On October 23, 2009, thousands will stop to remember the 241 Marines, sailors and soldiers who died in the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon, 26 years ago on October 23, 1983. It was one of America’s first blows of terrorism.

Please join me, in taking a moment out of our day, to bow our heads and remember our fallen heroes.

Center-right folks have known for years that the “do as we say not as we do” Democrat hypocrisy knows no bounds but this scene from a surprise visit to a gathering of Democrat leaders by Governor Schwarzenegger at the invitation and request of former San Francisco Mayor and Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D) while in the hotel for another event takes the cake.

Drawing attention to the outrageous behavior of San Francisco Democrat officials to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the California Republican Party today released a new video, “Hypocrisy.”

Here’s CRP’s press release:

California Republican Party Launches New Web Video: “Hypocrisy”

The video features a crowd of San Francisco Democrat leaders led by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano heckling and booing Governor Schwarzenegger during a surprise visit he made at the request of former San Francisco Mayor and Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D) while in the hotel for another event.

“When Congressman Joe Wilson made his outburst, he was strongly reprimanded and issued an apology within hours,” said CRP Chairman Ron Nehring. “Now that the tables are turned, Democrat leaders have been curiously silent in admonishing one of their own for his outrageous behavior. It’s surprising that Ammiano remains unashamed for his total lack of respect.”

“Even Mayor Willie Brown and the San Francisco Chronicle have called Ammiano’s behavior embarrassing, yet where is the response from Democrat leaders? This event is just the latest illustration of the hypocrisy from the party of ‘respect’ and ‘tolerance.’”

The California Republican Party (CRP) releases this video with a question for Democrat leaders: Why so quiet?

Stay Classy Dems!!!

The other night Rep. Grayson said Republican want the sick to die quicker. Yesterday instead of apologizing for his childish remarks Grayson instead said “I’ll apologize to the dead.”

Grayson then goes on to cite a Harvard study that says 45,000 Americans die each year due to being uninsured. Problem is many have questioned this study and it’s highly questionable authors. Laed author Dr. Andrew Wilper is clearly pushing an agenda and co-author Dr. Steffie Woolhandler has been a single payer activist for decades pushing universal health care.

Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard and a primary care physician in Cambridge, Mass., noted: “Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.”

Congressmen Grayson, this is not helping your argument!… comparing our current health care system to the holocaust?? Really? By the way Motor vehicle crashes cause 43,200 deaths in America per year — Poisoning 19,457 One American accidentally poisoned to death every 27 minutes — At home 18,048 One American killed in an accident at home every 29 minutes — Falls 17,227 One American killed in a fall every 31 minutes guess we should outlaw those? Your point is absurd and childish!

Shining light on Carol Browner and Outing the 57 U.S. Senators Who Voted to Keep the Socialist Climate Czar Funded.

Yesterday, the Senate voted to table an amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill that would have prohibited any funds appropriated under the bill from being used by President Obama’s Socialist climate Czar, Carol Browner. By tabling this amendment these Senators ensured that funds can and will be used at her digression.

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2549 to H.R. 2996 (Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010) To ensure that the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change (commonly known as the “White House Climate Change Czar”) is not directing actions of departments and agencies funded by this Act.

Amendment SA 2549 was proposed by Senator Vitter and co-sponsored by Senators Grassley, Bunning, Roberts, and Brownback. Please find the list below of the 57 Seantors who voted to fund President Obama’s Socialist climate Czar, Carol Browner and hold them accountable.

Americans for Prosperity Director of Policy Phil Kerpen issued the following statement:

In voting to keep White House Climate Czar Carol Browner funded, the Senate voted to allow a hard-left ideologue to continue to drive U.S. policy. Even worse, the Senate undermined its own constitutional right to exercise advice and consent by allowing an unaccountable White House staff czar to exert unchecked influence on energy policies.

Carol Browner has already overstepped the bounds of a legitimate adviser by crafting the Obama’s administration’s unprecedented attempt to regulate automobile fuel economy standards. She shoehorned greenhouse gas regulation into the 1970 Clean Air Act, and she insisted that nothing was put in writing while she did it.

As recently as January of this year, Browner was listed as one of the 14 members of the “Socialist International Commission for a Sustainable World Society” on that group’s web site. The 57 U.S. Senators who voted to fund the whims of Climate Czar Carol Browner with taxpayer money will have to explain that to their constituents.

I know a lot of people get all bent out of shape when, we on the right, use the word Socialist to describe a member of Obama’s administration but believe me it’s not without good cause.

In the case of Carol Browner we know exactly who she is and what organizations she associates with, even though the left has done everything in their power to scrub her associations from the internet.

Though the left has taken steps and deleted her involvement with Socialist International and their Commission for a Sustainable World Society on Wikipedia, other that to say: “She left all of these boards in late 2008 when she was named to serve in the Obama administration.[38] Until summer 2008 she was a member of Socialist International’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society,[39][38][40] although the commission’s web site still had her listed as a member in January 2009”

What they didn’t want you to know was the fact that she was listed as one of fourteen leaders of Socialist International. The deleted section

Socialist International

Until January 2009, she was listed as one of fourteen leaders of Socialist International. The group calls for rich countries to shrink their economies in order to combat climate change. However, her name was removed from organization’s website after Barack Obama appointed her to be his coordinator of energy and climate policy.

Here you’ll find the deleted Socialist International Page and here’s one they over looked and forgot to delete. According to Socialist International’s website Carol Browner is listed as a participant at the XXIII Congress of the Socialist International, Athens Global Solidarity: The courage to make a difference on June 30th though July 2nd 2008.

Scroll toward the end of the page under the heading: Individuals

Nice try there with the Stalinist air-brushing but you need to check every nook and cranny if you want to successfully delete a person from an organizations website. Here some other groups Browner has been involved with… She served on the board of several non-profit organizations, including chair of the National Audubon Society, She also joined the Board of the Directors of the Alliance for Climate Protection, the Center for American Progress, and the League of Conservation Voters.

Carol Browner hasn’t read the highly contested climate bill

For a President who claimed “judge me by the people I surround myself with” he sure does surround himself with a lot of Socialists…

The following 57 Senators voted YEA:

Akaka (D-HI)

Baucus (D-MT)

Bayh (D-IN)

Begich (D-AK)

Bennet (D-CO)

Bingaman (D-NM)

Boxer (D-CA)

Brown (D-OH)

Burris (D-IL)

Cantwell (D-WA)

Cardin (D-MD)

Carper (D-DE)

Casey (D-PA)

Conrad (D-ND)

Dodd (D-CT)

Dorgan (D-ND)

Durbin (D-IL)

Feingold (D-WI)

Feinstein (D-CA)

Franken (D-MN)

Gillibrand (D-NY)

Hagan (D-NC)

Harkin (D-IA)

Inouye (D-HI)

Johnson (D-SD)

Kaufman (D-DE)

Kerry (D-MA)

Klobuchar (D-MN)

Kohl (D-WI)

Landrieu (D-LA)

Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Leahy (D-VT)

Levin (D-MI)

Lieberman (ID-CT)

Lincoln (D-AR)

Menendez (D-NJ)

Merkley (D-OR)

Mikulski (D-MD)

Murray (D-WA)

Nelson (D-FL)

Pryor (D-AR)

Reed (D-RI)

Reid (D-NV)

Rockefeller (D-WV)

Sanders (I-VT)

Schumer (D-NY)

Shaheen (D-NH)

Snowe (R-ME)

Specter (D-PA)

Stabenow (D-MI)

Tester (D-MT)

Udall (D-CO)

Udall (D-NM)

Warner (D-VA)

Webb (D-VA)

Whitehouse (D-RI)

Wyden (D-OR)

“No more Oil for Money!”

For over a year now I’ve been following this sham of a lawsuit and detailing how the Ecuadorian government has been perpetrating a fraud on an American company and international community with the largest environmental class action suits in history against an oil company, a case that is full of lies, bribes, incompetence, bias, and misconception.

This week we learn of another egregious violation, this time, by the Judge in the case who’s been caught on video tape discussing his verdict (of an ongoing case) with some businessmen.

Chevron is asking the Government of Ecuador to disqualify the judge presiding over the lawsuit involving the company.

The company has disclosed video recordings of meetings that show the judge discussing his verdict with businessmen. The judge confirms that he is going to rule against Chevron in the case and that the company will lose its appeal – even though the trial is still ongoing and evidence is still being received. And a purported ruling party official in Ecuador states that lawyers from the executive branch have been sent to assist the judge in writing the decision.

The video recordings also show an individual, Patricio Garcia, who identifies himself as a member of Ecuador’s ruling party, discussing details of the $3 million bribe with the same businessmen. The bribe was sought in return for remediation contracts to be handed out by the government after the adverse verdict is handed down by the judge.

The tapes show $3 million in bribes were sought: $1 million to Judge Núñez, $1 million to the plaintiffs suing Chevron and $1 million to “the presidency,” Garcia said.

The four video-taped meetings occurred in May and June of 2009. Two of the meetings took place at the Quito offices of Alianza PAIS, Ecuador’s ruling party, one meeting took place in the judge’s chambers in Lago Agrio, and a second meeting involving the judge took place in a Quito hotel.

After referring the evidence of the scheme to authorities, Chevron Executive Vice President Charles James said that company lawyers will seek disqualification of the judge in the case and annulment of his prior rulings.

“No judge who has participated in meetings of the type shown on these tapes could possibly deliver a legitimate decision,” James said.

“We are calling upon Ecuadorian authorities to conduct a full investigation of this matter – focusing not only on the conduct of Judge Núñez, but also on the very serious indications of political interference in this case.

It’s precisely this kind of corruption I’ve been warning people about while writing about this case and why Hollywood Leftists and Idiot Environmentalists like Daryl Hannah, Trudie Styler, her husband Sting and others have been played by the Ecuadorian government.

In plain and simple terms… this is a fraud that’s being perpetrated on an American company and the international community, falsely, in the name of environmentalism by agents pushing a socialist agenda (what else is new?). It’s just that simple… and it should be brought to light and exposed for what it is whenever and wherever possible!

Related Stories:

Bay Biz Buzz: Chevron says video shows judge’s misconduct in Ecuador

Hollywood Leftists Serve As Willing Useful Idiots for A Tyrant

A New Low for Rafael Correa - Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa sinks to new levels after being linked to a bribe scandal

Chevron’s explosive charges in Ecuador fight

TV chief: Broadcast of president’s talk legitimate

Here’s the background:

Ecuador to Perpetrate a Fraud on Chevron and the International Community -Posted on April 8th, 2008

Ecuadorean indigenous groups have filed one of the largest environmental class action suits in history against an oil company to the tune of $16 billion and if successful could set a dangerous president.

Ripping off the facade and digging under the surface of what at first glance looks to be nothing more than deserved retribution by indigenous groups who’ve suffered at the hands of Evil Big Oil one begins to see more clearly the forces behind this fraud are non other than Ecuador’s own state run oil company Petroecuador, Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa, and the powers-that-be who are working feverishly to re-identify and usher in a new socialist South America.

You see, the fact is, Chevron, through its Texaco subsidiary (which Chevron aquired in 2001) , operated an oilfield joint venture with Petroecuador as a minority partner between 1964 and 1992.

From 2002 to 2007, Petroecuador was responsible for more than 1,000 oil spills, of which 168 took place last year alone. In fact, Petroecuador (through its oil and gas exploration and production subsidiary Petroproducción) accounted for 90 percent of all oil spills in Ecuador last year, according to official government data quoted by local newspaper El Universo. The remaining 10 percent were contaminated by six different private companies. In other words, Petroecuador is clearly a major and serial contaminator.

Another underreported fact is that “Chevron paid $40 million in remediation costs in 1995, Petroecuador has not used one dime to clean up its mess.” And in In 1998 “the government of Ecuador declared that the remediation was completed according to the terms and parameters agreed upon and released Texaco from any future liability.”

President Correa’s complicitness is illustrated in the following two part investigative report by investigative Journalist Greg Palast for the BBC — Yeah I know but it’s informative and worth viewing in it’s entirety…

Much more and video below the fold…

Ecuador- Rumble in the Jungle Part 1

Ecuador- Rumble in the Jungle Part 2

The Latin Business Chronicle reports:

INCOMPLETE AND WRONG INSPECTIONS

The lawsuit was originally filed in 1993 in the United States, but was thrown out here in 2002. Then the case was refiled in Ecuador, where the process has been marred by serious flaws. Richard Cabrera, the court-appointed expert, has shown a combination of incompetence and bias against the U.S. company. Cabrera conducted field work that ignored all scientifically accepted technical procedures for site assessment, while including members and supporters of the Frente de la Defensa de la Amazonia (FDA) in his field support team, Chevron points out. The FDA was formed to represent the group suing Chevron. Chevron has repeatedly asked the court to remove Cabrera, but to no avail.

While Cabrera had been specifically asked by the court to present his report after inspecting 122 sites, he did so after only inspecting 47. Even worse, Cabrera took samples from areas that are the sole responsibility of Petroecuador, areas which Petroecuador has publicly acknowledged its obligation to remediate, and from areas already remediated by Petroecuador, Chevron points out. He has also repeatedly asked the court to stop Petroecuador from conducting remediation of the areas of the former concession that Petroecuador has publicly recognized were under its responsibility and have gone unfulfilled since 1998, according to the U.S. oil company. (See Chevron: Biased and Improper Report).

Most of the “evidence” from the group suing Chevron has been analyzed by Havoc laboratory, which has refused all attempts (seven, in all, over more than two years) by an Ecuadorian court to inspect its facilities.

Finally, the court received unwarranted pressure from President Rafael Correa, who has publicly stated his support for the lawsuit. While that clearly violates the judicial independence of Ecuador, it should come as no surprise. After all, Correa is the brains behind the absurd proposal that the international community pay Ecuador $350 million per year to not explore oil in the Ishpingo, Tambococha, Tiputini (ITT) field, which may have reserves of one billion barrels. (See Ecuador’s Oil Paradox).

Fabian Losa one of Ecuador’s top newscasters, according to the clip above, describes the people behind bringing this suit as being like “”watermelons” Green on the outside and Red on the inside” translation — using environmentalism to further a socialist agenda! With fiends like Hugo Chavez and Venezuela, It’s no wonder the lawyers who brought the suit, Richard Cabrera, and President Correa are so confident.

On the political front here in the United States, it should come as no surprise that Sen. Obama has sided with socialists of south America as the CSM reported: “In February, Sens. Barack Obama (D) of Illinois and Patrick Leahy (D) of Vermont sent a letter to US Trade Representative Rob Portman urging him to ignore an apparent campaign by Chevron to exclude Ecuador from trade negotiations until the Ecuadorean government shuts down the lawsuit. “While we are not prejudging the outcome of the case, we do believe the 30,000 indigenous residents of Ecuador deserve their day in court,” the senators wrote.”

In plain and simple terms this is a fraud that’s being perpetrated on an American company and the international community, falsely, in the name of environmentalism by agents pushing a socialist agenda (what else is new?). It’s just that simple… and it should be brought to light and exposed for what it is whenever and wherever possible!

TMR Talks To Chevron on Earth Day! -Posted on April 22nd, 2008

Today environmentalists and human rights activists celebrated Earth Day by holding a protest rally and march outside the Chevron Corporations offices in San Francisco. according to this article Earth Day March/Rally Exposing Chevron- Earth Enemy #1:

Communities and activists call for Chevron to halt Inhumane Energy

WHAT: In downtown San Francisco, environmental justice and human rights activists are marking Earth Day by holding a march and rally targeting Chevron, a notorious polluter in the San Francisco Bay Area and around the world. The Earth Day action will highlight Chevron’s unabated assault on the Earth and the health of communities and the environment near Chevron facilities around the world. The action is in response to Chevron’s terrible environmental and human rights record and their false and desperate attack on Ecuadorian activists who were just awarded the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize.

A trusted and reliable TMR source, who will remain nameless, emailed me the tip this morning saying the following: “You might’ve heard Amazon Watch and other enviro groups are leading an “Earth Day” protest at the Chevron offices in downtown San Francisco today, casting Chevron as “Earth Enemy #1.” Of course they’ll exalt Pablo Fajardo and Luis Yanza, the two Ecuadorian trial lawyers and Goldman prize winners seeking $16 billion from Chevron for alleged environmental damages.

……. the environmentalist community is being shammed – and that these self-proclaimed environmentalists are not friends of the environment, but instead seeking enrichment by extortion. If Mr. Fajardo and Mr. Yanza were honest environmental stewards, they’d recognize that Petroecuador, the state-owned oil company drilling in Ecuador for the past 16 years, is “Earth Enemy #1.” Petroecuador admits in its own records to being responsible for more than a 1,000 spills from 2002 through 2007.

Already denied by numerous court proceedings, Chevron vice president and general counsel Charles James recently highlighted Mr. Fajardo and Mr. Yanza’s bogus legal claims in an op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle. The Wall Street Journal editorialized over the weekend wondering “…whose interests are served by a case that deflects attention from the real source of Ecuador’s pollution while burnishing the country’s reputation as a banana republic.”

Later, I had the chance to conduct a short interview with Chevron’s spokesmen Kent Robertson:

Steven Foley: Could we get your overall view of today’s protest rally in SF?

Kent Robertson: We respect people’s right to voice their opinion. We do believe, however, that an objective individual might not find very much common ground with what’s being said today. Ironically, the actions of these protestors on Earth Day is only providing cover to those who are causing real environmental damage – namely Petroecuador, the state owned oil company in Ecuador.

Steven Foley: Some groups are accusing Chevron of an “unabated assault on the Earth” which seems extremely harsh. Where is this sentiment coming from? And why do you think Chevron seems to be shouldering the blame or being the focus and not other companies?

Kent Robertson: We can’t speak to where the sentiment comes from, but we can speak to the facts: Chevron is the largest producer of geothermal energy in the world and a leading producer of renewable energy in the oil and gas industry.

Unfortunately, today’s protest will occur outside Chevron’s Energy Solutions (CES) subsidiary (http://www.chevronenergy.com/ http://www.chevronenergy.com/ ). This business unit provides public institutions and businesses with environmentally sound projects that increase energy efficiency and reduce energy costs. Put in perspective, CES has saved customers more than 177 million kilowatt-hours of electricity and 1.185 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

Meanwhile, Chevron has moved aggressively to reduce emissions within our own operations and improve efficiency, to the point where we are 27 % more energy efficient than in 1992.

Chevron is also investing in research, development and improved technology. Chevron has:

* Projected spending $2.5 billion 2007-09 on renewable and alternative energy and energy efficiency services

* Launched strategic research alliances with US government and academic institutions to develop second-generation biofuels (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, UC Davis, Texas A&M and Georgia Tech)

* A biofuels business unit created to advance technology and pursue commercial opportunities

* Invested in and operates the largest hydrogen fueling infrastructure in the US

Steven Foley: In an article at NewsBlaze entitled: Earth Day March/Rally Exposing Chevron- Earth Enemy #1 the following comment was raised; “Chevron is engaged in human right abuses and environmental crimes” what’s your reaction?

Kent Robertson: It’s a pretty broad and unsubstantiated statement. We believe that Chevron is a world class operator. Our operations help meet the energy needs of millions of people and Chevron plays a constructive and positive role in our host communities.
I’d also like to touch on the background on ne of the organizations behind today’s rally: Amazon Watch.

This organization purports to be an advocate for the Amazon and its people. However, during its 11-year existence, Amazon Watch has knowingly turned a blind eye to the real and acknowledged polluter in the Ecuadorian Amazon, Petroecuador. In the last five years alone, Petroecuador has recorded more than 1,000 spills. They are decades overdue in performing environmental clean-up, and their ongoing operations are making a bad situation worse. This is all documented fact, but oddly enough, Amazon Watch says nothing. Is it because they are funded by the attorneys pursuing the case against Chevron?

Steven Foley: Finally, could you comment on the status of the lawsuit and situation Chevron finds itself in Ecuador? My take is that Ecuador, her president, and other forces in the region are using certain groups in the region to perpetrate a fraud not only on Chevron but the international community as a whole!

Kent Robertson: You are spot on. Unfortunately what has occurred in the courtroom of Lago Agrio is that the interests of US personal injury lawyers, quasi-environmental groups, and the Government of Ecuador have converged. This has produced an environment where the mob mentality wins out over science, rule of law, and due process.

An objective evaluation of the facts shows that Texaco Petroleum behaved responsibly in Ecuador, that the Republic of Ecuador benefited handsomely, and that — since assuming the full ownership and operation of the oil fields – Petroecuador has proven to be unable to adequately perform the task. Meanwhile, for 15 years, American personal injury lawyers have attempted to cash in on the situation to the detriment of the environment and the people of the Ecuadorian Amazon.

In plain and simple terms this is a fraud that’s being perpetrated on an American company and the international community, falsely, in the name of environmentalism by agents pushing a socialist agenda (what else is new?). It’s just that simple… and it should be brought to light and exposed for what it is whenever and wherever possible!

Starting today thousands of Palin fans will be treated to this ad while on Facebook

The ad takes you to to this page on the Americans United For Change website asking you to send Sarah Palin a letter telling her to stop lying…

Dear Sarah,

Americans Need Real Health Insurance Reform. Please stop lying about “Death Panels.”

They then go on to show three links that reportedly debunk the claims  made about these panels. Problem is, the language is in both bills and although you won’t find the phrase “Death Panels” (liberals would never be that blatant in a bill) these panels remain part of the House bill that passed and was removed from the Senate version as a direct result of Sarah Palin calling them on it!

This latest attempt by Americans United For Change is a silly last ditch effort to try and regain some sort of advance after having been clobbered by a former politician they despise and the American people who obviously don’t hold any value to the group if they aren’t towing their socialistic propaganda line.

My feeling is that this ad will be about as successful as their previous failed attempt:

THE REAL DEATH PANELS: Insurance Companies That Deny Care

The so called feud between Fox News channel’s Bill O’Reilly and MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann is being intentionally over hyped, in my opinion, by other media outlets like the LA Times in an effort to legitimize MSNBC’s journalistic malpractice by doing what Gateway Pundit correctly observes to be manufactured “vitriolic exchanges” in order to raise Olbermann to O’Reilly’s status.

Let me be clear, I’m not the biggest Bill O’Reilly fan, but the simple fact is, Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann are on two very distinct and separate levels which is clearly evidenced by the following ratings charts:

TV NEWS RATINGS: 25-54 DEMOGRAPHIC (L +SD)
5 pm	Beck 734	Blitzer 99	Matthews 120	Prime 66
6 pm	Baier 459	Blitzer 161	EdShow 100	Prime 40
7 pm	Shep 513	Dobbs 220	Matthews 151	Issues 120
8 pm	O’Reilly 1080	Brown 182	Olbermann 405	Grace 282
9 pm	Hannity 807	King 286	Maddow 333	Issues 122
10 pm	Greta 790	Cooper 229	Olbermann 264	Grace 192
11 pm	O’Reilly 727	Cooper 149	Maddow 181	Showbiz 149
TOTAL DAY	471	162	142	118
PRIME TIME	895	232	334	193
Data by Nielsen Media Research. Live and same day (DVR) data.

Bill O’Reilly and Fox News in general simply dominates MSNBC in every discernable way so comparing the two or hyping a rivalry is just silly. So why do it? Thats the $64,000.00 question. Some would say the answer is that the MSM will jump on any story that might have the slightest chance of showing Fox News in a bad light. Some might say focusing on MSNBC takes the heat off of it’s parent company GE. I think both answers are correct!

This so-called feud can be traced back to Bill O’Reilly covering the story of GE doing business with Iran and Syria with GE’s overpaid, under-qualified, mouth piece Keith Olbermann dispatched to attack Fox News and Bill O’Reilly in an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that GE was into some bad dealings with terrorist nations.

After researching the initial story and subsequent findings about Immelt, O’Reilly started to focus on the bigger fish…

General Electric has admitted that it has contracts in Syria and Iran for electric power plants, oil and gas, lighting, and medical equipment (that latter is humanitarian stuff not subject to sanctions and no one is citing them). GE claims that none of it is being used for military purposes by “Iranian forces” or “Syrian forces.” Here is an excerpt from GE’s response to a 2006 inquiry by the SEC, Office of Global Security Risk:

“In addition to diagnostic, monitoring and life science medical products, our products and services that are sold or otherwise distributed include power generation systems and parts, oil & gas equipment, power control/supply and lighting products in Iran, each of which is sold or distributed pursuant to legal obligations entered into prior to February 2005. We sell our products and services directly and through distributors located in Iran and elsewhere. Our customers include private companies, government-owned electrical utilities and refineries, the Ministry of Oil, public/private hospitals and universities. To the best of our knowledge, none of the products or services we provide has been, or could be, employee in any military application or used by the armed forces of Iran for strategic, tactical or training purposes.”

How about the foreign insurgents financed by Iran, flying into Damascus, being trained in Syrian camps and crossing through the Syrian-Iraq border, what our troops call the “rat line?”

Apparently, General Electric either does not get or care that Iran has been violating international law for 30 years with impunity. Iran has engaged in proxy wars through its terrorist arm Hezbollah and through its Revolutionary Guards. It has kidnapped and killed American citizens and the citizens of its neighbors. It has provided foreign fighters, arms, and money to fight the US and Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. It defies the international community in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It declared war on the US — its enemy — and advocates its destruction, along with Israel.

The purpose of economic sanctions against Iran is to provide the world community with some leverage, to let the ayatollahs know that their murderous, outlaw conduct comes with a price, that there will be consequences. When companies like GE, an iconic American company founded by Thomas Edison, find legal loopholes to do business with the people who call America and its allies their sworn enemies, that not only gives comfort and life support to the ayatollahs, that sends a signal that America and its allies do not even have the support of their own people.

Some time ago, GE changed its corporate slogan from “We bring good things to life,” to “Imagination at work.” The latter is a good description of the mendacity of GE’s lawyers, who told the SEC Office of Global Security that GE’s old contracts were okay. Yet President Bill Clinton put US sanctions against Iran in place in 1995, more than twelve years ago.

Which brings me to General Electric or GE, GE under the tutelage of Jeffrey Immelt has not only brought the global giant to the brink of collapse but after doing business with Iran and Syria and receiving $139 Billion from the government to back up it’s debt, GE has positioned itself to be the government arm for both Cap-N-Trade and ObamaCare™

Here’s a look at what Jeffrey Immelt has done during his time at GE:

Jeffrey Immelt on the other hand has not been able to achieve the same success as Welch in his time as CEO so far. To be fair, Immelt took over GE at an unfavorable time, just days before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which cost GE’s insurance arm over $600 million. Along with 9/11 Immelt also had to deal with last year’s financial crisis and the prolonged economic recession in developed nations, which dealt a huge blow to GE Capital and GE’s Industrial business. Under Immelt the company lost two/thirds of its stock’s value, missed earnings estimates for the first time and has continued to miss, and lost its place as the largest company (by Market Cap) in the U.S. to Exxon Mobil. GE’s stock price has gone from $39/share when he took over to less than $12/share, underperforming the Dow Jones Industrial by nearly 60% (price return). Despite the above-mentioned environment Immelt had to deal with, it is not encouraging as an investor to see Economic Margins evaporate away while other businesses have adapted and been able to change their misfortunes. It is yet to be determined if Immelt can recover but it is certain he has yet to prove his ability to create shareholder value.

Is GE becoming Obama’s Halliburton?

It’s not really a surprise that GE would support socialism and the destruction of free markets, after all, they do have a history of doing just that…

If you haven’t read the book Wall Street & the Rise of Hitler please Click Here and get yourself a copy. In these pages you’ll discover how GE was an important player in Nazi Germany… Historian Antony Sutton Chapter Three…

“Among the early Roosevelt fascist measures was the National Industry Recovery Act (NRA) of June 16, 1933. The origins of this scheme are worth repeating. These ideas were first suggested by Gerard Swope of the General Electric Company … following this they were adopted by the United States Chamber of Commerce ….” (Herbert Hoover, The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: The Great Depression, 1929-1941, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1952, p. 420) (emphases mine)

The multi-national giant General Electric has an unparalleled role in twentieth-century history. The General Electric Company electrified the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s, and fulfilled for the Soviets Lenin’s dictum that “Socialism = electrification.”1 The Swope Plan, created by General Electric’s one-time president Gerard Swope, became Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, by a process deplored by one-time President Herbert Hoover and described in Wall Street and FDR.2 There was a long-lasting, intimate relationship between Swope and Young of General Electric Company and the Roosevelt family, as there was between General Electric and the Soviet Union. In 1936 Senator James A. Reed of Missouri, an early Roosevelt supporter, became aware of Roosevelt’s betrayal of liberal ideas and attacked the Roosevelt New Deal program as a “tyrannical” measure “leading to despotism, [and] sought by its sponsors under the communistic cry of ‘Social Justice.’” Senator Reed further charged on the floor of the Senate that Franklin D. Roosevelt was a “hired man for the economic royalists” in Wall Street and that the Roosevelt family “is one of the largest stockholders in the General Electric Company.”3

As we probe into behind-the-scenes German interwar history and the story of Hitler and Naziism, we find both Owen D. Young and Gerard Swope of General Electric tied to the rise of Hitlerism and the suppression of German democracy. That General Electric directors are to be found in each of these three distinct historical categories — i.e., the development of the Soviet Union, the creation of Roosevelt’s New Deal, and the rise of Hitlerism — suggests how elements of Big Business are keenly interested in the socialization of the world, for their own purposes and objectives, rather than the maintenance of the impartial market place in a free society.4 General Electric profited handsomely from Bolshevism, from Roosevelt’s New Deal socialism, and, as we shall see below, from national socialism in Hitler’s Germany.

With the hiring of Linda Daschle as a lobbyist to the SEC rewarding GE for Accounting Fraud to the possibility of making Billions on ObamaCare™ and Cap-N-Trade and all the other shady dealing I’ve pointed to throughout this posting, one thing is crystal clear, GE, like Goldman Sachs and others, are embracing Barack Obama’s socialist policies for profit because like minded individuals, in positions of power, like to play god by forcing Americans to participate in unrealistic social engineering experiments and abiding by a failed philosophy that has achieved success exactly zero times it’s been tried!

The title is a quote by Victorian era English philosopher Herbert Spencer and is a perfect allegory for Stimulus 2.0 and the Obama Administration in general.

We all warned against the first stimulus bill, we knew this was nothing more than what Newt Gingrich calls - a politician bailout bill - laden with pork and having absolutely zero chance at stimulating the economy. In fact, by definition you can’t move money around like a shell game and call it recovery or stimulus!

A quick look at the numbers tells the story: As of this writing only 8-10% of the $787 billion has been spent, most of the spending is slated to be spent in the latter part of 2010 and 2011. We were also promised, if we hurried up and got on board this 1,073 page monstrosity without reading it, that unemployment rates wouldn’t top 8%… we’re now at 9.5% And 90% of the money paid out has gone to State and Local governments so they could stay afloat, not have to make sacrifices, and avoid hard belt tightening decisions.

Let’s not forget $16 Million for the salt marsh harvest mouse in San Francisco or the 18 million dollars for recovery.org the government site set up to track the spending of stimulus dollars. (btw- the company that got the contract doesn’t even list wed design as an expertise on their site)

Now were hearing that we need another stimulus plan Stimulus Part Deux

If the president wants another stimulus plan the Republican Party should be the ones offering a bill that works and makes sense.

Newt offers some great key issues as a starting point in the video below and I’ll just add one other one as well…

1. Stimulus 2.0 needs to  stop all of stimulus one’s spending and give every American citizen 2000.00 dollars! Then the bill should do what Newt says is called for in a real free market stimulus plan

2. 50% reduction in Social Security and Medicaid tax… including employers match

3. Zero capitol gains rate

4. Have a 12.5% Corporate tax rate

5. Eliminate the Death Tax

That’s a five point platform that the Republican leadership should push as a real recovery reform bill built for both short and long term growth and prosperity. A platform that will fix all of our financial problems…bank, credit, housing, jobs in the short term as we work on regulation and reform to ensure these problems don’t pop-up again.

First lets explore Goldman-Sachs history with financial bubbles and the way in which they, when not causing them, are always positioned perfectly to profit from them using a technique called Problem-Action-Reaction-Solution!

The Great Depression:

Although Goldman-Sachs was founded in 1869 by a German immigrant named Marcus Goldman and his son-in-law Samuel Sachs it was the Great Depression that many point to as the beginning of Goldman-Sachs creating a pattern of nefarious behavior that would repeat itself again and again, I find that a company “getting creative” in order to survive in that climate to be less troubling than the Mr. Tiabbi obviously does given the tone of the article but nevertheless a troubling pattern does emerge in 1960’s and thus we’ll start with the Tech Bubble.

The referenced article has very articulate descriptions and details of Goldman-Sachs involvement in these bubbles so I’ll quote and quickly summarize in the interest of time and the fact that I’d just be repeating.

The Tech Bubble:

Goldman-Sachs ”not only survived the crash that wiped out so many of the investors it duped, it went on to become the chief underwriter to the country’s wealthiest and most powerful corporations”

“The basic scam in the Internet Age is pretty easy even for the financially illiterate to grasp. Companies that weren’t much more than pot-fueled ideas scrawled on napkins by up-too-late bong-smokers were taken public via IPOs, hyped in the media and sold to the public for megamillions.”

Goldman-Sachs changed the game by underwriting standards … “They did this by setting up what was, in reality, a two-tiered investment system - one for the insiders who knew the real numbers, and another for the lay investor who was invited to chase soaring prices the banks themselves knew were irrational.” Of course no one told these investors the rules of the game had been changed!

The Housing Bubble:

Goldman-Sachs manipulated the housing market in a couple of different ways 1) by creating a vehicle by which you bundle mortgage instruments into packages called Collateralized Debt Obligations or CDO’s. Since the thought was there are far more A paper (good loans) compared to subprime B&C or even horrible papered loans (sometimes referred to as scratch and dent) the package was a safe bet or sound investment. 2) Goldman-Sachs lobbied for and in other cases used relaxed restrictions to their advantage like the revised Community Reinvestment Act and a lesser known act that made it possible for banks to freely trade default swaps with impunity called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act The Act that striped the CFTC of its regulatory authority was air dropped into a spending bill at the last minute and pushed by Robert Rubin who was Clinton’s Treasury Secretary and former Goldman-Sachs employee. 3) “to hedge its own bets, Goldman got companies like AIG to provide insurance - known as credit-default swaps - on the CDOs. The swaps were essentially a racetrack bet between AIG and Goldman:” You just new AIG would pop-up here somewhere and this is just the beginning of a fruitful relationship between the two.

Problem-Action-Reaction-Solution!

The Energy Bubble:

Though not lasting as long as some of these other bubbles the energy bubble is one that was directly caused by Goldman-Sachs and other speculators manipulating the physical-commodities market and it was a Goldman-Sachs owned company that made and won an argument for speculators to move on the physical-commodities market.

As is so often the case, there had been a Depression-era law in place designed specifically to prevent this sort of thing. … In 1936, Congress recognized that there should never be more speculators in the market than real producers and consumers. If that happened, prices would be affected by something other than supply and demand, and price manipulations would ensue. A new law empowered the Commodity Futures Trading Commission - the very same body that would later try and fail to regulate credit swaps - to place limits on speculative trades in commodities. As a result of the CFTC’s oversight, peace and harmony reigned in the commodities markets for more than 50 years.

All that changed in 1991 when, unbeknownst to almost everyone in the world, a Goldman-owned commodities-trading subsidiary called J. Aron wrote to the CFTC and made an unusual argument. Farmers with big stores of corn, Goldman argued, weren’t the only ones who needed to hedge their risk against future price drops - Wall Street dealers who made big bets on oil prices also needed to hedge their risk, because, well, they stood to lose a lot too.

By persuading pension funds and other investors to invest in oil futures, buying at a certain price on a fixed date, Goldman-Sachs succeeded in turning a solid market into a speculators paradise.

Problem-Action-Reaction-Solution!

The Bailout Bubble:

By far the best example of Problem-Action-Reaction-Solution! is the Bailouts both administrations are continuing to carry out with the help of Goldman-Sachs. At this time when there were no more bubbles to ride, the world economy was in the toilet, and the only pool of money to try and go after was taxpayer dollars… Boy, let me tell you, Goldman-Sachs, its players, and former employees were perfectly positioned to take full advantage of our tax dollars.

Throughout the bailout process Goldman-Sachs has been right there organizing a profiting off of this crisis. Instead of solving the problem in a common sense way, like giving every American a million dollars thus solving the housing, credit, and banking crisis’s all in one whack at a fraction of the cost, they acted like wall street bankers and fell back into the routine they knew best. The list of horrible acts is long but to name a couple.

It began in September of last year, when then-Treasury secretary Paulson made a momentous series of decisions. Although he had already engineered a rescue of Bear Stearns a few months before and helped bail out quasi-private lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Paulson elected to let Lehman Brothers - one of Goldman’s last real competitors - collapse without intervention

… The very next day, Paulson greenlighted a massive, $85 billion bailout of AIG, which promptly turned around and repaid $13 billion it owed to Goldman. Thanks to the rescue effort, the bank ended up getting paid in full for its bad bets:

Besides helping orchestrate TARP, Goldman-Sachs only paid $14 million in taxes in 2008…Unbelievable!

Which leads me to the topic of this post the Coming Carbon Bubble.

The Green Bubble:

With former Goldman-Sachs employees in key positions in the Obama administration (and with campaign cash donations from Goldman-Sachs employees just shy of $1 million) the firm is seated to push for and be the beneficiaries of the next bubble – Carbon Credits.

The coming Carbon Credits futures market is probably the most insidious ponzi scheme ever to be perpetrated on the American people. More dangerous than both ponzi schemes by Madoff and Social Security combined. This myth like cult created by the likes of Al Gore and other environmental alarmists is the catalyst for the next wave of Problem-Action-Reaction-Solution! that is specifically designed to remove you from your hard earned money! This time Goldman-Sachs won’t have to do any price fixing or creative tomfoolery, No! This time, the rise in prices will be government-mandated and will affect most everything we buy or sell and Goldman-Sachs wants in.

Goldman wants this bill. The plan is (1) to get in on the ground floor of paradigm-shifting legislation, (2) make sure that they’re the profit-making slice of that paradigm and (3) make sure the slice is a big slice. Goldman started pushing hard for cap-and-trade long ago, but things really ramped up last year when the firm spent $3.5 million to lobby climate issues.

As I wrote here, Green bubbles aren’t new, with more and more people calling out, backing away from, and outright credibly debunking claims by environmental alarmists and doom pushers the time seems to be right to pop the current “Green Bubble”.

Historically, say Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger of The New Republic, “Green Bubbles” are “inflated during highly polarized periods in American society and politics, often fueled by disastrously violent episodes in foreign policy” They go on to say:

This time, they say, the left’s alienation in the Bush years helped inflate a bubble of unrealistic “green anti-modernism,” epitomized by Al Gore. It illustrates, the writers say, that “while utopianism has a bright side–it is a way of imagining a better world–it also has a dark side characterized by escapism and a disengagement from reality that marks all bubbles, green or financial.”

They also add that this isn’t the first time a “Green Bubble” has burst:

This isn’t the first time an eco-bubble has inflated and then burst. In fact, the modern environmental movement was born in a bubble. In 1969, an industrial pollution fire on the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio, generated national publicity and outrage. The first photographs of Earth in its entirety transmitted from outer space were received as signs of a new ecological consciousness. The first Earth Day was held in 1970, and, over the next three years, Congress passed and (a Republican) President Nixon signed into law sweeping environmental statutes.

In a study conducted by Friends of the Earth, Cap-n-Trade will set the stage for rampant carbon speculation that could turn into the next subprime crisis.

In conclusion I think it’s clear that Goldman-Sachs needs to be monitored closely and while I’m not one to demonize large companies as evil as is the tendency of most of my friends on the left, I do see major conflicts of interest here and the possibility or inevitability of major corporations like Goldman-Sachs, Chicago Climate Exchange, Blue Source LLC, and Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management in line to not only create a Carbon Credits Bubble but poised to profit heavily off of it while preparing themselves to also be around to clean up the mess of the deflated “Green Bubble”

Problem-Action-Reaction-Solution!

It’s fascinating the way in which the war of words over Heath Care Reform is being played out here in America. People on both sides of the issue feverishly debating the merits of their case while the folks in the middle worry about yet another massive spending bill and the prospect of loosing control of their health care. Many nuanced arguments are finding their way from the pundits “on air” studios to our kitchen tables but one striking issue that seems to be intentionally left out of the Heath Care Debate this time around is the immense cost we as Americans spend annually to cover illegal aliens heath needs.

In California alone, according to a 2004 study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, that number is on the order of $1.4 billion and rising!

The fact is undocumented immigrants are driving up the number of people without health insurance. USAToday cites “The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 59% of the nation’s illegal immigrants are uninsured compared with 25% of legal immigrants and 14% of U.S. citizens. Illegal immigrants represent about 15% of the nation’s 47 million uninsured people.”

With numbers like that is little wonder why this administration is conveniently leaving this out of the national discussion and trying their best to keep a lid on it. Although personally popular President Obama knows, given the extreme reaction to the so-called comprehensive immigration reform tried in the past, if this issue becomes the focus of the debate… this bill is doomed to fail.

At the 6th Annual World Health Care Congress in Washington, D.C. HHS’ counselor for public health and science said “This year will be the year we get health care reform done,”

If you live in California Like I do, this statement sound eerily familiar and all to similar to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s declaration that 2007 would be the “Year of Health Care Reform.”

Thomas Sowell said in his Alice in Healthcareland article:

That is certainly true. We were not spending nearly as much on high-tech medical procedures in the past because there were not nearly as many of them, and we were not spending anything at all on some of the new pharmaceutical drugs because they didn’t exist.

This general pattern is not peculiar to medical care. Cars didn’t cost nearly as much in the past, when they didn’t have air-conditioning, power steering and high-tech safety features. Homes were cheaper when they were smaller, had fewer bathrooms and lacked such conveniences as built-in microwave ovens.

We would like to have all these things without the rising costs that come with them. But only with medical care is such wishful thinking taken seriously, with government regarded as a sort of fairy godmother who will give us the benefits without the costs.

A cynic is said to be someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. If so, then it is political cynicism to point to other countries that spend less on medical care, including some countries where there is “universal health care” provided “free” by their governments.

And Mark Hurt wrote in his column:

Another piece of the health care puzzle is that an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants reside in the United States — that is at least two times the number of people living in the state of Indiana. While illegal immigrants are not eligible for coverage through Medicaid or public benefits, immigrants can access health care through federally qualified community health centers. Studies show that 15 percent to 22 percent of the uninsured in America are illegal immigrants.

California is spending more than $1 billion for coverage for illegal immigrants who have no health insurance. A Florida Hospital Association survey of 28 hospitals found health care for illegal aliens exceeded $40 million. In states such as Arizona and Texas, the costs are high. The Texas comptroller estimates the cost of health care for illegal immigrants was $1.3 billion in 2006. The stakes of the health care reform are steep.

With that Ann “Babe” Huggett offers Ten cost-cutting suggestions for California

1. Freeze the welfare rolls then go through them with a fine tooth comb looking for double/triple/quadruple dippers and the still-being-paid deceased.

2. Resurrect Proposition 187, which banned illegals from getting onto welfare. The voters passed it and the usual liberal, racist goo-goos screamed, hollered, ranted, raved then shopped it around in the courts until they found a liberal judge to declare a constitutionally valid, voter approved state proposition “unconstitutional.”

3. Enforce illegal immigration laws and don’t give me that garbage about it being a “federal issue.” Listen: if an illegal is on California soil, it is a California issue. The flood of illegals here is destroying our health care and school system not to mention the stress they are putting on municipal services and housing.

4. Stop printing up everything in multi-lingual versions. Catering to a polyglot society is expensive, time-consuming, frustrating, and divisive. All it does is reinforce the soft-bigotry of low expectations by its implication that new arrivals are too stupid to learn English.

5. Get rid of the California Teachers’ Association and let the schools reflect their communities the way they used to. Once upon a time California was the top state for education and now it’s at the very bottom thanks to our politically correct, ignorance factory, public schools. There is also no reason why counselors and psychologists should be on that CTA gravy train either since most of the time they do more harm than good.

6. Freeze state government hiring especially in the upper echelons. Does California really need another $240K a year Investment Director, California State Teachers’ Retirement System?

7. Gut the Health and Human Services sub-departments. What are we doing with a Department of Aging? Or a Commission on Aging? And what the heck is a State-Local realignment Department? These are chair-warmer jobs.

8. Stop giving the Environmental Protection Department free rein to destroy property rights under the guise of saving the environment. One reason why housing prices are so artificially inflated in California is that it is nearly impossible to get new housing built and we wouldn’t be having an energy crisis if we could get new power stations erected. But we can’t and all because some dumb jerk of an enviro-weenie thinks a snail darter is more important than our health and well being.

9. Stop with all the arts grants. Endowments for the Arts are why God invented philanthropists. Besides, whoever is currently commissioning public works of art has bad taste. Fire them too and not only will you save their salary for the taxpayers but you will save all our collective eyesight while you are at it.

10. Let libraries be libraries where people go to enjoy books, magazines and newspapers instead of being unfair, government subsidized competition to video rental and music stores. Why are taxpayers’ dollars going to stock local libraries with rap cds, violent video games and Japanese anime? Why do we need a state-funded Science Fiction library collection in Riverside?

I suggest these to can easily be tweaked to be used on the national level and should be the basis for any Health Care Reform Bill and debate.

For those who don’t remember here’s the original “Harry and Louise” ad (the video is not in the greatest shape but it’s the best I could find)

Harry and Louise on Clinton’s health plan

In an email received by Greg Sargent from Mitch Stewart, Executive Director of Organizing for America, Stewart outlines a the new political operation of using these type of ads and employing his organization’s massive online data bank which includes thousands of health care horror stories designed to elicit public support for this disastrous legislation.

Did you see Vice President Biden’s email last week, sharing personal health care stories from supporters across the country? Well, the stories have been read millions of times, and the reaction is an overwhelming, “Wow — we’ve got to get to work.”

It’s not surprising — these stories show the human face of the health care debate and inspire us all to act.

So here’s our latest idea: Putting our supporters in coast-to-coast television and online ads, telling their own stories, in their own voice. It could be a breakthrough moment in this debate, when millions of Americans realize how urgent reform really is.

But recording and nationally broadcasting these stories won’t be cheap. We can only go forward if you’re ready to chip in. So what do you say — should we do it?

Yes. I think this is a great idea, and I’m ready to contribute so it can happen.

No, I’m not ready to contribute to this plan.

-Snip-

Many experts believe health care reform was defeated in the early 90’s by the infamous “Harry and Louise” ads. They featured actors sitting around a fake kitchen table, pretending to be a family that was frightened by reform.

So just imagine if this time around, the debate is shaped by real people, looking us in the eye, telling their actual story, and asking for our help to fix this broken system.

Phony stories helped defeat health care reform in the past. But this time, real stories could be the reason we win.

Click the image to see the organizations efforts, Sargent reports:

The story bank is an effort to harness the power of personal anecdote to make the case for reform. Officials with OFA, which is headed by operative Mitch Stewart, say they’ve banked in the database hundreds of thousands of personal and first-hand stories detailing people’s experiences of the health care crisis.

These stories, which OFA had been collecting on its Web site but had not released, will be disseminated to the massive OFA email list, in hopes that campaign-style organizers around the country will use powerful first-hand anecdotes to argue the case for reform — and to push back on opponents’ talking points. There will also be a tool that allow users to flag particular stories as deserving of more attention.

In 2008, as the presidential campaign was in full swing, “Harry and Louise” returned to the airwaves but this time they were singing a different tune…

Although not as effective this time around, the ad obviously had some insiders sitting up and taking notice. It appears that this tactic, if funded, will be used and used relentlessly which is why we need to do the same in countering this line of attack - using real people and real stories from around the world that show the devastating costs of government-run Health Care and though we all agree something needs to be done… it’s neither an emergency that needs to be fixed yesterday, with poor decision making, nor does the ObamaCare™ actually have any real chance of curing the problem!

Updated pic from our friend Caleb Howe

Greenpeace joins Friends of the Earth, a coalition of 186 national and state leaders who oppose Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade (Tax) Bill, and The Congressional Black Caucus who are voicing concerns over a study released two days ago showing an overwhelming majority of African Americans are opposed to the Waxman-Markey energy bill based on the potential impact on the economy and minority households.

Press release issued by Greenpeace June 25, 2009

Greenpeace Opposes Waxman-Markey
Climate Bill not Science-Based; Benefits Polluters

Washington, D.C., United States — In advance of tomorrow’s vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act in the House of Representatives, Greenpeace USA Deputy Campaigns Director Carroll Muffett issued the following statement:

“Since the Waxman-Markey bill left the Energy and Commerce committee, yet another fleet of industry lobbysists has weakened the bill even more, and further widened the gap between what Waxman-Markey does and what science demands. As a result, Greenpeace opposes this bill in its current form. We are calling upon Congress to vote against this bill unless substantial measures are taken to strengthen it. Despite President Obama’s assurance that he would enact strong, science-based legislation, we are now watching him put his full support behind a bill that chooses politics over science, elevates industry interests over national interest, and shows the significant limitations of what this Congress believes is possible.

Although Greenpeace opposes this bill for differing reasons, it’s the opposition that counts here, and not the motives in this case.

Here’s an interview conducted by Scott Harris “Between The Lines” with Damon Moglen, Greenpeace Global Warming Campaign director, who explains why his group can’t support the Waxman-Markey climate legislation.

The U.S. Camber of Commerce has also sent a letter to the House of Representatives opposing The Waxman-Markey Bill and released this graphic illustrating the bills 397 regulations and 1060 mandates!

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation representing more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, urges you to oppose H.R. 2454, the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.”

As noted in correspondence earlier in the week, the Chamber strongly supports comprehensive legislation to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases while providing for a strong American economy. The Chamber also supports negotiation of a global accord to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases as the best approach to tackling this global issue.

The Chamber believes that domestic legislation should: (1) balance environmental objectives with the need for economic growth and job creation; (2) promote technology development and deployment; (3) reduce barriers to the development of climate-friendly energy sources; (4) promote energy efficiency; and (5) implement appropriate steps to address the international nature of global emissions. Although H.R. 2454 has changed since the bill was reported from the Energy and Commerce Committee, this legislation still suffers from an overwhelming number of flaws, which were described in detail in earlier correspondence.

Fundamentally, the bill fails to ensure that an adequate amount of renewable or alternative energy sources are developed and deployed to compensate for the bill’s declining cap on fossil fuel emissions. Instead, it would impose 397 new regulations and 1060 new mandates on the American public; a chart of this regulatory morass can be viewed at http://www.uschamber.com/media/pdfs/waxmanmarkey.pdf.

Moreover, H.R. 2454 is not conditional on an international treaty that sets binding commitments for all major emitters—developed and developing—while ensuring that every nation retains the flexibility to attain those commitments however it chooses.

The Chamber urges the House to reject H.R. 2454 and to craft legislation that ensures that cost-effective and reliable renewable and alternative energy sources are developed and deployed to smooth a transition to a low-carbon energy future, including sources like nuclear, clean coal, and other emerging energy technologies. The House should also address the significant regulatory, legal, economic, technical, scientific, and environmental concerns that the Chamber has repeatedly argued need to be part of any comprehensive climate change legislation.

The Chamber strongly urges you to oppose H.R. 2454. The Chamber may consider votes on, or in relation to, this issue in our annual How They Voted scorecard.

Sincerely,

R. Bruce Josten

The Club for Growth issues 15 reasons to oppose the climate bill.

National Energy Tax: This is a tax that will affect constituents in every aspect of their lives. From transportation, to food, to electricity, to income - this is the ultimate regressive consumption tax to the tune of nearly $3,000 per year according to the Heritage Foundation. The costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035 are estimated to be $71,493.

Exacerbates the Economic Crisis: Studies from numerous independent research groups, including MIT, the Heritage Foundation, and CRA International, all agree that implementing a massive cap and tax scheme will cost millions of jobs, reduce earnings for the average U.S. worker, and devastate GDP.

Massive Job Losses: According to the Heritage Foundation, employment will be lower by 1,105,000 jobs per year. In some years, the national energy tax will reduce employment by nearly 2.5 million jobs.

Winners & Losers: The bill transfers wealth from rural areas to cities. States like California, Washington, and New Jersey would receive more emission credits than they need, enabling them to sell surplus credits to smaller facilities in states like Ohio that receive maybe half of the credits they need - making the rich, richer, and the poor, poorer.

Little Environmental Impact: The bill will cost consumers trillions of dollars, while reducing, by a very small amount the carbon dioxide that is contained in our atmosphere. World-wide emission reductions would be negligible without the full participation of all nations. Additionally, just because the government requires a certain decrease in emissions within a certain timeframe, does not mean such decreases can occur in that time period.

Green Jobs Are a Proven Failure: According to a recent study (PDF) that reviewed the impact of “green jobs” in Spain, the U.S. can expect 2.2 jobs to be destroyed for every 1 renewable job financed by the government. Only 1 in 10 of the jobs actually created through green investment is permanent, and since 2000, Spain has spent 753,778 U.S dollars to create each “green job,” including subsidies of more than $1,319,783 per wind industry job.

Free Money to Select Corporate Titans: Government-run “cap and trade” is, by definition, a central economic planning scheme in which the government decides which industries and companies deserve more or fewer credits and what business factors and economic outputs are “necessary.” Small business and rural interests never had a seat at the table when discussions occurred on how to craft H.R. 2454.

Creates a Derivatives Market for Companies like AIG: Companies like AIG and ENRON will be participating in a new derivatives market that is much more volatile than housing or natural gas. This new unregulated derivates market will be more perilous for companies like these than the traditional ones that got them into trouble in the first place. In addition, since the created artificial market contains no transparency, it is more likely to attract traders intent on imposing Ponzi schemes in the same spirit of Bernie Madoff and swindle thousands of Americans.

Devastates Rural America: According to the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the monthly residential electricity bills in 25 states will increase 15 to 28 percent for every $20/ton of carbon dioxide allowances. Rural households spend 58% more on fuel than urban residents as a percentage of their income. The Heritage foundation estimates farm income will drop by $50 billion by 2035.

Concedes to the Competition: Currently, China accounts for 85% of global growth in coal each year and is the world’s largest annual emitter of greenhouse gases. China’s energy usage rose by 7.2% last year and they are building approximately two coal fired power plants per week to keep up with demand. Recently, at a U.N. conference, the Chinese government’s advisory panel on climate change asserted that the cap and tax targets were too low by stating Given that, it is natural for China to have some increase in its emissions, so it is not possible for China in that context to accept a binding or compulsory target. In addition, India will not agree to any cap on their total energy production, and many believe India will double their coal-fired-capacity by 2030.

Discriminates Against Developing Nations: The bill creates a new program under USAID to provide U.S. foreign aid to developing countries for their efforts to adapt to climate change. Essentially, the bill is sending taxpayer funds to encourage third world nations to not develop carbon emitting energy sources - keeping them at a competitive disadvantage from developed nations for even more decades to come.

Establishes an Unrealistic Renewable Energy Standard (RES): “Cap and tax” does not take into account the fact that additional hydropower, nuclear and advanced fossil coal power plants cannot be deployed quickly enough to meet expected growth in electricity demand while also dramatically reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Since renewable technology accounts for a small percentage of energy demand, consumers can expect not only higher rates, but more transmission problems during peak hours of demand. Additionally, the bill preempts at least 23 state renewable electricity standards.

Davis-Bacon: “Cap and tax” expands Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements to many provisions of the bill. This policy ahs been shown to increase public construction costs by anywhere from 5 to 38 percent above projected costs for the same project in the private sector.

Bloated Bureaucracy: The bill establishes a myriad of new federal agencies intertwined between at least 21established agencies with the mission of reallocating trillions of taxpayer dollars in a supposedly fair and efficient manor. According the U.S Chamber of Commerce (PDF), the bill will impose 397 new federal regulations that require traditional agency rulemakings.

Countless Federal Mandates: The bill imposes over a thousand mandates and even mandates efficiency requirements on electric appliances like Jacuzzis.

Others blogging

From Karl @ Patterico The more things Hopeandchange…

From Robert Stacy McCain says: The Monstrosity From Hell That Will Destroy the American Economy

A major issue most people are becoming very weary of is the continued lie’s the president has repeating a) that you can keep your own doctor and b) that the Public Option is competitive and levels the playing field.

I created a video today that addresses b) above:

Here’s ABC’s program schedule:

- Charlie Gibson will broadcast ABC Nightly News from the Blue Room at the White House

- A special edition of “Primetime” will air at 9 p.m. central time from the White House.

- “Good Morning America” will interview Obama, with a card-carrying member of the Obama Fan Club, Diane Sawyer, playing host. (Gee, wonder if she’ll ask Obama any tough questions. Maybe she’ll ask how “Bo” is getting along in the White House…or if Michelle has been shopping lately…)

- “Nightline”, “Top Line”, and “World News” will all dedicate special programming time to the President’s plans for health care reform.

What we know so far:

- the President will answer questions from the audience that have been pre-selected by ABC news.

- ABC news is NOT allowing Republicans to offer an opposing viewpoint or response to Obama’s presentation.

- ABC is refusing to accept paid advertising from conservative groups that want to offer an alternative viewpoint regarding the White House health care plans. This is unprecedented - a television station turning down advertising revenue!

Rick Scott, Chairman of Conservatives for Patients Rights adds

It is unfortunate - and unusual - that ABC is refusing to accept paid advertising that would present an alternative viewpoint for the White House healthcare event. Healthcare is an issue that touches every American… The American people deserve a healthy, robust debate on this issue and ABC’s decision - as of now - to exclude even paid advertisements that present an alternative view does a disservice to the public.

Don Surber has a great post today detailing, what I think is one of the more honest polls on this issue, a Washington Post poll that points out Most Want Health Reform But Fear Its Side Effects

The Washington Post-ABC News poll’s key findings:

7. Generally speaking, would you say you favor (smaller government with fewer services), or (larger government with more services)? 54% smaller. 41% larger. (Biggest gap in favor of smaller government in 7 years.)

15. For each specific item I name, please tell me whether you are very satisfied with it, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

The quality of the health care you receive: 83% satisfied, 16% dissatisfied.

Your health insurance coverage (84% have it): 81% satisfied, 19% dissatisfied.

How concerned are you, if at all, that current efforts to reform the health care system will [ITEM] - very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned?

Reduce the quality of health care you receive: 81% concerned, 18% not

Reduce your health insurance coverage: 82% convcerned, 17% not.

Increase your health care costs: 84% concerned, 9% not.

Increase government bureaucracy in the health care system: 78% concerned, 19% not.

Limit your choices of doctors or treatments: 79% concerned, 20% not.

Sharply increase the federal deficit: 84% concerned, 8% not.

22. (HALF SAMPLE) Would you support or oppose a federal tax on health insurance benefits people receive through their employer if those benefits cost more than

17-thousand dollars a year? 24% support, 70% oppose.

26. Just your best guess, if the health care system is changed, do you think the quality of your health care will get (better), get (worse), or remain about the same? 16% better, 31% worse, 50% same.

For more on the counter infomercial see Healthcare Horserace for up-to-date info.

Striking video from Iran of the militia opening fire on the crowd. Apparently it was shot from a balcony on a cell phone and posted by BBC Persian, which has disabled embedding.

As you may or may not know The Minority Report has been soliciting funds for this years Move America Forward’s Troopathon “Honor Their Service.” We need your help to send the largest shipment of care packages to the troops in HISTORY!!!

On Monday MAF started a blog competition called Troopathon Blogger Shoot-out! TMR has joined with Ed Morrissey’s team called “The Hot Air Steamers” and from the jump have been in first place but in 2nd place Robert Spencer’s Anti-Jihadists team has tightened the gap.

As Ed said:

We still need your help! The blogger competition is certainly fun, but the point is to get as many care packages to the troops as possible, especially before the June 25th Troopathon that features Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Kelsey Grammer, Gary Sinise, and yours truly. Just click on this link to order your care packages and put a smile on the faces of those serving our nation in the toughest theaters of conflict. You won’t spend any better money this month!

Please click the links here and give what you can.

Here’s a list of blogs on our team:

Hot Air

Stix Blog v3.0
Suzy Rice
No Sheeples Here
Leaning Straight Up
Mitchell Blatt
Ladies Logic
The Lonely Conservative
YidwithLid
Internet-Women
Barton Bulletin

Btw yours truly will be liveblogging this event from the Reagan library on June 25th so be sure to check out TMR to watch live and get a behind the scenes view of the Troopathon.

H.R. 2159: Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009 seeks to permit the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.

Problem is; what’s the definition of known or suspected dangerous terrorists?

Gun Digest says:

“Critics say the names of suspected terrorists could be drawn from existing government watch lists that cover such broad categories as animal rights extremists, Christian identity extremists, black separatists, anti-abortion extremists, anti-immigration extremists and anti-technology extremists.”

In effect, any group or people who someone might want to label as “extremist” or “anti.”

“It doesn’t say anything about trials and due process,” Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, told Fox News. “This is one of the most outrageous pieces of legislation to come along in some time. It’s basically saying, ‘I suspect you, so your rights are toast.’”

Who gets to decide what a dangerous terrorist is or what an extremist is? Are Vets still considered extremists? Lets hope it’s not DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano or US Attorney General Eric Holder who are both named in a law suit as defendants, for their roles in instituting a government attack against the rights of US citizens as guaranteed in the First and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution. The suit is specifically in response to the DHS intelligence report entitled, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,”

Among the assertions in the complaint that label individuals as “right-wing extremists” are:

* Opposes restrictions on firearms

* Opposes lax immigration

* Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs

* Opposes continuation of free trade agreements

* Opposes same-sex marriage

* Has paranoia of foreign regimes

* Fear of Communist regimes

* Opposes one world government

* Bemoans the decline of U.S. stature in the world.

* Upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India

* . . . and the list goes on

Govetrack asks two important questions

1) If they are dangerous terrorists, why are they not in prison? Why does the government let such “dangerous” people circulate and be a threat? Either they are criminal or not. This gray area is preposterous and a serious threat to our liberty.

2) Does this bill attack due process by permiting the Atty Gen to deny a firearm transfer to proceed, based purely on speculation or presumption that an individual meets the definition of “dangerous terrorist” without legal process and without advice as to the nature of the denial?

Great questions both and the constitutionality is a huge question. I doubt this bill ever gets out of committee but that shouldn’t stop anyone from contacting members of the committee along with your representatives to voice your opposition to this bill.

Yesterday when asked about the following video White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said “We can all move past YouTube snippets and half sentences and actually look at the honest-to-God record” intimating that these objections were erroneous due to the fact that the statement was taken out of context.

If this is the case then the White House should have no problem putting the whole on the White House web site for all Americans to view and judge for them selves? That is the position Wendy Long Chief Counsel to Judaical Confirmation Network is taking:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ comments yesterday that “We can all move past YouTube snippets and half sentences and actually look at the honest-to-God record” raise an important question for Mr. Gibbs. The Duke University comments by Judge Sotomayor are quite clear and unequivocal. Is Mr. Gibbs suggesting that Judge Sotomayor was lying in the tape or that she really didn’t mean it?

An important controversy and debate continues to brew over Judge Sotomayor’s comments at Duke University in which she said that appellate courts “make policy,” and in her published words tucked away in law review articles. The White House continues to say that her words caught on tape were taken out of context. It appears that whenever the press or other critics point out troubling or radical statements made by Judge Sotomayor that clearly reveal her approach to judging, the White House spin machine is dizzying itself trying to figure out how best to communicate what it is that Judge Sotomayor really meant when she uttered the appellate “courts make policy” comment or her published writings saying a “Latina woman would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who has not lived that life.”

President Obama promised the American people a transparent presidency. Indeed, this White House’s communications machine has been vigilant in posting the President’s policy agenda online and keeping folks up to speed saying they want to create dialogue and discussion. In that spirit, we are calling on White House Press Secretary Gibbs to post the Duke University video on The White House web site and let the American people judge her comments. Given the importance of a life time appointment to the Supreme Court, the American people should know the facts about this nominee, not just get the latest White House line they want the media to report and the people to hear. If Mr. Gibbs does not have time to post this video, he is welcome to link to it and other Sotomayor comments at www.soniasotomayor.com.

So the challenge as been brought’n Mr. Gibbs lets see if this administration has the cojones to man-up and stick to their promise… if not I’m sure I’m not the only one who will be screaming — Dude Where’s My Transparency?

Liberal critics love to mock the right when we use the tag lines Socialism or Communism when describing the direction President Obama is taking our country. Ridiculing people and facts is SOP (standard operating procedure) in their circles mainly because it makes them feel superior and gives them a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

Although most of the time, we on the right, use those words for affect in this instance and instances of policy enacted over that past 120 or so days — it’s completely appropriate!

State Run T.V. is one of the primary indicators (and one of the best tool s wielded by those who seek to control media, message, and news) that socialism is creeping into your society. Now it seems as though our White House and this administration has created and is using its own media to report on events!

Here’s and example from the White House Youtube Page:

Now I know what your saying, so what? this is no big deal…. and you might be right but barring other media from coverage because you apparently want it covered a certain way is exactly what State Run T.V. is!

This comes via Conservative for Change

The next step into Socialism, and Communism, is the existence of state ran television. Most people in this country wouldn’t look at this hard, since we are surrounded by constant media, but the White House has decided to have it’s own media reporting on events.

From ABC:

Read the TV pool report: “Your Pool was not allowed to go over and shoot POTUS with the team shooting hoops. We protested loudly.”

Now we know why: Obama White House officials decided to do their own media report on the visit, complete with cuts, interviews, and chyrons identifying who’s speaking.

Also, just like a network, they have their own little logo!

Cute!

Critics will always view the beginning small steps toward socialism as irrelevant minor issues that have no real chance of taking hold or becoming the standard for a couple of reasons A) because they mostly agree with them B) because these changes to Socialism or Communism don’t happen overnight the argument is a non-starter.

The second reason is exactly the plan liberals have laid out and for decades in order to pass their radical agenda — not with sweeping, shocking reform but in increments.

Smart Girl Politics says:

If state run television. nationalize banking, nationalized health care, silencing the opposition, and tracking it’s citizens isn’t socialism, then you would also enjoy living in China. I hear they are hiring.

and I agree!!!

and

I pulled some clips from the presser today in which it’s clear that Pelsoi was more interested in politics than protecting this country.

Essentially Nancy Pelsoi felt that it was more important to focus on the politics of gaining a Democrat majority in the house than protecting this country. As one of the ranking members of Congress and the Democrat party I say she was derelict in her duties and should be removed from office!