Hear the Crickets??

While looking up sources for yesterday's post about the president's link to CCX, and Al Gore's, and Goldman Sachs', I found one source for a few blogs about the subject.  It was a link to Canadian Free Press' site.  Today, I found page after page after page of links on a Google search.  Want to take a guess how many of them were from American newspaper sites?  How about two?  You would think that a story that links the president of the United States financially to a company that stands to earn $10 trillion annually if his legislation is passed would be front page news all over the country!  Then throw in a 10% share of the company being blamed for the financial crash that cost the country 11 million jobs (according to one congressman in today's congressional proceedings), Goldman Sachs.  Just for added interest, add a 5% stake in the mountain of money to a company headed up by Al "I invented the internet and won an Oscar and Nobel Prize" Gore.  Oh yeah, also link CCX to the United Nations and Fannie Mae, whose mismanagement was the real cause of the country's financial crash.  And not a word from any U.S. newspaper.  Except for the Washington Examiner, who basically summarized Glenn Beck's television program from Monday, with a Youtube video of Beck's blackboard.  And a line from the writer that she had verified as true Beck's claims.  Then the Dallas Morning News shows up on page 2 of the Google search.  The link goes to a comment page about the media's relationship with President Obama.  After scrolling down approximately three pages, there was a comment from a reader asking why no DMN investigation.  That's it.

Front and center all over the nation's media watchdogs, Sandra Bullock has adopted a baby!  How was she able to keep such a big secret????  Shocking!  Next we will learn that Kate Gosselin was voted off Dancing with the Stars.

Today I found several stories from British newspapers about the scandal.  I knew from the site I linked to yesterday that Fannie Mae owned the patent to a device that measures carbon output.  Guess what?  It was modified for use on manufacturers, but was originally designed to measure household carbon output.   Household output.  The plan calls for individual American homes to have a carbon cap.  Just like businesses, individuals can buy additional carbon certificates when they have reached their annual cap.  Buy the certificates from individuals in third world countries that don't create the emissions that Americans do.  According to the site, the cap would be set at 2500 pounds of carbon produced per year.  Over two times the amount produced by the average citizen of a third world country, but coincidentally only half the amount produced by the average American.  So basically Americans would be forced to purchase carbon certificates from people in India or China or South America, through the Chicago Climate Exchange of course.  After taking their cut, CCX would pass that American money on to the citizens of the unindustrialized countries.  In theory anyway.  Want to give odds on how much of that money makes it to the average citizen of Sri Lanka?

By the way, does your electric company give you the option to buy "green" energy, at a higher rate than traditional energy?  Green ain't cheap!  The idea is that it lowers your carbon output, so you won't exceed your cap so quickly.  Pro-choice again, give your money to the electric company or a Bangladesh villager (minus CCX;s cut of course).  Or you can pay to plant a tree, like the Vatican chose to do, in order to be carbon neutral.  Guess what, no trees were planted for the Vatican.  The payments were taken though!  Like Glenn Beck said, scamming the Pope pretty much guarantees some very warm temperatures in your future!

How's that for redistribution of wealth?  Mainly redistributed straight from your pocket to that of Barack Hussein Obama, Al Gore, Goldman Sachs, and Fannie Mae.  I guess the New York Times has laid off too many "reporters."  They missed this one.  Hear the crickets?  Oh, yeah, Sandra's baby is a healthy 3 month old boy.  And she has filed for divorce from Jesse.  Shocker!

Evil, yes. Stupid, no

It is the end of April.  Two feet of snow today in New York.  High of 35 here in Gunnison tomorrow.  So let's talk about global warming.  Like I wrote in a previous post about redneck snow skis, I know that cold weather halfway through spring does not mean that global warming isn't true.  But surely ten years of cooling temperatures does.  And false data by leading climate change (global warming is sooo 2009) researchers should make even the most rabid Al Gore sycophants wipe off their Kool-Aid mustaches.  

Then there's the cost.  The president himself says that under his plan, electric rates would "necessarily skyrocket."


So what exactly is cap and trade? Manufacturing produces carbon.  Carbon, according to the global warming "experts," leads to warming temperatures.  So, something must be done to discourage manufacturers from producing carbon.  Under this plan, a manufacturer would have a set amount of carbon emissions allowed as a by product of their business.  They would receive a certificate for that amount carbon emission.  If they go over the amount covered by their certificate, they can buy another manufacturer's certificate.  


Let's say that Cathy and I decide to go into the potato chip business.  We register as a potato chip manufacturer and receive our certificate to produce 2 tons of carbon dioxide.  Well, we are not really that into potato chips, so we only make a couple of batches of chips a year.  We didn't produce even an ounce of our allowable emissions.  Frito Lay, on the other hand, is realllly into potato chips.  They have produced all the carbon they are allowed, and they want to make even more chips.  They are selling a lot more chips than Cathy and me.  But they aren't allowed to make any more.  They have no more carbon certificates left.  Well, I'm smarter than the average rock, I'll sell them my unused carbon certificates.  Frito Lay is more than happy to buy them from me.


Small problem.  Who decides how much the certificates are worth?  How does Frito Lay find Larry and Cathy?  Where do they find even more?  It's not like there's an exchange similar to the New York Stock Exchange for carbon certificates.  Now, there would be a money making idea!  Guess what?  There is one!  It's the Chicago Climate Exchange or CCX!  Now there's some forward thinking folks.  If global warming weren't such a scam, I bet they could make some major bucks matching certificate buyers to certificate sellers, and of course taking their commission.  We are a capitalist society after all.  They could sell the certificates of manufacturers in third world countries to U.S. companies and basically give them boatloads of money (minus CCX's cut of course) for producing nothing!  CCX estimates they would process $10,000,000,000,000 in transactions.  A year.  That's $10 trillion a year.  That will buy a pretty nice house, won't it, Al Gore?  What's Al Gore's connection to this $10,000,000,000,000 a year business?  Oh, just a little thing.  He's on the board of a British company that owns a 5% share of Chicago Climate Exchange.  So, that's how he can afford such a non-environmentally friendly estate.  Compare Gore's estate to that of a nature-hating, let's melt the icecaps I love heat anyway George Bush.  When you stand to get even a piece of a 5% share of $10,000,000,000,000 a year, you can stand a little skyrocketing electric cost.

Nice story, but no one is forcing companies like Ford and DuPont, or local governments like the city of Chicago and Miami-Dade county to participate in this wonderful Enron-style scheme (they are already buying and selling certificates voluntarily so they can advertise as "carbon neutral"), right?  Not yet.  But that's the very basis of cap and trade legislation in front of Congress right now!  Requiring companies and local governments to participate.  Forcing the cost of their goods and services to skyrocket.  Amazing.  

So how does a start-up like Chicago Climate Exchange get started in 2003 with no cap and trade legislation on the horizon?  Through charitable, almost untraceable grants from a wonderful foundation called the Joyce Foundation.  They were supported by a Joyce Foundation board member who secured the funding for them.  The board member who was such a forward thinking visionary?  An up and coming Illinois state senator.  His name?  All together now, Barack Hussein Obama, mmm, mmm, mmm.


Now that should give you something to think about.  Here's a link detailing all the viper's nest of ties to the United Nations (where most of the global warming "research" came from).  Just for grins, let's throw in 5 CCX board members from Goldman Sachs, a 10% share in the company to Goldman Sachs, and a compleeeeetely coincidental link to Fannie Mae.  No conspiracy theory.  Facts.  It's mind-boggling.  Almost as mind-boggling as the fact that no U.S. newspaper or news organization has mentioned any of this.  The link refers to a Canadian Free Press site.  Free press, remember when America had one of those?  Another fact, NBC is owned by GE.  General Electric.  Think they might have a stake in this game? 

Ban It!

Here's an interesting story about the importance of education and the average American's willingness to let the government take care of them.

A reporter went to Times Square on a weekday late afternoon, just as office workers were crowding the street to go home after a work day.  He stopped 200 people at random and asked if they would favor the federal government either banning or strictly regulating the use of dihydrogen monoxide.  Dihydrogen monoxide is a very commonly found chemical that, through simple inhalation, kills thousands of people per year in the United States alone. It's use by businesses and individuals is essentially unregulated.  No licenses are required for its purchase or use.

As a former resident of Arizona, and frequent radio listener in the Phoenix area, I can tell you that the state ran public service ads hourly warning about the dangers of the chemical, especially to young children.

The poll results?  70% of those questioned said the government should ban the chemical compound immediately.  15% said it should be strictly regulated.  The remaining 15% were obviously libertarian nutjobs that protest government regulation of anything.  After all who is not in favor of banning di(meaning 2) hydrogen (highly explosive, right?) mono (one) oxide (oxygen)?  Or H2O.  If you still don't get it, you must be a recent American high school graduate.  It's water.

We not only allow, but encourage these people to vote!  Change, yeah!  Sign me up!  Oh yeah, what are we changing to?  Hope it's good.  Got any water?