Delaware; land of Joe Biden (36 years in the Senate), and Rep. Mike Castle (17 years in the House), who voted FOR the T.A.R.P., the Omnibus, Serve America Act, Credit Card Accountability Act, Cap and Trade, and the Fin Reg Reform Bill (among others). Considering Castle’s inability to vote for limited government like a true Republican (he votes with Obama 6 of 10 votes), there might actually be a bigger upset than Scott Brown’s resounding defeat of Martha Coakley rapidly approaching The First State when tea party endorsed Christine O’Donnell spanks Castle with the help of impoverished Delawareans and YOU – the rest of America.
A taste of Christine’s Constitutional conservatism when she was interviewed by Mark Levin on June 24, 2010:
According to an interview that Scott Rasmussen gave on July 21st with Rick Jensen, Christine could actually win Biden’s senate seat (and give it back to Delawareans). Christine has surpassed democrat Chris Coons in the polls, whilst Mike’s numbers have been steadily dropping against Coons.
What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? In order to save the planet, the group decides: isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about? – Maurice Strong, 1990
The senate version of the climate bill came out today, John Kerry’s,The American Power Act. Glenn explains how carbon credits work, how jobs will be destroyed because prices will go up, and how much more energy will cost – using an average baker as an example. He also gives details of the global syndicate that is drawing the noose tighter as the Chicago Carbon Exchange was just sold to an international firm, and he speaks about Maurice Strong, former UN Secretary General for the Earth Summit, who is now on the Board of Directors of the Chicago Carbon Exchange and has been involved in global organizations for just about forever. Glenn sends out the call to all the Watchdogs to find anything and everything about Maurice Strong on the internet and send it on to him at Becktips@foxnews.com.
Such a catchy name for such a nasty bill. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is the Senate version of Cap and Tax to Death. The first 820 pages have been lined out, but that leaves 937 pages to read. We must all saddle up once more to stop this newest progressive attempt at creating yet another revenue stream for the elites that will cripple this country.
You knew that there had to have been an infrastructure being built years ago to make cap and trade fly now. You also must know by now that every single thing this government does is a revenue stream to stay afloat and put cash in the elites’ pockets. Glenn covers the progressives behind the Cap and Trade debacle and the building of the Chicago Carbon Exchange.
The arctic ice is returning, the bears are happy, and we are still stuck at “who can you trust?”, and the answer would be, “not very many people in positions of power.”
We all know that progressives have totally infiltrated and corrupted all levels of government, education, and industry. We also know exactly what it is going to take to flip this congress and clean out the rat’s nest (and they GOTTA GO!)
Ladies and Gentlemen, these asshats are WASTING our hard earned tax money while writing bills (they don’t read) in order tax us more instead of WORKING ON JOB CREATION! We all know they really don’t want any of us to be prosperous in the future, and that they are trying to create a lord/serf paradigm. Are you keeping your list of traitors up-to-date? Here are a few more names to add to the list.
(Reuters) – Some prominent Republican senators expressed openness on Tuesday to a U.S. climate change bill that might be introduced next week and that would need bipartisan support to have any chance of advancing.
Senator Lamar Alexander, a member of the Republican leadership in the Senate, praised the sector-by-sector approach in a compromise bill aimed at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
“I think a sector-by-sector approach makes a lot more sense for dealing with carbon,” the Tennessee senator told reporters.
Winning Republican support would be big breakthrough for Democrats and the Obama White House, especially as some Republican lawmakers have been sharply critical of climate legislation because of concerns industry would be hurt and also due to skepticism over the science behind global warming.
The sector-by-sector approach contrasts to an economy-wide approach taken by a bill passed last year in the House of Representatives that was also sharply criticized by Republican lawmakers.
Alexander said he “would consider a cap on utilities only if we could figure out the right way to do it that didn’t drive costs up substantially over the short term.”
Republican Senator Scott Brown, whose election in January robbed Democrats of their 60-seat supermajority, told Reuters, “I’m open to reading anything that’s being proposed” for climate change legislation.
A trio of senators — Democrat John Kerry, independent Joseph Lieberman and Republican Lindsey Graham — are trying to put the finishing touches on a climate change bill that aims to reduce carbon pollution by capping emissions, starting in 2012, from electric power utilities.
And when Obamacare is added to the mix, CO2 emissions are greatly reduced as Americans die off.
The transportation sector would see a new tax, probably after oil is refined, instead of a carbon cap, although the fee would be linked to pollution permits traded in the utility sector.
As for the third sector — manufacturers — Kerry, Graham and Lieberman have been weighing a cap-and-trade scheme like the one for utilities, but phasing it in starting in 2016. Alexander voiced opposition to capping factory emissions.
Kerry would not say whether he has succeeded yet in winning the support of any Republicans other than Graham for the bill he hopes to unveil next week.
RALLY AROUND A BILL
Graham told Reuters that the goal was to “put a bill out there the three of us can rally around” and see “the kind of reception it gets once it’s rolled out.”
But before being introduced, Kerry, Graham and Lieberman still have difficult issues to resolve.
Graham said the trio is “revisiting” how to allocate future carbon pollution permits for electric power companies, a thorny issue that has brought criticisms from various senators, including Democrat Carl Levin from Michigan.
“Things are coming together but there’s still some hurdles,” Kerry said, without specifying. He said more meetings were needed this week with senators and industry.
Some liberal Democrats attacked the bill’s planned inclusion of expanded offshore oil and gas drilling.
“Without very significant alteration of the drilling issues, they’ll probably lose my vote,” New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez told reporters.
Senator Frank Lautenberg, also from New Jersey who last year voted for an Environment and Public Works Committee climate bill that Kerry’s effort builds upon, said expanded offshore drilling could jeopardize his state’s beach resorts and related businesses if there was an oil spill.
“I’m not comforted by a 50-mile limitation,” on drilling offshore, he added.
The three senators writing the climate bill are hoping to introduce it early next week, according to sources, around the April 22 40th anniversary of Earth Day, an event that sometimes draws derision from some Republicans.
“We’re not going to do it on Earth Day,” Graham said, adding, “It’s going to be offshore drilling day when it’s introduced.”
Remember kids, Scott Brown is running for re-election soon; find a Tea Party candidate to oust his a**.
When any kind of shift in a government happens, there will be people and companies who scramble to be part of the new groove and hop on the gravy train. GE is one such company. I expect to see Oracle and Caterpillar to show their tickets to the ride soon.
The separation of state and private enterprise ended in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was born to tell the government what would be what. In a stunning turn of events, Barack Obama’s takeover of the banks, car companies, and financial institutions in 2009 flips that power struggle over to the government’s side and it is making people even more uneasy than allowing corporate lobbyists to run Washington DC for some 100 years.
Yesterday, I ran across an interesting assessment of what fascism actually is:
As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.
Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.
Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.
GE sees the fascist handwriting on the wall and now appears to bowing down in order to survive, thrive and profit. I am sure that no one is going to be hearing about this story, now that we will have wall-to-wall coverage of Ted’s passing. BTW, I completely disagree with the title of this article because I believe that if GE thinks they got the narcissist-in-chief’s number, they are sorely mistaken.
“The intersection between GE’s interests and government action is clearer than ever,” General Electric Vice Chairman John G. Rice wrote in an Aug. 19 e-mail to colleagues.
Rice was calling on his co-workers to join the General Electric Political Action Committee. “GEPAC is an important tool that enables GE employees to collectively help support candidates who share the values and goals of GE.”
The full letter suggests that “share the values and goals of GE” really means “support policies that profit the company.”
Steve Milloy, a pro-free market investor at the Free Enterprise Action Fund, obtained this e-mail and says it reveals General Electric for what it really is. “GE is lobbying to become the biggest rent seeker this country has ever seen,” Milloy told this column. Rent seeking is using government legislation or regulation to generate private profits the free market wouldn’t provide.
“On climate change,” Rice wrote, “we were able to work closely with key authors of the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill, recently passed by the House of Representatives. If this bill is enacted into law it would benefit many GE businesses.”
Most of all, Waxman-Markey would profit a GE joint venture called Greenhouse Gas Services, which deals in greenhouse gas credits, products that have value only if a cap-and-trade bill like Waxman-Markey passes.
The leaked e-mail shows how tightly GE connects PAC contributions and lobbying efforts. “Our Company is heavily impacted by a number of issues pending in Washington this fall,” Rice wrote.
GE spent more on lobbying in the second quarter of this year than did any other company, according to federal lobbying files. Since 1998, GE has been the king of lobbying expenditures, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, outpacing its runner-up by 40 percent.
Last election, GEPAC spent $2.4 million, with a slim majority going to Democrats. So far this year, two-thirds of GEPAC money has gone to Democrats.
Rice’s description of how PAC contributions help the company (“we must also make sure that candidates who share GE’s values and goals get elected to office”) belies the true dynamic in political giving, as the rest of the e-mail suggests.
By calling for PAC contributions in the context of GE’s lobbying efforts in coming weeks, Rice is clearly not talking about electing pro-GE candidates in November 2010. He is talking about making current congressman more pro-GE.
If GEPAC was just trying to “make sure that candidates who share GE’s values and goals get elected to office,” why would the PAC give $15,000 each to the Republican and Democratic senatorial campaign committees? Those contributions cancel each other out if they are considered ammunition for allies in electoral battles. But they complement one another if they are considered the ticket price to access with lawmakers.
The recipient list of GEPAC cash also suggests the PAC is more about access to power brokers than support for friendly politicians.
The “intersection between GE’s interests and the government’s actions” is plenty crowded. GE is betting on climate change legislation, high-speed rail funding, electric car subsidies, embryonic stem cell grants, expanded federal health care spending, subsidies for renewable energy, defense contracts and continued financial bailouts.
GEPAC pays the tolls to make sure all this traffic gets through.
My son asked me yesterday who Robin Hood was, and we had a discussion about the “legend” of Robin of Loxley and his stealing from the Norman rich to give to the Saxon poor. When I started to think about it though, Robin was really giving back what had been stolen by the lazy elite from the producers. So, in this age of Obama and his Norman Congress stealing from the hard-working American producers to give to the lazy American and foreign layabouts, where is our Robin Hood? Who exactly is going to stand up and finally say, “Everybody has to do their fair share of the work, and nobody gets to ride the clock!”
Yesterday, the senate health care reform bill came out and it features the very unconstitutional surtax on the wealthy of upwards of 5.4% to cover a government health care plan. Today, the CBO’s long-term budget outlook came out and Robert J. Samuelson is stating that to balance the budget we would have to raise taxes by 44% on everybody. Is anybody going to stop Prince Bambi, Sheriff Rahm, and the rest of the elites from unconstitutionally redistributing the wealth of the producers?
We face an unprecedented collision between Americans’ desire for more government services and their almost equal unwillingness to be taxed. The conflict is obscured and deferred by today’s depressed economy, which has given license to all manner of emergency programs, but its dimensions cannot be doubted. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office (“The Long-Term Budget Outlook“) makes that crystal clear. The easiest way to measure the size of government is to compare the federal budget to the overall economy, or gross domestic product (GDP). The CBO’s estimates are daunting.
For the past half-century, federal spending has averaged about 20 percent of GDP, federal taxes about 18 percent of GDP and the budget deficit 2 percent of GDP. The CBO’s projection for 2020 — which assumes the economy has returned to “full employment” — puts spending at 26 percent of GDP, taxes at a bit less than 19 percent of GDP and a deficit above 7 percent of GDP. Future spending and deficit figures continue to grow.
What this means is that balancing the budget in 2020 would require a tax increase of almost 50 percent from the last half-century’s average. Remember, that average was 18 percent of GDP. To get from there to 26 percent of GDP (spending in 2020) would require an additional 8 percentage points. In today’s dollars, that would be about $1.1 trillion, a 44 percent annual tax increase. Even these figures may be optimistic, because CBO’s projections for defense and “nondefense discretionary” spending may be unrealistically low. This last category covers much of what government does: environmental regulation, aid to education, highway construction, law enforcement, homeland security.
Saxons? Are you ready for that tax increase?
Can We Impeach Obama Yet?
Can We Recall The Congress Yet?
UPDATE: I just found this article on The Patriot Room. Make sure to go over and read it!
UPDATE: Well, the crack smokin’ congress just passed the “Starve and Kill All Americans” cap and trade bill 219-212. REMEMBER – THEY DID NOT READ THIS ONE EITHER. 300 pages were added last night in the dead of the night. Would you buy a car or home or any other large ticket item and NOT READ THE TERMS? (Oh, and my congresswoman, Mazie Hirono voted FOR this POS bill and I’m sure she didn’t read it either because I am not altogether sure she CAN read.)
Go here to see who is a total traitor to the American Public, our children, their children, so on and so forth.
Here are the 8 Republicans that voted FOR this bill if you wish to call them and voice your displeasure!
Mary Bono Mack, 202-225-5220
Mike Castle, Delaware 202-225-4165
John M. McHugh, NY 202-225-4611
Dave Reichert, Washington 202-225-7761
Chris Smith, NJ 202-225-3765
Leonard Lance, NJ 202-225-5361
Frank LoBiondo, NJ 202-225-6572
Mark Kirk, Ill 202-225-4835
J. Boehner: (For your enjoyment)
And for all those sheeple still high on the koolaid, here is your video. Move along, nothing to see here….
CAP AND TRADE: THE PRECEDENT WAS SET…
…when the crack-smokin’ congress did not read the 1100 page stimulus bill and drove that through.
Now they want to ram through a 1200 page cap and trade bill WITHOUT READING IT or the changes that were made to it last night EITHER!!!
I called my congresswoman and went on record AGAIN as being against this and everything else that she voted FOR, all the while knowing that she is going to be voting rubber-stamp for this country-busting usurper-in-chief.
If The Heritage Foundation’s numbers are correct, electricity bills will go up 90%, gasoline will go up 85%, and natural gas will go up 55%. All at a time when we are in a depression. SOMEBODY tell me this is not intentionally trying to reduce every single average American to a complete and total state of poverty, desperation, and submission?
I want to know what the “Security” part of this act is. I am wading through this bill also, and will let you know what I find. Please bear with me, I have two eyeballs, and I am still tracking the ever elusive Bernanke white page financial reform, Federal Reserve powergrab.
Also, I will update this post as soon as the crack-smokin’ congress votes.