• The UN – A New World Power Through Climate Change Fears?

The international movement to provide the United Nations (UN) with unprecedented power and influence over world affairs has found a seemingly innocuous, but deceptive train to ride. The North American perception of this world body founded in 1945 has become that of a vast, but vapid and corrupt organization. The UN “Climate Change” train will change that impression, but not for the better. With support from the Obama administration, the path ahead will place the UN on a track toward receiving an irreversible influence over our lives. The continuing corruption will render untold dividends for the corrupt and morally repugnant.

There are currently 192 countries making up the United Nations members list. The vast majority of the member nations are dictatorships by any other name. You can dress their leaders in fancy robes and toss an occasional crown on a head, but from Saudi Arabia to Libya and Gambia, their leaders oppress their populations. They loot as much as they can from their economies, while enjoying a comforting credibility rubbing shoulders with other narcissistic misanthropes under the opulent umbrella of the UN General Assembly.

The UN has never been an effective vehicle for achieving real peace and security, although it was intended to achieve exactly that when it replaced the impotent League of Nations. The overwhelming power of the United States has been the major underlying force that has prevented major international wars since WWII. The UN has been an inept bystander to international affairs. America’s power and influence has generated kick-back that has been fomented within the UN where jealousy found broad fertile ground amongst a majority of member nations, including Europeans such as Norway, and Denmark. No need here to extend the list of envious pretenders that easily includes the likes of Russia.

The reaction against the U.S. found new energy when the world found itself in an economic recession, and fingers could be pointed at America for having been too self serving. In slide the opportunists. Beating the newfound drums of climate change fear and catastrophe, they will mutate the upcoming Copenhagen meeting on climate change into a perfect vehicle through which begrudging usurpers will once again attempt elevating the UN to status of world power, “over” the U.S.

We can rest confident that the contemplated Copenhagen Treaty emanating from this meeting will find elements to mirror in the cap-and-trade bill now being promoted by Obama and Congress. This, along with the December 10 Nobel Peace Prize presentation, will lock-in support from Washington for the agreement. Obama and Congress will have unwittingly signed on for the formation of Two disasters. The first will be a UN managed onerous extraction of cash from the United States and Canada for what can only be described as payment of a “climate debt.” The second will be the unprecedented endowment of the UN with sweeping powers over the economies of all nations. The text currently contemplated for signing by the membership will provide this body with incisive absolutism over the economic engines that have fuelled both America’s hegemony, as well as its population’s independence of thought and freedoms.

Keep in mind that many, if not most, of the enlightened leaders of UN member countries are the same ones responsible for crimes against humanity, … their own humanities within their own home borders. This is also a membership heavily populated by misogynistic individuals who believe in the subjugation of women and criminalization of homosexuality, all the while pretending to promote the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

The time has long passed for the UN’s charter to be changed. The UN has no ability or capacity to act as a world peace maker. It could remain as an organization directed toward humanitarian efforts, and provide a meeting place for resolving broad international challenges pertaining to education, population, or agriculture. It cannot, however, be allowed to morph into a world power. The United States, which funds almost one quarter of the UN’s budget, should not allow it. Obama and Congress should refuse signing America on to the Copenhagen agreement, or any version of it. Copenhagen has nothing to do with cleaning up our refuse or CO2.

I should add a Third ensuing disaster if Copenhagen materializes: A weaker America would not be positive for long term prospects of world peace.

.... Read more!

• The Obama Nobel Is Not About Peace

We have suffered a week of apoplexy having endured a bombardment of reasons offered to justify a Nobel Prize awarded for expectations and promises rather than results. Our rationality has been addled as all corners of the MSM meandered through fantastic rationalizations. All appear to have missed the mark. The ideologically motivated radicals dominating the Norwegian Nobel Committee, are not seeking peace in the world, but are making a down payment on fortification for their own agenda. The United States and Canada will pay dearly if this agenda materializes.

Let’s first dispel any doubt that the offered reasons for awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace prize were ungenuine. He hadn’t warmed the king sized bed in the White House when he was nominated, which means that any real evaluation of his authentication as a Nobel awardee, other than the oratory of his campaign, was impossible. In the end, the Nobel Committee stated that it, “… attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.” Reality and common sense in both Norway and the White House seem to have vacated the premises.

Promises made by politicians are for electioneering, and they rarely see daylight. Remember when Obama made a bold and firm commitment that he would pull out of Iraq if he were made President? That was a defining and differentiating moment in the race to the Oval Office. Did he do what he committed to do? Are some of his phantasmagorical promises also the delusions of the Norwegian Nobel Committee? We will find an answer in the upcoming Copenhagen climate summit to be held in early December.

140 nations will meet in Copenhagen to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which runs out in 2012, with a global deal supposedly intended to limit CO2 emissions, reduce the destruction of rainforests, and help developing countries to become low-carbon economies. On the surface, the publicly claimed intentions of cleaning up our emissions from our air, our garbage from the oceans, and our toxins from the soil are lofty objectives very deserving of acclamation. The reality that will arise from the United Nations Copenhagen Climate Change Conference will prove to be something altogether different. What is to become the “Copenhagen Agreement,” will in fact be the largest international redistribution of wealth ever undertaken. The Earth and our environment will enjoy no benefit.

On December 10, Obama will receive his award in Oslo, just in time to energize the “Copenhagen” agenda. Whether or not he shows up at the UN meeting, the ideological intensions and expectations have been air freighted in the form a Nobel Prize. The Nobel awarded to Obama is a very personal stimulation to procure his support and therefore the financial commitment of the U.S. to a blueprint claiming to save the world.

The Copenhagen meeting in December will require that the United States and Canada annually transfer billions of dollars to the developing world as “climate debt” for past transgressions in their emissions of CO2. A key element in the penalization process will be the degree to which a developed country meets an allocated allowable emission schedule. Countries like the U.S. and Canada will have a tougher time than most, since it is always the last 10% or 20% that is the most difficult and most expensive to “scrub” from your emissions when you have already done more than most to clean up your own mess.

Developing countries will be using starting points with disastrous emission levels, comparable to that of the U.S. and Canada over a century ago. Minor improvements will give poor countries a leg-up on developed countries. Industrialized countries will in effect be penalized for already having well equipped, technologically advanced infrastructures. Canada in particular will very likely incur the highest penalties per capita since it is a net energy producer with production requiring extensive energy consumption, and it endures cold winters and hot, humid summers. This is not to say that every industrial sector should not strive to reduce its carbon footprint. We all should. The conundrum rests in what methodology to apply to the process and to enforcement given the reality that much has already been done by developed countries, and more is planned since all levels of society have become conscious of the need to reduce pollution.

The transfer payments from developed nations to poor ones will be made through purchases of unused “credits,” as well as through outright payments which will be made over and above the current billions distributed as foreign aid. Developing countries will be compensated for “lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity,” and the funds are to be divinely distributed by the United Nations. The UN will also be the arbiter of good taste in all things CO2 emissionable, including all approvals of emission scrubbing plans and the ensuing allocations of emission credits. The agreement also leaves room for developing countries to do absolutely nothing on emissions should they feel they are not receiving enough technological and financial support from developed countries. How is that for a backdoor to escape adaptation?

An invigorated and supremely powerful United Nations is in the offing. The principal justification for turning the UN into a true world power is this: The most advanced industrialized countries are responsible for global warming which in turn is responsible for the drought and famine being suffered by the poorest nations, ergo, the most developed countries owe cash to the undeveloped ones. How more obvious can the planners be than allowing rich countries to buy offsets rather than make emission cuts at home?

Kyoto’s good intensions have mutated into a politically charged Copenhagen draft agreement for a global plan to redistribute wealth to the tune of an estimated $1.4 trillion over the coming decade, which in and of itself will have little or no impact on pollution. The agreement’s impact on climate change will be even more amorphic, nevertheless, we can expect an abundance of fear mongering on the road to ratification.

Obama’s upcoming acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize and the invisible strings attached to it, while he is quite entitled to claim it, along with his plans for Cap and Trade, may prove to be an enormously expensive exercise for all taxpayers on this continent. The “Copenhagen” supporters on the Nobel Committee, on the other hand, are counting on it.

.... Read more!

• Economy – The Outlook Is Your Outlook

You can listen to conflicting opinions of self proclaimed experts on government activity or lack thereof on “stimulating,” the economy, however, the reality is that the economy’s progress remains in your hands. The top of the financial food chain with the government’s help wants to prejudice your perception toward positive spending.

The American taxpayer is provided an abundance of opinions and fantasies surrounding economic progress packaged as truths, facts or principles. The certitude applied to the delivery of this inspiring radiation has maximum impact on the behavior of the audience.

The vast central swath through the middle of the American political spectrum representing a majority, seeks reasonableness from government. The majority expects its business to be conducted with some integrity, without the encumbrance of concrete boots of left or right extremism demanded by party affiliation. This expectation of common sense, and forthrightness has not been honestly accommodated by politicians. The cost of reaching elected office has so escalated that special interests have become the overwhelming force behind all thrones influencing legislative agendas. As a result, every utterance emanating from a political pulpit has become suspicious.

When Paulson and Geithner browbeat their economically illiterate, and incurious bosses, into bailing too big to fail financial firms, and to launch profligate spending programs, the taxpayers had no input, nor were they provided enough truthful information to know right from wrong. Furthering confusion came in the form of suddenly popular Keynesian economists affirming government stimulus spending. Their continual proclamation of mission accomplished, and the recession is over, has become a tired refrain.

With unemployment hovering at 16%, when you include marginally attached workers and part timers for economic reasons, the principal energy in the system is the government’s $1.25 trillion mortgage support program artificially inflating home prices, borrowed with future taxpayer sweat.

The two principal pulls at opposite ends of the government intervention string, are Financial Stimulus, and Lowering Taxes. The arguments move the cursor of political will along this confusing line with abundant force pulling effectively from both ends. Over the long term, practical evidence suggest that there is little positive impact on GDP from supposed spending multipliers, so the amount spent as financial stimulus will not find itself increased or even mirrored in the amount of the nation’s gross domestic product. From the other side of the great divide, the lowering of taxes has shown some positive affect, however long-term impact has been almost impossible to empirically quantify.

In the middle, rests the most reasonable path which mandates that government, and politics (humans guided by special interests), remain out of the equation altogether, with some leaning toward easing of corporate and personal taxes, and reducing government expenditures. As his will not occur, and as we have seen, the likely reality is for a continuation of tax increases facing the enormous deficit demanding to be satiated.

Your perceptions as consumers, and taxpayers, will impact economic activity. You will dictate the direction, which the economy takes, and through that process, minimize the influence from politicians and experts confusing your judgment with mutable notions of economic confidence. Instilling confidence is intended to move consumers to borrow and spend. Ignore the noise.

As the recession continues, and it will, we should all remain diligent with each dollar we earn, and even more so with each dollar we borrow, unlike the examples set by Washington.

The biggest financial decision we make pertains to our dwellings. We will be hearing newly energized implorations of mortgaging ourselves into evermore elaborate dwellings, or increasing the debt on those we already inhabit. The reality remains that a home’s increasing value should never become a source of newfound cash while we live in it. Perceive your home as an expense if you have purchased one. If you still rent, congratulations, you have bypassed the heavy stress that millions of mortgage borrowers have endured over the past couple of years.

As the ravages of unemployment persist, we can each contribute to a return of long-term national economic stability by viewing each dollar we earn as if it were your last one for a while. The behavior might just be contagious, and will hopefully spread long enough for political representatives to assimilate the message since elections don’t appear to change much in Washington’s behavior.

.... Read more!

• Obama’s Blunder On Iran

We cannot listen to Iran’s Ahmadinejad posturing on the expansion of the Iranian atomic energy program, without recalling Obama’s dramatic reversal on the U.S. land based missile defense system in Europe only days ago. The blunder was not in the reversal, but in its timing and its process.

The degree to which Iran has advanced its uranium enrichment capabilities will remain an unknown factor, and the international community reaction will continue to be perplexed, and marooned in paralysis of fear. Iran will not let anyone into whatever enrichment facility exists. No one will see what the ayatollahs do not wish to make public, sending us into recollections of the disastrous outcome following a long hide-and-seek dance with Saddam Hussein seven years ago. This leaves the world, Israel and the U.S. in particular, with a conundrum of literally seismic proportions. Iran’s nuclear progress is not new, nor is it news. What is new is the loss of one very powerful strategic negotiating tool that could have been useful in addressing Iran’s dangerous belligerence – the land-based European missile defense system.

When Obama backed off the deployment of a missile defense system in Europe, he did so without gaining a single concession from Putin and Russia. Russia had long blustered and railed against the U.S. missile deployment plan. Putin claimed the missiles were intended to threaten Russian sovereignty in the region, and that they were not meant to defend against Iran. The hovering menace from the U.S. was a significant affront to Putin's self-image. Obama’s abrogation of such significant “stance” on behalf of the United States suggests that this Administration learned nothing from the Ronald Reagan approach to international negotiations. Reagan changed the world when he boasted of his Strategic Defense Initiative satellite based defense system. The long list of concessions extracted from Gorbachev by Reagan, as well as his brilliance throughout the process of negotiations, should be compulsory reading for any student of Presidential impact on history.

Disclosure that Obama has known about Iran’s second uranium-enrichment facility all along, and that he has supposedly sprung an international trap for Iran, as some media such as the Washington Post are now suggesting, is peculiar analysis, as well as it is pandering in the extreme. Obama gave up a major negotiating card that could have been used to push Russia toward joining the strengthening of sanctions against Iran. China cannot be counted on to assist any future confrontation with Iran, having taken itself out of the equation with investments in Iran to feed its own requirements for energy and natural resources. The only other power, whose advocacy is truly needed in the region for serious containment of the ayatollahs in Tehran, is Russia. China and Russia provide Iran with enough trade to successfully finance the Ayatollahs through many more elections no matter what sanctions Obama might think of adding to the existing limitations. Iran’s path to becoming a nuclear power appears unobstructed.

The alternative to the controversial land based system being mothballed, according to Obama, is cheaper, quicker and more effective. This means the decision to embrace the new technology is very likely a good one. If you had this information in hand, would you have run headlong into an announcement, given that the planned European shield had been a major thorn under Putin’s belly? The diplomatic clout that the West’s tension with Iran has provided Putin still remains, and no concessions have been extracted, nor are we likely to see any extracted in the near future. Russia’s response has been to provide more rhetoric, and more blustering. The Russian envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, said, “… Americans have simply put their own mistake right. And we are not duty-bound to pay for someone to put their own mistakes right.” Putin will continue to view Iran as an economic opportunity that will be exploited without interference from the West. The threat of crisis and instability in the region will also maintain energy prices at levels that Russia requires to finance its annual operating budget.

Adding to the confusion of signals emanating from the White House, Obama suggested that he could resurrect the European missile defense plan if Russia doesn’t help with the threat presented by Iran. This kind of accessory statement further weakens America’s hand. It suggests a lack of resolve on the initial reversal of the strategy, and it also infers apprehension about the new strategy and the underlying technology. Can America rely on the new capabilities and technologies or not? Are the interceptor capacities more flexible and cost-effective? Are the advanced sensor technologies capable of detecting and tracking enemy missiles, or aren’t they? Why would Obama even hint at such uncertainty?

The signals showered on Americans and their allies by this Administration’s decisions and announcements are confusing, but to Russia, they seem to be welcome and they reinforce its strategy of saber rattling. Sanctions have also not deterred Iran's ayatollahs. Now, with the loss of a major strategic and negotiating option against the Kremlin, the enlistment of the Russian bear’s assistance will undoubtedly be impossible, and will lead to a more belligerent Iran. We can expect an increase in its destabilizing activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its financing of terrorism. The violence we witnessed against the Iranian people after the recent elections should be indication enough that a strategy pursuing, "engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect," as Obama wishes it, is simply just that, … wishful thinking.

.... Read more!

• Health Care – What Are You NOT Hearing?

The lawyers and legal minds holding the joystick of politics in America’s White House and Congress, are afraid to make a move. The administration and legislature are staying away from confronting their friends, and former classmates, in the legal profession.

America is holding fast on its resistance to health care reform. The double talk and confusion from Washington is abundant, however the leadership is unwilling to implement changes that could dramatically reduce health care costs such as those that could easily be acted on pertaining to tort reform. We are provided claims such as those from the “nonpartisan” Congressional Budget Office report that malpractice litigation represents only 2% of health-care costs. This one is very “misleading,” since lawyers have always made up the majority of representatives sitting in Congress. It also purposely ignores the real costs burdened onto physicians, and the costly “actions” they take to protect themselves from being financially wiped out. Insurance premiums are just the beginning of the overhead. Defensive medicine has nothing to do with health care, but with doctors protecting themselves, and there is almost no viable measurement on the hundreds of millions that this truly mounts to.

You could extrapolate some numbers such as the 83% of doctors in Massachusetts who order tests they know are unnecessary in order to minimize their potential liabilities. When doctors already pay up to $250,000 per year in malpractice insurance, it is understandable that protecting themselves as much as they can, comes naturally. This is defensive medicine, … not the good kind, but the expensive kind. These tests are not preventive care defending patients against future illness. These defensive actions come from doctors protecting themselves against lawyers of the ambulance chasing kind. While some doctors can be accused of offensive medicine by ordering extra, not wholly necessary tests, don’t believe for a moment that there can be no agreement on what constitutes defensive medicine. You might also ask yourself on average, and in their general population, would you trust more of the doctor, or would you trust more of the lawyers?

Federal tort reform must be implemented, such as bringing under control the size of verdicts handed down by the courts, as well as placing serious caps on noneconomic and punitive damages. It is also critical that the fees taken by law firms in all such cases be reviewed and percentages controlled and capped. Let’s not submit to the bromide that lawyers are society’s first line of defense against private or civil wrongs. That claim is a virtuous and finespun abstraction on justice, no matter how much we wish it to be a truism. We have been witness to enough abuse of the legal system by lawyers over the past twenty years. It is time to close the open season trial lawyers have enjoyed on the medical profession, and bring the enormous judgments into the realm of reasonableness.

Obama refuses to support limits on liability. Does he really want reform of the medical care system? His words are delivered emphatically, but they are vacuous. He seems incapable of taking a specific stand against his friends and financial supporters in the legal profession. Congress is right behind him from both sides of the isle. Neither Democrats nor Republicans seem willing to launch a determined heads-on confrontation with the waste, although some of the reticence can be explained by the fact that the Democratic party took $47 million in contributions last year from the its benefactors in the legal profession. The lip service we are subjected to is easily dispensed, but accomplishes little. The White House and Congress would demonstrate more honesty if they would only pick a side, … address health care needs of taxpayers OR admit to supporting the very financially supportive legal profession.

There is much to be fixed before you ever get to a complete overhaul of the health care system. When there is a dearth of will to implement partial corrections, or controls, pertaining to waste and abuse in the existing system structure, there can be little hope for serious reform other than pursuit of ideological doctrine. Tort reform would be a start, though only a start, on the long road to an improved and sustainable system.

The American public is right to be suspicious of leadership that will not take immediate and specific action that would reduce an estimated $200 billion dollars from the Nation’s annual medical bill. How can taxpayers not be apprehensive of a program whose point person, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, previously led the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association? This is more assurance that “change,” is not coming.

.... Read more!