About Me

Name: thekeenobserver
Email: reallykeenobserver@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Sieg heil! Obama's plan to be President for life

Posted by thekeenobserver on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:07:43 PM
 

Was Hitler democratically elected as Chancellor of Germany?

 

In Germany's 1932 presidential election, there were four candidates: the incumbent, Paul von Hindenburg, Adolf Hitler, and two minor candidates-- Ernst Thaelmann and Theodore Duesterberg.

 

Hindenburg won with over 55% of the vote; Hitler finished a distant second with 37%.

 

Thaelman & Duesterburg may have gone on to form a law firm (but history has been remiss in documenting this).

 

Nevertheless, in 1933, Hitler was constitutionally chosen by von Hindenburg to be Chancellor of Germany-- a country that in the early 1930's, was still a democratic nation.

 

But hundreds of times throughout the centuries, famous dictators -- originally chosen in free elections-- would then usurp their authority by becoming tyrants.

 

Take for example, our good friend in Venezuela-- Hugo (the great) Chavez:

 

Chavez had support from two thirds of the population, and was elected by a 66-33% margin.

 

Shortly after winning election, Mr Chávez announced that he would not renew the license of one of the country's oldest broadcasters, Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV).

 

Next, ol' Hugo decided he'd take a 51% stake in Venezuela's oilfields. Plus, in his inaugural speech, Mr Chávez had said he wanted to change the country's constitution to expropriate control of its natural gas operations as well.

 

Then a "committee" of his supporters (Venezuela's ACORN) campaigned for constitutional "reform" allowing Chavez to be elected indefinitely-- sound familiar?

 

How very democratic indeed...use Venezuela's constitution to transform it into an avowedly socialist country, with Mr. Chavez acting as defacto dictator.

 

In Venezuela today, checks and balances are gone. The National Assembly is a rubber-stamp legislative body on semi-permanent hiatus (vacation), and Chavez's cronies dominate the courts.

 

Now the trend continues in Honduras --president Manuel Zelaya has refused to abide by the term limits of his constitution- and Obama firmly supports Zelaya’s cause.

But only the most naive could think Obama would condemn the overthrow of a third world dictator, and not apply those same "ideals" toward his own reign as president.

It doesn't take a Nobel prize winner to discern that Obama absolutely WILL NOT be content to serve two terms; everything he's done so far has but one callous objective: he plans on being in the Whitehouse for quite some time.

 

The comparisons to Chavez (and even Hitler) abound:

 

-Obama won the presidency in a free democratic election

-Obama then proceeds to nationalize the banks and auto companies

-Obama forms "Organizing for America"-- a "volunteer group" similar to Hitler's Brownshirts

 

Like his idol Hugo, there is Obama's backdoor approach to destroying media opposition (conservative talk radio), by regulating and breaking up the station franchise owners.

 

Then, we have Obama's list of priorities, which are little more than veiled socialsm:

 

1) Obama’s $878 billion anti-stimulus package-- designed to "kick in" by 2011-- is nothing but a democratic vote-buying scheme; it will create a plethora of Obama-dependent government programs, all pointing to his re-election in 2012.

 

2) Obama supports cap and trade; yet another UN-employment scheme to create more government dependents, who'll depend on their monthly Obama check to survive.

 

3) Obama's card check revival is nothing more than another fascist idea to create more union voters-- another voting bloc for his re-election

 

4) Obama's plan for illegal immigrant "amnesty" will lead to citizenship; and you guessed it...another huge democratic voting bloc.

 

5) Obama's plan for government-controlled healthcare-- the final coup d' etat: Unbeknownst to most citizens, these so-called 47 million uninsured "Americans" are vastly comprised of illegal aliens.

 

Once Obama rams national healthcare through, it will create a "fence -jumping" frenzy-- an unstoppable flow of aliens streaming across the southern border to get their "inalienable right" to free health care-- Obama's most devious scheme to date.

 

Unemployment and entitlement recipients already are (or soon will be) the fastest growing segment of the population. Mr. Obama's "coalition"-- those on welfare, illegal aliens, ACORN-provided dead voters, union members, and minorities, will prove difficult to defeat.

 

And with ACORN running interference for him in our so-called "democratic" elections, Obama is destined to achieve his edifice of power all "legal and proper."

 

On Jan 16, 2009 --completely ignored by the media-- came this jaw-dropper: U.S Representative, Jose Serrano, (D- New York) introduced HR 5-- a resolution to abolish the 22nd Amendment, term limits on the Presidency.

 

But is it indeed, not strange that an obscure Congressman would put forth such a major proposal, in a nation where the majority of voters believe there SHOULD be term limits on elected office holders?

 

It all makes sense: Imagine if someone of a bigger profile had done this: It would certainly have been plastered all over the airwaves; but that's exactly what our sneaky anti-president did NOT want!

 

And surprise-surprise; apparently, Representative Serrano is good pals with meester Hugo Chavez himself, who, perhaps, not so oddly, also wants no ‘term limit’ on his presidential office.

 

Mr. Serrano's H.R.5 states the following: "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President."

H.R.5 is patterned after the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. 

 

Obama is a student of the New Deal blueprint. His primary goal is to get re-elected-- not by bringing back prosperity, but by using political economics (vote-buying) to tie dependent-voting groups to him, just as Roosevelt had done in the 1930's.

 

The more power Obama can wrest from the private sector, the larger he'll be able to expand the federal bureaucracy; replicating what FDR did to win re-election for 4 terms-- creating a culture of government dependency.

 

Obama's "stimulus" will bolster 6 million voters who've recently lost jobs. Plus Obama can extend his political influence over the lives of all other dependents-- a group that could easily approach 45% of the population by 2012.

Thus, if Mr. Obama can cobble enough votes together in the same fashion as Roosevelt, he'll easily win re-election in 2012 with a 51% majority (or better).

Then, with Serrano's resolution in committee, Obama now has all his "men" on the chessboard:

 

If Serrano's resolution is passed by say, 2015, what  would stand in Obama's way of further consolidating his power, and  becoming a virtual dictator- possibly for life?

 

Let's do some projections:

After Barack Obama gets elected to a second term, he could easily grant all immigrants the VOTE, arguing, "the privilege of enfranchisement supersedes any and all other individual rights."

By that time, the Obama "Organizing for America" political thugs will have grown into a well paid, para-military, leftist wing of enthusiastic supporters.

 

The unions will have expanded rapidly. And fully 60% of the population could become dependent on government entitlements.

Obama now convinces his growing majority that..."a leader so vital to America's march toward social utopia, should not be faced with time constraints"... and... "the Constitution shall be amended to read...'Any sitting president serving the common will of the people, could continue in such service until the people no longer willed it-- or serve as president for life..."

Then Obama leads the country into an even deeper depression, which assures his being viewed (like Roosevelt) as a "national necessity."
 

The theory behind the 22nd Amendment is that modern day presidents could exercise too much power and authority, to be allowed access to it for very long-- lest they become despots.

 

In 1807, Thomas Jefferson warned that presidents, not bound by term limits, could use their popularity and power to become kings.


Jefferson wrote: “If some termination to the services of the chief magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution or supplied in practice, his office, nominally for years, will in fact become for life; and history shows how easily that degenerates into an inheritance.”

 

We must come to understand that Obama sides with Communists who attempt to overthrow their country's constitution. Repealing the 22nd amendment should be considered a near act of war against the American people by their very own government-- and specifically-- the Obama administration.

 

We must realize this is happening NOW, and Obama WILL eventually attempt to become a dictator.

 

No questions should remain any longer.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Will the American Left uphold the Law of Civilization and Decay?

Posted by thekeenobserver on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 6:58:12 PM

It was cast as an unprecedented new compromise-- the heralded revival of California's offshore mega-barrel Tranquillion oil field-- a plan that would have been the state's first approval to drill for oil in its waters since 1969.

But as fast as the proposal came to be, it disappeared within a tidal wave of leftist, environmental rejections.

California's State Lands Commission, headed by the radical environmentalist, John Garamendi,  killed the deal, citing that, "Approval would have been a message heard very, very clearly around the world by those who call for "drill, baby, drill."

So score another big one for the left; and another brick in the wall toward cutting off America’s vital domestic flow of crude oil.

It was a deal that would have allowed a Houston based Texas oil company, Plains Exploration and Production, to sink new wells off the Santa Barbara coast in return for an agreement to shut down all four of its existing offshore platforms within 13 years.

Santa Barbara County approved the plan without controversy last summer. But with horizontal "slant-drilling" technology, Plains Exploration had an ingenious plan-- sink wells deep into the sea floor, and then burrow sideways from under the federally regulated waters, to where Tranquillion sits underneath the ocean floor under state waters.

Thus it would have eliminated all environmental concerns of a possible ocean spill, like the disastrous 1969 well-head blowout off the coast of Santa Barbara

But the uncompromising California State Lands Commission wasn’t swayed: by a controversial 2-1 vote, they upheld the contentions of Santa Barbara's most vociferous anti-oil groups, who said, "allowing any new drilling in state waters would suggest the state welcomes offshore drilling, and send a "come-hither" message to other oil companies".

So just what are these idiopathic environmentalists talking about? A "come hither" message to the oil companies? Were they implying some kind of sexual innuendo; or are we talking about energy policy? But whenever it comes to U.S. energy policy, the leftists have never made sense

Of course, this was we'd expect.  It’s always been the left's anti patriotic duty--blocking what’s vital for America's economy, and disregarding the country’s most critical need--domestic energy.

it was your usual "just show ‘em whose boss thing"... exercising one's authority for the sake of power; the control factor (i.e. the abuse of political power); the lust of all leftists.

Never mind that California is bazillions in debt; never mind that the hundreds of millions of barrels of Tranquillion's oil would relieve our  domestic energy shortage. And never mind the 40 billion we continue to send OPEC every month- a crippling, unsustainable drain on our capital.

None of it matters except for California's leftist, mindless insistence of keeping control-- controlling the inevitable slide downward of our country into third world status-- and upholding the law of civilization and decay.

Can this law be repealed? Not if our leftist new Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, has his way.

Predictably, Mr. Salazar's first major decision — to cancel oil and gas leases on 77 parcels of public land in Utah — could not have sent a clearer signal that his department is under new management; a rather haughty introduction indeed.

Salazar's appointment as Interior Secretary was a strong indication that the Obama administration intends to take a "more measured approach" to energy exploration on the public lands, and that, "drill-now, drill-anywhere" policies are "a thing of the past".

Mama-Mia! Drilling is to be a thing of the PAST?

What could be more counterproductive to America's economic survival than stating that domestic drilling is passe? OPEC is celebrating as we speak! Fully 95% of America's transportation needs are met by the refined products of petroleum--something that the off shores of the U.S. holds in abundance

So what is America’s future transportation system supposed to run on? Renewables? Wind and solar power?

Sure! Just picture the all new, all electric, 40-ton semi tractor-trailers on the roads; and the heralded hydrogen- powered freight trains; and the wind powered F-22 stealth fighter planes; and don’t forget the massive torque output of the new solar-powered line of Caterpillar bulldozers. Is the Obama administration ready to  deliver these vehicles to replace our conventional powered machines? Not yet?

Yet they contend drilling for oil is a thing of the past. And will these disastrous, economic absurdities of the left ever cease? But haven't these treasonous liberals already damaged America enough? Look at the calamitous wealth destruction they have wrought upon our country:

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, has blocked all previous Republican drilling bills from reaching the House floor for a vote. We have 4 trillion dollars worth of oil sitting in the ground around us. lt's liquid gold--4 TRILLION DOLLARS! Sitting wasted.

And for what? The environment.? For the insistence on developing renewable resources? This is wealth that could go for investment. It's the money a deficit-plagued America needs at a most critical time.

We could rebuild this country's infrastructure. We could invest in alternative energy vehicles; new money for corporate expansion; building high-speed rail corridors; or for R&D toward high tech medical and pharmaceutical advancements; or for developing new inventions and hundreds of new entrepreneurial ideas.

The list is endless.

But without capital, nothing can move forward. And the leftists have chosen to stifle all this, and have declared our own domestic energy resources to be illegal--putting us on the slippery slope downhill toward the fulfillment of the prophecy of the "law of civilization and decay."

So what exactly is this law of civilization and decay?

This is a hypothesis- first proposed by the famous historian Brooks Adams in1894; a law that was the reason for the decline and fall of the Roman and Spanish empires. It held that the seat of world power, throughout history, has consistently followed a westward movement from the ancient crossroads in the East

To illustrate, let’s expound upon this hypothesis: The tendency of history is that power is not static, and the foibles of human nature are the reasons for the inevitable fulfillment of the law.

From ancient Persia; to Alexander the Great in Macedonia; to Athens in ancient Greece; to Rome; to Constantinople, to Spain, then France, and to London; and finally, to America; in accord with a law relating to the density of populations, and the development of new and centralizing techniques of trade and industry, the "law" commands that the seat of power eventually, and invariably, transforms from one country to another in an inevitable westward direction.

In summary, the law upholds that throughout the constant progression of history, the status of each dominant country always declines, and that…"All civilizations fall because of the actions of certain people who made these civilizations vanish."

And this law portends huge trouble for the U.S. And could it be that the radical left is the straw that breaks our nation's back, and moves the seat of power westward? Could our downfall be imperceptibly underway, and migrating westward across the Pacific as we speak?

Right now, China is taking advantage of the worldwide economic downturn to go on a major shopping spree, investing in energy and other natural resources that could give it an economic advantage over the United States that it has never had before.

This should set off alarm bells; but so far it's slipped entirely below our radar. China’s newest investments position the country as a threat to becoming the world's new dominate nation-- a new seat of power-- eclipsing our United States.

And the main reason is painfully obvious: we remain energy static-- while the Chinese proceed ahead at a voracious pace. Unlike the American left, the Chinese are not fools; they see that oil has been (and will continue to be in the foreseeable future) vital to projecting economic power, and key to dominating the world’s economic landscape.
 
Chinese money continues to talk around the globe--so are you listening Nancy Pelosi?

In a recent move, the China Development Bank will lend the Brazilian oil giant Petrobras $10 billion in exchange for a long-term commitment to send oil to China. And with their recent deals they've signed with Russia and Venezuela, this brings Beijing’s total oil investments to $41 billion.

The result? This will prepare China to expand even more rapidly during the next boom when supplies of commodities (like oil ) are likely to tighten again as global growth picks up. And China will have a foothold it lacked during the recent previous  boom, when it grew phenomenally, even with its limited access to domestic resources.

China is flush with cash, thanks to trillions of dollars from decades of selling goods to the West; and they are using it to proceed in the exact opposite direction of the U.S.  The Chinese continue to accumulate huge petroleum energy deposits-- possibly eclipsing America as world's dominant economic power as soon as 2030 

China is a capital rich nation; the U.S. is a capital starved, beggar nation-- woefully lacking in cash-- thanks to the treasonous energy policy of the left, which results in the exportation of our capital to OPEC at a perilous pace of 700 billion a year.

And recently, Venezuela borrowed $6 billion from China and agreed to increase their oil exports to China, bringing China’s total investment in the country to $12 billion. In Brazil, China signed a $10 billion “loan-for-oil” deal that guarantees the country up to 160,000 barrels a day at market prices.

This is sounding more ominous by the minute! But is the Obama administration even paying attention?

In total, China has built up nearly $2 TRILLION in foreign currency reserves, giving the country access to capital for dealing with cashed-starved nations around the world, such as America – the world’s number one debtor nation. And analysts are projecting grave worries about what lengths China will go to compete with the United States (and India), for oil and other natural resources.

The Chinese now could, by virtue of their cash rich position, easily outspend the U.S. for critical oil reserves, and lock out America from being able to compete for limited supplies of the world's strategic military minerals, such as lithium, titanium, nickel, and chromium.

China has struck deals in countries that have access to large supplies of oil and other mineral resources-- right smack where American and European countries are not well positioned-- in Africa and the Middle East.

First, the Chinese took over our manufacturing capacity; and now, we are being outmaneuvered, outsmarted, and outspent for the world's oil and mineral resources. And the Chinese continue to lend us the money we must send to OPEC every month.

So the handwriting is on the wall; and the leftists continue to be the authors. We are losing the race to the Chinese-- and to our great peril-- we are fulfilling the law of civilization and decay.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The grand economic anti-stimulus...our path toward "Europeanism"

Posted by thekeenobserver on Wednesday, February 04, 2009 7:45:53 PM

"In a crisis, be aware of the danger, but recognize the opportunity"-- John F. Kennedy; from an excerpt taken from his book, "Profiles In Courage".
 
Wise words indeed from one of America's most beloved presidents. But today, wisdom is precisely what's lacking in Washington DC.

The reality of our economic crisis can be traced directly back to last year's spike in the cost of energy. The 4 dollar-a-gallon economic anti-stimulus triggered the mortgage crisis, and the subsequent onset of the worldwide recession-depression.
 
Currently, we seem to be locked into an ideological tug of war between fossil-fuel realty and renewable energy fantasy:

On one side there's the one basic necessity of ALL modern economic growth --cheap reliable energy--lined up against the fantasy of alternative fuels, which currently supply less than 4% of America’s energy usage. And we're overlooking one of the few benefits of the economic slowdown-- the welcome drop in petroleum prices.

As far as green energy goes, actual commercial demand is weak. Installation of wind and solar power is plummeting, due in part to the attractiveness of current cheap energy prices .

But instead of using this short term drop in prices to shore up our energy policy, the Obama administration has other ideas, which could leave the country short on oil in its second term. This could put both our economy and our military in the gravest of all circumstances-- not enough gasoline, and a strategic petroleum reserve bled dry!
 
So Instead of drilling for oil (or building nuclear plants) the Obama energy team of enviro-radicals has decided to stubbornly focus on renewable alternative energy, and all but deliberately ignore the basic structural problem of the nation's economy-- the mind-numbing amount of money we export to OPEC for foreign oil.
 
Talk about irrational ignorance.
 
Let’s play make believe. What if the U.S. had a prudent energy policy in place back in the 70's, and America now was energy independent. The result? Instead of the country being in dire economic straights, we'd be experiencing a prosperity boom.
 
Example: take the $750 billion we spent last year on imported oil.

What instead if that money could have been used to fund an economic expansion, the likes of which not seen since the early 60's? This was when President Kennedy cut taxes across the board, and initiated an investment tax credit for companies wishing to expand commercially. And back then, America was a creditor nation.
 
Think... 750 billion we wouldn't have to borrow...750 billion toward investment tax credits for corporations... 750 billion toward small business loans-- the true job engine of the U.S.
 
And we're just getting warmed up. 750 billion could go a long way. We could mail out stimulus checks totaling $2000 for every one in the country.
 
We could build a badly-needed high speed rail network.  We could fund the rebuilding of our infrastructure...rebuild the nation's manufacturing base ...or have the financial latitude to cut payroll taxes for everyone for a year.
 
The salient point here is that America, as a capital staved nation, could remedy itself from the primary source of its capital shortage-- the calamitous sums of money we send abroad for imported oil.

But the Obama energy czars--Stephen Chu and Carol Browner-- are heavily prejudiced against offshore drilling, and coal and nuclear power
 
So according to these environmental Nazis, what are supposed to do? Fill 'er up with a tankful of french fried, re-refined biodiesel? Or drive the currently non-existent green cars of the future? Or maybe we could revisit  the stone age era, and design a modern foot-powered Fred Flintstone yabba-dabba car. Just think of the mileage.
 
But in reality, petroleum now accounts for 96% of our transportation fuels. And without a concerted effort to increase domestic production of our own oil reserves, the U.S. is likely to face ever-rising future energy prices, ever more dependence on foreign sources; and ominously-- less reliable supplies in the future from hostile nations.
 
And we haven’t even considered the imbalance of our trade deficit.
 
But yet, the environmental Nazis argue that, "the age of oil is over ....we need to move to new forms of energy."
 
Bravo! Profound! But of what new forms of energy are they talking about? Oil and gasoline are here for the next 50-100 years. Currently there are 300 million internal combustion engines parked in the nation's  garages and driveways. And mass production of wind, solar, and biofuels literally remains a pipe dream.
 
It's true that more diverse sources of energy would be a good thing; but Obama and his green energy lieutenants conveniently say zilcho about the need to produce energy from existing sources, such as oil, coal, and nuclear.
 
In reality, renewable energy sources are years away--they are mere symbols of what should be done. But the enviro-radicals ignore the stark scientific and technological realities of what can be done.
 
Environmental symbolism shouldn’t drive public policy. Starting exploration in offshore coastal areas (and ANWAR) would be important steps toward influencing the world market; and it would keep petroleum prices low enough that it would provide our economy the chance to become robust in the long term.

And we must shun this idiopathic notion that wind/solar/biodiesel fuels will be available any time soon in sufficient amounts to replace fossil fuels. This reckless propaganda is both a danger to our economy, and our long term national security.
 
America must also shun environmental symbolism. And long into the foreseeable future, we'll need sufficient oil resources, and we'll continue to burn coal--it's as bluntly simple as that.
 
And here's a most welcome thought: by expanding America's domestic energy supply, we can turn the tables on our good buddies, OPEC and Venezuela. The recent dip in energy prices have hurt these regimes rather grievously.
 
But the U.S. remains the ONLY oil-producing nation on earth that's deemed its reserves illegal! According  to the Minerals Management Service, there are 14 billion barrels of petroleum in the restricted areas off our continental outer shelf. But the leftist environmental Nazis, in their zest to "save the planet", have used their treasonous influence in Congress to retain the mindless offshore drilling restrictions.

But it's for sure that the Chinese, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other nations will continue to explore offshore.

So why have we unilaterally chosen to disarm our oil exploration industry? Surely our current safeguards against environmental damage are as good as any in the world. And ironically, America was the technological innovator for deepwater offshore drilling.

And rival nations continue to use our technology to their advantage; while we sit back and worship polar bear sanctity, and mail huge monthly checks to OPEC for the same oil we could be pumping from our untapped energy resources.

So is it any wonder that the U.S. is a debtor, capital-starved nation, all but begging OPEC for a break? Compare our situation to that of other oil-aggressive nations. They’re not going forward with green energy, but expansive worldwide petroleum exploration.

And with all these government restrictions on our energy production, just what actually are we saving?

In a short period of time, we will eventually become another Europe; a nation of people sleeping in 60 degree bedrooms, and riding bicycles and roller-blading to work, unable to afford the coming specter of 6-dollar a gallon gas.

This is indeed frightening; and we should kid ourselves no longer...it’s soon to be a reality, unless something changes.

We have abundant energy sources all around us. But yet the politicians seek to deny the people the fruits of our great nation.

Perhaps Cicero, the great Roman orator and philosopher of the first century A.D., had it right when he wrote..."Governments are the enemy."

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Barack Obama...President of the world?

Posted by thekeenobserver on Tuesday, January 13, 2009 8:23:37 PM

Well lookee-lookee! Did the cat slip out of the bag? Carol Browner, Obama's proud choice for climate Czar, was recently "unearthed" as a member of the radical socialist (Stalinist) organization known as "Socialist International" (S.I.). And these people aren't exactly your basic local rotary club, but rather a leftist hardball group determined to put forth their radical environmental agenda upon the ENTIRE world.

S. I. calls for the, "redesign of the international rules on intellectual property." That's bureaucrat lingo for compelling an inventor to surrender property rights in order to "share" technologies with less-developed countries. So Ms. Browner--can we get any more socialist than compelling all U.S. inventors to "share" with less developed countries? What in the name of Thomas Edison are you planning?
 
Despite the controversy, president elect Obama, who chose the ex-60's radical Browner for this all-important cabinet position, staunchly supports the nomination, declaring that, "Climate change will be a priority of my administration". Supposedly, in the name of stimulating the economy, Obama plans to spend at least 500 billion dollars (which the government does not have) to convert the economy from carbon-based fuels, to greener alternatives. 
 
The main focus of Socialist International centers on America, as the world's largest energy user, must shrink its economic output (energy usage) in conjunction with the smaller countries of the world increasing theirs. And the mechanism for this philosophy is based not upon climatological factors, but on economic ones-- a third world wealth transfer done incognito through the U.N.
 
An in-depth look at Socialist International would reveal that the organization is pushing hard for "global governance", and that America must shrink its economy, whose energy usage emits far too much Co2, in deference to smaller nations, which emit miniscule amounts of Co2. 
 
But looking inward, this climate change guilt trip is really nothing more than an excuse to tax energy users and providers, and send the money to the U.N. to be distributed to third world dictators abroad. The goal? Increasing the political power of the Obama administration to all continents....i.e. Barack Obama-- president of the world!
 
Socialist International purports all the shop-worn liberal mantras: peak oil; co2 is a pollutant; we've reached the verge of irreversible climate devastation; and the U.S. is poisoning the atmosphere. And all this can only be "counteracted" by cap-n-trade. But why would S.I. wish to shrink the U.S. economy in favor of third world countries, such as Zimbabwe, or even Venezuela?
 
First, let's shed all the arguments about human-generated global warming.This brand new theory postulates a more plausible (and diabolical) presentation of the real underlying agenda of Socialist International, Carol Browner, Obama, and all the other enviro-marxists, They're all actually hiding within a "smokescreen", under the guise of saving the environment.
 
So why do they purport this Machiavellian masquerade? Lets officially brand it as, "The smoke screen theory". 
 
The foundation of this theory rests upon the conservative right always thinking, "You liberals  ARE really stupid, believing that man can change the climate".  But herein lies the brilliance--who are the ones ACTUALLY being stupid? 
 
One thing you cannot deny is that many liberals are decidedly brilliant, and politically astute about obtaining positions of power-- which begs the question..."What if these liberals actually realize that global warming via mankind is sheer scientific folly, but they're cleverly using it as a 'cover story' for obfuscating their real agenda, wealth transfer, and the worlwide consolidation of their political power.
 
Therefore, the smoke screen theory can be explained like this: These enviro-marxists use global warming as a way to hoodwink all the world from their true intent---cementing  cap and trade laws into permanent existence, which will produce giant sucking sounds of seemingly boundless money flowing to the government, via the environmental taxation of all the energy producers and energy users in the United States.
 
Its almost like a plot from the old "Batman" TV series of the mid 60's... "We environmentalists feign stupidity, and outsmart all those on the right who think we're the fools"...ha-ha!
 
The smokescreen theory is designed to turn the tables, and outfox the right..."Go ahead and argue with us, you foolish conservatives; we, the liberals, have the media on OUR side...we have the school children on OUR side; we have assumed the moral majority of an ignorant American electorate over to OUR side. And because of all this, we intend to keep it this way!"
 
"And beginning this January 21, we will get our climate change legislation railroaded  through congress, and tax the heavy industries, coal companies, and utilities out of existence; and then, put forth our green agenda. And you cannot stop us, because socialism is now mainstream".
 
So is the smoke screen theory sounding pretty clear now, or do we need some further explanation?

Socialist International, the people who feed us all this alarmist B.S., is treating Americans as if they are too foolish to know what the REAL political spectrum is about-- subversion of the capitalist system, and advancing the cause of socialism by whatever means necessary (i.e. artificial environmentalism to obtain political power over the entire world).
 
NEXT: let's introduce the future icing on the enviro-marxist cake--senate bill s1389; a bill to authorize a National Science Foundation Climate Change "Education Program". Look for it to be introduced first thing into the senate on Jan 22.
 
Of course any proposal with the phrase "education program"  sound innocuous enough, but what is even more interesting, Senate bill 1389A was authored by no less than His Highness, Barack Obam-0h.
 
And the nuts and bolts of bill 1389 requires the establishment of an education program to:
(1) broaden the understanding of the possible consequences of climate change,
2) apply the latest scientific discoveries to provide "learning opportunities"
for people (brainwashing);
(3) emphasize "actionable information" (more leftist brainwashing) to help people promote implementation of energy conservation, renewable energy, and greenhouse gas reduction.
(4) postulate potential solutions to the "problem." 
 
So who's going to pay for all these directives to fight climate change? WE will. How? The Obama administration will tax the coal companies, power plants, steel companies, and all of heavy industry according to their usage of fossil fuels; they will be required to buy carbon credits, and trade with nations that produce no energy or emissions .
 
"No business will be allowed to emit any greenhouse gases for free,” Obama declared. “Businesses don’t own the sky, the public does, and if we want them to stop polluting it, we have to put a price on all pollution.”

Perfect! Why has a politician not thought of this before? Only someone as diabolical as Obama could have thought of charging for pollution, and be clever enough to sell it to America.
 
Obama's plan would require all credits to be purchased at auction, rather than allocated by industry -- a move ensuring that all "polluters" pay for every ton of emissions released. It's also a move that would massively increase the political power of his administration and go along way toward international wealth redistribution to the third world--a cause Obama and Browner fanatically (but esoterically) have supported for many years.
 
And by appointing Browner to a White House post, Obama has at least implicitly endorsed an utterly radical socialist agenda for his administration's environmental policy.

The incoming chief executive stands at the very foundation of the smoke screen theory--environmental policies aren't really about protecting or preserving the earth, but rather expanding government power and limiting individual freedom.

This enviro-radicalism of the Chosen One could push the nation so far to the left, we will never again recover the right path to sound energy policy, and get back to the economic expansion America has always enjoyed, because of the freedom we once had from government restriction.
 
And with the huge, predictable price increases of energy as a result of this enviro-radicalism, everytime we fill up our tanks, or mail in our electric bills, it'll be us--not business-- who'll really be paying the so-called price for pollution.
 
The smokescreen theory will go along way explaining how a scientifically challenged American electorate supports Obama's green-leaning rhetoric- which is nothing but a half veiled attempt to implement a clearly ideological, leftist agenda.
 
This is all part of an even more hidden agenda-- an undeclared war on capitalism; and its implementation will significantly alter the fabric of American society, as we have known it for decades.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The next bailout? It may be the biggee of all time!

Posted by thekeenobserver on Friday, January 02, 2009 4:23:33 PM
 

Ah, for the good old days of the 50's on the island paradise of Cuba. Everyone is familiar with the segment  from the movie in "Godfather II", when violent Castro rebels in 1958, suddenly thwarted the grand casino takeover plans of Michael Corleone, and literally kicked all the capitalist pigs out of the country, including Cuban president Fulgencio Battista.

 

It was the triumph of a young rebel, exactly 50 years ago, when fiery Fidel Castro emerged from the jungles around Santiago, and declared victory in the island nation's civil war. And when George Bush leaves office, the revolution will have outlasted 10 American presidents, who all unsuccessfully maintained tough sanctions aimed at overthrowing Castro's Communist leadership.

 

But tempus fugit--time files when you're having a good time. So after 50 glorious years of  Castro's firing squads, political imprisonments, economic shortages, and a once-prosperous nation turned tropical socialist ghetto, people thought the communist party would become obsolete with the resignation of Fidel, in Feb 2008, 

 

At that time, president George Bush expressed hope that with new leadership, the island "paradise" of Cuba would move towards democracy; but cold water was quickly cast upon the notion when Fidel's younger brother, Raul was announced as his successor.

 

Recently, as Cuba marks the 50th anniversary of its socialist revolution, Castro's sibling-successor proudly hailed, "It is time to reflect on the next 50 years, when we shall continue to struggle incessantly," said Raul, speaking beneath the same Santiago balcony where his older brother Fidel declared victory half a century ago.

 

Meanwhile, the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, announced that, "In honor of the 50th revoliution's anniversary, the Cuban flag would fly permanently outside the tomb of our South American independence leader, Simón Bolívar". Yes, our good buddy Hugo is obviously pumped, and is going all out to commemorate the celebration.

 

And just like brother Fidel, Raúl Castro has continued Cuba's bellicose rhetoric against the United States, and suggested Cuba holds little hope for a change in relations in the next four years under the incoming president, Barack Obama. In his recent speech in Santiago, Raul warned Cubans that, "The enemy (America) will never cease to be aggressive, treacherous and dominant".

 

The 50th anniversary celebrations come amidst grim economic forecasts, after three recent hurricanes caused $10 billion in damages, and pushed up food prices. But will it be Obama to the rescue? Our new president-elect has announced his "new deal" for Cuba, promising to reopen negotiations, and lift severe restrictions on family travel and remittances to the island.

 

Presently the Cuban government is planning to celebrate its 50th anniversary "Prince-style"-- like it's 1999. Cuban's are encouraged to rejoinder in the great 'social achievements' of the last half-century, like public health care and the public education systems. But island officials admit that these services, although free, are badly frayed, and suffer from under-investment.

 

Other things for the population to "celebrate" include low production of nearly all consumer goods, and a looming demographic crisis-- low birthrates, a shrinking, unmotivated workforce, and growing elderly population. Big fun is on the horizon for Cuba after 50 years of lack and shortages, with no relief in sight.
 
But let's give the Cuban Commies a break; maybe they haven't been on the job long enough; and maybe a only a little more economic fine-tuning is needed. Like all good socialists, the Cuban power-elite will never admit they were wrong, and maintain only that more government programs and more time are necessary to correct the situation.

 

Today, many Cubans, with no other alternative, can only hope things improve. Despite all the free social services, the aging population wonders why these "freebies" have come at such a high price--the lack of basic civic, political and economic freedoms. And our dearly-beloved, departing president, George W. Bush, thought he could topple Cuba's socialist government with tightened sanctions, tough talk, and support for dissidents--but it hasn't worked.

 

But a hero may be on the horizon. Barack Obama will be the 11th president to deal with the socialist government in Havana, and he promises to slog along a different pathway--allow unlimited travel back and forth for Cuban exile families, and pursue direct diplomacy with the socialist government in power.

 

But why just play around with diplomacy and freed-up travel restrictions? Think big Mr. Obama-- think Cuban Communist bailout! After all, while everyone is talking trillions for this, and billions for that, do you think a cash-famished Raul Castro & company would turn down a $5-10 billion bargain basement bribe to literally take a hike to Venezuela, abdicate from rule, and hook up with their bosom-buddy Hugo? It would undoubtedly be an offer they couldn't refuse.

 

And such a deal! Not since William Seward paid $7.2 million for Alaska in 1867, if we bought (bribed) our way into Cuba, we'd be getting an equally sweet bargain; sugar cane plantations estimated in the millions of acres. And the falling price of bananas would make Barack the next great American consumer hero. And oh what fun it would be to see again all the incredible, chrome-laden American cars of the 1950s riding around the island. Maybe GM and the big 3 could get some ideas that the old cars were the stars, and go retro again.

 

And think of the boom to the U.S. tourist industry. Old junkets to Vegas would be out--and Cuban cruises around the island would be in. Americans would have a first-hand glance at  what 50 years of socialism have done to this once-prosperous island nation from its previous 400 year history.

 

Americans would experience all the accoutrements of  traveling Communist first class; people lacking electricity, food; and living in hovels. And if wasn't for the island's tropical climate, the Cubans would probably be freezing due to the lack of energy production. (In exchange for sugar, Cuba imports most of its fuel from Trinidad and Tobago). Yes, theCubans have much to celebrate indeed!

Cuba has a population in excess of 11 million, and although it is a soviet-style, centrally planned economy, with the exception of sugar, the island  imports practically everything else it needs. The tourism sector requires a regular supply of many consumer products, like ice cream and margarine, which are often in short supply. One can only wonder how a Baskin-Robbins, or Coldstone Creamery would do in downtown Santiago.

 Ah yes--the joys of Cuban socialism--or is it communism? But what's the difference? Either way, if you rebel against the government (ie. don't pay your taxes; or become a dissident voice), armed men in uniforms will forcefully accompany you to the nearest detention facility. 

 

Here is a slice-of-life, excerpt of a Cuban exile (who wrote to his cousin in Spain) of how he felt about his wondrous life growing up in Cuba:..."Born in the late 1950s, and raised in Cuba, I was fortunate to be able to leave in the early 1970s.  Ever since I departed from the Castro-Stalinist-Communist hell-hole, every single day of my life in exile from my patria (motherland,) has been permeated by my unflinching dedication to the cause of a free Cuba. May God Almighty grant all of those still captive within the island-prison, the blessings of a free, democratic and civil republic! We have suffered for far too long. Grant us Lord, our freedom from bondage, tyranny and oppression".

 

Today, the planned 50th celebration of the revolution is going full steam ahead. But with the Cuban economy in shambles, residents are preparing to mark the anniversary with low spirits; "There is no emotion" exclaimed a 40-year old female dance teacher. "We are lacking in everything". No question, despite the glossy attempts, the Cuban people know that even when Castro finally passes on, the communist party will remain, and life as usual will go on, with food lacking, a scarcity of jobs, and a nervous Cuban police force stopping anyone who acts suspiciously.

 

From a historical perspective, this all can be summed up in a nutshell: the basic reason why government programs (i.e. central planning) never work is the built in flaws of socialism; there is no motivation for anybody to accomplish anything. There is nothing wrong with government entitlements for those who truly need them, but they should be the exception; not the rule.

 

So what could possibly motivate someone to work harder for their government, when there are no personal rewards at stake? If our intellectually-absent President-elect Obama could only visualize that this is what institutionalized socialism always causes--class envy, shared misery, instead of the intended shared prosperity--would he feel any different politically?

 

Despite his good intentions, Obama has convinced Americans that the free market has failed them; and now, much of America could be headed down the socialistic path of a Cuba; "Yes, we need entitlements! We need government handouts"...that's the change Obama will bring to Washington.

 

Sadly, many class-envious Americans have been waylayed into thinking that they can't achieve wealth, they deserve more benefits, and confuse rights with government handouts, for providing their necessities: i.e. "Gimme more food stamps... gimme section 8 housing...gimmee free health care... gimmee extended unemployment compensation...gimmee free child care...gimme free college tution... gimmee-gimmee free everything! And I deserve it because thats my right!"

 

And now, instead of a strong leader like John F. Kennedy, who inspired people with the "we can" attitude, we are faced with the Chosen One, Obama, who stokes class-warfare, "We can't provide for ourselves because the wealthy have hogged everything!" And one only need to look at the Cuba of today to see where America may be headed after the completion of the second term of Barack Obama, whose presidency of 'big government for everything' may result in a Castro style socialist revolution of our own making.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »