Archive for June, 2009

Wow!  I  swear every time I think of this, I’m absolutely stupefied to think Obama so openly appointed a known socialist, Carol Browner, to the Noble Position of Energy Czar.  There’s so much wrong here, I could right a book on the wrongness of her appointment by Obama.  Being a non-supporter of political parties and their designed divisive nature and being a proponent of statesmanship, my opinions are not politically motivated.  They are based on logic, reasoning, and common sense.  Guess what, Ms. Browner’s socialistic ideology and socialist affiliations sure do not set well with whatever we have left of our, minimally, free nation.

My research led me to her profile on Socialist International.

Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world’s social democratic political parties such as Britain’s Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies. link

I failed to find her profile again when I looked several weeks ago, not realizing it had been scrubbed from the site.  I found a site that got a screen shot of that profile, but it also has some other comments about Wikipedia deletions.

Fox News ran a piece about the Socialist International scrubbing the site of her biographical content and background on the group.

In case your not aware she is another Clinton re-run, as she served as the chief of the EPA.  Prior to that, she was Legislative Director for the “Global Warmer” himself, Sen. Al Gore Jr. (D-Tenn.)

On her financial disclosure, which was submitted April 2009, it indicates payment of by her husband Tom Downey’s lobby firm Downey McGrath between $1.0 mil-5.0 mil. Maybe it was because the company, The Albright Group, in which she was a principal, was a client of her husband firm, huh?  Her husband lobbies the federal government on behalf of their clients such as the health care industry, media, drug store chains, etc..   Albright Group is a global strategy firm that works with client companies and organizations which, among other things, brokers deals between government and businesses.  Currently, the principals in that firm are all former Clinton appointees.  That’s rich.

Remember, the Dubai Ports World U.S. seaport deal gone bad several years back?  The lobbying firm hired to represent Dubai was Browner’s husband’s lobbying firm.  Browner, representing  The Albright Group, teamed up with her husband to convince the feds (esp. Sen. Charles Schumer) to let the deal go through.  Nice, sell our ports to Dubai.

Then I realized how her ties with Al Gore materialized after her time with the EPA and fighting global warming.  She had joined the board of the company, APX, to take advantage of this new commodity exchange program of carbon credits.  This all hooks back into the cap and trade scam, and if you want to know what carbon credits are, go here.  Amazingly enough, Al Gore in on the same gig.

Research showed this neat little scam of “Cap and Traders” had already been put in place as our new financial investment instruments of mass destruction:  trading carbon credits.  Then I saw where Al Gore owned a company called Generation Investment Management that’s all about trading these credits.  Here is Al Gore’s Partner’s (David Blood) write-up pitching the investment opportunities in trading carbon credits to increase shareholder wealth for their company and it’s very telling. 

So here it is, an in your face dictatorial move of sliding this woman under the Congressional confirmation and oversight process to become some “Energy Dictator” who will not only seek to re-distribute wealth by means of taxation of energy company and manufacturers, but turn those taxes into a form of carbon credit securities trading system in which Browner herself has helped to develop, foster, and promote.  There must be concern of the concerted effort to bring the world together under this new system of carbon credit securities/currency as supported by the U.N. and The World Bank.  It smells like another “exotic financial investment vehicles” that will be sliced and diced, packaged up, while offering counter-party risk to the insiders, and then sold off to the 401K sheeple out there.

These creators of these “franken-funds” are the same mad scientists that created all of the other “exotic financial investment vehicles of mass destruction” that attempted and have nearly destroyed our free-enterprise system in the U.S.  Our freedoms and liberties are being attacked by the same people Obama has residing in his House of Czars.

It’s really scary to now know that neither Democrat or Republican Congressional representation will not even blink an eye as this real wave of socialism to fascism is washing over the U.S. citizens.   Carol Browner appointment should worry everyone.  And the waves will keep crashing in as long as we let it.

The Supreme Court handed a victory Monday to a group of white firefighters charging racial discrimination, while also giving some fodder to critics of President Barack Obama’s pending nominee for the high court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a court split 5-4 along ideological lines, reversed an appeals court ruling Sotomayor joined last year that rejected a claim that the City of New Haven, Conn., discriminated against white firefighters  by throwing out a promotional exam after all the African-American firefighters who took it scored too poorly to be promoted.

“Whatever the City’s ultimate aim — however well intentioned or benevolent it might have seemed — the City made its employment decision because of race. The City rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white,” Kennedy wrote on behalf of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Kennedy said that allowing the city’s conduct would establish “a de facto quota system” where test results could be discarded whenever a particular racial group didn’t achieve the average score. link

This should serve as a signal to congress to carefully scrutinize Sotomayor’s previous rulings during her upcoming SCOTUS nomination hearings. Considering her past anti-2nd amendment statements, as well as her racially charged comments and misguided rulings, she is clearly not the kind of person we need sitting on the highest court in the land. We need SCOTUS judges who will rule based on the original intent our founding fathers articulated so carefully in the constitution.

The last thing we need is someone who sees the constitution as malleable and who is willing to rewrite our most sacred documents based on racial agendas and misguided ideology.

The law would exempt from federal regulation all guns, ammunition, and accessories that are made, sold, and kept within the state — provided they are stamped with the words “Made in Montana.”

The idea is that since the federal government justifies its regulations using the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, it has no authority to regulate intrastate trade in firearms. The text of the bill cites the Ninth and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution which guarantee “to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.” It also cites the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and its own constitution which “clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms.”

Similar attempts to challenge the federal government on other issues have prompted armed federal raids and less-than-favorable outcomes in court. The state of California legalized medical marijuana that was grown and kept within the state, but in 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that since marijuana in California is indistinguishable from marijuana grown elsewhere, the federal government had the authority to regulate both. The firearms in question would be distinguishable from out-of-state guns because of the required stamp, so how the court would rule is still uncertain. link

The states need more bills such as this, to push back against the ever increasing control and regulation of states by the federal government. It appears federalism is alive and well in Montana. Hopefully, we will see many states, in addition to Texas who has similar legislation in the works,  follow suit.

It’s time for the states to take back some of our ever eroding rights.

Under a recently-introduced bill, H.R. 1966, bloggers would face up to two years in prison if they “harass” public figures by criticizing them in a “severe, repeated, and hostile” manner, and thereby cause them “substantial emotional distress.”

U.C.L.A. Law Professor Eugene Volokh, the author of a First Amendment treatise, has concluded that the bill is unconstitutional. I agree, as I explain here. As a federal appeals court noted in DeJohn v. Temple University (2008), “there is no harassment exception to the First Amendment’s free speech clause.” Speech that causes emotional distress can be protected,as the Supreme Court made clear in barring a lawsuit by Jerry Falwell over an offensive parody. link Bill (HR 1966)

Fascism is coming faster than you think.

Don’t you love the way the bill begins with notion of “Protecting the children”?

Does anyone really believe this bill won’t be used to silence free speech.

This bill’s main sponsor is the radical liberal fascist Congress Woman “Linda Sanchez” (hope my “opinion” doesn’t cause her any “emotional distress”). Here are the names of others who support and cosponsored this horrendous and unacceptable assault on free speech.

  • Democrat Marcy Kaptur
  • Democrat Raúl Grijalva
  • Democrat Phil Hare
  • Democrat John Yarmuth
  • Democrat Lucille Roybal-Allard
  • Democrat Lois Capps
  • Democrat Timothy H. Bishop
  • Democrat Bruce Braley
  • Democrat Brian Higgins
  • Democrat William Lacy Clay
  • Democrat John Sarbanes
  • Democrat Danny Davis
  • Democrat Joe Courtney
  • Democrat Mark Kirk

Anyone see a pattern here?

Liberal fascism at it’s best!!

A coalition of US progressive groups unveiled Monday a 82-million-dollar campaign to boost President Barack Obama’s plans to overhaul the ailing healthcare system.

Campaign for America’s Future has galvanized some 1,000 organizations with a total of 30 million members through Health Care for America Now. link

Yeah, I’m sure it’s not going to cost the taxpayers much. I hear we’re getting a tax cut.

Americans want it all when it comes to health care – brilliant doctors, cutting-edge treatments, easy access to care and insurance coverage that pays all the bills.

Those in the business of health care want it all, too: big profit margins, hefty salaries paid to those at the top and happy shareholders.

The truth is Americans might not be able to have it all when it comes to health care – not without major changes. Not in the long run. Not without jeopardizing the federal budget and the health of the nation’s economy. This country is on track to spend $2.5 trillion on health care this year and $5.2 trillion by 2020, which would consume 21 percent of the country’s economic resources.

That expense is simply unaffordable for individual Americans, employers offering insurance coverage and taxpayers footing the bill for government coverage.

n December 2008, the Congressional Budget Office released an evaluation of 115 health-care proposals to determine potential cost and savings of each. For example, imposing excise taxes on soda and increasing taxes on alcohol could generate more than $100 billion over 10 years – with perhaps the added health benefit of discouraging people from over-indulging.

But that’s a relative pittance when annual costs are measured in trillions. This country can’t nickel and dime its way to a steady source of revenue to fund health care. Significant tax changes must be considered.

A May 20 report from the Senate Finance Committee offered lawmakers some options for changing the tax code to help finance reform.

On the table are changes to health-related tax breaks that result in nearly $200 billion in uncollected revenue by the government each year. These tax breaks account for more than 17 percent of all federal tax breaks, “larger than capital gains and dividend tax breaks, retirement security and housing, among others,” according to the report. link

So, we will have a privately owned health industry under the control of, and ran by, the government … you know, like the financial industry and the car companies.

That my friends, is pure fascism!!

A totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. The name was first used by the party started by Benito Mussolini

The economic system inaugurated by the Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini in Italy. Although the Italian system was based upon unlimited government control of economic life, it still preserved the framework of capitalism, along with legislation to set up guilds, or associations, of employees and employers to administer various sectors of the national economy. These were represented in the national council of corporations. The corporations were generally weighted by the state in favor of the wealthy classes.

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”

Yep, we call them czars, labor unions and “special interest groups”.

You ever noticed how it can be difficult to see changes when they occur slowly, say over 200 years or so…

The current use of the term czar in American politics comes from the Obama administration’s use of quasi-cabinet posts to help push through his handler’s socialistic agenda.  Unfortunately, these are executive-oriented positions that operate without Congressional confirmation and oversight.  You and I do not have any say in this power grab and an obvious execution of a socialist agenda.  The background of this term in America is very interesting.

In the 1830’s, during Andrew Jackson presidency, there was a concern over banking power held by the Second United States National Bank and how those powers affected state’s rights and the fact that the U.S. currency was not backed by some commodity, like silver, gold, etc..   Jackson sought to eliminate this banking system and waged war against the bank and the bank president Nicholas Biddle.  This became know as  the Bank War of 1832-36.

During this engagement by Jackson, he found an ally in Washington Globe’s editor,  Frank Blair.  Blair labeled Nicholas Biddle ” Czar Nicholas”, as a reference to the repressive communist regime of Russia, headed by Nicholas I.  The term thereafter became popular as a label given to anyone with a tyrannical mind-set.

The term was used in American government occasionally afterward in U.S. Presidential administrations of Franklin Roosevelt and Richard Nixon.  Now the U.S. Government has more czars than communist Russia ever had.  I am amazed that some people in Obama’s administration think the word czar carries some positive connotation.  I think these brazen and embolden folks know the connotation and are just openly shoving socialism down America’s throat.

However, the United States is currently heading down the road of full-blown socialism and the current Executive administration has found a way to accelerate their agenda by creating these new positions, held accountable only to Obama, while usurping any oversight by the U.S. Congress and the American citizens.

The term Czar in American politics was a machination of the U.S. media and, at the time of Andrew Jackson presidency, the term was used appropriately to compare the power of the U.S. National Bank to Czar Nicholas I of Russia.  It was a term that had an evil connotation.  Now the Obama administration seems to be shying away from the term Czar, but it seems quite appropriate to continue the use of word to represent the mind-set of this oppressive regime.  Therefore, the electorate of the United States is now ruled by a “House of Czars”.