Exactly What Is Crony Capitalism, Anyway?
By Bill FrezzaPresident Obama, progressive politicians, Occupy protestors, and leftist intellectuals are having a field day attacking what they call the failures and excesses of capitalism. They declare wealth to be prima facie evidence of perfidy, making no distinction as to how it was obtained. They preach equality, not just in opportunity but in economic outcome. In their eyes, all members of the 1% are already guilty, so economic justice demands that the rich be heavily taxed, not just to lift others up, but to bring them down.
Some defenders of capitalism draw a sharp distinction between those who obtained their wealth through government favors and those who created their wealth by satisfying willing customers through free exchange. The former are called Crony Capitalists. The latter, interestingly enough, don't have a name. Let's call them Market Capitalists.
If defenders of capitalism hope to win over fair-minded fellow citizens who are honestly upset and confused, we need to define these terms and answer some basic questions. In what ways are Crony Capitalists and Market Capitalists the same and in what ways are they different? What makes the former immoral and the latter virtuous? Why are Crony Capitalists a threat to democracy and prosperity while Market Capitalists are essential to both? How is it that ever larger numbers of Market Capitalists are being corrupted, turning into Crony Capitalists? And what can we do to reverse that trend?
All capitalism is driven by greed - the desire to not only achieve economic security, but to amass pools of capital beyond one's basic needs. This capital can fuel the kind of conspicuous consumption that offends egalitarians. But it also finances investments in new products and businesses, without which the economy cannot grow. More on that later.
What makes Crony Capitalists different is their willingness to use the coercive powers of government to gain an advantage they could not earn in the market. This can come in the form of regulations that favor them while hindering competitors, laws that restrict entry into their markets, and government-sponsored cartels that fix prices, grant monopolies, or both.
Crony Capitalists are also more than happy to help themselves to money from the public treasury. This can come from wasteful or unnecessary spending programs that turn government into a captive customer, subsidies that flow directly into their coffers, or mandates that force consumers to buy their products.
Examples abound. Heavily regulated industries attract and breed Crony Capitalists, who are highly skilled at capturing the agencies intended to regulate them. Banking and healthcare top the list. Banks operate under a cartel in which the Federal Reserve fixes prices, namely interest rates. Bankers also enjoy periodic bailouts that allow them to privatize gains and socialize losses. Healthcare operates under a cartel in which the government approves new products, fixes prices, and has become the primary payer. Is it any wonder that banking and healthcare are such a mess?
The military-industrial complex long ago perfected the art of supporting spending programs far in excess of our nation's legitimate defense needs, operating under the political cover of patriotism. Much of this spending actually serves to make us less safe rather than more, a tragedy in many ways.
Agribusiness leads the way when it comes to directly looting the public treasury, operating under the political cover of helping the family farmer and securing the nation's food supply. Political fashion regularly selects additional industries to shower with taxpayer largesse. These days, the trendy color is green.
Beyond these obvious Crony Capitalists lies a slippery slope designed to attract and entrap Market Capitalists: the tax code. By setting nominal corporate tax rates high while marketing tax breaks to specific companies and industries, Congress assures itself a steady stream of campaign contributions from companies looking to lighten their tax load. While there is no shame in reducing one's tax burden from 35% to a more globally competitive 20%, is it any wonder that people get sore when some extremely profitable corporations manage to get their tax burden down to nearly 0%?
Market Capitalists do not go to Washington. They strive to please customers, not politicians. They put their own money at risk to earn their own rewards, never foisting losses on others. Because they are risking their own hard earned dollars, they are careful to invest where it makes the most economic sense, not where it curries political favor. They meet their rivals in open competition, may the best products win. They have no reason to be ashamed of their honestly earned wealth. Many are famous for their public spirit and generosity, whether it's in funding the arts or providing for those truly in need.
Market Capitalism operated unfettered for most of our nation's history, as our founders intended. Market Capitalists built our country from an agrarian backwater into the world's greatest economic wonder. Generations of immigrants, proto-capitalists yearning to breathe and work free, flocked here to build better lives for themselves and their families. Their successes are legion.
We have nothing to fear as other nations throw off the yoke of communism and socialism - and other statist schemes that come in and out fashion - and discover the virtues of capitalism, adapting it to their own people and culture. Let us meet them in the marketplace and not on the battlefield, to the betterment of all.
Instead, we have let our government grow without bound, extending its tentacles into every aspect of our lives. And we have allowed Crony Capitalism to grow along with it. Meanwhile, Market Capitalism has been battered into a defensive crouch, bogging down the entire economy. Progressives who think they can solve our problems by making government bigger and more powerful only dig the hole deeper, playing into the hands of the Crony Capitalists they claim to hate.
The only way to restore the balance so we can lift ourselves out of our economic malaise is to harness the anger of both the left and right to slash the power of Crony Capitalists and their enablers in government, while freeing Market Capitalists to do what they do best.
Class warfare is an invitation to embark on a downward spiral, fighting over an ever shrinking pie. Indiscriminately attacking the 1% rather than the specific culprits that caused our troubles is a fool's game. If we choose to play it, then we have truly become a nation of fools.
Bill Frezza is a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and a Boston-based venture capitalist. He can be reached at bill@vereverus.com. If you would like to subscribe to his weekly column, drop a note to publisher@vereverus.com or follow him on Twitter @BillFrezza.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
RealClearMarkets - Exactly What Is Crony Capitalism, Anyway?
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Occupy's 'nerve center' staffed by Soros activists
Occupy's 'nerve center' staffed by Soros activists
Professional radicals caught red-handed running so-called 'leaderless' movement
Posted: December 09, 2011
1:00 am Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2011 WND
< inputs.length; i++) { if (inputs[i].getAttribute('type') == 'hidden') { if (newsletterCheckbox.checked == true) { if (inputs[i].value == '') {inputs[i].value = 'X';} } else { if (inputs[i].value == 'X') {inputs[i].value = '';} } if (inputs[i].name == thisNewsletter.name) {inputs[i].value = 'X';} } } } function validForm(){ if(!mandatoryText(document.getElementById('FIRSTNAME_FIELD'), 'First Name')) return; if(!legalChars(document.getElementById('FIRSTNAME_FIELD'), 'First Name')) return; if(!mandatoryText(document.getElementById('LASTNAME_FIELD'), 'Last Name')) return; if(!legalChars(document.getElementById('LASTNAME_FIELD'), 'Last Name')) return; if(!validEmail(document.getElementById('EMAIL_FIELD'), 'Email')) return; if(document.getElementById('POSTAL_CODE_FIELD')) { if(!legalChars(document.getElementById('POSTAL_CODE_FIELD'), 'Postal Code')) return; } document.getElementById('emvForm').submit(); }
George SorosThe so-called leaderless Occupy movement has just been caught red-handed operating what appears to be a nerve center staffed by professional agitators deeply tied to groups funded by billionaire activist George Soros.
The groups, most prominent among them being the Tides Center, have been involved with Occupy since the anti-Wall Street movement's inception.
The radical connections have been largely missed by the general public. CNN, the only news media outlet to receive exclusive access to Occupy's alleged headquarters, did not fully identify the activists found running it.
Last week, CNN ran a piece titled "Exclusive: Inside the offices of Occupy Wall Street."
The article and accompanying video purport to depict "a few dozen Occupy Wall Street organizers" who "show up to work every day at an office building in the heart of Manhattan's Financial District."
CNN surmised "the office space appears to be the movement's nerve center," a notion denied by Occupy leaders interviewed by the news network.
Continued the piece: "But the volunteers who plan future actions, network with other Occupy protests and deal with logistical issues insisted the location is not Occupy Wall Street's headquarters."
The news network maintained it visited Occupy's nerve center. CNN reported the Occupy office boasts a finance committee that manages expenses and donations; a communications group that disseminates information agreed upon by consensus and a housing group to make sleeping arrangements for protesters.
(Story continues below)
CNN quoted activist Han Shan, identifying him only as "a member of Occupy Wall Street's press relations and direct-action working groups."
"This is just an office space that a handful of people have tried to make a resource for the Occupy Wall Street movement," Shan stated.
"Everybody is looking around trying to figure out where the heck the headquarters is, and the truth of the matter is this movement is bigger than any piece of geography, than any piece of real estate, than any square block."
Shan's radical resume goes far beyond Occupy. He is the former program director for the Tides Center-funded Ruckus Society and an activist with the Tides-funded Adbusters.
Shan was listed as the contact person for protests outside the 2000 Democratic National Convention. Those protests were sponsored by both Adbusters and Ruckus.
Shan previously pulled off a stunt at the Mall of America in Minneapolis, where he reportedly climbed to the top of the building and unfurled a 600-square-foot cartoon that depicted the earth falling through a broken shopping bag. The action was aimed at getting mall visitors to ditch their purchases, go home and observe Thanksgiving Friday as "Buy Nothing Day."
Since 1992, "Buy Nothing Day" has been sponsored annually by the Vancouver-based Media Foundation, which publishes Adbusters.
Adbusters magazine is reported to have come up with the Occupy Wall Street idea after Arab Spring protests toppled governments in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. The Adbusters website serves as a central hub for Occupy's planning.
Working with the Ruckus Society, Shan was a leader of the 1999 World Trade Organization protests in Seattle that turned violent. Ruckus helped to spark those riots.
Ruckus is directly tied to Occupy. WND previously reported how official direct-action training resources for recent Occupy events include several manuals from the Ruckus Society, which trains radical activists in "direct action" techniques.
Ruckus was also listed as a "friend and partner" of the Occupy Days of Action held last month.
Ruckus is funded by the Tides Center, which has been involved in Occupy since the movement's onset.
Another grantee of Tides is the Adbusters magazine. MoveOn.org, which has joined Occupy, is funded by Tides.
Tides functions as a money tunnel where major leftist donors provide large sums that are channeled to hundreds of radical groups. One prominent Tides donor is Soros.
Besides accepting major donations from Tides, Ruckus is also funded directly by Soros' own Open Society Institute.
Meanwhile, another Occupy staffer loosely identified by CNN is Haywood Carey, who is labeled simply as an Occupy "activist."
As the Heritage Foundation pointed out, Carey was a paid employee of the Change to Win labor federation from 2008 to 2009.
The federation is a coalition of four member unions: The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Service Employees International Union; United Farm Workers and the United Food and Commercial Workers.
In his book "Beyond the Fields," labor historian Randy Shaw notes the groundwork for the founding of Change to Win were laid out by SEIU activist Stephen Lerner.
Shaw relates: "Lerner's December 2002 Labor Notes article, 'There Steps to Reorganizing and Rebuilding the Labor Movement,' laid the groundwork for the decision by SEIU and other unions to break away from the AFL-CIO in 2005 and form the new labor federation Change to Win."
As WND was first to report, the tactic of blocking bridges, already used by Occupy Wall Street to hold up the Brooklyn Bridge amid other recent attempts, was institutionalized by Lerner.
Meanwhile, another professional radical running Occupy yet not fully identified by the news media is Beth Bogart, who has been widely quoted as helping to run the movement's press relations department in New York and other cities.
Not mentioned in most media accounts is that Bogart, formerly known as Beth Bogart Fenton, is co-founder of Fenton Communications.
Fenton is an extremist-led outfit that crafts the public relations strategy of Tides grantees. It came under new scrutiny after WND published a series of exposés tying it to Occupy Wall Street. One of its senior employees represented the anti-Wall Street march past millionaires' homes in New York in October.
After WND's report, Fenton denied ties to the Occupy movement.
Fenton's Chris Potter denied the firm was working for Occupy, claiming his group was doing a "favor" for a friend in New York by helping with recent publicity.
However, with Bogart now serving as an Occupy media strategist, the Fenton links to the movement continue.
Fenton Communications has been behind the public relations strategy of a who's who of far-left causes, organizations and activists, from representing Soros himself to Health Care for America Now to crafting strategies for MoveOn.org and a litany of anti-war groups.
Fenton, which works closely with Tides, first made its name representing communist dictatorships in the 1980s.
Fenton Communications was founded in 1982 by David Fenton, an activist who served as a photographer for Bill Ayers' domestic Weather Underground terror group.
Fenton used the Tides Center to set up Environmental Media Services in 1994. Tides reportedly originally ran EMS' daily operations.
David Fenton serves on the board of numerous Tides-funded groups, while his firm represents more than 30 Tides Center grantees, as well as Soros himself and the billionaire's Open Society Institute. Fenton helped to craft Moveon.org's attacks on Gen. David Petraeus.
An example of the close public relations relationship between Fenton and Tides is the Social Venture Network, which was established and operates as a project of the Tides Foundation, while its strategy is represented by Fenton. SVN's board has included Tides' founder Drummond Pike as well as Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink.
Another group, September Eleventh Families For Peaceful Tomorrows, is an anti-war organization founded by individuals who lost loved ones in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The group's campaign was coordinated by Fenton while the group was funded by Tides.
Also represented by Fenton is the Win Without War group, which was funded by Soros and Tides.
WND found more than 30 recent examples of Tides grantees whose strategy was coordinated by Fenton.
With research by Brenda J. Elliott
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Jon Christian Ryter's Conservative World
Gingrich's failed midnight battle to impose an
"Internal Passport" on the American people.
Newton Leroy McPherson is not a man that America can trust anymore than his mother could trust his birth father. Newton's mother, 16-year Kathleen "Kit" Daugherty was "seeing" 19-year old Newton Searles McPherson. The marital union—which occurred when her parents realized their minor daughter was pregnant—was not a marriage made in heaven. It lasted 3-days, and served only to legitimize Baby Newt.As you likely have guessed, Baby Newt became Newt Gingrich, the 58th Speaker of the US House of Representatives. Newt's birth father got drunk and beat up his mother ending their marriage before the pedals on the proverbial bridal bougquet had even wilted.
Kit Daugherty married a US Army officer, Robert Gingrich in 1946. Too bad none of the steel in Bob Gingrich's character found its way into his newly adopted son. In high school, Newt Gingrich developed a crush on his math teacher, Jackie Battley. They were caught in a tryst. Today they prosecute teachers for seducing their students.
She was Newt's first "love." He married her in 1962 when he was 19. Gingrich has been married three times. His two previous marriages ended in divorce after the former House Speaker had affairs with younger women—and at a time when his current wife (in both instances) were seriously ill. Wife number two was Marianne Ginther. Wife number three, the current Mrs. Gingrich, is Callista Bisek. if you think that Senator John Edwards—John Kerry's running mate in 2004—was a snake for having an affair while his wife was slowly dying of cancer, then Gingrich is a double-headed viper.
By the mid-1960s, supported by Jackie's sweat equity investment in their marriage, Newt was studying at Tulane University, working on his Ph.D in history. When he graduated Newt and Jackie had two daughters. He had a doctorate in education and not much else. Except, he knew how he planned to spend the rest of his life. In Congress. He took a teaching job at the academically second rate West Georgia College. He took the job only because WGC sat plum in the middle of the 6th Congressional District, a seat Gingrich believed he would eventually win.
The seat was held by then 10-term Democratic Congressman Jack Flynt. Gingrich launched his first campaign against Flynt in 1974—and lost. Gingrich tried again in 1976 and lost again. In 1978 Flynt retired. Gingrich won the seat. Flynt, the Democrat, was much more conservative than Gingrich, the Republican. It is unlikely that John James "Jack" Flynt, a retired US Army calvary officer and aid-de-camp to Brig. Gen. Robert W. Grow in France in 1944, and a gun-rights advocate, would have ever tried to surreptitiously impose a Nazi-style internal passport on the American people. Gingrich did.
The question the American people—conservatives and liberals alike—need to be asking themselves is—do they want a man in the White House who has already tried, and failed, to impose an Internal Passport on them? The Soviets did it to the Russian people in 1917. The fascists in Italy did it in 1924. The Nazis did it to the German people in 1933, and Newt Gingrich tried to do to the American people in 1998.
The article that follows is a portion of the text in Chapter Nine, "The Disavowed White House Protocol," from my book, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO AMERICA? published by Hallberg Publishing in 2000. It deals with the attempt on the part of the Clinton Administration to surreptitiously include in the Immigration Reform Act of 1996 a Hillary Clinton provision (which had initially been included in Clinton's failed Health Security Act of 1993—Hillarycare) that would force every American to carry a biometric identity card that had a GPS tracking chip embedded in it. The experiment to make sure they could track 300 million people simultaneously took place in 5 western States in 1998 in a healthcare experiment paid for by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation that was neither approved nor funded by Congress—which meant it was completely off the radar screen.
Low income women with dependent children were the target of the test. Each mother was provided a biometric Health Passport card (pictured here). The entire medical history of the of the benefits recipients were stored in what was initially a one megabyte chip embedded in the card.
In addition, recorded on the card was the medical history of each benefits recipient. Based on the assumption that low income people are more transient than middle income households, one other element was added to the benefits card—a GPs tracking chip that contained a 24-digit personal identifier (that is now assigned to every taxpayer in the world). When world government is achieved, the personal identifier will replace the American social security number.
In the summer of 1999, the Department of Health and Human Services held a follow-up conference in Denver, Colorado to report on the progress of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded experiment. It was a huge success. As senior level Clinton Administration healthcare executives watch big screen TVs that were strategically placed around the room, they were shocked and amazed to see a thousand points of light appear on the screens. Each minute speck of light, they were told, represented one benefits recipient. In urban areas, the specks morphed together and appeared as large blobs on the map. The televisions zoomed in from the five State map to a single State. Then, to one county, one community, and then one zone within that community and finally, down to one dwelling. The DHHS, the attendees were told, had the ability to isolate and track each recipient . But the government would do so only to make sure that the children were receiving the vaccinations they required when it was time to get them.
Attending a November 11, 1993 White House strategy meeting that was described in the White House Protocol for that date, were the following Clinton Administration officials. The meeting was chaired by President Bill Clinton. Attending, and identified only by their initials were HRC, TFM, RN, IM, GS, and RH. (The identities of the attendees are revealed on page 218 of my book.)
After providing updates on NAFTA, Hillarycare, outlawing tobacco, and the cooperation the Clintons were receiving from CNN on killing negative news stories about the Clintons, "...[t]he President brings up the subject of the National Identity Card in conjunction with the implementation of the Health Security Act. He stresses the necessity of having all Americans being required to possess and carry such a card. He stresses that it would simplify the task of law enforcement, in cutting down on serial killers and would allow various federal agencies to keep track of a population that is too highly mobile. (GS: I think this issue will present a major problem with Congress. Most people object to having to carry what amounts to an internal passport. They will equate this with Nazi Germany or the former Soviet Union. I think if we can't get the National Health Card through, we could always turn to the INS issue and fabricate the excuse of preventing illegal aliens from taking US jobs or getting free medical care. I think there would be more acceptance to the card idea if we added this to it) (HRC: Well, I agree with that. After all, if all the provisions of the Health Security Act passed, as they must...unaltered in any way...every citizen must by law be registered with the program even if they have no intention of using its services. That must be made law...a very important part of this program. Note that it will also help the government track down and prosecute fathers who are delinquent in child support payments. By linking this with the Social Security databanks, we should be able to force deadbeat dads to pay right at the workplace."
When the Health Security Act went down in defeat, some members of Congress—on both sides of the aisle—did attempt to insert a National Identity Card into the Immigration Reform Act of 1996. According to Allen Kay, who was, at that time, the press secretary for Congressman Lamar Smith [R-TX] in a telephone interview with me on Jan. 17, 1997, "effort" on three occasions during the floor debate on HR 220 to initiate what Smith's office called a "National Identity Card dialogue."
The Republican majority and Smith, who drafted the legislation that would become Public Law 104-208, Kay said, saw no need for such an extreme measure and successfully thwarted efforts to introduced the concept in the immigration debate. "Congressman Smith," Kay reiterated, "as well as most members of Congress, saw no need for a National Identity Card. Because they did not believe a National ID Card would solve the problems addressed in HR 220, they were not prepared to discuss it." One question came to mind as Kay spoke: if no one—particularly Lamar Smith—saw a need for it, why did Smith draft the measure? That was a question that needed more research before I was ready to frame the question to Smith's press secretary. (It's always better to know the answers to the questions you plan to ask before you ask them.) When I had the answer Kay was no longer taking my calls.
The provision to allow the creation of an internal passport in the United States was quietly added to the Senate version of the bill before it went to joint conference where the differences between the House and Senate bills (which have been voted and passed by the members) where the differences between the House and Senate versions are supposed to be ironed out, and everything without the consensus of a majority both chambers of Congress is stripped from the final version of the bill before it is sent to the White House to be signed into law.
According to Congressman Bob Barr [R-GA] when the National ID Card surfaced in National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations in 1998, no notice of the provision's inclusion in Public Law 104-208 was ever sent to the House. Nor was there a Senate floor debate on the subject.
As the bureaucrats learned from the House debate, talking about an internal passport disguised as a benign National ID Card that was supposed to keep illegals from taking the jobs of US citizens, was tantamount to killing it.
Do you remember the 1995-96 budget battle when the GOP shut down the federal government in order to force the Democrats to live within their means? Everyone does. It was good media. To bad everyone was paying attention to the talking heads and no one was watching the legislative shell game taking place in the House under the watchful eye of Speaker Gingrich [R-GA], Minority Leader Dick Gephart [D-MO], Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole [R-KS] and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle [D-SD]. The same sleight-of-hand that inserted half-of-a-bill into the Immigration Reform Act of 1996 was used to inserted the same bill in the House version of the bill to the Omnibus Budget Act of 1996. When the House voted on the Budget Bill, it appears they also voted on, and passed, the National ID Card that would be implemented by the NHTSA sometime down the road..
According to Barr, who appeared as a guest on a Paul Weyrich's America's Voice segment hosted by Coalition for Constitutional Liberties Director Lisa Dean on July 13, 1998 to talk about the new national drivers' license being implemented by the NHTSA. Gingrich's internal passport had been innocuously disguised as a drivers' license. But as everyone knows, when it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
Barr told Lisa Dean "...this bill (the Omnibus Budget Bill) was several thousand pages long [and] was not distributed to House members before the vote. The only chance any of us might have had to have seen this bill was while it was sitting on the floor during the debate—but there was no debate on it. No chance for review. It was slipped in as a mickey and was enacted into law because it was part of a very important omnibus spending bill."
Barr then told Dean that he and Congressmen Ron Paul [R-TX] and Mac Collins [R-GA] were introducing legislation to abolish the provision in law that gives the NHTSA authority to create a national identity card. Or, for that matter, any system that would allow the federal government or any of its agencies, the right to implement such a card by prohibiting the funding of such projects in the future.
Of course, as history has repeatedly confirmed, its hard to milk the cow after its left the barn.
Funding this infringement on States' rights by the NHTSA was not viewed by the federal bureaucracy as a problem since the costs for upgrading drivers' licenses falls on the States. And, although Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-4) to prevent the federal government from forcing the States to foot the bill for costly bureaucratic federal programs and regulations when the cost to the States to comply exceeds $100 million (collectively). The NHTSA did another sleight-of-hand and projected the cost of standardizing drivers' licenses nationwide at only $72 million. NHTSA documents show the government made their projections based on the average cost to implement the program in 5 sparsely populated States. In reality, the cost to implement the program in California, Illinois, Michigan, New York and Texas alone would be almost double their estimate—well over $200 million.
In an Open Letter to Congress on July 15, 1998, Dean said, "...This plan pushes us to the brink of tyranny, where citizens will not be allowed to travel, open bank accounts, obtain health care, get a job or purchase firearms without first presenting the proper government papers. The authorizing section of the law and subsequent NHTSA proposal is reminiscent of the totalitarian dictates of the Politburo members of the former Soviet Union, not the Congress of the United States of America."
Congressman Barr said as much himself. "This is not some theoretical exercise. This is a very real, very serious problem with practical ramifications for every citizen in our country, ranging from everything from gun control to bank accounts to government [control] over travel to seeing a doctor or enrolling child in school. Once this program goes into effect, if we allow it to, then the government will be able to not only track everything that an American citizen does, but they will be able to stop citizens from doing certain things—if we don't do something very quick. We will be faced with a government that is all-powerful, and an executive branch that can override either of the two branches of government at will."
Impressed with Bob Barr's stance, Paul Weyrich and Dean scheduled a meeting with Barr at his office on Tuesday, July 28, 1998 to see how the Free Congress Foundation could help Barr kill the funding for the government's all-purpose internal passport. Barr's opening remark stunned them. "At the moment," he told them, "there isn't anything I can do about killing the funding to implement the national ID card." He added that he was backing off as a favor to Lamar Smith. Barr said Smith did not view the national drivers' license as a threat, and wanted to give it a chance.
Within a day or two, something happened to change his mind. A few days later Barr and Dr. Paul introduced the legislation to defund the national drivers' license and suspend it in bureaucratic limbo, but unable to kill the measure outright. Once introduced, the bill was shelved by the Speaker. It was not going to even get on the floor for a debate. Soon every American would be carrying a drivers' license that would be their passport to cross a state line, transact business or rent a home. Barr hit the talk show circuit. People began asking questions about the new national drivers' license. On August 4, 1998, more to appease Barr than to accomplish anything, a hearing was held in the office of the Transportation Subcommittee. Barr, Dr. Paul, Smith and several Congressional staffers attended. Barr requested that the "comment period" on the legislation be reopened. That is, of course, like discussing the changes you would like to make in the script of a movie you just watched.
Barr requested that "interested parties" be allowed to consider the NHTSA's proposal and suggest changes, adding that "...I don't think Americans are interested in giving the federal government unprecedented power to track and identify them. Hopefully, these hearings will be the beginning of the end of efforts to create a national identification system." Barr quickly learned it wasn't going to be that easy. Barr and Ron Paul hit the talk show circuit. Smith—the shill for the leadership—and Gingrich and Gephart al denied knowing about the language that was creating an internal passport, doggedly pushed House Appropriations and Transportation Subcommittee chairman Frank Wolf [R-VA] to derail Barr's attempt to derail the national drivers' license.
On Tuesday, October 6, 1998 Gingrich agreed to eliminate Barr's provision from the Transportation Bill. After an overnight battle, Barr won a temporary victory—support from several other House members led by Majority Whip Tom Delay who met with Gingrich to demand why Smith and Gingrich were zealously pushing for something the American people vehemently opposed. Delay told Gingrich that, beginning the following morning, he would be on every talk show in America, and any chance that Gingrich had of being reelected would die. Fearful of voter backlash, Gingrich was forced to cave. Barr's measure to defund the national drivers' license was enacted.
During that midnight battle, on Tuesday October 6, Newton Leroy McPherson Gingrich showed himself to be one of the most dangerous politicians in Washington, DC. Suffering from a stinging rebuke from his own party after the GOP lost five House seats in the election held on Nov. 4, 1998, Gingrich announced on Nov. 5—one day after winning reelection to his 11th term—that he would not only stand down from seeking reelection as Speaker, he would resign from the House of Representatives as well.
Newt Gingrich is even more dangerous today. When he left office, Gingrich formed a political consulting group called The Gingrich Group. He insists he was not a lobbyist. Newt Gingrich is wholly a product of Washington. And, by definition, he is and was, a lobbyist since 1999. Federal law defines lobbying as "...contacts and any efforts in support of such contacts, including preparation or planning activities, research and other background work that is intended, at the time of its preparation, for use in contacts and coordination with the lobbying activities of others." Further, a lobbying contract is "...any oral, written or electronic communication to a covered official that is made on behalf of a client with regard to congressmen and senators, among others." Those words describe Gingrich's activity from the time he left office. For example, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac hired Gingrich to "...build bridges to Capitol Hill Republicans and develop an argument on behalf of the company's public-private structure that would resonate with conservatves seeking to dismantle it." Depending on who's reporting it,. Gingrich received somewhere between $1.5 and $1.8 million for consulting work done for Fannie and Freddie. He originally claimed he only received $300 thousand for work done for them. Since leaving Congress, industry clients shelled out $35 million to The Gingrich Group. What did they get in return? According to Gingrich, a tutorial on American history. According to Gingrich, he "...[does] no lobbying of any kind. I never had." For Fannie and Freddie he advised them on the War of 1812 which, as you know, is critical information to have when you are guaranteeing home loans—and are trying simultaneously to win over Republicans who want to dismantle your organization.
Nano Chemtrails
"It is potentially relatively inexpensive to do," Hall clarified. "About the same price per pound as potatoes."Why so cheap? Because nano particles can be potentially self-replicating. That is, they can be made to reproduce themselves until programmed to stop.
Hopefully.
Maybe.
Sometimes.
Owning The Weather goes on to say that the USAF will "manage and employ a weather-modification capability by the Weather Force Support Element." These weather forces will use real-time updates from swarms of the nano-size "smart sensors" to model developing weather patterns with a super-duper computer.
Based on continually updated forecast, the weather warriors will fly follow-on missions as needed to tweak the storm. It's perfect, crows the air force. "The total weather-modification process becomes "a real-time loop of continuous, appropriate, measured interventions, and feedback capable of producing desired weather behavior."
Really?
Weather modification did not work too well with Katrina.
If the notion of inserting Autonomous Intelligence nanobots into weather systems to monitor, steer and mess with them seems risky, just wait. Around the next cloud corner are coming swarms of airborne nano-bots to optimize wind dispersal patterns for germ warfare. Or chemtrails.
But there's one small hitch. Nobody knows how Earth's atmosphere works. It is so big, so complex and so unpredictable, even real-time nano-snapshots are ancient history as soon as they are taken.
This is why the air force said, "Advances in the science of chaos are critical to this endeavor."
Good luck. After a decade of trying, not even a 48-hour weather forecast can be made without constant surprises.
Because they cannot be graphed in a cause-and-effect straight line, chaotic "non-linear" weather processes can morph unexpectedly, defying predicted weather modification inputs. Just ask Beijing.
Then there's the matter of accidental genocide. I mean human health.
SICKOS
The chemtrails we are too familiar with after a decade-long dose continue to inflict eye infections, nosebleeds, skin sores, muscle pain, chronic exhaustion, weakened immunity, acute asthma and allergies, short-term memory loss and heart attacks on people in more than a dozen countries. [americanskywatch.com; Chemtrails Confirmed 2008 by William Thomas]Small particulates like the aluminum oxide found in chemtrails also kill.
Dr. Dan Woodard calls aluminum oxide a "nuisance dust". This MD says that prolonged exposures to very high concentrations of particulates that are visible in the air "can produce pulmonary fibrosis, somewhat like the silicosis formerly seen in miners."
"At one time it was thought to precipitate Alzheimer's disease, but more recent research has shown it is almost certainly unrelated," Dr. Woodward adds.
It's the tiny size of chemtrail fallout - one-tenth the width of the human hair - that make people very ill. The EPA warns that there is a strong link between all tiny particles and thousands of premature deaths each year.
Two key studies from the early 1990's by the Harvard School of Public Health and the American Cancer Society found strong links between high levels of small particles and a rise in death rates. In an article headlined, "Tiny Particles Can Kill" the August 5, 2000 issue of New Scientist pointed to findings in six cities over 16 years showing that "city-dwellers in Europe and the U.S. are dying young because of microscopic particles in the air."
According to the New York Times, "microscopic motes… are able to infiltrate the tiniest compartments in the lungs and pass readily into the bloodstream." Particles in the size range called for by the Welsbach Patent describing chemtrails are "most strongly tied to illness and early death, particularly in people who are already susceptible to respiratory problems." [New York Times Oct 14/06]
The Welsbach Patent calls for megatons of 10 micron-size aluminum oxide particles to be spread in the atmosphere. The EPA calls particles this small "an extreme human health hazard" leading to 5% increased death rate within 24 hrs.
"Hearts as well as lungs can be damaged by ultra-fine particles small enough to get into the bloodstream and inflame tissues and cells," reports the LA Times. "After they reach the heart, the particles are thought to cause a stress reaction in cells, producing inflammation that contributes to heart disease. The particles also may cause blood clots." [Los Angeles Times Dec 29/03]
The Neurotoxicology (brain poisoning) division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says that exposure to airborne Particulate Matter "is an environmental health risk of global proportions." [Health Risks Of Aerosoled Particulates PubMed Abstract]
The EPA explains that by penetrating deep into the lungs and circulatory system, these dust-size particles "are implicated in tens of thousands of deaths annually from both respiratory and coronary disease."
POP QUIZ: What do you think will happen when nano-size machines tens of thousands of times smaller than this are sprayed into the open air?
"SMART PARTICLES" IN YOUR BRAIN MAKE YOU DEAD
Nanoparticles might better be called Nastyparticles because they make a beeline for the brain as soon as they are inhaled. Not surprisingly, they tend to accumulate and clump in the area of the brain that deals with smell. Too big to pass back through the blood-brain barrier, they become trapped there. [Nature.com Jan 5/04]Dr. Celine Filippi also observed that nanoparticles inhaled into the lungs are so mall they easily cross the lung barrier and enter the blood. "Particles in the blood can reach the liver, amongst other organs." [globalresearch.ca Oct 21/07]
NANO CHEMTRAILS
So are we being sprayed with nano-chemtrails?Owning The Weather 2025 was published in 1995 and discussed only non-classified military weather modification projects. Hall's Overview of Nanotechnology also appeared in 1995, when nanotech was in its Frankenstein infancy. Since then, many sources tell us, nanotech has gone exponential. [nanotech-now.com]
HANK CALLS
The term "nano-chemtrails" on my homepage prompted my trusted military informant I've dubbed "Hank" to call."They have them," he confirmed. The U.S. Air Force has occasionally added nanoparticles to the chemtrail mix to demonstrate proof of concept.
"We're way beyond science fiction," Hank confirmed. "You can hide just about anything you want in a chemtrail - including nanotubes. Chemtrails are being altered for whatever spectrum of wavelength they're trying to bounce off of them.
MORGELLONS
What about Morgellons? Is there any connection between this bizarre and frightening malady and nano experiments?"You're not going to like this," Hank said. "Morgellons is one unintended manifestation of nano spray experiments."
Morgellons manifests - or presents" - as intolerable itching in the skin followed by alien eruptions of thin hairs or tendrils through the skin. "It's basically the same as excreting something through a hair follicle," Hank said.
He meant a toxin - something foreign to the body.
"If you manufacture a liquid super-cyrstalline structure, vibrate it a little and give it an electrical charge - it will form into a chain."
These nanotubes will be invisible to the eye, of course. But their tendency to clump together could eventually make them big enough to be photographed and posted on the web.
How much nanocrap has been sprayed so far?"Tens of tons," he replied.
Tens of tons of molecules?
"Much of it is still up there," Hank went on to explain. This is because nanoparticles are so light and small they tend bind to bind with oxygen molecules. And piggybacking on oxygen particles makes them buoyant.
"It travels worldwide," Hank continued. "Some of it comes down. Whatever it's exposed to up there it brings down here. We get exposed to it. We breathe it in, we ingest it. It accrues in the same spot every time. And attracts more of it… "
In the liver.
And brain.
"The fallout would look like a prion disease," Hank said.
"Fallout from nanoparticles would eat holes in our brains?"
"Pretty much. Nano particles are ionized particles that go to what attracts them…. Because of their electro-chemical properties, they are attracted to the potassium-calcium channel in the brain."
Think about it, he said. "If they are capable of withstanding the corrosive upper atmosphere - corrosive sunlight and all those (industrial) chemicals - what would they have to be manufactured out of? Does the body manufacture anything that can deal with that? Who will come forward and say these are good?
NUISANCE
A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
-EPA Air Quality Management Rule 402.
CHEMTRAILS CONFIRMED 2010 7.95
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Friday, December 2, 2011
: Is Thorium the Energy Panacea We Have Been Waiting For?
Is Thorium the Energy Panacea We Have Been Waiting For?
RELATED ARTICLES
- Experts cast doubt on Norway's thorium dreams
February 15, 2008 09:39 AM- Citizens' Groups Raise Concerns at Honeywell
December 14, 2004 12:00 AM- Helium Supplies Endangered, Threatening Science And Technology
January 2, 2008 10:50 AM- Real Earth Cooking
July 18, 2011 12:56 PM
Thorium is a naturally-occurring, radioactive, and amazingly abundant metal that was discovered in 1828 by Swedish chemist, Jons Jakob Berzelius. The mineral, named after the Norse god of thunder, has languished in relative obscurity for many years as opposed to its much more recognized cousin, uranium. However, conversations have been popping up about thorium in recent years and how it can be a game-changer in the energy industry. Thorium has incredible potential as an ultra-safe, clean, and cheap nuclear energy source which can power the world for millennia.
ADVERTISEMENT
Thorium is found naturally in rocks in the form of thorium-232, and has a half-life of about 14 billion years. Estimates by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) show it is about three times more common in the Earth's crust than uranium. It can be obtained through various methods, most commonly through the extraction from monazite sands.
Known reserves of thorium are not well-known due to lack of exploratory research. The US Geological Service estimates that the USA, Australia, and India hold the largest reserves. India is believed to have the lion's share of thorium deposits. In the United States, Idaho contains a large vein deposit. The world has an estimated total of 4.4 million tons
A newly created organization known as the Weinberg Foundation has taken up the cause of promoting thorium energy. The foundation was named after Dr. Alvin Weinberg, a nuclear energy researcher in the 1960s who laid out the vision of safe and abundant thorium power. He pioneered the Molten Salt Reactor using thorium in its liquid fuel form at the US Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This reactor had an inherently safer design and dramatically reduced the amount of atomic waste in comparison to typical nuclear reactors. Unfortunately, the thorium reactor program was not fully pursued due to political and military reasons.
The Weinberg Foundation has been pressing thorium nuclear energy into mainstream political discussion. As concerns over energy security and climate change rise, thorium is being promoted as the antidote. Its benefits include the following:
- Thorium reactors offer absolutely zero possibility of a meltdown because it cannot sustain a nuclear chain reaction without priming; fission would stop by default.
- Thorium reactions do not create weapons-grade by-products.
- Waste from a thorium reactive stays radioactive for only a few hundred years rather than tens of thousands of years.
- Pure thorium from the ground does not require enrichment, as opposed to uranium.
There are many benefits to thorium, it is a wonder that it is not already being widely used as a nuclear fuel. However, there are projects underway in the United States, China, India, and elsewhere. Germany and India already have existing commercial power stations powered by thorium. India has a goal of meeting 30 percent of its energy needs from thorium by the year 2050. In the US, a reactor project is ongoing in Odessa Texas and should be operational by 2015.
Time will tell whether or not thorium is truly adopted as a major energy source. It is out there, the technology is out there. All that is required is the political will and economic investment to help this potential energy panacea by realized.
For more information: http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/index.php
Image credit: fzd.it/Shutterstock
