A Message from Sarah Palin

Sarah writes:

"Mark my words - tomorrow is the game changer! Tune in to hear common sense solutions that bury the false accusations that conscientious members of Congress have no solutions to meet America's health care challenges. If you're like me, shaking your head wondering why all the miscommunication between Washington and the American people who have been saying, "Please hear what we're saying about our desire for health care reform," then tomorrow will be a refreshing time of clarity for all. All Americans, and especially colleagues of House Republican Leader John Boehner: please listen to tomorrow's weekly GOP national address.

Rep. Boehner will highlight a common sense alternative to Speaker Pelosi's 1,990-page government takeover of health care. I urge you to watch for it. For a preview, go to: http://HealthCare.GOP.gov You'll hear solutions. You'll hear of real choices based on America's proven free-market principles. You'll know once and for all what the GOP and Independents have been saying all along about alternatives to another big government take over.

After tomorrow, you'll know that accusations against the GOP and Independents for not providing solutions are false. Those claims are bogus. There are alternatives. Tune in to Rep. Boehner's address tomorrow to hear them. I look forward to the game changer!
Sarah Palin

With Sarah Palin becoming more involved on the important issues we are facing today, I do hope this spells out the birth of a new conservative movement within the Republican Party. It is painfully obvious that engaging in middle of the road bipartisanship with Liberal Democrats is futile and leads to policies that most Americans find absurd. "Socialism light" is still socialism and try as they may to convince us, that is not who we are as a nation. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get the message out that there are common sense alternatives to these massive healthcare bills being hand-trucked around the halls of congress. The mainstream media has become little more than the propaganda arm of the White House and if the White House says the GOP has offered no alternatives, then ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, et al, assume it must be true.

The fact is there were hundreds of GOP amendments to the legislation offered during the process and nearly everyone were shot down by the controlling party. The Democrats keep singing the same old song that Obama was elected because of healthcare reform but the truth is, his campaign promises on health care could be kept with seven minor pieces of legislation that would contain roughly ten to fifteen pages each. Obviously, the details hidden in this massive bill far exceeds anything Obama promised and actually breaks several of the specific promises made to you about what this bill would include and what this bill would not do.

This massive bill is designed wholly to force America into a government run, universal, single payer system; a system that America has said it does not want since the days of Teddy Roosevelt. I know the President has said over and over that if we like the insurance we have we can keep it. However, page 91 and 92 of the new bill spell out a transition period for people with non-employer provided coverage to be shifted into the public plan. Employer based plans can only earn "grandfather" status if they meet the criteria of an "acceptable plan" through standards set by this plan. For those of you that aren't familiar with "grandfathering", that simply means that you can keep your current employer based plan provided it is first acceptable to the government and secondly, provided that nothing in that plan changes. Well we all know that employer based plans are renegotiated annually so the most you can hope for is a year before your plan is no longer "an existing plan" under the terms of this bill.

The President promised that your taxes would not be raised "One Dime" under this plan. Understand that this President more that any of his predecessors is a master of semantics. He is correct that this plan will not raise your taxes one dime. The fact that your taxes will rise many thousands of dimes maybe be a deception but in his eyes, is not a broken promise. Private analysis has determined that premiums for private insurance will triple under this plan, taxes placed on medical device manufacturers will drive the cost of care even higher and payroll taxes on your employer may not be a direct tax on you, but those taxes will directly affect you. Those same private studies estimate that five million jobs will be lost as a direct result of the passage of this bill as employers make cuts to try and remain profitable under the weight of the new mandated taxes.

What many do not realize is that the public plan will have a means tested premium structure. Those that earn more, pay more and in fact, will subsidize those that earn less. By the definition in ever dictionary I looked in, that is a tax and that tax begins at 140% of the Federal poverty level which is itself a scale starting at $10,400 for a single person and ending at $35,600 for a family of eight. It looks like an awful lot of people under $250,000 will be paying these premiums that are in essence, a tax. Congress wants to make sure the President can keep his promise of not raising taxes so the bill has an innovative way to accomplish that. All they had to do was include language that said that taxes collected under this plan will not be called a tax. See that was easy! We'll just call those taxes something else and the President has kept his promise.

The President also promised he would not sign a bill that was not budget neutral. In other words, all of the tax increases and spending cuts would have to be equal to the overall cost of the bill. Well, Congress has neat trick for that too. This bill collects revenues and imposes cuts five years before the first expenditures are made. The idea that it represents a ten billion dollar savings in the first ten years would tell anyone that the next ten years should be five-hundred billion dollars in the red and that is if the cuts actually take place; something the Congress has never, ever done in all of the previous bills where cuts were promised.

If the bill passes, insurance and healthcare costs will rise; there will be massive tax increases, private insurance will be forced out of business; not everyone is covered and it will add trillions to the column of unfunded government entitlement program liabilities that is already over one-hundred trillion dollars. So why are we doing this? Because it is not about lower costs for you. It is not about the uninsured. It is not about healthcare at all. It is because Federal entitlement programs are bankrupt and without massive new revenue sources they will cease to exisit. Those revenues are only possible if everyone is in those programs at one level or another. Those revenues are only possible if we are foolish enough to let our freedoms dwindle away one government program after another.

Paul

Was Reagan the Real President of Hope?

There are so many assaults on one’s senses today, where can you reasonably begin without feeling that you’ve left something out? For a President that promised hope, I don’t think I have ever seen an atmosphere as thick with hopelessness as I see in America today. Even during the darkest days of the Carter administration when American hostages were being held in Iran and the economy was in turmoil, people still believed there was something that could be done with the right leader at the helm.

Maybe that is where Reagan really made his mark. People not only believed in his abilities, but because of his inspiration we could believe in our own abilities as a nation again. The hostages held in Iran for nearly four-hundred and fifty days were released as Reagan took the oath of office which we took as a clear indication that the world knew this President was not going to allow America to be disgraced by petty dictators and radical theocracies. The economy rebounded as Reagan released the restraints of regulation and the shackles of punitive taxation; the military took on the shine and precision of well oiled and meticulously cared for machine and our cities began to shed the decay after decades of neglect.

Critics would later criticize Reagan for quadrupling the National Debt but the numbers speak for themselves. Under Reagan’s policies, revenues to the Treasury had tripled. Not because of tax increases but because of the economic expansion brought on by tax relief that rewarded entrepreneurs for the risks they took reinvesting in America. The debt did quadruple but only because of congressional fiscal mismanagement which according to OMB records, spent $1.34 for every new dollar in revenue the treasury collected. Reagan continually asked for the line-item veto to enable him to eliminate the pork that bloated every spending bill but that was something Congress would not grant to Reagan. In the end, if Reagan wanted the appropriations he felt were critical to the nation’s well being, then he had to sign the bills and accept the additional spending Congress had irresponsibly sewn into them.

The line item veto was eventually granted to President Clinton in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which he signed into law and put to the test at least eighty-one times throughout eleven pieces of legislation. We will never know the full value of the line item veto as it was struck down by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in February of 1998. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in June of that year. Similar legislation was requested by President George W. Bush in 2006 but failed to pass a vote in the Senate. A recent move to reinstate the line item veto was begun by Republican Senator John McCain and Democrat Senator Russ Feingold in 2009, but it is unclear if this will gain the support it needs to proceed as well. So much for the conscience of Congress.

After Reagan’s second term, the National Debt had climbed to $3.2 trillion dollars which represented 55% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). However, inflation had dropped from 13.9% under Jimmy Carter, to 4.67% when Regan left office in 1989. When 1990 began, we had a six-hundred ship navy, an air force that guaranteed superiority in any theater it would be tested and the best equipped and trained military that the world had ever seen. The economy was vibrant with every indicator showing steady gains. The Soviet Union was straining under the weight of trying to compete with capitalism in an open arms competition and would fail only a year later. From every gauge I use to measure success, it appears that America got an awful lot in return for its three trillion dollar investment.

I truly believe that Ronald Reagan will go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents this country had ever had the good fortune to elect. That is, unless the same revisionists that have slandered Thomas Jefferson and Christopher Columbus have the opportunity to re-write his accomplishments as well. Beyond the economic and military legacy he left, I still insist that his greatest gift to this nation was the faith he instilled in us. He spoke from the heart and I can’t remember a time that I had cause to question his words. He was truly, the “Great Communicator”. Is there anyone under the age of forty that doesn’t recall the challenge he shouted out in Berlin? “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” echoed through the hearts and minds of the world. Is there anyone that doubted his sincerity as he eulogized the crew of the ill-fated Challenger spacecraft? For all his critics, was there anyone that has ever doubted his loyalty and love for the United States?

What has changed? I remember when I was a boy, we went to the World’s Fair and the biggest attraction was the “World of Tomorrow”. We clamored for a glimpse into an amazing future and the wonders that technology and innovation promised us. We saw the Space Program grow from a single man perched precariously atop what was in fact, a ballistic missile, to the towering Saturn V rocket that brought America to the moon and back. Movies like “2001 a Space Odyssey” took us to explore the outer planets and Carl Sagan’s documentary “Cosmos” introduced us to the wonders of the Universe. Technological advances had taken the cords off our phones and put the power of computers on our desk tops. To all appearances, the promises of the future were coming true. But what did we give our children?

It began with the television shows of the late 1980’s. As if Hollywood were revolting against Reagan for ruining their vision of utopia as capitalism rebounded and communism fell, the youth were targeted with one show after another. Father didn’t know best anymore, now parents were portrayed as witless idiots while their children kept the family on track. Actually, that began back in the ‘70s but those shows were directed at adults in an attempt to show them the evil of their bigoted and selfish ways. This was different. These were shows for kids, about kids. Then the disaster movies came; the post apocalyptic adventures of Mad Max and Robo-Cop. One film after another that told our young adults that their future would be a barren wasteland in which survival itself, was their only job. Now we have the “environment-gone-wild” movies where the adults have finally destroyed the planet and now mother earth was revolting against us.

No wonder our kids are disillusioned. No wonder they have no interest in school or responsibility. After all, why bother? The earth is doomed and according to the latest big screen calamity, we won’t make it past 2012 anyway. Now they are completing the picture by telling school children that the earth is in peril because of global warming. Oops! I meant Climate Change. Ever since the data has been showing a cooling trend they changed the name or people might actually question the science behind the claims. Why would anyone want to do this to our children?

The only reason I can think of is to complete the work of demoralization that began decades ago. Those misguided students of socialist doctrine that have now become the teachers, still believe that utopia lies just beyond the greed of capitalism. If the youth can be shaped early enough then it isn’t just a thought, it is a core belief; nearly a religion. The climate crisis is being presented to them in such a way that we don’t have the luxury of thinking about what to do. We must follow the only clear path and that is the complete reversal of our industrial society or we face certain doom. I intend to take that apart tomorrow piece by piece but first there is a more pressing need.

Despite everything we are being told, there is hope. Sane and reasonable actions can bring America out of financial crisis but it will take hard work, a lot more Reagan Republicans and solid capitalistic principals. We can ill afford more progressives in our government regardless of whether their names are suffixed with a “D”, an “R” or an “I”. Those principals have already given us a national debt that is about to top twelve-trillion dollars, which is 98% of the GDP. For perspective, the next largest debtor nation is China and their debt is at 23.5% of their GDP. Our greatest challenge is that the progressives in Congress coupled with the Marxists in the White House have placed America up for sale. It is critical that nothing passes this legislative session until the system of checks and balances are safely restored.

Most important is the time you invest with your children. Restore their sense of wonder for the future and encourage a courageous desire to explore the unknown. Give them the knowledge and hope that their future is not written for them but by them. Empower them with free thought and for God’s sake, break down the rote memorization of social doctrine that the left has been brainwashing them with. Be understanding; they have been using our children’s worst fears to obtain their devotion. You must be their “Reagan”. You must give them the hope and faith that Reagan gave you and your words must have the same weight of truth because above all else, that is really what made Reagan the great communicator.

Paul

Is Atlas Finally "Shrugging"?

When Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” was published in 1957, it was considered a work of science fiction. The theme of “Atlas Shrugged”, as Rand described it, is "the role of man's mind in existence." The book explores a number of themes that Rand would subsequently develop into the philosophy of Objectivism. She was sharply criticized for her ideas and her philosophy of “Objectivism” was denigrated as selfish and regressive in the light of the needs of the general public.

Despite these charges, “Atlas Shrugged” achieved enduring popularity and has maintained consistent sales in the following decades. In the wake of the late 2000s recession, sales of Atlas Shrugged have sharply increased, according to The Economist magazine and The New York Times. The Economist reported that the fifty-two-year-old novel ranked #33 among Amazon.com's top-selling books on January 13, 2009.

What is the new-found interest in this book? “Atlas Shrugged”, originally called “The Strike” by its working title, portrays an America much like we see today. Overbearing government regulations, distributive policies and a generally accepted point of view held by public officials that radical progressive action must be taken for the good of all and anyone that opposed those policies are disgraced and openly chastised.

In the book, one by one, leaders of industry were disappearing, leaving their businesses deserted and their workers displaced. The book does take an odd turn when those business owners reappear as Objectivist pirates seeking to topple the existing system to establish a new government that promotes the virtues self-reliance for the good of their progeny.

No one really believes that pirates will begin raiding the United States in retaliation for government intervention and oppressive taxation but Atlas is apparently beginning to shrug. New York and California are starting to see a trend of wealthy citizens fleeing the latest round of taxes that have been unfairly levied on them. The computer age no longer necessitates that these people congregate in major centers of commerce since the internet itself, has become the lifeline. The point is, there is no longer any status associated with a Park Avenue address, particularly if that address comes with a personal income tax rate of nearly 60%, as would be the case if Healthcare Reform is actually passed. Is it really that bad? Well, the latest figures show that out of eight and a half million people in New York City, a little over forty-three thousand pay more than forty percent of the City's tax revenues. That is obscene by anyone's standards.

The tax exodus not a new trend. In 2006, the rate at which college graduates were escaping New York had risen 127% and the same problems plague California. The real problem for these two bastions of liberal politics and “social responsibility” is that the vacuum created by those that are leaving is being filled by people that do not possess the same earning power so state and city tax revenues have been steadily falling as well. Heaven forbid these states would re-evaluate their commitment to redistributive policy. No, they would prefer to find new revenue sources to fill the void.

The next tax on the horizon is the so-called “millionaires tax” to fund part of the healthcare reform bill. The truth is the millionaires tax kicks in at income levels well below a million dollars and when combined with the existing tax burden experienced by New York residents, the top marginal rate would effectively be 57%. Since the exodus has begun, New York Governor David Patterson has been insistent that New York must adopt a tax system that is at least competitive with neighboring states and in fact, should consider tax incentives that encourage businesses to relocate to New York, not flee in fear. These ideas have not met with much favor among the more liberal members of the elected elite in New York.

Anyone looking at the unemployment figures knows that the stimulus plan hasn’t produced the economic results the government had hoped for. The first mistake was the stimulus money was doled out to recipients that understand job creation as poorly as the Federal government does; the Cities and States. It was spent in the worst possible ways with New York again, leading the pack. When comparing the number of jobs that were claimed to have been created directly through stimulus expenditures against the amount of money that was spent, the national average was seventy-three thousand dollars per job with New York reportedly spending nine million per job. As with any short term infusion of capital, the results are bound to be short term as well so we can imagine that those extraordinarily expensive jobs will disappear when the money does. My home town of Phoenix used their stimulus money to install more red light and speed cameras. It didn’t create any more jobs but it does give them some extra muscle to fleece the public of a few more dollars in revenues from traffic violations.

So why has the stimulus plan failed to deliver? Once again, Atlas is shrugging. Business owners are looking at the antics in Washington to pass healthcare and the climate bill. Back door meetings with threats of more taxes, penalties and mandates do not encourage small business to expand, let alone re-hire those that were laid off in last year’s economic downturn. Additionally, if the mandate for private business participation under the current healthcare proposal is fifty employees, how many companies with forty-nine employees will resist expansion and stay right where they are? Worse, how many companies with fifty-two employees will downsize to escape the mandates?

The stock market hasn’t rallied yet either. Not only have the threats of increased capital gains taxes dissuaded participation, with the Federal Reserve running the printing presses on overtime, not even Treasury Bills look safe anymore. We also have a new ominous specter; the threat of direct government interference in business. 60% of General Motors is now owned by the Federal government, which should make any advocate of capitalism nervous. There have been executive salary caps placed on banks that received Tarp money and while the legality of that was still under debate, the government announced its plan to cap the executive salaries of all financial institutions since they fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Federal government. Following that logic, who is safe? After all, don’t all corporations fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Federal government at one level or another?

So what happens if Atlas truly does shrug? What would happen if owning a business became a liability as the Federal government placed more of the burden of America’s social programs on their shoulders in the form of new mandates? What happens if the wealthy decide that leaving New York or California doesn’t offer enough protection against confiscatory taxes? Will they leave the country? The “top one percent” that the Obama regime keeps targeting certainly has the means to do that. In fact, many have the resources to pull out of the game entirely and live quite comfortably for the rest of their lives on what they have already accumulated. What would happen to the great plans of progressive politics if the top one percent stopped earning a taxable income and just started living? What would happen if the “top one percent” suddenly became people with incomes of one-hundred thousand dollars, eighty-thousand dollars or maybe fifty-thousand dollars when the real wealth in America decides they are not playing anymore?

Some would argue that Europe has had social programs and progressive taxes for years and business still thrives there. True, but business in Europe does not have an adversarial relationship with their governments and does not promote class warfare against them for political gain. European trade agreements favor those at home as does their patent process. Also true is that much of the European infrastructure is fairly new when compared to America. Don’t forget that much of Europe was destroyed and rebuilt after World War II. We don’t have that luxury and our older industrial centers find it continually harder to compete with our modernized competitors. Europe also never embarked on the self destructive path of paying its people to stay home.

We have created a new class of subsidized dependents. These are people that have been subjugated by an unfair social services system that demands that you either collect all from the government or get nothing. Fear of losing housing, healthcare and a meager cash allowance keeps them neatly enrolled in the system and insures that they will continue to vote for the people that promise the money will keep coming. As unemployment increases and the wealthy “shrug”, who will keep these programs in place? We cannot print any more money or the world financial institutions will lock America out of the global economy. What will we do if Atlas does shrug?

Paul

Tea Parties and Politics

The otherwise silent majority are suddenly finding their voice. Tea Party protests, town hall meetings, letters and phone calls to Congress. This is all new territory and the left has no idea what to do about it other than resort to the strategy they have traditionally used with their opponents on Capitol Hill and talk radio. They’ve made the mistake of denigrating individual citizens that were speaking out for their rights which only serves to infuriate them even more. More subtle Presidents would have pretended to listen and offer gentle platitudes to calm the unsettled nerves of a fearful electorate but this President is far too elitist for that. Only Obama, his radical advisors and his left wing, progressive friends in the democratically controlled Congress know what is best for you and they intend to drag you along, by your hair if need be.

Democrats have no frame of reference for this because Republican and conservative voters were never protestors before. That is a tactic and trait of the left and there was never a need to quiet their dissent; in fact, it was encouraged because it was always directed at “the enemy”; i.e. the Republican Party. Independents, for the most part, were exempt from direct assaults by the Democrats because independents usually draw votes away from Republican and Conservative candidates, broadening the lead of Democrats in a three-way race. But this time is different; the attacks are citizens fighting against big government, socialist policies and the Democrats that proposed them. So in a Pavlovian response, the “party of the people” turned on the people as though they were an adversarial political party.

Tea Party protestors and those that passionately voiced their concerns at the town hall meetings were called “Astroturf” and “tea-baggers” by the Congressional leadership. The White House Senior Advisor and long time Democratic strategist, David Axelrod, refused to address protestor’s concerns in recent interviews saying only that “they are wrong”. Nancy Pelosi equated otherwise peaceful Tea Party protests with the violent acts of the radical left; her radical left; that occurred during the anti-war movement of the late ‘60’s and early ‘70’s, saying they made her fearful. They struggled to make their case through their allies in the media that this was only manufactured anger bought and paid for by big business and the Republican Party, then organized counter-protests bought and paid for by unions and the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately for the strategists, the people they were trying to sway through the media were the same people they were attacking. The “Tea-Partiers” and “9-12ers” watched in disbelief. They know who they are. They know that these are the “grass-roots” and not some phony effort organized by business, pharmaceuticals or a political party. They know they aren’t violent; in fact, the only violence they encountered had been launched against them by the supporters of healthcare reform organized by the Democrats using Move On, SEIU and Organizing for America as their foot soldiers.

This culminated in a surge in Tea Party membership. By September 12th, these groups had gained so much momentum that nearly a million people converged on Washington D.C. in a massive demonstration against healthcare reform, cap and trade, the unchecked growth of the Federal Government and the continued bloating of regulatory bureaucracies.
The main stream media continued to misrepresent the protestors and the protests. They understated the attendance and created stories of violence and bigotry where none existed. The September 12th protest in Washington was reported to have had anywhere from thirty-thousand to sixty-thousand in attendance. It is widely known today that this figure was under-reported sixteen fold, as nearly one million people marched on the Capitol. For the one million that attended, there were no altercations, no arrests and for the first time since organized marches began on the Capitol, there was no garbage to clean up when they left. Not even the environmental movement can claim that!

The protests will continue as long as it is apparent that our elected officials are ignoring the message. In fact, as the public becomes more irate over being ignored and misrepresented, the latest round of protests were directed at the media headquarters and local offices of ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and their print equivalents. People are finally seeing the bias of these so-called “news” organizations through the overt whitewashing and lack of accurate coverage given to the nefarious actions of Congress and of the President. Shouts of “Can you hear us now” and “We’re the angry mob; have a nice day” echoed through the streets in front of, and around CNN headquarters in Atlanta Georgia. Similar protests took place in every major city and at every network and newspaper accused of playing “lapdog” for the Obama administration.

With all of this going on, one would think the message would have gotten through loud and clear by now. For some, it is. There are Democrats running for re-election in states that overwhelmingly voted for McCain that are seriously reconsidering support for any legislation that is this divisive. After all, the town hall meetings showed a massive lack of support for these initiatives and those that came to speak against healthcare reform outnumbered the supporters ten to one. Congressional approval is at its lowest point in decades with only a twenty-five percent favorable rating. Both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’s approval have also halved since Obama began his grand push for a socialized America this past January.

Well, the White House and Congressional leadership are still trying to insulate Democratic Representatives and Senators from the voice of the people. Reid and Pelosi are pushing hard to get the healthcare bill through Congress before the Thanksgiving break in order to avoid another round of damaging town hall meetings and local protests. The mass media has “stacked the deck” in recent polls to show favoritism for the healthcare bill, that is until it was disclosed that the poll data contained thirteen percent more Democrats than Republicans, slanting the results in favor of reform. Curiously, the poll didn’t show a spread of thirteen percent in favor, indicating that even Democratic voters are finding this bill a “hard pill to swallow”. Since Fox continues to be the only network that is willing to provide unfiltered coverage of the news, they have been singled out for attack by the White House in a strategy that is proving to be less than effective.

Fox News has been continually gaining viewers and network ratings show that their most controversial shows now possess as many viewers as all of the opposing network news shows combined. Even competing news outlets have become extremely uneasy about the White Houses attempts to silence Fox. On Thursday, October 22nd, White House launched its most blatant attack when “Pay Czar” Feinstein called a press conference of all the news networks except Fox. To their credit, the White House Press Corp replied with a refusal to attend if the ban on Fox was not lifted. Perhaps they are finally seeing that this President intends to shape news, not make news. After all, if I were part of the man stream media I would be incensed at Anita Dunn’s revelation this week, that the press was intentionally manipulated all through the campaign, being spoon-fed glorious and glowing stories about Candidate Obama while direct access and interviews were severely limited. To add insult to injury, newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor also revealed that her appearances were carefully crafted right down to administration personnel choosing what clothes she would wear.

The American people continue to be shocked by the relentless, almost daily stream of new and more ridiculous actions in Washington. The difference is that now, Washington and the press are finally getting their own dose of daily assaults through the efforts of the grass-roots opposition. I know how hard it is to keep this pressure up. It’s tiring and we don’t have a staff of people to do this for us. We have jobs and families that rely on us but remember, there is nothing more important for their well being than the future of a free and prosperous United States.

Now that the efforts are beginning to show dividends, it is time to redouble our efforts. Attend your Tea Party meetings, join the rallies, call and write your congressmen; most importantly, remain awake, aware and vigilant. There are efforts under way to sneak these bills through in the dead of night as attachments to existing legislation and we must never allow that to happen. You know, instead of making fun of us Congress should be happy it was only a Tea Party in Boston and not an “Anvil” Party! If it were, Nancy would really have something to cry about.

Paul

A National Emergency?

On Saturday, October 24, 2009 the President announced that the spread of the H1N1 virus required that he declare a National Emergency. The stated goal of this declaration is to relieve certain procedural roadblocks in an effort to allow hospitals and medical facilities the ability to improve their effectiveness in dealing with this crisis. Since there is no actual documentation yet that spells out the scope or limitations of this “state of emergency”, it leaves those of us that are already skeptics of the administration wondering, what those limits are?

While influenza is no laughing matter, H1N1 just doesn’t appear to be as virulent as other strains. Infections have been reported nationwide and the CDC (Center for Disease Control) is claiming that forty-seven states now show a wide-spread increase of infection. But is this is enough to declare a “National Emergency”?

There death toll associated with H1N1 (use of the name “Swine Flu” has been discouraged by the pork industry) has recently passed the one-thousand mark in the United States, so the President has taken a stance that this requires immediate attention. Well, U.S. Pneumonia deaths average nearly sixty-two thousand per year from all types. Auto accidents kill another forty-three thousand citizens annually and even deaths by falling, are roughly twenty-thousand a year. I am not claiming that we are not doing all that can be done to prevent these deaths, I’m sure we are. But I just don’t see the compelling data to support the claims of a national emergency with regards to H1N1.

There are other, clearly more preventable deaths that the President just doesn’t seem all that concerned about such as the nearly twenty-eight thousand deaths attributed to accidental poisoning in the United States every year. When I was younger, I remember there were many, many public service ad campaigns to educate people about this hazard and on how to secure household chemicals, particularly when children reside in the home. I don’t see those ads anymore even though the number of deaths attributed to this are still of a sufficient number to warrant a continued alert.

In addition, U.S. and U.K. deaths in the Afghan war are now at one thousand, four hundred and sixty seven. Obama’s hand-picked theater commander has warned that more are likely to be suffered without sufficient troop levels to affect a substantial change in the balance of power against the Taliban forces. For reasons unknown, the President is taking a “wait and see” attitude despite his campaign promise to support the effort in Afghanistan and to give American forces the materials and support they need to get the job done.

One of the prime examples of “Obama-care” is in Massachusetts where that state has a medical insurance program nearly identical to the Baucus bill, complete with insurance mandates and fines for not having insurance. So far, medical costs have not dropped as promised but instead, have soared forty-seven percent forcing Massachusetts to consider plans to cut what they call “non-essential” services and in addition, raise taxes even higher. Non-essential services will most likely be defined as those services not directly tied to healing the sick; in essence, the “well-care” services that are claimed to be the back bone of future saving in the President’s campaign for his reform plans. If you remember, the “well-care” services were going to reap huge savings in the future and would pay for a good portion of this massive plan through preventing illnesses that would then, not need to be treated. This certainly has not been proven out in the Massachusetts model.

Additionally, based on the CDC estimates of infections, patients in the commonwealth of Massachusetts are suffering more than 45,000 hospital-acquired infections and nearly 2,000 deaths each year. This is a disgrace and if it were reported as vigorously as the H1N1 “crisis” it would certainly result in a certificate of death for the President’s healthcare reform “scheme”.

It is clear there are far more critical dangers than the H1N1 virus but none of them are receiving the attention that the swine flu has. Could it be because none of them could ever be declared an emergency? Is it the emergency itself that the President is interested in? After all, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is quoted as saying that they should “never let a good crisis go to waste”. That is an idiotic statement no matter who utters it but when it comes from a White House official, it is not only significant, it is downright dangerous. It implies that these people apparently have no limit when it comes to what they would use to manipulate the American people.

So what use could a contrived emergency be to this administration? The easy answer is that this is a quick and simple way to show strength and decisive action from a President that has been labeled as weak and feckless. A national emergency is a bold move for any President and commands almost instantaneous attention as the press and people try to decipher the critical needs of the nation; that is until you actually look beyond the initial press release.

The vaccination program is already under fire for being woefully late in delivering a quantity of vaccine sufficient to keep pace with the demand; but this declaration does not address the rate of vaccine production and once infected, not even the lauded vaccine is of any use. As the infection rate climbs, hospitals may find it difficult to provide needed care but that is a matter of resources and not the “red tape” that the President claims this declaration is meant to mitigate.

Could there possibly be a deeper and more diabolical reason to declare a national emergency? It is well known that the administration is concerned about passage of the healthcare bill. Obama has spent an awful lot of his political capital on this and a failure to deliver on such a central part of his campaign this early in his administration would be disastrous. He is also irate that he is going to Copenhagen empty-handed. Try as he may, public support for the U.S. entering into an international climate accord that sacrifices our sovereignty, damages our economy and further degrades our industrial viability has been in sharp decline; support that he would need to guarantee ratification of any treaty he signs. Fortunately, the founding fathers in their infinite wisdom made it a constitutional provision that treaties can only be entered into after ratification by two-thirds of the Senate. There are no provisional “loopholes” to allow passage through reconciliation as they are threatening to do with healthcare. Without clear and overwhelming support from the American people, this treaty cannot pass.

So what in God’s name does the declaration of a national emergency have to do with this? As I stated earlier, the defined limits of the government’s power in conjunction with this declaration have not been made public yet. We know that Reid and Pelosi are trying to force the healthcare bill through before the Thanksgiving break to avoid having Congress face another round of town hall meetings and local protests before a vote can be taken. Since the Congress will not come to the people, the people have been coming to the Congress, staging Tea Parties and rallies in D.C. and across the country. What if, as a provision of this “National Health Emergency”, it is deemed “beneficial” to deny permits for mass assemblies so that the transmission of H1N1 can be mitigated? What then would happen to the healthcare vote if the protests were suddenly silenced; if the only measure of support that Congress still saw was data from slanted polls published by ABC or CNN?

I know that this is strictly a “what if” situation but can you honestly think of an administration more deserving of the reputation that makes this a question worth asking? Their recent efforts to silence Fox, the only news service that dares to question this President and his advisors, has backfired badly and Fox now has more viewers than ever before. Since they thought it was a good idea to try to silence Fox News, is it beyond the scope of possibility that since this plan failed, they would now seek to silence you? It's just another one of those things that make you go Hmmmmm?

Paul

Promises, Promises

During the campaign, Barack Obama fended off attacks by his opponents and made a number of promises that apparently appealed to a majority of voters. He said that we could judge him by those he would chose as his advisors and rattled off a litany of names to cover each policy area critical to the Presidency. Now that the election is over and the Obama administration in its tenth month, it is needless to say, the people he mentioned have not been tapped for their expertise. Instead, the President’s closest advisors are a veritable legion of people with worrisome ideologies, troubling pasts and curious connections to members of the radical left. Actually, the President has more connections to the radical left than the Czars do.

The President promised bipartisanship and that a government under his leadership would finally work together for the good of the nation. Well, the Republicans have been prevented from offering amendments to the healthcare bill, the stimulus bill and the climate bill. They have even been kept out of one of the meeting rooms when the Democratic chairman of that committee recently had the locks changed. Committee Chairman Towns (D-NY) ordered the locks changes when Republicans filmed every Democrat of the House Oversight committee racing out of the back door of the committee room to avoid a vote to subpoena documents relating to the Countywide Financial investigation; a scandal involving at least four Democratic government officials, including two Senators.

Democrats were rightfully incensed when Republican Joe Wilson shouted out “You Lie” during the President’s speech to congress; an action for which Wilson apologized directly to the President after being admonished by the minority leadership. The same Democrats watched glowingly as Freshman Congressman Allan Grayson made claim after claim that the Republican idea of healthcare was “Don’t get sick, and if you do, die quickly”. He equated the so-called healthcare crisis to the holocaust and called Republicans “knuckle-draggers”. There has been no apology from Mr. Grayson and there has been no admonishment from the Democratic leadership even though the basic principals of decorum had been grossly violated. Maybe this is how they talk in the Florida legislature but it has never been acceptable in the United States Congress.

Representative Issa, a Republican member of Congress, questioned the legality of the White House’s “flag@whitehouse.Gov” ; a site that was created to provide e-mail access for people to report anyone that sent negative information out about the healthcare bill. In response to Mr. Issa’s questions, the White House online director, Macon Phillips, indicated “there was little chance for cooperation with a member of a minority political party without significant power.” Somehow, none of this spells out any intent of bipartisanship to me. If the Congress just can’t help themselves, then where is the President’s outrage over the appearance that his promises will not be kept? Apparently that outrage has been reserved for Fox News and others that dare to question the motives of the President’s agenda.

Mr. Obama promised his administration would display unparalleled transparency in government. Democrats have voted down several Republican proposals that would have required the completed healthcare bill be posted on-line for the American public a minimum of 72 hours before a vote would take place. This action was taken even though the President promised Americans that we would get five days to review all major legislative pieces on-line before a vote. Despite this obvious abridgment of one of candidate Obama’s promises, President Obama remained silent. Now that the Baucus Bill is out of the finance committee it too has been taken behind closed doors to begin the process of merging it with the health committee bill. No cameras, no coverage and once again, no Republicans.

Nancy Pelosi complained that the opponents of healthcare reform were scaring people so much that now they were demanding to see the bill before congress could vote on it. What troubles me is that she doesn’t appear to understand that it is not the healthcare opponents that scare America, it is the Congress; the mad rush to pass legislation representing one sixth of the United States economy, the admission of Congressmen that they don’t have the time to read the bill, the revelation that sources and special interests outside of the government were involved in writing key portions of the bill, the inconsistencies of the statements of what is actually in the bill. All of this is what shook what little confidence we ever had in the intent of the bill.

When the CBO initially scored the healthcare bill it showed that it would add substantially to a Federal budget deficit that was already seriously out of control. However, shortly after another “closed door” meeting between President Obama and CBO chief Douglas Elmendorf, Mr. Elmendorf and the CBO apparently changed their criteria and the bill miraculously became “budget neutral”. In a stroke of fiscal genius but political subterfuge, the Senate Finance Committee constructed their bill so that the tax increases and spending cuts took place immediately after passage but the benefits didn’t take effect until year five.

The CBO scored the Baucus bill saying it represented an eighty-one billion dollar savings over ten years but let’s dissect that. The CBO saw no red flag in claiming the savings even though the revenue generating mechanisms begin immediately, while the benefit spending does not take full effect for five years. Funny thing…the CBO says that scoring bills beyond 10 years is unreliable so they just can’t give us an apples to apples view of how “budget neutral” this bill will be with ten years of revenues paying for a full ten years of benefits.

I’m sure you’ve seen those ads on TV where you can buy a house full of furniture with no payments for eighteen months. Sooner or later you have to start making the payments and if you couldn’t afford the payments when you signed the order, chances are you still won’t be able to afford the payments eighteen months later. If the Congress is resorting to shifting the curve to hide the full effects of this bill, then chances are we can’t afford this either. This isn’t the first piece of legislation that was scored based on promised cuts in spending to pay for at least a portion of the cost. Historically, Congress has never been able to actually make those promised spending cuts so the CBO scoring proved meaningless.

This may be at least part of the reason the CBO has underscored every major spending bill with the exception of Medicare D, by roughly, a factor of ten. Even if valid estimates showed the bill was budget neutral, the history of CBO accuracy tells us that the nine-hundred billion dollar price tag is probably going to end up being closer to nine-trillion after ten years. The only difference is that with healthcare, there is no furniture to repossess. The collateral for this “purchase” is our viability as a nation.

The President also promised us that he would not sign a healthcare reform bill that was not budget neutral. It is apparent that he has already found a formula the CBO could use to find that neutrality and the Congress is also willing to play along with their neat little trick of presenting a bill for scoring that has ten years worth of revenue and only five years of expenditures. At the end of the day, I would have to call this one an empty promise as well.

Our military forces in Afghanistan are in jeopardy and the President still hasn’t committed to providing the reinforcements that General McChrystal (the General Mr. Obama placed in command of the theater) requested over a month ago. After it became public that Obama had only spoken with General McChrystal once since he was deployed in Afghanistan, the President graciously gave McChrystal twenty-nine minutes of his precious time while he was in Copenhagen lobbying to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago. Curiously, in one more “closed door” meeting this week, the President found he could spare an hour and a half to spend with CNN, MSNBC and other networks that have the White House seal of approval. Maybe he’s planning to send them to Afghanistan to bolster General McChrystal’s force? I’m sure there are enough of them.

So far, I can’t think of one promise that Mr. Obama made that he has even pretended to keep. Oh well, other Presidents have broken campaign promises too but Mr. Obama isn’t “other” Presidents. In fact, he made it very clear that he was different. He was the man of change; the One. Well, the only change I have seen is a blatant disregard for the Constitution, the rule of law and in the outward hostility he displays towards anyone or anything that disagrees with him.

Paul

They Really Aren't Listening, Are They?

I love it when people prove my point for me. It is no secret that my underlying belief is that the Federal government has become a hive of elitists, in fact, an American aristocracy that when faced with the anger of their constituents, invariably lash out with the modern equivalent of “Let them eat cake”. Of course you know that that phrase was reportedly blurted out by Marie Antoinette when she was told that the people had no bread. It didn’t work out very well for Marie and she would eventually be beheaded by guillotine during the French Revolution for her uncompassionate dismissal of her starving subjects.

Americans are now facing the same uncompassionate dismissal by their elected officials. The anger that bubbled up to the surface during the healthcare town halls was dismissed as “Astroturf”, not grass roots. The people that were demanding answers from their representatives were called an “angry mob” and “manufactured”, marching to the orders of corporate America and the Republican Party. I’ve been to Tea Parties and I can tell you I joined of my own free will and they are organized locally. We network with other Tea Party and patriotic groups and decide when and where to protest ourselves. I have not seen a single word given to us by big business, pharmaceuticals, healthcare insurers or the Republican Party. It has all been spontaneous and it has all been very “grass roots”.

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, provides funds for MoveOn.org and Organizing for America and these are the groups that are protesting in favor of Obamacare. There were even ads taken out on Craigslist over the summer by Calpirg, a pro-Obama, pro-socialism group in California that promised pay for protestors! “Need a summer job? Protest for healthcare reform.” Somehow Ms. Pelosi thinks those protests are legitimate but the Tea Parties aren’t. In fact, the people shouting at the Tea Parties made her weep as she had flashbacks to the protests of ‘70’s and that “frightened” her. What she forgot to mention is that the angry and violent protests of the 70’s were conducted by people that share her ideology. Tea Party protestors don’t blow things up; left wing, anti-American radicals do.

Through all of this, one thing keeps resonating in every Congressional interview, in every Presidential speech. Despite all of the meetings, protests, letters and phone calls to Congress…they still don’t get it. We are not being heard and it is appears that those that have heard us are choosing to ignore us. I recently sent an e-mail to the White House about healthcare reform and I probably wouldn’t be upset if I had never received a reply. After all, who am I? I am not a foreign dignitary nor am I a member of Congress. I am a whiney little blogger that probably has far too many opinions for my own good. But I did get a response and it only reinforced my belief that they just don’t care. I will post my e-mail to the President and then the response I received.

Mr. President,

Now that Congress has taken the position of adding to the national debt through Harry Reid's offer to doctors and since they have declined to allow the American people the right to see this legislation on-line, both of which violate your promises, do you intend to withdraw your support for this initiative as you also promised?

Let's be honest. You and I both know that this is not about lowering premium costs for American's with insurance and it is not about covering those without insurance...this is about the gross mismanagement of existing Federal programs. Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupting the Federal government and Congress has already raided the Social Security trust to keep it afloat to spite massive annual losses. The so-called "thinkers" in Washington needed a way to begin the process of driving Americans into a government run, universal care system so the funds would be there to continue this massive Ponzi scheme.

Are you people really any better than Bernie Madoff? Enough already; the reforms that the majority of America want are market reforms that reinforce the free enterprise system. We do not want government care, we do not want an expanded government and we are not willing to allow the Federal government to "tweak" the Constitution to make the unconstitutional, permissible.

As an Arizonan, I intend to vote for the referendum in the 2010 ballot that would exclude Arizona from having to participate in this scam and through my vote; I intend to hold any of my representatives accountable that do vote for this as it makes its way through Congress.

We have had enough. Taxation has placed an oppressive burden on America and we can no longer afford these massive tax and spend plans that the Democratic Party has become famous for.

Sincerely,

Paul M. Magel Sr.

The reply I received?

Dear Friend:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I have heard from countless Americans struggling to afford health insurance and health professionals striving to provide care. I appreciate your perspective.

There is broad consensus among the American people on the need for affordable, high-quality health care. The rising cost of health care is the most pressing financial challenge for families and for our Nation, and controlling this cost is essential to bringing down the Federal deficits we inherited. We must end unfair insurance practices that leave millions of Americans without coverage, denying them access to care, and exposing them to extraordinary burdens. And we should ensure that all small business employees have access to affordable, high-quality health plans so that we can make our economy--and our small businesses- -more competitive. Now is the time to move forward, and I am working to get health insurance reform done this year.

Since I took office, we have done more to improve health care than we have in the previous decade. In February, I signed H.R. 2 to provide coverage for millions of children through the Children's Health Insurance Program, and I signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to make key investments in computerized medical records and preventive services.

Still, more must be done to lower costs, expand coverage, and improve the quality of health care. My 2010 Budget makes a major down payment on health insurance reform by implementing efficiencies in government health care spending while improving the quality of care. To help fulfill the debt we owe to our service men and women, it includes the largest proposed single-year increase in veterans funding in 30 years. It expands health care coverage to an additional 500,000 veterans by 2013, implements technology that eases the transition from military care to veterans'
care, and enhances screening and treatment services for those suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury.

Looking forward, there are tough choices to be made, and I will seek to bring employers and workers, health care providers and patients, and Democrats and Republicans together to create a system that delivers better care and puts the Nation on a sustainable, long-term fiscal path. To learn more about my agenda or to share a personal story, please join me online at:
www.healthreform.gov. For further information on health care and assistance that may be available to you, you may call 1-800- FEDINFO or visit: www.usa.gov.

I share the sense of urgency that millions of Americans have voiced. I watched as my ailing mother struggled with stacks of insurance forms in the last moments of her life. This is not who we are as a Nation; together, we will fix it.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama


To be a part of our agenda for change, join us at www.WhiteHouse.gov


The reply I received completely ignored every statement I made. There was not a single point in my message that was even touched on and the idea that the reply goes as far as providing links I can use to “join” with the President to work towards passing healthcare reform is insulting. He even had the nerve to include the story of his ailing mother struggling with “stacks” of medical insurance paperwork in the last moments of her life. My doctor’s office fills out all of my forms so maybe he should change doctors but that doesn’t answer the larger question…where was her family? You know, family, the people that love you and help you with these things or is the government supposed to provide those services too? Maybe the finished bill will have a couple of billion dollars earmarked for “hugs”. Maybe we can even find some community based organization we can fund to provide the hugs….like ACORN.

As you read those two e-mails, did you see one thread of evidence that my e-mail had even been read? In retrospect, sending that message was probably a mistake since I am sure it is being counted as just another example of an “American that is concerned about healthcare reform”.

No, they are not listening and it doesn’t appear they will. The only hope we have is to maintain the pressure. The longer the anger is vocal and public, the more they will understand that this is not going to go away as it has in the past. The one thing they want more than Universal Healthcare is another term and if we make it clear that the choice is one or the other, healthcare reform will die a quiet death and they can get back to their primary concern of raising money for their next campaign.

Paul

An Open Letter to Congress

1. Dear Honorable Representatives and Senators,
   
   We are at a crossroads in America and many wonder if the America we know and love will be passed on to our children intact. I grew up in a time when personal responsibility was a measure of character; when frugality, not credit, was how you obtained possessions and when hard work was rewarded with personal gain not punished with confiscatory taxation.
   
   When I went to school, children either mastered their lessons or were held back until they did. There was no such thing as “outcome based education” and we certainly didn’t have lesson plans based on political ideology. We did learn civics and that taught us how government was supposed to work. In school, I remember watching classics like “Davey Crocket”; films that made us proud of our heritage and told us that people with morality based values could make a positive contribution.
   
   We also watched movies like “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” that showed us how corrupt government could be without the direct involvement of the American people. I remember when Kennedy was shot and when man first set foot on the moon. I remember the blackout of 1965 and the riots of 1968. I also remember that Kennedy was the last President that all of America had faith in and that Nixon was the President that proved our faith was unfounded. I remember that Ford and Carter had brought the nation to despair and Reagan revived our national pride, if only for a brief time. I even remember a time when Congress was full of our best and brightest. Congress was the field where the next generation of national leaders was grown. They were the knowledgeable, the wise and the guardians of our liberty.
   
   Our President has set an agenda that is hazardous to the well being of this nation. The Federal government has already exceeded its lawful powers under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution and this President’s goals can only succeed if the Federal government is willing to ignore the Constitution all together. He has appeased hostile nations and has employed people whose personal beliefs are diametrically opposed to the founding principals of our country. He has found favor with socialist potentates and totalitarian leaders. His closest friends and allies were those that threatened violent harm to our nation in their youth and still threaten harm to our nation now, using the very laws that were put in place with good intentions and originally written to protect us.
   
   Where is the honesty? Where is the integrity? Where is the honor in what you do? The healthcare reform debate is laughable. Will one of you dare tell the truth? I have made the same statement over and over and over and not one of you would dare answer the charge. I will say it again. Healthcare reform is not about healthcare reform. It is not about lower premiums for Americans that have health insurance and it is not about affordable coverage for the uninsured. It is definitely not about the American people.
   
   What it is about is failed government programs. Medicare and Medicaid were in serious trouble a mere three years after their inception. Rather than admit failure, the Federal government raided the money in the Social Security trust fund in 1968 and place Social Security as a new line on the Federal budget. Now that the “baby boomers” are retiring and the IOU’s that Congress wrote for Social Security are due, we must find another solution because you will still not admit that Medicare and Medicaid do not work. To keep the memory of Johnson’s “Great Society” alive, the government is now engaged in this grand scheme of healthcare reform. Any successful Ponzi scheme needs a steady flow of money into the wide end of the funnel otherwise the illusion of rewards that trickle from the small end cease to appeal.
   
   American families don’t have six children anymore and most have two or less. America’s business and immigration policies have seen to it that entire industries have moved out while uneducated, unskilled labor has moved in. These three truths have slowed the money that goes into the funnel from a flow to a trickle while the expansion of benefits have turned the trickle at the small end into a torrent.
   
   Since healthcare reform, as it is called in the halls of Congress, is really about paying for a government program that only took three years to implode, it stands to reason that today’s “fix” is just as temporary. What you fail to see is that this “end of the funnel” is dry as well. American’s can no longer afford to lie down for even deeper taxes to fund your grand schemes.
   
   I will give Congress the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you don’t realize how hard most of your constituents are struggling. A 10% rise in healthcare insurance may affect the family diet but add 10% rise in energy and a 10% increase in taxes and the increase costs of all consumer items as business taxes are increased and people stop being able to afford their mortgages.
   
   The truth is that many Americans do not believe you understand us let alone have our interests at heart. Do you want to earn our trust? Then answer these questions.
   
   1- Will healthcare reform reduce our costs for health insurance?
   2- Will healthcare reform raise taxes (in any form) on incomes below $100,000?
   3- Will illegal immigrants be covered under the healthcare reform plan?
   4- Will American’s be able to read the completed bill on-line 5 days before a vote as the President promised?
   5- The CBO says the Healthcare plan will provide an $81 billion dollar savings over ten years but considering the tax increases and service cuts are enacted in year one of the healthcare plan and the actual benefits do not begin to take place until 2013…what are the budget projections for year 5 through year 15?
   6- Is Congress willing to prove that it can police itself by investigating those that are accused of breaking the law and expel those that are found guilty even when they are members of the majority party?
   7- Will the climate bill be used to redistribute wealth to minority communities and/or foreign nations as was the stated goals of both Van Jones and Cass Sunstein?
   8- Will Congress enforce constitutionally mandated oversight with regards to the special advisors or “Czars” in this administration?
   9- Is Congress willing to abide by the letter of the law as stated in the United States constitution?
   10- Will members of Congress agree to never vote on a bill that was not written by Congress and that they have not read in its entirety?
   
   These are not random ramblings. These are serious questions in the mind of all Americans. I have witnessed no less that a dozen “calls to action” by organizations funded by, and operatives for, the Democratic Party to help advance their agenda. How dare Congressional leaders call opposition to healthcare and climate legislation “Astroturf” or “Manufactured” when the actual call for manufactured support has come from the DNC itself.
   
   Don’t misunderstand me. My statements are for both parties. Republicans must not make the mistake of assuming the anger of the American people means an easy win for Republicans. We are angry with the blatant actions of Congress to enact legislation that does not represent the will and wishes of the public. At this point, we are more than happy to throw every last one of you out and start over. We would prefer experience but not at the expense of our freedom or our children’s futures.
   
   I believe we are standing at the knifes edge of socialism and you are all holding hands for the big leap into the abyss. Make no mistake. Except for that unfortunate sub-culture that you raised on the public dole, Americans will not sacrifice our freedoms nor will we sacrifice our rights but I promise you with all my heart, we do pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to defend our nation and our Constitution against all enemies foreign and especially, domestic.
   
   Paul Magel

Anita Dunn and the Ministry of Idiotic Remarks

As in the old movies about Ali Baba and the Arabian Nights, I feel as though we are suffering the death of ten-thousand cuts. The efforts on the part of the Obama administration to forward his socialist agenda are relentless and just watching the news these days has become nerve wracking. Since I am convinced that nothing these people do is coincidental, I am assuming that this sensory overload is part of the strategy to wear people out and dissolve our resistance to his plans.

Now we have Anita Dunn, the White House Communications Director taking Van Jones place as the “Minister of Idiotic Remarks”. Do these people not have filters or are they so convinced that America is ready for socialism that we would welcome people that openly proclaim their admiration for Mao Zedong any where near the White House? On June 5, 2009, Ms. Dunn delivered a speech to a group of high school students in which she stated "... two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa, not often coupled with each other, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point...”

So when did a mass murderer and communist revolutionary become a “political philosopher”? Mao's policies and political purges from 1949-1975 are widely believed to have caused the deaths of roughly seventy-million people. That is five million more than all the deaths attributed to World War II. Van Jones at least had the decency to tell us quite plainly, that he was a communist but when Anita Dunn was caught on film making a statement like this, her only answer so far is that she was “only kidding.” This is from the same crowd that as recently as last week, were throwing fits over a film clip taken from a docudrama of Hitler’s final days in the bunker where text was dubbed in over the film suggesting that he was in a rant over Senate Democrats dropping the “public option”. If Anita Dunn can joke about Mao Zedong then I would imagine that Hitler humor would be equally acceptable.

Any rational person knows that Hitler is not appropriate material for jokes about political discourse and neither is Mao Zedong. She claims that it was actually a quote she ironically “picked up” from the late Republican strategist, Lee Atwater. Mr. Atwater, as politicians often do, quoted many people from history including Mao Zedong, but he never said that Zedong was a “political philosopher”, favorite or otherwise. Ms. Dunn apparently has the same issues with telling the truth that her boss does.

The truth is, I don’t believe she was joking. I honestly believe that she does consider Zedong one of her favorite political philosophers. Look at the company she keeps in the White House. Van Jones. Oh I know he resigned from his position as “green jobs” Czar but since there are no updates as to his whereabouts and his bio on web sources has still not been updated, it makes me wonder if his public resignation as green jobs Czar opened another door for him somewhere in a hidden recess of the Obama “shadow” government.

Jones, a self avowed communist, advocated the use of environmental legislation to take money from Peter to pay…well, ACORN, SEIU and a hundred other Community based programs and organizations in the largest scheme to redistribute wealth since Johnson’s “Great Society”. He was unashamed as he spouted out racial venom while he described his plans to mutate climate legislation into a giant pot of cash to fund his twisted idea of long overdue social justice.

Then there is John Holdren. Oh I’m sure he admires Mao Zedong as well. After all, Holdren co-authored a book that spelled out the dangers of over population and the draconian methods he would use to reduce the population before we further endanger the planet. Nothing was out of the question including using the weight of government to force abortion and sterilization. Redefining abortion so that we could “expediently” eliminate mentally challenged children up to the age of two and withholding live saving care from elderly individuals that were no longer productive members of society. Actually, Holdren probably doesn’t admire Zedong because I doubt he would think that Mao went far enough to solve the overpopulation problem. In Mr. Holdren’s estimation, seventy-million is two or three billion short.

Let’s not forget Cass Sunstein our “regulatory” Czar. Cass is another one that thinks that American wealth should be redistributed, not to minority communities but to the entire third world. The vehicle for that redistribution? The climate bill of course. It looks like Cass and Van will have to play “rock, paper, scissors” to see who wins that argument; then again, maybe not. I’m sure the climate bill will generate enough in fines, fees and taxes to cover both schools of thought and Carol Browner will see to that.

Carol Browner is our “global warming” Czar; or at least she was since that title may change. Now that data is leaking out that Al Gore kind of stretched the truth about global warming the left is leaning towards the term “climate change” instead of global warming. You see, the highest recorded temperatures took place during the 1930’s and the temperature has been dropping since then. Then there is that nasty little “inconvenient truth” that there appears to be an increase of seasonal ice at the poles instead of a decrease. In Antarctica, while the northern shore shows receding ice, that pesky southern shore is accumulating an additional five feet of thickness in the ice cap per year.

Anyway, Carol Browner doesn’t really care about the legislative process. She has already made her intentions known. Both Carol Browner and Al Gore said that if cap and trade are not passed and if the UN climate pact is not ratified that they will take their case before the Supreme Court to force implementation of the most insidious parts of these legislative nightmares under existing EPA authority. Ms. Browner knows all about the EPA. She was the EPA Chief under both terms of Bill Clinton’s Presidency. In fact, when she left that office as George W. Bush was sworn in, Ms. Browner and other high ranking officials of the EPA deleted all of the files on the computers in violation of a court order to protect that data. The EPA was subsequently sited for contempt of court but no one has been able to answer what those files consisted of or why they felt it was so important to dispose of them. Could it possibly have been accurate climate data? The data Al Gore has been feverishly working to dismiss as rubbish?

Many Congressmen are concerned about the “Czar situation”. Senator Richard Byrd actually wrote a letter to the White House stating his concerns that the Czars have escaped the Constitutional mandate for Congressional oversight and have engaged in activities that are in fact, obscuring and withholding vital information from Congressional committees.

But many would still accuse me of being over-dramatic and alarmist. Why would I believe that Anita Dunn is suspect simply because of her remarks concerning Mao Zedong? If the few radical Czars I mentioned above (and there are more) do not sway you, then what about the friends of Obama that could never have made it into the White House no matter how much he would have loved to have them at his side? Bill Ayers, co-founder of the radical domestic terror cell, the Weather Underground. Obama launched his campaign for the Presidency from Mr. Ayers’ living room. To spite Obama’s assertions that he “barely knew” Bill Ayers, it appears now that Mr. Ayers also helped Obama write his book “Dreams from my Father”.

The other co-founder of the Weather Underground was Jeff Jones. Jeff Jones is the chair of the New York chapter of the Apollo Alliance of which our dear friend Van Jones is a member of the board. The Apollo Alliance was recently credited by Harry Reid with assisting your legislators in writing key portions of the Stimulus Bill. The same Stimulus Bill that will eventually funnel up to eight and a half billion dollars to community based organizations such as ACORN and the Apollo Alliance. The same Stimulus Bill that John Conyers, actually most of Congress, didn’t have the time to read before they voted on it.

The associations with this President read like a “who’s who” of radical Marxism and now we are supposed to believe that Anita Dunn was only joking about her admiration for Mao Zedong? That is the real joke; and a really, really bad joke at that.

Paul

The Green Movement: Eco-Terrorism or Socialist Plot?

Out of all the nooks and crannies that socialists have infiltrated in our society, the environmental movement has proven the most productive. It has everything they need. Armies of passionate followers that can be easily swayed by tainted studies laced with falsified data as well as the urgency of crisis they need to force entire nations headlong into self-destructive legislation and international pacts under the guise of saving the planet Neither of which are acts that are designed to save the planet. It wasn’t always that way. Many environmental groups began life to protect endangered species, prevent deforestation and to insure our air and water were free of dangerous chemicals and poisons. It was only in the last 30 years that the “green” movement added political activism into their repertoire.

The groups that were formed around the environmental movement are now funded in large part by the same people and organizations that fund socialist efforts as well as the extreme left of the Democrat party and other progressive movements. One of the more notable “contributors’ is our old friend, George Soros. It seems that wherever there is a movement to defeat Capitalism in general and American Capitalism in particular, you always seem to find George and his check book. Another familiar donor to anti-American / anti-Capitalist environmental organizations is the Tides Foundation.

Established in 1976 by California-based activist Drummond Pike, the Tides Foundation was set up as a public charity that receives money from donors and then funnels it to the recipients of their choice. Because many of these recipient groups are quite radical, the donors often prefer not to have their names publicly linked with the recipients. By letting the Tides Foundation, in effect, "launder" the money for them and pass it along to the intended beneficiaries, donors can avoid leaving a "paper trail." Such contributions are called "donor-advised," or donor-directed, funds.

In 1996 the Tides Foundation created, with a $9 million seed grant, a separate but closely related entity called the Tides Center, also headed by Drummond Pike. The Tides Center functions as a legal firewall insulating the Tides Foundation from potential lawsuits filed by people whose livelihoods or well-being may be harmed by Foundation-funded projects. (Such as farmers or loggers who are put out of business by Tides-backed environmentalist groups.) In theory the Foundation's activities are restricted to fundraising and grant-making, while the Center focuses on managing projects and organizations; in practice, however, both entities do essentially the same thing.

The Tides Center's Board Chairman is Wade Rathke. Wade is also a member of the Tides Foundation Board. If you recall, Wade Rathke was a protégé of the late George Wiley, founder of the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) and a devout follower of Cloward and Piven. Maya Wiley, daughter of George Wiley, currently sits on the Tides Center's Board of Directors. In addition to his work with the Tides center, Rathke also serves as President of the New Orleans-based Local 100 of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and is also the founder and chief organizer of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Isn’t funny how the same names keep popping up when the discussion is radical socialism?

One particularly notable donor to the Tides entities is Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Senator John Kerry. From 1994 to 2004, the Heinz Endowments, which Mrs. Kerry heads, gave the Tides Foundation and Center approximately $8.1 million in grants. Until February 2001, Mrs. Kerry also served as a trustee of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, which also gave Tides numerous six-figure grants. I case you haven’t guessed; George Soros also infuses money into the Tides Foundation. The Tides Foundation funnels money into hundreds of projects for the radical left including several dozen for the stated purpose of environmental sustainability.

Getting into the groups themselves, Greenpeace must top the list. Founded in 1970 as a loose assortment of Canadian anti-nuclear agitators, American expatriates, and underground journalists calling themselves the "Don't Make a Wave Committee", Greenpeace, is today, the most influential group of the environmental Left. Its stated mission is to "use non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and force solutions for a green and peaceful future." After a schism in the late 1970s, the various organizations originally comprising Greenpeace have today united into 41 affiliates and two main branches, Greenpeace USA and the Amsterdam-based Greenpeace International.

One of the founders of Greenpeace was Irving Stowe (1915-1974) who was also on the executive board of Canada’s New Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party are Democratic Socialists that advocate many radical ideals including the abolition of the Canadian Senate. While they have never attained power over the Canadian Federal Government, they have had sufficient success in several provinces to be able to exert considerable political pressure.

Another of Greenpeace’s founders, Patrick Moore, left Greenpeace in 1986 after what he saw was a shift to a radical political ideology. He said in a statement that “Greenpeace today is motivated by politics rather than science and that none of his "fellow directors had any formal science education". In the 2007 film “The Great Global Warming Swindle, Moore commented: "See, I don't even like to call it the environmental movement anymore, because really it is a political activist movement, and they have become hugely influential at a global level."

A prime example of socialists that discovered the environmental movement as a vehicle for their agenda is the group “Socialist Action”. Socialist Action is a nation-wide group of revolutionary socialists. In their own words: “We fight for a society organized to satisfy human needs, rather than corporate greed. We seek to revitalize the anti-war, labor, student and other social movements, and to bring activists together from different backgrounds into a revolutionary party that can successfully challenge the wealthy elite. As socialists we seek to understand the theory of Marxism, but as an activist group, we also seek to put those ideas into practice. Join us in the struggle to make a better world!”

Christine Frank of Socialist Action says: “We need to build a powerful and uncompromising environmental movement led by working people in alliance with other oppressed groups in society. In addition, we must infuse this new movement with eco-socialist principles that go beyond the maintenance of capitalism and its suicidal and genocidal policies and advance toward a zero-waste, democratically planned socialist economy that is green and sustainable and puts planetary and human needs before profits.”

Elmar Altvater is another Marxist that discovered the environmental movement could be used to further socialist policies. Mr. Altvater gained fame as one of Germany's most important Marxist philosophers, who strongly influenced the political and economic theory of the 1968 generation of radicals and is a renowned critic of "political economy" and author of numerous writings on globalization and critiques of capitalism. He suggests that there is only one “realistic alternative to oil imperialism; a shift from dependence on renewable energy sources, on the radiation energy released by the sun (and its derivatives such as photovoltaic, eolic1, water, wave and biotic energy etc.), or on volcanic and geothermal energy”. He argues that “A society based on renewable instead of fossil energy sources must develop adequate technologies and above all social forms beyond capitalism.”

The Bullitt Foundation was established in 1952 by Dorothy S. Bullitt, who also created the King Broadcasting Company in Seattle. Denis Hayes, who was the national coordinator for the first Earth Day in 1970, is currently the Foundation's President. Hayes is a strong supporter of leftist political candidates, groups, and causes.The Bullitt Foundation, whose stated mission is "to protect, restore, and maintain the natural physical environment of the Pacific Northwest for present and future generations", directs its grants almost exclusively to radical environmental organizations whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner explains, is "not clean air and clean water, rather . . . the demolition of technological/industrial civilization." This philosophy is certainly aimed at using the environmental movement to further the group’s advocacy of destroying capitalist industry in favor of the establishment of socialism in the western nations.

Take your pick. When you research environmental groups, 90% are considered political activists and obtain funding from the same “progressive” sources. All have left-wing policies and many believe that only socialism will give society the tools it needs to stave off environmental disaster. The fact is that the United States has meaningful tools in place to prevent the irresponsible release in pollutants coupled with crippling fines and criminal prosecution for violators. In a socialist society, these safeguards would disappear as productivity drops, industries are lost and revenues to fund enforcement and remediation dwindle.

You must remember that wherever environmentalists have won the day, economic disaster followed closely. The logging industry in the Pacific Northwest was decimated in the 1990’s by the environmental campaign to preserve the spotted owl. Even though logging was banned in vast areas of the Pacific Northwest because this was purported to be the spotted owls “critical habitat”, in February 2008, a federal judge reinforced a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision to designate 8,600,000 acres in Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico as critical habitat for the owl as well. It just so happens that is prime cattle grazing area so is this just a move to cripple yet another U.S. industry to drive us deeper into financial crisis a la Cloward-Pivens?

Currently, half a million acres of fertile farmland have turned to dust after the water used for irrigation was reduced by 90% to save the endangered “Delta Smelt”. The smelt was not being further endangered by falling water levels, but because they were being drawn into the pumps. All technical suggestions to alleviate that from happening were dismissed in favor of denying water to the farms. These are the same farms that provide 15% of all the produce consumed in the United States. These examples, as with so-called “global warming”, display that only one conclusion can be reached and that is, the “real inconvenient truth” is that this is not about the environment at all but about progressive socialism, political power and who will wield that power.

Paul

Green is the New Red - Marxists in the Environmental Movement

I have often said that the environmental movement is the new home for socialists and radicals that seek to bring us to a one world, socialist government. It used to be that the environmentalists were concerned with preserving the environment and protecting wildlife. Now radical social engineers have seized the movement and have laced these efforts with programs designed to hack away at the structure of capitalism while funneling money and industry out of the US and into the third world. To make the case, I will begin with the familiar faces in all of this; the Obama administration Czars and Al Gore. Monday we will move on to the organizations that are being used to promote this on a grand scale. Yes, they are being used. Even Lenin called leftist journalists and Marxists in the Western nations “Useful Idiots” because they were so willing and yet, had no idea of what they would eventually be doing to themselves.

The argument for global warming has a number of critics that have apparently been shut out of the debates. No less than 30,000 scientists have claimed that their work has been summarily dismissed and their data and findings have been refused entry into discussions and debates on the subject. It seems that anything or anyone that does not support the race to enact sweeping climate legislation is being swept aside. This is not isolated to the work of independent researchers. Several scientists working directly for the EPA were driven out of the agency for insisting that this data be seriously reviewed.

One would think that Data suggesting that global warming was not a man-made effect, but rather, a natural phenomenon should be seriously considered before we enact legislation that will damage industry in the U.S. and strain our already challenged economy. In fact, that data suggests that the trend in rising global temperatures peaked in 1989 and already is showing signs of subsiding, lending even more credence to the natural phenomenon theories. But the race goes on.

Al Gore received much notoriety over his film “An Inconvenient Truth” but the real inconvenience is that a number of his facts were improperly arrived at and there are some serious flaws with the claims this film has made and in the data used to formulate those claims. Even though the UK Supreme court decided that the flaws in the film are significant enough to require schools in Great Britain that wish to show the film pass out an accompanying list of corrections, Mr. Gore feels no compelling reason to answer questions about those inconsistencies. The sad fact is that Mr. Gore has already made millions from that film and has made technology investments that will net him billions if the U.S. Climate Bill passes into law. He is now making sizable investments with the money he earned through his film to fund activist groups that favor the Climate Bill. Now isn’t that curious?

Then there is Carol Browner, the White House "Climate Czar". She headed the EPA during both terms of the Clinton presidency, making her the longest-serving Administrator in the agency's history. Carol Browner received her education in the University of Florida. Coincidentally, that is the same school that N. David Cook attended. You remember Dr. Cook. He is the man that started the hate rhetoric about Christopher Columbus and the evil European explorers the infected the new world.

On Browner’s final day as Clinton EPA chief in 2001, she ordered a computer technician to delete all her computer files, in direct violation of a federal judge's order requiring the agency to preserve those files. When questioned about her actions, Browner claimed that her computer had contained no work-related material, and that she had merely purged the hard drive of such innocuous items as computer games as a courtesy to incoming staffers of the Bush administration. It was later learned that three additional high-ranking EPA officials had also violated the court order and erased their hard drives as well. Because of this, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth held the EPA in contempt of court. Were all the high ranking officials of the Clinton era EPA playing games on their office computers or was there something that had to be deleted? Remember the Coward-Piven Strategy can only be successful if its use remains secret.

Of course an almost manic desire for secrecy is nothing new for Carol Browner or for that matter, the Obama administration. In recent meetings Browner had with U.S. Auto manufacturers regarding the CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards, it was disclosed by a participant in those meetings that Ms. Browner ordered that no notes were to be taken and none of the meeting issues were to be discussed outside of the meeting. This is a very troubling revelation when we are discussion an appointee that promised his administration would finally offer the American people transparency in their government. We thought he meant openness but apparently his interpretation of transparency has more to do with invisibility.

Browner is a member of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society (CSWS), which is a formal organ of Socialist International. Oddly enough, the group's web site was recently scrubbed to remove Browner's picture and biography, but her name is still listed next to the photo-biographies of her 14 colleagues on the commission. Socialist International (SI), the umbrella group for 170 "social democratic, socialist and labor parties" in 55 countries. SI's "organizing document" cites capitalism as the cause of "devastating crises," "mass unemployment," "imperialist expansion," and "colonial exploitation" worldwide. The Commission for a Sustainable World Society, with which Browner worked, contends that "the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions."

There’s another one of those curious little points. Only the “developed world” would be required by the U.N.’s climate initiatives to “reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions." Even though developing nation’s manufacturing and industrial centers use fuels and manufacturing processes that are far more damaging to the ecology than developed nations, they would be exempt. Instead of a comprehensive climate program to reduce harmful emissions, that sounds more like a social program designed to shift industrial growth from Western Democracies to the third world. It also sounds incredibly similar to the mission statement from Carol Browner’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society.

Well what do you know? Just when we needed proof that Ms. Browner’s agenda has more to do with changing the United States economic system than it does with changing the climate, along comes Cass Sunstein the White House “Regulatory Czar”.

Mr. Sunstein penned a 2007 University of Chicago Law School paper with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner, in which he debated whether America should pay "justice" to the world by entering into a compensation agreement that would be a net financial loss for the U.S. He argues it is "desirable" to redistribute America's wealth to poorer nations.

Throughout Sunstein's paper, entitled "Climate Change Justice", he maintains U.S. wealth should be redistributed to poorer nations. The paper makes references to terms such as "distributive justice" several times throughout the 39 page document. In the paper Sunstein says: "It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid," He adds: "We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.”

Sunstein also suggests "If the United States agrees to participate in a climate change agreement on terms that are not in the nation's interest, but that help the world as a whole, there would be no reason for complaint, certainly if such participation is more helpful to poor nations than conventional foreign-aid alternatives". He also maintains: "If we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses."

Of course, if I am going to post quotes from the Obama administration how could I possibly forget Obama’s former green jobs Czar, Van Jones. He may be gone, but he is definitely not forgotten. Mr. Jones is an invaluable addition to this collection because he cared so little about what he said out loud. His quotes and video statements can still be easily found on the internet, mostly because there is no longer a need to hide them. In the end, it was not his racist statements that white businesses were steering pollution into minority neighborhoods, nor his open admission that he was a communist that forced his resignation from the White House. It wasn’t even unceasing rhetoric about how they would use the farce of “green jobs” to steer billions of dollars to ease, what he considered, racial injustices. He was forced to resign because he was one of the radical fools that signed a petition demanding the Bush administration admit their guilt in concocting the 9/11 attacks so they could launch a war on Islam.

The only reason I feel compelled to mention his quotes now, is because after researching Carol Browner and Cass Sunstein, it is clear that he was not bubbling over with his own idea of what should be. His statements are directly in line with too many of Obama’s other special advisors not to be bullet points in their plan to reshape global politics. For instance, Van Jones said: “The green economy should not just be about reclaiming throw-away stuff. It should be about reclaiming thrown-away communities. It should not just be about recycling things to give them a second life. We should also be gathering up people and giving them a second chance.”

He also said: “All the big ideas for getting us onto a lower carbon trajectory involve a lot of people doing a lot of work, and that's been missing from the conversation. This is a great time to go to the next step and ask, well, who's going to do the work? Who's going to invest in the new technologies? What are ways to get communities wealth, improved health, and expanded job opportunities out of this improved transition?” Both of those quotes sound a lot like Sunstein’s proposals on redistribution and a plan to correct some of the ills that Browner blames on capitalism.

Some may say that wanting to put people to work and provide healthcare might be social programs, but is Mr. Jones really suggesting socialism? Well, read on because he also said "…But, inside that minimum demand was a very radical kernel that eventually meant that from 1964 to 1968 complete revolution was on the table for this country. And, I think that this green movement has to pursue those same steps and stages. Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to something eco-capitalism where at least we're not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Will that be enough? No, it won't be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression altogether. But, that's a process and I think that's what's great about the movement that is beginning to emerge is that the crisis is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both pragmatic and visionary. So the green economy will start off as a small subset and we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society."

So there it is in his own words. A green movement should pursue the same steps and stages as the radical movement that nearly brought us to revolution in the mid ‘60s? A green movement that they will push and push, not to transform the energy economy as we were told, but to transform the “whole society”? The idea that this is all being brought about by a multitude of converging crisis’s to force us into drastic action also sounds way too much like Cloward and Piven to be a coincidence.

Neither the Climate Bill, Cap and Trade, the UN accords on Climate Change nor the “green movement” has anything to do with greenhouse gasses or global warming. They have everything to do with seeing America surrender its wealth and production capabilities to give some of those poor, struggling third world nations a chance to grow. This is simply a tool for the transfer of American power, money and industries abroad; to strengthen the UN and other “world governance organizations and prepare the US citizenry for a life securely bound in the Marxist yoke.

Monday we will look at the other organizations and people that are because they are the soldiers in the fight to bring the message to you. They are the ones that fill your children with fear about the environment and how wrong America is for using so much when others have so little.

Paul