power social-justice acolytes cannot factually pursue a healthy capitalist monopoly that already lost its case, then who can rationally depend on them for anything?

This case raises the question of whether the present administration actually comprises social-justice acolytes. Perhaps, despite ubiquitous and continuous press to the contrary, they are mainly sophisticate opportunists seeking only increased power and control over our lives—like any other kind of sophisticate might do. Whatever labels accurately apply to the administration, the various sophisticate sects have destroyed notions that the electorate has reasonable expectations of their representatives. With sophisticates everywhere, no candidate of any stripe can be relied upon to apply the rules as written based on the facts. Notions of rule-of-law require that some of us factually apply the rules; who does that now?

The Clinton administration pursued the Microsoft monopoly, and the antitrust chief first appointed in the Obama administration stated that the new administration would aggressively pursue antitrust cases. But that did not happen. Application of antitrust law is now effectively suppressed regardless of the party in power. Sophisticates per-se have no interest in actual rule-of-law, which may explain the lack of interest during the Bush administration. Nevertheless, in hindsight we now know that the Obama administration is less likely than its predecessor to adhere to rule-of-law, including anti-trust law. Something changed between the Clinton administration and the Obama administration. The idea of incrementally transforming the United States to a social-justice economy appears to have been dropped. Incremental movement requires that things work along-the-way with some consistency. Today, the idea of future catastrophic failure and a single transforming event appears more in keeping with the Obama view of things. Actually fixing something with existing rules, i.e. making things work, does not fit with that idea.

Because there were only sophisticates running for office, including a social-justice sophisticate, it turns out that there was no one to vote for who would have taken a rule-of-law approach to the presidency. In his most recent book; Newt Gingrich declares that democrats are more likely to be in bed with anticompetitive corporate interests than are republicans—perhaps he is spot-on. On the other hand, perhaps Microsoft and corporate monopolies in general are merely off the hook for now while the social-justice sophisticates wait for their big opportunity in an expected economic collapse—hopefully a long wait. Multiple unworthy motivations are possible so the question arises; precisely how is it that the New York/Maryland and California groups of states have gone along with the DoJ in the Microsoft case? This should be asked of their Attorneys General.

Now underway for half as long as the Exxon Valdez case, the Microsoft antitrust case joins a menagerie of other “endlessly interesting” and “important” examples of our rules in action. By causing “important” cases to become “endlessly interesting” sophisticates make rules ineffective and promote the “need” for more rules. Twenty three years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill many victims are deceased; the remainder still await relief for damage to their lives and livelihoods. American imperatives for personal justice make this outcome unconscionable and people who justify it loathsome. Proposals for more rules do not always wait for “endless” characteristics to set in. A “crisis” allows sophisticates to short-circuit the slower process; for example, they immediately began proposing new rules after the BP oil leak. Enforcement of existing rules is never the answer to sophisticates, it is ever and always more rules that are needed. Nevertheless, mistakes are made; they seemed surreal and even comical when filing lawsuits appeared to be our national plan for plugging the Gulf oil leak. Louisiana and other states needed effective action by accomplished people who are grounded in truth and reality. Preventing the leak in the first place may have been achieved by honest application of myriad existing rules. But sophisticates need not apply rules, whether to Acorn, oil companies, Microsoft, Black Panthers, or anywhere. To them it just isn’t necessary or even desirable. Disconnected from reality,  sophisticates whose primary skills are holding meetings, speaking in sound bites for the evening’s news, making rules “endlessly interesting” but otherwise ineffective, and generating proposals for ever more taxes, rules, and lawsuits are unqualified for office.

When against all odds an existing rule promotes prosperity and general welfare, and even the sophisticates find it difficult to relegate that rule to the “endlessly interesting” and “important” category, then they arrange to undo it. With congressional complicity, George Bush I effectively signed away the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings act of 1985 and 1987, which had provided executive power over federal deficits. It was that power specifically that many expected him to wield—but instead he signed it away and turned Gramm-Rudman into yet another failed rule. George Bush II wouldn’t have used that power willingly; he spent money like water. Obama wouldn’t have used it willingly; he is showing us just how green water can be. Bill Clinton wouldn’t have used it willingly; he wanted health care reform then as now, but having lost his first mid-term elections there was then no pressing need for Gramm-Rudman. All of these presidents claim to abhor deficit spending, but would not have wanted the power to stop deficits that George Bush I conveniently removed from consideration before the others took office. The last president to serve approximately as advertised was Ronald Reagan, who signed Gramm-Rudman into law, only to watch his successor and one-time VP drop the core concept. We have now had two presidents each from the two major parties since Ronald Reagan, who was the last non-sophisticate among them.

While sophisticates generally do not embrace freedom, democracy, and rule-of-law, prosperity at levels formerly enjoyed depends on economic and political freedom as well as rule-of-law and predictability of rule application. We may yet keep our freedom and prosperity, but the sophisticates must go.

We must halt the election, appointment, and promotion of sophisticates at all levels, or regardless of party we will have only sophisticates to choose from at the ballot box. With our children’s future and prosperity itself in the balance, we must remove sophisticates and especially social-justice sophisticates from elected and appointed positions across society. Nevertheless, by long experience we know that replacing one sophisticate with another accomplishes little. We must focus on the core of the problem and replace sophisticates with non-sophisticates—in whatever party and wherever they are found.

Obama Losing Environmentalist Following

President Obama ran on an environment platform: green jobs, cap-and-trade, and renewable energy.  His constant droning about it during the 2008 election garnered the support of the far left-wing environmental movement, but his actions of-late .. not so much.

First we find the Obarrassment in trouble because he said ‘no’ to solar panels on the White House roof despite the personal plea of a group of environmentalists at the White House.

Then President Obama decided that green jobs need not be in Stimulus II

Of course we couldn’t leave out the vacations.  There was the personal jet service for the First Dog and then the Obamas flew the White House Chef 860 miles to deliver .. pizza

The administrations Solicitor General carried the false flag forward by reversing past environmental Presidential stances on nuisance law suits for carbon emissions.

Then again, all this new news .. might be old news as Time Magazine asked last year “Is Obama’s Environmental Agenda Losing Out?

Rahm Emanuel: White House Chief of Staff

Rahmy

Time to look at the White House staff to get a clearer picture of what’s behind the policies of this administration. First up, White House Chief of Staff Rahm “deadfish” Emanuel. We will get into the deadfish later. First here’s the WhiteHouse.Gov bio:

Rahm Emanuel is the White House Chief of Staff. Prior to joining President Barack H. Obama’s administration, Emanuel served in the House of Representatives, representing the fifth district of Illinois, and was Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. As an advocate for Chicago’s working families, Emanuel served on the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees taxes, trade, Social Security, and Medicare issues.

Appointed by then House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Emanuel served as Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the 2006 cycle. Under his leadership, Democrats gained 30 seats in the House without losing a single incumbent, and ushered in a new Democratic majority for the first time in more than a decade.

In January 2007, the new majority elected Emanuel to serve as Democratic Caucus Chair, the fourth-highest-ranking member of the House Democratic Leadership. As Chair, Emanuel led the Democratic Caucus in fulfilling its campaign promise to pass legislation reflecting the values and priorities of the American people.

Before being elected to Congress, Emanuel worked at the Chicago investment bank Wasserstein Perella. He was a core member of the Clinton White House from 1993 to 1998, starting as the national finance director for the 1992 campaign and eventually becoming Senior Adviser to the President for Policy and Strategy. In 1989, Emanuel was a senior adviser and chief fundraiser for Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley’s campaign. He also played an important role in Paul Simon’s 1984 campaign for the Senate.

Emanuel graduated from Sarah Lawrence College in 1981 and received a Master’s Degree in Speech and Communication from Northwestern University in 1985. He and his wife, Amy Rule, have three children, Zach, Ilana, and Leah.

Oh my, Why he’s a Paragon of Democratic Party Knighthood. Yea ok, lets look deeper. From Discover The Networks:

Emanuel’s interest in politics began when, as a college undergraduate, he worked on the congressional campaign of Chicago Democrat David Robinson. He proceeded thereafter to work as a fundraiser for a number of successful Illinois candidates before being drafted by the presidential campaign of Arkansas governor Bill Clinton in 1991.

Emanuel proved to be a shrewd tactician for Clinton, urging the latter, during the 1992 New Hampshire primary race, to focus more on fundraising efforts than on campaigning. The money Clinton collected would enable him to run an effective ad campaign aimed at countering the emerging controversies about the candidate’s past adulterous relationships and his draft-dodging activities during the Vietnam War.

Emanuel’s aptitude for fundraising continued to help the Clinton campaign throughout the primaries and into the general election. Of notable importance was Emanuel’s ability to connect with Jewish donors, who contributed heavily to Clinton’s then-unprecedented $72 million war chest. According to political consultant Steve Rabinowitz, “[Emanuel] schmoozed many, many millions all over the country, including money from traditional Democratic Party givers, who are disproportionately Jewish, and new Democratic givers.”

On November 4, 1992 — the night after Clinton had been elected President — Emanuel and other campaign aids convened for a celebratory dinner. At one point in the evening, the discussion turned to the topic of certain individuals who, in the estimation of Emanuel and his cohorts, had somehow betrayed the Clinton cause. One such person was Nathan Landow, a fundraiser who had backed the candidacy of Clinton’s Democrat rival Paul Tsongas. Another was William Donald Schaefer, the Democrat governor of Maryland who had endorsed Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush. In a fit of anger, Emanuel, wielding a steak knife, stood up amidst his dinner companions and proceeded to stab the table repeatedly, screaming: “Nat Landow! Dead!… Bill Schaefer! Dead!…”

On another occasion, the tempestuous Emanuel mailed a 30-inch decomposing fish to a pollster who had annoyed him.

During Clinton’s first five years in the White House, Emanuel continued to serve as an aid to the President. Perhaps his most high-profile assignment was as choreographer of the 1993 Rose Garden ceremony following the Oslo Accord, an event that featured the famous handshake between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat.

Shortly after Clinton’s electoral victory in 1992, Emanuel began pushing the new President to exploit the issue of immigration for his political advantage. Heeding Emanuel’s advice, in September 1994 Clinton met with Daniel Solis, president of the Chicago-based United Neighborhood Organization (UNO), a Hispanic advocacy group. Solis told Clinton that if he could somehow swiftly naturalize the ever-growing number of non-citizen immigrants residing in the U.S., he would have a “great opportunity” to increase the pool of potential voters who might support his re-election bid in 1996. Clinton instructed Solis to stay in contact with Emanuel on this matter; Solis and Emanuel soon coordinated a scheme — which was titled “Citizenship USA” and was headquartered in Vice President Al Gore’s office — to fast-track the naturalization process for both legal and illegal immigrants before the 1996 election. According to one INS security official:

The goal was to speed up the process and turn as many legal residents and illegals into Clinton voters as possible…. Rahm was doing it under the guise of Al Gore’s Reinventing Government program. He [Emanuel] was definitely the point man and was past his neck in the scandal at INS…. He got every rule changed in the hiring of adjudicators so they could naturalize more Mexican nationals to vote for Bill Clinton, not to mention getting the rules changed to naturalize anyone [regardless of their immigration status or criminal history]…. They had immigration ceremonies at stadiums with DNC (Democratic National Committee) staff registering them as voters right there.”

At one Chicago ceremony held inside the Soldier Field football stadium, approximately 11,000 new citizens were sworn in en masse.

A former INS district director, William Carroll, stated that in March 1996 he and his colleagues had been given “marching orders” to naturalize as many new citizens as possible in advance of the November election, even in the absence of criminal and national security background checks of the applicants.

INS deportation officer Tom Conklin concurred that he and other agents had been pressured to approve the citizenship applications of immigrants “with two or three arrests for crimes like burglary.”

Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine subsequently conducted an investigation of Emanuel’s role in the citizenship scheme. Fine concluded that “the INS had compromised the integrity of naturalization adjudications as a result of its efforts to process applicants more quickly and meet a self-imposed goal of completing more than a million cases by the end of fiscal year 1996.” According to Fine, the Clinton administration had followed “inadequate procedures for checking criminal histories and fingerprints.” Fine added that Emanuel had refused his request for an interview.

In 1998 Emanuel left his advisory position at the White House to work as an investment banker at the firm of Wasserstein Perella, where he earned $16.2 million during a two-and-a-half-year stint.

In 2000 Emanuel was again called upon by Bill Clinton, this time to serve on the Board of Directors for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). During his tenure on the Board, Freddie Mac was plagued by such major scandals as accounting fraud and illegal campaign contributions to congressional candidates. Emanuel resigned from the Board in 2001.

In 2002 Emanuel ran for public office and was elected as the Democrat Representative for Illinois’ 5th congressional district, easily defeating Republican opponent Mark Augusti.

In January 2005 Emanuel was named Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) for the 2006 election season. Such was his success in engineering important victories for the Democratic Party in that year’s mid-term elections, that Illinois Republican Representative Ray LaHood said of Emanuel: “He legitimately can be called the golden boy of the Democratic Party today. He recruited the right candidates, found the money and funded them, and provided issues for them.”

Emanuel’s strategy in 2006 was to focus not only on fundraising, but also on an aggressive propaganda campaign deriding Republicans for such transgressions as their mismanagement of the Iraq War, their allegedly inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina, and their scandals involving figures like Mark Foley, Tom DeLay, and Jack Abramoff. Most notably, Emanuel recruited numerous moderate and conservative Democrat candidates — a number of whom were military veterans — to run for election in Southern and Midwestern districts where doctrinaire leftists would have stood little chance of winning.

As a result of the foregoing strategies, Democrats in 2006 gained 30 congressional seats, there by seizing control of the House of Representatives and setting the stage for Nancy Pelosi to become Speaker of the House.

Emanuel was elected Chairman of the Democratic Caucus, making him the fourth highest ranking member of the Democratic leadership in the House.

Emanuel went on to become a close advisor to Senator Barack Obama, particularly during the latter’s run for the White House in 2008. On November 6, 2008, President-elect Obama named Emanuel to serve as his White House Chief of Staff.

Shortly before Obama’s November 4, 2008 election victory, Emanuel had conversations with Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s Chief of Staff John Harris about who would fill Obama’s vacant Senate seat if Obama were to win the presidency. According to one source, Emanuel gave Harris a list of candidates who would be “acceptable” to Obama. The names on the list included Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes, and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois—all Democrats. Sometime shortly after the election, Emanuel telephoned John Harris to add the name of Democratic Attorney General Lisa Madigan to the approved list.

In December 2008 it was revealed that Blagojevich, who was authorized by Illinois law to name a successor to Obama, had been secretly taped telling political confidantes that he was aiming to sell the Senate seat in exchange for campaign cash, a lucrative job, an ambassadorship, or a Cabinet post. After these charges against Blagojevich became public, Emanuel refused to respond to reporters’ questions about any involvement he may have had with the governor’s office over the Senate pick.

In December 2008 it was reported that Emanuel, cognizant of the fact that the economic recession in which America was mired presented an opportunity for the Democratic Party to enact sweeping legislation under the guise of an economic recovery plan, had said the following in a candid moment: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste — and what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”

(Video Link)

In February 2009 it was learned that Emanuel had lived rent-free for years in the Capitol Hill townhouse of Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro — and that he had failed to make mention of that fact on any of his financial-disclosure forms, as congressional ethics rules require for such arrangements (which are classified by the IRS as gifts that are subject to taxes).

Following is an overview of Emanuel’s congressional voting record from 2003 through 2008, as per key pieces of legislation covering a wide array of issues.

Abortion and the Rights of the Unborn

In April 2000, June 2003, and October 2003, Emanuel voted against legislation to ban the late-term abortion procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion (a.k.a. “intact dilation and extraction”). According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, in the year 2000 this procedure was performed approximately 2,200 times in the United States.

In February 2004 Emanuel voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which proposed to make it an added criminal offense for someone to injure or kill a fetus while carrying out a crime against a pregnant woman.

In April 2005 and September 2006, Emanuel voted against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, whose purpose was to prohibit the transportation of a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion without a parent’s (or a legal guardian’s) consent.

In December 2006 Emanuel voted against the Abortion Pain Bill, which mandated that abortion providers, prior to performing an abortion on a fetus older than 20 weeks, inform the mother that: (a) the fetus might feel pain during the procedure, and (b) the use of some pain-reducing drugs may have health risks associated with them.

As a result of his unwavering support for the unrestricted right to abortion-on-demand under any and all circumstances, Emanuel has consistently received ratings of 100 percent from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. These ratings indicate that Emanuel’s votes and stated positions on abortion-related matters have mirrored, literally without exception, the positions of these organizations. Indeed, since at least 1995 Emanuel has supported the agendas of Planned Parenthood 100 percent of the time.

Gay Marriage

In September 2004 Emanuel voted against a bill that would have prohibited same-sex marriage. In July 2006 he voted against a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage in America exclusively as the union of one man and one woman.

TaxesIn May 2003 Emanuel voted against a $350 billion tax cut. This bill contained, among other things, a provision to eliminate the so-called “marriage tax penalty” by making the standard deduction for married couples twice that of a single filer.

In May 2004 he voted against a proposal to extend the alternative minimum tax relief that had been available in 2003 and 2004.

Also in May 2004, he voted against a proposal to make the $1,000-per-child tax credit permanent rather than letting it decline to $700 in 2005. Four months later he voted against another bill calling for a five-year extension on the $1,000 child tax credit.

In October 2004 he voted against a ten-year, $145 billion tax cut for domestic manufacturers and small corporations.

In April 2005 he voted against a proposal to permanently repeal the estate tax.

In November 2005 he voted against a bill calling for a $49.91 billion reduction in federal spending over a five-year period. Twelve months later he voted against a similar five-year proposal for $56.1 billion in federal spending reductions; that bill also called for the retention of a reduced tax rate on capital gains and dividends.

In May 2006 he voted against $69.96 billion in tax cuts and credits through 2010, including reductions of 15 percent on capital gains taxes and 5 percent on dividends taxes.

In June 2006 he voted against a proposal to reduce estate taxes beginning in 2010; that proposal would have set the new rates at 15 percent for estates worth up to $25 million, and 30 percent for estates valued at more than $25 million.

The most notable exception to Emanuel’s generally doctrinaire espousal of high taxation occurred in January 2008, when he voted in favor of a bill giving single taxpayers a tax credit of up to $600, and joint filers a tax credit of up to $1,200.

In 2007, Americans for Tax Reform, which generally “opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle,” gave Emanuel a grade of 5 percent.

That same year, FreedomWorks, an organization that “fights for lower taxes, less government and more economic freedom for all Americans,” gave Emanuel a rating of 10 percent.

Also in 2007, the National Taxpayers Union, which seeks to “reduce government spending, cut taxes, and protect the rights of taxpayers,” gave Emanuel a grade of F.

In 2005-06, the National Tax Limitation Committee, which lobbies against “intrusive, coercive government,” gave Emanuel a rating of 6 percent.

Citizens Against Government Waste, an organization that seeks “to eliminate waste, mismanagement, and inefficiency in the federal government,” gave Emanuel a rating of 4 percent in 2007.

And also in 2007, the Business-Industry Political Action Committee, which “identifies and supports pro-business candidates,” gave Emanuel a 7 percent rating.

Fossil Fuels

In May 2006 Emanuel voted against a proposal to provide funds for offshore oil exploration along the Outer Continental Shelf; instead, he favored a continuation of President Clinton’s 1998 moratorium on oil drilling.

In October 2005 and June 2006, Emanuel voted against the construction of new oil refineries.

MortgagesIn September 2007 Emanuel voted in favor of a bill calling on money lenders “to use risk-based pricing to more effectively reach underserved borrowers.” In other words, he was endorsing subprime loans to under-qualified borrowers—the very practice that eventually would lead to the cataclysmic collapse of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the mortgage industry.

Emanuel has received a 100 percent rating from ACORN, the political cult that for many years has played a major role in pressuring banks to make subprime loans.

Military CommissionsIn September 2006 Emanuel voted against a bill authorizing the President to establish military commissions to try enemy combatants captured in the war on terror. In Emanuel’s view, such tribunals trample on the civil rights and liberties of defendants who, he contends, should be entitled to all the rights and protections afforded by the American criminal court system—where the standards that govern the admissibility of evidence are considerably stricter than the counterpart standards in military tribunals.

Counter-Terrorism & Homeland Security

In July 2005 Emanuel voted in favor of reauthorizing the post-9/11 anti-terrorism measure known as the Patriot Act.

In September 2006 he voted against an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978; this amendment called for allowing the government to use electronic surveillance to investigate suspected terrorist operatives.

In August 2007 he voted against a bill permitting the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to monitor foreign electronic communications which are routed through the United States—provided that the purpose of such monitoring was to obtain “foreign intelligence information” about suspected terrorists. In June 2008 he voted in favor of a bill specifically prohibiting this type of surveillance.

The Center for Security Policy, which is committed to “promoting international peace through American strength,” has given Emanuel ratings ranging, over the years, from 17 percent to 35 percent.

The American Security Council, which “serves as educational secretariat of the Congressional Caucus on National Security,” gives Emanuel a 10 percent rating.

Iraq War / War on Terror

In June 2006 Emanuel voted against a resolution which stated that it was not in America’s national security interest to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal of its troops from Iraq, and that a better course of action would be to withdraw the troops only upon the “completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq.”

In February 2007 he voted to disapprove of President Bush’s decision to move ahead with the so-called troop “surge”—the deployment of some 21,500 additional U.S. soldiers in an effort to quell the violent insurgents in Iraq.

In May 2007 Emanuel voted in favor a proposal to expedite the transfer of all prisoners currently being held in the Guantanamo Bay detention center, most of whom are, as Gordon Cucullu writes in The American Enterprise, “not innocent foot soldiers” but rather “Islamic fundamentalists from across the Middle East, rabid jihadists who have dedicated their lives to the destruction of America and Western civilization.”

That same month, Emanuel voted in favor of an amendment to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 90 days.

In July 2007 he voted to begin dramatically reducing the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq by April 1, 2008.

In June 2008 he voted in favor of exploring the possibility of impeaching President Bush on grounds that he had lied about U.S. intelligence on Iraq so as to justify the March 2003 American invasion.

Heres Rahm Emanuel advocating for negotiations with Iran with Bill Maher

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=1IuxxtHSmAM&feature=related

Illegal Immigration

In May 2004 Emmanuel voted “No” on requiring hospitals to report (to the federal government) illegal aliens who receive emergency medical treatment.

In February 2005 he voted against the Real ID Act, which proposed to: set minimal security requirements for state driver licenses and identification cards; require asylum applicants suspected of affiliating with terrorist groups to prove that they are indeed seeking to escape persecution in their homeland; and ensure that physical barriers to prevent illegal immigration would be expeditiously constructed where needed along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In December 2005 he voted against a bill calling for: the construction of some 700 miles of fencing along America’s southern border; the establishment of a system requiring business owners to verify the legal status of all their employees; the detention of any person attempting to enter the U.S. illegally after October 1, 2006; an increase in the penalties on anyone attempting to smuggle illegal aliens into the U.S.; the annual provision of $250 million to pay state and local police agencies for their assistance in enforcing federal immigration laws; and funding for a program to deport “removable criminal aliens” in prison following the completion of their sentences, rather than releasing them into American communities.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the foregoing provisions, has given Emanuel a perfect grade of 100 percent.

In June 2006 Emanuel voted in favor of an amendment prohibiting the U.S. government from tipping off Mexican officials as to the whereabouts of operatives working for the Minuteman Project, a nonviolent organization of American citizens who alert the U.S. Border Patrol to the presence of unauthorized border-crossers in the Southwestern states.

In September 2006 Emanuel again voted against a bill authorizing the construction of 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico.

That same month, he voted against a proposal to grant state and local officials the authority to investigate, identify, and arrest illegal immigrants.

The U.S. Border Control, which “is dedicated to ending illegal immigration by securing our nation’s borders and reforming our immigration policies,” gives Emanuel a rating of 8 percent.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform, which “seeks to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration, and to promote immigration levels consistent with the national interest [about 300,000 a year],” gives Emanuel a rating of 0.

By contrast, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, which promotes open borders and an expansion of rights and liberties for illegal aliens, gives Emanuel a 100 percent rating.

Guns

In April 2003 and again in October 2005, Emanuel voted “No” on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers as punishment for violence that is committed with guns.

Already you can see much of Obama’s political stances and policies in agreement with Rahm Emanuel. The attack on Arizona’s SB1070 seems to be inviting Emanuels previous Immigrant scheme for Democratic voters. He served on the Board of Fannie/Freddie, who are conveniently exempt from Financial Reform and continue to ask for, and recieve, taxpayer funded bailouts. The voting record is also extremely similar.

Here is Rahm Emanuel talking about a mandatory service plan, something Obama also advocated for during his campaign.

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=HtDSwyCPEsQ&feature=related

An audio interview on the mandatory service plan

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=l0B7dOQwKm0&feature=related

Speaking on “Face The Nation” on the future of President Elect Obama in 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=Dp3Db90JktY&feature=channel

And here he is at the end of Obama’s first 100 days in office in an intervie w with Katie Couric trying to defend TARP and Obama’s economic policies

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=-gDlzhHBoFg&feature=related

Stay Classy Rahm, a compilation

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=jP22Gb1vC2k&feature=related

So I’d say Rahm Emanuel is a hot headed radical. Tick him off, and if he’s not stabbing the table with a knife chanting your name and die, he just might mail you a decomposing fish. Regardless of your wishes, or your family needs, you will be forced to serve under a mandatory service plan. Illegal Immigrant? No Problem! Just vote Democrat. You can see why Obama has Emanuel as his Chief of Staff, they have similar views, and not one of those views is good for America or Freedom.

Sunday Rounds

Sunday Rounds

Making the rounds through numerous news sources one theme popped out: Obama is planning a back door approach to getting his extreme agenda implemented even once the overwhelming majority in Congress is lost.  Of course, a few other random bits thrown in as well.

At Jacksonsun.com there is a post that describes a back-door approach to cap-and-trade.

President Obama is insisting on changing the tax laws so the IRS can collect double the income tax on energy producers. His budget plan, if approved, would essentially give foreign oil and natural gas companies – like BP – an advantage over domestic companies because they would pay less in income taxes.

At about.com we learn that the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management is scarfing up public land by naming them monuments.

..having the president pull an end run around Congress by unilaterally naming areas as national monuments “should the legislative process not prove fruitful” and to use the agency’s internal land-use planning process to accomplish the bureau’s goals for managing “conservation values” when those other two efforts fail.

As the rounds continued, I find Ariana Huffington suddenly concerned about the deficit, but she clearly doesn’t get it at all.

Turns out the Republicans were against raising the deficit until they were for it — at least when it comes to extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans .. This reveals a total lack of understanding about how jobs are — and aren’t — created. Hint: it has nothing to do with the personal tax rate of the people running the business. It has everything to do with demand — from consumers, advertisers, government contracts, etc.

Sure, because the wealthy are the ones that actually invest, taking more from them will magically cause investment, jobs and therefor demand?

The talking heads have been hyping this the weekend’s movie releases as the battle of the sexes, well.. the battle is over – Guys take round one as, “`Expendables’ Tops `Eat Pray Love’ at Weekend Box Office With $35 Million

Cap & Trade, Crime Inc, and Maurice Strong

Harry Reid is once again working on a Climate Change/Cap & Trade/ Energy/Pollution Bill and Obama just wanted to remind you what to expect:

That’s right, “Prices will necessarily skyrocket.” And that’s just the minimum you can expect from this oh so wonderous 20 lbs. of legislation. According to Politico:

Reid confirmed the bill will have four parts: an oil spill response; a clean-energy and job-creation title based on work done in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; a tax package from the Senate Finance Committee; and a section that deals with greenhouse gas emissions from the electric utility industry.
Underscoring the delicate nature of the issue, Reid insisted that the proposal he will introduce in about 10 days should not be called a cap-and-trade plan or even a cap on emissions.
“I don’t use that,” he said. “Those words are not in my vocabulary. We’re going to work on pollution.”
In other words, It’s Cap & Trade with another Progressive name change. This will be the most lifestyle affecting legislation in history and will force an unprecedented change on each and every single American. This is quite simply a lifestyle killer, a job killer, a free enterprise killer, and an economy killer. This will be the final blow to our economy and our liberty.
I will explain below, but first you need to meet the man behind the scenes, Maurice Strong.
Maurice Strong is a very powerful Billionaire. He is also currently on the Chicago Climate Exchange Board of Directors, a silent partner in Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management Company, the “godfather of the U.N.’s 1997 Kyoto treaty”, and so much more. Here you can find an extensive dossier by DiscoverTheNetworks.Org.

Here is Maurice Strong in a 1972 BBC Interview:

That’s right, all around Climate Change fear mongering, Global Governance, and licenses for babies due to “over population”

The main thing you need to know about Maurice Strong is his plan, because Obama is following it to the letter. In the following book excerpt you can see the plan take shape, part disguised as an idea for a novel:

This is taken from Chapter 24 of The Creature from Jekyll Island © 2002 by G. Edward Griffin

U.S. BRANDED AS ECOLOGICAL AGGRESSOR

The use of compulsion is an important point in these plans. People in the industrialized nations are not expected to cooperate in their own demise. They will have to be forced. They will not like it when their food is taken for global distribution. They will not approve when they are taxed by a world authority to finance foreign political projects. They will not voluntarily give up their cars or resettle into smaller houses or communal barracks to satisfy the resource-allocation quotas of a UN agency. Club-of-Rome member Maurice Strong states the problem:

In effect, the United States is committing environmental aggression against the rest of the world. … At the military level, the United States is the custodian. At the environmental level, the United States is clearly the greatest risk. … One of the worst problems in the United States is energy prices – they’re too low. …

It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class … involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and `convenience’ foods, ownership of motor-vehicles, numerous electric household appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning … expansive suburban housing … are not sustainable.

Mr. Strong’s remarks were enthusiastically received by world environmental leaders, but they prompted this angry editorial response in the Arizona Republic:

Translated from eco-speak, this means two things: (1) a reduction in the standard of living in Western nations through massive new taxes and regulations, and (2) a wholesale transfer of wealth from industrialized to under-developed countries. The dubious premise here is that if the U.S. economy could be reduced to, say, the size of Malaysia’s, the world would be a better place. … Most Americans probably would balk at the idea of the U.N. banning automobiles in the U.S.

A PLOT FOR ECONOMIC CRISIS

Maurice Strong believes – or says that he believes – the world’s ecosystems can be preserved only if the affluent nations of the world can be disciplined into lowering their standard of living. Production and consumption must be curtailed. To bring that about, those nations must submit to rationing, taxation, and political domination by world government. They will probably not do that voluntarily, he says, so they will have to be forced. To accomplish that, it will be necessary to engineer a global monetary crisis which will destroy their economic systems. Then they will have no choice but to accept assistance and control from the UN.

This strategy was revealed in the May, 1990, issue of West magazine, published in Canada. In an article entitled “The Wizard of Baca Grande,” journalist Daniel Wood described his week-long experience at Strong’s private ranch in southern Colorado. This ranch has been visited by such CFR notables as David Rockefeller, Secretary-of-State Henry Kissinger, founder of the World Bank Robert McNamara, and the presidents of such organizations as IBM, Pan Am, and Harvard.

During Wood’s stay at the ranch, the tycoon talked freely about environmentalism and politics. To express his own world view, he said he was planning to write a novel about a group of world leaders who decided to save the planet. As the plot unfolded, it became obvious that it was based on real people and real events. Wood continues the story:

Each year, he explains as background to the telling of the novel’s plot, the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead. With this as a setting, he then says: “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? … The group’s conclusion is `no.’ the rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? …

“This group of world leaders,” he continues, “form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse. It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists. They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world’s stock markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can’t close. The rich countries…” And Strong makes a slight motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette butt out the window.

I sit there spellbound. This is not any storyteller talking, this is Maurice Strong. He knows these world leaders. He is, in fact, co-chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum. He sits at the fulcrum of power. He is in a position to do it.

“I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this,” he says.

And there you have the plan. In order to” save the world” we must bring the most industrialized nations to their knees and force them to be ruled under Global Governance and redistribute wealth in the form of Carbon Credits.

Harry Reid’s Energy Bill will target power plant emissions according to the New York Times:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is drafting legislation to limit carbon emissions at the nation’s power plants, a risky political maneuver that faces divisions within his own party and a Senate clock that is quickly winding down.

Reid (D-Nev.) will place the contentious carbon provision in a broader energy bill that tightens rules around offshore oil drilling, encourages clean energy production and jobs, and reduces oil consumption — things that might be difficult for some lawmakers to oppose.

According to America’sPower.org “Half of the electricity that heats our homes, lights our schools, and powers our businesses comes from coal.”

By placing a tax on Coal Power Plants they will be forced to either go bankrupt, as Obama stated, or simply produce less electricity. That’s half of the electricity in the United States gone or severely cut. From this alone you can expect “skyrocketing” prices due to supply and demand, as well as energy rationing, and rolling blackouts. There simply won’t be enough electricity available for everyone, even if you can afford it.

But don’t take my word for it, let’s look at the UK. In an Article titled “Blackout Britain Faces Big Turnoff” the Express.Co.UK  explains that green hysteria is causing disruptions in their power grid:

BRITAIN faces years of blackouts and soaring electricity bills because of the drive toward green power, a leading energy expert warned last night. A growing obsession with global warming and “renewable” sources threatens the stability of our supply.

Derek Birkett, a former Grid Control Engineer who has a lifetime’s experience in electricity supply throughout Britain, warned that the cost of the crisis could match that of the recent banking collapse. And he claimed that renewable energy expectations were now nothing more than “dangerous illusions” which would hit  consumers hard in the pocket.

“We are going to pay a very heavy price for the fact there has been a catalogue of neglect by the former Government which has focused on renewable energy sources,” Mr Birkett said.

“We need a mix of sources and this takes time. Renewables have the problem of being intermittent, particularly wind, and we need more back-up capacity. By having all our sources in one basket we are risking disruption.

“There is a lot of over-enthusiasm by governments to push global warming, which makes me very suspicious.” Less than five per cent of our energy comes from renewable sources but the “disproportionate” cost of implementing green technology runs into many millions of pounds, he said.

In a new book, When Will the Lights Go Out, published this month, Mr Birkett claims things will only get worse. He said the “lavish incentives” being offered to developers of green energy are being passed on to customers as the UK struggles to meet EU directives on carbon emissions.

He also warned that a growing reliance on renewable energy is creating widespread uncertainty in the electricity supply chain.

With many nuclear power stations and coal plants ending their lives and being taken out of service we “can’t rule out” people being left without power. The real problem is the cost of making sure this does not happen, and Britain’s lights “do not go out”, he warned.

“The country is going to have to make a choice whether to go along with green ideas of renewable generation or go back to coal and nuclear power.”

We too will have high prices, blackouts, and insane carbon standards. Any “Green Energy” currently available is intermittent and not dependable. Due to this American Manufacturing will suffer. If they are able to get the electricity to be productive, the trickle down affect will in turn skyrocket the price of American made merchandise. Factories will close. Businesses will cut costs by layoffs or simply close up shop. Small and Large Business will fail. If you have an electric car, you can’t afford the electricity to charge it, if any is available. You certainly can’t afford the gas prices for a traditional car, not to mention whatever emissions penalties they tie to it. No more air conditioning. No more liberty. The economy will fail. They will claim the Free Market failed.

Maurice Strong, who will make a fortune through trading Carbon Credits at the CCX, will have seen his plan come to fruition through Obama, and delight at the fall of the US economy. Obama will use this failure to enact his Marxist Plan and Nationalize all business and industry in order to save the U.S. from the “Free Market” All in the name of the greatest scam in the world, Climate Change/Global Warming

Follow StopObama2012 and Conservative Daily News on Twitter

Check out CDN’s Cap and Trade Section

Ethanol: What They Aren’t Telling You

Most information on Ethanol presents the corn-based fuel as a panacea for the worlds pollution woes, a green-jobs creator, and a needed boost to American farmers.  Digging into these claims brings some interesting data points to the surface.

The American Coalition for Ethanol touts ethanol as:

..a high octane, clean burning, American-made renewable fuel. Its production and use offer a myriad of benefits to the United States and its citizens.
The production of ethanol is an economic engine for the United States, adding value to U.S. agricultural products and bringing billions of dollars to the nation’s economy each year. The use of ethanol reduces harmful auto emissions, offers consumers a cost-effective choice at the pump, and decreases the amount of expensive crude oil needed to satisfy the nation’s thirst for transportation fuel.

Wow, sounds great doesn’t it, like the energy holy grail, until you dig into ethanol itself.  Examining the ethanol production process is somewhat revealing.

The number one crop used for Ethanol is corn. Uh-oh- now we have to divert corn to become our new Gasoline, but is there enough Corn?

The USDA Economic Research Service about corn:

  • Corn is the most widely produced feed grain in the United States, accounting for more than 90 percent of total value and production of feed grains.
  • Around 80 million acres of land are planted to corn, with the majority of the crop grown in the Heartland region.
  • Most of the crop is used as the main energy ingredient in livestock feed.
  • Corn is also processed into a multitude of food and industrial products including starch, sweeteners, corn oil, beverage and industrial alcohol, and fuel ethanol.
  • The United States is a major player in the world corn trade market, with approximately 20 percent of the corn crop exported to other countries.
  • ERS analyzes events in the domestic and global corn markets that influence supply, demand, trade, and prices.

That means that all of our corn is already in high demand in everything from Aspirin, to cereals, to livestock feed. If Ethanol replaced motor vehicle fuel, the principles of supply and demand would force almost all corn produced to be diverted to Ethanol production. This would skyrocket the price of all corn-dependent products including livestock fed from corn unless they find an alternative.

According to the Cato Institute in a January 2008 report titled “Food Fight” Ethanol has already had an affect on our economy.

The ethanol boom has knock-on effects in the rest of the rural economy. The growing use of cereals, sugar, oilseed and vegetable oils to produce ethanol and biodiesel is supporting crop prices and, indirectly through higher animal feed costs, raising costs for livestock production. As Table 1 shows, the prices for poultry, beef, and eggs have all increased by more than 5 percent this year. (Pork prices have risen relatively slowly because production has been very high compared to demand, although producers are expected to lower production during 2008 because of losses from low prices and higher feedcosts.[12]) Farmland prices in key corn-growing states such as Iowa, Nebraska, and South Dakota have increased by more than 20 percent in the last year.

So thats the economic impact, Choose between corn-dependent products or driving – you can’t afford to do both.

According to Elsa Steward in her article “What’s Wrong with Ethanol?” She points out that Ethanol by itself is not cost effective.

Ethanol is not likely to give us any relief from high gasoline prices. A gallon of gasoline produces about 1.5 times more energy as a gallon of ethanol. Because of this lower energy density, ethanol production and transport requires more production and transport capacity than gasoline. Ethanol also absorbs water, which is present in existing pipelines. Ethanol cannot be transported in these pipelines because the water would dilute the ethanol. The ethanol must therefore be carried over land by train or truck, a more expensive means of moving the ethanol from one place to another. Although the price of motor fuel sometimes increases due to problems with foreign and domestic oil supplies, the price of ethanol has historically been higher than gasoline prices and may remain higher for some time to come.

The Department of Energy’s Genomic Science Program

  • Can one gallon of ethanol displace one gallon of gasoline?
    • No. Ethanol has about 70% the energy content of gasoline per unit volume, so for every gallon of gasoline consumed, 1.4 gallons of ethanol would be needed to displace it. Ethanol, however, has a higher octane rating than gasoline — about 113 for ethanol compared to 87 for regular gasoline. The higher the octane rating, the better a fuel is at preventing engine “knocking” caused by inefficient fuel combustion. In other words, the higher-octane fuel provides better performance because it is used more efficiently to generate power rather than heat. If engines were optimized to take advantage of the higher octane rating of ethanol, they could achieve fuel economy more similar to that of gasoline engines.
  • Can ethanol be used by existing fuel-distribution infrastructure?
    • Ethanol and gasoline-ethanol blends cannot be transported by existing pipelines that carry gasoline. Water present in petroleum pipelines can pull ethanol out and cause ethanol-gasoline blends to separate into two phases. Ethanol must be transported by train, barge, or truck within an independent distribution system to ensure handling separate from the ethanol-production facility to distribution terminals, where ethanol is blended with gasoline just before delivery to retail stations.
  • Can ethanol be used in colder northern U.S. climates?
    • Due to ethanol’s lower vapor pressure, engine ignition is more difficult in colder weather for vehicles running on fuels with high ethanol content. During winter months, gasoline is added to E85 (85% ethanol and 15% gasoline blend) to make E70 (70% ethanol and 30% gasoline), which has a vapor pressure that improves starting in cold weather. Although current practice is to “blend-down” E85, the cold-start issue is a technologically solvable engineering problem for vehicle manufacturers.

I can’t afford a bowl of cereal, probably can’t afford to get very far in my car, if I’m up north, I can’t drive in the winter and ethanol has to be trucked in which means it burns more ethanol to get ethanol. But wait theres more. If you act now on this “Clean-Burning” fuel we will include free pollution with every purchase.

Oh gee did we leave that part out? So sorry, ethanol is not “clean burning” nor is the process to make it.

From Gas2.0

The Des Moines Register reported the other day that Iowa’s ethanol plants contribute 15 Percent — 7.6 million metric tons out of a total of 52 million metric tons — of greenhouse-gas emissions found in the state’s new inventory of major manufacturers, businesses and power plants
Iowa’s Department of Natural Resources found that the largest portion of the state’s overall emissions came from fermenting grain at the plants and not from burning natural gas or coal. In addition, burning biomass such as switchgrass at various industrial plants added another 0.13 million metric tons.

Uh-oh Ethanol production produces more greenhouse gas than coal plants, not very clean is it. Imagine the effect Cap & Trade would have on this industry. Lets just say you’ll be better off with a bicycle.

But I digress, lets look at the burning of Ethanol itself.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) fought against the EPA granting Ethanol a Clean Air Act waiver for an increase from the 10% Ethanol Gasoline to increase from 15% to 50% (Note now its 10% Ethanol and 85% Ethanol) in May of 2009 due to, among other reasons, Ethanol production’s propensity to “degrade water quality, worsen emissions of some air pollutants and escalate health risks for children and other vulnerable people, according to scientific studies by the Department of Energy, Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, National Research Council, independent academic researchers and EPA scientists”

An environmental watchdog group is telling us that increasing the amount of ethanol used will increase air pollution and lead to health risks based on Government studies, and yet its that same Government trying to force it upon us.

In short, widespread use of ethanol only creates more problems than it is supposed to solve. IIt is not the holy grail of green energy, if anything its more pollutive than standard fossil fuel use.

Follow StopObama2012 and Conservative Daily News on Twitter

Obama Looking at Offshore Drilling, as a Means to an End

In a Reuters article, it was reported that the Obama administration is expected to announce by Wednesday its updated plan for oil and natural gas drilling in U.S. waters, including whether to allow exploration for the first time along the U.S. East Coast.

The administration plan could open up drilling across the nation that would ease our reliance on middle-eastern oil, or it could be another bait-and-switch tactic.  It’s hard to tell as:

The Interior Department and White House declined comment on Monday on whether Obama would speak to the issue in a speech slated for mid-morning on Wednesday at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland.

The question remains, why would Obama suddenly decide that offshore or expanded drilling makes sense?  He’s been a hard-line, anti-drill, hard-line, uber-environmentalist-friendly politician forever.  As with everything for Obama, there must be something in it for him.. and there is.

But Obama, who wants Congress to move a stalled climate change bill, has sought to reach out to Republicans by signaling he is open to allowing offshore drilling, providing coastlines are protected.

In a sudden realization that bi-partisanship is a good, Obama has decided to drop a carrot to the conservative side of the isle.  What the GOP must be wary of, is that the carrot will be pulled as soon as they bite.  The drilling moratorium was lifted by G.W. Bush, because it had been an executive order – easily reversible.  Imagine how easy it will be for Obama to change his mind right after Republicans vote for his cap and tax plan?

It may be difficult to believe that the administration could pull the rug out from anyone after getting their support, but consider that the health care reform act passed the CBO with the assumption that the Medicare pay-cut for doctors would continue.  Today there were rumors that Ms. Sebelius, Obama’s Health and Human Services Secretary is working to rescind those cuts which would cause Obamacare to add to the deficit starting this year and continuing into the foreseeable future.

Doctors slated to have their Medicare reimbursements cut 21 percent on April 1 got a reprieve from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is delaying lowered payments until after Congress reconvenes.

Obama isn’t thinking about allowing increased drilling.  He’s campaigning for cap and trade, and he needs a few conservatives to go along – a few Republicans that want to lose their jobs.

« Older Entries