90 Million Americans Permanently Unemployed

RUSH: Some of them out there are actually trying to pump up 88,000 new jobs as a sign of Obama's robust recovery and his expertise. Others are saying it's bad news and it's the fault of the sequester….

We Are Living in a Dying Country

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Folks, I don't know how else to categorize this. We are living in a dying country. I don't know how else to categorize what's happening -- 88,000 new jobs. The unemployment rate, because of a terrible statistic, is down to 7.6%. The number of people in this country who are not working is shameful. Ninety million Americans are no longer in the workforce. Ninety million. People not in the labor force grew by 663,000, and now 90 million. That's the labor force participation rate. This is 1979 levels. The only difference is that we don't have an election around the corner to fix it like we did in 1979. We had that election last November, and we blew it.

In addition to payrolls only adding 88,000 jobs, an additional 81,800 went on disability in March. We're now up to 8.8 million Americans on disability. We had nearly as many people go on disability in March as people who found jobs. I think it's official. We have a dying country. There is literally no way that our entitlement programs and our safety net and our absorption of immigrants, legal or otherwise, can be supported this way. This simply cannot be sustained. I don't know how else to describe this. The unemployment rate of 7.6% is ridiculous.

The U-6 unemployment rate is still around 15%. That is the unemployment rate you get if you add people who are out of work and looking for a job and people who are out of work and have given up looking. Those people have been out of work for a long time. They've had 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, and they've given up looking, so they're not counted in the reported unemployment percentage of 7.6%. If they were counted, the number would be 15%. And if there were not the demographic weighting -- the 7.6% number is arrived at by estimating certain factors as being in existence or being true based on demographics. There are assumptions made about employment, unemployment in the Hispanic community, with women, black community so forth.

This is from Jim Pethokoukis, our buddy at the American Enterprise Institute. If you take out all of the demographic weighting -- let me give you another example of weighting. Let me use radio numbers for it. In local markets, there are minority-owned-and-operated radio stations. This goes way back, by the way. For the purposes of affirmative action, the audiences of minority stations were always bumped a little beyond what the actual ratings were. It was part and parcel of recognition of past discrimination. It was part of making amends. It was part of affirmative action, and it was accepted. Nobody complained about it. It's the way it was. People did business that way, but nevertheless it existed. You agree with me on this?

(interruption)

What? Well, there's a whole bunch of reasons. Yeah, the ratings didn't reach minority people, was one of the explanations, the old diary system. Now it's the one-eyed, one horned flying purple people meter, whatever it is, but they didn't reach these people. So it was just estimated that audiences to minority radio stations were much higher than they actually ended up being reported as being. That's called weighting. Well, the same thing is done in employment, unemployment numbers. And Mr. Pethokoukis' point is if we just dealt with what the real numbers are, as Bob Johnson was the other day, unemployment in the black community, 15%, black teenagers, 25%, if you deal with those numbers, his point is that the U-3 number or the 7.6% number would actually be 9.9.

If we just took the data and just reported the data as it is without any demographic weighting, then we'd be at 9.9%, not 7.6%. It's like yesterday we had the report on the number of applications for unemployment compensation, which skyrocketed back up 388,000. Much higher than what was expected by the experts. And, of course, that number will be revised upward even more in a couple of weeks. You have to work really hard to find that revised number, but it will be around 400,000. In the meantime, while all this is going on, the regime's running around talking about our economic recovery and why we've gotta start making loans to people that can't pay 'em back again to boost the home market that's recovering.

It really is obscene. There is no housing market recovery to speak of. There is no recovery anything to speak of here. Now we're gonna start making loans to people who can't pay 'em back. Banks are being forced to do this by the regime so those people are not left out of this housing boom. Folks, it's utterly ridiculous, 7.6% unemployment weighed against 90 million Americans not working. The labor force participation rate also includes the number of jobs that have disappeared. They're no longer in existence. They're not there to be filled by anybody. The regime does that to get that number down to 7.6%. If the universe of jobs available shrinks, then the percentage of people out of work will be smaller, by definition. I can't tell you how many months I had to go through fisticuffs, practically, to get people who are telling me I didn't know what I was talking about, to convince them that I did. But if your universe is a hundred percent and your unemployment rate's 7.6%, then what do you figure? You got 93% or whatever of the people working.

Well, what if your universe shrinks to 80% but you still call it a hundred percent? That's what's happening here. There aren't a hundred percent anymore. It's shrunk. The number of jobs that are available, the number of businesses which are open, the number of businesses which have jobs to fill, plummeting. We're a dying country. Everybody knows it. Even Ichabod Goolsbee, who is a former economics guru in the regime, now in the private sector making legitimate money, Ichabod Goolsbee said, "This is like a punch to the gut." And we've got some sound bites and news stories here where all these experts just can't believe this. Why, this doesn't make any sense, and of course they're blaming the sequester for this. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah, the sequester, because that means it's the Republicans. Except the sequester's got nothing to do with this.

This all started January 21st, 2009. That's when the intense trend began with the immaculation of Obama and the mythical stimulus package. We're a country in decline, and the president is presiding over a country in decline. So he's gotta budget that he's gonna be presenting soon, we're told, and one of the things that the president is going to do to generate revenue -- 'cause, see, that's the problem. Do you know in the midst of all this what the big problem is? The government does not have enough money. It's not that the country doesn't have enough jobs. It's not that the people of this country aren't earning enough salary, wages, whatever. No, no. The problem is the government doesn't have enough money.

So the president is going to trying to get more money by placing a $3 million upper limit on tax preferred retirement accounts. So he's going to take even more money from the so-called rich under the guise they're not paying their fair share. Because the government's running out of money, and we cannot have that. So payrolls grow by 88,000. Eighty-two thousand new Americans on disability in March. A total of 8.8 million Americans on disability, and every damn one of them feels justified. And I'll tell you something else. All of the people -- 90 million Americans -- ladies and gentlemen, 90 million Americans are not working, but they are all eating, and they're all using cell phones. And they are all watching television. And most of them are driving.

I don't know how this can be sustained. A blogger at ZeroHedge.com, a guy named Tyler Durden, which is a stage name, says things just keep getting worse for the American employee, and by implication, the US economy, where, as we've shown many times before, it pays just as well to sit back and collect disability and various welfare and entitlement checks than to work. The best manifestation of this, the number of people not in the labor force, which in March alone grew by 663,000. They want to tell us that there were 88,000 new jobs in March, when the number is 663,000. Over a half million people dropped out of the labor force. That means they either lost their jobs or stopped looking for one.

What is this 88,000 people found work? Compared to the 663,000 who dropped out. A record 90 million Americans are no longer even looking for work. I don't even want to get into whether it's their fault or not. Folks, everybody has to eat, and they are. The Democrat Party's seen to it. This was the biggest monthly increase in people dropping out of the labor force since January of 2012, when the Bureau of Labor Stats did its census recast of the labor numbers. Even worse, the labor force participation rate plunged to the lowest level since 1979.

But, in a perverted way, that many people leaving the workforce shrinks the universe, and it makes it possible to say that unemployment's improving. I'm not kidding you. Even Mr. Durden makes the point. If you shrink the universe, then the percentage of people not working gets smaller, and you can say, "We added 88,000 jobs, not like we want, but we're working at it. We're adding 88,000 jobs. The unemployment number is coming down." And as far as low-information Americans are concerned, that's it, and that's all there is to know.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The Drive-By Media, State-Controlled Media is either pretending that the March jobs report is good news -- some of them are. Some of them out there are actually trying to pump up 88,000 new jobs as a sign of Obama's robust recovery and his expertise. Others are saying it's bad news and it's the fault of the sequester. If you want to say it's the fault of anything and you want to get that specific, you'd have to look at the payroll tax holiday ending first.

But this is all happening because of the policies the president. There's no argument about that. I mean, I know that people still want to blame Bush, and I know that the president -- the Limbaugh Theorem -- is running around still trying to fix all this. None of this is his. People don't attach his policies to this. Amazingly, the low-information population still views the president as working tirelessly to fix all this, trying to come up with something that'll work, 'cause he cares about everybody. But this has nothing to do with sequester. It has nothing to do, really, with the payroll tax cut.

END TRANSCRIPT

“The president’s policies continue to make it harder for Americans to find work. Hundreds of thousands fled the workforce last month and unemployment remains far above what the Obama administration promised when it enacted its ‘stimulus’ spending plan,” Boehner said in a statement. He urged the president to “follow the House and outline a balanced budget next week – one that includes entitlement reforms that are not conditional on enactment of more tax increases, which will suppress growth instead of encourage it.”  But the leaked White House’s plan to blame everything on the Sequester and the Republicans tells us that things are right on course… according to plan!

Video: Trump on the slowing economy, unemployment rate 

'The Donald' takes on the new jobs report, its bleak implications and why he believes the unemployment rate is higher than what's being revealed

Related:

Exclusive: Disney to begin layoffs in studio, consumer products - sources

PM Note: Sequester Furloughs Quietly Start, Obama Apologizes to AG, Fisker Layoffs

Disney to shut LucasArts games studio, lay off workers

Technorati Tags: unemployment,jobs,Sequester,Rush Limbaugh,blame Republicans,Donald Trump,Obamaland,smoke and mirrors,debt,layoffs,blame game,blame Republicans game

Obama Aims to Axe Moon Mission

President Obama and Vice President Biden are heading south after the State of the Union to a Town Hall Meeting. And it has been hinted that President Obama may be making an announcement prior to the release of his budget proposals on Monday… What is the big announcement?? Will it be that he will cripple the Space Program or will he create a new paradigm for private participation? Cripple or Create… is the question.

NASA's plans to return astronauts to the moon are dead. So are the rockets being designed to take them there — that is, if President Barack Obama gets his way.

When the White House releases his budget proposal Monday, there will be no money for the Constellation program that was supposed to return humans to the moon by 2020. The troubled and expensive Ares I rocket that was to replace the space shuttle to ferry humans to space will be gone, along with money for its bigger brother, the Ares V cargo rocket that was to launch the fuel and supplies needed to take humans back to the moon.
There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases, no Constellation program at all.

In their place, according to White House insiders, agency officials, industry executives and congressional sources familiar with Obama's long-awaited plans for the space agency, NASA will look at developing a new "heavy-lift" rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit. But that day will be years — possibly even a decade or more — away.

In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change — and on a new technology research and development program that will one day make human exploration of asteroids and the inner solar system possible.

There will also be funding for private companies to develop capsules and rockets that can be used as space taxis to take astronauts on fixed-price contracts to and from the International Space Station — a major change in the way the agency has done business for the past 50 years.

The White House budget request, which is certain to meet fierce resistance in Congress, scraps the Bush administration's Vision for Space Exploration and signals a major reorientation of NASA, especially in the area of human spaceflight.

"We certainly don't need to go back to the moon," said one administration official.

Everyone interviewed for this article spoke on condition of anonymity, either because they are not authorized to talk for the White House or because they fear for their jobs. All are familiar with the broad sweep of Obama's budget proposal, but none would talk about specific numbers because these are being tightly held by the White House until the release of the budget.

But senior administration officials say the spending freeze for some federal agencies is not going to apply to the space agency in this budget proposal. Officials said NASA was expected to see some "modest" increase in its current $18.7 billion annual budget — possibly $200 million to $300 million more but far less than the $1 billion boost agency officials had hoped for.
They also said that the White House plans to extend the life of the International Space Station to at least 2020. One insider said there would be an "attractive sum" of money — to be spent over several years — for private companies to make rockets to carry astronauts there.

But Obama's budget freeze is likely to hamstring NASA in coming years as the spending clampdown will eventually shackle the agency and its ambitions. And this year's funding request to develop both commercial rockets and a new NASA spaceship will be less than what was recommended by a White House panel of experts last year.

That panel, led by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine, concluded that to have a "viable" human space-exploration program, NASA needed a $3 billion annual budget hike, and that it would take as much as $5 billion distributed over five years to develop commercial rockets that could carry astronauts safely to and from the space station.

Last year, lawmakers prohibited NASA from canceling any Constellation programs and starting new ones in their place unless the cuts were approved by Congress. The provision sends a "direct message that the Congress believes Constellation is, and should remain, the future of America's human space flight program," wrote U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., last month.
Nevertheless, NASA contractors have been quietly planning on the end of Ares I, which is years behind schedule and millions of dollars over budget. NASA has already spent more than $3 billion on Ares I and more than $5 billion on the rest of Constellation.
In recent days, NASA has been soliciting concepts for a new heavy-lift rocket from major contractors, including Boeing Co., Lockheed Martin Corp. and Pratt & Whitney. Last week, a group of moonlighting NASA engineers and rocket hobbyists proposed variations on old agency designs that use the shuttle's main engines and fuel tank to launch a capsule into space. According to officials and industry executives familiar with the presentations, some of the contractor designs are very similar to the one pressed by the hobbyists.

Officially, companies such as Boeing still support Constellation and its millions of dollars of contracts. Some believe that in a battle with Congress, Ares may survive.

"I would not say Ares is dead yet," said an executive with one major NASA contractor. "It's probably more accurate to say it's on life support. We have to wait to see how the coming battle ends."

Few doubt that a fight is looming. In order to finance new science and technology programs and find money for commercial rockets, Obama will be killing off programs that have created jobs in some powerful constituencies, including the Marshall Space Flight Center in Shelby's Alabama. But the White House is said to be ready for a fight.

The end of the shuttle program this year is already going to slash 7,000 jobs at Kennedy Space Center.

One administration official said the budget will send a message that it's time members of Congress recognize that NASA can't design space programs to create jobs in their districts. "That's the view of the president," the official said.

Robert Block, who reported from Cape Canaveral, can be reached at rblock@orlandosentinel.com or 321-639-0522.

Mark K. Matthews, who reported from Washington, can be reached at mmatthews@orlandosentinel.com or 202-824-8222.

Copyright © 2010, Orlando Sentinel

“Creating Crisis” - Food Shortages, Energy Shortages, Loss of Jobs and Higher Prices

Why is the world’s bread basket running out of bread?

Goal: Destroying Farms, Energy Supplies, Jobs and the Food Supply… Why? When you create a severe enough crisis, people allow you to takeover (anything). Then when the crisis is over, the control remains.

Seg1- Food to Cost More and Harder to Get Due to Environmentalists

Seg 2 - Power Shortages Unless Pigs Fly Out of ….

Seg 3 - Environmental Endangered Species Act Will Bankrupt Farmers

Seg 4 - Endoctrination: Obama To Address US School Children

*Obama’s Sept 8th Speech to America’s Schoolchildren

*Parents Upset Over ‘Leftist Propaganda’ Video As Obama Readies for Sept 8th Speech for U.S. School Children

*White House Enlisting the National Endowment of the Arts – Art for Propaganda

Seg 5 - See What The Progressives Have Hidden in Plain Sight

Seg 6 - Progressives Thought Mussolini Was The Good Guy in 1930's

And when someone calls Team Obama on their socialistic activities they attack: Glenn Beck Show Dropped by 11 More Advertisers –57 Total After W.H. Attack by Van Jones, which is the most obvious sign that Glenn or anyone is on to something. Nobody goes after people who make up stuff or are going down the wrong path!! Please stand up for Glenn Beck and for the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press.

Related Resources:

• College kids recruited to join Obama’s ‘army’
• Obama Says We Need National Civilian Security Forces. WHY?
• Is the National Civilian Security Force Obama Wants Americorp?
• Michelle Obama is Building Her Boot Camps For Radicals with Tax-Payer Money
American Progressivism – A Must Read

Scientist: Global Warming Claims a Lot of Hype

Lawmakers who described the alleged effects of global warming are spreading a lot of "eye wash," a top climate scientist says.

Photo: UCLA Shutterbug New Hampshire Jan 2009

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax, S. Fred Singer, a renowned climatologist and professor of environmental sciences emeritus at the University of Virginia, discussed the background behind the recent open letter to Congress he and six other scientists sent to members of the House and Senate.

In the letter, the scientists cited a letter sent by the Woods Hole Research Center, which exhorted Congress to act quickly to avoid a global disaster due to alleged global warming.

Singer said the Woods Hole group “put on a sort of scary exaggerated kind of letter to Congress ahead of the vote in the House in an obvious attempt to stampede them into voting for the Waxman-Markey [cap and trade environmental] bill.

Singer explained: “We thought it would be useful to write a letter that would provide a balance. The instigator of the letter was Harold Lewis, a retired professor of physics at the University of California in Santa Barbara.” Lewis, he said, “provided the initial draft, several of us made comments and seven of us signed our names to it."

Lewis sent the letter "to every member of Congress ... and it was also sent to a number of bloggers and others who are generally sympathetic" to the group’s point of view.

“The letter itself is self-explanatory,” Singer said, noting that it did not “give much detail."

“Two of us, Richard Lindzen and myself, are actively working on climate issues. The others are renowned physicists – people of some stature, members of the National Academy and others who have a good amount of scientific judgment but who have not directly published or been pre-eminent in climate research.”

Asked if it is not established that the earth is cooling, Singer explained that “The earth is either always warming or cooling; one cannot tell which it is unless one specifies the time interval.

“It's like the stock market: it is rising or falling. Both depend on whether it's a week or a month or a year. It's the same with the temperature – if we start during the last Ice Age 15,000 years ago, then the temperatures have warmed. If you start from the Little Ice Age, which ended 200 years ago, it certainly has warmed.

“If you start from 1998, however, then it has not warmed – it has cooled. So it depends on the time interval. People argue about this, and much of the difference between groups comes about when you don't specify the time interval. There's no question that the climate has not been warming in the last 10 years."

Reminded that there were members of Congress standing up in the debate and talking about the terrible things that are happening now as a result of global warming, Singer said: “That's all eye wash. That's not true. That's simply hype.”

He went on to explain that “Nothing untoward is happening. The ice is not melting any faster, the sea level is not rising any faster. Hurricanes are not increasing in intensity or frequency; there's been no impact. Those things are always hard to measure. It depends on statistics. The easiest thing is to specify temperature, because it's easily measured and there is relatively little disagreement on what temperature stands for.”

He then went on to challenge what he called former Vice President Al Gore’s “mantra” that he says Gore’s "been handing out for years now – that the science is settled. That is simply not true.

“When you have 31,000 scientists signing the Oregon petition saying they disagree with the current wisdom that humans are producing increased warming, it speaks for itself. It's true that the 31,000 are not all climate scientists. There are not that many in the world.

“However, it does show you that the science is not settled. Among climate scientists there is a split. There are those who believe in models, and those who believe in observations. And there are some who don't believe in both, and some who don't believe in any.

“The modelers believe that the models correctly describe what's going on in the atmosphere, and they trust their models to predict the future. And the models all predict increased global warming. Some more, some less. There are plenty models in the world, and they all get different results. We don't know which one of them is correct, if any, or even if any of them is correct.

Then there are those – sometimes called the skeptics, but we prefer to call them the realists – who believe in the observations, who believe that the atmosphere tells us what's going on. The models try to describe what's going on in the atmosphere, but they don't succeed. It's extremely difficult – the atmosphere is very complicated. For example, the models can't really describe clouds. Yet clouds are very, very important. So that's the basic split.

“When the observations show that the climate has not been warming in the last 10 years, which contradicts the models, who are you going to believe? The models or the observations. Obviously, we believe in the observations.

“When you ask the other side to debate on this issue they either won't debate; or if they do debate, they say, ‘Well there must be something wrong with the observations.'”

Singer agreed that it is a case of "do you believe what the models tell you, or do you believe in your lying eyes?"

Friday, July 3, 2009 10:17 PM
By: Phil Brennan - 2009 Newsmax

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Related Resources:

• Senator Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into ‘Suppressed’ Climate Change Report
• Video: Obama: My Cap-and-Trade Plan Will Make Electricity Rates 'Skyrocket' | The FOX Nation"’
• Energy Czar Has Not Read Climate Bill Either & Boehner Say Bill Is Pile of S__t!
• 8 GOP Votes Pave Way For Cap-and-Trade
• Pelosi Pushes Carbon Tax Vote Today
• The 8 Cap-and-Tax Republicans and 44 Dems Who Voted No
• House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill
• WSJ: Cap-And-Tax a great deal… if you don’t Measure the Costs
• Congressman Requests Moment of Silence for Jobs Lot From Cap…
• Stifling Science To ‘Fight Warming
• Green Hell
• Red Hot Lies

An Environmentalist's Thesaurus

'Global warming' is so passé.  This would be hysterical… if it wasn’t so scary and devious!

Some experts think the environmentalist movement has an image problem. According to them, greens are losing the battle against primeval despoilers of Nature's awesome bounty because they continue to use antiquated, in-your-face terms like "global warming," "cap and trade," and yes even "the environment." So says a new report by ecoAmerica, a cutting-edge, Washington-based nonprofit that specializes in environmental marketing and messaging, as reported in the New York Times (henceforth known as the Green Lady).

According to ecoAmerica, which has conducted rigorous, focus-group research in this area, environmentalists are taking it on the chin because politically charged terms like "global warming" conjure up images of hirsute, confrontational '60s types. "When you say 'global warming,'" Robert M. Perkowitz, ecoAmerica's president and founder, told the Times, "a certain group of Americans think that's a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues."  How about… the fact that it is just a wrong assumption?

Sadly, Mr. Perkowitz never explained how this "certain group" manages to draw a connection between global warming and gay marriage. And it must be said, I'd love to see his raw data on the subject.

In any event, to right the listing ship of sustainable biodiversity, ecoAmerica recommends that environmentalists mothball the textured scientific lingo and get right down to the nitty-gritty. That means ditching excessively technical terms like "carbon dioxide" and substituting catchy phrases like "moving away from the dirty fuels of the past."

EcoAmerica also recommends jettisoning the cumbersome term "the environment" and replacing it with the infinitely more felicitous "the air we breathe, the water our children drink." The organization probably got paid tons of money for this high-level research, so its advice should not go unheeded…?

Clearly, ecoAmerica is on to something with this bold initiative. But perhaps the subtle neologisms it's proposed don't go far enough. No one pays any attention to bloodless expressions like "depletion of the ozone layer" anymore. Moreover, "depletion" is a stupid word, since what it's supposed to decry is "catastrophic destruction" of the ozone layer, not its mere shrinkage.

What is needed here is more graphic language that the man on the street can understand. Thus, instead of saying something like "If mankind continues to deplete the ozone layer, we will cause irreparable damage to the environment," activists should say: "If we keep using the dirty fuels of the past to mess up that awesome thing in the sky that prevents our butts from like totally frying at the beach, then we might as well just spew filth into the air we breathe and the water our children drink and all curl up and die right now. Am I right, or what?"

Anyone can see how more colorful, less partisan, less politically rancorous language would enable environmentalists to seize the higher ground. Now it no longer sounds like some prissy elitist's butt that's going to fry. It could be somebody in a trailer park. Maybe even Dick Cheney.

There are many other environmentalist catchphrases that could use fine-tuning. "No carbon footprint" is a term so trendy, so precious, that it cannot help but reinforce the image of environmentalists as condescending do-gooders. Surely something less deviously euphemistic would work better.

Instead of hanging a sign in the window reading, "As of midnight Tuesday, this dining establishment will no longer leave a carbon footprint," restaurant owners could hang a placard reading: "Starting Tuesday, we will no longer allow disgusting fumes to belch all over the food your kids are eating and stinking up the air you breathe. We already warned the cook."

Similarly, instead of talking about "the melting of the polar ice cap," a phrase too apocalyptically antediluvian to scare anyone anymore, environmentalists should start referring to "dead polar bears in your driveway." "Degradation of habitat" could be replaced by a more evocative phrase like "torching Bambi's crib."

The one term environmentalists should probably deep-six, though, is "biological diversity." The ding-dongs who confuse "global warming" with gay marriage might think that biological diversity refers to features of the environment that only ethnic minorities care about. At this rate, we'll never get the planet back in working order.

By:  Mr. Queenan, a satirist and writer, is the author of numerous books. His memoir, "Closing Time," has just been published by Viking.

Source: online.wsj.com

As funny as this is… the process of rebranding the Green Movement by “the powers that be” and the companies like G.E. that will benefit from Cap-and-Trade and new Green Energy Project contracts” has begun…

The bottom-line here is that Global Warming is a farce.  The Earth has actually been (overall) cooling the past 10-years, but no matter how many scientists present their studies to Congress and the White House and no matter how much the American Public is against the new “Green” program because it will cost the American taypayer more money… a lot more money as well as 'lose jobs' not increase them at a time that America just can’t afford it... the powers that be trudge on!  Cap-and-Trade is a huge tax.  And 'two' jobs are actually lost in the United States for every 'one' Green job created.  As for Al Gore, is he evil?  No… just being used and a bit clueless!!  After all, he wants to be remembered for something and thinks he invented the Internet… and that should say it all.

Should we all care about the environment… absolutely!  Are there many issues that we should all get behind… stopping deforestation, cleaner disposal and recycling of our waste, loss of plant and animal species at an unimaginable rate, cleaner water, cleaner air… and the list goes on?  Should we encourage the world to stop procreating irresponsibly?… absolutely!  And should the world slowly and responsibly shift toward cleaner and renewable energy sources, with a little help from the government?... absolutely!  We should have started doing all this 40-years-ago when the flower children and hippies were protesting about it!  Just like we should have planned ahead and stopped borrowing from social security and Medicare and planned for the Baby-Boomer Retirement at least 20-year-ago.  I have books in my bookcase from 20 and even 40 years ago predicting and discussing all the above.  But if you are buying into the present Green movement (rebranding of Global Warming) and Cap-and-Trade… you are being had!

Before it is too late… educate yourself, and that does not mean watch the daily regular media news, especially NBC, whose parent company is General Electric (GE) and is in the bag for the Obama White House and that has and stands to make billions.  They already have received $139 Billion from the FDIC in bailout money.  HMMM… are they a bank?

  Green Hell – A Must Read!

What Can I Do?

• Educate Yourself (Starting Now) – You are living during a time that will change the America we know forever.  You owe it to yourself and future generations to pay attention
• Watch, listen and read a full spectrum of news and informational TV programs, Internet websites, newspapers, magazines and books
• Contact Your Representatives (ASAP) and let them know you are against Cap-and-Trade and that you think Global Warming is a farce
• Get Involved – Be Creative; Organize a Green Tea Party/Anti-Cap and Trade Tea Party; Tell Just One More Person…
• Stop Believing That The Government Will Look Out For You... For Us..., So Functioning as 'The Silent Majority' Is Okay!
• Cast an ‘Educated Vote’ Not An Emotional Vote in 2010 and 2012
• 
  
  American Progressivism 
  
  An Inconvenient Book
  Animal Spirits