Hypocrisy In Action: Corralling the Cattle

So they pass this Consumer Protection bill in Congress, the President signs it and now it's law. I see some glaring inconsistencies in logic here, and I'll tell you why. They also want to raise taxes on energy companies, which in turn will raise prices for consumers... drastically. How is that for protection? Now along comes this Livable Communities Act which will cause every homeowner, business owner and landlord to conform to the new energy efficiency standards inherent in the bill. New energy efficiency standards meaning, new windows, insulation, roofing, etc. for the already cash strapped citizens of America. Check it out for yourself, it is Senate bill 1619. Who do you suppose we have to thank for this Socialist garbage? Why, the Progressive Democrats, that's who. Most particularly, Senator Dodd, one of the most corrupt members of Congress out there. Call his office in Washington and ask him about Countrywide, I'm sure he'd be happy to talk to YOU about it.

I view these new energy efficiency standards to be a mandate on consumers to provide a windfall in profits for the Green initiative. How could it be anything else? Same reason Obama put the oil drilling moratorium in place, same reason they will raise taxes on energy companies and it's the same reason why they want their Cap & Trade so bad they can taste the carbon.

CAP/TRADE = Center for American Progress Taking Radical Action to Destabilize the Economy.

Just a little fun with acronyms I had yesterday. I think I'm clever. But I digress...

This Livable Communities Act goes so much further than mandating you have super-ultra-spiffy-quadruple-payne windows. The bill is all about making sure that where you live, work, shop, and recreate (procreate, if it's allowed?) are all centrally located in urban areas and within walking distance of one another. For the express consideration of what are to be called "Green Spaces". Their whole intent, it seems, is to corral, confine and control the citizens of this country. Like an urban internment camp for us dirty humans.

Don't believe me? Take a look, direct from the bill itself.

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are--

(1) to facilitate and improve the coordination of housing, community development, transportation, energy, and environmental policy in the United States;

1.) This is a consolidation of power. By enacting this law, housing, community development, transportation, energy, and environmental policy will be merged under this new Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities.

(2) to coordinate Federal policies and investments to promote sustainable development;

2.) To funnel the redistribution of wealth into funding their model of conformity. Fun!

(3) to encourage regional planning for livable communities and the adoption of sustainable development techniques, including transit-oriented development;

3.) Regional planning. This is scary. They're planning to cram you into a "livable" space, the development of which is subject to change at any time the Government sees fit. But you'll at least be close enough to public transportation to make your commute to work easier. Heck, the monorail may just go right THROUGH your "livable" space. Now that's convenience.

(4) to provide a variety of safe, reliable transportation choices, with special emphasis on public transportation and complete streets, in order to reduce traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and dependence on foreign oil;

4.) This is a two parter.

a.) Safe, reliable transportation choices, with SPECIAL emphasis on public transportation. Safe? Ever sat next to a crazy or violent, or crazy AND violent person while riding public transportation? You should try it. You haven't lived until you've almost died riding public transportation. I suppose you'll be safer with the new "Open Society" security force on board though. (SS is just too... passe, cliche... we'll call them the OS instead. )

b.) Complete streets. This one requires a definition. Also provided in the bill.
"The term ‘complete street’ means a street that enables all travelers, particularly public transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians (including individuals of all ages and individuals with disabilities), and motorists, to use the street safely and efficiently." This is massive and will cost more than our debt buyers in China will permit. But I suppose the Democrats are counting on all that profit from their Green initiative. Of course they are, that's what rounds out the rest of number four... "in order to reduce traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and dependence on foreign oil." If they really wanted us to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, they would allow us to drill for it at our leisure.

(5) to provide affordable, energy-efficient, and location-efficient housing choices for people of all ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities, and to make the combined costs of housing and transportation more affordable to families;

5.) Affordable AND energy efficient? That's an oxymoron. Energy efficient appliances, windows, doors, insulation, etc. are expensive to purchase and install. But I suppose some members of Congress (Dodd) would know little about such trivial simplicities. (Psst... because they're doing it intentionally to pick your pocket and fill their own). "Location-efficient... to make the combined costs of housing and transportation more affordable." This assumes you don't have to commute accross town or to a differnt city for work, as some residents of New Jersey do while working in New York., or residents of Wasilla who work in Anchorage. But the important thing to notice is their inclusion of these particular demographics, "for people of all ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities", as if this new housing choice won't be much of a choice at all.

(6) to support, revitalize, and encourage growth in existing communities, in order to maximize the cost effectiveness of existing infrastructure and preserve undeveloped lands;

6.) Sounds like they want to cram us all in high-rises like the Japanese so they can "preserve undeveloped lands". News Flash: Without developing land, food doesn't get grown, products don't get made, houses don't get built, people don't have jobs and then starve to death like those in Communist Russia under Stalin.

(7) to promote economic development and competitiveness by connecting the housing and employment locations of workers, reducing traffic congestion, and providing families with access to essential services;

7.) Is this some kind of mandate for businesses to provide housing for their workers? Or are they saying you'll be working so many hours you'll have to sleep at the job (not sleep ON the job). "Connecting housing and employment locations of workers". Does this also mean now that your work will tell you where to live? Or will the Government now tell you where to work? Or will the Government just cut out the middle man and be instructing you on BOTH? Well, at least they promise to provide "access to essential services". I guess they have to with their new "complete streets". Maybe that part was implied?

(8) to preserve the environment and natural resources, including agricultural and rural land and green spaces;

8.) Apparently this part is for non-humans. Preserve rural lands? I guess all you people who live in rural areas are gonna have to sheep on down to the city now ya'hear? Can't be outside one o' them "livable communities". Can't be muckin' up the "green spaces" with yer human yuck. Here's a wake up call.... YOU are a natural resource, YOU come from the Earth just like the trees, rocks, oil and soil. Don't for one second believe the hype of this global warming scam and green extortion. Don't give in, don't give up.

(9) to support public health and improve quality of life for the residents of and workers in communities by promoting healthy, walkable neighborhoods, access to green space, and the mobility to pursue greater opportunities.

9.) Only if you live in Shangri-la-la-land. Seems to me, you cram that many people on top of each other and restrict their access to free, open and rural lands, you will have serious problems. Disease (pandemic), violence, looting, starvation, unemployment, corruption, etc., no matter how much "access" you give them to "essential services" in "healthy, walkable neighborhoods".

The Government can't provide for you, nor should you expect them to. Government should get the hell out of your way. Here are a few applicable quotes from President Calvin Coolidge.

"After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world."

"All growth depends upon activity. There is no development physically or intellectually without effort, and effort means work."

"Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong."

"Duty is not collective; it is personal."

"Economy is the method by which we prepare today to afford the improvements of tomorrow."

Man they just don't make 'em like THAT any more. I would vote for THAT guy. I know, they're great... there are just a few more.

"Industry, thrift and self-control are not sought because they create wealth, but because they create character."

"No enterprise can exist for itself alone. It ministers to some great need, it performs some great service, not for itself, but for others; or failing therein, it ceases to be profitable and ceases to exist."

"Patriotism is easy to understand in America. It means looking out for yourself by looking out for your country."

Thanks for reading.

New Ideas?

Every time I hear Obama talk about Republicans he accuses them of not having any "new ideas". What I find interesting, is that Obama is pushing an agenda that celebrates an idea that is over 150 years old, and has ALWAYS been a failure.

"Throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing the common good" - Ayn Rand

The "common good" or "general welfare" is what Obama has advocated from day one. His form of "Hope" and "Change" are born out of a philosophy that produces chains and shackles. You have only to read the bills coming out of a Progressive Congress to know that. The rhetoric while the cameras roll are fluff for the ignorant masses. Those who only pay attention to soundbites or get their "news" from the Daily Show or Colbert Report. But the demagoguery is what is truly appalling. It's only a matter of time before Obama starts labeling Republicans as racists, bigots or fear-mongers like his disciples at the NY Times, Huffington Post, or Comedy Central.

Do your homework on Collectivism. Read F. A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom". You will find that your freedom is fragile and requires some strong defense. The "central planning" of Collectivism will ALWAYS fail.

Here we go again!

Oil rig, explosion, Gulf of Mexico.... it's like deja vu. Seems Obama's secret ecoterrorists are at it again. So far this year we've had explosions at a coal mine (or more?), a natural gas plant, and two oil rigs. The statistics of this many converging coincidences is astronomically improbable. Especially when you add the environmental Cap & Trade agenda to the mix, and those who wield the power to enact it. Don't be surprised one bit if Obama takes this opportunity (never let a good crisis go to waste) to justify the takeover of all energy industries.

So it leaves us with the only question to ask. Is it coincidence?

Oh sure, it has to be. Who would believe this Administration (or his underlings behind the scenes) would advocate this kind of havok?

Well.... let's think about this. What are we talking about here?

Ecoterrorists - A person who uses violence in order to achieve environmentalist aims. (Dictionary.com)

I'm just coming right out and saying it. This is sabotage, each and every one of them. The coal mine, the natural gas plant, the oil rigs, all of it. Despite what the criminally complicit media tells you or who they blame. They are lying to you!

Would it really be any surprise though? I doubt it. It's the lynchpin in their Socialist plan. That's what kicks the whole thing off. Once the Gov. gets its grubby hands in controlling industry we are all screwed.

Prismatic Transparency

I'm currently reading the President's National Security Strategy from Whitehouse.gov, drafted May 2010. With curious concepts like "international order" and "international norm" it reads more like a Global Security Strategy. However, I believe that "security", in this regard, is a concept invoked in the interest of Government rather than that of its people.



While it is true that global economy, finance and trade are interconnected, it is not true that "international order" will help to bring prosperity to the masses. In fact, it will only serve to limit production, increase tax burdens and create a new caste system in which personal freedom and liberty will give way to abuse, corruption and tyranny. The words used in this National Security Strategy of good intentions may be eloquently written, and posting this document to Whitehouse.gov may be an effort at transparency, but the only thing transparent about this administration's strategy are the lies that can be seen through its prism.



An excerpt from the text reads "Engagement is the active participation of the United States in relationships beyond our borders. It is, quite simply, the opposite of a self-imposed isolation that denies us the ability to shape outcomes. Indeed, America has never succeeded through isolationism. As the nation that helped to build our international system after World War II and to bring about the globalization that came with the end of the Cold War, we must reengage the world on a comprehensive and sustained basis."

Interjection-
[Globalization is a controversial subject. Proponents believe that it helps poor countries to modernize in order to compete globally with industrialized nations through employment and technology. Critics believe it undermines national sovereignty by outsourcing industry overseas where labor is cheaper (or done by slaves, sweatshop workers, or children).]

Another excerpt reads "Today, we need to be clear-eyed about the strengths and shortcomings of international institutions that were developed to deal with the challenges of an earlier time and the shortage of political will that has at times stymied the enforcement of international norms."

There is that concept again "international norms". Is that a reference to laws? What else would there be to enforce? Hmm.... curious. Go on....

"Yet it would be destructive to both American national security and global security if the United States used the emergence of new challenges and the shortcomings of the international system as a reason to walk away from it. Instead, we must focus American engagement on strengthening international institutions and galvanizing the collective action that can serve common interests such as combating violent extremism; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; achieving balanced and sustainable economic growth; and forging cooperative solutions to the threat of climate change, armed conflict and pandemic disease."

Well, at least the text affirms that there are shortcomings in the international system, but the important phrase to note is italicized in bold. To strenghthen international institutions would be to give greater power and authority to the United Nations and NATO (further undermining national sovereignty). To galvanize collective action is akin to "central planning", a tenet of Collectivism (which to the uninformed is a political system upon which socialism, communism, and fascism are based). This is fun... I feel like I'm learning something. Let's go on....

"The starting point for that collective action will be our engagement with other countries. The cornerstone of this engagement is the relationship between the United States and our close friends and allies in Europe, Asia, the Americas, and the Middle East - ties which are rooted in shared interests and shared values, and which serve our mutual security and the broader security and prosperity of the world. We are working to build deeper and more effective partnerships with other key centers of influence - including China, India, and Russia, as well as increasingly influential nations such as Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia - so that we can cooperate on issues of bilateral and global concern, with the recognition that power, in an interconnected world, in no longer a zero sum game. We are expanding our outreach to emerging nations, particularly those that can be models of regional success and stability, from the Americas to Africa to Southeast Asia. And we will pursue engagement with hostile nations to test their intentions, give their governments the opportunity to change course, reach out to their people, and mobilize international coalitions."

I have to disagree with the above italicized statment in bold. To engage in this collective action for international order, power would become confined to a zero sum game. America has long been the brightest beacon of individual freedom and liberty in world history. We have also been uniquely positioned as the mightiest nation on Earth. We have used our power in the world to overthrow oppressive despots, tyrants and sycophants, rescue Europe in its darkest hour, and cause the collapse of a communist giant (U.S.S.R.). It would be foolish for the United States to cede that power to anyone. An international order would allot zero power to any one nation, in effect making it near impossible to get anything accomplished. This brings us to the concept of Collectivism.

Collectivism can only work with "central planning", meaning that a central body dictates what is produced and how it is equitably distributed. But it breaks down in that it presupposes that a single plan of action will work for everyone. I'm sure you've heard the idiom "opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one". But under collectivism, the only asshole farting will be that of the central governing body. Tasteless joke, I know, but so is Socialism. A single plan of action doesn't take any individual concerns into account. Which means that if the gov is set up as christian, then all other religions will not be tolerated. If you are gay in a straight nation, you're screwed. If you're ethnicity differs from that of the "norm", then you will be removed or eliminated. Okay.... let's move on...

"This engagement will underpin our commitment to an international order based upon rights and responsibilities. International institutions must more effectively represent the world of the 21st century, with a broader voice - and greater responsibilities - for emerging powers, and they must be modernized to more effectively generate results on issues of global interest."

The text seems to suggest that we should modernize third world countries to ensure they produce for the benefit of the global interest. That's interesting... that sounds just like the downside to globalization that I was talking about earlier. Weird.

"Constructive national steps on issues ranging from nuclear security to climate change must be incentivized, so nations that choose to do their part see the benefits of responsible action. Rules of the road must be followed, and there must be consequences for those nations that break the rules - whether they are nonproliferation obligations, trade agreements, or human rights commitments."

This just keeps getting better. Incentivized... I like it. We create incentives for them to do the right thing. Obviously they won't do the right thing without incentive to do so. How do we create those incentives? Well, we impose sanctions, cut off trade, threaten military action. Oh wait, that sounds an awful lot like coercion. Like a shakedown or other mafia tactics. What else is interesting about the last paragraph? In the italicized bold above we see that there will be consequences for those nations who do not abide by the rules of (radicals) the road. Wasn't it mentioned earlier though about China and the Middle East? Aren't those some of the worst human rights offenders around? It seems the muck just gets thicker as you go along.

More to come later..... I've got a lot of research to do in order to do this right, so check back often. Thanks for reading.