Timothy P. Carney: White House, Google violate lobbying pledge
By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
June 25, 2010
(Ap File Photo) (AP file photo)
Maybe a $150 billion company with 21,000 employees and 20 percent profit margins doesn't count as big business or a special interest if it talks about "changing the world from the bottom up, not from the top down," as President Obama put it.
Maybe a millionaire who spends his days leaning on policymakers to benefit his company isn't a lobbyist if he calls himself an "Internet evangelist."
Or maybe Google's cozy relationship with the White House -- exposed more clearly by e-mails recently made public through the Freedom of Information Act -- is just one more instance of the administration's actions contradicting Obama's reformer rhetoric about battling the special interests and freeing Washington from lobbyist influence.
Consumer Watchdog, a liberal nonprofit, used FOIA to obtain e-mails between White House Deputy Chief Technology Officer Andrew McLaughlin and his former colleagues at Google. McLaughlin was Google's head of global public policy and government affairs, up until he joined the White House.
Despite the job title, McLaughlin wasn't a registered lobbyist. Still, ethics rules created by an Obama executive order prohibit McLaughlin from "participat[ing] in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to" Google. But the e-mails show McLaughlin has been involved with formulating policy that directly affects Google, regularly trading e-mails with Google's "evangelist," and lobbyist.
The topic of net neutrality -- where the Obama administration and Google share a pro-regulation position that would profit Google -- appears repeatedly in McLaughlin-Google e-mails.
When one news report suggested the White House was backing away from the pro-Google regulations, Google Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf wrote a worried note to McLaughlin, asking, "Has there been so much flack from the Hill that you guys feel a need to back away?"
McLaughlin reassured his former colleague, "Don't be silly. No one's backed away from anything."
Later, when McLaughlin took heat in the media for publicly comparing AT&T -- Google's rival in the net neutrality debate -- to the communist Chinese government, Google lobbyist Alan Davidson sent McLaughlin a heads up that a reporter had called Google about it. Davidson assured McLaughlin that he would get the Open Internet Coalition -- a pro-net-neutrality lobby headed by Google -- to "have your back."
"Thanks," McLaughlin wrote back. Davidson followed up the next day, taking credit for killing the story.
McLaughlin knew he was barred from dealing with Google, the e-mails show. When Cerf passed him an e-mail about Google Earth and an issue regarding a border dispute in Cambodia, McLaughlin responded, "in my current position, I'm recused from anything having to do with Google."
When I asked the White House about McLaughlin's e-mails, Rick Weiss, a spokesman at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, responded that McLaughlin's "e-mails to Vint did not run afoul of the pledge since Vint is a federal advisory committee member with whom Andrew is allowed to communicate on matters of relevance to that committee."
But Cerf was using a Google.com e-mail address and writing about regulations Google was aggressively backing.
And only when I followed up with a question about the e-mails with lobbyist Davidson did Weiss admit "they did violate the President's Ethics Pledge," and note that McLaughlin had been reprimanded.
But what else is McLaughlin working on that directly affects his former colleagues with whom he is in regular contact? It's hard to imagine many tech issues that don't directly affect Google, and so it's hard to imagine very many issues McLaughlin could work on that don't clash with Obama's ethics rules.
McLaughlin's role is only one strand in the web of Google-Obama connections.
Google trailed only Goldman Sachs and Microsoft as a source of funds for Obama in 2008, providing $803,000 -- 40 times what Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain raised from the company. Google chief executive Eric Schmidt was a fundraiser and adviser for Obama's campaign.
Obama speaks a lot about battling the special interests. But, evidently, his friends don't count.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Foreign Aid - Is it worth it??
How much foreign aid does the us government give away?
In: History Politics and Society
the US spends more than other countries in total dollars, as a percentage of its total annual budget it give 25 billion dollars away a year! Mostly to countries who dont need it, and or hate the USA.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs
the OECD calculated that in 2008 the US spent about 25 billion dollars in foreign aid, Germany spending the next largest amount at about 13 billion.
most OECD countries pledged to spend 0.7% of its GNI on foreign aid, but most countries (including the US) fall far short of that figure.
in 2008 the US spent a little under 0.2% of its GNI on foreign aid, the lowest figure out of the OECD countries. the most generous countries (and the only ones who contributed more than the required 0.7%) were Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg.
OECD member countries also often inflate their (already low) contribution numbers by including emergency aid in their foreign aid donations. so for example, the US might give millions of dollars of food, water and medical aid to countries in the Pacific islands hit by tsunamis, and then use that as an excuse to renege on its original, still un-met, obligations to give aid for road construction and so forth.
While some US Americans feel that the United States gives away too much money to international causes, $25 billion dollars is a very small percentage of the 2009 estimated federal government income of $2.7 trillion dollars.
Worth it - It hasn't done much in the way of "Good Will" It has promoted a a world wide feeling of entitlement and GRAFT - I suggest we cut the entire amount until our economy is stable. Then maybe we'll get some respect along with our hard earned gifts to the world.
In: History Politics and Society
the US spends more than other countries in total dollars, as a percentage of its total annual budget it give 25 billion dollars away a year! Mostly to countries who dont need it, and or hate the USA.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs
the OECD calculated that in 2008 the US spent about 25 billion dollars in foreign aid, Germany spending the next largest amount at about 13 billion.
most OECD countries pledged to spend 0.7% of its GNI on foreign aid, but most countries (including the US) fall far short of that figure.
in 2008 the US spent a little under 0.2% of its GNI on foreign aid, the lowest figure out of the OECD countries. the most generous countries (and the only ones who contributed more than the required 0.7%) were Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg.
OECD member countries also often inflate their (already low) contribution numbers by including emergency aid in their foreign aid donations. so for example, the US might give millions of dollars of food, water and medical aid to countries in the Pacific islands hit by tsunamis, and then use that as an excuse to renege on its original, still un-met, obligations to give aid for road construction and so forth.
While some US Americans feel that the United States gives away too much money to international causes, $25 billion dollars is a very small percentage of the 2009 estimated federal government income of $2.7 trillion dollars.
Worth it - It hasn't done much in the way of "Good Will" It has promoted a a world wide feeling of entitlement and GRAFT - I suggest we cut the entire amount until our economy is stable. Then maybe we'll get some respect along with our hard earned gifts to the world.
Friday, July 9, 2010
A Socialist in the White House -
55 Percent of Likely Voters Find ‘Socialist’ an Accurate Label of Obama?
July 09, 2010 9:13 AM By Jim Geraghty
The latest poll by Democracy Corps, the firm of James Carville and Stan Greenberg, has Republicans leading on the generic ballot among likely voters, 48 percent to 42 percent.
Deep in the poll, they ask, “Now, I am going to read you a list of words and phrases which people use to describe political figures. For each word or phrase, please tell me whether it describes Barack Obama very well, well, not too well, or not well at all.”
On “too liberal,” 35 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 21 percent say “well,” 21 percent say “not too well,” and 17 percent say “not well at all.” In other words, 56 percent of likely voters consider Obama too liberal.
When asked about “a socialist,” 33 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 22 percent say “well,” 15 percent say “not too well,” and 25 percent say “not well at all.”
In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think “socialist” is a reasonably accurate way of describing Obama.
PERMALINK 07/09/10 09:13 AM
Comments 56 | E-mail | Archive
Share
Log In to Post a Comment
July 09, 2010 9:13 AM By Jim Geraghty
The latest poll by Democracy Corps, the firm of James Carville and Stan Greenberg, has Republicans leading on the generic ballot among likely voters, 48 percent to 42 percent.
Deep in the poll, they ask, “Now, I am going to read you a list of words and phrases which people use to describe political figures. For each word or phrase, please tell me whether it describes Barack Obama very well, well, not too well, or not well at all.”
On “too liberal,” 35 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 21 percent say “well,” 21 percent say “not too well,” and 17 percent say “not well at all.” In other words, 56 percent of likely voters consider Obama too liberal.
When asked about “a socialist,” 33 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 22 percent say “well,” 15 percent say “not too well,” and 25 percent say “not well at all.”
In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think “socialist” is a reasonably accurate way of describing Obama.
PERMALINK 07/09/10 09:13 AM
Comments 56 | E-mail | Archive
Share
Log In to Post a Comment
Monday, May 24, 2010
IT'S THE SPENDING STUPID -
IT'S THE SPENDING STUPID - Are you listening Mr. President ~ no you aren't, are you?
The federal government is on an unparallel spending spree with billions and billions of taxpayer money spent every day - It's as if there is no limit to government money. They are bailing out every imaginable entity. Today legislation was introduced by a senator from Pennsylvania to bail out the unions because their pension plans suffered in the recession of last year. Of course we should or we may find your local union protesting on your front lawn as you get home from work. WHERE THE HELL DOES ALL THIS MONEY COME FROM? ~ ALL THIS BAIL OUT / ENTITLEMENT / SOCIAL SECURITY / MEDICARE / MEDICADE CASH COME FROM? THERE ARE ONLY 305 MILLION PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY.
Who Pays Income Taxes and how much?
Tax Year 2007
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$410,096
40.42% of all taxes paid!
Top 5%
$160,041
60.63% of all taxes paid
Top 10%
$113,018
71.22% of all taxes paid
Top 25%
$66,532
86.59% of all taxes paid
Top 50%
$32,879
97.11% of all taxes paid
Bottom 50% Pay no taxe but recieve cash refunds - THE redistribution of wealth :)
<$32,879
2.89
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
Now here's the fun part ~ only 95 million people filed income tax forms this year which means that 47.5 million people are supporting the massive bloated federal machine we know as the The Federal Government.
Plus all those wonderful vote getting short sited entitlement programs.
How about this 30% of all Baby Boomers have no savings or pension plans. Now tell me Health Care rationing won't happen - thus the old adage " YOU CAN BLOW SMOKE IN MY FACE - BUT DON'T EVER TRY TO BLOW IT UP MY ASS!"
WELL MY NEWLY PROGRESSIVE FRIENDS BEND OVER!
I'm really sick of our elected officials - Look at what the have done to this country - VOTE them out - Each and every one!
LET'S TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY WHAT DO YOU SAY?
The federal government is on an unparallel spending spree with billions and billions of taxpayer money spent every day - It's as if there is no limit to government money. They are bailing out every imaginable entity. Today legislation was introduced by a senator from Pennsylvania to bail out the unions because their pension plans suffered in the recession of last year. Of course we should or we may find your local union protesting on your front lawn as you get home from work. WHERE THE HELL DOES ALL THIS MONEY COME FROM? ~ ALL THIS BAIL OUT / ENTITLEMENT / SOCIAL SECURITY / MEDICARE / MEDICADE CASH COME FROM? THERE ARE ONLY 305 MILLION PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY.
Who Pays Income Taxes and how much?
Tax Year 2007
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$410,096
40.42% of all taxes paid!
Top 5%
$160,041
60.63% of all taxes paid
Top 10%
$113,018
71.22% of all taxes paid
Top 25%
$66,532
86.59% of all taxes paid
Top 50%
$32,879
97.11% of all taxes paid
Bottom 50% Pay no taxe but recieve cash refunds - THE redistribution of wealth :)
<$32,879
2.89
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
Now here's the fun part ~ only 95 million people filed income tax forms this year which means that 47.5 million people are supporting the massive bloated federal machine we know as the The Federal Government.
Plus all those wonderful vote getting short sited entitlement programs.
How about this 30% of all Baby Boomers have no savings or pension plans. Now tell me Health Care rationing won't happen - thus the old adage " YOU CAN BLOW SMOKE IN MY FACE - BUT DON'T EVER TRY TO BLOW IT UP MY ASS!"
WELL MY NEWLY PROGRESSIVE FRIENDS BEND OVER!
I'm really sick of our elected officials - Look at what the have done to this country - VOTE them out - Each and every one!
LET'S TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY WHAT DO YOU SAY?
Friday, May 21, 2010
Cap & Tax coming to a meter VERY near you
Cap & Tax coming to a meter VERY near you
AL GORE & Chicago Climate Exchange
The Inconvenient Truth part 2
Welcome to CCX: We are a financial institution whose objectives are to apply financial innovation and incentives to advance social, environmental and economic goals through the following platforms.
Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is North America's only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide
Who owns the CCX? Fifty percent ownership is GOLDMAN SACHS. Another 10% is owned by an outfit out of London which includes Al Gore, David Blood/Goldman Sachs, + 3-4 other former Goldman Sachs executives.
How did the CCX get major funding from 2002-2010? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are heavily invested in the CCX.
The CCX stands to make its 10 TRILLION DOLLARS per year once Obama gets the Congress to unwittingly pass the infamous Cap & Trade Bill, personally crafted and overseen by Obama and his cronies.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1048493/pg1
How does Al Gore fit into CCX -
Al Gore’s Circle of “Business”
Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. “Generation Investment Management, purchases -- but isn’t a provider of -- carbon dioxide offsets,” said spokesman Richard Campbell in a March 7 report by CNSNews.
GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.
CCX owes its existence in part to the Joyce Foundation, the Chicago-based liberal foundation that provided $347,000 in grant support in 2000 for a preliminary study to test the viability of a market in carbon credits. On the CCX board of directors is the ubiquitous Maurice Strong, a Canadian industrialist and diplomat who, since the 1970s, has helped create an international policy agenda for the environmentalist movement. Strong has described himself as “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” His former job titles include “senior advisor” to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, “senior advisor” to World Bank President James Wolfensohn and board member of the United Nations Foundation, a creation of Ted Turner. The 78-year-old Strong is very close to Gore.
Along with Gore, the co-founder of GIM is Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson. Last September, Goldman Sachs bought 10% of CCX shares for $23 million. CCX owns half the ECX, so Goldman Sachs has a stake there as well.
GIM’s “founding partners” are studded with officials from Goldman Sachs. They include David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM); Mark Ferguson, former co-head of GSAM pan-European research; and Peter Harris, who headed GSAM international operations. Another founding partner is Peter Knight, who is the designated president of GIM. He was Sen. Al Gore’s chief of staff from 1977-1989 and the campaign manager of the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign.
Connect the Dots
In June 2006, the World Bank announced that it, too, had joined CCX, saying that it intended to offset its greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing emission credits through CCX. The bank says its credits would contribute to restoring 4,600 hectares of degraded pastureland in Costa Rica. Somehow, CCX has figured out that this is an amount equivalent to 22,000 metric tons of emission that the bank calculates are created by its activities.
A World Bank blog called the Private Sector Development Blog regularly features items touting Al Gore and the concept of carbon credits. Its articles typically announce corporate “green” initiatives in which carbon credits are said to cancel out “bad” CO2 emissions released by a company’s activities.
In fact, the World Bank now operates a Carbon Finance Unit that conducts research on how to develop and trade carbon credits. The bank works with Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and Spain to set up carbon-credit funds in each country to purchase emission credits from firms for use in developing countries. In addition, it runs the Carbon Fund for Europe helping countries meet their Kyoto Protocol requirements. These funds are traded on the ECX (half of which is owned by CCX, itself a creature of Al Gore’s firm, Generation Investment Management). Can we connect the dots?
A website affiliated with An Inconvenient Truth invites concerned citizens to personally fight global warming by offsetting their “carbon footprint.” The ways to do that include changing over to fluorescent light bulbs and turning down your thermostat at home. But the website also urges Americans to offset their personal CO2 emissions by “buying” carbon offsets from a native-American-owned company called Native Energy. Native Energy promotes “renewable” wind energy by buying and selling carbon-emission credits and futures for wind turbine projects on Indian reservations.
What the website doesn’t mention is that that the founder of Native Energy, energy industry veteran Tom Boucher, also founded a marketing company called Green Mountain Energy, a CCX associate partner that describes itself as “the nation’s leading retail provider of cleaner energy and carbon-offset solutions. Green Mountain offers residential, business, institutional and governmental customers an easy way to purchase cleaner, affordable electricity products, as well as the opportunity to offset their carbon footprint.” In other words, Green Mountain sells advisory services to energy users, alerting them to opportunities to contribute to or invest in groups like Native Energy.
So it seems banks and investment houses are going green, eager to enter an emerging emissions market. Meanwhile, environmentalists are discovering new ways to get rich while believing they are saving polar bears and rainforests.
Ms. Corey Barnes is a freelance writer and blogger for the Polireport in Washington, D.C. Deborah Corey Barnes
10/03/2007
AL GORE & Chicago Climate Exchange
The Inconvenient Truth part 2
Welcome to CCX: We are a financial institution whose objectives are to apply financial innovation and incentives to advance social, environmental and economic goals through the following platforms.
Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is North America's only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide
Who owns the CCX? Fifty percent ownership is GOLDMAN SACHS. Another 10% is owned by an outfit out of London which includes Al Gore, David Blood/Goldman Sachs, + 3-4 other former Goldman Sachs executives.
How did the CCX get major funding from 2002-2010? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are heavily invested in the CCX.
The CCX stands to make its 10 TRILLION DOLLARS per year once Obama gets the Congress to unwittingly pass the infamous Cap & Trade Bill, personally crafted and overseen by Obama and his cronies.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1048493/pg1
How does Al Gore fit into CCX -
Al Gore’s Circle of “Business”
Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. “Generation Investment Management, purchases -- but isn’t a provider of -- carbon dioxide offsets,” said spokesman Richard Campbell in a March 7 report by CNSNews.
GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.
CCX owes its existence in part to the Joyce Foundation, the Chicago-based liberal foundation that provided $347,000 in grant support in 2000 for a preliminary study to test the viability of a market in carbon credits. On the CCX board of directors is the ubiquitous Maurice Strong, a Canadian industrialist and diplomat who, since the 1970s, has helped create an international policy agenda for the environmentalist movement. Strong has described himself as “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” His former job titles include “senior advisor” to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, “senior advisor” to World Bank President James Wolfensohn and board member of the United Nations Foundation, a creation of Ted Turner. The 78-year-old Strong is very close to Gore.
Along with Gore, the co-founder of GIM is Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson. Last September, Goldman Sachs bought 10% of CCX shares for $23 million. CCX owns half the ECX, so Goldman Sachs has a stake there as well.
GIM’s “founding partners” are studded with officials from Goldman Sachs. They include David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM); Mark Ferguson, former co-head of GSAM pan-European research; and Peter Harris, who headed GSAM international operations. Another founding partner is Peter Knight, who is the designated president of GIM. He was Sen. Al Gore’s chief of staff from 1977-1989 and the campaign manager of the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign.
Connect the Dots
In June 2006, the World Bank announced that it, too, had joined CCX, saying that it intended to offset its greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing emission credits through CCX. The bank says its credits would contribute to restoring 4,600 hectares of degraded pastureland in Costa Rica. Somehow, CCX has figured out that this is an amount equivalent to 22,000 metric tons of emission that the bank calculates are created by its activities.
A World Bank blog called the Private Sector Development Blog regularly features items touting Al Gore and the concept of carbon credits. Its articles typically announce corporate “green” initiatives in which carbon credits are said to cancel out “bad” CO2 emissions released by a company’s activities.
In fact, the World Bank now operates a Carbon Finance Unit that conducts research on how to develop and trade carbon credits. The bank works with Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and Spain to set up carbon-credit funds in each country to purchase emission credits from firms for use in developing countries. In addition, it runs the Carbon Fund for Europe helping countries meet their Kyoto Protocol requirements. These funds are traded on the ECX (half of which is owned by CCX, itself a creature of Al Gore’s firm, Generation Investment Management). Can we connect the dots?
A website affiliated with An Inconvenient Truth invites concerned citizens to personally fight global warming by offsetting their “carbon footprint.” The ways to do that include changing over to fluorescent light bulbs and turning down your thermostat at home. But the website also urges Americans to offset their personal CO2 emissions by “buying” carbon offsets from a native-American-owned company called Native Energy. Native Energy promotes “renewable” wind energy by buying and selling carbon-emission credits and futures for wind turbine projects on Indian reservations.
What the website doesn’t mention is that that the founder of Native Energy, energy industry veteran Tom Boucher, also founded a marketing company called Green Mountain Energy, a CCX associate partner that describes itself as “the nation’s leading retail provider of cleaner energy and carbon-offset solutions. Green Mountain offers residential, business, institutional and governmental customers an easy way to purchase cleaner, affordable electricity products, as well as the opportunity to offset their carbon footprint.” In other words, Green Mountain sells advisory services to energy users, alerting them to opportunities to contribute to or invest in groups like Native Energy.
So it seems banks and investment houses are going green, eager to enter an emerging emissions market. Meanwhile, environmentalists are discovering new ways to get rich while believing they are saving polar bears and rainforests.
Ms. Corey Barnes is a freelance writer and blogger for the Polireport in Washington, D.C. Deborah Corey Barnes
10/03/2007
Thursday, May 20, 2010
WAKE UP AMERICA ~ New regulations for immigrants?
New regulations for immigrants?
The following has been proposed as a reasonable method of managing not only illegal immigration but legal immigrants. See how many you agree with, and how many you'd be comfortable with being imposed...
Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country. This ban applies, among other things, to participation in demonstrations and the expression of opinions in public about domestic politics.
Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones, even those with green cards.
Only citizens may serve in the military as officers, on airline crews , and chiefs of seaports and airports.
Members of both houses of Congress as well as the Supreme Court must be a citizen by birth.
Immigrants — even legal ones — may not become members of the clergy.
Foreigners, legal or illegal, may not own land.
Any citizen may arrest illegal immigrants and their accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.
Foreigners, legal or otherwise, may be expelled for any reason and without due process.
Sounds pretty radical doesn't it. Surely the people waving the Mexican flag at that last protest would have a cow if such were the law, wouldn't they.
Except it is the law...in Mexico!
Please Check out these Crime Statistics ~http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/305516/statistics_crimes_commited_by_illegal.html
WHAT IN GODS NAME IS THE MATTER WITH THIS COUNTRY ~
The following has been proposed as a reasonable method of managing not only illegal immigration but legal immigrants. See how many you agree with, and how many you'd be comfortable with being imposed...
Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country. This ban applies, among other things, to participation in demonstrations and the expression of opinions in public about domestic politics.
Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones, even those with green cards.
Only citizens may serve in the military as officers, on airline crews , and chiefs of seaports and airports.
Members of both houses of Congress as well as the Supreme Court must be a citizen by birth.
Immigrants — even legal ones — may not become members of the clergy.
Foreigners, legal or illegal, may not own land.
Any citizen may arrest illegal immigrants and their accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.
Foreigners, legal or otherwise, may be expelled for any reason and without due process.
Sounds pretty radical doesn't it. Surely the people waving the Mexican flag at that last protest would have a cow if such were the law, wouldn't they.
Except it is the law...in Mexico!
Please Check out these Crime Statistics ~http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/305516/statistics_crimes_commited_by_illegal.html
WHAT IN GODS NAME IS THE MATTER WITH THIS COUNTRY ~
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
The Inconvenient Truth
The Inconvenient Truth - They have found a way to tax air!
The Climate Changes - It's Cyclical
The worst part is YOU believe it
At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"
I asked myself, why would such obviously smart guy say such a ridiculous thing? But it turns out he's right.
The earth's temperature peaked in 1998. It's been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels.
Meanwhile, the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels. What's more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.
In other words, during what was supposed to be massive global warming, the biggest chunks of ice on earth grew larger. Just as an aside, do you remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going to melt Antarctica? But don't worry, we're safe now, that was the nineties.
Dr. Kunihiko, Chancellor of Japan's Institute of Science and Technology said this: "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other ... every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so." Now why would a learned man say such a crazy thing?
This is where the looney left gets lost. Their mantra is atmospheric CO2 levels are escalating and this is unquestionably causing earth's temperature rise. But ask yourself -- if global temperatures are experiencing the biggest sustained drop in decades, while CO2 levels continue to rise -- how can it be true?
Ironically, in spite of being shown false, we must now pray for it. Because a massive study, just released by the Russian Government, contains overwhelming evidence that earth is on the verge of another Ice Age.
Based on core samples from Russia's Vostok Station in Antarctica, we now know earth's atmosphere and temperature for the last 420,000 years. This evidence suggests that the 12,000 years of warmth we call the Holocene period is over.
Apparently, we're headed into an ice age of about 100,000 years -- give or take. As for CO2 levels, core samples show conclusively they follow the earth's temperature rise, not lead it.
It turns out CO2 fluctuations follow the change in sea temperature. As water temperatures rise, oceans release additional dissolved CO2 -- like opening a warm brewsky.
To think, early last year, liberals suggested we spend 45 trillion dollars and give up five million jobs to fix global warming. But there is good news: now that we don't have to spend any of that money, we can give it all to the banks.
"In climate, when this happens, the climate state changes. You go from a cooling regime to a warming regime or a warming regime to a cooling regime. This way we were able to explain all the fluctuations in the global temperature trend in the past century," Tsonis said. "The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001."
The most recent climate shift probably occurred at about the year 2000.
Now the question is how has warming slowed and how much influence does human activity have?
"But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said.
Tsonis said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs.
The Climate Changes - It's Cyclical
The worst part is YOU believe it
At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"
I asked myself, why would such obviously smart guy say such a ridiculous thing? But it turns out he's right.
The earth's temperature peaked in 1998. It's been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels.
Meanwhile, the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels. What's more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.
In other words, during what was supposed to be massive global warming, the biggest chunks of ice on earth grew larger. Just as an aside, do you remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going to melt Antarctica? But don't worry, we're safe now, that was the nineties.
Dr. Kunihiko, Chancellor of Japan's Institute of Science and Technology said this: "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other ... every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so." Now why would a learned man say such a crazy thing?
This is where the looney left gets lost. Their mantra is atmospheric CO2 levels are escalating and this is unquestionably causing earth's temperature rise. But ask yourself -- if global temperatures are experiencing the biggest sustained drop in decades, while CO2 levels continue to rise -- how can it be true?
Ironically, in spite of being shown false, we must now pray for it. Because a massive study, just released by the Russian Government, contains overwhelming evidence that earth is on the verge of another Ice Age.
Based on core samples from Russia's Vostok Station in Antarctica, we now know earth's atmosphere and temperature for the last 420,000 years. This evidence suggests that the 12,000 years of warmth we call the Holocene period is over.
Apparently, we're headed into an ice age of about 100,000 years -- give or take. As for CO2 levels, core samples show conclusively they follow the earth's temperature rise, not lead it.
It turns out CO2 fluctuations follow the change in sea temperature. As water temperatures rise, oceans release additional dissolved CO2 -- like opening a warm brewsky.
To think, early last year, liberals suggested we spend 45 trillion dollars and give up five million jobs to fix global warming. But there is good news: now that we don't have to spend any of that money, we can give it all to the banks.
"In climate, when this happens, the climate state changes. You go from a cooling regime to a warming regime or a warming regime to a cooling regime. This way we were able to explain all the fluctuations in the global temperature trend in the past century," Tsonis said. "The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001."
The most recent climate shift probably occurred at about the year 2000.
Now the question is how has warming slowed and how much influence does human activity have?
"But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said.
Tsonis said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)