A View of Cap 'n' Trade from the Coal Industry

This guy is admittedly not a neutral observer, being the CEO of a coal mining company, but as a fellow member of the electric utility industry, I find his statements compelling.

Some killer statements:

He worries that the country is stuck in a "reg-cession," in which over-regulation will hinder the recovery. (See "How Congress Will Steal The Recovery.") He thinks U.S. trade policy is killing American blue-collar jobs, although he sees China as a booming market for Appalachian coal.

On the logic of Emissions control standards in the US:

The CO2 mandates coming out of EPA. That's the scary part. On a micro basis I've seen specific steel plants and coke ovens go down in the U.S. because they couldn't quite make U.S. standards, and then be moved to South America or Asia where there are no standards. And then [to] have people declare victory that they'd cleaned up the world's atmosphere is pretty crazy.

Good stuff, but of course, he is biased.

Big Brother Is watching you!

Recently in my computer concepts class, my teacher has talked about the rise of cameras being used by our government to do its policing. He said that an average citizen is on camera approx 6,000 times a day. Whether it be a private camera, like at the mall, or a cop camera on the street.

In England there are cameras watching almost every public street.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6524495.stm
This article talks more about the cameras that they are making talk. They tell people not to litter. First they install millions of cameras, now they are talking to us. Next, the camera will have two robot legs, tackle us, and zip tie our hands. Don't believe it?

My teacher(he does computer forensics and helps the police, FBI, and CIA) says that anybody with the know how, can access and watch almost any camera that is out there. He could be blowing smoke, but he convinces me.

School violence in Chicago, Obama's backyard, illustrates where America is headed.

Chicago the hometown of President Obama is a hub for criminal activity and violent crime. This headline is just another illustration of this fact. "Cell phone footage showing a group of teens viciously kicking and striking a 16-year-old honors student with splintered railroad ties has ramped up pressure on Chicago officials to address chronic violence that has led to dozens of deaths of city teens each year." So here we have a bunch of young thugs beating an honor student--maybe this victim was trying to act white by being an honor student. All of this is an illustration of where America is headed as a result of current policies of public education being carried out by the government.

"For Chicago, a sharp rise in violent student deaths during the past three school years — most from shootings off school property — have been a tragedy and an embarrassment. Before 2006, an average of 10-15 students were fatally shot each year. That climbed to 24 fatal shootings in the 2006-07 school year, 23 deaths and 211 shootings in the 2007-08 school year and 34 deaths and 290 shootings last school year." Crime is on the rise here. Chicago is almost a war zone with all of the violent crime occurring there. This place is President Obama's backyard and is exactly the type of America that he is leading the whole nation to.

These students are the product of the public school system and the culture that destroys the traditional family and undercuts all values that is being pushed on this generation and are a sign of things to come-- all of the high school drops outs growing up in single-parent homes and the overall dumbed-down people that this system is producing. What will all of these kids do and where will they all go? Not working. The current unemployment rate for young Americans is 52.2%. So the government has a good place for them to go--Obama's national security force or some government run volunteer force. You dumb the students down, destroy any job prospects that they might have; and once they are incapable of working or lack the skill to do so, you give them something to do. Is it purposeful? Does not matter, then end result is the same thing. From talking to various people at work and school, I conclude that the general direction that America is headed will not change. Most people mean well--this includes what one would consider a conservative, but they fail to realize that their good intentions and false beliefs of the means of helping people out--like helping the poor and saving the environment--will be used to gain the support of those in power to destroy their very freedoms. The current generation that the public school system is producing will only put the nail in the coffin in terms of the general direction that America, the leader of the world, is heading.

The decline of the U.S. dollar

The world knows and is admitting the fact that the U.S. dollar is rapidly being devalued. I have yet to hear about this from the major news outlets or from the U.S. government. This is another sign of the decline of America and the shifting of its power and influence in the world to developing countries. The U.N. has already called for the dollar to be replaced as the world's reserve currency. And now the world's largest bank is calling for a new global reserve currency. Investing websites have also acknowledged this fact, although this website does want to sell you something, and they have recommended investors invest a good amount of their money in foreign currencies--a smart thing to do because that is where most of the growth that will occur in the world will come from. The fact is that the U.S. dollar is being devalued along with America.

"One of the world's largest banks is bidding farewell to the U.S. dollar – just as the dollar faces intense scrutiny at today's G-20 summit and the United Nations announces it wants a new global reserve currency replacement. "The dollar looks awfully like sterling[highly devalued due to the debt Britain owed after that war] after the First World War,' David Bloom, HSBC currency chief, told London's Telegraph. The whole picture of risk-reward for emerging market currencies has changed. It is not so much that they have risen to our standards, it is that we have fallen to theirs. It used to be that sovereign risk was mainly an emerging market issue but the events of the last year have shown that this is no longer the case. Look at the U.K. – debt is racing up to 100 percent of GDP,' he said China and rising Asia can no longer continue holding down their currencies to boost exports because it's hurting their own economies, creating asset bubbles, the Telegraph reported. 'The policy headache was already becoming clear in the final phase of the global credit boom but the financial crisis temporarily masked the effect,' the report states. 'The pressures will return with a vengeance as these countries roar back to life, leaving the U.S. and other laggards of the old world far behind.'" Far behind.

"Craig Smith, president and CEO of Swiss America Trading Corporation, a national investment firm specializing in U.S. gold and silver coins, has been [warning about the decline of the dollar for many years. 'It is now happening before our eyes]," Smith said. "The dollar is getting ready to get hammered, and there is no way for the Fed to stop it.'" I would add that it appears that the Fed's and the government's policies have led to the decline of the U.S. dollar.

I could do another article on America's decline of influence and power on the world stage and the fact that China and developing countries are rising at the expense of America's prosperity. Globalization is becoming more pronounced. The dollar has been on the decline for some time now; but with recent economic conditions, this development has sped up and has become more pronounced. What does this mean for the average person? I think it is interesting because it shows a slow shift of where the power and influence on the world stage will be. If you have your money invested, a good portion should be put in foreign markets and one might like having their money held in a stronger currency or metals. I don't know how this particular development completely fits in to the overall picture of world affairs. I would like to know how this fits into the purposeful attempts of the government through cap and trade and the Environmental movement to transfer the wealth around the world. America's currency along with the whole nation is on the decline while the world as a whole is on the rise.

Some Old School Larnin' for Libs

There's nothing that is said in the video below that is news to RTP readers, but this is some good old school smackdown that you only hear when a good professor lays it on a hapless student. We've probably all been on the receiving end at one time or another. The year is 1979. Liberals are at the peak of their power, with Jimmy Carter in the White House, the entire Congress in Democrat hands, and the Supreme Court also in the hands of liberals. Not coincidentally, the Soviet Union was at the peak of their power and the US was in the midst of stagflation: double digit inflation & unemployment, goals for which Obama is still striving.

Anyway, one of the most popular talk show hosts on TV in the '70's was Phil Donahue. He and his wife, actress Marlo Thomas, are and were super flaming leftists. To his credit, he had the guts to invite Milton Friedman on his show. At the time, Friedman had been the leader of the Chicago School of Economics, and had won a Nobel Prize in Economics in 1976. His economic theories heavily influenced Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher as they broke many of the bonds of socialistic economic policies in-place since FDR's time. He died in 2006.

Anyway (again), this is useful to hear, and useful to keep in your toolbox. Enjoy!

WTO Warns of Rising Protectionism

A follow up on Obama's tariff decision. This is about the most scathing opinion piece that I've seen come out of the Economist on Obama. They basically cite that their approval of him was based upon what they believe were economic centrists that surrounded him, but now that he has shown his willingness to cater to such an insignificant portion of his base, they're genuinely worried (I can almost see Bud-D mouth "told you so"). I honestly wasn't willing to believe that supporting unions was the primary reason for this action. When it first occured I discussed it with some of my more liberal minded friends and even they thought it wasn't the case and that it would be idiotic for him to do it. But the growing consensus is that it is the case.

I think the second economist article boils this issue down beyond the hype surrounding it. This isn't the massive rise of tariffs that the US imposed after the start of the Great Depression (which most attribute to the perpetuation of the Depression), just one tariff on a small good employing an insignificant amount of workers in the states. None the less, it has the WTO worried. Especially after what pretext this will give other countries:

Mr Obama’s imposition of tariffs will tempt more industries and unions to seek similar relief, and he will have to decide whether this decision is a template or an exception. Other countries, fearing a wave of diverted Chinese imports, could copy America’s action. After Mr Bush raised steel tariffs in 2002, half a dozen other countries followed. Under the terms on which China entered the WTO, others can impose safeguards simply because America has (from Economist Sept 17th 09, "Playing with Fire")

I guess we will have to wait and see whether more Union affiliated industries follow suit with the United Steelworkers and try to do their best to make goods more expensive in America. Honestly, we can't blame them; they finally got a real leftist in office, it would be foolish of them not to press their advantage.

Lets see how the G-20 meeting goes (starting on ToeJam's B-Day)...

A good opinion article illustrating how the universities are a liberal enclave.

This is from a self described conservative who recently attended a state university to obtain his Ph.D. "A few years ago, the Washington Post discovered that over 72 percent of college professors classify themselves as liberal. The study showed that the most left-leaning departments are in the humanities, 'where at least 80 percent of the faculty say they are liberal and no more than 5 percent call themselves conservative.'" I don't think this is news for any of us, nor what is taught in these universities.

"I spent the summer working on my Ph.D. at a particular state university in the eastern part of our country, where I was exposed to misery and resentment I had only heard in rumors. Everyday was filled with the faults of conservatism and capitalism, while extolling the virtues of social justice and moral relativism. American democracy doesn't truly exist, my colleagues would say, and inequality between races, gender, class, and sexuality is as strong today as ever. America, they believe, is beholden to rich, white men who exploit others for the greed of the nation's privileged elite." While I attend a small community college, I find these same attitudes present in even what could be considered a moderate instructor. I would throw into the above mentioned doctrines taught the fact that Greece stole their culture from Egypt, an African culture, and the fact that white man is responsible for all the evils present in the world. The attacks of 911 was really an inside job by our government. We were shown part of the movie "Zeitgeist", starting at minute twelve. The point about fake religion, starting at min 8, being used to control people is valid, in my opinion. The Bible says bring your first born to the priest, so how can we judge cultures that sacrificed humans to their gods? Although, the Bible does speak out against the worship of molech and the child sacrifice by fire associated with this god Overall, the movie is one par with Michael Moore's movies, there might be some shred of truth but it is off just about one hundred percent. A student in college needs to be aware of the fact that colleges are a liberal institution and the whole system is geared towards undermining western civilization. One needs to keep their mind on guard against the lies and doctrines that are taught.

"It was upon reading Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto (twice!) when I spoke up. And I nearly started a riot.[with cries of whoa nigga] After hearing the professor proclaim that "not everyone has a chance to succeed in this country," my hand could not restrain itself from raising. I argued that everyone possesses different talents, work ethics, social connections, and personal attributes that may lead to different levels or types of success; but opportunity in America is equal for all. That's why I love this country, I said, and why this land has been a shining example for freedom, equality, and prosperity across the globe.
That didn't go over well. The majority of the class, with liberal reflex fully engaged, harped about income levels, racial discrepancies, and gender issues, while I fended for myself. I explained the difference between equal results, which they were actually seeking, and equal opportunity, which we all have been given by our creator and the laws of this country. I received nothing but appalled disgust that I could believe in such antiquated and fantastical notions. I kept quiet the rest of class." It takes a lot of knowledge to speak out against the lies that are being taught, and if one does speak out, be prepared to be made to look like a clown and clowned on. If one has the knowledge of the lies being taught and does not have the courage to speak out against these lies and the crap that is taught in these universities, then one is a worthless being in terms of standing up for what is right.

"This is the sadness that exists in higher learning today. This is the hopelessness that our students are being fed; that we do not control our own destiny, that there is no God or ultimate value system, that certain groups are constantly exploited, that someone else is always to blame. I spent much of my summer frustrated and annoyed over politics." You cant be sure of anything. There are no absolutes. Truth is relative to what one believes. God is not real. You can easily be brainwashed into believing these tenants of the Left. Society does value a piece of paper that states that one graduated from a place of "higher learning" and there are things to be learned if one is forearmed with knowledge.

Conservatism from an Unexpected Corner?

A small departure from standard fare on RTP:

I've got to say, I've never liked Stephen Smith on ESPN. He's a basketball commentator, and I've always thought a bit of an arrogant ass. I'm no expert at basketball, so I can't say if people generally regard him as a good analyst or not (maybe ToeJamm can comment on this). He clearly comes from a different culture than I do. But, for some reason, he was on conservative radio show host Mark Levin's show the other day (on 3PM-5PM on 860AM in Portland), and talked some real sense on politics. There are a number of black conservatives out there; I'd say Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas may be the best known right now, but clearly, the number is still small. But I've never heard a conservative black who comes from (at least to my biased suburban white ears) the urban ass environment. Now Stephen Smith may not even be a conservative. He confesses that he voted for Obama, as did over 90% of blacks, but he sure sounds like a sensible guy with something to say in this interview; keep an eye on him:

Side Note: Mark Levin has written a book most all conservatives are raving about: Liberty & Tyranny, and it has sold over a million copies. I haven't read it but I've heard very good things about it. Maybe Jeff has read it.

A prime example of how the Environmental Movement sacrifices human prosperity and livelihood for the environment.

An important aspect of the EM is that it is a new take on the old pagan religions that sacrificed humans to please mother nature--a new take on sacrificing humans on an altar. As compared with other results of the EM policies, this is a mild issue where peoples' livelihood are destroyed, not actual human lives as in several other cases--DDT--that I plan to illustrate throughout several post. This time sacrifices must be made in the name of a fish. Remember, these peoples' means of surviving and making a living must be destroyed to save a fish.

This is from the Hot Air blog: "That would be the San Joaquin Valley in California, one of the most prolific agricultural areas in the country — or at least it was, until environmentalists turned off the water. Did they need it for people in response to the drought? No, because the water that would normally flow to the SJV is getting directed out to sea instead. Environmentalists have chosen to bankrupt an entire ecosystem of farms in favor of protecting the Delta smelt, a three-inch fish that neither feeds people nor eliminates pests from the water system." Human prosperity needs to be sacrificed for a little fish. I would really like to understand the EM reasoning behind this. How do they explain this?

The EM is a medium through which the government is bringing about a transformation of our country and is destructive to human life. When you look at the movement, it is a new take on the old pagan religions that sacrificed humans. As Peter Schwartz stated in _The Philosophy of Privation_, "Environmentalism amounts to a modern, secularized form of religion. It is an ideology that instructs man to prostrate himself before a superior, ineffable force. It is an ideology that declares the human mind too feeble to grasp the complexities of an inscrutable world, or 'ecosystem.' It is an ideology propelled by the desire to have man subordinate himself to a hollowed power--a power which must be placated and paid homage, if man is to receive the gracious bounty upon which his existence depends." When we look at the modern day EM, we can see that this is not some over stated statement. It goes back to the old say that there is nothing new under the sun. By supporting environmentalism, one is supporting a movement that is helping to destroy mankind.

Has the mortgage industry been nationalized?

I got this article off of Rush Limbaugh dot com, at the bottom. This article from the Washington Post states that the U.S. mortgage market has been nationalized and that this is leading to a lot of risky loans being made that are backed by the U.S. taxpayer--basically the same situation that lead to the current economic situation, except on a larger scale. I won't go off on how the government is growing in its size and power. The main focus is the economic ramifications.

"Only one lender of consequence remains: the federal government, which undertook one of its earliest and most dramatic rescues of the financial crisis by seizing control a year ago of the two largest mortgage finance companies in the world, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While this made it possible for many borrowers to keep getting loans and helped protect the housing market from further damage, the government's newly dominant role -- nearly 90 percent of all new home loans are funded or guaranteed by taxpayers -- has far-reaching consequences for prospective home buyers and taxpayers. The government has the power to decide who is qualified for a loan and who is not.[...] At the same time, taxpayers are on the hook for most of the loans that are still being made if they go bad. And they are also on the line for any losses in the massive portfolios of old loans at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which own or back more than $5 trillion in mortgages. There is growing evidence that many loans being guaranteed by the government have a significant risk of defaulting. Delinquencies are spiking. And the Federal Housing Administration, another source of government support for home loans, is quickly eating through its financial cushion as losses mount.[...] Taxpayers could be hit with a staggering tab even if a small proportion of loans go bad. Fannie and Freddie now own or guarantee more than $5 trillion in home loans. (That equals two-thirds of the debt the U.S. government owes.) And many could be in trouble. Mortgages owned and backed by the companies often required down payments of no more than 10 percent. With housing prices down sharply, many borrowers are underwater, owing more than their home is worth, so they cannot sell or refinance to pay off troubled loans. As the economy has deteriorated, delinquencies are spiking and losses are mounting. In the past year and half, the companies have posted more than $150 billion in losses. Similar risks threaten to engulf FHA. Nearly 8 percent of FHA loans at the end of June were either 30 days late or in the process of foreclosure, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. That compares with 5.4 percent of such loans a year ago."

The recent economic crises has lead to very dramatic changes in the government's influence in the economy. The main point is that there are a lot of bad loans out there and the U.S. taxpayer is responsible for a lot of these bad mortgages. If you know how the current economic recession was caused; you can see that this is very similar to how it happened, except this time the taxpayers as a whole are responsible for these mortgages. This, combined with other factors such a national debt, could bring the economy much closer to a real collapse in the future than the recent economic troubles did about a year ago. I think this could possibly be a big factor in creating a real economic collapse in the future. Although the Nation will pull back from some of these bad economic policies and the proverbial cliff, I can gather from a lot of different articles that I read that the foundation for a near collapse of the economy is being laid that will be of concern some years down the road. Anyways an article worth reading that will keep one up to date on the current economic climate and possibly give an indication of where the economy could be going.

So This is what a Community Organizer Does!

During the election season, a big deal was made of what a Community Organizer does. This was because this was the only professional experience Barack Obama had prior to becoming a State Senator in Illinois. Both Liberals and Conservatives explained what it entailed, either to build up or knock down candidate Obama. Barack Obama did legal work for and embraced the chief community organizing organization in America, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now or ACORN. On the campaign trail, he courted and encouraged ACORN:

Now, as you've probably all heard, a couple of young folks, Hannah Giles (age 20) & James O'Keefe (age 25), just like Scooby Doo, have shown the world what Obama's favorite organization and profession is all about. Working with Andrew Breitbart's Big Government Media Organization/Blog, they posed as pimp and hooker trying to set up a brothel of underaged, illegal-alien El Salvadorean girls, and went to some number (how many we don't know yet, but an ever-increasing number) of ACORN offices across the nation looking for advice on how to set their business up and keep the IRS from finding out about it. Showing a great dedication to customer service, the ACORN offices in Baltimore, Washington DC, Brooklyn, San Bernardino, & San Diego (so far) were more than happy to do everything they could for them. I guess this is the kind of entrepeneurship that Community Organizers find appealing. An NGO in action! Check out the videos. Disgusting, evil, & hilarious at the same time...oh, yeah, and not particularly surprising, the main surprise being how all the ACORN employees could fall for the cleancut young people pulling the sting on them. While watching the videos, keep in mind that this organization is where Obama is coming from, his heart and soul, the type of group he wanted to work for rather than going into a law practice.

The kids, or maybe it was Andrew Breitbart, were cunning in the publication of their sting. They published the Baltimore video, and ACORN's response was to fire the two employees in the video and

A spokesman for ACORN, Scott Levenson, when asked to comment on the videotape, said: "The portrayal is false and defamatory and an attempt at gotcha journalism. This film crew tried to pull this sham at other offices and failed. ACORN wants to see the full video before commenting further."

Yes, they did try at other offices: Next Big Government released the DC video which appeared to not be a failure; ACORN's response was then to fire two more employees and state

The group's leaders said Friday they were "appalled and angry" at what their staffers had done, but insisted the videos were part of a political "smear" campaign and not representative of the institution as a whole.

The kids then showed that, well, it was representative of more than you might think by releasing the Brooklyn video. At this point, though ignored by the entire MSM outside of Fox, the Senate took notice, and voted 83-7 to block federal funding to the organization. The US Census Bureau, who, incredibly, had been preparing to use ACORN in the 2010 census, told them their services were no longer needed. ABC newsanchor Charles Gibson spoke for the entire non-Fox MSM at that time saying on a Chicago radio station,

Gibson: HAHAHAHAHA. HEHEHE. I didn’t even know about it. Um. So, you’ve got me at a loss. I don’t know. Uh. Uh. But my goodness, if it’s got everything including sleaziness in it, we should talk about it this morning.

Roma: This is the American way!

Gibson: Or maybe this is just one you leave to the cables.

Roma: Well, I think this is a huge issue because there’s so much funding that goes into this organization…

Gibson: I know we’ve done some stories about ACORN before, but this one I don’t know about...

Roma: Jake Tapper did some blogging on it. I know he’s blogged at least once on this scandal.

Gibson: You guys are uh really up on the website.

Not fit for the MSM according to Charles Gibson.

I could go on. Eventually, everyone was forced to pay attention to the sting operation because of the drip, drip, drip release of the videos. And they're not done yet! Many of the blogs on the sidebar will give you more information on MSM, Government, and ACORN's attempts to ignore, obfuscate, or cry racism against the kids showing videos of ACORN's employees. Congress is now launching federal investigations into ACORN's behavior and ACORN has shut down operation.

An ongoing, fascinating story of an organization near and dear to Obama's heart.

And ACORN would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling kids!

Is President Obama commiting the same mistake the Hoover commited and that lead to a world wide great depression?

From the WSJ, "The smell of trade war is suddenly in the air. Mr. Obama slapped a 35% tariff on Chinese tires Friday night, and China responded on the weekend by threatening to retaliate against U.S. chickens and auto parts. That followed French President Nicolas Sarkozy's demand on Thursday that Europe impose a carbon tariff on imports from countries that don't follow its cap-and-trade diktats. 'We need to impose a carbon tax at [Europe's] border. I will lead that battle,' he said." Here is Hot Air dot com's take on this. Tariffs and trade wars were two of the major causes of the Great Depression.

I believe we all know that the Smoot-Hawley was a major cause of the Great Depression, "The modern free-trade era began during the Great Depression, after the catastrophe of the Smoot-Hawley tariff of June 1930. Hoover also thought he was shrewdly playing tactical politics by adopting a tariff that the economist Joseph Schumpeter said was the "household remedy" of the Republican Party at the time. But the tariff ignited a beggar-thy-neighbor reaction around the world, and the flow of global goods and services collapsed." Would a trade war today have the same impact that it had on the world economies in the past?

Maybe the President is trying to look good on he domestic front, but it could have unintended consequences, "Mr. Obama may not intend to start a trade war, but then Hoover didn't set out to pick one either. His political abdication is what made it possible, however, and trade passions once unleashed can be impossible to control. On his present course, President Obama is giving the world every reason to conclude he is a protectionist." I think Obama is trying to keep the domestic side of the house happy, and he will not start a full out trade war similar to the one that helped to bring about the great depression.

I am sure that the President and the world are familiar with history and will not make the same mistakes. The lessons are clear as day and readily available to just about anyone. If I can understand this lesson, I am sure the people in charge of our government understand this. If they do make the same mistake in regards to protectionism , what would that say about their intentions? There are many similarities in current events to past history and is worth noting to get a feel for where we might be going. Although I don't think this will lead to any great economic depression; an interesting question would be how would America or the world react to a much greater economic crises? When we look at how the America people responded to the recent, mild economic crises by electing the current government, this might give us a clue.

Liberal Fascist Shows His Colors

Thomas Friedman, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist, wrote a doozy of an opinion article in the September 8 edition of the New York Times in which he praises the Enlightened Autocracy of China in comparison to the messy business of Democracy in the United States. The article is so over-the-top ridiculous that it really needs to be read in it's entirety. Thomas Friedman basically is upset that, even though the Democrats have a veto-proof majority in the Senate and a large majority in the House, they haven't been able to approve any of the measures Dear Leader is pushing, and laments America's messy democracy:

Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

Yes, it's just too hard to get anything done when you hold all the keys to making and passing laws, gosh darn it!

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages.

So, there you go Melkor, China, we should be like them! Why? 'Cause noted, uhm, person, Thomas Friedman says so, that's why!

He quotes Joe Romm from Climateprogress:

“China is going to eat our lunch and take our jobs on clean energy — an industry that we largely invented — and they are going to do it with a managed economy we don’t have and don’t want,” said Joe Romm, who writes the blog, climateprogress.org.

He neglects to say that they're also eating our lunch in building coal power plants, and nuclear power plants, and would be eating our lunch at producing oil if they had any! Yes, there are some advantages.

Anyway, if we have our troll reading, here's the perfect example of Jeff's Liberal Fascist! This retard is a highly respected journalist. Now you know why Print Journalism is dying.

A "new Bill of Rights" that was proposed by President Obama's regulatory Chief.

This article is from World Net Daily. Another czar. It seems as if President Obama's regulatory chief has written an interesting little book. "In 2004, Sunstein penned a book, 'The Second Bill of Rights: FDR'S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever,' in which he advanced the radical notion that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state. His inspiration for a new bill of rights came from President Roosevelt's 1944 proposal of a different, new set of bill of rights." This is from what this man wrote. It is not some twisted, made up accusation. When we look at what some of his proposed new rights are, we can see that this will require a fundamental transformation of our government and country. This is very similar to the change that Theodore Roosevelt proposed to some extent in his various speeches. This has a lot to do with the progressive movement that started under Wilson. This is a fundamental change of our system that will result in a more authoritarian government.

Lets list some of these new rights and what new powers would be required for the government to gives us these new rights. I don't think I need to state how this is wrong and would require some people to become slaves to other people. (1) "The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation[.]" (2)"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health[.]" (3) The right of every family to a decent home[.]" We have tried this, and look at the economic consequences--the current economic situation. These are just a few of the proposed new rights. They sound good right. Who could be against having a job and health care as a right?

"This is not a description of Cuba, communist China, or the USSR until 1991. It's the vision of the future of the U.S, as mandated by a radical new "bill of rights" drawn up and pushed by President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein. Until now, Sunstein's proposal has received little scrutiny."

These new rights come at the expense of our freedoms. These new rights will require a parental government that would have the authority that a parent has over their child.

This illustrates that someone who Obama appointed to a position of power and influence is proposing a very fundamental transformation of our system that would lead to a bigger government that would intrude on the private, individual sphere. These radicals are just all over the place. If obama does not agree with this, then why is this guy his czar? Again, this is coming under the guise of taking care of us and is exactly how Toquville predicted that tyranny would establish itself in a free nation. "Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?[...]I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people." If people want these new rights, then they better be prepared to give up a lot of their freedoms. The main point I want to get across is that there is an attempt to transform our nation and that there is a quiet revolution occurring. We are in the early stages of our Country undergoing a fundamental transformation. This is preview of America's future. It won't matter until a long time from now, so who cares.

Is America making the same mistakes that led to a world wide economic depression and is the dollar no longer the premier global currency.

(Many of my post are repeating themselves.) According to a new pamphlet published by the institute for economic affairs--the answer is yes, "Barack Obama is committing the same mistakes made by policymakers during the Great Depression, according to a new study endorsed by Nobel laureate James Buchanan." (You can read the full document here.) I guess the fact that the study is endorsed by a Nobel Laureate makes this a credible statement. It goes on to say that, "His policies even have the potential to consign the US to a similar fate as Argentina, which suffered a painful and humiliating slide from first to Third World status last century, the paper says." Although the country is headed down this path, I don't think things will get that bad. premier

Government spending money to solve the economic situation will hurt the economy in the long run. "In particular, the authors, economists Charles Rowley of George Mason University and Nathanael Smith of the Locke Institute, claim that the White House's plans to pour hundreds of billions of dollars of cash into the economy will undermine it in the long run. They say that by employing deficit spending and increased state intervention President Obama will ultimately hamper the long-term growth potential of the US economy and may risk delaying full economic recovery by several years." There is no doubt that the current economic policies are designed to purposely hurt the economy for the purpose of remaking it and America.

The current economic policies being carried out are comparable to what FDR did, and his policies hurt the economy and delayed economic recovery. "The study represents a challenge to the widely held view that Keynesian fiscal policies helped the US recover from the Depression which started in the early 1930s. The authors say: "[Franklin D Roosevelt's] interventionist policies and draconian tax increases delayed full economic recovery by several years by exacerbating a climate of pessimistic expectations that drove down private capital formation and household consumption to unprecedented lows." If one reads _The forgotten Man_, by Amity Shlaes, one can see how the policies of Hoover and FDR hurt the economy and how the Great Depression was directly caused and exacerbated by government policies. As a result of the economic troubles of that time; the government increased its size and influence in the free market, much like the government is doing now.

The report states how the current economic policies will lead to a bleak economic future. "The prognosis is catastrophic if[IF] projected government policies are not cut back. According to the White House's own estimates, the federal budget deficit in 2009 will be $1.6 trillion, approximately 11.2pc of the overall economy, the highest on record since the end of the Second World War. In 2019, the national debt will represent 76.5pc of the US national economy, the highest proportion since just after the Second World War. In such circumstances, the international reserve status of the US dollar will not survive. As it fades, so interest rates on government securities will rise and the real burden of servicing the debt will increase. In such circumstances, the US economy will teeter on the edge of a black hole." This level of debt will have negative effects on the economy. China and Russia have already called for a new reserve currency to replace the dollar. China, a communist country, has expressed concerns, to the point of laughing at our Treasury Secretary, over the value and safety of their investments in U.S. dollars due to the U.S. printing and spending huge sums of money. These two countries are not the only ones calling for the dollar to be replaced.

In response to countries running up huge deficits, the UN is now calling for a new global currency to replace the dollar." The dollar should be replaced with a global currency, the United Nations has said, proposing the biggest overhaul of the world's monetary system since the Second World War." The article states that this call is in response to "the potential of countries running large deficits and would help stability." This is an interesting effect of the current global economic situation--a more unified global economy, an increase in the powers of international regulatory bodies, and America's decline of its influence on the world stage. The dollar's days are numbered. A new shift is taking place, I don't have any better words to state this better. Maybe somebody with knowledge of foreign affairs would know more about this.

This all could not be true. The current mild economic crises led to people choosing the current government. If there is some huge economic trouble in the future, how would people react? I like "Doctor Dooms'" take on the current economic situation. "Pessimism porn". Anyways, more of the same.

Van Jones gets booted. What did his appointment reveal about President Obama and the direction our government is taking?

President Obama's green jobs czar Van Jones resigned after it was revealed that he was a 911 truther, he signed a petition that was, "a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur." This fact lead to him resigning. It is interesting that some of his other radical beliefs did not lead to him resigning earlier. He has also said many radical things, too many to be included here. '"Jones who was identified as a self-described radical communist and 'rowdy black nationalist' who said his environmental activism was actually a means to fight for racial and class 'justice.'" Here is a little background information on this guy.

Jones has a desire to transform our system by using the environmental movement, "so the green economy will start off as a small subset we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes an engine for transforming the whole society." Two weeks before he started working for the White House he gave a speech: "During his speech, available on YouTube, Jones threw around terms like "eco-apartheid" and "green for some," and preached about spreading the wealth while positing a call to "change the whole system." Spreading the Wealth around sounds like a well known political philosophy that has lead Mankind down some of its darkest hours. Does he mean to change the whole system into one that will spread the wealth around? It is interesting that Obama has stated that his goal is to "fundamentally transform America". Was he referring to the same transformation that Jones was talking about? Why would the President say that this guy is a close friend and appoint him as his advisor if the President did not share many of Jones' beliefs and goals? The fact that we was put there by the President reveals a lot about Obama's beliefs and goals.

This is good discussion on the people running our government and their agenda of transforming America.

Does this mean that this is the last that we will see of him? "Perhaps you think the Van Jones appointment as a White House czar was an aberration and, now that he is gone, America will never hear from him again. Think again. His biggest fans and closest friends tell a much different story. For instance, Don Hazen, executive director of the Independent Media Institute, a "progressive" alternative media outlet heavily funded by the likes Teresa Heinz Kerry's Tides Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation, says Jones' talents were actually wasted in the position of "green jobs czar" Barack Obama gave him.[...] Hazen calls departing from the White House a "liberation" for Jones. Not only is this better for Jones, says Hazen, it's better for the 'progressive' movement because Jones is the leader it needs on the outside." This last statement reveals a lot about what the progressive movement stands for. How can they say this about a man who holds these radical beliefs and has describe himself as a communist and not agree with his beliefs and goals of bringing about racial justice and a transformation of our society through the environmental movement?

This guy is probably the most well know radical in our government; but there are several other radical people in Obama's cabinet, Obama included, and who are advising him. When I look at what these people believe and what they want to achieve, it seems like there is some type of quite revolution occurring in our country. It is easy to dismiss these facts as some far-out-there thing, but it is worth noting to see what our Government and Country is transforming into. It is hard not to believe these people's own words. It is amazing that people with these beliefs are in charge of our Country. I wonder how close they will come to achieving their goals before they are booted out; and once they are booted out, will the transformation be reversed to any great extent? America and the World has been heading towards some New World order that will be brought about in the future; and with recent events, America is taking giant leaps towards this new system of government. In my opinion, the people who hold current positions of power in our government and their beliefs and goals and policies are one indication of this fact. I suppose there has always been revolutions and transformations of societies all throughout human history, so this is nothing new nor is it a big deal.

Too Important to Be Forgotten

I simply though this exchange is too important to be lost in the comments section of history:

Actual Policy Debate Here

I think this is where we find out what sort of conservatives we have here (at least from a foreign perspective). Who's the Neo-Con, and who's the Kissinger realist.

Comment here...Should the US continue with the current policy (but you have some particular insight on why "it'll work this time I swear" that hasn't been brought up), should the US cut and run, Biden plan, Sean's Biden Plan plus ruthless Tajik proposal?, A cooler more badass idea....

Why the WTO Rocks

I'm still waiting for a rabid article exhaling the glorious victory the GOP had over one of Obama's ridiculous "tsars." I leave that duty to our more domestic oriented writers. But I did see something that would otherwise have flown underneath our radar. The WTO has ruled against Airbus and the EU for "illegal subsidies" that apparently went into its A380 passenger liner. Obviously this ruling will be contended by Airbus and the EU, but some people have an improper correlation between the WTO dispute process and an actual legal court. In comparison to judicial bodies (especially international ones), the WTO moves relatively quickly. Primarily because the evidence is produced by the conflicting parties in a brief (and not a long process filled with motions and counter motions as we are accustomed too) that is ruled on by economic experts.

Moving the temporal argument aside, the second article claims that various European governments have stated they won't stop their investments into Airbus despite the ruling. Obviously if this were actually a concern than the WTO would long ago have been ruled obsolete as an international organization (like the UN has become), but we do have recourse that our good Canadian media friends fail to take into account. If a the Dispute body rules against a country(ies) and they continue to defy the ruling after all appeals have been conducted than the offended party is allowed to pursue reciprocal tariffs on the offending countries goods to equal the "damages" that have been set by the WTO ruling. This is how the WTO "collects" and brings its members in line (far more effective, in my opinion, than any other international body). A similar situation happened before the elections in 2004 when the US was found to have illegal tariffs on steel. When the ruling came out, Bush refused to lift the tariffs and the various EU members involved in the dispute put high tariffs on specific electoral goods (Ohio's Harley Davidson's and Florida Oranges) that swiftly resulted in the US lifting it's tariffs (see WTO DS248-9, 251-4, 274).

All of this background is merely to say, that some media outlets may resort to the "countries will ignore it, big whoop" (general argument in IR) but this doesn't apply to the WTO. The real question is how the the 3 month appeal process will work out. Since I doubt that Airbus can stand on its own without being propped up by the Europeans, especially when they are in such dire competition with the Boeing Dreamliner, the real question is how will Obama choose to respond. Since we are the world's largest consumer, there is considerable amount of room for US to threaten European goods (a situation made even more opportune due to the precarious economic situation) and bring Airbus to heal.

White House to extract information from social network sites.

More information about the White House's attempt to use the Internet to keep up on what people are thinking. This time they are trying to track people on social network sites. I came across this news article on World Net Daily. "The White House is hiring a contractor to harvest information about Americans from its pages on social networking websites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, YouTube and Flickr. The National Legal and Policy Center, or NLPC, revealed the White House New Media team is seeking to hire technology vendor to collect data such as comments, tag lines, e-mail, audio and video from any place where the White House "maintains a presence" – for a period of up to eight years. 'The contractor shall provide the necessary services to capture, store, extract to approved formats, and transfer content published by EOP (Executive Office of the President) on publicly-accessible web sites, along with information posted by non-EOP persons on publicly-accessible web sites where the EOP offices under PRA (Presidential Records Act) maintains a presence," the posting states.'"

"This is the third controversy involving the White House Internet operations in less than a month.[...] "Now the same people at the White House are at it again with an ambitious plan to harvest huge amounts of information from the web and specifically social networking sites." Some of this information includes, "capturing of comments by both Obama critics and supporters, with no restriction as to how the White House would use the information.

President's Obama green job advisor Van Jones made and interesting statement concerning information technology, social networking websites(?). Here is what he said about this: "'It's my great hope that if we combine this breakthrough in clean energy technology with the real breakthrough in the information networking domain, we can get to a breakthrough in American politics,' said Jones at a speech screened by WND.[...] 'If we can combine these two revolutions in green technology and information technology, we can have a political realignment to get us the country we always wanted,' he said."I don't know if this is related to the White House's attempts to gather information on social network sites. Using social network sites in and of it self to bring about political action or to achieve a political goal is not a nefarious thing, but gathering information from these sites in this manner is a little "fishy". Of note is the fact that there is an attempt to bring about a political realignment, not a bad thing in and of itself; but when one looks at this guys past statements, one can see the type of political realignment he is talking about.

I wonder if there would be outcry if this was done under Bush? In my opinion, this is not some huge thing to get worked up over. This encroachment on our privacy will only get more pronounced in the future. This is a possible tool of a tyrannical government that could be used to implement its control. When one looks at this in connection with the goals of the current people in positions of power in our government, one should wonder what this information will be used for. When I go on the Internet, I expect that my actions are being tracked. This is worth noting to give an indication what our system of government is evolving into.

Curt Schilling a senator?

Curt Schilling has recently quoted that he has interest in trying for Kennedy's seat. This is a good thing. He is a long time Republican supporter and helped campaign for Bush and Mccain.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4442556

For those of you who don't know him, he is a bad ass pitcher and helped the Red Sox win two World Series(hey dean, this is the super bowl of major league baseball. Baseball is the one with four bases and people try to hit the ball with a bat.)

I think this can actually work. Schilling has a lot of fans in Mass. The Republicans would no doubt vote for him and he would pull some fans from the left as well. This could give the Republicans a previously long democratic seat. You have to remember that sports are paramount in New England. He gave them two world series rings and pulled Boston out of the 100 year long curse since Babe Ruth left the team. They'll give him anything over there.

Afghanistan: Approaching Quagmire Status

It’s hard not to be pessimistic about this country when we have to listen to every new report of disaster over there (especially when it is compared to our success in Iraq). The latest, for those who are concerned, is the increasingly bogus election results and the dirt bag that Karzai chose to run with. Analysis coming from the Foreign Policy article indicates that the Afghani government is pretty much “more of the same” from their Northern Alliance days. That is, warlords with about as much support and legitimacy as the Taliban. So even when we pump more supplies to get more troops into Afghanistan who will likely be highly efficient at killing more insurgents, we aren’t going to see any actual return from our Afghani “allies.” The reason we needed the surge in Iraq was to provide additional safe zones in order to allow the Sunni Awakening to do it’s magic. Absent the troops, the sunni militias would’ve been too weak to stand against Foreign Extremists, absent the sunni militias, we wouldn’t have had the local support that is necessary to go door to door and root out the enemy. Obama is attempting the surge without the “Afghani Awakening.” He is attempting to overcome this with massive deployment of civilian groups and aid but I doubt how effective this can be if it’s not coming from the Afghani gov’t. People need to “buy in” to their government in order for it succeed, no amount of aid can erase the crimes of a corrupt and ineffective government.

But we can’t forget what is at stake inside of Afghanistan. Besides the “terrorist safe haven” development that will occur if we pull out (but a concern we face everyday in the Sudan and Arabic peninsula), I think Afghanistan is the last gasp for the west in Asia. If failure is the inevitable conclusion for our mission, that it will result (if it hasn’t already) in a foreign policy for NATO that avoids any mission but the short, non-violent, and easily attainable mission. An overall strategic mission will be lost and those that would like to test the limits of this more defeatist alliance (i.e. Russia, China) will be emboldened.

If we can’t retreat but we can’t keep with the same, then Obama should do something that he has promised with every speech. He needs to “change” something, most importantly, he needs to do what he can to shuffle up the Afghani leadership. Not saying we should kill anyone like Kennedy a la Diem, but we should make it clear to those not in Karzai’s entourage, we’re willing to extend a welcome hand.

Change comes to Japan!

I am not familiar with politics in Japan. I don't think that the current conservative party that has held power in Japan for all but eleven months since 1955 were very conservative, they were called liberal Democrats. I came across this news article on yahoo news and I noticed this headline on the front of a Newspaper. Japan is facing a similar economic down turn that America is facing and it seems like people in Japan reacted in the same manner as Americans did--vote out the ruling party and replace it with a more liberal party that promises change.

Some goals of the new party, "The Democrats are also proposing toll-free highways, free high schools, income support for farmers, monthly allowances for job seekers in training, a higher minimum wage and tax cuts. The estimated bill comes to 16.8 trillion yen ($179 billion) if fully implemented starting in fiscal year 2013 — and critics say that will only further bloat Japan's already massive public debt." Critics of this policy of spending state, "But with Japan's public debt heading toward 200 percent of gross domestic product, the Democrats plan has been criticized as a financial fantasy that would worsen Japan's precarious fiscal health." Two hundred percent is rather high, I think America's is around 40%. More government handouts--sounds like our version of hope and change. Japan also has an aging population and a dwindling population. This means there will be less tax revenue at the same time the government will have to be taking care of an increasing older population--not good for the economy. It looks like Japan will be having the same issues with national debt that America faces and it will be coming to the fore front around the same time. The same economic troubles and bad policies are being carried out in other major economic powers of the world, maybe not the whole world, but these economic problems could be an issue shared by the whole world at some later point in time.

It looks like there might not be a major shift in foreign policy, "In foreign relations, the Democrats have said they want Tokyo to be more independent from Washington on diplomatic issues, though they have stressed that the U.S. will remain Japan's key ally and that they want to keep relations good, while also strengthening ties with their Asian neighbors." But according to his other statements, one could see a major shift, "Party leader Yukio Hatoyama, set to become Japan's next prime minister, has been vocal about distancing the country from Washington and forging closer ties with its Asian neighbors." It might just be political talk and there might not be any major foreign policy ramifications.

Fox news, "The Democrats' solution is to move Japan away from a corporate-centric economic model to one that focuses on helping people." I just love hearing politicians bashing and demonizing capitalism. Those evil corporations don't stand a chance over there in Japan. I believe Japan has the highest corporate tax rate, America takes the second spot. From these facts, one can see a bleak economic future for Japan.

I thought this was interesting because it shows how the current trends in America are occurring in other parts of the world. This could indicate a global trend, and the negative effects of these trends could be felt by the whole world at a later point in time.