Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange – the rest of the story

Obama Helped Fund Carbon Program Years Ago He Is Now Pushing Through Congress..Fox News

Don't you find it interesting that obama helped created the very carbon futures exchange he is now promoting and pushing though congress? Come on obama deserves some credit. When the American people wake up and catch on to the scam obama is working there will be no where for the "first black imposter president" from chicago to hide. Story Reports
.........................................................................................

Sourced From CFP (Canada Free Press) It’s All a Lie: Copenhagen, Gore, Obama
It’s All a Lie: Copenhagen, Gore, Obama
.........................................................................................

Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange–the rest of the story

Good news to know that the truth will always out–even when you’re Barack Obama.

“Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Program He Is Now Pushing Through Congress” is a FOXNews story by Ed Barnes. In short, “While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president.”

The charity was the Joyce Foundation on whose board of directors Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”

And that’s only the beginning of this tawdry tale, Mr. Barnes.

The “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Obama cohorts Al Gore and Maurice Strong.

For years now Strong and Gore have been cashing in on that lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.

Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as “the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.”

Gore, self-proclaimed Patron Saint of the Environment, buys his carbon off-sets from himself–the Generation Investment Management LLP, “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C., of which he is both chairman and founding partner. The Generation Investment Management business has considerable influence over the major carbon credit trading firms that currently exist, including the Chicago Climate Exchange.

Strong, the silent partner, is a man whose name often draws a blank on the Washington cocktail circuit. Even though a former Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the much hyped Rio Earth Summit) and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations in the days of an Oil-for-Food beleaguered Kofi Annan, the Canadian born Strong is little known in the United States. That’s because he spends most of his time in China where he he has been working to make the communist country the world’s next superpower. The nondescript Strong, nonetheless is the big cheese in the underworld of climate change and is one of the main architects of the failing Kyoto Protocol.

Full credit for the expose on the business partnership of Strong and Gore in the cap-and-trade reduction scheme should go to the investigative acumen of the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR).

The tawdry tale of the top two global warming gurus in the business world goes all the way back to Earth Day, April 17, 1995 when the future author of “An Inconvenient Truth” travelled to Fall River, Massachusetts, to deliver a green sermon at the headquarters of Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMTI). MMTI was a firm that proclaimed to have invented a process for recycling metals from waste. Gore praised the Molten Metal firm as a pioneer in the kind of innovative technology that can save the environment, and make money for investors at the same time.

“Gore left a few facts out of his speech that day,” wrote EIR. “First, the firm was run by Strong and a group of Gore intimates, including Peter Knight, the firm’s registered lobbyist, and Gore’s former top Senate aide.”

(Fast-forward to the present day and ask yourself why it is that every time someone picks up another Senate rock, another serpent comes slithering out).

“Second, the company had received more than $25 million in U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) research and development grants, but had failed to prove that the technology worked on a commercial scale. The company would go on to receive another $8 million in federal taxpayers’ cash, at that point, its only source of revenue.

“With Al Gore’s Earth Day as a Wall Street calling card, Molten Metal’s stock value soared to $35 a share, a range it maintained through October 1996. But along the way, DOE scientists had balked at further funding. When in March 1996, corporate officers concluded that the federal cash cow was about to run dry, they took action: Between that date and October 1996, seven corporate officers–including Maurice strong–sold off $15.3 million in personal shares in the company, at top market value. On Oct. 20, 1996–a Sunday–the company issued a press release, announcing for the first time, that DOE funding would be vastly scaled back, and reported the bad news on a conference call with stockbrokers.

“On Monday, the stock plunged by 49%, soon landing at $5 a share. By early 1997, furious stockholders had filed a class action suit against the company and its directors. Ironically, one of the class action lawyers had tangled with Maurice strong in another insider trading case, involving a Swiss company called AZL Resources, chaired by Strong, who was also a lead shareholder. The AZL case closely mirrored Molten Metal, and in the end, Strong and the other AZL partners agreed to pay $5 million to dodge a jury verdict, when eyewitness evidence surfaced of Strong’s role in scamming the value of the company stock up into the stratosphere, before selling it off.

In 1997, Strong went on to accept from Tongsun Park, who was found guilty of illegally acting as an Iraqi agent, $1 million from Saddam Hussein, which was invested in Cordex Petroleum Inc., a company he owned with his son, Fred.

These are the leaders in the Man-made Global Warming Movement, who three years later were to be funded by the man who was to become President of the United States of America.

If we follow the time line on where Obama was during the funding of the Chicago Climate Exchange, he was still a professor at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law, with his law license becoming inactive a year later in 2002.

It may be interesting to note that the Chicago Climate Exchange in spite of its hype, is a veritable rat’s nest of cronyism. The largest shareholder in the Exchange is Goldman Sachs. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley is its honorary chairman, The Joyce Foundation, which funded the Exchange also funded money for John Ayers’ Chicago School Initiatives. John is the brother of William Ayers.

What a flap when it was discovered that the senator from Chicago had nursed on Saul Alinsky’s milk, had his political career launched at a coffee party held by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and sat for 20 years, uncomplaining in front of the “God-dam-America pulpit of resentment-challenged Jeremiah Wright.

Folk were naturally outraged that the empty suit who would go on to become TOTUS was spawned from such anti-American activism.

But the media should have been hollering, “Stop Thief!” instead.

The same Chicago Climate Exchange promoting public rip-off was funded by Obama before he was POTUS.

Even as man-made global warming is being exposed as a money-generating hoax, Obama is working feverishly to push the controversial cap-and-trade carbon reduction scheme through Congress.

Obama was never the character he created for himself in the fairy-tale version in “Dreams of My Father”. He’s the agent of Change and Hope for cohorts making money down at the Chicago Climate Exchange.

The Barbarians are pushing at the gate of the Global Warming fraud, and to borrow a line from children playing Hide and Seek, Here they come, ready or not!

.........................................................................................
Obama Helped Start The Carbon Futures Offset Exchange In Chicago (Does This Suprise you? It doesn't me. Obama is a FRAUD)
.........................................................................................

How Goldman Sachs Will Fleece America Via The FRAUD OBAMA

The Green Bubble:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


(This article explains in detail how the imposter obama was at the ground floor creation of the climate credit exchange. It is not just millions that obama's fellow thugs will steal from Americans it is also American's freedoms. This is another plain example of obama minus the mask of the media creation. Money via the fraud scheme of obama, gore and goldman sachs is what its all about. Obama should be arrested in office for FRAUD and tried for TREASON!) Story Reports

Obama gave himself a B+ on his efforts to scam America. Of course he said he gave himself a B+ as president but that is what he really means. I would say he is almost correct. He should receive a good grade as a scam artist and imposter.

Obama said, "The biggest burden on me right now is that economic growth has happened, but job growth has not happened," Obama told Winfrey on the ABC special.

This is a bold face lie. Obama is a total failure in his efforts to "stimulate" the economy. Obama has only stimulated his democratic districts around the US with twice the "stimulus" funds as republican districts. Obama is a scam artist and thug. A liar.

Obama gives twice the amount of stimulus money to democratic districts through a formula yet to be disclosed to the public

The economics of state allocations

Stimulus Funds Not Targeted To States That Need Jobs

(The bulk of state funds were "spread" around but double to democratic districts. Remember obama said he wanted to "spread the wealth around" but he was really saying he wanted to pay off his cronies and democrate party people. Because of this I see no reason why obama cannot be impeached for this crime while in office. It is a crime to send funds in twice the amount to democratic districts. This is another Quo Warranto case. I hope Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon will also bring this obama administration crime to the attention of the DC Court.)

Of the $787 billion in ARRA, state governments will receive as much as $300 billion. The bulk of these state funds will be spread over four key programs:

* A $54 billion Fiscal Stabilization Fund meant primarily to stave off cuts in state education spending

* A $90 billion Fiscal Relief Fund meant to shore up financing for state Medicaid programs

* A $40 billion program to allow states to extend and increase unemployment insurance (UI) benefits

* At least $70 billion to fund transportation projects

Each program also includes a small portion to be allocated at the discretion of the executive branch.

(This is interesting. Its says each part of the stimulus program includes a "small" portion which can be allocated, or used as a SLUSH FUND, AT THE DISCRETION OF OBAMA. I would like to know how much is at the 'discretion' of obama and where the funds went.) Story Reports

.........................................................................................

Report: Democratic districts received nearly twice the amount of stimulus funds as GOP districts

By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
December 16, 2009

A new analysis of the $157 billion distributed by the American Reinvestment and Recovery act, popularly known as the stimulus bill, shows that the funds were distributed without regard for what states were most in need of jobs.

“You would think that if the stimulus money was actually spent to create jobs, there would be more stimulus money spent in high unemployment states,” said Veronique de Rugy, a scholar at the Mercatus Center who produced the analysis. "But we don't find any correlation."

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia is one of the nation's most respected economic and regulatory think tanks and has a Nobel prize-winning economist on staff. The econometric analysis was done using data provided by Recovery.gov -- the government website devoted to tracking the stimulus data -- as well as a host of other government databases.

Additionally, Mercatus found that stimulus funds were not disbursed geographically with any special regard for low-income Americans. “We find no correlation between economic indicators and stimulus funding. Preliminary results find no statistically significant effect of unemployment, median income or mean income on stimulus funds allocation,” said the report.

(Wow this means the stimulus funds didn't do what they were suppose to do nor were the funds distributed in a way to stimulate the economy. It is more evidence obama is a FRAUD) Story Reports


The Mercatus Center analysis also found that Democratic congressional districts received on average almost double the funding of Republican congressional districts. Republican congressional districts received on average $232 million in stimulus funds while Democratic districts received $439 million on average.

“We found that there is a correlation [relating to the partisanship of congressional districts],” de Rugy said. Her regression analysis found that stimulus funds are expected to decrease by 24.19 percent if a district is represented by a Republican.

“During the appropriations process, you're not surprised to see the Democrats are getting more money, but in this case a lot of the money we're looking at is going through HUD [Department of Housing and Urban Development], or Department of Education, Department of Transportation etc. and they're following a formula,” she said. “But the correlation exists, and not only does it exist -- when you look at how much money we're talking about, it's a pretty big deal.”

The analysis found that neither congressional leadership positions of local members nor presidential preference in 2008 were factors in stimulus allocation by congressional district.

Finally, the Mercatus analysis shows that a majority of the funds allocated went to public rather than private entities -- nearly $88 billion to $69 billion. While some of the money given to public entities may eventually filter down to the private sector, it's much less transparent how money given to public entities is spurring economic growth and job creation.


(Yes, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Education, Department of Transportation etc are following the "obama formula" of kickback or payoff slush fund money. All this should be investigated by congress but of course it will not be investigated as long as the democrates are in control. An investigation into why democratic districts were given twice the stimulus money via the obama administration formula should be a top priority in congress. This is FRAUD committed by a FRAUD.

(I want to know how the obama formula works. I want to see it. How complicated is it? The letter from the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank explains a little. ???

The letter equates economic need with a states expected stimulus share. How could it be possible for twice the funds to go to democratic districs? This would mean democratic districs have twice the economic need than republican districs have. This is a FRAUD exposed. The "need" seems to have been to equate democratic districs with twice the economic need for funds because they are democratic districs. This is the obama stimulus formula. If your a democrate you get twice the amount if not you get 50%.) Story Reports


The following information is from an "Economic Letter" the Federal Reserve Bank Of San Francisco Published on Apri 17, 2009.

FRBSF Economic Letter

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) was signed into law on February 17, and already its impact is being felt in state capitals around the nation. Governors and state legislators are incorporating expected stimulus funds into 2009-2010 budgets and a number of state public works projects predicated on ARRA funding already have begun. As states start spending these ARRA funds, the debate about their likely economic impact has taken on new life.

One question is whether federal stimulus funds are heading to those states best positioned to put the money to good use right away. That is, have the funds been allocated in a way that maximizes their potential impact on national economic growth? This Economic Letter addresses this question by comparing the degree of economic need in different states with each state's expected share of ARRA funds. Such an analysis is important in evaluating the likelihood that stimulus money will be spent effectively. While it is too early to tell whether the overall stimulus package will have its intended effects, this review suggests that, by and large, the distribution of federal stimulus funds is indeed tilted toward those states most likely to spend the funds quickly and effectively.

The economics of state allocations

Of the $787 billion in ARRA, state governments will receive as much as $300 billion. The bulk of these state funds will be spread over four key programs:

* A $54 billion Fiscal Stabilization Fund meant primarily to stave off cuts in state education spending

* A $90 billion Fiscal Relief Fund meant to shore up financing for state Medicaid programs

* A $40 billion program to allow states to extend and increase unemployment insurance (UI) benefits

* At least $70 billion to fund transportation projects

The money going to states is meant to reduce their need to raise taxes or cut government spending to meet their constitutional balanced-budget requirements. According to ARRA proponents, such fiscal austerity could intensify the contraction of the national economy (see, e.g., Romer 2009).

The total impact of ARRA money going to states will depend on how quickly and productively states use the funds. How a given state spends its ARRA allocation will depend importantly on two factors: the restrictions tied to the use of the funds and the state's budget position. For unrestricted funds, states facing more severe budget deficits will probably spend the money quickly. States in stronger fiscal health, however, potentially could receive more unrestricted money than they need to fund planned obligations and might save the excess by adding to their rainy day funds or transferring it to residents in the form of tax cuts. A good indicator then of how likely a state is to spend unrestricted federal funds immediately is its projected near-term budget deficit. I look at the relationship between state ARRA allocations and projected state budget gaps below.

For restricted funds, such as money earmarked for specific transportation projects, a different question is in order: Will these new public investments crowd out potential private investment, as some have argued (e.g., Becker and Murphy 2009), by drawing away productive resources such as capital and labor? The closer a state's economy is to operating at capacity, the greater the potential for such crowding out. Below I also analyze whether ARRA's transportation spending is expected to go disproportionately to states with the greatest idle productive capacity, which would reduce the potential for crowding out.

How are stimulus funds allocated to states?

The way in which ARRA funds will be distributed to states differs for each component of the stimulus package. For the $40 billion UI component, the federal government will almost fully reimburse each state's cost of expanding and extending unemployment benefits. Hence, these funds will be allocated roughly in proportion to state unemployment rates. The other three ARRA state programs cited above are allocated according to formulas specified in the legislation, though each program also includes a small portion to be allocated at the discretion of the executive branch. The Fiscal Stabilization Fund, which is meant to prevent cuts in state education spending, uses the simplest of the three formulas. Aside from a small portion set aside for incentive grants, program funds will be allocated to each state according to a weighted average of its total population and its school-age population.

The Fiscal Relief Fund piggybacks on the existing formula for federal government assistance to state Medicaid programs and has three parts. The first is a simple scaling up of the existing federal share of a state's Medicaid costs. Second, a so-called "hold-harmless" component is meant to offset cuts in federal support called for by the existing formula in states where per capita income grew rapidly in the last few years prior to the start of the recession. The third part provides for an additional increase in a state's federal Medicaid share in proportion to the rise in the state's unemployment rate during the recession. Taken together, the Fiscal Relief Fund's three components direct the most support to states that have experienced the most rapid reversals in economic fortunes, where strong pre-recession economic growth was followed by rapidly rising unemployment and expanding Medicaid rolls.

The Fiscal Stabilization and Fiscal Relief Funds are partially restricted. They are meant to enable states to maintain spending on Medicaid and education above minimum thresholds laid out in the legislation. However, once a state has met those minimum requirements, stimulus funds from these two programs allow the state to shift resources to other parts of its budget. For practical purposes, these funds are largely unrestricted.

........................................................................................

Lets not forget obama has the ability to payoff his thugs with the stimulus money because of the follwing provision:

"each program also includes a small portion to be allocated at the discretion of the executive branch."

This is money obama could send to the communist party or acorn. How did he use this money and how much? I would like to know wouldn't you? Story Reports

Republicans Can Stop Obama

By Fighting Obamacare On The Floor Of The Senate.

Posted by Erick Erickson (RedState)

Saturday, December 12th at 12:25PM EST

The Founding Fathers created a Republic, but 60 Senators are poised to take it away. With the pending disaster of the passage in the Senate of a bill nationalizing one sixth of the U.S. economy and our entire healthcare system at a cost of over $2.5 trillion, we are faced with a crucial question: are the Republican senators using every means at their disposal to stop this looming, tyrannical abuse of power? Unfortunately, the answer appears to be “no.”

The Senate, unlike the House of Representatives, has parliamentary rules and procedures that give the minority the ability to stall legislation. In fact, unlike the House, the minority have the ability to virtually paralyze the Senate. Doing so is not something we would want or expect for every bad bill that comes through Congress, but the proposed healthcare legislation is probably the worst piece of legislation ever considered by the United States Congress. It is the most intrusive, most damaging, most costly, most dangerous bill to the economic and personal freedom and liberty of individual Americans that Congress has ever considered. If there is any bill that deserves being stopped by shutting down the Senate, it is this one.

There are a whole series of parliamentary maneuvers that could be used by Republican senators to stop this bill. There is a hard backstop to the current process (Christmas). The Republicans’ goal should be to prevent Reid from passing the bill before that time. If he goes past Christmas and is forced to adjourn or recess, the momentum will shift in favor of those opposing the bill.

How could this be done?

To start with, they should stop constantly agreeing to “unanimous consent” requests from the Democrats. Senate Republicans, to date, have allowed Democrats, by unanimous consent, to process 10 amendments. The amendments that have been accepted – Democrat amendments – did not make the over 2000-page atrocity any better. The Republican strategy of trying to pass their own “message” amendments carries no message unless you consider “no strategy to kill the bill” a message. There are no amendments that could possibly make this bill a palatable piece of legislation – and any amendments the Republicans get passed that supposedly make the bill “better” may just make it easier for the Democrats to get final passage. If the Republicans want the news media to cover what they are doing to educate the American people even further about the atrociousness of this bill, they have to create drama on the floor of the Senate. And the only way to do that is through an all-out fight with no holds barred. They need to look like Braveheart, fighting to the end to save freedom. Because, in fact, it is our very freedom and liberty that is at stake.

The most powerful words in the Senate are “I object.” Senate Republicans should have been shouting those two words on the Senate floor early and often from the moment this bill was considered, instead of the complete silence we have heard – other than to constantly agree to conduct business through unanimous consent. Here are just a few ways those words can (and should) be used in a very effective way:

The rules of the Senate require that a quorum be present to transact business. A quorum is 51 Senators. In most instances, outside of roll call votes, there are no more than 4 Senators on the Senate floor. If a Republican Senator suggested the absence of a quorum, Democrats could not transact business on the bill. It is a common courtesy to allow the quorum call to be dispensed with, without requiring 51 members to show up on the Senate floor (to get 51 Senators to appear without a roll call vote is very time consuming). When the Democrats ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with, the Republican should immediately shout “I object.”

(I agree. Where in the you know what are the republicans? Good ole boys exposed!)

In 1988, when the Democrats were attempting to pass campaign finance reform, and Republicans refused to help them make a quorum, it took 53 hours for the quorum call to be dispensed with. If at any moment at least 50 Democrats are not on the floor, a Republican Senator could again suggest the absence of a quorum and start the process over again, causing huge delays in the legislative process being able to move forward.

No amendment can automatically or without substantial delay receive a roll call vote without every member of the Senate agreeing. Again, the Senate generally operates on collegial courtesy, but a $2.5 trillion courtesy is too much. Once an amendment is pending, it only takes one Senator to step in front of this freight train. If a Senator objects to ending debate on the amendment or having the amendment set aside, the majority must file cloture on the amendment. First cloture has to ripen and it cannot ripen until the next day’s session of the Senate, so that kills a day of the majority’s time. Assuming 60 Senators vote in favor of ending debate, the Senate is then required to spend 30 hours of its session time before voting on final passage for the amendment. Suffice it to say, if the Republicans had continuously objected from the start, the ten amendments they allowed the majority to process would have taken more days than Harry Reid has on the Senate calendar.

Senators have an obligation to protect the Constitution and the budget and points of order can be raised on both. Many constitutional scholars have pointed out that numerous bill provisions, particularly the individual mandate, are unconstitutional. Under the Senate’s rules, constitutional points of order are debatable. The Republicans should be constantly bringing up constitutional points of order, one after another, on every questionable provision. Reid would presumably be forced to file cloture on the points of order and another three days could be burned up on each one.

The healthcare bill violates § 425(a)(2) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of any legislation that contains an unfunded intergovernmental mandate in excess of $69 million per year. If the point of order is raised and sustained, a simple majority may vote to waive the point of order. But the waiver is debatable and thus would presumably require 60 votes to cloture the motion to waive. This would require them to produce 60 votes at a time when they do not have their deal wrapped up yet, once again burning up three days.

On every vote, including on constantly raised points of order, the Republicans should be objecting that the vote total is incomplete – the Democratic Chair will rule that it is complete and the Republicans then appeal and once again force a vote, delaying the process again and again.

The Republicans should be offering one amendment after another on all of their favorite issues such as guns, abortion, elimination of the death tax, ending the TARP program, and gay marriage in the District of Columbia. Nothing connotes trench warfare like non-germane amendments on hot-button social issues. When you look back at all of the great filibusters of past decades, they almost always involved non-germane, explosive amendments on contentious social and other issues. Republicans should be offering hundreds of such amendments on every topic and using the rules to force votes on every single one. And the Republicans should be forcing the reading of the bill and every single amendment, not consenting to waiving that requirement.

Some might argue that Republicans should not look “obstructionist.” But they are wrong – the vast majority of Americans don’t like this bill and don’t want it to pass. The Tea Party movement was the upheaval of millions of ordinary Americans who are scared and angry about the out-of-control growth of the federal government, federal spending, and the national debt. They want to see the Republicans obstructing passage of this bill and if they think the Republicans are not fighting with every tool they have at their disposal, then any advantage that the Republicans think they will get in next year’s elections from such a bill being passed will evaporate. Conservatives will mount challenges to what they see as weak Republicans, just like what happened in New York’s special congressional race, helping Democrats eek out wins. And other conservative will stay home (like they did in 2008) rather than support GOP incumbents who did not fight.

The view coming out of the Senate of the Republicans has the appearance of business-as-usual – colloquies, speeches, and unanimous consent agreements. It does not convey the sense of urgency that should come with an issue of this magnitude and it does not provide any assurance to the public, including most especially the conservative base that is the heart of the Republican Party, that Republican Senators are willing to do everything it takes to stop this bill. If they don’t starting acting forcefully quickly and immediately, not only will they allow the country’s future to be unalterably damaged, they will be hastening the end to their own careers in the elections coming down the road faster than they can imagine.

Finally, I often hear that Senators express frustration when we dare to tell them how to fight, and that their frequent refrain is “you just don’t understand how the Senate works.” Actually some of us understand better than they do how it should work (whether they agree with every particular parliamentary tactic described or not), and the current frustration they feel with us will be nothing like what they may feel if they don’t stop this bill at all costs and act to preserve our Republic.

“A Republic, if you can keep it.” — Benjamin Franklin


(Obama is a thug but we also have republicans that are doing the will of obama and not the people. It makes me sick to think these guys are so milk toast they can't stop obamacare.)

(Obama has said many times that obamacare must be passed or the economy will crash. A lie. He is saying this to cover his own rear end. I believe sometime in the future there will be an investigation into how he used the stimulus funds that were allocated directly to the white house. He could say he used them to pass the obamacare bill to stimulate the economy. Another lie. In reality he uses these funds that congress has given him to BUY VOTES IN CONGRESS. ITS A PAYOFF TO CONGRESS. A KICKBACK. A legal kickback they hope.)

Obama closed Chrysler dealerships to payoff his political cronies

.........................................................................................
Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon Lead Plaintiff James Anderer on Fox Business News Announcing The Case On Dec. 4th.

Why are many very profitable dealerships which fit Chrysler’s own profile for staying open, being closed instead?

Politics is playing a major role in determining which MOPAR dealers are being shut down and which ones are being allowed to retain their franchises. Apologists at HuffPo and other Obama fan sites dismiss this, but they won’t address the facts which have been brought to light by a relatively small but dedicated group of bloggers.

(Its the same obama pattern over and over, denial or not addressing the facts. Everyday I speak with at least one obama supporter who follows the same pattern their leader obama has taught them. Deny the truth, lie or don't discuss the facts. Closing the Chrysler dealerships is more than just politics it is criminal because as the evidence shows it was used as a way to pay off political debts etc. Obama is a THUG and he will operate as a criminal using the system as a shield.) Story Reports
............................................................................................
Chrysler dealers on the closed list offered evidence in court that most had sales figures and customer satisfaction ratings above the norm for all MOPAR dealers.

Zero Hedge, which had undercounted dealers who made political donations in their first stab at crunching the data, decided a new approach with less chance of misinterpreting the data was needed. Chrysler insists that it had established criteria for closing dealerships based on sales volume, price, customer satisfaction and service department performance. These criteria were incorporated into two Chrysler programs – Project Alpha and Project Genesis – for evaluating its dealers and deciding which ones would be terminated and which were allowed to hold on to their franchises:

“So in the event that retained dealers were not Genesis compliant while cut ones were, this would demonstrate that there was, in fact, more here than meets the eye.”

From the bankruptcy proceedings, the sworn testimony of a dealer in Little Rock:

On May 13, 2009, I received a letter from Chrysler notifying the Dealership that Chrysler had elected to “reject” our Dealer Agreement. I am obviously very familiar with the Little Rock, Arkansas dealer network and was surprised because both Cook and Crain, the only Chrysler dealers in Little Rock, were both rejected. Therefore, Chrysler’s action would, on its face, result in a complete lack of representation in a major American city. Since that would be a ludicrous result, one can only infer that Chrysler has a more sinister motive.

Because it is inconceivable that Chrysler will not have a dealership in Little Rock going forward, the only conclusion that one could draw is that, after review, the evidence in other markets in the region, that Chrysler now intends to “give” the Little Rock market to a Landers-related dealer.

Having reviewed the pattern of assumption and rejection of dealers throughout their region, I have detected a pattern: In every market where there is a dealership connected with former Penske Automotive executive Steve Landers, or his new automotive partnership with “Mac” McLarty (former Chief of Staff for President Clinton) and Robert L. Johnson (majority owner of the Charlotte Bobcats), the competitors are rejected.

In the Little Rock, Landers Chrysler Dodge Jeep is located far out of town in Benton, Arkansas. Nevertheless, the two Little Rock dealers, Cook and Crain were rejected.

In the Fayetteville, Arkansas area, Landers-McLarty Dodge Chrysler Jeep is located far out of town in Bentonville, Arkansas. Competitors Springdale Dodge Chrysler, Steve Smith County Jeep and Jones Brothers were all rejected.

In the Shreveport, Louisiana market, Lee’s Summit Dodge Chrysler Jeep (a Landers McLarty dealership) is located in Bossier City, Louisiana. Both competitive dealers, Claude de Beaux in Vivian, Louisiana and Greater Birmingham Dodge
Chrysler in Shreveport were rejected.

In the Springfield, Missouri market, Tri-Lakes Motors (a Landers-McLarty dealership) is located in Branson, Missouri. Competitors Heritage Chrysler Jeep in Ozark, Missouri and Ramsay Motor Company in Harrison, Arkansas were rejected. A pattern seems to be emerging. Everywhere there is a Landers-McLarty dealership, Chrysler has rejected the competition.

In the Huntsville, Alabama market, Landers McLarty Dodge Chrysler Jeep, is located in Huntsville. Competitor Cloverleaf Chrysler Dodge Jeep was rejected.

Favoritism and cronyism towards a preferred dealer group is not a valid exercise of business judgment.

(Favoritism and cronyism is how obama operates. He has established the stimulus slush fund to keep his thugocracy in line. He used the tarp money in an illegal way when he closed Chrysler dealers that should have not been closed. He closed them for his own dark reasons through his czar controlling chrysler. I hope Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon will expose the FRAUD obama in their lawsuit for the Chrysler dealers. I want to see the media creation exposed as the total imposter he is, barry obama or whoever he is.)Story Reports

Bitch About Obama

Lead Plaintiff James Anderer On Fox News

Remember the "stimuls fund" is a real political slush fund. It is a trillion dollar slush fund under the control of obama to buy votes and control America though corruption. This is what the mass state run media is not telling the public. This is what obama does not want you to know. Imposter Detector

........................................................................................
........................................................................................
A Chrysler Dealer Fights Obama's Destruction of the American Dream

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: All right, now, Obama, Carol Browner. This benevolent administration wants to "work with the auto companies," right? Last night Neil Cavuto interviewed Jim Anderer. He is a Chrysler dealer who's been shut down. Cavuto said, "Long Island, New York, Chrysler dealer Jim Anderer says that they're shutting them down even though his dealership is making them a lot of money. They shouldn't be shutting you down, Jim. What did they say in their letter to you?"

ANDERER: They won't give us a solid explanation. They come up with all these reasons, but none of them seem to make sense.

CAVUTO: Well, what were the reasons?

ANDERER: Well, they'll say they want to combine all the stores, or they say that the dealers cost the manufacturer money to keep in business. And all of these might be true in some cases, but in the dealers that they cut, there seems to be no cohesive way that they did it. There was no process that you could put your finger on and say, "Hey, we cut 25% of the lowest performing dealers." They didn't do that, okay? Nobody will give us a real clear explanation or formula that they came up with.

RUSH: Now, why do you think that might be? I mean, I could only hazard a guess here. Do you think that the Obama administration -- "working with" Chrysler, heh, heh, heh; working with the automobile manufacturers, working with the dealers -- they're just randomly taking a look at a list and saying, "Eh, we don't need this one in Long Island, chop it. We don't need that one in Portland, chop it. We don't need that one in San Antonio, chop it"? Do you think they're doing that, or do you think maybe...? I just throw this out there as a possibility. Do you think maybe Obama and his administration are targeting dealerships that happen to be run and owned by Republicans? I don't know this.

I'm being led to speculate because Mr. Anderer says he doesn't know why his high-performing dealership was shut down, and he can't find a formula. He can't find a coherent plan to explain why they're shutting down successful dealerships in the Chrysler network. (interruption) Well, you joke about it being about penalizing success, but what the hell... That would be the theme of this administration: "We're going to penalize success." By the way, coming up later in the program, the details of this: how many of you are paying your home mortgage on time and have been, and have learned that you are also going to be subsidizing people who shouldn't have gotten a mortgage in the first place? (interruption) All right. Snerdley raises his hand.

How many of you pay your credit card bills on time? How many of you pay them off every 30 days? Guess what? You're going to be penalized. People who pay off their credit cards in 30 days, there's a series of things that are going to happen to you. You know, you get a lot of perks and a lot of points and frequent flier miles and maybe cash-back privileges and so forth. All that, or a lot of that that, is going to be eliminated. In addition they're going to start charging you interest from the day you make the purchase rather than 25 or 30 days after you make the purchase. You know why this is being done? I just said that even for those of you who pay off your credit cards in 30 days, to escape any interest or finance charges, some of these companies are going to start charging...

I don't know the names of which ones yet but some of these finance companies and banks that run credit cards, are going to start charging interest on your purchase from the day you make the purchase, not give you a three-week or four-week grace period before they start the finance charges. Now, do you know why they're doing this? They're doing this to help you subsidize the people that don't pay, the people that run late, the people that don't pay their bills on time. And it's going to lower their interest rates. Now, you think that we joke when we say this is an attack on achievers? That this administration is targeting the achievers? You pay your mortgage on time; you're going to subsidize those who shouldn't have been given one in the first place.

You pay your credit cards off on time -- even if you pay them off on time with the minimum payment -- you're still going to have additional payments attached so that the people who are delinquent have an easier time of it. This is a theme of this administration. This is just another way of redistributing wealth, and this is a way that is hidden, and I doubt that too many people are going to find about it 'til the practice is implemented and you start getting your bills. We have some more sound bites here with Jim Anderer, the Chrysler dealer out on Long Island. Cavuto said, "Well, look you think they have it out for the personally, Jim? If you can't find out why they're shutting you down."

ANDERER: No, no, no. But I think there is a lot of favored dealers, there is some collusion.

CAVUTO: Do you know unequivocally of dealers who are pathetic, who are not getting it done, who have been saved?

ANDERER: Yes.

CAVUTO: Can you name them?

ANDERER: Yes. I -- I don't want to do that because, you know, a lot of these guys are friends of mine. But, you know, the numbers are there. The numbers reveal that. Okay? Right on Long Island, there's some guys who really shouldn't be there. But I'm not going to reveal their names.

RUSH: So Cavuto says, "Okay, so this doesn't work for you, right? You're done?"

ANDERER: This is insanity. The government is stealing my business. Well, I cannot accept that as a patriotic American. I was raised in this country to believe that if I work hard and I achieve what I was going after -- and I did! I did it! I got it, and now all of a sudden because, you know, we have a president who pushes Chrysler into bankruptcy and puts all of the UAW workers out...? Didn't have to. Maybe some would have to go out but not all of them, okay. This doesn't happen in America. This is still America, I think. I mean, this isn't Stalinist Russia. This is not Nazi Germany where the troopers say you're out and their buddies are in. That's what I'm faced with.

RUSH: That's a Chrysler dealer, folks, Jim Anderer in Long Island, comparing what's happening to him to Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany. He believed in the American dream. He went for it; he got it. Now they want to take it away from him. And this is why more and more people think they're not safe, that if the government targets them and their wealth -- the things that they have achieved -- that they're going to have it taken away from them, under some auspices of goodwill for everybody else. Now, this is one segment here, but this is the Chrysler dealers. I know of a dealer out in Portland, and the same thing has happened to him, a leading dealer. They're being shut down and they're being left to eat the inventory that they have on their lot. Furthermore, the dealer in Portland was told some months ago, "Please take additional inventory from the factory. You're going to be okay. We'll back you up." They did it, and they're saddled now with inventory that they're not going to be able to sell that's gonna wipe 'em out financially. All brought to you by the Obama administration.
END TRANSCRIPT

A Chrysler Dealer Fights Obama's Destruction of the American Dream

..........................................................................................
Some Comments:

Many of the families who were put out of business by Obama are some of the wealthiest and oldest in the US. We keep asking where is our “Soros”. It may be we don’t have “one” but many; a group of people who spent decades competing against one another, now combining their resources.

Under Obamacare You Will Lose Your Private Health Insurance

We are being sold into slavery via congress and the obama stimulus slush fund.
(Have you noticed how obama is buying off senators and congressmen and women with the stimulus slush fund? Our freedoms are on the auction block and obama is buying votes using his stimulus slush fund. Americans are slowly becoming slaves to the current congress via barack obama. This is the real story. A crisis was created to create a massive slush fund for obama to use to buy votes to push his communist agenda through congress and control the country. This is what obama is all about. This is the real obama. There are enough crooks in congress willing to take funds for their district to sell their vote to obama. This are slick people and traitors who should be arrested for treason. The conduit for the treason is the state run media, nbc,cbs,abc,pbs etc. An additional sad fact is most people don't give a rat_s ass about their own freedom or country.) Story Reports
.........................................................................................

By Robert Tracinski

Forget about abortion. Of course the left will accept restrictions on funding for abortion, because they want to keep moderate Democrats on board for the goal they know is really important: giving the government a dominant role in health care. Everything else is just details, and funding for abortions is an issue to which the left can return at leisure later on-once government is firmly in charge of everything.

And don't bother debating the "public option," either, because it's already dead; enough Democratic senators have come out against it. But Harry Reid is all too happy to have a debate over the public option so he can make a show of "compromising" and giving it up. And while we're having that fake debate, he's hoping that we won't be challenging everything else in the bill.

So let's get straight what the real essentials of the bill are-and how disastrous they are.

Three provisions constitute the vicious heart of the Democrats' health-care overhaul.

The first is "guaranteed issue" and "community rating." This is the requirement that insurance companies have to offer coverage to people who are already sick, and that they be limited in their ability to charge higher rates for customer who pose a higher risk. The extra expense to the insurance companies of covering people with pre-existing conditions will get passed on to existing customers in the form of higher premiums. But why spend years paying these inflated premiums for insurance you're not using, when you can get exactly the same benefits by waiting until you actually fall ill? The obvious result is that million of people, especially healthy young people, will quickly realize that there is no reason to buy health insurance until they get sick.

Rather than increasing the number of insured by making health insurance more affordable, this bill makes health insurance more expensive and increases the incentive to simply drop your insurance until you need someone to pay for your medical bills. It is an attempt to turn health insurance into what the left really wants: another welfare program in which everyone is entitled to free benefits, mandated by the government. But this would wreck private health insurance, making the whole industrial financially unsustainable.

Following the usual pattern of government intervention, the health-care bill offers another intervention as the solution for the problem created by the first. The "individual mandate" requires everyone to buy health insurance and subjects us to a tax if we fail to do so. But this is an especially onerous new tax, the first tax not tied to any kind of income or activity. It's not a tax on stock-market profits, say, or a tax on buying cigarettes. It's just a tax for existing.

So fearing a public backlash, Congress didn't have the guts to make this new tax very large-only $750. Yet actual insurance can cost more than $3,000 per year-and as we shall see, this legislation goes out of its way to drive up those rates by mandating more lavish coverage. So we end up getting the worst of both worlds. This provision won't actually drive anyone to buy health insurance and prop up the risk pools for those who are insured. All it will accomplish is to create a brand new form of tax.

But the biggest power-grab in the bill is the government takeover of the entire market for health insurance. The bill requires all new policies to be sold on a government-controlled exchange run by a commissioner who is empowered to dictate what kinds of insurance policies can be offered, what they must cover, and what they can charge.

Right now, your best option for reducing the cost of your health insurance is to buy a policy with a high deductible, which leaves you to pay for routine checkups and minor injuries (preferably from savings held in a tax-free Health Savings Account) but which covers your needs in catastrophic circumstances-a bad car accident, say, or expensive treatment for cancer. This is the kind of coverage I have.

But the health-insurance exchange is intended to eliminate precisely this kind of low-cost catastrophic coverage. Its purpose is to force health-insurance companies to offer comprehensive coverage that pays for all of your routine bills-which in turn comes at a higher price. So under the guise of making health insurance more affordable, this bill will restrict your menu of choices to include only the most expensive options.

So there we have the real essence of this bill. It restricts our choice of which insurance to buy and pushes us into more expensive plans. At the same time, it destroys the economic incentive to purchase insurance in the first place and replaces insurance with a free-floating tax on one's very existence.


When you understand what this bill does, you can see why the Democrats would be happy to compromise and drop the public option-for now. This bill so comprehensively wrecks private health insurance that pretty soon a "public option" will seem like the only alternative, and they will already have put into place one of the new taxes needed to pay for it. If the left's goal is to impose socialized medicine in America, this bill does it in the most callous and destructive way possible. It smashes private health care-then leaves us stranded in the rubble, at which point we will be expected to come crawling back to the same people who caused the disaster and ask them to save us.

That is the final and perhaps most compelling reason to kill this bill: the sheer arrogance of the whole enterprise. It is the arrogance of stampeding an unwilling public toward a monstrous 2,000-page piece of legislation while admitting that it still has huge problems, but promising that it will all somehow be fixed later on. It's the arrogance of selling us a bill that expands government spending by hundreds of billions of dollars while telling us that it will reduce the deficit. It is the sheer unmitigated gall of appointing a bureaucrat to run a government-controlled insurance market that takes away all of our health choices-and then calling this bureaucrat the Health Choices Commissioner.

That's the kind of government arrogance that has to be smacked down hard, and that alone is reason to demand that your senator reject this vicious bill in its entirety.
Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and TIADaily.com.
........................................................................................

(This commissioner remember is under the control of Obama. I will say that this plan is very similar to what hitler did in germany to gain complete control of the people. Obama is no different. He is a modern day hitler. He is hell bent on destroying America and controlling every aspect of your life through his obamacare "health plan" which should be called a death plan. In reality it is a death plan for millions. Obama through the "health commissioner" will choose who gets health care. Obama will choose who lives or dies in effect. Let there be no doubt about what I think. I believe obama is a communist taking orders from his communist buddies in china and russia.) Story Reports

Al Gore Is CRAZY

Crazy al gore lies again.

Gore will say anything and do anything to promote global warming because he stands to gain millions from selling carbon credits on the chicago futures exchange. It doesn't matter to him if its fact or not. He thinks people will believe anything he says. He is similar to the fraud obama because he is just promoting himself. Gore and obama are state run media creations. They are both frauds. Gore and obama are retards when it comes to thinking on their feet. They depend on the state run media to coverup for their lack of ability to think in real time. Both are media dummies.

Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.