header

header

Monday, April 20, 2015

The Crowning Glory Of Keynesianism


Readers of this publication will know that for some time, I’ve forecasted the creation of a new monetary system by which governments and banks gain total control over all monetary transactions.
On the surface of it, this may seem an impossible goal, as it would be so all-encompassing and would eliminate economic freedom entirely. Surely, it would not be tolerated. However, I believe that it’s not only relatively easy to create, but it will be sold in such a way that the public will see it as an absolute panacea to their economic woes. Only those who are far-sighted will understand its level of destruction in advance of its implementation.
It might transpire like this:

Part 1: The Currency

  • Any one of a number of triggers (decline of the petrodollar, dumping of US debt back into the US market, Europe defaults on its debt, sanctions backfire, etc.) causes a crash in markets.
  • Deflation kicks in.
  • The Fed creates massive QE to reverse deflation, ending in dramatic inflation and possibly hyperinflation.
  • Government declares a state of economic emergency, states that cash is (and has been)the problem and must be done away with for recovery to occur.
  • A new electronic currency is created, to be issued by banks.
  • All economic transactions of any kind—both debits and credits—are to be done through acurrency card (purchases as small as a candy bar or as large as a home; all credits, including wages, dividends, sales of goods, etc.).
  • Entire economic system becomes greatly simplified, as only the currency card (or smart phone) is now needed by anyone.

Part 2: Taxation

  • At this point, every transaction, no matter how small, is on record, so government can assess the cardholder’s income to the penny, without the need to file for income tax each year.
  • Government announces that the tax system is a mess and that it must be simplified to relieve the people of the burden. In future, tax will be taken by direct debit from the currency card account.
  • Government later announces that, as the annual filing is such a hardship on the average person, tax debits will in future be done monthly.
It would be easy to present the above as a boon to all citizens. Indeed, it might well be peddled as “the only possibility for a return to prosperity.” It will take a while for the fact to sink in that citizens have entered into a state of complete economic bondage to their bank and government, and that to operate outside the system is difficult in the extreme.
There can be no doubt that barter would become more common (whether legal or not), but virtually all other transactions would be centrally controlled and audited.
David Stockman, in a recent edition of Zero Hedge, stated,
Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff even argues in the daily paper FAZ that cash currency should be banned altogether. Central banks could impose negative interest rates more easily that way, he explained. Tax evaders and criminals would also find life more difficult. From this perspective, banknotes and coins appear superfluous, he said at a presentation at the IFO institute in Munich. Measures to spur the economy could be implemented more easily that way.
This, of course, is the concept detailed above, although he adds two nice touches. First, he suggests that negative interest rates are desirable; that cashless currency is the answer. He also adds that a new system will help to eliminate criminal behaviour.

Socialism Foothold

In 1936, John Maynard Keynes published his signature book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. It was an instant success with both socialists and governments around the world—the latter, because his new “economic principles” stated that governments should control the monetary system—full stop. It was music to their ears, and most governments have been devotees ever since.
Mister Keynes was, first and foremost, a socialist. Although he received his education in economics, right from the start, he treated economics as a philosophy, not a science. By his own admission, he sought to redraft the laws of economics to serve an unrelated end: the advancement of socialism. Like the best socialists, he believed that truth was irrelevant; all that mattered was the objective.
However, in recent years, we’ve seen a small rebirth in the popularity of Classical Economics. More and more people, observing the repeated failures of Keynesian Economics, have been crediting Adam Smith and likeminded economists as having had the right idea all along. After all, economics is the science of how money works, not an art form that may be altered at the whim of the theorist to fit some political preference.
And so, there are many (myself included) who are eager to see what we believe would be the well-deserved downfall of Keynesianism, as the debt-ridden, entitlement-driven economies of the world collapse under their own ponderous weight.
But this hope may well be premature. In my belief, there is a final rabbit in the Keynesian hat, and that rabbit is the electronic currency described above. And if such a currency could be sold to a gullible public in one country, it could be sold just as easily in other jurisdictions.
This being the case, it would not be much of a leap if the concept were to be discussed universally and many governments were to announce that an international electronic currency, issued by the IMF, would solve all the currency problems, including those of currency exchange and international trade.
For at least one hundred years, there have been those who have hoped for and worked toward a one-world currency. There can be no doubt that the push for such a creation would receive support at the highest levels, internationally. If so, daydreams of a return to Adam Smith or a realisation of the dreams of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek may, for the foreseeable future, be just that: daydreams.
As to what the overall effect might be, we might consider the words of uber-financier Mayer Rothschild:
“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”
Herr Rothschild knew whereof he spoke. This principle led him and his descendants to become immensely wealthy and powerful on an international scale.
An electronic currency leads directly toward the bondage of the people—directlyaway from freedom. As a hedge against such controls, diversification into hard assets such as precious metals and real estate might be considered. Just as important, assets held outsideany country that is increasing its controls might be a positive move.
The ultimate way to diversify your savings internationally is to transfer it out of the immediate reach of your home government and into something tangible. Something that cannot be easily confiscated, nationalized, frozen, or devalued at the drop of a hat or with a couple of taps on the keyboard—while retaining as much privacy as legally possible. Physical gold and silver stored abroad in a non-bank vault fits the bill.
Gold and silver have served as money for centuries and across many different civilizations. They have always been inherently international assets. There is nothing at all particularly American, Chinese, Russian, or European about gold or silver. Buying gold and silver is perhaps the easiest step you can take toward internationalizing your savings. The next step is to store your precious metals in a safe foreign jurisdiction.
Today it is easy and convenient to own physical gold and silver offshore in places like Singapore and Switzerland in a non-bank private vault. Find out how you can internationally diversify your precious metals by downloading this guide.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-20/crowning-glory-keynesianism

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-20/stop-presses-nobel-prize-winning-economist-slams-qe

Hillary Clinton Attacks Israel, Says They’re Conquerors Who “Deny Dignity”

Another Obama Policy Loving Idiot!

When it comes to foreign policy, it seems that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton have a clue what they’re talking about.
The former Secretary of State has been in the hot seat for her involvement in the Benghazi scandal for almost a year now, and one would think with that situation coming to a head, wisdom would guide her to think carefully before she speaks, as idiotic statements could damage her chances at the presidency in 2016.
It seems that Clinton has ignored that common sense bit of wisdom, by slamming the nation of Israel in her latest memoir, Hard Choices where she calls the Jewish nation an “occupying force in Palestine.”
Clinton recounts her time visiting the Middle East and being shocked at witnessing “life under occupation for Palestinians.” This seems to indicate that Clinton, a supposed raging liberal who lives, eat,s and breathes racial equality, has a bit of a bias against Israel.
According to Free Beacon, the former First Lady writes, “When we left the city and visited Jericho, in the West Bank, I got my first glimpse of life under occupation for Palestinians, who were denied the dignity and self-determination that Americans take for granted.”
It seems that Hillary Clinton shares President Obama’s anti-colonialist ideology, which sees Israel as “evil” since they’re an “occupying force,” making Hamas a group of rebels fighting for the noble cause of freedom.
A senior aid for a Republican senator stated that these comments should serve as a warning to Americans, that if elected, Clinton will continue the failed foreign policy of Barack Obama, one that favors terrorists and hates Israel, in an effort to gain the full support of the left.
It should be obvious, but Hillary Clinton is dead wrong on this one. Israel is not an occupying force. They are attempting to live peacefully, and have endured hundreds of rockets being launched into the most heavily populated areas of their country without taking military action.
FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE CLICK LINK
http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2015/04/16/hillary-clinton-attacks-israel-says-theyre-conquerors-who-deny-dignity/

[Video] What Judge Jeanine Digs Up About Hillary’s Past Will Sicken You !

Hillary for president…I DON’T THINK SO!! Hillary makes Barack Obama look like an honest , stand-up “citizen” in comparison. Unlike Obama doing his utmost to seal his records and wipe his true past clean, everything Hillary has ever done in her “career” is all out there for everyone to see. In this particular insatnce, I was actually sick to my stomach after I heard this story and listened to Hillary “laugh” about it.
It’s difficult not to adore Fox News’ Judge Jeanine Pirro as she’s always ready and willing to lay it all out on the table with no punches pulled. That’s exactly what she did to Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton just hours before her announcement video hit the Twitter scene.
Now that Clinton’s strategy of running on the “I’m a woman, so elect me because I have women’s best interests at heart” ticket is official, Pirro took a few moments to highlight a disgusting reason why that couldn’t be further from the truth — pointing to Clinton’s days an attorney when she defended a 41-year-old pedophile accused of raping a 12-year-old girl. 
Pirro rolled the soundbite of Clinton “BRAGGING” about her shady defense tactics in the aforementioned case in which she gave herself a pat on the back for her client’s ability to pass a polygraph test and proceeded to smear any credibility of the young girl.

Not only was Hillary “bragging it up” about getting the man off…she LAUGHED about it ! “You blame the victim and you laugh about it. And you want us to believe that you’re going to protect us?” Pirro said with anger.
I couldn’t agree more Judge !
Listen to Judge Jeanine tear Hillary a new one :

 


http://universalfreepress.com/video-what-judge-jeanine-digs-up-about-hillarys-past-will-sicken-you/

Arab TV Commentators Claim Obama Supports Iran Because His Father Was a Shiite

Commentators on two different Arabic television programs claimed that President Barack Obama is pushing a nuclear deal with Iran because his father, Barack Obama Sr.,  was a Shiite Muslim, and President Obama apparently wants the Shia-run government of Iran to be victorious in the region.



The commentators made their remarks on the UK channel Al-Hiwar TV on March 25 and on 4Shbab TV in Saudi Arabia on April 10; the segments were recorded and translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute TV Monitor Project (MEMRI).
“There is one thing we must not forget,” said Syrian writer Muhydin Lazikani on Hiwar TV.  “I am not peddling some theory, and I am not being racist. But Barack Hussein Obama is the son of a Shiite Kenyan father.”
“He spent much of his childhood in Mombasa, south Kenya,” said Lazikani. “I visited this very area, and I can tell you that it is mostly Shiite. All the childhood memories of the man who rules the White House are Shiite memories.”
“This is why the Iranian issue is so important to him and why he is so anxious for Iran to emerge victorious, and for Syria and all the countries of the Arab Gulf to be shattered,” said Lazikani.
President Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (1936-1982), was born in Nyang’oma Kogelo, which is in the southwest region of Kenya.  His own father, Hussein Onyango Obama (1895-1979), had converted from Christianity to Islam. Barack Obama Sr. was raised a Muslim but his son, President Obama, said at the February 2009 National Prayer Breakfast, “I had a father who was born a Muslim but became an atheist.”
rouhani
Hassan Rouhani, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and U.S. President Barack Obama. (AP)
On 4ShbabTV, April 10, Abu Muntasir Al-Baloushi, a London-based Iranian Opposition activist, said,   “Barack Hussein Obama is the son of a Shiite father.”
He then said, “There is no doubt that he is Iran’s lifesaver. Some people call him the Iranian lobby in America. He suffers from a peculiar complex. He believes that ‘wherever we go, the Sunnis are fighting us.’”
“So what is the historical solution?” said Al-Baloushi. “Shiite expansion is ready. So he imposed this Shiite expansion on Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan. Any wise enemy of Islam realizes that Shiite expansion is the best method to destroy Islam from within. Even America did not do what the Shiites have done in Iraq. Even the Zionist Jews did not do such things to the Palestinians.”
Al-Baloushi continued, “The Americans believe that they can fight the Sunnis – they call it terrorism. But this is not what they care about. They want to destroy the entire ideology. Shiite expansion is the best method to achieve this, and the Shiites are ready, because they have an ideology to that effect, they have the scholars, they have got it all.”
“So America has used them,” he said. “If I were in America’s place, I would use them too.”
Stanley Ann Dunham married Barack Hussein Obama Sr. on Feb. 2, 1961; their son, Barack Hussein Obama, was born on Aug. 4, 1961.  His parents divorced in 1964. Ann Dunham then married, in 1965, Lolo Soetoro, a Muslim from Indonesia. President Obama's biological father died in a car accident in Kenya on Nov. 24, 1982. His step-father, Soetoro, died from liver failure in 1987.
http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/arab-tv-commentators-claim-obama-supports-iran-because-his-father-was-shiite? 

Scientist Confesses: "Global Warming a $22 Billion Scam"

Imagine, for a moment, sitting at a prestigious steakhouse in Palm Beach, Florida, a hot spot for some of the most wealthy and famous — Donald Trump, Tiger Woods, Oprah Winfrey, James Patterson, Rush Limbaugh, and hundreds more.
And, imagine dining with a handful of men you’ve only read about. Some of them are worth millions, others published best-selling books, and some have held prominent positions at the White House.
In essence, you’re sitting at a five-person table of VIPs.
You’re about to take a bite of your New York strip when one of the men, a top U.S. intelligence agent, slams a 164-page document in the middle of the table.
This document, you soon find out, contains damning evidence that a network of politicians, corporations, and scientists have conspired together to promote the fear of “global warming” . . . despite evidence clearly stating no such “global warming” exists.
The motive: $22 billion per year.
To be clear . . . that’s $22 billion of taxpayers’ money . . . the amount that our government pays to stop the “global warming” epidemic.
That comes out to $41,856 every minute.
Or, to put it in perspective, that is twice as much as what our government spends on securing our borders.
Then, imagine this top U.S. intelligence agent turning to you, and asking for you to join him on a mission to out those involved in the “global warming” lie.
Doing so would cost a lot of money, a lot of time, and could cost you your reputation. But, pretending you never saw the document, and carrying on with your life, would allow the scandal to continue and actually put lives at risk.
So, imagine if you were at that table, and the scenario I just described happened to you.


'Global Warming' Is an Outright Sham
You see, John found evidence — buried right in the government’s own environmental studies — that destroys their argument for “global warming.”
Using their own data, John has proven, once and for all, “global warming” is a sham. And perhaps the most expensive — and lethal — sham in American history.
A sham that our government spends $22 billion a year financing. Think about that: our government spends $22 billion a year financing “global warming” initiatives.
Again, that’s almost double what the government spends on securing our borders.
Or, to break it down to real numbers . . .
That's $41,856 Every Minute!
But this is just the tip of the iceberg.
John’s research also uncovered a different looming cataclysm that will ruin every nation that’s not prepared . . . a calamity that has been accelerating for the last 17 years . . . and brewing for over 200 years.
This impending catastrophe is as natural as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. And just as unstoppable.
I’m talking about a tectonic shift in the world’s economies that will . . .
  • Send oil to over $300 a barrel
  • Cause food prices to triple and in some places make food completely unavailable
  • Lead to violence erupting in the streets of your suburban neighborhood
  • Cause governments to topple, nations to descend into chaos, and international wars to break out.
In the 164-page document John handed me, he went to great lengths to explain exactly how serious this crisis will be. It’s going to be worsened by the fact our politicians are bullheadedly ignoring it.
The result will be every American being blindsided . . . unable to see it coming because of Al Gore and his cronies preaching false dogma.
As I said before, I didn’t believe it either until I saw the evidence in John’s dossier. And even then, it took me hours of talking to John afterward to digest it.
John’s research has now been corroborated by 17 independent scientific individuals and organizations. These are some of the top scientific minds in the field of climate science . . . in the world.
But That Hasn't Stopped the Hostile Attacks...
When John retired, he had many allies and supporters in the government.
However, when he turned that same analytical approach Washington loved so much on Washington itself . . .
He became, in essence, their “public enemy No. 1.”
Let me explain.
As mentioned, in April of 2007, already into a comfortable retirement, John began examining some solar and environmental physics research (these are his hobbies).
The “unfortunate” discovery he made would make any honest American sick to the stomach. John immediately took the evidence and called his colleagues and fellow government insiders to alert them to the situation.
He even sent notices to the White House warning them of the crisis.
The response?
Silence.
Silence, and then rejection.
And every year since, John has continued to notify every state governor, every U.S. senator, the House of Representatives, state attorneys general, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Obama’s Science Adviser Dr. John Holdren, and Dr. Jane Lubchenco, then head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
You see, all of John’s “friends” suddenly “forgot” his name and number when he revealed the inconvenient truth about Uncle Sam’s most expensive sacred cow . . . and showed them solid, scientifically sound research that obliterates the idea of “global warming.”
At the Heart of John's Discovery Were Several Blatant Lies... Here Are 3 of Them
*Lie No.1: The World Is Getting Hotter . . .FAST!
You’ve heard how the earth is rapidly heating up . . . causing drought and mayhem.
For sure, the media jumps on the “global warming” story every time there is a heat wave and each time a hurricane hits the East Coast.
But how much has the world really warmed?
Well, according to NASA’s own data, the world has warmed .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979).
I think you would agree that a .36 degree increase in temperature over the last 35 years is hardly anything to get in a panic about.
Granted, that does mean the world is warmer, right?
The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . we’ve actually had temperatures DROPPING ever since!
Fact: We Haven't Seen Any 'Global Warming' for 17 Years!
The reality is this: The world is 1.08 degrees cooler than it was in 1998.
Just take a look at this chart from Remote Sensing Systems, which provides data to NASA, NOAA, and other scientific organizations.
If you’re like me, this makes a lot of sense.
We’ve had cooler summers and longer winters.
Again, take one more look at the chart above — global warming reversed its rise in 1998. In the dossier John handed me, he explains exactly why this happened . . . and what’s going to happen next.
But for now, just keep this fact in your back pocket: the case for “global warming” is dead in its tracks.
Lie No. 2: The Oceans Are Getting Warmer
“Global warming” proponents have said for a long time we’d see a heating of the oceans.
This proposition is necessary, since it means all those big chunks of ice are supposed to melt, killing off polar bears and causing states like Florida to get swallowed up by water.
In 2007, while accepting his Nobel Prize for his “global warming” initiative (and quietly pocketing millions of dollars), Al Gore made a striking prediction . . .
“The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely
      gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.
Fact: The North Polar Ice Cap Is Increasing in Size!

The arctic ice caps have increased in size by 43% to 63%.
It is seven years later, and recent satellite images show that not only have the icecaps not melted . . . but they’ve expanded in size by 43% to 63%.
Here’s what a Globe and Mail article had to say: “An area twice the size of Alaska — America's biggest state — was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice.”
I think we know who’s using actual science, and who’s fear-mongering their way to wealth and fame.
Since 2002, the ocean temperatures have fluctuated less than 1 degree Fahrenheit. There is no warming.
Again, there is nothing to get hysterical about here.
Lie No. 3: Scientists Agree — Humans Are Causing ‘Global Warming’ FAST!
You’ve heard for years how climate change has been caused by . . . well, you!
Al Gore and his liberal friends have stood onstage blaming you and your “gas-guzzling” car, standard four‑bedroom house, and the factory downtown.

Al Gore spreads “Global Warming” propaganda for his own profit.
Shame on you, right?
Of course, the hypocrisy of the claim is that Al Gore himself racks up annual electric and gas bills of $30,000, more than 20 times the national average.
Now, while I am all for keeping the environment clean (I recycle, drive a fuel-efficient car, and reuse materials), humans have not caused “global warming” . . . nothing can be further from the truth.
Indeed, “global warming” alarmists and their allies in the liberal media are famous for saying that scientists agree that man has caused “global warming.”
President Obama even tweeted on May 16, 2014, “97% of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” John Kerry, Al Gore, and a host of others have championed this statistic.
Shame on Them, Because That 97% Figure Is Completely Fabricated.
NOTE: I’ve shared a quick snapshot of the facts in John’s controversial 164-page document. Truth be told, John has 33 scientifically reviewed reasons that “global warming” is more than just a farce . . . it’s the product of bad, botched science. In John’s own words, the research in this document is “something you have not been allowed to hear for almost 20 years.” That is, the truth about our climate, the politicians manipulating the science, and the real key that controls our planet’s temperature — the sun.
As The Wall Street Journal reported, “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.”
When further review was done, it was discovered that a mere 1% of scientists believe human activity is causing most of the climate change.
In outrage, a petition was signed by more than 31,000 scientists that states “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
Indeed, even a founding father of the man-made “global warming” theory — Claude Allegre — recently came out and renounced his position by admitting, “The cause of this climate change is unknown.”
Fact: There Has Always Been, And Always Will Be Climate Change
The reality is simply this: The climate changes over time.
When Alexander the Great was conquering Persia, climate change was a big factor. And we all learned in high school that the “little ice age” that rocked Europe killed hundreds of thousands of people from the 1600s through the 1800s. Additionally, we know about the heat wave and drought that wiped out much of America during the 1930s. Thousands of people were dislocated in search of survival.
Were those events caused by man-made “global warming”?
Of course not.
And, the reality is, most scientists who advocate “global warming” today know mankind has nothing to do with climate change.
Remember: Temperatures have only risen .36 degrees since 1979 . . . and the bulk of that happened during the 1990s! We haven’t seen any warming for the last 17 years . . . in fact we have seen a drop in temperatures.


Evidence Leaked That the 'Global Warming' Faction Has Blatantly Lied.
You probably already knew somewhere deep inside that something wasn’t right about the “global warming” theory.
Sure, during the 1990s, we all noticed it getting warmer. But, to say that it is directly tied what humans are doing seemed to be a stretch, and, we have all noticed it getting a LOT cooler lately.
So it might not come as a surprise to say that “global warming” is a sham. But what does come as a surprise to many is the evidence of outright lying that is now leaking out of trustworthy scientific agencies.
Shortly after John exposed the truth about “global warming,” 1,000 emails and 2,000 documents from leading “global warming” scientists were found . . . revealing potential conspiracies, collusions, data manipulation, destruction of information, and even admission of flaws that were buried.
For example:
  • One leading scientist — Kevin Trenberth — admitted “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.” A travesty simply because they were worried about losing their government funding.
  • In another email, Dr. Phil Jones — a leading “global warming” advocate at the United Nations — admitted that he used “Mike’s Nature trick” in a 1999 graph to “hide the decline” in temperature.
  • And another study done by Stephen Goddard at Real Science revealed just how ridiculous “climate scientists” can get with data manipulation. Here is what he had to say: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models.”
There are several other documents just like these.
More recently, Professor Robert Stavins — who helped write the 2014 United Nations Climate Report — came out to Breitbart News . . . and revealed that politicians demanded he change and edit parts of the report to fit their needs!
In short, governments, and government-funded scientists, want to make sure that any “global warming” research published . . . will say exactly what they want it to say.
Now, everyone knows from their high school education that the No. 1 rule of doing scientific research is that it cannot be undertaken with an end goal in mind because you will only use the data points that support your end goal.
That’s not real science.
But that’s exactly what “global warming” scientists are doing! They are only using partial data . . . the data the supports their end goal . . . to make their point that there is man-made “global warming.”
So, we’re being told that the survival of our planet, of the human race, relies on tackling “global warming” . . . yet the whole thing is a sham.
But Why?
Why would this network of politicians, corporations, and scientists do such a thing?
Well, think about it.
Our federal government spends $22 billion on “global warming” research each and every year (twice as much as we spend on protecting our border!).
Again, that is $41,856 every minute.
If government-funded scientists came out and said “global warming” didn’t exist, their funding would be cut immediately.
But “global warming” has been kept on life support for another crucial reason: It has been a practical ATM for every in-the-know political figure.

The media is catching on to Al Gore’s lies, but he is not going down without a fight.
Al Gore, for example, has been one of the most vocally aggressive crusaders for “global warming.”
In 2001, before leaving office as vice president, Gore was worth less than $2 million. Since then, he has grown his wealth to $100 million . . . almost entirely by investing in a handful of “green-tech” companies . . . 14 of which received more than $2.5 billion in loans, grants, tax breaks, and more from the Obama administration.
The Telegraph reports Al Gore could become the “world’s first carbon billionaire” thanks to his investments in green companies . . . all of which benefit from tax dollars and government loans to “prevent global warming.”
And he’s not alone.
President Obama Has His Hand in the Cookie Jar Too.
You are likely familiar with the story of the failed Solyndra green energy initiative, which cost taxpayers $500 million; President Obama took a lot of flak for that.
Latest News Update

After accepting $1.25 million in campaign contributions,President Obama made sure to include his “global warming” plans in his victory speech: “We want our children to live in an America that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.”
But here’s a little-known side of the Solyndra story I bet you haven’t heard: Obama, in essence, used taxpayer money to finance his re-election campaign . . . by funneling it through Solyndra.

You see, when Solyndra fell on hard times, it passed into the hands of two large private equity investors . . . Goldman Sachs and George Kaiser. When $500 million in taxpayer money was given to Solyndra, both Goldman Sachs and George Kaiser benefited. Coincidentally, both have made contributions to Obama’s election campaigns adding up to roughly $1.25 million.
It doesn’t stop there.
  • In 2010, another federal loan of $400 million went Abound Solar. That resulted in a bankruptcy as well. But investors in Abound Solar seemed to do just fine . . . investors like billionaire heiress Patricia Stryker. Stryker has famously contributed $500,000 to the Coalition for Progress while throwing $85,000 toward Obama’s inaugural committee. It’s just a coincidence that the government handed a company she invested in $400 million just before bankruptcy . . . right?
  • There’s also A123 Systems, which paid one lobbying firm $970,000 to secure money from the government — and received $279 million in federal assistance. The CEO of A123 Systems went on to fund multiple Democratic senators and contributed to Obama’s campaign.
  • First Solar received $646 million in government loan guarantees, and has since contributed more than $180,000 to Democratic campaigns.
  • GE is notorious for spending tens of millions of dollars a year to “buy” green energy credits for its wind turbines and other green technologies — credits which helped the firm pay ZERO taxes in 2011.
There are a host of other examples of liberals getting wealthy off “global warming” initiatives just like these.
You can see why green energy is such a profitable business — CEOs and executives get to rake in millions of dollars, while politicians get lucrative donations for their campaigns . . . and scientists get all the funding they need to keep them going . . . all on your dime.
But here’s the cherry on top . . .
While $22 billion of our money is being redistributed every year to greedy scientists, politicians, and corporations . . .


The Full story at.....


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/MKTNews/Global-Warming-climate-change/2014/11/17/id/607827/#ixzz3XtlGO9wH
 


http://rightwingnews.com/democrats/united-nations-demands-us-give-1-billion-obama-promised-to-combat-global-warming/
 





Sunday, April 19, 2015

These Blue States Have Tried the Elizabeth Warren Model. Their Residents Are Fleeing.



Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren recently appeared on one of the late night talk shows, beating the class warfare drum and arguing for billions of dollars in new social programs paid for with higher taxes on millionaires and billionaires. In recent years, though, blue states such as California, Illinois, Delaware, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland and Minnesota adopted this very strategy, and they raised taxes on their wealthy residents. How did it work out? Almost all of these states lag behind the national average in growth of jobs and incomes.
So, if income redistribution policies are the solution to shrinking the gap between rich and poor, why do they fail so miserably in the states?
Day after day, the middle class keeps leaving California. The wealthy areas such as San Francisco and the Silicon Valley boom. Yet the state has nearly the highest poverty rate in the nation.
The blue states that try to lift up the poor with high taxes, high welfare benefits, high minimum wages and other Robin Hood policies tend to be the places where the rich end up the richest and the poor the poorest.
 
Ever feel like the only difference between the New York Times and Washington Post is the name? We do.
Try the Morning Bell and get the day's most important news and commentary from a team committed to the truth in formats that respect your time...and your intelligence.
California is the prototypical example. It has the highest tax rates of any state. It has very generous welfare benefits. Many of its cities have a high minimum wage. But day after day, the middle class keeps leaving. The wealthy areas such as San Francisco and the Silicon Valley boom. Yet the state has nearly the highest poverty rate in the nation. The Golden State, alas, has become the inequality state.
In a new report called “Rich States, Poor States” that I write each year for the American Legislative Exchange Council with Arthur Laffer and Jonathan Williams, we find that five of the highest-tax blue states in the nation—California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Illinois—lost some 4 million more U.S. residents than entered these states over the last decade. Meanwhile, the big low-tax red states—Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona and Georgia—gained about this many new residents.
So much for liberal policies creating a workers paradise.
One liberal economic think tank—the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy—recently issued a report on the states with the most and least “regressive” tax systems. The conclusion was that states should raise their income taxes on the rich to be more “fair.” Except it turns out that people are leaving the states that the think tank ranks as fair, and they are moving to the states the think tank ranks as economically backward.
The least “regressive” tax states had average population growth from 2003 to 2013 that lagged below the national trend. The 10 most highly “regressive” tax states, including nine with no state income tax, had population growth on average 4 percent above the U.S. average. Why was that? Because states without income taxes have twice the job growth of states with high tax rates. Unlike the experts at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, most Americans think that fairness means having a job.
Ohio University economist Richard Vedder and I compared the income gap in states with higher tax rates, higher minimum wages and more welfare benefits with states on the other side of the policy spectrum. There was no evidence that states with these liberal policies had helped the poor much and, in many cases, these states recorded more income inequality than other states as measured by the left’s favorite statistic called the Gini Coefficient.
The 19 states with minimum wages above the $7.25 per hour federal minimum do not have lower income inequality. States with a super minimum wage—such as Connecticut ($9.15), California ($9.00), New York ($8.75), and Vermont ($9.15)—have significantly wider gaps between rich and poor than states without a super minimum wage.
States are supposed to be laboratories of democracy, right? These laboratories are providing us with concrete evidence that Robin Hood policies don’t help make the poor richer, they make most people poorer. In other words, the blue states have tried the Elizabeth Warren “progressive” agenda and people are voting with their feet by fleeing in droves. The kinds of income redistribution policies that Warren and others endorse can only work by building a Berlin Wall so no one can leave—though I hope I’m not giving them any ideas.
dailysignal.com/2015/04/19/these-blue-states-have-tried-the-elizabeth-warren-model-their-residents-are-fleeing/?