Crazy Corrupt Climate Cult Czarina Carol’s Crystal Clear Criminal Communication–Coverup!

Posted on July 9, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Computers, Economics, Employment, Fiscal Policy, Monetary Policy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Video | Tags: cap and trade, Carol M. Browner, Climate Change Unstoppable, Energy Trade, EPA, global warming, Progressive Radical Socialist, Progressives, Radical Socialism, Rent Seeking, Socialism |

Recently-Passed Climate Bill A Job Killer

The Cap and Trade Energy Tax–The Crime of The Century–Crazy Corporate and Progressive Radical Socialist Rent Seeking

“…Cutting yourself a bigger slice of the cake rather than making the cake bigger. Trying to make more money without producing more for customers. Classic examples of rent-seeking, a phrase coined by an economist, Gordon Tullock, include:

• a protection racket, in which the gang takes a cut from the shopkeeper’s PROFIT;

• a CARTEL of FIRMS agreeing to raise PRICES;

• a UNION demanding higher WAGES without offering any increase in PRODUCTIVITY;

• lobbying the GOVERNMENT for tax, spending or regulatory policies that benefit the lobbyists at the expense of taxpayers or consumers or some other rivals.

Whether legal or illegal, as they do not create any value, rent-seeking activities can impose large costs on an economy. …”

http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic.cfm?letter=R

Cap and Trade Explained (in plain old English)

Kudlow Blasts Cap and Trade

Michael Jackson vs. Cap and Trade, Cap and Tax, Tax and Kill, what ever you want to call ii

No New Taxes? Obama Signs Health Bill, Raises Tobacco Tax

Inside Look – Is Climate Bill a Job Creator or Job Killer? – Bloomberg

Cap & Trade: Rep. Barton’s emotional plea to vote down economy killer

One World Government On It’s Way

EPA’s Secret Document

“Suppressed” Climate Change Report Author Speaks Out on Fox News

Alan Carlin on CO2 and Temperatures

Obama’s Energy Czar on new Tailpipe Emissions Standard

Carol Browner at Google, GE Conference: Plug Into The Smart Grid (part 2)

More Perspective – General Electric Investor Day – Bloomberg

Carbon offset trading fraud — huge criminal activity

Senator Inhofe Cap-and-trade floor speech March 18, 2009

14.3 – Public Choice – Rent Seeking

Executives at such corporations as General Electric, Google, J.P. Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citi Group, etc., all contributed tens of millions of dollars to both the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party.

These corporations are what economists call rent seekers that want to use government regulations, spending and taxes to force consumers and competiting businesses to pay high prices and taxes that they and their political pals in turn capture as rent.

The cap and trade energy tax bill and CAFE standards are taxes and regulations that reward the rent seekers and punish the American people or consumers and business rivals or competitors of the rent seekers.

Consumer sovereignty is replaced with government sovereignty and business cartels.

The progressive radical socialists will destroy jobs and wreck the US economy by taxing energy consumption in order to subsidize and payoff corporations and executives that contributed to their political campaigns.

These corporations stand to benefit from the passage of the cap and trade energy tax in the hundreds of billions of dollars and millions of jobs.

President Obama, Czarina Carol Browner and the progressive radical socialists of the Democratic Party are determined to pass the Cap and Trade Energy Tax will wreck the US economy, destroy millions of jobs and destroy the American dream.

Obama’s Watergate?: GE Using CNBC, MSNBC to Promote Cap-and-Trade – OReilly

The American people know that the assertion that man is the primary driver or cause of global warming or climate change is a fairy tale.

The fairy tale is based on government funded junk science of computer climate model projections that are simply wrong when compared to actual empirical observations.

The majority of the scientists say global warming and climate change are natural and unstoppable.

If this is correct then the cap and trade energy tax would have no benefits while costing trillions of dollars.

This makes absolutely no sense unless you are a rent seeker making money off of this scam either in business profits or campaign contributions.

Global Warming: Doomsday Called Off – 5/5

Unstoppable Solar Cycles

Unfortunately for Al Gore and the United National Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, the observed evidence does not support the theory that man’s carbon dioxide emissions is the cause of global warming.

Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change pt 1

Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change pt 2

CO2 is a trace gas

CO2 is not a pollutant, but pollutants are MASSMEDIA and IPCC

Stop The Cap and Trade Carbon Dioxide Energy Tax

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PETER HUBER

Senator James Inhofe,Cap And Trade Will Increase The Worlds CO2 And Make China Richer

Waco Tea Party Says, “No Cap-and-Trade, please”

Background Articles and Videos

Rent seeking

“…In economics, rent seeking occurs when an individual, organization or firm seeks to earn income by capturing economic rent through manipulation or exploitation of the economic environment, rather than by earning profits through economic transactions and the production of added wealth.

Rent seeking generally implies the extraction of uncompensated value from others without making any contribution to productivity, such as by gaining control of land and other pre-existing natural resources, or by imposing burdensome regulations or other government decisions that may affect consumers or businesses. While there may be few people in modern industrialized countries who do not gain something, directly or indirectly, through some form or another of rent seeking, rent seeking in the aggregate imposes substantial losses on society.

Most studies of rent seeking focus on efforts to capture special monopoly privileges, such as government regulation of free enterprise competition, though the term itself is derived from the far older and more established practice of appropriating a portion of production by gaining ownership or control of land. The term “monopoly privilege rent seeking” is an often-used label for the former type of rent seeking. Often-cited examples include a farm lobby that seeks tariff protection or an entertainment lobby that seeks expansion of the scope of copyright. Other rent seeking is held to be associated with efforts to cause a redistribution of wealth by, for example, shifting the government tax burden or government spending allocation.

The phenomenon of rent seeking was first formally identified in connection with monopolies by Gordon Tullock, in a 1967 paper.^[1] The phrase rent seeking itself, however, was coined in 1974 by Anne Krueger in another influential paper.^[2] The word “rent” in this sense is not directly equivalent to its usual use meaning a payment on a lease, but rather stems from Adam Smith’s division of incomes into profit, wage, and rent.^[3] Rent-seeking behavior is distinguished in theory from profit-seeking behavior, in which entities seek to extract value by engaging in mutually beneficial transactions.^[4] Critics of the concept point out that in practice, there may be difficulties distinguishing between beneficial profit seeking and detrimental rent seeking^[5]. Often a further distinction is drawn between rents obtained legally through political power and the proceeds of private common-law crimes such as fraud, embezzlement and theft. This viewpoint sees “profit” as obtained consensually, through a mutually agreeable transaction between two entities (buyer and seller), and the proceeds of common-law crime non-consensually, by force or fraud inflicted on one party by another.

Rent, by contrast with these two, is obtained when a third party deprives one party to a transaction of access to otherwise accessible transaction opportunities, making nominally “consensual” transactions a rent-collection opportunity for the third party. The abnormal profits of the illegal drug trade are considered rents by this definition, as they are neither legal profits nor the proceeds of common-law crimes. Taxi medallions are another commonly referenced example of rent seeking. To the extent that the issuing of medallions constrains overall supply of taxi services (rather than ensuring competence or quality), forbidding competition by non-medallion taxis makes the otherwise consensual transaction of taxi service a forced transfer of wealth from the passenger to the medallion holder. Some economists hold that governments should reform their tax systems, so as to look first to recovering the rents that they empower some private interests to extract from others (including those accruing to land and pollution permits) rather than levying financial penalties on those who engage in productive economic activities and consensual transactions.

Rent seeking is held to occur often in the form of lobbying for economic regulations such as tariffs. Regulatory capture is a related concept which refers to collusion between firms and the government agencies assigned to regulate them, which is seen as enabling extensive rent-seeking behavior, especially when the government agency must rely on the firms for knowledge about the market.

The concept of rent seeking has been applied to corruption by bureaucrats who solicit and extract ‘bribe’ or ‘rent’ for applying their legal but discretionary authority for awarding legitimate or illegitimate benefits to clients.^[6] For example, many tax officials take bribes for lessening the tax burden of the tax payers. Faizul Latif Chowdhury suggested that ‘bribery’ is a kind of rent-seeking by the government officials.

Less obvious than the small-scale examples above, but of far greater impact, rent seeking is supported through broad governmental policy aims. The U.S. government’s commitment to ensuring cheap fossil fuels, for example, and the many billions of tax dollars allocated to securing that end through military and infrastructure expenditures, as well as the limited efforts to ameliorate the externalized costs of industry, constitute a very large subsidy to the larger centralized firms who depend on cheap global transportation in order to dominate local economies. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking

Consumer Sovereignty

“…Consumer sovereignty is a term which is used in economics to refer to the rule or sovereignty of purchasers in markets as to production of goods. It is the power of consumers to decide what gets produced. People use the this term to describe the consumer as the “king,” or ruler, of the market, the one who determines what products will be produced. ^[1] Also, this term denotes the way in which a consumer ideologically choices to buy a good or service. Furthermore,the term can be used as either a norm (as to what consumers should be permitted) or a description (as to what consumers are permitted).

In unrestricted markets, those with income or wealth are able to use their purchasing power to motivate producers as what to produce (and how much). Customers do not necessarily have to buy and, if dissatisfied, can take their business elsewhere, while the profit-seeking sellers find that they can make the greatest profit by trying to provide the best possible products for the price (or the lowest possible price for a given product). In the language of cliché, “The one with the gold makes the rules.”

To most neoclassical economists, complete consumer sovereignty is an ideal rather than a reality because of the existence — or even the ubiquity — of market failure. Some economists of the Chicago school and the Austrian school see consumer sovereignty as a reality in a free market economy without interference from government or other non-market institutions, or anti-market institutions such as monopolies or cartels. That is, alleged market failures are seen as being a result of non-market forces.

The term “consumer sovereignty” was coined by William Hutt who firstly used it in his 1936 book “Economists and the Public.” …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_sovereignty

Climate Confusion

By: Steven Milloy

“…You may be surprised to learn that it’s not only or even mostly due to the persuasiveness and persistence of environmental activists. After all, how many people really believe Al Gore and Greenpeace? Ironically, we’re in crushing jaws of global warming regulation thanks to big business and other rent-seekers, including Gore, who hope to profit from new laws.

Leading the lobbying charge on Capitol Hill is the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a big business-environmental activist group coalition that is urging Congress to enact a so-called cap-and-trade bill. Under such legislation, Congress would issue permits to emit greenhouse gases (also called “carbon credits”) to electric utility companies and other major emitters. The permits represent more than mere regulation since they have monetary value and are tradable among emitters. An electric utility, say, that emits more greenhouse gases than it has permits for, would be forced to purchase additional permits from another utility that had excess permits. Under cap-and-trade, Congress would issue more than one trillion dollars worth of permits over the programs first ten years – so there’s a lot of money at stake. Who’s set to profit from all this?

Manufacturing companies and USCAP members like Alcoa, Dow Chemical and Dupont want Congress to award them free carbon credits for actions they’ve taken since 1992 to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. – like moving manufacturing operations to other countries. They’ve not reduced their emissions so much as they’ve displaced them.

Other USCAP members include electric utilities like Exelon, Florida Power & Light, and NRG Energy. They use emission-free nuclear power to generate much of their electricity and anticipate having extra carbon credits that they can sell at high prices to major greenhouse gas emitters like coal burning utilities. Wall Street is also a big proponent of cap-and-trade in anticipation of investing in and facilitating the trading of carbon credits. Goldman Sachs, for example, owns part of the Chicago Climate Exchange and European Climate Exchange where carbon credits would be traded. …”

http://frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=33775

Obama’s hidden bailout of General Electric
By: Timothy P. Carney

“…GE — a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which advocates cap and trade — leads the push for greenhouse gas restrictions.

In the fourth quarter of 2008 as the company’s stock fell 30 percent, GE spent $4.26 million on lobbying — that’s $46,304 each day, including weekends, Thanksgiving and Christmas. In 2008, the company spent a grand total of $18.66 million on lobbying.

Reviewing their lobbying filings, you might think you were looking at Al Gore’s agenda. GE’s specific lobbying issues included the “Climate Stewardship Act,” “Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act,” “Global Warming Reduction Act,” “Federal Government Greenhouse Gas Registry Act,” “Low Carbon Economy Act,” and “Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.”

This isn’t altruism or public relations. GE has started a joint venture called Greenhouse Gas Services, which invests in — and hopes to manage the trade in — greenhouse gas credits. But these investments and this trading floor are of basically no use and nearly no value without government restrictions on greenhouse gases.

Hence the lobbying, buttressed by generous campaign contributions: Employees and executives gave $1.35 million to politicians in the past election while GE’s political action committee shelled out $1.55 million. About 64 percent of this $2.9 million went to Democrats, with Obama easily the top recipient of GE money.

Obama’s budget includes the payoff, promising to start a multibillion-dollar greenhouse gas industry by 2012. In a letter this week, GE’S Immelt told shareholders that current events present an “opportunity of a lifetime,” because “capitalism will be ‘reset.’ ” …”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obamas-hidden-bailout-of-General-Electric_03_04-40686707.html

Carol Browner

“…Carol M. Browner (born December 16, 1955) became Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change in the Obama Administration on January 22, 2009. Browner previously served as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Clinton Administration in the United States. She was the longest-serving administrator in the history of the agency,^[1] staying through both terms of the Clinton presidency. She was also a member of Socialist International , and was one of the leaders of that groups “Commission For a Sustainable World Society.” That commission believes that wealthy countries should shrink their economies (aka redistribute their wealth) to address climate change.

In 1980 and 1981, she worked as General Counsel for the Florida House of Representatives Committee on Government Operations. In 1983, she moved to Washington, D.C. and worked as associate director for the Citizen Action in Washington, a grassroots lobbying organization (founded by Ralph Nader) that was active in environmental issues.^[4]^[7]

Between 1986 and 1988, she served as chief legislative assistant to Senator Lawton Chiles from Florida.^[2] There she worked on a negotiation to expand Florida’s Big Cypress National Preserve,^[4] as well as a ban on offshore drilling near the Florida Keys.^[9] During 1989 she served as a legal counsel for the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.^[9] She was not adverse to in-field investigation, once diving in coastal waters to do research while pregnant.^[4]

Then she worked as Legislative Director for Senator Al Gore from 1988 to 1991,^[2] and became known as a Gore protegé.^[10]^[11] In this role she helped prepare amendments to the Clean Air Act.^[9]

As Secretary of Environmental Regulation,^[3] Browner headed the Florida Department of Environmental Protection from 1991 to 1993.^[2] It was the nation’s third-largest such state agency, with 1,500 employees and a budget of some $650 million.^[10] There she believed that economic development and environmental protection did not have to be in conflict with each other (green collar jobs).^[3] She revitalized a demoralized department and turned it into one of the most active in Florida’s government.^[3] She shortened the amount of time it took the department to review development permits for wetlands-affected areas and for manufacturing plants; in doing so, she annoyed some environmentalists who thought that the streamlined procedures diminished public review.^[3] She pushed for the halting of construction of new hazardous waste plants and municipal waste incinerators, on the grounds that health and environment consequences were insufficiently known.^[10] She brokered a deal with Walt Disney World that would allow them to build on wetlands they owned in exchange for $40 million worth of restoration work by Disney to endangered wetlands nearby.^[9] She pleased environmentalists by persuading now-Governor Chiles to negotiate a settlement to a federal lawsuit regarding damage to Everglades National Park and forcing the Florida sugar industry to bear much of the $1 billion cost.^[3] The head of Florida’s largest business trade association described dealing with Browner as follows: “She kicks the door open, throws in a hand grenade, and then walks in to shoot who’s left. She really doesn’t like to compromise. [But she] has done a pretty good job down here. People have more complaints with the way she does it than what she does.”^[12]

After the 1992 presidential election, Browner served as transition director for Vice President-elect Gore.^[13] President-elect Bill Clinton announced her as his choice for Environmental Protection Agency head on December 11, 1992.^[10] She was confirmed by the United States Senate without incident on January 21, 1993.^[14] The selection of Browner, who was described by The Washington Post as having “the mind and training of an attorney-legislator but the soul of an activist,” was seen as an indication that Gore’s ardent environmentalism had won out over Clinton’s more pro-business mindset.^[12]

When Republicans took control of Congress after the 1994 elections, she took the lead for the Clinton Administration in successfully fighting efforts by the Republicans, especially in the House of Representatives, to amend the Clean Water Act. She was able to work in a bipartisan manner, though, with Congressional Republicans in helping craft amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Food Quality Protection Act.

Browner came from Florida with a reputation as someone who could work with the private sector. While at EPA, she expanded the Agency’s flexible public-private partnerships as alternatives to traditional regulation through Project XL (designed to find common sense, cost effective solutions to environmental issues at individual facilities) and the Common Sense Initiative (targeted at efforts involving entire industry sectors).

In 1995, Browner and the EPA were charged by the House Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs with violating the federal Anti-Lobbying Act (18 U.S. Code § 1913) by faxing unsolicited material opposing the Republican-sponsored regulatory reform package to various corporations and public-interest groups.^[15]

As EPA Administrator, Browner started the Agency’s successful brownfields program. The program helped facilitate cleanups of contaminated facilities, especially in urban areas, and leveraged more than $1 billion in public and private funds for cleanups.

She pushed through stringent air quality rules despite cost concerns within the administration and strong objections from some industry groups.^[11] The National Ambient Air Quality Standards was crucial environmental legislation for the Clinton administration. With Gore as her most important ally, the legislation survived both Congressional debate and court reviews.^[11] Browner began efforts to deal with global warming, giving the EPA authority to regulate carbon emissions causing climate change, although the EPA under the George W. Bush administration chose not to use that authority^[11], that is going to be used by the Obama Administration

During her EPA tenure, Browner became unpopular with a number of industry groups as well as with conservatives in Congress.^[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Browner

Cap-and-tax: Government vs. America

David Limbaugh

“…Climate scientist Chip Knappenberger, of New Hope Environmental Services, calculates that the bill would only reduce Earth’s temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degree Celsius by 2100. The Heritage Foundation’s Ben Lieberman says he’s found no “decent refutation of the assertion that the temperature impact would be inconsequential.”

Unfortunately, the bill’s negative impact on the economy would not be inconsequential. Lieberman says the bill would cause estimated job losses averaging about 1.15 million from 2012-2030, and the cumulative projected loss in gross domestic product would be almost $10 trillion by 2035. The national debt from this bill alone, disregarding the multiple bailouts, stimulus packages and health care “reform,” would increase by 2035 for a family of four by 26 percent, or $115,000.

Heritage is not alone in making these claims. The far more liberal Brookings Institution estimates the bill would cost 1.8 percent of GDP in 2035 and 2.5 percent by 2050. Heritage’s “Foundry” blog concludes, “Economists from liberal think tanks, conservative think tanks, and industry associations agree that Waxman-Markey will reduce income by hundreds of billions of dollars per year.” …”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=103522

General Electric

“…Greenhouse Gas Services originates, invests in and develops a variety of greenhouse gas reduction projects that generate carbon offsets. One carbon offset is equal to one metric ton of greenhouse gases avoided, destroyed or otherwise prevented from being emitted into the atmosphere through “business as usual” practices. Projects in the Greenhouse Gas Services portfolio include those that capture and destroy methane from landfill gas, agricultural waste and coal mine emissions. …”

“…GE Energy Financial Services and the AES Corporation formed Greenhouse Gas Services, LLC, a venture that invests in and develops projects that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and sells independently verified GHG credits to businesses that want to meet internal emissions reduction targets or to offset emissions from consumer products and services. These projects prevent or reduce greenhouse gases that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere, or reduce fossil fuel consumption through energy efficiency and renewable energy generation. For each metric ton of CO₂ equivalent reduced or avoided, a certified credit is created.

Greenhouse Gas Services has been recognized under GE’s ecomagination program in collaboration with GreenOrder, a sustainability strategy firm, which serves as an advisor to provide a quantitative environmental analysis and verification of GE’s ecomagination claims. Furthermore, Greenhouse Gas Services’ GHG credits will be verified by qualified independent third parties, and supporting data for each project will be reported transparently to the public. …”

http://ge.ecomagination.com/products/ghg-services.html

Target: 10 Million Tonnes Of Carbon Offsets Per Year

“…GE, AES Plan Partnership To Lead US Market In Offsetting Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Arlington, VA and Stamford, CT, January 16, 2007 — In a breakthrough toward US leadership in carbon reduction, the AES Corporation (NYSE: AES) and GE Energy Financial Services, a unit of General Electric (NYSE: GE), announced today that they intend to create a partnership to develop greenhouse gas emission reduction projects in the United States.The partnership would seek to create an annual production volume of 10 million tonnes (metric tons) of greenhouse gas offsets by 2010, primarily through the reduction of emissions of methane — a potent greenhouse gas with a warming potential 21 times greater than carbon dioxide. Projects to capture and destroy methane emissions would include agricultural waste, landfills, coal mines and wastewater treatment. In addition to methane-based projects, the partnership may also pursue development of offsets through energy efficiency projects and electricity generation from renewable sources. The partnership would sell offsets from these projects to commercial and industrial customers seeking to reduce the environmental impact of their operations or to provide climate-friendly products or services to their customers.

“AES is committed to helping address climate change as part of our broader alternative energy strategy,” said Paul Hanrahan, President and CEO of AES. “Our partnership with GE will enhance the ability of the United States to expand energy resources while mitigating the negative environmental impacts of growth. We are pleased to team with GE because the combination of our skills will allow us to lead the development of the US market for carbon offsets.”

The partnership would invest in projects using equipment from a variety of manufacturers, potentially including GE products certified by its ecomagination program. GE Energy Financial Services and AES are taking this step with an immediate focus on voluntary demand for greenhouse gas reductions but with an eye toward possible future mandatory emissions limits.

“This initiative will help GE Energy Financial Services double its already sizeable $1.5 billion portfolio of investments in renewable energy projects by the end of 2008, and will contribute to GE’s ecomagination program,” said Alex Urquhart, President and CEO of GE Energy Financial Services.

Through its ecomagination program, GE has committed to help its customers meet their environmental challenges while reducing its own greenhouse gas emissions. GE has pledged to more than double its investment in the development of cleaner energy technologies, from $700 million to $1.5 billion by 2010, reduce its greenhouse gas emissions one percent by 2012, reduce the intensity of its greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2008, and improve the company’s energy efficiency 30 percent by the end of 2012. …”

http://ge.ecomagination.com/_files/downloads/products/aesg/AES_GE_PressRelease_Jan07_onweb.pdf

‘Put nothing in writing,’ Browner told auto execs on secret White House CAFE talks; Sensenbrenner wants investigation
By: Mark Tapscott

Editorial Page Editor
07/08/09 5:52 PM EDT

“…Carol Browner, former Clinton administration EPA head and current Obama White House climate czar, instructed auto industry execs “to put nothing in writing, ever” regarding secret negotiations she orchestrated regarding a deal to increase federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-WI, is demanding a congressional investigation of Browner’s conduct in the CAFE talks, saying in a letter to Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA, that Browner “intended to leave little or no documentation of the deliberations that lead to stringent new CAFE standards.”

Federal law requires officials to preserve documents concerning significant policy decisions, so instructing participants in a policy negotation concerning a major federal policy change could be viewed as a criminal act. …”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Put-nothing-in-writing-Browner-told-auto-execs-on-secret-White-House-CAFE-talks-50260677.html

The Importance of Coal to our Economy – Cap and Trade will Bankrupt Americans

Obama’s Energy Czar Hasn’t Read Energy Bill

Carol Browner on Climate Matters Act

In-Depth Look – Coming Clean at GE Capital – Bloomberg

Google, GE Conference: Plug Into The Smart Grid (part 1)

General Electric Plug Into The Smart Grid

http://ge.ecomagination.com/smartgrid/#/landing_page

LaRouche: Cap and Trade is Hitler policy. Mass murder !

(6 of 14) MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PHILIP STOTT

Background Articles and Videos

Progressivism

“…Progressivism is a political and social term that refers to ideologies and movements favoring or advocating progress, changes, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are.

In the United States, the term progressive emerged in the late 19th century into the 20th century in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to both the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Political parties, such as the Progressive Party, organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism made great strides under American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, William H. Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson.^[1] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Progressive Era

“…The Progressive Era in the United States was a period of reform which lasted from the 1890s to the 1920s.^[1]

Responding to the changes brought about by industrialization, ^[2] the Progressives advocated a wide range of economic, political, social, and moral reforms.^[3] Initially the movement was successful at local level, and then it progressed to state and gradually national. Both the reformers and their opponents were predominantly members of the middle class.

Significant changes achieved at the national levels included the income tax with the Sixteenth Amendment, direct election of Senators with the Seventeenth Amendment, Prohibition with the Eighteenth Amendment, and women’s suffrage through the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Muckrakers were journalists who exposed waste, corruption, and scandal in the highly influential new medium of national magazines, such as McClure’s. Progressives shared a common belief in the ability of science, technology and disinterested expertise to identify problems and come up with the best solution.

Progressives moved to enable the citizenry to rule more directly and circumvent political bosses; California, Wisconsin, and Oregon took the lead.^[4] California governor Hiram Johnson established the initiative, referendum, and recall, viewing them as good influences for citizen participation against the historic influence of large corporations on state assembly.^[5] About 16 states began using primary elections. Many cities set up municipal reference bureaus to study the budgets and administrative structures of local governments. In Illinois, Governor Frank Lowden undertook a major reorganization of state government.^[6] In Wisconsin, the stronghold of Robert LaFollette, the Wisconsin Idea, used the state university as the source of ideas and expertise.^[7] Characteristics of progressivism included a favorable attitude toward urban-industrial society, belief in mankind’s ability to improve the environment and conditions of life, belief in obligation to intervene in economic and social affairs, and a belief in the ability of experts and in efficiency of government intervention. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era

Liberal Fascism (1) — Jonah Goldberg UNEDITED

Liberal Fascism (2) — Jonah Goldberg UNEDITED

Liberal Fascism (3) — Jonah Goldberg UNEDITED

Liberal Fascism (4) — Jonah Goldberg UNEDITED

Liberal Fascism (5) — Jonah Goldberg UNEDITED

Liberal Fascism Q-A (1)

Liberal Fascism Q-A (2)

Liberal Fascism Q-A (3)

The Next Progressive Era

The Progressive Era

George Soros and Acorn in the 2008 Elections

Background Articles and Videos

Cloward-Piven Strategy

“…

Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called “crisis strategy” or “Cloward-Piven Strategy,” as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one. …”

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6967

Cloward-Piven Strategy To Destroy America

“…In the summer of 1965, the Watts section of Los Angeles erupted in six days of violent riots after a State Highway Patrol Officer pulled over and arrested a man for driving under the influence of alcohol. When it was all said and done, 34 people had been killed, 1,032 injured, and 3,952 arrested.

In typical liberal fashion, Democrats used the event to sponsor new government programs, to expand the welfare rolls. The radical left of the time viewed the riots as a prime opportunity for socialist revolution.

Shortly after the riots, Richard A. Cloward a Columbia University sociologist and fellow sociologist, wife and collaborator Francis Fox Piven exploited the riots to further their views of social equality and had begun circulating copies of an article they had written called “Mobilizing the Poor: How it could be done.” The article, slightly edited and re-titled appeared the following spring in the Nation. They believed that destruction could be used as an effective means of bringing about “change.” …”

http://rightwingrebel.com/2009/03/12/obama-and-the-cloward-piven-strategy-to-destroy-america/

Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

By James Simpson

“….The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

“Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org) …”

“… Cloward and Piven looked at this strategy as a gold mine of opportunity. Within the newly organized groups, each offensive would find an ample pool of foot soldier recruits willing to advance its radical agenda at little or no pay, and expand its base of reliable voters, legal or otherwise. The radicals’ threatening tactics also would accrue an intimidating reputation, providing a wealth of opportunities for extorting monetary and other concessions from the target organizations. In the meantime, successful offensives would create an ever increasing drag on society. As they gleefully observed:

Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely.

Cloward-Piven Strategy

“…The Cloward-Piven strategy refers to a political strategy outlined by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, then both sociologists and political activists at the Columbia University School of Social Work, in a 1966 article in The Nation. The two argued that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would create a political crisis that would force U.S. politicians, particularly the Democratic Party, to enact legislation “establishing a guaranteed national income.”^[1]

The Strategy

Cloward and Piven’s article is focused on forcing the Democratic party, which in 1966 controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress, to take federal action to help the poor. They argued that full enrollment of those eligible for wellfare “would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments” that would “deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the white working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas.”^[2] They wrote “the ultimate objective of this strategy (is) to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income… (via)the outright redistribution of income.”

Focus on Democrats

The authors pinned their hopes on creating disruption within the Democratic Party. “Conservative Republicans are always ready to declaim the evils of public welfare, and they would probably be the first to raise a hue and cry. But deeper and politically more telling conflicts would take place within the Democratic coalition,” they wrote. “Whites – both working class ethnic groups and many in the middle class – would be aroused against the ghetto poor, while liberal groups, which until recently have been comforted by the notion that the poor are few… would probably support the movement. Group conflict, spelling political crisis for the local party apparatus, would thus become acute as welfare rolls mounted and the strains on local budgets became more severe.”^[3]

Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews wrote that Cloward and Piven “proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system — by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice — that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy.”^[4]

Reception

Historian Robert E. Weir argues that the original goal of the strategy was to bring about a crisis in the welfare system that would require radical reforms.^[5] A major article in the New York Times in 1970 investigated the welfare system and discussed the impact of the Cloward-Piven strategy.^[6] Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus, was quoted in 1982 as saying that the strategy could be effective because “Great Society programs ‘had created a vast army of full-time liberal activists whose salaries are paid from the taxes of conservative working people.”.^[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward-Piven_Strategy

Truth & Consequences – There is no Right and Left, only Right and Wrong

Links to All Manufactured Crisis Articles in the Series

“…

The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part I: Manufactured Crisis

The Cloward-Piven Strategy Part, II: Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part III: Conspiracy of the Lemmings.

Link to printable documents on the American Daughter website.

The Cloward Piven Strategy, Part IV: Manufactured Healthcare Crisis

The Cloward Piven Strategy, Part V: ACORN on the Ropes

Listen to the Brannon Howse interviews on the Cloward-Piven Strategy: here and here.

…”

http://truthandcons.blogspot.com/2009/03/links-to-all-three-manufactured-crisis.html#

Conspiracy of the Lemmings: Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis; Part II

“…Cloward and Piven focused on welfare, voting, housing and immigration “rights.” But leftist positions on any issue, whether championing equal “rights,” abortion “rights,” education “rights,” rights to health care, housing, legal protections of antisocial or even criminal behavior, to the point of absurdity, are intentionally divisive. They add new fiscal and regulatory burdens on government, and set new precedents that undermine the limited government concepts embedded in our Constitution, while conferring discriminatory special benefits on legally defined groups the rest of us are forced to pay for. They deliberately put our society at war with itself. And as Cloward and Piven made clear, the true purpose is not even to help those groups, but rather to duplicitously enlist them as part of an offensive to collapse our society from within!

Democrats embrace the rhetoric of “compassion,” but look past the rhetoric to the results. This country is polarized as never before because of their relentless agitation for extremist positions on every issue, and the outrageous tactics they use to promote them. But while Radical Saul Alinsky’s tactics guide today’s Democrat electoral game plan, the Cloward-Piven Strategy describes the overarching goal of almost every leftwing organization/movement/ideal today. …”

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/10/31/conspiracy-of-the-lemmings-barack-obama-and-the-strategy-of-manufactured-crisis-part-ii/

New Party

“…

Marxist political coalition
Was active from 1992-1998
Endorsed Barack Obama for Illinois state senate seat in 1996

Co-founded in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson‘s 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison), the New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials — most often Democrats. The New Party’s short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of new Marxist third party.

Most New Party members hailed from the Democratic Socialists of America and the militant organization ACORN. The party’s Chicago chapter also included a large contingent from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of former Maoists, Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA members. …”

“…Though Illinois was not one of the states that permitted electoral fusion, in 1995 Barack Obama nonetheless sought the New Party’s endorsement for his 1996 state senate run. He was successful in obtaining that endorsement, and he used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign workers. By 1996, Obama had become a member of the New Party.

In 1996, three of the four candidates endorsed by the New Party won their electoral primaries. The three victors included Barack Obama (in the 13th State Senate District), Danny Davis (in the 7th Congressional District), and Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in the 7th Subcircuit Court. All four candidates attended an April 11, 1996 New Party membership meeting to express their gratitude for the party’s support.

The New Party’s various chapters similarly helped to elect dozens of other political candidates in a host of American cities.

One of the more notable New Party members was Carl Davidson, a Chicago-based Marxist who became a political supporter of Barack Obama in the mid-1990s. …”

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434

Carl Davidson

“…By 2007, Davidson had become somewhat disillusioned by what he perceived as a diminution in Barack Obama’s anti-war fervor. Early that year, for example, Davidson wrote the following:

“I’m from Chicago … and [I’ve] known Obama from the time he came to the New Party to get our endorsement for his first race ever…. He said all the right things to the ACORN and New Party folks, and we endorsed him [in 1996], but I noticed too, that he seemed to measure every answer to questions put to him several times before coming out with it….…”

“After he visited Iraq when the war was on, he turned. Now we had to set aside whether it was right or wrong to invade, now we had to find the ‘smart’ path to victory, not Bush’s ‘dumb’ path. Also, in dealing with Iran, we had to leave on the table bombing their nuclear sites. For this, a lot of the local antiwar activists started calling him ‘Barack ‘Obomb ’em’…. Our peace groups here are sending a bunch of us to visit him soon, and get on his case. Perhaps he’s still a work in progress, as Jesse Jackson says, but he still has a way to go to get back in my good graces …”

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2322

The Obama Deception The Mask Comes Off Part 1

The Obama Deception The Mask Comes Off Part 2

The Obama Deception The Mask Comes Off Part 3

The Obama Deception The Mask Comes Off Part 4

The Obama Deception The Mask Comes Off Part 5

The Obama Deception The Mask Comes Off Part 6

The Obama Deception The Mask Comes Off Part 7

The Obama Deception The Mask Comes Off Part 8

The Obama Deception The Mask Comes Off Part 9

The Obama Deception The Mask Comes Off Part 10

The Obama Deception The Mask Comes Off Part 11

The Obama Deception The Mask Comes Off Part 12

	FY 2000	FY 2001	FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007	FY 2008	FY 2009
All Awards	Recovery Act Awards only
Contracts	$208.314	$219.231	$258.980	$297.828	$343.228	$385.148	$423.430	$456.979	$517.898	$146.322	$1.802
Grants	$294.511	$330.738	$406.158	$493.317	$449.656	$441.122	$489.194	$417.279	$404.978	$197.608	$36.230
Loans²	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	$0.409	$0.626	$-0.005	$0.008
Insurance	$431.320	$492.207	$556.586	$567.211	$603.890	$653.229	$771.275	$2.265	$4.482	$1.378	$0.00
Direct Payments (e.g. Social Security)	$768.254	$839.649	$841.514	$947.943	$965.484	$1,004.074	$1,092.687	$10.487	$42.642	$22.314	$1.777
Other type of Assistance	$2.816	$2.675	$0.233	$0.663	$0.379	$0.300	$3.847	$25.498	$40.487	$27.332	$17.098
Total	$1,705.215	$1,884.501	$2,063.471	$2,306.962	$2,362.637	$2,483.873	$2,780.433	$912.917	$1,011.113	$394.950	$56.915

Background Articles and Videos

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)

“…The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance is a government-wide compendium of Federal programs,

projects, services, and activities that provide assistance or benefits to the American public. It contains

financial and nonfinancial assistance programs administered by departments and establishments of the

Federal government.

In 1984, Public Law 98-169 authorized the transfer of responsibilities of the Federal Program Information

Act from the Office of Management and Budget to the General Services Administration (GSA). The

transfer took place in July 1984. These responsibilities include the dissemination of Federal domestic

assistance program information through the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, pursuant to the

Federal Program Information Act, Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law 98-169. GSA now

maintains the Federal assistance information database from which program information is obtained. The

Office of Management and Budget serves as an intermediary agent between the Federal agencies and GSA,

thus providing oversight to the necessary collection of Federal domestic assistance program data. …”

https://cfda.symplicity.com/index?s=main&mode=list&tab=listAll

Subsidy

“…In economics, a subsidy (also known as a subvention) is a form of financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector. A subsidy can be used to support businesses that might otherwise fail, or to encourage activities that would otherwise not take place.

Subsidies can be regarded as a form of protectionism or trade barrier by making domestic goods and services artificially competitive against imports. Subsidies may distort markets, and can impose large economic costs.^[1] Financial assistance in the form of a subsidy may come from one’s government, but the term subsidy may also refer to assistance granted by others, such as individuals or non-governmental institutions, although these would be more commonly described as charity. …”

“… Types of subsidies

There are many different ways to classify subsidies, such as the reason behind them, the recipients of the subsidy, the source of the funds (government, consumer, general tax revenues, etc). In economics, one of the primary ways to classify subsidies is the means of distributing the subsidy.

In economics, the term subsidy may or may not have a negative connotation: that is, the use of the term may not be prescriptive but descriptive. In economics, a subsidy may nonetheless be characterized as inefficient relative to no subsidies; inefficient relative to other means of producing the same results; “second-best”, implying an inefficient but feasible solution (contrasted with an efficient but not feasible ideal), among other possible terminology. In other cases, a subsidy may be an efficient means of correcting a market failure.

For example, economic analysis may suggest that direct subsidies (cash benefits) would be more efficient than indirect subsidies (such as trade barriers); this does not necessarily imply that direct subsidies are good, but that they may be more efficient or effective than other mechanisms to achieve the same (or better) results.

Insofar as they are inefficient, however, subsidies would generally be considered by economists to be bad, as economics is the study of efficient use of limited resources. Ultimately, however, the choice to enact a subsidy is a political choice. Note that subsidies are linked to the concept of economic transfers from one group to another.

Economics has also explicitly identified a number of areas where subsidies are entirely justified by economics, particularly in the area of provision of public goods.

Direct subsidies

Direct subsidies are the most simple, and arguably the least frequently used^{[citation needed]}. They involve a direct cash transfer to the recipient, for example an unemployed person or an agricultural corporation.

Indirect Subsidies

Indirect subsidy is a term sufficiently broad that it may cover most other forms of subsidy. The term would cover any form of subsidy that does not involve a direct transfer.

Labor subsidies

A labor subsidy is any form of subsidy where the recipients receive subsidies to pay for labor costs. Examples may include labor subsidies and tax deductions for workers in industries, such as the film and/or television industries. (see: Runaway production)

Tax Subsidy

A tax subsidy is any form of subsidy where the recipients receive the benefit through the tax system, usually through the income tax, profit tax, or consumption tax systems. Examples may include tax deductions for workers in certain industries, accelerated depreciation for certain industries or types of equipment, or exemption from consumption tax (sales tax or value added tax).

Perverse subsidies

The term “perverse” can be applied to a subsidy by its opponents if they believe that it encourages undesirable actions with social costs. Possible examples, suggested by environmentalist Norman Myers, are German subsidies on coal mining and American gasoline subsidies.^[2]

Production subsidies

In certain cases (to encourage the development of a particular industry, for example), governments may provide direct production subsidies—cash payments for production of a given good or service. Frequently, production subsidies are easily identifiable, such as minimum price policies. Indirect production subsidies may be less easy to identify, such as infrastructure subsidies.

Regulatory advantages

Policy may directly or indirectly favour one industry, company, product, or class of producer over another by means of regulations. For example, a requirement that full-time government inspectors (at company expense) be present to inspect meat may favor large producers; conversely, if small producers were not required to undergo meat inspections at all, this may constitute a subsidy to that class of producer. It may not be evident or clear that there is a subsidy in many cases.

Infrastructure subsidies

Infrastructure subsidies may be used to refer to a form of indirect production subsidy, whereby the provision of infrastructure (at public expense) may effectively be useful for only a limited group of potential users, such as construction of roads at government expense for a single logging company. The implication is that those users or industries benefit disproportionately from the provision of that infrastructure, at the expense of taxpayers.

In some cases, the “subsidy” may refer to favoring one type of production or consumption over another, effectively reducing the competitiveness or retarding the development of potential substitutes. For example, it has been argued that the use of petroleum, and particularly gasoline, has been “subsidized” or favored by U.S. defense policy, reducing the use of alternative energy sources and delaying their commercial development.

In other cases, the government may need to improve the public transport to ensure pareto improvement is attanied and sustained.This can therefore be done by subsidising those transit agencies that provide the public services so that the services can be affordable for everyone.This is the best way of helping different groups of disabled and low income families in the society.

Trade protection (Import)

Measures used to limit imports from other countries may constitute another form of hidden subsidy. The economic argument is that consumers of a given product are forced to pay higher prices for a given good than they would pay without the trade barrier; the protected industry has effectively received a subsidy. Such measures include import quotas, import tariffs, import bans, and others.

Export subsidies (trade promotion)

Various tax or other measures may be used to promote exports that constitute subsidies to the industries favored. In other cases, tax measures may be used to ensure that exports are treated “fairly” under the tax system. The determination of what constitutes a subsidy (or the size of that subsidy) may be complex. In many cases, export subsidies are justified as a means of compensating for the subsidies or protections provided by a foreign state to its own producers.

Procurement subsidies

Governments everywhere are relatively large consumers of various goods and services. Subsidies may occur in this process by choice of the products consumed, the producer, the nature of the product itself, and by other means, including payment of higher-than-market prices for goods purchased.

Consumption subsidies

Governments everywhere provide consumption subsidies in a number of ways: by actually giving away a good or service, providing use of government assets, property, or services at lower than the cost of provision, or by providing economic incentives (cash subsidies) to purchase or use such goods. In most countries, consumption of education, health care, and infrastructure (such as roads) are heavily subsidized, and in many cases provided free of charge. In other cases, governments literally purchase or produce a good (such as bread, wheat, gasoline, or electricity) at higher prices than the cost of sale to the public (which may require rationing to control the cost).

The provision of true public goods through consumption subsidies is an example of a type of subsidy that economics may recognize as efficient. In other cases, such subsidies may be reasonable second-best solutions; for example, while it may be theoretically efficient to charge for all use of public roads, in practice, the cost of implementing a system to charge for such use may be unworkable or unjustified.

In other cases, consumption subsidies may be targeted at a specific group of users, such as large utilities, residential home-owners, and others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy

Aboard the Gravy Train
Federal spending is not only increasing but working its way deeper into our lives.

By Chris Edwards

“…When filling out your tax forms, you might want to think for a second about where all that money is going. After federal spending roughly doubled in the Bush years, it is growing by leaps and bounds under President Obama. What’s more, the federal government is increasing the scope of its activities — it is intervening in many areas that used to be left to state and local governments, businesses, charities, and individuals.

There are now a staggering 1,804 subsidy programs in the federal budget. Hundreds of programs were added this decade, and the recent stimulus bill added even more. The result is that we are in the midst of the largest federal gold rush at taxpayer expense since the 1960s. …”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODZmNTg2ZWUyMTA1ZDU5N2MyYzhkNjFjZWMyZGI5NTc=

Agricultural Subsidies

by Chris Edwards

“…The USDA distributes between $10 billion and $30 billion in cash subsidies to farmers and owners of farmland each year.¹ The particular amount depends on market prices for crops, the level of disaster payments, and other factors. More than 90 percent of agriculture subsidies go to farmers of five crops—wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, and cotton.² Roughly a million farmers and landowners receive subsidies, but the payments are heavily tilted toward the largest producers.

In addition to routine cash subsidies, the USDA provides subsidized crop insurance, marketing support, and other services for farm businesses. The USDA also performs extensive agricultural research and generates statistical data for the industry. These indirect subsidies and services cost taxpayers about $5 billion each year, putting total farm support at between $15 billion and $35 billion annually.

Agriculture has long attracted federal government support. The first subsidy program for agriculture was the Morrill Act of 1862, which established the land-grant colleges. That was followed by the Hatch Act of 1887, which funded agricultural research, and by the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, which funded agriculture education. Still, the subsidies remained small, and until the 1930s the USDA’s agriculture efforts were mainly focused on producing statistics, funding research, and responding to problems such as pest infestations.

A large array of farm subsidy programs was enacted during the 1930s, beginning with the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933. New Deal programs included commodity price supports and production controls, marketing orders to limit competition, import barriers, and crop insurance. The particular structures of farm programs have changed over time, but the central planning philosophies behind them have changed little in seven decades. Dozens of other industries have been deregulated and opened to domestic and global competition in recent decades. But agricultural policies remain stuck in the 1930s, despite the failures of those policies. …

http://www.cato.org/downsizing/agriculture/agriculture_subsidies.html

Agricultural Subsidy

“An agricultural subsidy is a governmental subsidy paid to farmers and agribusinesses to supplement their income, manage the supply of agricultural commodities, and influence the cost and supply of such commodities. Examples of such commodities include wheat, feed grains (grain used as fodder, such as maize, sorghum, barley, and oats), cotton, milk, rice, peanuts, sugar, tobacco, and oilseeds such as soybeans. …”

“…The U.S. Agricultural Department is required by law (various U.S. farm bills which are passed every few years) to subsidize over two dozen commodities. Between 1996 and 2002, an average of $16 billion/year was paid by programs authorized by various U.S. farm bills dating back to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, the Agricultural Act of 1949, and the Commodity Credit Corporation (created in 1933), among others.^{[citation needed]}

The beneficiaries of the subsidies have changed as agriculture in the United States has changed. In the 1930s, about 25% of the country’s population resided on the nation’s 6,000,000 small farms. By 1997, 157,000 large farms accounted for 72% of farm sales, with only 2% of the U.S. population residing on farms.

The subsidy programs give farmers extra money for their crops and guarantee a price floor. For instance in the 2002 Farm Bill, for every bushel of wheat sold farmers were paid an extra 52 cents and guaranteed a price of 3.86 from 2002–03 and 3.92 from 2004–2007.^[4] That is, if the price of wheat in 2002 was 3.80 farmers would get an extra 58 cents per bushel (52 cents plus the $0.06 price difference).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy

Administering Sugar Imports

“…Raw cane sugar, refined sugar, sugar syrups, specialty sugars and sugar-containing products enter the United States under a variety of tariff-rate quotas (TRQs). A tariff-rate quota provides for a low tariff on a certain quantity (the quota amount), and a higher tariff on any quantity above the level of the quota. Under the WTO (Uruguay Round) and some other free trade agreements, the United States has committed to minimum annual low-duty access amounts for certain sugars and sugar-containing products. Sugar and any related products paying the high tariff may enter in unlimited quantities.

The USDA also administers three re-export programs involving sugar. The USDA’s Sugar-Containing Products Re-Export Program is designed to put U.S. manufacturers of sugar-containing products on a level playing field in the world market. The Refined Sugar Re-Export Program is designed to facilitate the use of domestic refining capacity to export refined sugar into the world market. The Sugar for the Production of Polyhydric Alcohol Program is established to provide world priced sugar to U.S. manufacturers of polyhydric alcohols.

Fact Sheet: Background on all FAS sugar import activities

…”

http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/imports/ussugar.aspObama Spotlights Student Loan Reform

By Michael A. Fletcher

“…President Obama today touted his plans to cut banks out of the business of administering federally-guaranteed student loans, saying the choice comes down to supporting special interests or supporting financial aid for millions of students.

Speaking at the White House, Obama said that the change, which has drawn opposition from members of Congress from both parties, would save tens of billions of dollars. That money — which has been estimated by White House budget makers to be as much as $48 billion over the decade — would be enough to cover 95 percent of the cost of his plan to increase Pell Grants for students and peg future increases to an index higher than inflation.

“We have a student loan system where we’re giving lenders billions of dollars in wasteful subsidies that could be used to make college more affordable for all Americans,” Obama said. …”

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/04/24/obama_spotlights_student_loan.htmlObama says his student-loan plan will save billions

“…The administration, in a background paper on the issue, said the program “lines the pockets of the banks who serve as middlemen while costing the American people $5 billion a year.”

About 76 percent of all federal student loans for the 2007- 2008 school year were issued through the FFEL program, according to America’s Student Loan Providers, an industry group whose members include SLM and Nelnet. The remaining 24 percent of new federal loans were made by the Education Department through the Direct Loan Program.

Under Obama’s proposal, all new federal loans would go through the Direct Loan Program. The Obama administration has said it expects to save $48 billion over 10 years, or more than $4 billion a year, by eliminating the FFEL program. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Obama’s plan would save $94 billion over 10 years.

The savings would be redirected into student-aid programs such as Pell Grants for the neediest students and guarantee an annual increase that is tied to inflation.”

http://www.app.com/article/20090425/BUSINESS/904250310/1003/business

Pell Grant

“…The Federal Pell Grant Program provides need-based grants to low-income undergraduate and certain postbaccalaureate students to promote access to postsecondary education. Students may use their grants at any one of approximately 5,400 participating postsecondary institutions. Grant amounts are dependent on: the student’s expected family contribution (EFC) (see below); the cost of attendance (as determined by the institution); the student’s enrollment status (full-time or part-time); and whether the student attends for a full academic year or less.

Students may not receive Federal Pell Grant funds from more than one school at a time. …”

http://www.ed.gov/programs/fpg/index.html

Pell Grant

“.The Pell Grant program is a type of post-secondary, educational federal grant program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education. It is named after U.S. Senator Claiborne Pell^[1] and originally known as the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant program. Grants, which do not require repayment, are awarded based on a “financial need” formula determined by the U.S. Congress using criteria submitted through the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA).

The Pell Grant is covered by legislation titled the Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1; 20 U.S.C. 1070a.

Because of the high levels of need required to obtain a Pell Grant, receipt of them is often used by researchers as a proxy for low-income student attendance and to indicate the economic diversity of the student body.

The Pell Grant program is a type of post-secondary, educational federal grant program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education. It is named after U.S. Senator Claiborne Pell^[1] and originally known as the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant program. Grants, which do not require repayment, are awarded based on a “financial need” formula determined by the U.S. Congress using criteria submitted through the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA).

The Pell Grant is covered by legislation titled the Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1; 20 U.S.C. 1070a.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 caps the Pell Grant’s award at $4,860 in the 2009-2010 school year.^[2] Federal budget legislation passed in early 2006 cut the federal financial aid budget by $12.5 billion. While the maximum Pell Grant legislative limit was raised to $5,800 through 2011, maximum Pell Grant awards were not funded at this level. The maximum award available to students has been frozen at $4,050 since 2003-04.

For 2006-07, the maximum Pell Grant available to students was $4,050. For the award year of 2007-2008 the maximum Pell Grant award was $4,310. The maximum award for the 2008-09 award year (July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009) is $4,731. The maximum can change each award year and depends on program funding. The maximum grant is to increase to $5,400 by 2012.

Students with less need receive smaller amounts. Grant money can be used for tuition, fees, and education expenses (such as textbooks or required materials for a class).^[3]

Due to high increases in the cost of post-secondary education and slow or no growth in the Pell Grant program, the value of Pell Grants has eroded significantly over time. In 2005-06, the maximum Pell Grant covered one-third of the yearly cost of higher education at a public four-year institution; twenty years ago, it covered 60% of a student’s cost of attendance. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pell_Grant

The Future of Federal Student Loans9

George Carlin – List of people who ought to be killed

However, President Obama opposes other American parents from having the choice as to where their children go to school.

School Vouchers Killed by Democrat Congress – All poor children to be left behind now – Glenn Beck

The Case for School Vouchers

President Obama and the Democratic Party oppose school vouchers or money given to parents to be used to pay for the tuition of their children at the school of their choice.

If President Obama really cared about the education of our children, he would support school vouchers and more competition in education, not less.

Instead he used the stimulus bill to fund public education–more money for failing government schools–in order to reward his political supporters the teacher unions.

Rewarding the performance of outstanding teachers, charter schools and school voucher programs received very little funding or no funding in the stimulus package.

Rhetoric and Reality in the Education Stimulus Bill

Bill Gates presses Obama on stimulus, global aid

The None Stimulus Package

Why should you send your children to government schools?

Why should you put your money in government banks?

Why indeed as long as there are competitive private schools and banks?

If you value your children and money never send them to a government controlled, owned and operated institution.

Minds are precious and money is hard to earn.

Minds and money are terrible things to waste.

Next to the unions and trial lawyers, President Obama’s biggest supporters and campaign contributors have been Wall Street financial institutions including the executives and board members of the largest commercial and investment banks.

President Obama’s and the Democratic Party’s radical socialism agenda should be boycotted not stimulated and certainly not encouraged with your tax dollars or business.

Find another bank that either did not take a bailout or TARP money or were forced to take TARP money and have already or want to pay the money back.

Then move your account and business to a private bank that serves your needs.

Shun all banks, businesses, and institutions that accept government funding or subsidies.

If you have children, home school them if you can or take a second job and send them to the best private school you can afford.

LOL

We’re Still Getting SCREWED…

Join the Second American Revolution

Second American Revolution–Tea Party Celebrations–Washington Fair–July 4, 2009–An Open Invitation To The American People

American People’s Plan = 6 Month Tax Holiday + FairTax = Real Hope + Real Change!–Millions To March On Washington D.C. Saturday, July 4, 2009!

Please Spread The Message of Liberty

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil; God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

~Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Bonhoeffer Agent of Grace

Background Articles and Videos

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“…Dietrich Bonhoeffer IPA: [ˈdiːtrɪç ˈboːnhøfɐ] (February 4, 1906 – April 9, 1945) was a German Lutheran pastor, theologian, participant in the German Resistance movement against Nazism, a founding member of the Confessing Church. His involvement in plans by members of the Abwehr (the German Military Intelligence Office) to assassinate Adolf Hitler resulted in his execution. Bonhoeffer was arrested in March 1943, imprisoned, and eventually executed by hanging shortly before the war’s end.^[1] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer

Nationalization

“Nationalization, also spelled nationalisation, is the act of taking an industry or assets into the public ownership of a national government or state. Nationalization usually refers to private assets, but may also mean assets owned by lower levels of government, such as municipalities, being state operated or owned by the state. The opposite of nationalization is usually privatization or de-nationalisation, but may also be municipalization. A renationalization occurs when state-owned assets are privatized and later nationalized again, often when a different political party or faction is in power. A renationalization process may also be called reverse privatization.

The motives for nationalization are political as well as economic. It is a central theme of certain brands of ‘state socialist’ policy that the means of production, distribution and exchange, should be owned by the state on behalf of the people to allow for rational allocation and operation, and rational planning or control of the economy. Many socialists believe that public ownership enables people to exercise full democratic control over the means whereby they earn their living and provides an effective means of redistributing wealth and income more equitably.

Nationalized industries, charged with operating in the public interest, may be under strong political and social pressures to give much more attention to externalities. They may be obliged to operate some loss making activities where social benefits are clearly greater than social costs – for example, rural, postal and transport services. As an instance, the United States Postal Service is guaranteed its nationalised status by the Constitution. The government has recognized these social obligations and, in some cases, provides subsidies for such non-commercial operations.

Since the nationalised industries are state owned, the government is responsible for meeting any debts incurred by these industries. The nationalized industries do not normally borrow from the domestic market other than for short-term borrowing.

Nationalization may occur with or without compensation to the former owners. If it takes place without compensation it is a case of expropriation. Nationalization is distinguished from property redistribution in that the government retains control of nationalized property. Some nationalizations take place when a government seizes property acquired illegally. For example, the French government seized the car-makers Renault because its owners had collaborated with the Nazi occupiers of France. …”

“…A key issue in nationalization is payment of compensation to the former owner. The most controversial nationalizations, known as expropriations, are those where no compensation, or an amount far below the likely market value of the nationalized assets, is paid. Many nationalizations through expropriation have come after revolutions.

The traditional Western stance on compensation was expressed by United States Secretary of State Cordell Hull, during the 1938 Mexican nationalization of the petroleum industry, that compensation should be “prompt, effective and adequate.” According to this view, the nationalizing state is obligated under international law to pay the deprived party the full value of the property taken. The opposing position has been taken mainly by developing countries, claiming that the question of compensation should be left entirely up to the sovereign state, in line with the Calvo Doctrine. Communist states have held that no compensation is due, based on socialist notions of private properties.

In 1962, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 1803, “Permanent Sovereignty over National Resources”, which states that in the event of nationalization, the owner “shall be paid appropriate compensation in accordance with international law.” In doing so, the UN rejected both the traditional Calvo-doctrinist view and the Communist view. The term “appropriate compensation” represents a compromise between the traditional views, taking into account the need of developing countries to pursue reform even without the ability to pay full compensation, and the Western concern for protection of private property.

When nationalizing a large business, the cost of compensation is so great that many legal nationalizations have happened when firms of national importance run close to bankruptcy and can be acquired by the government for little or no money. A classic example is the UK nationalization of the British Leyland Motor Corporation. At other times, governments have considered it important to gain control of institutions of strategic economic importance, such as banks or railways, or of important industries struggling economically. The case of Rolls-Royce plc, nationalized in 1971, is an interesting blend of these two arguments. This policy was sometimes known as ensuring government control of the “commanding heights” of the economy, to enable it to manage the economy better in terms of long-term development and medium-term stability. The extent of this policy declined in the 1980s and 1990s as governments increasingly privatized industries that had been nationalized, replacing their strategic economic influence with use of the tax system and of interest rates.

Nonetheless, national and local governments have seen the advantage of keeping key strategic assets in institutions that are not strongly profit-driven and can raise funds outside the public-sector constraints, but still retain some public accountability. Examples from the last five years in the United Kingdom include the vesting of the British railway infrastructure firm Railtrack in the not-for-profit company Network Rail, and the divestment of much council housing stock to “arms-length management companies”, often with mutual status. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization

Why Investors Should Avoid State-Owned Companies

By William Gamble

“…In the United States, I have heard talk show hosts often ask the question, “why can’t government run like a business.” The answer is simple. They have the wrong incentives and disincentives. It has to do with game theory.

Principals have to hire agents to run things. Principal are the owners, employers, shareholders and citizens. Agents are the employees, managers and government officials. Agents are supposed to act in their principals’ best interests. Employees are supposed to do their jobs. Managers are supposed to run their companies with shareholder value in mind. Politicians of all countries are supposed to implement policies that benefit all of their citizens. Often they don’t.

In the US, we are now being treated to the spectacle of AIG and Merrill Lynch bonuses. This is generally viewed as some sort of moral failure, but it is nothing of the sort. These agents are just acting naturally. They are looking after their own interests. They did not really care if the owners of their firms, either shareholders or now the US government, lost. In game theory, an agent’s best move is to act for themselves, not for the principal. The principal knows this and attempts to offer economic incentives and disincentives, to get the agent to perform. …”

“…The current economic crisis has now reversed the trend of privatization of many state owned firms all over the world. The perception of the failure of capitalism has made nationalization more acceptable. Firms from China to Russia to Dubai have received injections of capital from the state. Bolivia and Venezuela have resorted to old fashion nationalization. In China, airlines, power generation, car companies and banks have all received capital from the state. One of China sovereign wealth funds, China Investment Corporation, having been burned by investments in the west, is now focusing its attention to buying companies in China. It seems that no politician can resist expanding not only political power but economic as well.

Finally, it comes down to one thing: state firms manage for political reasons, not for profit, whether those reasons are to try and increase access to natural resources for national security or to find jobs for the unemployed. Either way, it makes little difference to investors or minority shareholders. Value and efficiency will always take a back seat. Although some growth may occur, it will only last until the needs of the state take priority. …”

http://seekingalpha.com/article/126601-why-investors-should-avoid-state-owned-companies

U.S. May Enlist Small Investors in Bank Bailout

By GRAHAM BOWLEY and MICHAEL J. de la MERCED

“…Now, it seems, they will be asked to come to the aid of their banks — with the added inducement of possibly making some money for themselves.

As part of its sweeping plan to purge banks of troublesome assets, the Obama administration is encouraging several large investment companies to create the financial-crisis equivalent of war bonds: bailout funds.

The idea is that these investments, akin to mutual funds that buy stocks and bonds, would give ordinary Americans a chance to profit from the bailouts that are being financed by their tax dollars. But there is another, deeply political motivation as well: to quiet accusations that all of these giant bailouts will benefit only Wall Street plutocrats.

The potential risks — politically for the administration, and financially for would-be investors — are considerable.

The funds, the thinking goes, would buy troubled mortgage securities from banks, enabling the lenders to make the loans that are needed to rekindle the economy. Many of the loans that back these securities were made during the subprime era. If all goes well, the funds will eventually sell the investments at a profit.

But, as with any investment, there are risks. If, as some analysts suspect, the banks’ assets are worth even less than believed, the funds’ investors could suffer significant losses. Nonetheless, the administration and executives in the financial industry are pushing to establish the investment funds, in part to counter swelling hostility against the financial industry. …”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/business/09fund.html?_r=1&hpw

The Million Taxpayer March

By Michelle Malkin

“…If only the condescending cable TV anchors at CNN and MSNBC had paused from wallowing in gutter puns about tea bags, they might have reported an even more significant phenomenon: Tea Party protesters were as vocal in their criticism of Republicans as they were of Democrats. In Salt Lake City, Utah, a crowd of 2,000 repeatedly booed GOP Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, who both supported the $700 billion TARP bailout, and protested GOP Gov. Jon Huntsman’s decision to accept $1.6 billion in porky stimulus funds.

In Sacramento, Tea Party organizer Mark Meckler singled out California GOP chair Ron Nehring for waffling on proposed $16 billion tax hikes. The crowd of 5,000 greeted Nehring – who unsuccessfully tried to hitch his wagon to the Tea Party movement – with a roar of boos and catcalls. Speaker after speaker lambasted Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for abandoning fiscal conservative principles. The loudest chant of the day: “Throw them out.” …”

“…What resonated on Tax Day were non-partisan calls to roll back pork, hold the line on taxing and spending, end the endless government bailouts, and stop the congressional steamrollers who have pushed through mountains of legislation without deliberation. This is a teachable moment for GOP public relations peddlers in Washington. While they search for the Holy Grail of Re-branding in tony salons and country club conferences, the agenda for 2010 is smacking them in the face. It’s the three T’s, stupid: Too Many Taxes, Trillions in Debt, and Transparency. …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/17/the-million-taxpayer-march/

Peter Schiff pulling no punches now – US BANKS are WORTHLESS!

Obama and Rockefeller 1

Obama and Rockefeller 2

Revelle Forum: David Rockefeller

20/20 – Bailouts and Bull**** Pt. 2 of 6

20/20 – Bailouts and Bull**** Pt. 3 of 6

20/20 – Bailouts and Bull**** Pt. 4 of 6

20/20 – Bailouts and Bull**** Pt. 5 of 6

20/20 – Bailouts and Bull**** Pt. 6 of 6

John Stossel interview with Reason Magazine Part 2 of 2

Dennis Prager & Thomas Sowell – Part 1/3: Global Warming, Iraq, “Annointed” Liberals

Dennis Prager & Thomas Sowell – Part 2/3: Housing Crisis, Nuclear Iran, Wall Street

Background Articles and Videos

Confirmed: The Obama DHS hit job on conservatives is real

By Michelle Malkin • April 14, 2009 12:01 AM

“…Yesterday, Roger Hedgecock and the Liberty Papers posted an unclassified DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis report titled:

Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.

The “report” (PDF file here) was one of the most embarrassingly shoddy pieces of propaganda I’d ever read out of DHS. I couldn’t believe it was real. …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/14/confirme-the-obama-dhs-hit-job-on-conservatives-is-real/

Nanny State

“…Nanny state is a term that refers to state protectionism, economic interventionism, or regulatory policies (of economic, social or other nature), and the perception that these policies are becoming institutionalized as common practice. Opponents of such policies use the term in their advocacy against what they consider as uninvited and damaging state meddling. It has been referred to as a form of political correctness. …”

“…Its usage varies by political context, but in general it is used in reference to policies where the state is characterized as being excessive in its desire to protect (“nanny”), govern or control particular aspects of society. Which particular aspects are considered to be excessively protected depends on usage. The term can refer to:

public health interventions such as disease surveillance, quarantines, mandatory or government-subsidized vaccination, food labeling regulations, school lunch programs, and water fluoridation^[1]
consumer protectionism that removes or controls otherwise free choices such as helmet laws, anti-smoking laws and other laws regarding personal choices (some of which include a social cost, as in disease in non-smokers cause by second hand smoke)
national economic and social policies (regulation and intervention) that affect large and state-favored businesses
international trade policies that favor native corporate industries (protectionism).

For example, politically conservative or libertarian groups in the United States (especially paleoconservatives that support the free market and capitalism) object to excessive state action to protect people from the consequences of their actions by restricting citizen options.

Liberals on the other hand have used the term to describe the state as being excessive in its protections of businesses and the business class —protections ostensibly made against the public good, and the good of consumers. This usage applies to the international context as well, where the “public good” is used to refer to people in general, and where the state is viewed as being excessive in its protection of native business over foreign (rival) businesses.

The term “Nanny State” was probably coined by the Conservative British MP Iain Macleod who wrote “what I like to call the nanny state . . .” in his column “Quoodle” in the December 3, 1965 edition of The Spectator.^{[citation needed]}

American foreign policy critic Noam Chomsky regularly uses the term “nanny state” to refer to U.S. protectionist policy. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_state

The Constitution Is A Subversive Manifesto Per DHS

By William A. Jacobson

“…One thing that is not clear from the news reports, to begin with, is that the Report specifically states that there is no current real threat, even from the most extreme White Supremacist groups: “Threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been mostly rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts.” From the news accounts, you would think there was an actual threat, but that is not so.

But the even bigger vice is how a “rightwing extremist” is defined. I don’t disagree that the few remaining White Supremacist groups should be in any definition, but DHS puts a distinctly political spin on the definition (emphasis mine):

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

This definition is so broad as to include anyone who seeks to preserve the foundation of our federal-state constitutional distinction, under the 10th Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”), because such a person could be deemed to “reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.” So Texas Governor Rick Perry, who has come out in support of preserving the constitutional integrity of Texas now should be on the DHS‘ extremist and radical watch-list.

Similarly, the reference to “abortion or immigration” is purely political. Why pick those two subjects? If someone is planning violence, that is one thing. But vocalizing one’s view on a subject and seeking to influence the government are protected by the 1st Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances …”

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/04/constitution-is-subversive-manifesto.html

Janet Napolitano’s Extremist Makeover tour
By Michelle Malkin

“…Janet Napolitano made the media rounds this morning to face the public firestorm over DHS’s hit job on conservatives.

I’m calling it the Extremist Makeover tour.

She offered an apology to veterans, saying it wasn’t her intention to offend. It may not have been the intention of the report authors or Napolitano to offend or overreach, but that was certainly the effect. And it remains a mystery why Napolitano felt it necessary to distribute a shoddy nine-page report that was supposedly in the works under the Bush administration for a year, as Napolitano claims, containing zero data backing up the claim of a “resurgence” of rightwing extremist violence — and was padded with analysis from the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center to stir fear of “disgruntled military veterans.”

On Fox and Friends this morning, Napolitano admitted that she would have changed the definition included in the report. …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/16/janet-napolitanos-extremist-makeover-tour/

You might be a radicalized rightwing extremist if…

By Michelle Malkin

“…if you are heading out to a Tea Party today!

Here’s my syndicated column on the DHS hit job. A few may be inclined to give DHS the benefit of the doubt. Andrew McCarthy reminds you of the many reasons why you should not.

***

(Photoshop: Tennyson Hayes)

You might be a “radicalized rightwing extremist” if…
by Michelle Malkin …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/15/you-might-be-a-radicalized-rightwing-extremist-if/

The vaunted “Left-Wing Extremism” report

By Ed Morrissey

“… is here, courtesy of Jake Tapper. This is the report heralded by counter-critics of the DHS report on “right-wing extremism” that supposedly disproves political bias in the substance-free attack on conservative critics. Except that the report on extremism of the Left is much different than the other DHS report, starting with specifics. While the DHS report focusing on the Right expansively and generally indicted groups opposing abortion, illegal immigration, and federalism, this report instead focuses on actual and specific extremist groups — groups who have a long history of domestic terrorism and violence (page 9):

(U//FOUO) DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines leftwing extremists as groups or individuals who embrace radical elements of the anarchist, animal rights, or environmental movements and are often willing to violate the law to achieve their objectives. Many leftwing extremist groups are not hierarchically ordered with defined members, leaders, or chain of command structures but operate as loosely-connected underground movements composed of “lone wolves,” small cells, and splinter groups.

— (U//LES) Animal rights and environmental extremists seek to end the perceived abuse and suffering of animals and the degradation of the natural environment perpetrated by humans. They use non-violent and violent tactics that, at times, violate criminal law. Many of these extremists claim they are conducting these activities on behalf of two of the most active groups, the Animal Liberation Front and its sister organization, the Earth Liberation Front. Other prominent groups include Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty; and chapters within the Animal Defense League, and Earth First!.

— (U//FOUO) Anarchist extremists generally embrace a number of radical philosophical components of anticapitalist, antiglobalization, communist, socialist, and other movements. Anarchist groups seek abolition of social, political, and economic hierarchies, including Western-style governments and large business enterprises, and frequently advocate criminal actions of varying scale and scope to accomplish their goals. Anarchist extremist groups include entities within Crimethinc, the Ruckus Society, and Recreate 68.

In other words, it does not treat all animal-rights criticisms as indications of terrorist thought. It fails to paint all opponents of free trade as potential national-security threats. Global warming activism does not get treated in this instance as federalism does in the execrable DHS report on conservatives and libertarians. In other words, in this report, the DHS actually focuses on threats, not becoming the Thought Police. …”

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/15/the-vaunted-left-wing-extremism-report/

“…The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in “rightwing extremist activity,” saying the economic recession, the election of America’s first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Federal agency warns of radicals on right

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines “rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” the warning says. …”

The White House has distanced itself from the analysis. When asked for comment on its contents, White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said, “The President is focused not on politics but rather taking the steps necessary to protect all Americans from the threat of violence and terrorism regardless of its origins. He also believes those who serve represent the best of this country, and he will continue to ensure that our veterans receive the respect and benefits they have earned.” …”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/print/

Alex Jones Tv:DHS’s New Document Warning on Rightwing Extremism

Ranking Member King on MSNBC criticizing DHS report on “Rightwing Extremism”

Ralph Peters: DHS report on right-wing extremists is ‘racist’ attack on white Christians

Mrs. Doubtfire Trailer

Mrs. Doubtfire RECUT

Background Articles and Videos

Follow the Bailout Cash

By Michael Isikoff and Dina Fine Maron

“…While a few big firms, such as Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase, have curtailed their campaign giving, others are quietly doling out cash to select members of Congress, particularly those who serve on committees that oversee TARP. In recent filings with the Federal Election Commission, the political action committee for Bank of America (which got $15 billion in bailout money) sent out $24,500 in the first two months of 2009, including $1,500 to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and another $15,000 to members of the House and Senate banking panels. Citigroup ($25 billion) dished out $29,620, including $2,500 to House GOPWhip Eric Cantor, who also got $10,000 from UBS which, while not a TARP recipient, got $5 billion in bailout funds as an AIG “counterparty.” “This certainly appears to be a case of TARP funds being recycled into campaign contributions,” says Brett Kappell, a D.C. lawyer who tracks donations. (A spokesman for Cantor did not respond to requests for comment. A spokeswoman for Hoyer said it’s his “policy to accept legal contributions.”) …”

http://www.newsweek.com/id/190363

Critics Got Donations From Insurer

Obama and Dodd Raised Money From the Firm for Presidential Campaigns

“…When Mr. Dodd was raising funds from AIG, his donor list included some executives from the company’s financial-products division that created the instruments that brought billions of dollars in losses to the company and led to its collapse.

A few weeks before Mr. Dodd formally announced that he was running for the Democratic nomination, 33 employees of AIG’s financial-products division each contributed $2,100 to his presidential account, or $69,300 total, according to Federal Election Commission records.

In March 2007, Mr. Dodd’s campaign paid $250 to the financial-products unit in Wilton, Conn., for a “room rental fee.” Such itemizations typically are associated with fund-raising events.

AIG has run one of the largest political-influence operations in Washington in the past decade. The company has spent $72.6 million to lobby Congress and the administration since 1998, making it one of the top lobbying spenders among corporations, according to public records.

In October, after it received government funding to stay afloat, AIG said it would stop lobbying Congress and the Obama administration. Campaign donations dried up at the same time.

AIG has made $9.3 million in donations since 1989, placing it among the top 100 sources of campaign donations during that period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In addition, FEC records show that the company has hosted dozens of fund-raising events for lawmakers. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123742426774379307.html

Did Campaign Cash Influence Bailout? Banks Get 258,000 Percent Return from Investments in D.C. Pols.

“…His anger seems real enough. But the stench of hypocrisy reeks up the room every time he forgets to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars he received in 2008 as campaign donations from these same banks, their management and employees—currently now under receivership of the U.S. taxpayer.

But Sen. Dodd is not alone. He and the biggest names in American politics, including President Barack Obama, are quickly becoming poster children for “moral hazard” and pay-to-play politics. Slap-dash legislation with little or no oversight, by the Bush Administration, rubber-stamped by top Democratic politicians, seems to have made problems worse, not better. Banks are hoarding bailout money, and its not getting down to consumers.

Dodd’s Senate committee—arguably one of the most powerful–created and oversees the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)—the $700 billion dollar bailout of financial institutions—caught up in the sub-mortgage meltdown.

From all indications and reports, TARP has been universally acclaimed a failure-in-progress and bad news reports have angered large cross sections of America. Dodd and his committee seem powerless to reign in the titans of American finance and industry—despite widespread capital infusions from Congress. Unemployment is moving towards double digits and banks haven’t begun to unfreeze consumer credit, although a moratorium on mortgage foreclosures was set in place.

But the Senior Senator from Connecticut who said he personally turned a four-page draft into 80-plus pages of legislation that was passed, has crossed an ethical line. While he was crafting legislation to rescue his friends, Dodd “received $854,200 from the T.A.R.P. companies in the 2008 election cycle, including money to his presidential campaign” according to a recent Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) report. …”

“…According to the C.R.P. report, Sen. Chris Dodd received $854,200 from various financial groups, including $570,294 from commercial banks in the 07-08’ election cycle.

-Speaker of House Nancy Pelosi received a paltry $15,600 from JPMorgan/Chase, $11,000 from both Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.

-Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid received $71,500 in from JPMorgan/Chase and $47,350 from Citigroup.

-Alabama Sen. Dick Shelby who sits on the Senate Banking Committee got $91,200 from his top contributor; Citigroup, and $66,500 from JP Morgan/Chase.

-Senior Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin got $46,575 from Citigroup and $19,500 from Goldman Sachs.

-New York Sen. Chuck Schumer raked in $80,800 from Citigroup, $58,000 from Goldman Sachs, $57,000 from Morgan Stanley, $53,750 from Lehman, $50,250 from Merrill Lynch, $47,800 from JP Morgan Chase—raised over $1 million from Securities and Investment firms.

-Sen. Minority Leader Republican John Boehner got $14,300 from Morgan Stanley and $12,000 from Goldman Sachs.

These where the same people—our legislators and leadership who were charged with giving a blank check of $700 billion to companies who were funding their re-election campaigns. Can you spell conflict of interest? By rights lawmakers, including all Presidential campaigns–should return any money received from employees and management of these failed corporations they are legally responsible to regulate. …”

http://www.kctribune.com/article.cfm?articleID=18675

AIG Gives $644,000 in ‘Campaign Bonuses’ to U.S. Senators and Representatives According to The O’Leary Report

“…As President Barack Obama and Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) continue to point fingers over which one of them is to blame for the stimulus bill’s “Dodd Amendment,” which specifically excludes bonuses from caps on executive pay, one thing is clear: both Obama and Dodd profited from AIG campaign “bonuses” and an overwhelming majority of Americans want them to give this money back.
According to a breaking poll conducted by The O’Leary Report and Zogby International, 73 percent of Americans think any members of Congress who received campaign contributions from AIG over the last two years should return the money.
This might go double for President Obama and Senator Dodd, who were by far the largest recipients of AIG campaign cash in the last election cycle. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Obama received $104,332 from AIG and Dodd raked in $103,900. Obama and Dodd far outpaced the rest of Congress, as the next largest beneficiary received about $45,000 less than each of them. All told, AIG gave a total of $644,218 to federal candidates over the last election cycle. …”

http://www.smartmoney.com/news/pr/?story=PR-20090325-000143-0546

Cronyism

“…Cronyism is partiality to long-standing friends, especially by appointing them to positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications. Hence, cronyism is contrary in practice and principle to meritocracy. Cronyism exists when the appointer and the beneficiary are in social contact; often, the appointer is inadequate to hold his or her own job or position of authority, and for this reason the appointer appoints individuals who will not try to weaken him or her, or express views contrary to those of the appointer. Politically, “cronyism” is derogatorily used. The word “crony” first appeared in 18th century London, believed by many to be derived from the Greek word χρόνιος (chronios), meaning “long-term”, however, crony appears in the 1811 edition of Grose’s Vulgar Tongue with a decidedly non-collegiate definition, placing it firmly in the cant of the underworld.[1] A less likely source is the Irish Language term Comh-Roghna (pron. ko-ronə), which translates to “close pals”, or mutual friends.

Governments are particularly susceptible to accusations of cronyism, as they spend public money. Many democratic governments are encouraged to practice administrative transparency in accounting and contracting, however, there often is no clear delineation of when an appointment to government office is “cronyism”. It is not unusual for a politician to surround him- or herself with highly-qualified subordinates, and to develop social, business, or political friendships leading to the appointment to office of friends, likewise in granting government contracts. In fact, the counsel of such friends is why the officeholder successfully obtained his or her powerful position — therefore, cronyism usually is easier to perceive than to demonstrate and prove.

In the private sector, cronyism exists in organizations, often termed ‘the old boys club’ or ‘the golden circle’, again the boundary between cronyism and ‘networking’ is difficult to delineate.

Moreover, cronyism describes relationships existing among mutual acquaintances private organizations where business, business information, and social interaction are exchanged among influential personnel. This is termed crony capitalism, and is an ethical breach of the principles of the market economy; in advanced societies, crony capitalism is a breach of market regulations, e.g. the Enron fraud is an extreme example of crony capitalism.

Given crony capitalism’s nature, these dishonest business practices are frequently (yet not exclusively) found in societies with ineffective legal systems. Resultantly, there is an impetus upon the legislative branch of a government to ensure enforcement of the legal code capable of addressing and redressing private party manipulation of the economy by the involved businessmen and their government cronies.

The economic and social costs of cronyism are paid by society. In the form of reduced business opportunity for the majority of the population, reduced competition in the market place, inflated consumer goods prices, decreased economic performance, inefficient business investment cycles, reduced motivation in affected organizations, and the diminution of economically productive activity. A practical cost of cronyism is manifest in the bad workmanship of public and private community projects. Cronyism is self-generating, cronyism then begets a culture of cronyism. This can only be apprehended by a comprehensive, effective, and enforced legal code, and empowered government agencies who can effect prosecutions in the courts.

All appointments that are suspected of being cronyism are controversial. The appointed party may choose to either suppress disquiet or ignore it, depending upon the society’s level of freedom of expression and individual personal liberty.

Some instances of cronyism are readily transparent. As to others, it is only in hindsight that the qualifications of the alleged “crony” must be evaluated. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croneyism

Bundlers

Bundlers are people with friends in high places who, after bumping against personal contribution limits, turn to those friends, associates, and, well, anyone who’s willing to give, and deliver the checks to the candidate in one big “bundle.”

Even though these donors direct more money to the candidates than anyone else, disclosure can be spotty, with Obama and McCain posting bundlers by ranges, indicated in this chart with the “max” and “min” columns, and with the top ranges being simply “$500,000 or more.” Together, 540 elites have directed at least $207,200,000 to McCain, and 561 have gathered at least $63,200,000 for Obama.

Top Industries of Obama Bundlers

Sector Min. Raised # of Bundlers

Lawyers/Law Firms $12,600,000 97

Securities & Investment $8,250,000 61

TV/Movies/Music $3,200,000 20

Business Services $2,400,000 19

Real Estate $2,050,000 20

Top Industries of Obama Bundlers
Sector	Min. Raised	# of Bundlers
Lawyers/Law Firms	$12,600,000	97
Securities & Investment	$8,250,000	61
TV/Movies/Music	$3,200,000	20
Business Services	$2,400,000	19
Real Estate	$2,050,000	20

The “08 Contribs” column indidates the total amount the bundler, their spouse and dependent children have given to all federal candidates, parties and PACs this election cycle.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/bundlers.php?id=N00009638

Tracking the $700 Billion Bailout

By MATTHEW ERICSON, ELAINE HE and AMY SCHOENFELD

“…Hundreds of banks and a handful of insurers and automakers have applied for funds from the Treasury Department as part of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. The Treasury Department has transferred capital to the majority of these companies. …”

http://projects.nytimes.com/creditcrisis/recipients/table

The Center for Responsive Politics

http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php

Putting on a great show: Kabuki in the House; Update: 328-93, 90 percent bonus tax passes

By Michelle Malkin

“…Scroll for updates…

If you haven’t been watching the AIG bonus debate in the House, you really should tune in.

Barney Frank is shrieking. Jumping up and down over parliamentary procedure. Blaming Bush, Bush, Bush, and then attacking GOP for “partisan attacks.”

John Boehner just finished statement: “Are you kidding me? This is joke. Vote no.”

Very effective: Almost all House GOP members have text of Dodd/Treasury/Obama AIG bonus protection clause on paper or in poster board home.

Frank has no response but to blubber.

Hensarling: “What we have here is a legislative cover-up. The Democrats could have prevented this. All of sudden, the [bonus protection] appeared and it has no parents…Here’s a newsflash: No more federal money, AIG, until bonsues are repaid. What happened to the most open, honest Congress in the history of America?” …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/19/putting-on-a-great-show-kabuki-in-the-house/

First, they came for AIG bonuses

By Michelle Malkin

“…The House is set to vote today on the retroactive, confiscatory 90 percent tax on bailout-funded bonuses. Lawmakers say the tax will apply to Fannie/Freddie bonuses. But who knows what the hell will end up in this Chicken Little measure:

The House is scheduled to vote today on a bill that would levy a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to employees with family incomes above $250,000 at companies that have received at least $5 billion in government bailout money.

“We figured that the local and state governments would take care of the other 10 percent,” said Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

Rangel said the bill would apply to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among others, while excluding community banks and other smaller companies that have received less bailout money…The top two members of the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday announced a bill that would impose a 35 percent excise tax on the companies paying the bonuses and a 35 percent excise tax on the employees receiving them. The taxes would apply to all companies receiving government bailout money, but they are clearly geared toward AIG.

The NYPost rightly warns that such politically expedient power grabs are courting catastrophe: …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/19/first-they-came-for-aig-bonuses/

The Senate shows a little sense; confiscatory Republicans show no shame

By Michelle Malkin

“…Cooler heads have prevailed in the U.S. Senate and in this particular case, it is a good thing.

The Senate took its role as a deliberative body seriously and has buried the demagogic, backside-covering corporate bonus tax bill passed last week by the House. They’ve kicked the can down the road.

The Hill reports:

President Obama and Senate Democrats have buried a bill passed last week by the House that would have heavily taxed executive bonuses at bailed-out firms.

Despite the public outcry over $165 million in bonuses awarded at troubled insurer AIG, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) showed little inclination Monday to bring the explosive issue to the floor this week or next. Instead, Reid is likely to delay action on executive compensation until late April, after the Senate returns from a two-week recess starting April 4…

…Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.) said there is very little chance the Senate will act this week to recoup bonuses passed out at AIG and other corporations receiving bailout funds.

I still have seen very little questioning of the 85 Grabby Hands House Republicans, led by minority whip Eric Cantor, who went along with this abomination. How can they be trusted not to lose their heads when the next Kabuki outrage comes along? How can they be counted on to resist
the next confiscatory scheme down the road — say, this one? …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/24/the-senate-shows-a-little-sense-confiscatory-republicans-show-no-shame/

Stop

Radical Socialism’s

Massive Government Intervention, Spending, Taxes, Deficits, Debt and Regulations

Protect Your

Life, Liberty, Happiness, Family, Job, Property, Retirement and Free Enterprise Capitalism

Join The

Second American Revolution

Second American Revolution–Tea Party Celebrations–Washington Fair–July 4, 2009–An Open Invitation To The American People

American People’s Plan = 6 Month Tax Holiday + FairTax = Real Hope + Real Change!–Millions To March On Washington D.C. Saturday, July 4, 2009!

Tea Parties Take Off In Texas–Spreading Nationwide–Are You Going To Washington Fair? Millions Celebrate The Second American Revolution–Saturday, July 4, 2009

Operation Family Freedom (OFF): Millions Celebrate Washington Fair, Saturday, July 4, 2009–The Second American Revolution

The conservative moment which has always been a fusion of traditional conservatives, fiscal conservatives and classical liberals or libertarians responds to President Obama’s Radical Socialist assault on free enterprise capitalism both on the streets at Tea Parties across the nation and at the Conservative Politcal Action Conference 2009:

The “Silent ” Majority Addresses The Nation

Congressman Pence Address CPAC 2009 Part 1

Congressman Pence Address CPAC 2009 Part 2

Congressman Pence Addresses CPAC 2009 Part 3

Ron Paul at CPAC 2009. Part 1 of 3

Ron Paul at CPAC 2009. Part 2 of 3

Ron Paul at CPAC 2009. Part 3 of 3

Ann Coulter at CPAC 2009 (Part 1)

Ann Coulter at CPAC 2009 (Part 2)

Ann Coulter at CPAC 2009 (Part 3)

Newt Gingrich Speech at 2009 CPAC

Rush Limbaugh Gives Speech To CPAC (part 1)

Rush Limbaugh Gives Speech To CPAC (part 2)

Rush Limbaugh Gives Speech To CPAC (part 3)

Rush Limbaugh Gives Speech To CPAC (part 4)

Rush Limbaugh Gives Speech To CPAC (part 5)

Rush Limbaugh Gives Speech To CPAC (part 6)

Rush Limbaugh Gives Speech To CPAC (part 7)

Rush Limbaugh Gives Speech To CPAC (part 8)

Rush Limbaugh Gives Speech To CPAC (part9)

Rush Limbaugh Gives Speech To CPAC (part 10)

Background Articles and Videos

Obama’s Spending Spree – Dangerous Days ! | The O’Reilly Factor | Fox News Channel

Newt Gingrich On Obama Budget

Another Look – Obama’s Budget – Bloomberg

I.O.U.S.A.: Byte-Sized – The 30 Minute Version

For Tax Year 2006

Percentiles Ranked by AGI

AGI Threshold on Percentiles

Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%

$388,806

39.89

Top 5%

$153,542

60.14

Top 10%

$108,904

70.79

Top 25%

$64,702

86.27

Top 50%

$31,987

97.01

Bottom 50%

<$31,987

2.99

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

The 2003 tax cut was the second in three years, and although tax rates are lower, the federal income tax still remains highly progressive. The average tax rate in 2006 ranges from 3.0 percent of income for the bottom half of tax returns to 22.8 percent for the top 1 percent.Table 1
Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2006
(Updated July 2008)

Number of Returns with Positive AGI

AGI ($ millions)

Income Taxes Paid ($ millions)

Group’s Share of Total AGI

Group’s Share of Income Taxes

Income Split Point

Average Tax Rate

All Taxpayers
135,719,160

$8,122,040

$1,023,739

100%

100%

–

12.60%

Top 1%
1,357,192

$1,791,886

$408,369

22.06%

39.89%

> $388,806

22.79%

Top 2-5%
5,428,766

$1,185,828

$207,311

14.60%

20.25%

17.48%

Top 5%
6,785,958

$2,977,714

$615,680

36.66%

60.14%

> $153,542

20.68%

Top 6-10%
6,785,958

$865,430

$109,060

10.66%

10.65%

12.60%

Top 10%
13,571,916

$3,843,144

$724,740

47.32%

70.79%

> $108,904

18.86%

Top 11-25%
20,357,874

$1,692,686

$158,413

20.84%

15.47%

9.36%

Top 25%
33,929,790

$5,535,830

$883,153

68.16%

86.27%

> $64,702

15.95%

Top 26-50%
33,929,790

$1,569,769

$110,023

19.33%

10.75%

7.01%

Top 50%
67,859,580

$7,105,599

$993,176

87.49%

97.01%

> $31,987

13.98%

Bottom 50%
67,859,580

$1,016,441

$30,563

12.51%

2.99%

< $31,987

3.01%

Source: Internal Revenue Service, http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html (“Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Returns Classified by Tax Percentile – Early Release”)

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.htm

Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973)

by Murray N. Rothbard

“Economics deals with society’s fundamental problems; it concerns everyone and belongs to all. It is the main and proper study of every citizen.”

Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

“…Mises, and his follower Hayek, developed this cycle theory during the 1920s, on the basis of which Mises was able to warn an unheeding world that the widely trumpeted “New Era” of permanent prosperity of the 192Os was a sham, and that its inevitable result would be bank panic and depression. When Hayek was invited to teach at the London School of Economics in 1931 by an influential former student at Mises’s private seminar, Lionel Robbins, Hayek was able to convert most of the younger English economists to this perspective. On a collision course with John Maynard Keynes and his disciples at Cambridge, Hayek demolished Keynes’s Treatise on Money, but lost the battle and most of his followers to the tidal wave of the Keynesian Revolution that swept the economic world after the publication of Keynes’s General Theory in 1936.

The policy prescriptions for business cycles of Mises-Hayek and of Keynes were diametrically opposed. During a boom period, Mises counseled the immediate end of all bank credit and monetary expansion; and, during a recession, he advised strict laissez-faire, allowing the readjustment forces of the recession to work themselves out as rapidly as possible.

Not only that: for Mises the worst form of intervention would be to prop up prices or wage rates, causing unemployment, to increase the money supply, or to boost government spending in order to stimulate consumption. For Mises, the recession was a problem of under-saving, and over-consumption, and it was therefore important to encourage savings and thrift rather than the opposite, to cut government spending rather than increase it. It is clear that, from 1936 on Mises was totally in opposition to the worldwide fashion in macroeconomic policy.

Socialism-communism had triumphed in Russia and in much of Europe during and after World War I, and Mises was moved to publish his famous article, “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth,” (1920) in which he demonstrated that it would be impossible for a socialist planning board to plan a modern economic system; furthermore, no attempt at artificial “markets” would work, since a genuine pricing and costing system requires an exchange of property titles, and therefore private property in the means of production.

Mises developed the article into his book Socialism(1922), a comprehensive philosophical and sociological, as well as economic critique which still stands as the most thorough and devastating demolition of socialism ever written. Mises’s Socialism converted many prominent economists and social philosophers out of socialism, including Hayek, the German Wilhelm Ropke, and the Englishman Lionel Robbins. …”

http://mises.org/about/3248

An Inconvenient Tax

Cap and trade yields ‘climate revenues.’ But don’t call it a t–.

“…That didn’t take long. The same week that President Obama promised (again) that “95% of working families” would not see their taxes rise by “a single dime,” his own budget reveals that taxes will rise for 100% of everyone for the sake of global warming. Ahem.

You don’t even have to burrow into yesterday’s budget fine print to discover the “climate revenues” section, where the White House discloses that it expects $78.7 billion in new tax revenue in 2012 from its cap-and-trade program. The pot of cash grows to $237 billion through 2014, and at least $646 billion through 2019. If this isn’t tax revenue, what is it? Manna from heaven? The offset from Al Gore’s carbon footprint?

If it brings in revenue that the government then spends, it’s a tax, and politicians should start referring to it as such. The Administration in fact projects that these “climate revenues” will become the sixth largest source of federal receipts by 2019, outpaced only by individual and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare and (barely) excise taxes. We’re supposed to be living in a new era of fiscal honesty, so let’s start with cap and trade.

Of course it’s easy to see why Democrats don’t want the public to think of cap and trade as a tax. Tax increases aren’t popular, as Mr. Gore learned when he and Bill Clinton tried to impose a BTU tax in 1993. The complex cap-and-trade tax would ripple throughout the energy chain and ultimately the entire economy. All consumers, not just “the rich,” would pay more for goods and services that use carbon energy — though some would pay more than others. A majority of those “95% of working families” probably lives in the middle of the country that relies far more on manufacturing and coal-fired power than do the better-off coastal regions. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123569802712289113.html

Obama administration could fast track cap-and-trade, RPS in ’09

January 21, 2009 – Exclusive By Emma Ritch, Cleantech Group

Consultancy Global Change Associates says policies are likely to come prior to U.N. meeting in Copenhagen in December.

“…Peter Fusaro, chairman of Global Change Associates, said leaders are under pressure to fast track emissions-reductions legislation in time for the U.N. conference on climate change in Copenhagen in December, which would prepare the U.S. to join a global strategy when the Kyoto Treaty expires in 2012.

Likely proposals include a 15-percent reduction in emissions from 2005 levels by 2012 and 80 percent by 2050, Fusaro said in a post-election briefing on carbon markets today.

“That will incent industry to invest in cleaner technology since they would have regulatory certainty and long term time horizon,” he told the Cleantech Group.

A U.S. cap-and-trade policy would be in line with the 184 countries participating in the Kyoto Protocol, whereas a carbon tax wouldn’t, Fusaro said. Such a cap-and-trade system would operate as a de facto tax because costs would be added to consumers’ airline tickets, electricity bills and vehicle purchases, he said. …”

“…Carbon trading markets today don’t provide the financial incentive for companies to reduce emissions, with a ton of carbon dioxide emissions selling for between $3 and $15 on various exchanges.

Fusaro said the price has stayed low because there are too many sellers and not enough buyers of emissions thanks to nonexistent caps from the U.S. or too-high allowances from governments such as the European Union. Additionally, the EU mandates don’t cover enough sectors of the economy, such as transportation, Fusaro told the Cleantech Group.

“Greenhouse gas reductions don’t have an intrinsic value. It’s rather a value driven by legislation and the anticipation of legislation,” he said.

Voluntary cap-and-trade markets are giving companies a head start on the learning curve for emissions reductions. The U.S. makes up about 40 percent of the voluntary markets, which are increasingly being used as an alternative to the sometimes-onerous process to get credits through the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) program, Fusaro said.

The forced entry of U.S. companies in a cap-and-trade scheme could create a $1 trillion market thanks to the the country’s 6 billion tons of emissions each year, Fusaro said. Realistically, the program will likely cover 80 percent of the country’s carbon footprint and establish a price cap of $20 a ton, generating enough money for the federal government to spent $15 billion on clean energy, he said. …”

http://cleantech.com/news/4081/obama-administration-could-fast-track-cap-and-trade-rps-09

Santelli On Kudlow Show 6

Tea Party photo album: Fiscal responsibility is the new counterculture

By Michelle Malkin

“…I’ve got tons of photos and e-mails pouring in from Tea Party people across the country. I joked to a Christian Science Monitor reporter covering the events that fiscal responsibility is the new counterculture. More coverage/photos/livestreaming at TCOT Report.

There is, as the old ’60s song goes, something happening here. And what it is, is very clear: A grass-roots revolt against the culture of entitlement. The spendzillas in Washington do not speak for us. …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/27/fiscal-responsibility-is-the-new-counterculture/

Tea Party on: Taxpayer revolts in Green Bay, Lafayette, Olathe, and Harrisburg; Plus: Live from Fullerton CA… “Recall the Taxinator!;” Arnie videotapes/DVDs smashes/shredded

By Michelle Malkin

“…The tax-paying rebels are not going away.

In Green Bay, Wisconsin, today an estimated 500 protesters gathered for a Tea Party at Titletown Brewing. Reader David has more at Pork Revolution:

…”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/07/tea-party-on-taxpayer-revolts-in-green-bay-lafayette-olathe-and-harrisburg/

“Liberty: All the stimulus we need”

By Michelle Malkin

I leave you with the parting photo of the day from the DC Tea Party. It is the leitmotif that ran through the protests across the country. Can’t say it any better than this:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/27/liberty-all-the-stimulus-we-need/

The Tea Party bashers: Clueless, bitter, and wrapped in tinfoil

By Michelle Malkin

You know you’re on to something when the tinfoil hat conspiracists start lobbing grenades at you.

In response to the nationwide outbreak of taxpayer protests against the culture of entitlement, a loon at Playboy.com claimed that the Tea Party events this weekend were part of a grand cabal funded by something called the Koch Foundation in cahoots with CNBC’s Rick Santelli: …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/02/the-tea-party-bashers-clueless-bitter-and-wrapped-in-tinfoil/

The Obama Revolution

Paid for by the people.

“…The first point to understand is the sheer magnitude of federal spending built into this proposal. As the nearby chart shows, federal outlays will soar in fiscal 2009 to $4 trillion, or 27.7% of GDP, from $3 trillion or 21% of GDP in 2008, and 20% in 2007. This is higher as a share of the economy than any year since 1945, when the country was still mobilized for World War II. It is more spending by far than during the Vietnam War, or during the recessions of 1974-75 or 1981-82. …”

“…The falling deficit also assumes the largest tax increase in U.S. history, starting in 2011 with the repeal of the Bush tax rates on incomes higher than $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. The White House says this will yield upwards of $1 trillion, if you choose to believe that tax rates don’t affect taxpayer behavior.

In the real world, two of every three tax filers who fall into this income category are small business owners or investors, who are certainly capable of finding ways to invest that allow them to declare less taxable income. The real impact of this looming tax increase will be to cast further uncertainty over economic decisions and either slow or postpone the recovery. Ditto for the estimated $646 billion from a new cap-and-trade tax, which no one wants to call a tax but would give the political class vast new leverage over the private economy. (See here.)

Then there is Mr. Obama’s plan for national health care. The White House has put a $634 billion place holder in the budget to pay for covering tens of millions of uninsured Americans with government subsidized coverage. But even advocates of this government plan say the cost will be closer to $1 trillion over 10 years, and probably much more. Meanwhile, the President is promising to reform entitlements, but his budget proposes a net increase of about $1 trillion in Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlements. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123569611695588763.html

The Obama Steamroller: Is Resistance Futile?

By Richard Baehr

“…Americans may grow weary of all the new programs, spending and elevated deficits. And most Americans do not hate the wealthy, even with all the populist bashing of bankers and corporate executives now going on. Obama’s team has no problem per se with wealthy folks of course — they like and depend on Hollywood liberals, K street lobbyists, trial lawyers, and union executives. Obama’s team will counter any criticism of its burgeoning deficit by saying: “We inherited the problem, we inherited the problem”.

Over time, the refrain may wear thin, but no one should assume this is or will be a fair fight in terms of the power of the messaging, and the messengers. By 2012, the GDP will likely be growing again, and Obama will take credit for the magnificent turnaround. Obama will be a strong favorite for re-election, given his personal likeability and a campaign war chest that will almost certainly be bigger than the $800 million he spent in 2008.

America may also not be recognizable by then, and even less so by 2016, with a greatly expanded public sector share of the economy — maybe 30% on the federal level and close to 50% with states and localities added in. The federal bureaucracy will have been inoculated into every facet of the economy. There will be much higher tax rates on success (whether it be earned or investment income) and with this, the number of risk-takers and entrepreneurs will drop rapidly.

Obama will have succeeded in turning the US into a more European like economy, with much slower growth prospects, crushing deficits, and increased entitlement spending as far as the eye can see (and neither more nor less manmade global warming, regardless of what the Congress and Obama do in this area). And of course, there will be the need for ever higher tax rates on the diminishing share of the population who pay income taxes, and for ever larger amounts of debt to be financed mostly by foreigners.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/the_obama_steamroller_is_resis.html

Obama’s Busted Budget

By Randall Hoven

“..Concerning the short term, where numbers are more solid, don’t even look at his budget if you are at all squeamish. He puts the deficit at 12.3% of GDP in 2009. Throughout the Great Depression, whether under Hoover or FDR, the deficit never exceeded 6% of GDP. Under Reagan, with his inherited recession and his tax cuts, it never exceeded 6% of GDP. Under George W. Bush, with his inherited recession and his tax cuts, it never even got to 4% of GDP.

In fact, in only five years since 1930 has the deficit exceeded 6% of GDP: 1942-46. It has exceeded Obama’s 12.3% only from 1942 to 1945. That was World War II. Then, defense spending was about 40% of GDP. Now it is about 4%.

President Obama projects debt held by the public at 59% of GDP in 2009, and about 65% of GDP thereafter, as far as his projections go.

You have to go back to Truman to see debts that high. And Truman was paying off World War II costs. It’s been below 50% of GDP since 1957. For the first time since then, it will exceed that level this year, going from 41% to 59% of GDP in a single year.

This is a terrible budget. In Obama’s first term, it is even worse than my predictions. Into his second term and beyond, it is still bad, and held together only with rosy assumptions on both the revenue and spending sides. When things can be expected to get really bad, by 2020 and beyond, he makes no projections at all. …”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/obamas_busted_budget.html

Europe Is Falling Apart Faster Than US? – Glenn Beck – March 2nd, 2009

Jim Rogers: Let AIG Go Bankrupt or USA Finished

Jim Rogers says “Go become a Farmer!” – March 3, 2009

Background Articles and Videos

Liberal Fascism (1) — Jonah Goldberg UNEDITED

Liberal Fascism (2) — Jonah Goldberg UNEDITED

Liberal Fascism (3) — Jonah Goldberg UNEDITED

Liberal Fascism (4) — Jonah Goldberg UNEDITED

Liberal Fascism (5) — Jonah Goldberg UNEDITED

Liberal Fascism Q-A (1)

Liberal Fascism Q-A (2)

Liberal Fascism Q-A (3)

Rise and Fall of the National Industrial Recovery Act

National Recovery Administration (NRA) Promo

Thomas Sowell – Obama’s Vision

Dennis Prager & Thomas Sowell – Part 3/3

Amity Shlaes speaks at ALEC. Part 1

Amity Shlaes speaks at ALEC. Part 2

Amity Shlaes speaks at ALEC. Part 3

Amity Schlaes – The Forgotten Man

The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 1:

The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 2:

The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 3:

The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 4:

The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 5:

The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 6:

The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 7:

The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 8:

The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 9:

The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 10:

The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 11:

The Great Depression then 1929, & now 2008/09. PART 12:

Barack Obama at the 2008 DNC

Why you should care about A.C.O.R.N

Obama, Acorn, And Election Fraud

Barack Obama – ACORN Will Shape My Domestic Policy

OBAMA’S ACORN EXPOSED PART 1 OF 2

OBAMA’S ACORN EXPOSED PART 2 OF 2

Yes We Can – Barack Obama Music Video

Socialism and Fascism (1/3)

Socialism and Fascism (2/3)

Socialism and Fascism (3/3)

Fahrenheit 451

Triumph des Willens (Full movie – English subbed)

Triumph of the Will

“Triumph of the Will (German: Triumph des Willens) is a propaganda film made by Leni Riefenstahl. It chronicles the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg. The film contains excerpts from speeches given by various Nazi leaders at the Congress, including portions of speeches by Adolf Hitler, interspersed with footage of massed party members. Hitler commissioned the film and served as an unofficial executive producer; his name appears in the opening titles. The overriding theme of the film is the return of Germany as a great power, with Hitler as the True German Leader who will bring glory to the nation.

Triumph of the Will was released in 1935 and rapidly became one of the better-known examples of propaganda in film history. Riefenstahl’s techniques, such as moving cameras, the use of telephoto lenses to create a distorted perspective, aerial photography, and revolutionary approach to the use of music and cinematography, have earned Triumph recognition as one of the greatest films in history. Riefenstahl won several awards, not only in Germany but also in the United States, France, Sweden, and other countries. The film was popular in the Third Reich^[1] and elsewhere, and has continued to influence movies, documentaries, and commercials to this day.^[2] …”

“…The film begins with a prologue, the only commentary in the film. The following text appears against a gray background: On 5 September 1934, …20 years after the outbreak of the World War… 16 years after the beginning of our suffering… 19 months after the beginning of the German renaissance… Adolf Hitler flew again to Nuremberg to review the columns of his faithful followers…

‘Day 1‘: The film opens with shots of the clouds above the city, and then moves through the clouds to float above the assembling masses below, with the intention of portraying beauty and majesty of the scene. The shadow of Hitler’s plane is visible as it passes over the tiny figures marching below,^[3] accompanied by music from Richard Wagner’s Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg, which slowly turns into the Horst-Wessel-Lied. Upon arriving at the Nuremberg airport, Hitler emerges from his plane to thunderous applause and a cheering crowd. He is then driven into Nuremberg, through equally enthusiastic people, to his hotel where a night rally is later held.

‘Day 2‘: The second day begins with a montage of the attendees getting ready for the opening of the Reich Party Congress, and then footage of the top Nazi officials arriving at the Luitpold Arena. The film then cuts to the opening ceremony, where Rudolf Hess announces the start of the Congress. The camera then introduces much of the Nazi hierarchy and covers their opening speeches, including Joseph Goebbels, Alfred Rosenberg, Hans Frank, Fritz Todt, Robert Ley, and Julius Streicher. Then the film cuts to an outdoor rally for the Reichsarbeitsdienst (Labor Service), which is primarily a series of pseudo-military drills by men carrying shovels. This is also where Hitler gives his first speech on the merits of the Labor Service and praising them for their work in rebuilding Germany. The day then ends with a torchlight SA parade.

‘Day 3‘: The third day starts with a Hitler Youth rally on the parade ground. Again the camera covers the Nazi dignitaries arriving and the introduction of Hitler by Baldur von Schirach. Hitler then addresses the Youth, describing in militaristic terms how they must harden themselves and prepare for sacrifice. Everyone present then assembles for a military pass and review, featuring Wehrmacht cavalry and various armored vehicles. That night Hitler delivers another speech to low-ranking party officials by torchlight, commemorating the first year since the Nazis took power and declaring that the party and state are one entity.

‘Day 4‘: The fourth day is the climax of the film, where the most memorable of the imagery is presented. As the soundtrack plays themes from Wagner’s Götterdämmerung, Hitler, flanked by Heinrich Himmler and Viktor Lutze, walks through a long wide expanse with over 150,000 SA and SS troops standing at attention, to lay a wreath at a World War I Memorial. Hitler then reviews the parading SA and SS men, following which Hitler and Lutze deliver a speech where they discuss the Night of the Long Knives purge of the SA several months prior. Lutze reaffirms the SA’s loyalty to the regime, and Hitler absolves the SA of any crimes committed by Ernst Röhm. New party flags are consecrated by touching them to the “blood banner” (the same cloth flag said to have been carried by the fallen Nazis during the Beer Hall Putsch) and, following a final parade in front of the Nuremberg Frauenkirche, Hitler delivers his closing speech. In it he reaffirms the primacy of the Nazi Party in Germany, declaring, “All loyal Germans will become National Socialists. Only the best National Socialists are party comrades!” Hess then leads the assembled crowd in a final Sieg Heil salute for Hitler, marking the close of the party congress. The film fades to black as the entire crowd sings the “Horst-Wessel-Lied”. …”

Raymond T. Pronk

Email Subscription

Pages

RSS Links

Categories

Search

Search

Blog Stats

Calendar

Archives

Pages

Email Subscription

Search

Blogroll

WordPress

Percentiles Ranked by AGI	AGI Threshold on Percentiles	Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%	$388,806	39.89
Top 5%	$153,542	60.14
Top 10%	$108,904	70.79
Top 25%	$64,702	86.27
Top 50%	$31,987	97.01
Bottom 50%	<$31,987	2.99
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income Source: Internal Revenue Service

	Number of Returns with Positive AGI	AGI ($ millions)	Income Taxes Paid ($ millions)	Group’s Share of Total AGI	Group’s Share of Income Taxes	Income Split Point	Average Tax Rate
All Taxpayers	135,719,160	$8,122,040	$1,023,739	100%	100%	–	12.60%
Top 1%	1,357,192	$1,791,886	$408,369	22.06%	39.89%	> $388,806	22.79%
Top 2-5%	5,428,766	$1,185,828	$207,311	14.60%	20.25%		17.48%
Top 5%	6,785,958	$2,977,714	$615,680	36.66%	60.14%	> $153,542	20.68%
Top 6-10%	6,785,958	$865,430	$109,060	10.66%	10.65%		12.60%
Top 10%	13,571,916	$3,843,144	$724,740	47.32%	70.79%	> $108,904	18.86%
Top 11-25%	20,357,874	$1,692,686	$158,413	20.84%	15.47%		9.36%
Top 25%	33,929,790	$5,535,830	$883,153	68.16%	86.27%	> $64,702	15.95%
Top 26-50%	33,929,790	$1,569,769	$110,023	19.33%	10.75%		7.01%
Top 50%	67,859,580	$7,105,599	$993,176	87.49%	97.01%	> $31,987	13.98%
Bottom 50%	67,859,580	$1,016,441	$30,563	12.51%	2.99%	< $31,987	3.01%

Recently-Passed Climate Bill A Job Killer

The Cap and Trade Energy Tax–The Crime of The Century–Crazy Corporate and Progressive Radical Socialist Rent Seeking

Cap and Trade Explained (in plain old English)

Kudlow Blasts Cap and Trade

Michael Jackson vs. Cap and Trade, Cap and Tax, Tax and Kill, what ever you want to call ii

No New Taxes? Obama Signs Health Bill, Raises Tobacco Tax

Inside Look – Is Climate Bill a Job Creator or Job Killer? – Bloomberg

Cap & Trade: Rep. Barton’s emotional plea to vote down economy killer

One World Government On It’s Way

EPA’s Secret Document

“Suppressed” Climate Change Report Author Speaks Out on Fox News

Alan Carlin on CO2 and Temperatures

Obama’s Energy Czar on new Tailpipe Emissions Standard

Carol Browner at Google, GE Conference: Plug Into The Smart Grid (part 2)

More Perspective – General Electric Investor Day – Bloomberg

Carbon offset trading fraud — huge criminal activity

Senator Inhofe Cap-and-trade floor speech March 18, 2009

14.3 – Public Choice – Rent Seeking

Obama’s Watergate?: GE Using CNBC, MSNBC to Promote Cap-and-Trade – OReilly

Global Warming: Doomsday Called Off – 5/5

Unstoppable Solar Cycles

Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change pt 1

Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change pt 2

CO2 is a trace gas

CO2 is not a pollutant, but pollutants are MASSMEDIA and IPCC

Stop The Cap and Trade Carbon Dioxide Energy Tax

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PETER HUBER

Senator James Inhofe,Cap And Trade Will Increase The Worlds CO2 And Make China Richer

Waco Tea Party Says, “No Cap-and-Trade, please”

Background Articles and Videos

Rent seeking

Consumer Sovereignty

Climate Confusion

By: Steven Milloy

Obama’s hidden bailout of General Electric By: Timothy P. Carney

Carol Browner

Cap-and-tax: Government vs. America

David Limbaugh

General Electric

Target: 10 Million Tonnes Of Carbon Offsets Per Year

“…GE, AES Plan Partnership To Lead US Market In Offsetting Greenhouse Gas Emissions

‘Put nothing in writing,’ Browner told auto execs on secret White House CAFE talks; Sensenbrenner wants investigation By: Mark Tapscott

Editorial Page Editor 07/08/09 5:52 PM EDT

The Importance of Coal to our Economy – Cap and Trade will Bankrupt Americans

Obama’s Energy Czar Hasn’t Read Energy Bill

Carol Browner on Climate Matters Act

In-Depth Look – Coming Clean at GE Capital – Bloomberg

Google, GE Conference: Plug Into The Smart Grid (part 1)

General Electric Plug Into The Smart Grid

LaRouche: Cap and Trade is Hitler policy. Mass murder !

(6 of 14) MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PHILIP STOTT

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

~Ludwig von Mises, Interventionism, page 88

Glenn Beck Exposes the Progressive Movements Fascist Agenda

Glenn Beck: 5/7, June 11

Glenn Beck: 6/7, June 11

Glenn Beck: 7/7, June 11

Glenn Beck…Bank of America (2)

Unemployment Rate Surges

Stop The Spending and Deficits

US Federal Government Deficits

Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis

Daniel J. Mitchell – USA: Drowning In Debt?

Stop The Cap and Trade Carbon Dioxide Energy Tax

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PETER HUBER

You are invited to attend a Tea Party on July 4, 2009, Independence Day!

Join the Second American Revolution

The Meaning of Independence Day

Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

Please Spread The Message of Liberty

“Proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants.”

Thomas Paine on to Washington

switchfoot-dare you to move(live)

God Bless the USA – Lee Greenwood

~Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, page 79.

Background Articles and Videos

Progressivism

Progressive Era

Liberal Fascism (1) — Jonah Goldberg ** UNEDITED **

Liberal Fascism (2) — Jonah Goldberg ** UNEDITED **

Obama’s hidden bailout of General Electric
By: Timothy P. Carney

‘Put nothing in writing,’ Browner told auto execs on secret White House CAFE talks; Sensenbrenner wants investigation
By: Mark Tapscott

Editorial Page Editor
07/08/09 5:52 PM EDT

Liberal Fascism (1) — Jonah Goldberg UNEDITED

Liberal Fascism (2) — Jonah Goldberg UNEDITED

Liberal Fascism (3) — Jonah Goldberg UNEDITED

Liberal Fascism (4) — Jonah Goldberg UNEDITED

Liberal Fascism (5) — Jonah Goldberg UNEDITED